Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ_Colbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
majick275:
I think a review of the book of Joel would certainly enlighten one about prophecies, visions and such in the last days. It is very clear that it will not be limited to one man…or even just to men.

Paul’s letter to the hebrews tells us that Jesus made it no longer necessary for the Lord to lead his church through a prophet. It also tells us that he made it unnecessary to go to the traditional temple and participate in those carnal ordinances anymore.

What church appears to be following Paul’s admonition in this letter?
All other churches, are following whatever precept they understand, they have partial truths, but no more contact with God since ancient days.

Except The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are the only one with a Prophet and 12 Apostles (who have revelation from God as it pertains to the guidance of His Church) and Temples, where we baptize and perform marriages for the dead, since eternal marriage and baptism cannot be performed in Heaven, these ordinances can only be performed on earth. As it says in the scripture “there will be no marriages in heaven” There also will be no baptisms in heaven. These are ordinances which must be performed on earth, which is why we perform these ordinances by proxy, for those who lived on earth and never had a chance to be married for eternity or baptized by emersion.

Pretty simple, and pretty obvious that Temples had to be taken from the earth along with the priesthood authority, when Rome became so corrupt and fell. God will not allow any unclean thing to dwell in His presence, and he will not allow any unclean person to hold his priesthood, at least not for long.
The Christians that survived were valiant and kept His name alive and spread His word around the world, preparing for the day when Jesus would restore his original Church in the same form that he established it, when he was here on earth. Man always changes things to suit himself, so even though the basic message remained the same, the ordinances were changed to suit the individual circumstances, such as sprinkling for baptism, when water was scarce, instead of immersion as Jesus showed us in the river Jordan.
Just little things like that added up to a Church that has very little of the original ordinances left as Jesus established them to be. I know you will disagree, as you must, because you do not believe Jesus came up out of the water after he was baptized by emersion. You believe he went into the river Jordan to be sprinkled with water, which has no relationship to being born again and washed clean of your sins, as a new baby comes out of the water of the womb. It is a symbolism that just does not have the same effect with sprinkling.
Just my opinion, and just wanted to express my thoughts on the subject of the unnecessary carnal ordinances and the non importance of Temples in modern days as opposed to ancient days.
BJColbert
 
I understand and appreciate your response, obviously I disagree based on the scriptures I presented.

I might caution you on getting to caught up in the symbolic effects of minor changes in the ordinances made to suit circumstance. The LDS temple has changed a LOT over the years. The LDS sacrament changed from wine to water… just not quite the same symbolic effect when representing the Blood of Christ.

I have no problem with Jesus being immersed at baptism. I tend to follow the didache on this. (immersion fine, pouring ok, sprinkling acceptable)

Please show me one scripture in the LDS standard works that requires performing sealings for the dead. Or for that matter that shows that anyone prior to Jospeh Smith had their marriage sealed in a temple. (or even sealed at all)

Regarding the need to perform ordinances for the dead. I find it troubling to think that men must do what God can not.

Just to be accurate their ARE other churches that CLAIM to have a prophet and 12 Apostles. Can you please show me where in the Bible (or even the Book of Mormon) Jesus said his church must be led by a Prophet and 12 Apostles. I don’t recall that ever happening prior to Joseph Smith. (unless you can show me where Jesus called Peter to be the Prophet, but even then that’s only once)

I have to stand by what the Bible says about Christ making the Temple and its carnal ordinances no longer necessary.

God bless you BJ
 
God works through man, so the ordinances performed are through the power of God and performed in the flesh, by man. As in helping the poor, and performing other deeds that God wants accomplished. If man chooses to ignore God’s commandments that is man’s choice, and God’s work will not be accomplished, at least not through the ones who refuse to help. These are ordinances that can only be performed on earth.
Does the Catholic Church baptize after death? No, I do not think they do, or they would not be rushing to the death bed to perform these rites. So they must also realize that baptism is an earthly requirement, in order to be able to accept the atonement of Jesus Christ.
I may not fully understand the purpose of Catholic baptism, but it seems they do not believe baptism is performed in Heaven, so I am assuming they consider it an earthly ordinance, and very important to the acceptance by the Lord into His presence after death.
I do not believe Catholic baptism is accomplished without the help of a priest to officiate in the sprinkling or pouring of water, but hopefully he is doing God’s work with God’s approval and therefore man is doing God’s work even in the Catholic Church.
I hope that makes some sense.
In the same way we are doing God’s work in the Temple by baptizing the dead who did not have the opportunity of baptism on earth. God loves us all equally and wants us all to have the same chance, whether we accept it or not is our free choice, but the work will be done. That is just our conception of God’s plan, and I do not expect you to understand at all, as your conception is much different. Still we are all God’s children and Catholics are equal in God’s love as are all of us, no matter what we believe.

