LDS & Catholic Comparison

[dianaiad]

Thanks I was really wondering. Perhaps I wandered into a minefield like a dumb cow ha ha.

Bruised people tend to be wary of the slightest touch, banarick. Have patience and keep asking questions.

 

[dianaiad]

Answer to ParkerD: Part 3 of 3

Again, why was Brigham Young allowed to proclaim that Adam is God; and to maintain that claim throughout his years as LDS President and Prophet? Why didn’t God “take him in death” as you said would be done, before the “leading astray” could happen?

where, in any of the scriptures accepted as such by the CoJCoLDS, is the "Adam/God’ thing established as doctrine, Anna?

(Hint…the Journal of Discourses is NOT scripture.)

Again, why was the Priesthood Ban of African Americans allowed; when it opposed the freedom and equality established in Christ–and the Priesthood of Believers–as revealed in early Christianity/N.T.? The N.T. writers did not allow the day, in which they lived, to prevent them from proclaiming the freedom, priesthood, and salvation in Christ.

Good question. We don’t know. Now…why did God allow the incredible racism exhibited by almost all Christians to exist for as long as He did?

ParkerD, I appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions.

However, nothing you have said justifies the “revelations” of your early prophets, especially the Adam/god “revelation,” and the Priesthood Ban for African Americans.

If a Mormon Prophet claims a revelation from God, how can you possibly claim he is not acting as a Prophet?

Anna

Mormon Prophets who recieve direct revelation that affects doctrine/dogma have that revelation canonized. Pretty simple, Anna. Anything shy of that is…less. It may even be right–or it may not be and be changed later.

 

[Xavierlives]

the same as mine, I suppose…if you believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and call yourself one. Actually, I think it is quite pertinent, since it goes to your definition of the word.

I object to the red herring or white rabbits (or is it white herrings and red rabbits?) I’ve already CLEARLY stated what a Christian is. Should I state it again to pass the time?

You don’t get to decide that I’m not a Christian, m’friend. It’s not your call.

1. This whole long chain of messages is a response that I didn’t start (well I started the OP, but we have moved it appears from the OP). Needless to say I got involved and it appears I have the ball, and I am running with it.
2. The discussion at hand is more or less “Are Mormons Christians?”
3. My response has been: When the followers of Joseph Smith adopted, accepted, the Book of Mormon into whatever Christian faith they had, eventhough they acknowledge Christ, their “other Testament” has changed their name. Just as early Christians had the text of the Jews, when they took on Christ’s original message (and I am trying to be delicate here, as to use nice words for your faith), the new faith because Christians, or followers of Christ and His Original Message. 179 Years ago, “Another Testament” was added (good, bad, indifferent, it doesn’t matter), when that text was added, the “New” followers can now longer identify themselves as Christians. This new faith created The Mormons. Plain & simple. Embrace it.
4. I do get to call you Mormon because you are Mormon. Deny the Book of Mormon, and I will call you Christian.

Care to point a few out? Given that the classification of “Christian” is about putting Christ as the basis of one’s religion, and identifying oneself as a Christian, I think that might be a problem. After all, Muslims and Jews also believe that Christ lived…and I understand that Muslims may even accept the virgin birth and His status as the Jewish Messiah. However, they do not identify themselves as Christian, because THEY emphasize other teachings over those of Christ, and SAY they do.

No. I am not going to point out Hindus that follow Christ. This is yet another attempt to sidetrack the argument. Try to stay focused.

Upon what basis do you claim that the warrent exists? I think that it is pretty obvious that you are begging the question.

Did you just get a logic book for your birthday? You are just loading each fallacy into your rebuttal gun and hoping one is going to stick. My warrant existed 3 posts ago and still does. GO BACK AND READ IT IF YOU ARE WONDERING. Mine is not the place to point out a warrant for you. It is there. I double checked. Don’t be lazy, go look it up.

