LDS & Catholic Comparison

[dianaiad]

I understand. After some research I have found that Catholicism has a problem in Africa, with converts who were in polygamous marriages before they converted, especially with the women.

I understand that there is a movement afoot to allow ‘first wives with children’ who are in polygamous marriages ‘through no fault of their own’ to join the church, be baptized and recieve the sacraments anyway.

Though given the culture, I have to wonder why such a provision would apply only to FIRST wives with children. I don’t gather that second or third wives have a lot to say about their situation, either…

Come to think of it, I’m not certain how much choice the MEN have.

 

[DerekD]

Or for lack of time. As i already spend too much time on here haha

Sad excuse; you have no answer or you would have stated it.

Here is what one prominent Pastor said concerning a meeting with leaders of the Momon church.

"When I was meeting with the leaders of the Mormon church some time ago, they…they wanted…they were very kind to me and they wanted me to come, as I told you, ***to speak at Brigham Young and all of this and they had been using some of my books up there as text books, which is amazing to believe. *** But I said to them, I said, “Well look,” I said, “how am I going to get to heaven? You need to tell me how am I going to get to heaven. You keep saying you worship the same God and you have respect for Christ.” They were trying to find all the areas of agreement. So I said,“How do I get to heaven?”

 And they responded in an act of kindness, I think, on their part, they said, ***"Oh, you're already going to be in a lot higher heaven than most Mormons would think."***
 I said, "Oh really," because Mormonism has all kinds of heavens.  And they said, "You're already going to be in a lot higher heaven than most Mormons would think."

 And I said, ***"Well, how do I get to the highest one?"  ***And they went on to explain to me a way in which I could surely go directly to [edit]...not heaven.  Oh they thought it went to heaven, but it doesn't go there.   They have a very sophisticated process of getting you to the levels of heaven, that's what that religion is all about.

source: Grace to you-code 42-90

 

[dianaiad]

The part that I bolded is all I want to discuss

No Trinitarian understands that the FATHER was once human. Only Jesus took on flesh. Only Jesus was and is man.

But Trinitarians believe that The Father is God, and Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Ghost is God…therefore inasmuch as Jesus, Who is fully God, lived a mortal life on earth, then God did. For if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God, Then the Whole of God contains that part that did live that mortal life.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad my church and the FLDS are not together. The FLDS I do not know what they believe in other than doctrine of plural marriage. The men in their cult should be arrested because they do what do in freedom to do it and yet these girls, who are forced to get married have no choice.

Again we are not associated with the FLDS.

Neither, my friend, am I. I do not live in Texas. I do not wear those…outfits…and I don’t have any ‘sister wives.’ I’m a dyed in the wool, southern Idaho born and bred, Latter-day Saint.

Though I HAVE defended the FLDS right to worship as they wish, live where they wish and behave as they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else–and even the TCPS had to finally admit that the chances of an FLDS child being abused were ten times smaller than that of a child living outside their compound had to being abused.

I’d like to ask…FLDS? Where in the world did that come from?

 

[zaffiroborant]

The problem is in the way it is put. Invariably it is stated rather like this: “You mormons believe that you are going to have lots of wives, keep them eternally pregnant, and each have your own world to be god of.”

Well, we don’t believe that…and denying that we believe THAT is not denying our belief that we MAY someday become like God and have all that He does, and that we are His children, literally.

To me, that doesn’t mean a planet. Planets, though long lived in terms of our mortal existances, are not precisely eternal. So…then what? We get a planet, we administer and populated it, and then it blows up or cools down or gets swallowed by its star–THEN what?

God the Father isn’t limited to a planet, or even several of them. If we are to be like Him, then we won’t be, either.

What does “His children, literally” mean? You see, every time ParkerD explains this it doesn’t seem to be in agreement with being “His children, literally”,

 

[mrparker]

GOODNESS. I cannot keep up with these threads. I leave for a few hours and there are 3 more pages to read. I am making time for this where i do not have time. I may have to take a break from this thread. But one last response…

There is nothing wrong with having a testimony of Joseph Smith. A testimony is a witness of the Holy Spirit that something is true. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of all things, not just of Jesus Christ.