I appreciate the warning of not getting caught up in changes, I do know there have been minor changes in the 40 years since my first visit to the Temple, but nothing major. In fact I would not have noticed if this thread had not pointed it out in detail. Then I said oh yeah, that sentence has been removed. But, it did not change the meaning at all, also drinking water instead of wine is only symbolic to us. And if God changes wine into blood, He has the power to change water into anything he wants to. It is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross and we partake in remembrance of his sacrifice and to renew our baptismal covenant to follow his teachings and commandments.
BJColbert
 
BJ Colbert:
I do not believe Catholic baptism is accomplished without the help of a priest to officiate in the sprinkling or pouring of water, but hopefully he is doing God’s work with God’s approval and therefore man is doing God’s work even in the Catholic Church.
That’s not correct. Although it is ordinarily a priest or a biship who performs a baptism, *anyone * can perform a valid baptism under certain conditions. In fact, the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed by non-Catholic ministers as valid if properly performed.
V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
57 Cf. CIC, can. 861 § 1; CCEO, can. 677 § 1.
58 CIC, can. 861.2.
59 Cf. 1 Tim 2:4.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Catholics believe that it is God who accomplishes the baptism through the person administering the sacrament. It is more than one simply performing a work for God, it is a holy sacrament instituted by Christ. The difference may seem subtle, but it is important because it places God in command, as opposed to what occurs in the temple ordinances, where people are performing acts that they presume God cannot perform in Heaven.
 
the reason that catholics care so much is because some guy a couple hundred years ago made some stuff up to becaome popular and mormans are idiotic enough to believe it. it is insane, anyone with an I.Q. of a monkey could figure out that he made all that **** up.
 
It should be noted here that there is also a virtual flood of Utah Mormons pouring into the Catholic Church. A quick look at any of the many forums on Yahoo that discuss Mormonism and Catholicism will show that there is much interest in Catholicism from Mormons.

A recent news article also reported that there is a DRASTIC decrease in the number of Mormon missionaries. Hmmmmm.

Mike Maturen, MDiv
40.png
LDSGuy:
I’m a recent convert to the LDS Church(baptized 3 months ago) from Catholicism. A few of my Catholic friends are very interested in the Church, mostly b/c of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. I also think that the reason why many Catholics are interested in learning about it is because we both claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ. Obviously we both can’t be right. Either there was a restoration or there wasn’t. Either there was an apostasy or there wasn’t. Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it isn’t. etc. Therefore I think that Catholics try to research the Faith. That’s how I came to it.
 
Thank you for quoting the entire section of Scripture. It drives me CRAZY when people pull and twist Scripture out of context to prove a point.

Let me point out, first of all, that the word “godliness” as originally posted by the Mormon individual does NOT indicate an entire CHURCH. The word “godliness” indicates one’s actions and attitudes. In other words, people in the “end times” will “look religious” but be empty.

We all know that people have the ability to wear a “public mask” that bears little resemblence to the “private reality”. This is precisely what this passage of Scripture teaches. We can also relate this passage to Revelation 3:14-16, where the Church at Laodicea is chastised for being lukewarm. The concept is the same.

Mike
40.png
Tmaque:
Interesting that you left out the intervening verses that allows us to put this in context. Let me help you out:

1
But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.
2
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,
3
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
4
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5
as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them.
 
I don’t want to get off-topic here, so I will invite you to contact me privately via e-mail, Asa Ben Judah.

Which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are NOT supported by the Scriptures? What are the stumbling blocks that keep you from becoming Catholic?