Well, if we are talking about circularity, you could address that bit about the warrent…

This is rich. Irony is often circular in nature. You didn’t discuss the validity, just the circularity. It was circular because you were caught.

 

[dianaiad]

I object to the red herring or white rabbits (or is it white herrings and red rabbits?) I’ve already CLEARLY stated what a Christian is. Should I state it again to pass the time?

I suppose you must. I honestly don’t remember what it is.

1. This whole long chain of messages is a response that I didn’t start (well I started the OP, but we have moved it appears from the OP). Needless to say I got involved and it appears I have the ball, and I am running with it.
2. The discussion at hand is more or less “Are Mormons Christians?”
3. My response has been: When the followers of Joseph Smith adopted, accepted, the Book of Mormon into whatever Christian faith they had, eventhough they acknowledge Christ, their “other Testament” has changed their name. Just as early Christians had the text of the Jews, when they took on Christ’s original message (and I am trying to be delicate here, as to use nice words for your faith), the new faith because Christians, or followers of Christ and His Original Message. 179 Years ago, “Another Testament” was added (good, bad, indifferent, it doesn’t matter), when that text was added, the “New” followers can now longer identify themselves as Christians. This new faith created The Mormons. Plain & simple. Embrace it.
4. I do get to call you Mormon because you are Mormon. Deny the Book of Mormon, and I will call you Christian.

I see. Well, the problem with your definition is that I don’t agree with it; and since there is no official source anywhere that would back up your definition as opposed to mine, there is no reason for me to agree with it.

So, while you absolutely have the right to believe that I am not a Christian, I also have the absolute right to not only disagree with you, but to argue with you about it.

No. I am not going to point out Hindus that follow Christ. This is yet another attempt to sidetrack the argument. Try to stay focused.

You made the claim. I challenged it. You get to prove it. If you wish, see it as a call for references. It is fairly standard; if you make a claim and refuse to support it, I can consider it disproven, at least for the purposes of this conversation.

Did you just get a logic book for your birthday? You are just loading each fallacy into your rebuttal gun and hoping one is going to stick. My warrant existed 3 posts ago and still does. GO BACK AND READ IT IF YOU ARE WONDERING. Mine is not the place to point out a warrant for you.

Well, yes, it is.

It is there. I double checked. Don’t be lazy, go look it up.

I looked back at several of your posts. I do not see the ‘warrant’ you claim to have pointed out. Perhaps this IS because I am stupid…but perhaps not. Would you care to repeat it? if you wish to continue the sarcasm and condescension, you can use little words.

This is rich. Irony is often circular in nature. You didn’t discuss the validity, just the circularity. It was circular because you were caught.

Xavier, you are resorting to sarcasm and insult. As a self styled expert in logic and fallacious reasoning, I’m certain that you understand the reason why I now think you just lost the debate, yes?

 

[Stephen168]

And again, I acknowledge that Christ is a crucial part of their faith. The problem is, they have added text. This text is “Another Testament.” This would be equivalent to someone unearthing and translating the Gospel of Lazarus, “Another Testament.” I would expect they should be called Lazarites (or some derivative of the name). We could generate all kinds of interesting things from here, but the main point is the addition to the text is what separates. They aren’t included because of Christ is included in their faith, they are excluded because they have “Another Testament.” It is not an attempt to diminish their faith, only denote that their additional of text has set them apart from Christians.

Ok, I follow your argument now. I just had to disengage my Catholic argument for a second. Thanks.

 

[Stephen168]

Did you just get a logic book for your birthday? You are just loading each fallacy into your rebuttal gun and hoping one is going to stick.

I’ve wondered that myself

 

[Xavierlives]

I see. Well, the problem with your definition is that I don’t agree with it; and since there is no official source anywhere that would back up your definition as opposed to mine, there is no reason for me to agree with it.

So, while you absolutely have the right to believe that I am not a Christian, I also have the absolute right to not only disagree with you, but to argue with you about it.

