E
Evanescence
Guest
Oh Gawd I can’t spell lol Sorry
Sorry MormOns :banghead:Yeppers I’m only 15 but that doesn’t matter cause I don’t want to get baptised anyway
I was reffering to Phone credit, I use Pre-Paid mobile
Evanescence
- Status
Sorry MormOns :banghead:Yeppers I’m only 15 but that doesn’t matter cause I don’t want to get baptised anyway
Evanescence
E
Evanescence
Guest
What are the differences between Mormons/LDS and the Catholic Church?
Evanescence
Evanescence
A
amgid
Guest
You are very young at age 15, and you ask very big questions! One would have to write a book to answer that question. But I will try to give you a short answer if I can.
The difference between LDS and Catholic Church is that LDS believe in continuing revelation through modern prophets and Apostles as in the ancient Church, but the Catholic Church don’t. They believe that God has done His work, and said everything that He needed to say in the Bible, and there is no need for any more prophets or revelations!
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
Does the Catholic catechism answer every conceivable question that one may want to ask about the Catholic faith, or just basic ones? If you want a brief summary of LDS doctrine, the Articles of Faith does the job. What problem do you have with that?
amgid
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Amgid,
Shame on you. That is extremely misleading, and a good example of how Mormons twist the truth to deceive people.
The difference between the two is this:
Catholics believe that Jesus established His Church around 33 AD and promised that it would endure forever, guided by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and their successors (called bishops).
Catholics believe that Jesus was the complete and final public revelation of God. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church to an ever-deeper understanding of Jesus and His message as we live and preach the gospel through the ages. The Holy Spirit teaches the Church how to live the gospel fully in every age and in every culture.
Catholics recognize two main sources of authority:
- Scripture (the Old Testament, and the New Testament written and compiled by the Catholic Church during the first few centuries AD)
- Sacred Tradition (the historic sacred teachings and practices passed down through an unbroken chain of bishops since the time of the apostles).
LDS, on the other hand, believe that Jesus established a Church but the devil overcame it and corrupted it soon after the deaths of the apostles. They believe there was no authoritative Christian Church and no priesthood on earth for nearly 1800 years, until Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon and later established the LDS Church in 1830.
Mormons believe that their leaders are prophets and apostles and receive direct revelation from God and therefore can change major doctrines from time to time. They recognize four scriptures as authoritative: The Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. They also recognize their current prophet as supremely authoritative in all matters.
Of course there are major doctrinal differences between the two faiths, especially as concerns the nature of God and man’s ultimate eternal destiny.
The Catholic Church and the LDS Church each believes that it is the one true Church.
Hope this clears things up a bit.
Paul
A
amgid
Guest
She is an intelligent girl. She can read for herself. I will let her decide!
amgid
P
PaulDupre
Guest
My paperback edition of the catechism is 846 pages in length and yes it exhaustively answers every question you could ever have about Catholic doctrine.
There is also a companion to the catechism which contains the full texts of all the council documents, papal bulls and encyclicals, writings of the saints and every other document (outside of the bible) referred to in the cathechism. The companion volume is even thicker that the catechism itself.
The articles of faith cannot be compared to the catechism in any sense.
Paul
B
ben_dy
Guest
mormon fool:
So, I agree that neither single men or women could enter the celestial kingdom (although maybe the dead could? I’m not to clear on the sealings and ordinances of the temple, so I don’t know if the celestial kingdom can be obtain retroactively but I assume that it can?)
Also, I do read (and interpret as such) that becoming like god with “eternal increase” is both in scripture and is found explained more clearly in a number of places in the JoD. But most of these explanations are, of course, “speculative extensions” made by later prophets.
Now - where does this leave women? They cannot obtain the priesthood, so the celestial kingdom is out UNLESS they be sealed for eternity through marriage: at least that is my understanding both from a ‘gloss’ of scripture, as well as taking a ‘spiritual’ clue from Section 83 combined with the understanding that there is no “immaterial matter” and that even that which is spirit may be seen after purification (and, again, from some material from the JoD which I read but made no note of - and can’t afford to buy so have to check out from the library!).
