LDS & Catholic Comparison

[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.

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

 

[RebeccaJ]

Has anyone else had that experience of wonderful sudden liberating clarity when breaking from Mormonism?

Indeed.

 

[PaulDupre]

We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this."

• Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 2 pg 48)

The Mormons have never repudiated this teaching. Many things are taught as doctrine that are not spelled out in the standard works. The church says so.

 

[TheosisM]

The Mormons have never repudiated this teaching. Many things are taught as doctrine that are not spelled out in the standard works. The church says so.

I’ve noticed a number of these sola scriptura Mormons. Very interesting.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’ve noticed a number of these sola scriptura Mormons. Very interesting.

The sola scriptura position is a dodge. It gives Mormons who are ashamed of LDS doctrines a means of plausible deniability.

 

[Xavierlives]

I’ve noticed a number of these sola scriptura Mormons. Very interesting.

Really? If anything seems the contrary to sola scriptura is the Mormons.

 

[mrparker]

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

Do you testify on a regular basis that the pope is inspired to lead the Catholic Church?

 

[mrparker]

The sola scriptura position is a dodge. It gives Mormons who are ashamed of LDS doctrines a means of plausible deniability.

LDS Members that deny the above mentioned belief that we will one day have worlds of our own where our own spiritual offspring will reside in mortality in an experience like the one we are in right now, have either never heard it, been taught it, or fail to understand it. If they are actually ashamed of it…sad…but to each their own.

 

[mrparker]

If you can show me “Becoming God” from the Bible, I’d be most appreciative.

There are many things that are not written in the Bible verbatim as you are requesting. There are also many things that are not contained within the Bible at all, that were yet pure truths.

The Bible does not define the canon and it does not tell us which books belong in teh canon. Today many christian churches have different book counts in their canon.

There are at least 14 books the Bible references to that we do not have.
Just to name a few:
“Book of the Covenant” (Sounds important)
“Book of the Wars of the Lord”(Who knows what important things this may have taught)
“Sayings of the Seers”
4 missing epistles of Paul

This is why I believe one cannot claim that “the Bible is complete, and without error, and that if it cannot be found in the Bible that it is not true” There is simply too much missing from the Bible to make such claims.

I understand and respect that the Catholics believe that these “missing books” are not inspired, and thus were not included in the canon of scripture, However I disagree. If you would like to know why, I can show you in the Bible (as it seems to be where many are most satisfied hearing things from)

 

[DerekD]

What is exactly is a Protestant Bible and where did it come from?

Hi Rebecca, that is a really good question. The Protestant Bible is the one that does not contain the apocrypha, a known book to have error, even by the Catholic Church admission. The Bible, as inspired, came from both God and man; man working under the direct inspiriation of God. One must be careful in this age; some translations are blasphemas, but if one sticks with the 1611 KJV, NKJV, NAS, ESV, and old NIV’s, they should be okay.

You see a Bible that contains known error is not from God is it?

 

[DerekD]

I’m not sure EXACTLY what you are implying by this, but you might say we are legalistic if you are meaning that we hold a strict importance to the ordinances that we believe to be ordinances of salvation as it seems one of your faith does.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if not baptized Catholic one will proceed to hell, is this true?

Likewise, if one does not receive the proper ordinances by the proper authority in the LDS church, we believe they will belong to a degree of glory other than the highest.

Exactly; both religions are based on legalism and both will be judged by the law of legalism, just as the Pharisees and their followers. The end is destruction for no one can fulfill the law, only Jesus Christ, the God-man was able to achieve the high standard, this is why the ones who are justified before the Lord are on the sole basis of faith in Christ.

1. All of the old testament prophets were given authority based on divine origin that had not been written in scripture at the time of their receiving, and so i believe it to be the same.