Well, I guess that ends our discussion then. If you acquiesce to my right to say you aren’t a Christian then all this can do is turn into a kindergarten debate session… You, “I am,” Me, “Are not,” You, “Am too.”

You made the claim. I challenged it. You get to prove it. If you wish, see it as a call for references. It is fairly standard; if you make a claim and refuse to support it, I can consider it disproven, at least for the purposes of this conversation.

.

These sound like exciting rules. Did you make them up? I’m going to apply them to your last arguement. Just so I don’t “violate” your rules: Brahmabandhab Upadhyay.

I looked back at several of your posts. I do not see the ‘warrant’ you claim to have pointed out. Perhaps this IS because I am stupid…but perhaps not. Would you care to repeat it? if you wish to continue the sarcasm and condescension, you can use little words.

Huh? Did I call you stupid? I think the most harsh thing I called called you was lazy. You obviously aren’t interested in looking for the warrant in my claim. Debaters are notorious for this assertion. “You don’t have a warrant. I win!” Only problem is, only the judge needs to hear it. The fact that you missed it and don’t want to find it is not my problem.

Xavier, you are resorting to sarcasm and insult. As a self styled expert in logic and fallacious reasoning, I’m certain that you understand the reason why I now think you just lost the debate, yes?

I think I’ve got this one… I explained to you how I set you up. You said I had a non sequitur, but my “so called non sequitur” really answered your fallacy. I explained the whole thing. I explained the irony. And you think you won.

 

[ParkerD]

Anna Scott,
Hello and I hope you are well. I’ll try and briefly answer:

Why was Brigham Young allowed to proclaim that God revealed to him that Adam is God; and to maintain that claim throughout his years as LDS President and Prophet?

Brigham Young didn’t teach that “throughout his years”, nor did such a remark “lead the people astray” because you will find if you research that the people were still praying to Heavenly Father, were still worshiping Heavenly Father and the Savior, and still regarded Adam as being Michael the Archangel.

Why didn’t God “take him in death” as you said would be done, before the “leading astray” could happen?

I think that the leading astray is quite the reverse, in that God can allow imperfect people to do things that will enable and continue His perfect work. What has happened during the years following, as your personal example illustrates, is that people are sifted as to whether they are tares or are wheat, whether they have the Holy Spirit individually to guide them or are merely following appealing doctrines, whether they have soil that will bear fruit through the fruits of the Spirit, or whether they will leave just as Christ asked His disciples (apostles) “will you also go away?”

Could you clarify? Are you saying, lacking the gift of prophecy, is due to lack of faith?

All I know is my own experience as far as this gift. It does not necessarily mean “seeing into the future”. It means “having an unshakeable testimony of Jesus.” I have experienced that and still do. I also am well aware through the Holy Spirit that all prophecies of the Bible will be fulfilled in the due time of the Lord.

The N.T. tells us, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good”; “empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills”; “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”

1 Corinthians 12:
7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Romans 12:
3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the **measure of faith that God has assigned. **

4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 **so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. **

6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Previously, you described the Mormon Prophets as “seers and revelators.” Is there a reason for omitting this in your definition of the role of your prophets?

I thought I was addressing your specific question. “Seers and revelators” has to do with both authority (keys to revealed knowledge) and the involvement of the Holy Spirit with each of those who are so sustained. “The spirit of prophecy” encompasses a much broader group than “seers and revelators.” Moses said “would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29)

 

[ParkerD]

Anna Scott,
Here are more answers:

If an LDS Prophet claims a revelation from God, and the twelve apostles vote against his revelation, then that would make him a false prophet–unless the twelve apostles are wrong. Claiming a revelation from God, that is not a true revelation—is bearing false witness against God, Himself. So, why would such a “prophet” be allowed to continue in his role of Church President and Prophet?