Mike
Asa Ben Judah:
In my own case I am absolutely obsessed with the Roman Catholic Church, I only study the Holy Scriptures with the aid of Catholic exegesis and commentary, so much so that I have developed a love and appreciation for Catholics. I would convert if it were not for some of the doctrine/dogma that is not supported by Holy Scripture.
 
Certainly there is one mention. Matthew 16 clearly shows Jesus giving all authority in the Kingdom to Peter, the rock upon which Jesus will build His Church.

In the language Jesus and the apostles spoke, the verse would read:

“You are Kepha and upon Kepha I will build my Church”. Pretty clear in the proper historical, linguistic context.

In verse 19 of the same passage, Jesus gives the “keys to the kingdom” to Peter. The listeners would have immediately recognized this to be a passing of earthly authority…kind of like a proxy. The Jews would have immediately thought back to the passage in Isaiah 22, which they all knew in its proper context.

In Isaiah, we see Hezekiah appointing a new “prime minister”. Eliakim, Shebna’s replacement, was given the “key of the House of David” (the kingdom), and given all authority to act on behalf of King Hezekiah (“when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open”).

It is this “prime minister” type position that has the ONLY authority to act on behalf of the king. We also see in this passage that the authority is passed on to a successor.

Although the word “pope” is never mentioned, the concept is clearly taught by Jesus.

If we are basing our doctrine purely on what is “mentioned in Scripture”, we’d have to do away with the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Mormon practice of using water for communion (since Jesus used wine, not water), etc etc etc.

Mike

“There are no “Popes” mentioned in the NT!”***
 
We’d also have to do away with the bible, since the word “bible” is not in the bible.
Paul
 
40.png
MikeMaturenMDiv:
I don’t want to get off-topic here, so I will invite you to contact me privately via e-mail, Asa Ben Judah.

Which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are NOT supported by the Scriptures? What are the stumbling blocks that keep you from becoming Catholic?

Mike
I ought ot start a thread entitled ‘WHY IS THIS MORMON SO INTERESTED IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH?’

There is so much that is inspired and true but then there is so much that is the invention of the human mind that is unable to comprehend God in the simple straighforward way the Prophets and Apostles of the Holy Scriptures do.

I feel that there is a real breath of fresh air in the RCC, i.e. since Vatican II, but sadly there are many traditionalist Catholics who want to slam shut the doors and windows of heaven to the faithful.

Asa
 
40.png
MikeMaturenMDiv:
I don’t want to get off-topic here, so I will invite you to contact me privately via e-mail, Asa Ben Judah.

Which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are NOT supported by the Scriptures? What are the stumbling blocks that keep you from becoming Catholic?

Mike
I looked at your website and was moved by the photo-history of your return to the Catholic Church.

I would contact you by email but I am afraid I do not have the time to dedicate to a protracted conversation. My visits to Catholic Answers is often sporadic.

Asa
 
40.png
amgid:
Thirdly, all of them in fact are merely exaggerated expressions of the LDS belief in the apostasy of the early Christian church. Well, we do believe that the early Christian church apostatized. That is why a restoration was necessary. We make no bones about that, and don’t need to apologize for it. It is a fundamental tenet of our theology.
amgid
amgid,

I’m a little late to this party, and I have not read every single post in this thread, so forgive me if I am restating points someone else has already made.

The charge of Catholic apostasy is familiar to me, because as an Evangelical Christian, it was the primary justification for our separation from the Church of Rome. However, the matter was settled decisively for me in an essay by a friend and eventual Catholic convert. I think his argument applies in this matter as well. Here’s the gist of it:

I think we would agree that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early Church, as Jesus promised it would. Since we both accept the validity of the New Testament, we must conclude that the Church was under the guidance of the Spirit when the canon of the New Testament was determined. So the question is when did the Holy Spirit cease to lead the Church? When the members of the Church, even popes, became sinful? But they always were sinful. The sinfulness of man was the very reason the guidance of the Holy Spirit was needed in the first place. Not to produce a sinless Church, but to preserve the truth that Jesus taught his disciples from the “energy of human skepticism” (Cardinal Newman’s phrase). And here’s the clincher: there were some terribly sinful popes in the middle ages, but not one of them ever altered doctrine. Not one. Pretty strong evidence for the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit, don’t you think?