I stand corrected in my choice of words. I apologize for explaining that poorly. We are on the same page.

I disagree. In my experience Latter-day Saints generally strike the right balance between testifying of Jesus Christ, and of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. They give each the emphasis it deserves.

Generally, yes.

But the idea that we become “gods of our own planets,” and that we will become “Heavenly Father” to their inhabitants, and appoint “saviors” for them to redeem them etc. is false, and not true LDS doctrine. Such a doctrine is not found in the standard works, and in fact contradicts it, therefore it is speculation and false doctrine.

Might we agree that this subject is more of the “unimportant for salvation” and “unknown”? and that it is not canonized doctrine?

The same Joseph Fielding Smith, in the same book in fact, has made the following comments:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04.)

Well Quoted. Thank you for sharing that with everyone.

Well, just to be perfectly clear. I’d like to lay this out from the beginning.

1. Joseph Smith translated “another Testament.”
2. That testament says you will “become God.”
3. No part of the Bible says you will “become God.”
4. You validate the other “testament” by saying there are parts of the Bible are missing?

I am going to start with 4, first. You cannot say, we accept the Bible as the Word of God, but in the same breath say, God left out some books. You either say, you accept the Bible to be the Word of God or not. That you must decide for yourself.

There is a major hole in your logic here. If I write you 4 letters, and while you are not looking, someone takes the 3rd and burns it up and throws it away. You would be able to tell from the context of my letter that something was missing. Would you then be forced not to accept those letters as mine?

I think the problem with 1,2,& 3 is what Jesus states about testimony in John 5:31-40 :

Jesus provides two witnesses: John the Baptist and God. But Jesus says, John’s witness is not enough (although they already acknowledged that John was a prophet), you must have God’s testimony. Jesus uses only the Old Testament. Remember, the New Testament cannot self authenticate itself, it must be have a witness in the Old Testament. Because of this testimony, we all acknowledge the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, now. Even the Mormons accept the Bible to be the word of God, (so long as it is translated correctly). The Bible does not testify to “becoming God” but you still accept the “testament” and are then expected to testify to Joseph Smith being a prophet of God?

The only problem with Joseph Smith’s “other Testament” is he is missing one witness, God. I would hope that you would see, that something so monumental as “becoming God” should have God as a witness.

Nor does the Bible claim to the clarity and specification of words you request regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but in fact in more places contradicts it. Yet you believe it. I do not bring this up to tear down your belief but merely to prove to you that the Bible is not clear on many subjects and because of the imperfections within, it results in so many thousands of ways of interpreting it.

And just the same as the Old Testmant and New Testament provide a witness to support one another, (as i believe very strongly that if you had not the New Testament teachings, you, nor i would be able to understand the teachings of the Old Testament, and would be lost as were the Pharisees and other Jews)

Likewise, The continued necessity of public revelation through a prophet becomes evident.

When you learn to measure your own beliefs and doctrines by the same standard you apply to the LDS Faith, you will learn that you are merely proving your own beliefs invalid.

The other thing you have to understand you still have an opportunity for a perfect testimony. Until you draw your last breath, you can read and ponder these things. You can search the Bible looking for God’s witness to the things that you now testify. If you cannot find them in the Bible, you can do one simple thing: fall back on what you already know and trust, the Bible. You can shed the testimony of Joseph Smith and know that you are forgiven. You can know that you are saved.

Thank you for your kind words and good nature.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

None of us can expect another religion to change the definition of “Christian,” in order to prevent someone from being insulted, or to prevent someone from feeling left out.

No, Anna. You have changed that definition in order TO insult, expell and disparage. The point is, I’m not the one who has changed the definition of the word. You did. Unless you can find a dictionary that defines "Christian’ the way you have, then the change is indeed yours. Now you have the right to do that, but you don’t have the right to make me agree with you.

You do not have the right to impose your definition of Christianity upon me; just as I do not have the right to impose my definition of Christianity upon you.

I’m not the one imposing, Anna. The definition is in every dictionary I have been able to search through…and that definition is the one I use. YOUR definition is one that is not found in any dictionary, anywhere. In other words, you changed it. I did not.