That idea did not become a teaching of the LDS church. I think Brigham Young’s expression of his personal beliefs on the subject was a personal expression and was not presented as a doctrine that the whole church or even the apostles needed to accept in the words he used. But bear in mind that Michael being the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, the one raised up along with Christ to eventually have another war with Satan and his forces, and the one who participated with Christ in organizing this earth during its creation, is a pretty big deal, and since Adam and Eve will eventually be the grand progenitors who have their entire posterity sealed to them so that those who are righteous will have that sealing in place to enable them to gain the powers in eternity that are implied in omnipotence and who present their posterity to Christ and say “all is ready” for His advocacy with the Father, is a very big deal. I think Brigham Young had temple work very much on his mind when he discussed that topic.

Again, there is no way to escape the fact that Brigham Young claimed that God revealed to him that Adam is god. A “Prophet” claiming revelation from God, is acting as a prophet. This is true throughout Biblical history.

OK. So then we as mortals who are also expected to get the Holy Spirit ourselves, are allowed and expected to figure out how the thing that is “revealed” applies to us, and the Holy Spirit becomes involved to provide individual discernment and confirmation of true doctrine correctly understood. The Holy Spirit is absolutely essential, even for those who say they are following a prophet. Christ taught that, and Paul taught that.

Could you give me the source for “This generation shall have my word through you,” that you claim applies to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine and Covenants 5:10 is the specific verse.

Again, why was the Priesthood Ban of African Americans allowed; when it opposed the freedom and equality established in Christ–and the Priesthood of Believers–as revealed in early Christianity/N.T.? The N.T. writers did not allow the day, in which they lived, to prevent them from proclaiming the freedom, priesthood, and salvation in Christ.

ParkerD, I appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions.

However, nothing you have said justifies the “revelations” of your early prophets, especially the Adam/god “revelation,” and the Priesthood Ban for African Americans.

If a Mormon Prophet claims a revelation from God, how can you possibly claim he is not acting as a Prophet?

Anna,
As I’ve indicated before, I don’t think the world was ready for the kind of priesthood leadership and responsibility that would be given to African Americans and other Blacks by not withholding the priesthood during the period when it was withheld. I am not sure whether the culture itself was ready for that, either. (They haven’t shown to any great degree that they were as an entire culture, although some individuals certainly were.)

God does not impose His will. He is patient. He lets it be that His will will come about eventually, through processes that seem slow and imperfect to us with our tiny world view and perspective. He has the “long view” and while all of His children are bickering and misunderstanding each other, He knows the potential of each child and will see to it that they can reach their personal potential through His perfect plan, and Blacks are included in every respect of having the potential to become “like Christ” but as with everyone else, it must be on God’s terms and through God’s authority and will happen under God’s timetable. People are naturally impatient, and that’s OK, but one of the major reasons we are here in this world is to learn patience, and a lot of that learning is not going to be comfortable for us.

We are going to be out of our comfort zone. We are going to be stretched, and our faith is going to be tested. That’s just the way it is–it is the way it was for Abraham. No question about that issue being a difficult test of faith, but many, many people have risen to the challenge of keeping the Holy Spirit in their lives and gaining enough understanding to rejoice that the priesthood ban was lifted by revelation.

 

[Xavierlives]

I’ve run across another Mormon Church. I understand there are the fundanmentals [who apparently are the polygamists (I always loved the spelling of this BTW–Poly-Gamist, one who plays many games), who refused to give up their marrying of many wives] and some Mormons in Missouri.

I’ve got a couple of question for the LDS and the Catholic Forumites:

1. Can the Prophet just reverse course on any edict and there is not a nature contradiction?
2. Can the Pope just reverse course on any edict and there is not a nature contradiction?
3. As far as I can tell, Joseph Smith said Zion was supposed to be in Missouri, but the LDS moved it to Salt Lake City?
4. Rome is the city of the Vatican, was there any significance to the city (other than the Roman Empire)?
5. Hypothetical: Do you think the LDS faith would again accept polygamy if legalized in the US (or do they recognize it where is legal)?
6. Has the Catholic Church ever recognized polygamy? I can’t seem to find any reference of any acceptance, but the volume of text is wide.