By the way, that essay was the catalyst for my own eventual submission to the Church of Rome. My friend was my godfather.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus
 
Asa Ben Judah:
I ought ot start a thread entitled ‘WHY IS THIS MORMON SO INTERESTED IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH?’

There is so much that is inspired and true but then there is so much that is the invention of the human mind that is unable to comprehend God in the simple straighforward way the Prophets and Apostles of the Holy Scriptures do.

I feel that there is a real breath of fresh air in the RCC, i.e. since Vatican II, but sadly there are many traditionalist Catholics who want to slam shut the doors and windows of heaven to the faithful.

Asa
is this a secterian view or is there sprits amoung your members the born again catholics and the fundermetalist catholics i have seen this a number of times your more ative members seem to have problems with the traditional church and then does that make the born again catholics apostate. i wonder on whose side the pope would be.
 
Both the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claim being the true church.

I’m just curious in learning about the other, and seeing the similarities, but surprisingly opposite differences…
 
40.png
Phaedrus:
I’m a little late to this party, and I have not read every single post in this thread, so forgive me if I am restating points someone else has already made.

The charge of Catholic apostasy is familiar to me, because as an Evangelical Christian, it was the primary justification for our separation from the Church of Rome. However, the matter was settled decisively for me in an essay by a friend and eventual Catholic convert. I think his argument applies in this matter as well. Here’s the gist of it:

I think we would agree that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early Church, as Jesus promised it would. Since we both accept the validity of the New Testament, we must conclude that the Church was under the guidance of the Spirit when the canon of the New Testament was determined. So the question is when did the Holy Spirit cease to lead the Church? When the members of the Church, even popes, became sinful? But they always were sinful. The sinfulness of man was the very reason the guidance of the Holy Spirit was needed in the first place. Not to produce a sinless Church, but to preserve the truth that Jesus taught his disciples from the “energy of human skepticism” (Cardinal Newman’s phrase). And here’s the clincher: there were some terribly sinful popes in the middle ages, but not one of them ever altered doctrine. Not one. Pretty strong evidence for the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit, don’t you think?

By the way, that essay was the catalyst for my own eventual submission to the Church of Rome. My friend was my godfather.
We do not dispute that there have been many good Christians in the world, in the Catholic as well as in other churches. But LDS doctrine of apostasy rests primarily on the issue of divine authority, and the ability of the leadership to lead the Church by revelation. That is was lost with the death of the Apostles, and the church wondered into spiritual darkness. All of this has already been adequately discussed in this thread, and there is no need to elaborate any further.

amgid
 
40.png
amgid:
But LDS doctrine of apostasy rests primarily on the issue of divine authority, and the ability of the leadership to lead the Church by revelation. That is was lost with the death of the Apostles, and the church wondered into spiritual darkness.
amgid
In that case, there’s no point in having a discussion, because by framing the argument that way, you preclude any verification or proof. You have to accept on faith that the divine authority was lost with the death of the apostles. How do you know that the divine authority was lost? Because your church teaches that it was. You may be correct, but the issue cannot be debated in any rational way, because it cannot be verified.
If, however, you could produce a doctrine that was held by the apostles, and that was later perverted by the Church, that would be evidence that would support your conclusion.

Under the Mercy,

Phaedrus
 
“If, however, you could produce a doctrine that was held by the apostles, and that was later perverted by the(cATHOLIC) Church, that would be evidence that would support your conclusion.”

I tried before and during the RCIA six years ago. I have not found it yet. This is what is so amazing to me as a Catholic Apostolic Christian. Nothing is impossible when Christ is the one whom leads.
He is really the only thing that is good about our faith. It has to be all about Him in every thing we do, even our failures. We have to give it all up to Him. Remind ourselves daily of His mercy for each one of us. Living within the Sacraments is truly life giving stuff.

God Bless

Once there was a very holy abbot called Anastasius. In fact, he was considered a saint by his fellow desert monks. One day when a monk by the name of James sinned and was told to leave the community. Anastasius got up and walked out with him, saying: “I to am a sinner.” James however, did not reform. Years later he came to visit Anastasius as he was saying his evening prayer.
“Don’t worry,” Anastasius replied, “ My rule is to receive you with hospitality.”
And he gave him food and lodging for the night. Anastasius had an old copy of the Bible which was worth quit a bit of money. Seeing the book, James took it with him when he was leaving the next morning. When Anastasius realized that he had stolen the book, he did not follow him. Fearing that he might only make him add the sin of perjury to that of theft, James went to a nearby merchant to sell the book, asking a high price.