I’ll have to check Ziggy’s thread - but does my understanding square with your own?
We’re on the same page, I think, but my understanding is lacking and I’ve not read a good commentary on the D&C nor found anything (not even “Mormonism for Dummies”) that explains it all BUT, from the way I read Section 131 & 132 and particularly 17-21 and 32-33, it’s my understanding that to be “enlarged” and “with exaltation” and become a “god” only if (taken for granted having obeyed all requisite covenants) if they had been endowed with the priesthood and were sealed in marriage for time and eternity. Of the three ‘glories’, the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial, it’s my understanding that for the highest exaltation - like that of Abraham - in the celestial kingdom, both the priesthood and marriage are required (which is pretty explicit in 131:2-3 - “And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]. And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” Meaning, to me, that the “celestial glory” - the highest of the “three heavens or degrees” cannot be obtained by the unmarried.
So, I agree that neither single men or women could enter the celestial kingdom (although maybe the dead could? I’m not to clear on the sealings and ordinances of the temple, so I don’t know if the celestial kingdom can be obtain retroactively but I assume that it can?)
Also, I do read (and interpret as such) that becoming like god with “eternal increase” is both in scripture and is found explained more clearly in a number of places in the JoD. But most of these explanations are, of course, “speculative extensions” made by later prophets.
Now - where does this leave women? They cannot obtain the priesthood, so the celestial kingdom is out UNLESS they be sealed for eternity through marriage: at least that is my understanding both from a ‘gloss’ of scripture, as well as taking a ‘spiritual’ clue from Section 83 combined with the understanding that there is no “immaterial matter” and that even that which is spirit may be seen after purification (and, again, from some material from the JoD which I read but made no note of - and can’t afford to buy so have to check out from the library!).
I’ll have to check Ziggy’s thread - but does my understanding square with your own?
B
ben_dy
Guest
I would say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does an excellent job of answering all questions concerning Catholic doctrine and, with footnotes and cross-references, gives guidance for finding further illumination and knowledge to any remaining questions concerning doctrine (off the top of my head, I can’t think of any that aren’t answered).
It does not, however, answer that age-old question known by all who attended parochial school but made famous, I suppose, by Cheech & Chong:
“If God is all powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that not even He can pick it up?”
The answer to that question is not found in the CCC. It is found in the not exactly legendary rapping of the knuckles.
For me, the Articles of Faith bring up more questions than are answered. For the Catholic, and for most Christians, a clear yet succinct declaration of the Faith that also contains more than a bit of theology is found in:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
(copy and pasted hastily from a website - too lazy to type but even I know the modern version by heart! Although, in the church that I attend most often, we use the Latin Credo so I stumble when professing in English when I find I must…).
Now in comparing this Profession of Faith to the LDS Articles of Faith, there are some obvious problems (although most Christian faiths could - and many do - use this Creed in liturgy (with some exceptions amongst our separated brethren)) or certainly accept the doctrine found in the Creed.
I realize that the doctrine presented here either could not be professed by believing Mormons and that some portions could only be professed with an understanding that would be heresy for all non-LDS. Three years ago, knowing little of the LDS church, my assumption was that you would fall under the umbrella of ‘Christians’, two years ago, after visits with missionaries (and one evening spent with their ‘director’ - I forget his title), I would have answered ‘not likely Christians’, and now - with a great deal more knowledge (though, admittedly, with little understanding) I find that I find so little of apostolic Christianity within what I know of LDS doctrine that I can only think the LDS church a great apostasy, full of heresy. While that may not seem a charitable description, it is, I believe, the same understanding that the LDS church has of other ‘Christian’ churches, so I see little harm in using the term.
I do wish two things: the first that the LDS would make some definitive declarations of doctrine, such as have been produced and distributed by the Catholic Church since it’s inception, and; I pray that those members of the LDS church might find the true, unchanging Church established by Christ.
B
ben_dy
Guest
Ah, no! We’re NOT sola scriptura !!! We have Sacred Tradition, as handed down from the Apostles, as well!!!