 

[Xavierlives]

OK. So then we as mortals who are also expected to get the Holy Spirit ourselves, are allowed and expected to figure out how the thing that is “revealed” applies to us, and the Holy Spirit becomes involved to provide individual discernment and confirmation of true doctrine correctly understood. The Holy Spirit is absolutely essential, even for those who say they are following a prophet. Christ taught that, and Paul taught that.

Whoa! I think this answers a question I had ions ago, and a missionary couldn’t answer. It goes something like this (and this is true to my life): I drink coffee. I drink lots of coffee. several years ago the Holy Spirit led me to refrain from coffee during Lent (no, I am not Catholic, but I really like Lent). Can the Holy Spirit lead you to follow a practice of another faith (as innocent as Lent is or would this be blasphemy)? Part 2, could the Holy Spirit reveal to you, a mormon, that coffee is okay to drink?

As I’ve indicated before, I don’t think the world was ready for the kind of priesthood leadership and responsibility that would be given to African Americans and other Blacks by not withholding the priesthood during the period when it was withheld. I am not sure whether the culture itself was ready for that, either. (They haven’t shown to any great degree that they were as an entire culture, although some individuals certainly were.)

God does not impose His will. He is patient. He lets it be that His will will come about eventually, through processes that seem slow and imperfect to us with our tiny world view and perspective. He has the “long view” and while all of His children are bickering and misunderstanding each other, He knows the potential of each child and will see to it that they can reach their personal potential through His perfect plan, and Blacks are included in every respect of having the potential to become “like Christ” but as with everyone else, it must be on God’s terms and through God’s authority and will happen under God’s timetable. People are naturally impatient, and that’s OK, but one of the major reasons we are here in this world is to learn patience, and a lot of that learning is not going to be comfortable for us.

Are you saying God will wait on people? Is he waiting on world acceptance of homosexuality and then the Prophet is going to accept them? This opens so many can of worms, surely you don’t mean it as it sounds.

We are going to be out of our comfort zone. We are going to be stretched, and our faith is going to be tested. That’s just the way it is–it is the way it was for Abraham. No question about that issue being a difficult test of faith, but many, many people have risen to the challenge of keeping the Holy Spirit in their lives and gaining enough understanding to rejoice that the priesthood ban was lifted by revelation.

I think the problem most people have with the African Priesthood issue is the scriptures show consistancy. Furthermore, the concept of God reversing course is primarily limited to instances of mercy not social cowering. In fact, the Bible is pretty emphatic about social “problems” and God takes a stand and is unwavering.

 

[Marie5890]

Here are a number of contrasts:

-Mormons believe in eternal marriage, and that it is necessary for exaltation. Catholics do not.

-Mormons believe that the Father is married to the Heavenly Mother. Catholics do not.

-Mormons believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Catholics believe that God can take on any form to reveal Himself to humans (theophany), however the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones in the same way that Jesus Christ does (through His bodily resurrection and ascension).

-Mormons believe that the Father perhaps lived on an earth at some point in the past. Catholics do not.

-Mormons do not pray to Jesus Christ. Catholics do.

-Catholics believe that we can ask all saints, whether on earth or in Heaven, for their prayers (communion of saints). Mormons only ask earthly people for prayers.

-Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Mormons do not.

-Catholics use bread and wine for the Eucharist. Mormons use bread and water.

-Catholics believe that it is certainly possible for bishops and deacons to be married, but it is not a requirement (especially with the inconsistent view of Mormons on bishops being married but not deacons, but now I’m reading that the deacons of the Bible had a different function than the deacons in Mormonism, so it’s okay), and it is currently not the discipline to ordain married priests to the episcopate. Mormons ordain 12 year old boys to the diaconate.

-the Catholic Church is against abortion in every situation. Mormonism allows abortion in certain specific circumstances (and after personal revelation from God).

–Mormons believe that Christ’s Church apostasized and authority was taken from the earth until the 1800s. Catholics believe that Christ’s Church has always been on earth with priesthood authority.