However, I can disagree with your definition of Christianity; and I have the freedom to believe that any group is or is not Christian, according to my beliefs and understanding of Christianity.

This is freedom of religion. I do not have to change my beliefs to make someone feel better about their religion.

Anna

Of course you have that freedom. I have the freedom to believe that “chair” means “a animal of the canine family,” but that does not make a wolf a chair.

 

[dianaiad]

I think you’re confused. Again.

If you are referring to Diania’s comment about leaving Missouri, that has nothing to do with the FLDS, or the RLDS (now the Church of Christ I believe)

Community of Christ…I made the same error awhile ago and got very sharply corrected.

It is part of your mormon history that Joseph and the Mormons in Missouri were ordered out. That’s when they headed for Nauvoo. If my memory serves me correctly.

Nauvoo was already being built…but you are correct…it was Nauvoo and very shortly to the west after that. In fact, everybody was migrating out even as they were frantically completing the Temple there.

 

[DerekD]

DerekD the website you stated on your post — lds-mormon.com is not affiliated with the church so if the member who created the site wants to stand behind what is says, if that member’s choice. The site is not a official site of the church.

That is great; but that was not the intent or the point. Joseph Smith lead a life of what the Bible would consider “fornication”.

Funny how god seems to have changed and my how He used a President of the US to convey a prophetic message about how God has changed.

In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle. Doubtful this came form God of the Bible.​

Latter-day Saint converts in the 19th century had been raised in traditional, monogamous homes and struggled with the idea of a man having more than one wife. It was as foreign to them as it would be to most families today in the western world. ***Even Brigham Young, who was later to have many wives and children, confessed to his initial dread of the principle of plural marriage. *** Initial dread, but I had to do it for the love of God? ​

Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the “Manifesto,” a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage. My God has never changed on the issue of a man and a woman; what “god” is this that changes?​

Later, describing the reasons for the Manifesto, President Woodruff told Church members, "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple … for all (temple sacraments) would be stopped throughout the land. … Confusion would reign … and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice." Talk about craziness; sounds like a politician making excuse for error by adding more error. We see this in the world today; if ever the truth was told in this political world; the entire world would colapse economically and politically. It is all based on a perpetual lie.​

 

[ralphinal]

But Trinitarians believe that The Father is God, and Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Ghost is God…therefore inasmuch as Jesus, Who is fully God, lived a mortal life on earth, then God did. For if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God, Then the Whole of God contains that part that did live that mortal life.

BUt that does not mean that the Father (or the Holy Spirit) ever had physical bodies or were ever humans.

 

[dianaiad]

Never heard of the site, so not the same Derek. What’s with the err? There is not much Biblical basis for this entire thread, but it is certainly interesting to so many similarities between the Latter Day Saints and the Catholics. Especially on the works righteouness avenue, do you all have “priests” as well?

There is a Derek Evanson who used to post (still does, as far as I know) on ARM. He’s nuts. I’m very, very glad that you are not him.

And yes, we have priests. The difference between Catholicism and LDS in this matter is that we extend the priesthood to all worthy male members, so that most Mormon men are priests. The Catholics make the priesthood a very special calling, and few follow that path.

In percieved authority, though, it’s about the same. Given permission, pretty much every Mormon priesthood holder can perform baptisms (most men baptise their children, for instance, unless they give up that privildege to Grandpa) and in some cases, may even perform marriages.

We have what is known as a ‘lay priesthood.’ That is, until a man gets WAY up into the church hierarcy, he doesn’t get paid for his services; Bishops (the men who are in charge of a congregation) and Stake presidents (men who corespond to, I think, a Catholic Bishop in responsibilities) do not get paid. In fact, I’m not sure anybody does until they become a ‘General Authority,’ and then not much.

We are a little different there, yeah.

 

[mrparker]

You are much like the Catholics in this regard, since you are not prepared to give a defense of the “Hope” that should be in you; you must provide a link to tell another what salvation or how to get to heaven. If it is so complicated that you cannot explain it in a couple of short paragraphs; then this presents further problems. All the writers of the NT were able to do such in very short passages; shouldn’t all Christians be able to do the same?

So no, that does not help, but at least you attempt to address the question, which is far more than COURT.