1. many of the things that were revealed to the apostles of the early church were not written in the Old Testament, then deemed as “red flags” and so i believe it to be the same

1. Catholics believe in the “Protestant Bible?” What am i to understand from this?

What was the proven authority that God gave to Moses to demonstrate this divine Origin, which all other religions with extra-biblical revelation lack? Signs and wonders and healing powers beyond shadows of doubts; this can also come in the form of prophecies fulfilled. Neither LDS or Catholicism have either.

I like this particular topic because it demonsrtates the fatal flaws in both religions; which is the embracing of legalism and the rejection of the gospel.

 

[DerekD]

Please refer to our Articles of Faith: scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

If this does not help, let me know.

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.

 

[why_me]

A Catholic goes to Heaven through grace alone. Through faith in Jesus Christ, we participate in the life of Christ in various ways, chief among these are the sacraments. Through the sacraments, we turn towards God, and align ourselves with God. Through the sacraments, we are born again, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, receive forgiveness for our sins, receive Jesus into our lives in a special way (the Eucharist), etc.

You forgot good works. Faith withwithout works is dead. Catholics are encouraged to do good works with faith in Jesus Christ. If a catholic does bad works and still believes in Jesus, he or she may find the road to heaven rather painful.

 

[DerekD]

Absolutely not. Where did you get such an idea?

MrParker:

Originally Posted by mrparker
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if not baptized Catholic one will proceed to hell, is this true?

MrParker, you are correct; our misinformed Catholic is buying into Vat II, but Vat I clearly shows that those apart from the Catholic faith are anathem, damned. Comfirmed by several councils; most notable is the Council of Trent, which Vat II has confirmed, but like all evolving doctrines of men, the term is now “seperated brethern”, which is far different in substance and meaning then Trents pronouncement to the damned.

This is trying to have it both ways, we confirm Trent, but we deny the parts we do not like. Vat II is the caferteria Catholic at the state level as I see it and why many Catholics that reject Vat II and deny that the current and past Popes are legit, they are actually called anti-Popes. This is long and complicated, as much of their teachings are and I suppose the LDS teachings are no different in complexity; this happens when legalism is mixed with grace through faith in God.

 

[DerekD]

Do you testify on a regular basis that the pope is inspired to lead the Catholic Church?

Xavierlives:

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

:yup:

 

[Xavierlives]

Do you testify on a regular basis that the pope is inspired to lead the Catholic Church?

No. I am not Catholic.

 

[zerinus]

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.

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. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet does not detract from having a testimony of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It is perfectly legitimate to have a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, of the truth of the Book of Mormon, of the Restoration of the priesthood, … just as it is to have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

, 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.

Conclusion: If you cannot trust your Pope(s) and leaders and have a belief that they are inspired, their decisions lose credibility, and thus their teachings lose credibility.
Similarly, if i cannot trust that Joseph was in fact a prophet, i cannot trust the things he teaches. But i do trust in his teachings, and the validity of the Book of Mormon due to my own personal ‘private’ revelation from the Holy Spirit.

I agree.

I feel many member mistakenly place too much emphasis on the man Joseph Smith. He was but an instrument in the Hand of God like unto all prophets from the time of Adam.

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.

LDS Members that deny the above mentioned belief that we will one day have worlds of our own where our own spiritual offspring will reside in mortality in an experience like the one we are in right now, have either never heard it, been taught it, or fail to understand it. If they are actually ashamed of it…sad…but to each their own.

Strictly speaking the doctrines of the Church are defined by the standard works. The doctrines of the plurality of gods and deification of man are clearly taught in the standard works, therefore they are true LDS doctrine. 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.

We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this."

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.)

 

[DerekD]

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. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet does not detract from having a testimony of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It is perfectly legitimate to have a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, of the truth of the Book of Mormon, of the Restoration of the priesthood, … just as it is to have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

I agree.

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.

Strictly speaking the doctrines of the Church are defined by the standard works. The doctrines of the plurality of gods and deification of man are clearly taught in the standard works, therefore they are true LDS doctrine. 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.

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.)

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

 

[Xavierlives]

There are many things that are not written in the Bible verbatim as you are requesting. There are also many things that are not contained within the Bible at all, that were yet pure truths.