-Catholics believe that the gift of prophecy continues (many canonized saints were also prophets and prophetesses, and Catholic history is replete with people being visited by God, angels, and Heavenly saints), however a prophet is not at the head of the Church. Mormonism has a prophet as its earthly head. The LDS Church has 15 apostles who are also “prophets, seers, and revelators”.

-Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence. Catholics do not.

-Mormons believe that we all have an eternal intelligence, and that we are all literal spirit children of the Father (and Heavenly Mother), including Jesus Christ. Mormons also believe that we can become gods, have eternal increase (spirit children, being eternal parents), and have worlds as well. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to the Father (i.e. worship). Traditional theosis includes none of this.

-Mormons believe in a three tiered Heaven, where the Father only dwells in the highest level, people in the second level are ministered to by Jesus, and those in the third are ministered to by the Spirit. Catholics believe there is only one Heaven, with various mansions, however all are in the presence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as we see in the Bible.

-Mormons use the KJV as the authoritative English translation of the Bible. Catholics do not use this incomplete Bible.

-Mormons believe that you can be baptized, confirmed, ordained, sealed (eternally married), and “endowed” by proxy, after you die. Catholics do not.

-the Mormon priesthood was once institutionally restricted from those of African descent, and that because of their lineage, they could not be ordained [yet]. It took a revelation in 1978 for it to be opened to blacks. The Catholic priesthood has never had an institutional restriction of the priesthood to certain races and that other races were not able to be ordained because of their racial background.

-Mormons believe that the atonement primarily occurred in Gethsemane, and some will say that it was completed on the cross. Catholics believe that the atonement occurred on the cross only.

For someone who is looking for a comparison of the two, this is an accurate and solid break down of the differences. Also, Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. Which is another reason as to why LDS baptism is rejected by the Catholic church.

Now if people want to get into some sort of debate over why these difference exist and try to win converts to their side, feel free.

But this is great clear cut list of the differences in beliefs

 

[ParkerD]

(1) Whoa! I think this answers a question I had ions ago, and a missionary couldn’t answer. It goes something like this (and this is true to my life): I drink coffee. I drink lots of coffee. several years ago the Holy Spirit led me to refrain from coffee during Lent (no, I am not Catholic, but I really like Lent). Can the Holy Spirit lead you to follow a practice of another faith (as innocent as Lent is or would this be blasphemy)? Part 2, could the Holy Spirit reveal to you, a mormon, that coffee is okay to drink?

(2) Are you saying God will wait on people? Is he waiting on world acceptance of homosexuality and then the Prophet is going to accept them? This opens so many can of worms, surely you don’t mean it as it sounds.

(3) I think the problem most people have with the African Priesthood issue is the scriptures show consistency. Furthermore, the concept of God reversing course is primarily limited to instances of mercy not social cowering. In fact, the Bible is pretty emphatic about social “problems” and God takes a stand and is unwavering.

Xavierlives,
The Holy Spirit will always inspire practices leading to good health. If one is following the Holy Spirit in their life, regardless of their religion, when they seek guidance concerning good health practices and if they are honest in their heart including seeing what world experience has brought to questions of health, then they can be inspired to make good health choices.

To say that God waited for people to be ready for Blacks to be given the priesthood, has absolutely nothing to do with your other question. Read the Ten Commandments, and understand them.

Read the writings of Paul and the Ten Commandments. God does not want servitude, but He offered guidance for those practicing those things.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
The Holy Spirit will always inspire practices leading to good health. If one is following the Holy Spirit in their life, regardless of their religion, when they seek guidance concerning good health practices and if they are honest in their heart including seeing what world experience has brought to questions of health, then they can be inspired to make good health choices.

That’s just my point. I keep hearing that coffee is a good health choice, especially for people like me who have asthma. I don’t add sugar or milk so, it is calorie and it keeps me warm. Seems like the perfect beverage.