M
mormon_fool
Guest
This is where you are a little off. Yes, there are three kingdoms. The highest, the Celestial Kingdom (CK) is further divided into three levels. Sections 131 and 132 address conditions and requirements for the highest level within the CK. It is entirely possible to be single in the lower levels of the CK.
Presumably vicarious sealings for and in behalf of the dead will take place for those deemed worthy by God. Work for the dead will be a major task up through the Millenium and will be aided by revelation. However, if we as believers, don’t dilligently pursue meeting requirements here in mortality, we can imagine that we will be held accountable and deemed not worthy.
I am presently reviewing what leaders of the church have said about “eternal increase”. I got 352 hits on a database of mormon teachings. I plan on posting some analysis on my eternal preogression thread, but it might take awhile.
Their situation seems symetrical to men. The lack of them being sealed to one holding the priesthood would not prevent them from attaining the lower levels of the CK.
The JoD is online if you do a search.
later,
fool
A
amgid
Guest
Thank you Ben and Paul for enlightening me on the Catholic Catechism. I was not well informed on the subject, as you figured. After reading your descriptions of it, though, I must admit that I am mighty pleased that the LDS Church does NOT have a “catechism”!
ben_dy:
amgid
Ah! That only shows the inadequacy of the Catholic theology. There is a perfect answer to that age old paradox in LDS theology. That paradox arises as a result of belief in the omnipotence of God in the absolutely logical sense of the term. In LDS theology, God is indeed omnipotent, but His omnipotence lies within the realm of the world of possibilities. There are things that are intrinsically impossible, even by God. There are certain things that He cannot do. He cannot create something out of nothing, for example (and most ECFs seem to agree with that). He cannot create “intelligence”. He cannot be unrighteous. He cannot “lie”. In LDS theology, God is not omnipotent in the absolutely logical sense of the term. Hence that paradox would not arise in LDS theology.
Such as?
You mean “the umbrella of apostate Christianity” of course. Well, perish the thought. Who said it should!
You are referring to Apostate Christianity of course. “Apostolic” must have been a Freudian misspelling for “apostate”.
It all depends on which side of the divide you are looking at. I am sure the devil sees God as being apostate from him.
You got that one right. LDS consider the whole of Christendom apostate form the original Church of Christ, and the Bible fully backs that claim,
It does. It is called the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And sure enough, they already have! “…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased,…” (D&C 1:30).
amgid
P
PaulDupre
Guest
amgid said:
amgid,
He was joking. You don’t actually think that is a problem within Catholic theology? Good grief.
Paul
B
ben_dy
Guest
And I can, indeed, understand why - the doctrines and theology of the LDS church are based upon relativism; to publish a LDS catechism would be most counter-productive and one published on any given day would need revision in days to follow.
Well, no, it shows that two comedians were familiar with the antics and lack of sophistication common among schoolboys. A joke that can, perhaps, only be understood by those who attended parochial school with some kids who delighted in dimness and antics.
Far too many to number - the whole of the articles, as understood by ever-changing doctrine.
No, I mean “the umbrella of 'Christians”" - amongst those whom we charitably call our “separated brethren”.
If you’re referring to the term “Freudian ‘slip’” (as I am unfamiliar with the term “Freudian misspelling”), no, I mean apostolic as in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” and was not - a you seem to be - trying to practice dim antics as I noted in the joke of the comedians quoted above.
And I am sure that you see the Catholic Church as the thinly veiled “whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign…” (D&C 86:3). And yet there are those in the LDS church who say that the church is not anti-Catholic: it is, indeed, anti-Christian. I am not looking at a mythological church founded by one who proclaimed “I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.” A boast that in which he claimed to have been “able to keep a whole church together” for a longer time than “Jesus ever did…” It is obvious which side of the “divide” on which we, respectively, ‘look at’.
Yes, I realize that I “got that one right” - and I’ve yet to read a Biblical ‘proof’ that tells me of an apostasy that occurred that would only ‘restore’ Christ’s Church by the LDS church.