The Bible does not define the canon and it does not tell us which books belong in teh canon. Today many christian churches have different book counts in their canon.

There are at least 14 books the Bible references to that we do not have.
Just to name a few:
“Book of the Covenant” (Sounds important)
“Book of the Wars of the Lord”(Who knows what important things this may have taught)
“Sayings of the Seers”
4 missing epistles of Paul

This is why I believe one cannot claim that “the Bible is complete, and without error, and that if it cannot be found in the Bible that it is not true” There is simply too much missing from the Bible to make such claims.

I understand and respect that the Catholics believe that these “missing books” are not inspired, and thus were not included in the canon of scripture, However I disagree. If you would like to know why, I can show you in the Bible (as it seems to be where many are most satisfied hearing things from)

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.

I think the problem with 1,2,& 3 is what Jesus states about testimony in John 5:31-40 :
[31] If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. [32] There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. [33] Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. [34] But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. [35] He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. [36] But I have greater witness than [that] of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. [37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. [38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. [39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
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.

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.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott:
Dianaiad:

Actually, the definition of “Christianity” is not always the same.

Cults sprang up very quickly, after the resurrection of Christ. Gnostics called themselves Christians, Adoptionists called themselves Christians, and other groups, as well.

Mormons have the religious freedom to call themselves Christians.

I have the religious freedom to call myself Christian. However, my definition of Christianity may be quite different from others, who call themselves Christians.

I have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way I know, experience, and understand Christianity.

Just as you have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way you know, experience, and understand Christianity.

So, if I say I do not believe a certain religion is Christian; I am not insulting that group. I am merely saying they are not Christian, according to my beliefs and understanding of Christianity.

You complain about giving in joint charity projects with Catholics. Then stop giving. If you resent the giving, is it really a charitable act?

My main point is that none of us have the right to demand that any religious group change their beliefs, and definition of Christianity, in order to make another group feel more comfortable or more accepted.

Participating in joint charity projects with Catholics, or any other Christians, should not be done with the expectation that they will acquiesce to your beliefs.

I strongly disagree with Mormon doctrines. That does not make me an “anti” or a “hater.” I disagree with the doctrines of many religions, as I would imagine you do. That does not mean that I hate the people who believe differently from me. . .

. . .I am not insulted, if another religious group, says that I am not a “Christian.” They have the religious freedom to hold this belief. Such a belief does not have a negative impact on my faith or my identity as a Christian.

Xavierlives:
I think my only concern about this statement is it will be their defense as well. Meaning, “I won’t call you a non-Christian if you don’t call me a non-Christian.” I have been making one basic argument about this for a couple of days and the whole thing revolves around what is right.

Mormons have a resonsibilty to let converts know that, while they are Christ centered, this faith is based on the Book of Mormon. They are not valid speakers for Christianity because they are not Christians. They are valid speakers for Mormons. Their answers for Christianity inevitable will include their Book of Mormon Doctrine and that is different than Christianity. They have refined it. They have modified the substance. Water and salt water are different and we are the salt. They can’t claim to be both fresh water and salt water. It just doesn’t work. They need to pick Mormon and embrace it.

Xavierlives:

Actually, I am saying that we have the religious freedom to believe or state that another religion is not Christian, according to our understanding of Christianity.

Subsequently, the religion we believe is not Christian, has the religious freedom to claim that they are Christian. It is really an argument that goes nowhere—like most arguments with LDS Members.

Dianaiad complained about participating in joint charity projects with Catholics and still being relegated to a “back of the bus” status. I told her that participating in joint charity projects with Catholics, or any other Christians, should not be done with the expectation that they will acquiesce to her beliefs.

IOW, Catholics do not have to change their opinion of Mormon doctrine and beliefs, just because Mormons participate in a joint charity project. I would expect that to be the same for any religion.

If I worked on a charity project with Catholics, I would not expect them to change their views of Protestantism.

Anna