LDS & Catholic Comparison

[Xavierlives]

Yes, actually, it is your problem, since I went over every post you wrote pertaining to this topic, and the only thing I saw was your claim that there was one. I have a suspicion about what you think that warrent is, but since that is based upon something that I don’t agree with, it’s begging the question. Please tell me I’m wrong. Tell me what you think that warrent is.

After all, if your ‘warrent’ is simply another question that needs to be agreed on between us, it’s not a warrent.

Ok… hint: the warrant is in here:

I am not trying to pigeonhole every denomination of Christianity. It would be easy to digress into that and hide from what is being discussed here. Lets stick to the point at hand. When Joseph Smith wrote (translated) the Book of Mormon, the entire collected works of the Book of Mormon, he added an entire new facet to his new religion. He (through inspiration) brought forth an additional text. That text and that text only is what distinguishes your faith from any other faith on the planet. That text is the Book of Mormon. You are Mormon. Accept it. Embrace it.

As I said…perhaps I need little words. I still don’t get it and don’t mind admitting it. If you believe that only the ‘judge’ needs to understand what’s going on, would you tell me who the judge of this issue is supposed to be? Oh, and if the judges of this debate are the readers of it, perhaps one of them could kindly explain to me what the ‘warrent’ is here?

I really would like to know.

Was that enough?

 

[Kdesiel]

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.

You know Dianad, I don’t think the G.A’s get paid either. I’m not totally sure on that …but I’m pretty sure they don’t. I believe its a Lay Ministry from the top down. I mean most G.A’s are of retirement age, most had careers even while performing duties as a G.A so I would wager they aren’t paid.

 

[TheosisM]

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.

They are distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Spirit or the Father, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are one God because they are of the same “God essence”. Only the Son incarnated on the earth, therefore, from a Trinitarian perspective, it is incorrect to state that the Father lived on the earth, because only the Son did. To say otherwise is modalism and/or Unitarianism (Oneness Pentecostalism).

 

[zerinus]

All of it ignores the yard stick of God, the Bible.

Not so. The Bible was included in that yardstick.

 

[DerekD]

twopekinguys:
This is because i know the historic and chonological error the intro is watering down and you do not.

Here is an example; hopefully you will do some research on your own to reach the correct conclusion; however based on the fact that you describe yourself as both Catholic and Protestant; you are indeed two persons or one sitting on two opposing sides of a fence.

There are two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (2 Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was “taken with a noisome sickness” and so “ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (2 Maccabees 9:19-29). - christiancourier.com

 

[RebeccaJ]

DerekD- Matthew 27:5 compared to Acts 1:18. What do you think? Drop Matthew and Acts? Or maybe, the entire NT?

 

[Marie5890]

But their reason for doing so is because “Mormons aren’t Christian” that is, they have defined ‘Christian’ as 'someone who believes what we do." It is a judgment that THEY have made against us. They work with other non-Christian groups, but in those cases, calling them ‘not Christian’ is a validation of the opinion those groups have of themselves, not a declaration of exclusion by the Catholics. There is quite a difference, there.

And that is wrong.

The Catholic church does not recognize LDS baptism has to do with the LDS rejections of the Trinity. Not because they don’t see them as Christians.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

 

[DerekD]

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.

I try not to state things that i cannot back up; tis is common knowledge even among Catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Do you wear your hair like that?

Sorry couldn’t resist…lol

er…no.

I’m afraid I’d be excommunicated just for that; my hair is shorter than the GUYS in the group!

 

[DerekD]

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?

Funny; I was sent a PM by someone with that very question. So I will give you the same answer.

In Latin, the word “Christianus” in fact means a “little Christus” or “Little Christ”.

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis several times used the term. Of the purpose of the Church, Lewis said that it “exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose.” amen

 

[Xavierlives]

I see what you are trying to say here Kdesiel, as you will often hear many LDS say “i have a testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith” this is a mistake on their part, in that we only have faith in and place our testimonial belief in Christ. However, just as you may have a “witness” for lack of a better word, that your leaders were inspired in establishing which manuscripts of the teachings of the Apostles were inspired and necessary to keep for the Church to study, we may have a “witness” that Joseph Smith was chosen of God to restore the gospel to its original teachings.
Xavierlives;5922101:

So on a regular basis you must testify to your belief in Joseph Smith?

Wow. If THAT’S not a “have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of question, I don’t know what is.

Where did you get THAT from the post?