But with all the changes that have been made, which version do you believe to be inspired? Should Moroni become Nephite again which version of the first vision would you choose to believe? Do you believe that the Book of Abraham was translated by JS from papyri written by the hand of Abraham? Sorry - even the standard works are not “standard” (and at least we in the Catholic Church recognize that we have no extant signature text of scripture and that we rely on the best translations that we can obtain from existing texts and don’t stoop to worship any one translation as being an ‘inspired translation’).
So when do you begin RCIA?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Pray tell, why are you “mighty pleased”?
Paul
B
ben_dy
Guest
Paul,
The more I’ve read of so many FARMS reviews, I can well understand MANY reasons why the LDS church might not want to publish a catechism…
…just one example might be, for example, if a respected BYU theologian or historian was known to have participated in the writing of the catechism, he may find, in years to come, to have written something now thought of heretical and may be ex-communicated. And if, like the Catholic Catechism, historical writings were used, there might be embarrassment (we tend to expect our ECF’s to have sinned while the ECF’s of the LDS faith have to be unblemished, if recent ‘history’ is an indication of just how early church members lives are to be understood). And while WE have ECF’s that “seem to” have entertained heresy (although, in context, I have found none that did) and may have remained silent on same, much of what would be considered heresy by the LDS church today seems not to have been in the early church.
I would think that one reason amgid would be ‘pleased’ not to have a catechism is the relativism of LDS doctrine and theology - don’t you think that may be the case?
A
amgid
Guest
Nay, but we prefer the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let another man interpret for us what should say. There are no “revisions” made in the standard works of the LDS Church that are doctrinally significant. Almost all of the changes made have been punctuational, or correcting errors made in the original copying or typesetting etc. A couple of very small doctrinally significant changes were made in the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith himself after the publication of the first edition, and not any after that which I am aware of. The standard works of the LDS Church are unchanging, and eternally true.
Tell me something, has the “catechism” of the RCC always been the same? Has the RCC always had a “catechism”? When was it written? Has it always been the same? Has it never undergone revision or change? Has it evolved? What is the history of it? I am curious to know.
A nice copout.
Another nice copout.
I see. So the wicked and apostate Protestants have now suddenly become the “umbrella of Christians” and your “separated brethren”? Well they might. Protestantism is an apostate Christian institution just like Catholicism is.
Not so. That is not the correct reading of that scripture. Your ability to read and correctly understand LDS scripture approximates to zero.
That is correct. The LDS Church is most certainly not anti-Catholic. The LDS Church probably has better relations with the Catholic Church than any Protestant church does. When Pope John Paul II died, LDS General Conference was in cession. President Gordon B. Hinckley interrupted conference proceedings to announce his death (in front of millions of LDS who were watching and listening), offer his condolences and sympathies to the Catholic faithful, and spoke in glowing terms of his legacy. I doubt if any Protestant Church leader spoke as sympathetically to the Catholic Church, or of the late Pope, as he did on that occasion.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
That make a man offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, turn aside the just for a thing of nought. (Isaiah. 29:20-29.)
These are pretty damning indictments I would say, don’t you think?
amgid
You mean “anti-Apostate-Christian”. Well, “Apostate-Christian” is quite correct. We call a spade a spade. But “anti-” isn’t. We are not “anti-” anybody or anything. We love our brothers and sisters of all faiths, and appreciate any good legacies faith and religion that they may already have in their own beliefs, and invite them to come unto Christ.
You remember what Isaiah said about “making a man an offender for a word”. Here is the quote:
For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
That make a man offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, turn aside the just for a thing of nought. (Isaiah. 29:20-29.)
These are pretty damning indictments I would say, don’t you think?
Well, following the Apostasy, God had to restore His Church somehow. As it turns out, the LDS Church is the only Church that makes a viable claim to such a restoration. If you know of another, I would like to know which.
No “changes”. See above.
Don’t know what you are referring to here.
All of them!
Absolutely, no question about that.
Oh yes they are!
Very “apologetic” indeed.