DerekD, I thought upon your question you had a sincere heart to understand what the correct response is by how one my attain salvation. Apparently you seek no more than to degrade tear down and destroy what is not your own belief.

Proverbs 11:12
12 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.

If you are an honest seeker of wisdom please keep your peace.

For i gave you a simple reference as to a one line description of how a man may attain salvation according to the LDS Beliefs in an effort to save you time and save me time.
I then appended “if this does not help, let me know” in all sincerity, that if it did not help your understanding, i would find the time to elaborate and discuss with you.

Please do not try to bring me down, as i have done nothing but extended an effort to offer understanding, and ask that you might forgive me in my weakness as a man. And as i appreciate the positive enlightening comments and posts you offer of your insights, i would ask the same in return.

I love you knowing that we are family in God, and seek not to demean, belittle or destroy, regardless of our differing beliefs.

 

[DerekD]

DerekD,

Have you ever come up with a reference for this?

Do you actually want a reference? You might start with a purly Catholic Bible that has a good intro for each book; there should be the disclaimer which is minimized. How many errors does one need in a bible for it to be errant? and not inspired?

Did not take me long to find one online; notice how the actual fact that the book contains error is “waterd down so much” as to hide something, like inspiration for example.

“The book is not without genuine historical value in supplementing I Maccabees, and it contains some apparently authentic documents (2 Macc 11:16-38). Its purpose, whether intended by Jason himself or read into it by the compiler, is to give a theological interpretation to the history of the period. There is less interest, therefore, in the actual exploits of Judas Maccabeus than in God’s marvelous interventions. These direct the course of events, both to punish the sacriligeous and blashphemous pagans, and to purify God’s holy temple and restore it to his faithful people. ***The author sometimes effects his purpose by transferring events from their proper chronological order, and giving exaggerated figures for the size of armies and the numbers killed in battle; he also places long, edifying discourses and prayers in the mouths of his heroes, and inclines to elaborate descriptions of celestial apparitions ***(2 Macc 3:24-34; 5:2-4; 10:29, 30; 15:11-16). He is the earliest known composer of stories that glorify God’s holy martyrs (2 Macc 6:18-7:42; 14:37-46).” God does not exaggerate; it is another word for “lie”.

usccb.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/intro.htm

 

[dianaiad]

What does “His children, literally” mean? You see, every time ParkerD explains this it doesn’t seem to be in agreement with being “His children, literally”,

It seems self evident to me, but then I’ve been raised with the idea. Ah, well…We are His Children, quite literally, because He is the Father of our spirits. Our progenitor. Our creator. Our Father. As such, we are His heirs, equally literally.

Just as my mortal father, M***** C**** is the DNA contributer to my mortal self, so exactly is God the Father to my spiritual self. NOT a creation, like a painting, or a statue…or the Universe, but His OFFSPRING.

 

[Stephen168]

DerekD,

Have you ever come up with a reference for this?

I don’t think we will either. His post #250 was just an irrational rant without substance. I’ve noticed he has ignored all questions relating to that post.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t think we will either. His post #250 was just an irrational rant without substance. I’ve noticed he has ignored all questions relating to that post.

hehehe

I know.

That’s why I asked again.

 

[twopekinguys]

Neither, my friend, am I. I do not live in Texas. I do not wear those…outfits…and I don’t have any ‘sister wives.’ I’m a dyed in the wool, southern Idaho born and bred, Latter-day Saint.

Though I HAVE defended the FLDS right to worship as they wish, live where they wish and behave as they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else–and even the TCPS had to finally admit that the chances of an FLDS child being abused were ten times smaller than that of a child living outside their compound had to being abused.

I’d like to ask…FLDS? Where in the world did that come from?

But you didn’t answer the $64,000 question.

Do you wear your hair like that?

Sorry couldn’t resist…lol

 

[twopekinguys]

Do you actually want a reference? You might start with a purly Catholic Bible that has a good intro for each book; there should be the disclaimer which is minimized. How many errors does one need in a bible for it to be errant? and not inspired?

Did not take me long to find one online; notice how the actual fact that the book contains error is “waterd down so much” as to hide something, like inspiration for example.