“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is the sort of question that asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

I was just trying to inquire about the testimony of Joseph Smith. It was a just a question. If you think I have skewed it in a particular way, I can rephrase it:

Do you give a testimony of Joseph Smith on a regular basis?
Is it part of church doctrine that you give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
Are you expected give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
When you are at church, do you give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
When do find yourself giving this testimony of Joseph Smith?
What is the context that you give this testimony of Joseph Smith?
Could you elaborate on this testimony of Joseph Smith?

Better?

 

[dianaiad]

Ok… hint: the warrant is in here:

Was that enough?

No…because simply having something other Christians do not have does NOT, in and of itself, prove that we are not Christians. After all, Catholics have something that other Christians do not: the Holy Tradition, (which is held to be equal to scripture in terms of Catholic policy and doctrine) and their system of celebate clergy. One may say that they are different from Protestant Christians by their veneration for Mary and canonized Saints.

Protestants are different from Catholics in that they do NOT venerate Mary and the Saints to the extent that Orthodox Chrisitans do, and they have things that other Christians do not have…such as specific rules for music, worship, snake handling, dress, behavior…every Christian sect has something that makes them different from every other Christian sect. If they did not, there would BE no different Christian sects.

But there are–so your argument falls flat. What makes us Christian is what we have in common with all other Christians, not that which makes us different. What we have in common with them is this: we put Jesus Christ at the center of our faith…and we claim to be Christian. As long as we do that, we ARE Christian. We aren’t your kind of Christian; that is, we are not Catholic or Evangelical Protestant or Eastern Orthodox or Baptists. We are Mormons…and we are Christians.

 

[twopekinguys]

er…no.

I’m afraid I’d be excommunicated just for that; my hair is shorter than the GUYS in the group!

Well at least you have more hair than the both of us.

 

[Marie5890]

You know Dianad, I don’t think the G.A’s get paid either. I’m not totally sure on that …but I’m pretty sure they don’t. I believe its a Lay Ministry from the top down. I mean most G.A’s are of retirement age, most had careers even while performing duties as a G.A so I would wager they aren’t paid.

They receive a living stipend and have other perks, however.

 

[dianaiad]

You know Dianad, I don’t think the G.A’s get paid either. I’m not totally sure on that …but I’m pretty sure they don’t. I believe its a Lay Ministry from the top down. I mean most G.A’s are of retirement age, most had careers even while performing duties as a G.A so I would wager they aren’t paid.

The apostles and the First Presidency get stipends; few of them were so wealthy that they can pay for all the expenses that come with BEING apostles and in the First Presidency. Mission Presidents get stipends, too, since they are inevitably younger men with families, and that is a full time job for them. In fact, I believe that the cut off point is…when the job really DOES take up all your time (involving extensive travel, speaking engagements and other stuff,) then you get a stipend.

 

[DerekD]

DerekD- Matthew 27:5 compared to Acts 1:18. What do you think? Drop Matthew and Acts? Or maybe, the entire NT?

You are not making any sense; can you elaborate your point please.

Matt 27 -
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.”

Acts 1-
1:18 - (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Are you suggesting their is some contradiction? Please clarify your point or thoughts.

 

[dianaiad]

“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is the sort of question that asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

I was just trying to inquire about the testimony of Joseph Smith. It was a just a question. If you think I have skewed it in a particular way, I can rephrase it:

Do you give a testimony of Joseph Smith on a regular basis?
Is it part of church doctrine that you give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
Are you expected give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
When you are at church, do you give a testimony of Joseph Smith?
When do find yourself giving this testimony of Joseph Smith?
What is the context that you give this testimony of Joseph Smith?
Could you elaborate on this testimony of Joseph Smith?

Better?

The rephrasing is better…and no. We have a 'fast and testimony’meeting on the first Sunday of every month where the meeting time is turned over to the congregation; we go up to 'bear our testimonies" hopefully about the truthfulness of the gospel. What one SAYS in that testimony is up to the person doing the talking. Quite often, since we do believe that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, that bit comes up. ALWAYS, if the testimony is about the church, the Savior is mentioned. As to who must go? It is not ‘required.’ This is a ‘strictly by the spirit’ sort of thing. One does it if one feels inspired to do so.

Many have gone years between being prompted to speak. Some never do. Some do almost every month. Some do that shouldn’t.

 

[dianaiad]

Well at least you have more hair than the both of us.

A little taller than your hair, are you?

 

[Stephen168]

I try not to state things that i cannot back up; tis is common knowledge even among Catholics.

But you did in post #250. Review posts 262 and 265

 

[dianaiad]

You are not making any sense; can you elaborate your point please.

Matt 27 -
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.”

Acts 1-
1:18 - (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Are you suggesting their is some contradiction? Please clarify your point or thoughts.

Are you suggesting that there ISN"T?