To say that God waited for people to be ready for Blacks to be given the priesthood, has absolutely nothing to do with your other question. Read the Ten Commandments, and understand them.

I think you were thinking of Leviticus, but I mentioned it more as extreme to point out that your argument doesn’t really make sense. As I see it, your argument was that society wasn’t ready for blacks to be in the priesthood, hence, God had to wait until man was ready. We can take this to a more Biblical extreme if you like. Society has accepted women as equals. Are their any women are the governing body of LDS? Has there been a Prophetess?

Read the writings of Paul and the Ten Commandments. God does not want servitude, but He offered guidance for those practicing those things.

Ok. This is nice but what exactly are you answering here? I suggest you read Malachi.

 

[Xavierlives]

For someone who is looking for a comparison of the two, this is an accurate and solid break down of the differences. Also, Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. Which is another reason as to why LDS baptism is rejected by the Catholic church.

Now if people want to get into some sort of debate over why these difference exist and try to win converts to their side, feel free.

But this is great clear cut list of the differences in beliefs

I agree. As the OP, this spells it out and both sides to concur.

 

[thecourt]

Marie5890 states a number of things that are false about my church.

Catholics believe marriage covenant ends at death – we seal in the temple for time and eternity so death will never break that covenant.

Heavenly Mother is false.

We believe we created in the image in God.

We do not believe that God at one time lived on the earth.

We do pray to Jesus Christ — do Catholics pray to Mary?

We do pray to intercessors.

As long as 12 year old is worthy to be ordained to the priesthood, there not a problem. We recognize that the commandment to multiply and replenish remains in force, yet most of the Catholic priesthood is unmarried.

Ancient prophets foretold that church would go into apostasy so you profess those prophets were liars?

The restored church has a First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. How do you explain the huge number of the men who took the priesthood, when the priesthood is not for the taking. Christ called his first twelve apostles from their occupations, who did not have degrees to hold the priesthood?

We believe in become LIKE GOD, NOT A GOD as she falsely states.

We believe the Bible to be correct so far as it was translated correctly. Have you been in a Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore and the number of translations of the Bible?

 

[Marie5890]

Marie5890 states a number of things that are false about my church.

Catholics believe marriage covenant ends at death – we seal in the temple for time and eternity so death will never break that covenant.

Heavenly Mother is false.

We believe we created in the image in God.

We do not believe that God at one time lived on the earth.

We do pray to Jesus Christ — do Catholics pray to Mary?

We do pray to intercessors.

As long as 12 year old is worthy to be ordained to the priesthood, there not a problem. We recognize that the commandment to multiply and replenish remains in force, yet most of the Catholic priesthood is unmarried.

Ancient prophets foretold that church would go into apostasy so you profess those prophets were liars?

The restored church has a First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. How do you explain the huge number of the men who took the priesthood, when the priesthood is not for the taking. Christ called his first twelve apostles from their occupations, who did not have degrees to hold the priesthood?

We believe in become LIKE GOD, NOT A GOD as she falsely states.

Then Mormonism has changed from when I was part of it.

I was taught about “Heavenly Mother”
I was taught about how those who keep their covenants would become gods and goddesses and populate our own worlds (“As God once was, we are. As God is, we may become” Lorenzo Snow I believe…check the exact quote if you will)

I was never taught to pray to intersessors. Only pray to God the Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ

I was taught that God the father was once indeed a human was we are and lived on another world similar to ours…

It’s feasible that Mormonism has altered its doctrines since I have left. I am not up on what they believe now and what they are now teaching their membership

 

[Kdesiel]

Then Mormonism has changed from when I was part of it.

I was taught about “Heavenly Mother”
I was taught about how those who keep their covenants would become gods and goddesses and populate our own worlds (“As God once was, we are. As God is, we may become” Lorenzo Snow I believe…check the exact quote if you will)

I was never taught to pray to intersessors. Only pray to God the Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ

I was taught that God the father was once indeed a human was we are and lived on another world similar to ours…

It’s feasible that Mormonism has altered its doctrines since I have left. I am not up on what they believe now and what they are now teaching their membership

I too was taught there was a Heavenly Mother but was encouraged not think anymore on the teaching other than she is there. I was also taught or overheard into a discussion about Heavenly Father having multiple wives. I mean God did institute polygamy to J.Smith right? So why would J.Smith practice such a thing and God not participate?