“The book is not without genuine historical value in supplementing I Maccabees, and it contains some apparently authentic documents (2 Macc 11:16-38). Its purpose, whether intended by Jason himself or read into it by the compiler, is to give a theological interpretation to the history of the period. There is less interest, therefore, in the actual exploits of Judas Maccabeus than in God’s marvelous interventions. These direct the course of events, both to punish the sacriligeous and blashphemous pagans, and to purify God’s holy temple and restore it to his faithful people. ***The author sometimes effects his purpose by transferring events from their proper chronological order, and giving exaggerated figures for the size of armies and the numbers killed in battle; he also places long, edifying discourses and prayers in the mouths of his heroes, and inclines to elaborate descriptions of celestial apparitions ***(2 Macc 3:24-34; 5:2-4; 10:29, 30; 15:11-16). He is the earliest known composer of stories that glorify God’s holy martyrs (2 Macc 6:18-7:42; 14:37-46).” God does not exaggerate; it is another word for “lie”.

Sorry, but your arguement holds no water.

If you actually read the introduction which you posted, you would see that it Explains the book in a fashion similar to a synopsis.

Nowhere does it even come close to admitting any type of error. I think your intrerpretation is extremely off the mark.

If I were to guess, the portion you have highlighted is merely explaining that the numbers used are what would commonly referred to in today’s world as literary license, or dramatic effect.

Your statement was " a known book to have error, even by the Catholic Church admission.

There is a big difference between admitted literary license/dramatic effect, and known error.

usccb.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/intro.htm

 

[DerekD]

There is a Derek Evanson who used to post (still does, as far as I know) on ARM. He’s nuts. I’m very, very glad that you are not him.

And yes, we have priests. The difference between Catholicism and LDS in this matter is that we extend the priesthood to all worthy male members, so that most Mormon men are priests. The Catholics make the priesthood a very special calling, and few follow that path.

In percieved authority, though, it’s about the same. Given permission, pretty much every Mormon priesthood holder can perform baptisms (most men baptise their children, for instance, unless they give up that privildege to Grandpa) and in some cases, may even perform marriages.

We have what is known as a ‘lay priesthood.’ That is, until a man gets WAY up into the church hierarcy, he doesn’t get paid for his services; Bishops (the men who are in charge of a congregation) and Stake presidents (men who corespond to, I think, a Catholic Bishop in responsibilities) do not get paid. In fact, I’m not sure anybody does until they become a ‘General Authority,’ and then not much.

We are a little different there, yeah.

I was hoping yopu might be interested in what god has siad in regards to Christians and the priesthood.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Heb. 7 -
23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. …all LDS and Catholic priests will physically die…right?

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 **who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, **first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. There is no more sacrifice or resacrifice or any other type of sacrifice; this is why Jesus said “IT IS FINISHED” & SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND" …He doesn’t need to stand like the old priests; He finished the atonement once and for all…period.

This verse states the facts and the erro of modern priesthoods other than the priesthood of believers, which is ech Christian…here is the verse.

"For the Law {or legalists} appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. - so what is the need or purpose for the levitical type of priesthood and why is the Bible ignored in this regard? Beyond me other than the Bible teaches us these type of things would and will happen.

 

[mrparker]

I was hoping yopu might be interested in what god has siad in regards to Christians and the priesthood.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Heb. 7 -
23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. …all LDS and Catholic priests will physically die…right?

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 **who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, **first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. There is no more sacrifice or resacrifice or any other type of sacrifice; this is why Jesus said “IT IS FINISHED” & SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND" …He doesn’t need to stand like the old priests; He finished the atonement once and for all…period.

This verse states the facts and the erro of modern priesthoods other than the priesthood of believers, which is ech Christian…here is the verse.

"For the Law {or legalists} appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. - so what is the need or purpose for the levitical type of priesthood and why is the Bible ignored in this regard? Beyond me other than the Bible teaches us these type of things would and will happen.

Thank you for sharing this! I have found this very informative! This has cleared much of my confusion as to the reasoning behind many of the beliefs regarding no need for modern priesthood.

You may have answered this before, or maybe is simply my lack of knowledge, what do you mean by Little Christ in your declared faith?