Sorry, don’t know what RCIA means.
amgid
F
flameburns623
Guest
Ben:
The LDS Church puts out several books–Gospel Principles, various Gospel Doctrine manuals on each of the LDS Standard Works, Priesthood manuals, etcetera–which serve as a basic catechism of LDS teaching. I can provide bibliographic information if you need it. Obviously, on the peripheral doctrines, LDS theology is more speculative and open than is Roman Catholic theology. But I think you’re being rather deliberately unfair to the subject and to amgd.
The reason amgd GAVE for not wanting a catechism seemed to be that the catechism he read seemed full of logical contradictions. One can slight him for not bothering to reason out the arguments the writers of the catechism made–or the arguments that they based their assertions on. But let’s not ‘mind-read’ and suggest that amgd has motives which he in fact never indicated he has.
The LDS DO have an ‘open canon’ and their doctrines ARE open to periodic revision as God reveals new truth or as He elaborates on older revealed truths. However, a lot of the so-called ‘changed’ doctrines to which you are referring are speculative sermons offered forth by varius Mormon leaders–particularly Brigham Young. Which neither he nor any other LDS leaders submitted before the Church to be received into the Standard Works as revealed doctrine. The Adam-God theory and Blood Atonement are two of themore egregious of these. The speculation about moon-dwellers is another. OF COURSE there have been outright changes–plural marriage and the exclusion of Blacks from the Priesthood are two of the best-known.
If one takes a bit more care with the evidence one sees far fewer of these sorts of things. One also sees that from the outset, the LDS Church focused much more of it’s energy on the basics of the Gospel–repentance, baptism, holy living, Scripture-study, prayer, conforming one’s life to that of Christ, being lead by the Holy Ghost, etcetera. There are serious problems even with how these doctrines are understood–LDS soteriology is outright Pelagianism so far as anyone who has studied the issue can tell. Baptism is not simply somethng for the living but must be performed by proxy on behalf of the unbaptised who have died. Christ has a pre-history wholly unknown to His pre-existence as revealed in the Bible, and one which is alien to His nature in many respects as revealed in the Bible. And on and on.
But my point is that you are overstating the case unfairly in the way you are articulating the issues right now. I think you could be more winsome if you took a bit more care.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Amgd:
You’re not much better:
amgd:
Amgd:
Amgd:
Amgd:
The Catholic Church hasn’t used inflamatory language like that in decades, and in any case has always taught that Protestants separated from the RCC due to ‘invincible ignorance’ are Christians indeed, with every right to hope for salvation in Christ.
Amgd:
“Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults” Equivalent of Missionary Discussions for Catholic converts.
Y’all need to temper the rhetoric.
You’re not much better:
amgd:
As I just noted: your Church puts out innumerable books and other teaching materials on your ‘Standard Works’. Without them, I doubt seriously that an unbiased reader could pick up your Standard Works and arrive at the same set of doctrines espoused by the Salt Lake branch of Mormonism.Ben_dy:
Nay, but we prefer the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let another man interpret for us what should say.
Amgd:
You’re joking, right? Anything now in the Standard Works can be edited out by fiat of the First Presidency at their discretion. It has happened in my lifetime: “white and delightsome” was changed in the Book of Mormon, etcetera.
Amgd:
Catechisms are created at specific times and places to meet specific needs. The current Catechism was written in the late 1980’s to help resolve doctrinal confusion in the wake of Vatican II and the rise of much public speculation about what is or is not authoritative teaching in the Roman Catholic Church. Several national churches had published catechisms–the “Dutch” Catechism, the “American” catechism, just to name two examples–which seemed to undermine or question official and authoritative teaching.
Amgd:
The Catholic Church hasn’t used inflamatory language like that in decades, and in any case has always taught that Protestants separated from the RCC due to ‘invincible ignorance’ are Christians indeed, with every right to hope for salvation in Christ.
Remarkably inflammatory yourself, here.
Amgd:
Sorry, don’t know what RCIA means.Ben_DY:
“Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults” Equivalent of Missionary Discussions for Catholic converts.
Y’all need to temper the rhetoric.
- Status