I was taught to always begin my prayers with “My or Our Heavenly Father” and to close said prayer in the “Name of Jesus Christ Amen” reflecting that Jesus Christ was the ONLY intercessor for me and God the Father.

I was taught that through obedience of the commandments and faithfulness to the covenants made in the Temple and in Baptism I would become an exalted being, one day becoming a God with my own creations without number. I would always owe Glory to Heavenly Father or the God I worship now but never the less I would become a God one day through faithfulness of the teachings of the Gospel. This was taught from many a Prophet.

“As God is man may become, as man is God once was.” Tue the LDS church has never taught God lived at one time on this Earth, but they do teach that he lived on “A Earth” a world similar to this one. Where he progressed within the Gospel he was taught. He was a man, and through eternal progression he became a God, the God we follow and worship today.
So what God did God worship while he was alive? What God did that God worship while he was alive and on and on? These are teachings and principles of the LDS church however members are encouraged NOT to think or dwell deeply or at all on these subjects because they are not necessary to salvation.
Either The Court isn’t really Mormon(which wouldn’t surprise me) or he/she is but doesn’t fully understand the faith he/she professes(which again wouldn’t shock me). This is a poster who was once Catholic a former Mormon one day, then the very next day a Proud Mormon once Catholic. He/She has demonstrated in posts past on various threads an inability to be honest, or any kind of consistency for his/her beliefs. He/she has no spiritual fidelity, and only poses questions, or answers posts in such away to provoke a contentious rebuttal to deflect from issues at hand, without successfully answering questions with substantial or viable information. I find it a waste of time to engage in any conversation with this person.

 

[thecourt]

Marie5890 I will pray that you come back.

 

[Marie5890]

I too was taught there was a Heavenly Mother but was encouraged not think anymore on the teaching other than she is there. I was also taught or overheard into a discussion about Heavenly Father having multiple wives. I mean God did institute polygamy to J.Smith right? So why would J.Smith practice such a thing and God not participate?

I was taught to always begin my prayers with “My or Our Heavenly Father” and to close said prayer in the “Name of Jesus Christ Amen” reflecting that Jesus Christ was the ONLY intercessor for me and God the Father.

I was taught that through obedience of the commandments and faithfulness to the covenants made in the Temple and in Baptism I would become an exalted being, one day becoming a God with my own creations without number. I would always owe Glory to Heavenly Father or the God I worship now but never the less I would become a God one day through faithfulness of the teachings of the Gospel. This was taught from many a Prophet.

“As God is man may become, as man is God once was.” Tue the LDS church has never taught God lived at one time on this Earth, but they do teach that he lived on “A Earth” a world similar to this one. Where he progressed within the Gospel he was taught. He was a man, and through eternal progression he became a God, the God we follow and worship today.
So what God did God worship while he was alive? What God did that God worship while he was alive and on and on? These are teachings and principles of the LDS church however members are encouraged NOT to think or dwell deeply or at all on these subjects because they are not necessary to salvation.
Either The Court isn’t really Mormon(which wouldn’t surprise me) or he/she is but doesn’t fully understand the faith he/she professes(which again wouldn’t shock me). This is a poster who was once Catholic a former Mormon one day, then the very next day a Proud Mormon once Catholic. He/She has demonstrated in posts past on various threads an inability to be honest, or any kind of consistency for his/her beliefs. He/she has no spiritual fidelity, and only poses questions, or answers posts in such away to provoke a contentious rebuttal to deflect from issues at hand, without successfully answering questions with substantial or viable information. I find it a waste of time to engage in any conversation with this person.

Yes, what you were taught is what I was taught when I was LDS.