“Give me the book for a little while so that I can find out whether it’s worth that much,” the merchant said.
He took it to Anastasius. Anastasius took one look at it and said. “Yes this is a splendid book. In fact it’s worth much more.” The buyer came back and told the thief what Anastasius had said.

Stunned he asked, “ Was that all he said? Did he make no other remarks?”

“No,” said the merchant, “he did not say another word.”

On hearing this James was deeply moved, and said, “I have changed my mind. I don’t want to sell the book after all.” And he hastened back to Anastasius and, with tears in his eyes, gave him back the book and begged for his forgiveness. Anastasius received him with the same kindness as before.

He simply said, “ I forgive you. Keep the book. Read a little from it each day, and pray to Christ who received sinners like us, and brought them back to Gods love and friendship. Now go in peace.

His fellow monks were surprised to see him wasting his time on someone like James, but he said, “Tell me, if your robe is torn, will you throw it away?” And they replied, “No, we will mend it and put it back on.” Then he said, “If you take such care of your robe, will not God be merciful to one who bears his image?”

The kindness of Anastasius paid off. James changed his life. He returned to the life of a monk and became known for his goodness and holiness.

In the Gospel today, the Pharisees despised sinners, but Jesus befriended sinners. It was not a question of a few kind words, or a gesture or two, on his part. He associated with sinners. He shared their food and drink. He did not just tolerate them. He welcomed them. In his presence they felt accepted and loved just as they were. It is not surprising then that ,many of them heard his message and changed their lives. Matthew is an example of this.

Jesus’ attitude to sinners was one of kindness and persuasion rather than condemnation and denunciation. He did not wait for sinners to repent before becoming their friend. No, he befriended them in their sinfulness. This is what scandalized the religious authorities: that he associated with sinners and rejoiced in their company while they were still sinners. Just as today some people see compassion for the criminal as a betrayal of the victim, so the Pharisees saw Jesus’ compassion for the sinner as a betrayal of the virtuous.

Jesus defense was very strait forward, he said he went where the need was greatest. In associating with sinners he was not condoning their situation, rather, he was trying to show them a new life. But he could not do this without associating with them and being sympathetic towards them. You never improve people by shunning them. In acting the way he did, Jesus revealed the mercy of God towards sinners.

Jesus did not show a lack of moral principles by sitting at table and consorting with sinners. Rather, his humility was rich and deep enough to make contact, even in them, with that indestructible core of goodness which is found in all, and upon which the future was to be built. He put them in touch with that in them selves. His goodness evoked goodness in them.

It would be easier, safer, and more popular for him to go among the good. But he was not thinking of himself. He was thinking of others, and of the mission given him by his father. He did not come to call the virtuous but rather sinners to repentance.
 
Thanks for the response, catholic-rcia, but I’m not sure I see the point of your story. You do realize that I am trying to defend the Catholic Church in the post you quoted? I am an adult convert who went through the RCIA process as well, and I have never found a doctrine held by the apostles that was later perverted by the Church. That’s what I wanted to get amgid to admit.
Anyway, peace be with you. We are on the same side.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus
 
40.png
Phaedrus:
If, however, you could produce a doctrine that was held by the apostles, and that was later perverted by the Church, that would be evidence that would support your conclusion.
That’s the amazing thing when discoursing with Mormons. When you put this challenge to them their only proof that such doctrines were perverted is that their church says so. They simply assume the apostacy occurred with little or no proof, which is the starting point from which their entire reason for existence originates. They can’t actually demonstrate from the bible and early church history that doctrines were perverted.

More and more Protestant ministers are leaving their livelihoods behind to come into the Catholic Church. Through study of scripture and church history, they learn that the church has somehow preserved and protected the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. This discovery is often a shock to them because they were alwas taught that the Catholic Church is the “whore of babylon” that corrupted Christianity, which they accepted without question much the same why that LDS accept the apostacy without question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top