WhyMe and others: Can you Be Catholic and LDS at the same time?

[SkinnyJay]

Thanks for the information; I didn’t know those details. Is this a part of the Tradition, sort of? Those practices and teachings that grow?

Do not worry you are not alone Diana, there are plenty of people who don’t know the theological reasons behind practices such as no meat on Fridays of Lent, including Catholics. Because of our disobedience we must give penance in the face of Gods Justice. Part of that penance can be accomplished through fasting and abstinence. It is some thing we can physically do to help us draw closer to God, something God wants. Here is a link to an article that traces the history of ecclesiastical legislation regarding the law of abstinence, as well as examines the motives which underlie the legislation.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abstinence_(Food)

Tradition in an ecclesiastical sense refers to one of three things, doctrine, account, or custom and the transmitting of them from one generation to another.

Another link: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Don’t want to derail such a wonderful thread though…

 

[PaulDupre]

Thanks for the information; I didn’t know those details. Is this a part of the Tradition, sort of? Those practices and teachings that grow?

Fasting, abstinence and almsgiving are examples of disciplines, practices that help us to live out the doctrines we believe. Disciplines, unlike doctrines, can and do change from time to time and place to place. Disciplines help us to live out the gospel in a given place and time. Some of them are handed down from the magisterium, while others arise from the grass roots piety of the laity. Meatless Fridays are an example of the latter.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Agreed, RC. This is just a part of the splintering process of LDS culture. As the Neo-Mormon reformation continues, new religions will evolve, including Motholic. The “Christian Identity” movement, for example, included many aspects of Mormonism. It is going to be interesting. Many, disillusioned with the fragility of
“new religions”, will migrate to mainstream religions. Others are embracing atheism and agnosticism, at least for a while.

There is an interesting thread over at exmormon.org right now, that discusses the “evolution of religion”, proposing an emphasis on ethical behavior rather than “out there” beliefs. Oh!! How new!!

I’m assuming you’re referring to the “Anglo-Israelism” common peripherally to both the Christian Identity Movement and Mormonism. Since Anglo-Israelism predates Mormonism, I don’t think it’s fair to say the racist Christian Identity Movement has “aspects of Mormonism within in”. This would be similar to saying that Catholicism has aspects of Mormonism within in since both churches practice baptism.

To the OP:

One may label oneself however one sees fit, yet that doesn’t make the label intelligible, accurate, or even meaningful.

For all practical reasons, it is not possible to be both an LDS in good standing and a Catholic in good standing. Differing doctrines notwithstanding, the hierarchies of the two churches both take an absolutist position in their respective authorities. One cannot sustain BOTH Thomas S Monson AND Joseph Ratzinger as the successor to St. Peter.

 

[ricko]

Perhaps. sin is in the intention. If your friend truly DOES believe that the prohibition is against HOT tea, then…it’s against hot tea only until she gets told differently by her bishop or someone who can correct her.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

On the other hand, the CoJCoLDS may have a copyright claim on the name as a logo. (shrug)

The LDS Church has been repeatedly denied the rights to “Mormon” as a trademark, and for good reason if you ask me.

Well, actually, you can. At least as far as I’m concerned you can; “Mormon” seems to apply to all those who believe in the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, whether he stayed one or not, or whether Brigham Young was one or not. There are quite a few Mormon offshoots that are NOT LDS.

I applaud you for feeling this way when most LDS I know like to reserve the term “Mormon” for themselves. Even while a practicing LDS, I never understood how many in the church were able to on one hand insist that we had a right to use the term “Christian” yet on the other insist that the FLDS, TLC, Strangites, Manti House, etc could not call themselves “Mormon”.

I understand though that the common understanding in our culture is that Mormon = LDS just like Catholic = the Vatican. I’m sure it confuses many when one uses “Mormon” to describe the Strangites just as it would when one uses “Catholic” to describe the sedevacantists. Nonetheless, I don’t know if we could ever say neither group has a legitimate claim to the identification.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

dianaiad;5562824:

Therein lies one of religions biggest problems that should have many wonderning.

There is ONE God, one truth. So it cannot be a sin for some to drink coffee and not for others. It is a sin for all or for none. God is for equality and fairness don’t forget. So that indicates that someone is being taught incorrectly. Since everyone here believes in the bible then why don’t they practice it as it says “Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden”

Ideally, yes. But how is what Dianaiad said much different from what the Catechism says about “mortal sin”?

Knowledge of the nature of the sin is required for it to be a mortal sin in the first place!

 

[ricko]

ricko;5563766:

Ideally, yes. But how is what Dianaiad said much different from what the Catechism says about “mortal sin”?

Knowledge of the nature of the sin is required for it to be a mortal sin in the first place!

To put it plainly. The bible says that nothing is forbidden. If you believe the bible then you can eat or drink anything. If you belong to a religion that forbids you to consume some foods then that religion is not following the Word of God.

 

[Religio71]

xixxvmcm85;5563796:

To put it plainly. The bible says that nothing is forbidden. If you believe the bible then you can eat or drink anything. If you belong to a religion that forbids you to consume some foods then that religion is not following the Word of God.

what about Jews?

 

[MelanieAnne]

dianaiad;5562824:

Therein lies one of religions biggest problems that should have many wonderning.

There is ONE God, one truth. So it cannot be a sin for some to drink coffee and not for others. It is a sin for all or for none. God is for equality and fairness don’t forget. So that indicates that someone is being taught incorrectly. Since everyone here believes in the bible then why don’t they practice it as it says “Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden”

Ok Ricko, proceeding from this scripture quote that “Everything created by God is good” ~ that’s fine, as far as it goes. But we also have to allow for the possibility that humans, with their natural curiosity and active imagination, will come up for a USE of something created by God that has a bad effect or result.

Prime example ~ tobacco. If all plant life was created by God, then that includes the tobacco plant. Maybe there is a use for tobacco that doesn’t risk cancer (if there is, I don’t know what it is!) but the most well known use of tobacco often leads to a very unpleasant, often fatal, result. That’s not “good”. So I’m wondering if we’re missing some context here? Anyone have any more information about this?

 

[dianaiad]

The LDS Church has been repeatedly denied the rights to “Mormon” as a trademark, and for good reason if you ask me.

Actually, that’s only in the United States; the church is appealing that decision. It IS a registered trademark in many other countries. In one way, I understand it: after all, when the polygamous compound in Texas was raided last year, even though that group is not affiliated in any way with the CoJCoLDS, we certainly got tarred with the same brush the critics were painting that group with.

That would be very much like having some Lutheran do something dumb–and having everybody blame the Catholics. Having “Mormon” restricted as a trademark for the CoJCoLDS would go a long way in preventing that.

However, I have some problems with the idea. “Mormon” is too generic, I think, and I also think that those offshoots that qualify for the name as it was originally applied should still be allowed to claim it. Fair is fair.

…by the way, I got myself into a great deal of trouble last year when I defended that SLDS compound in Texas. EVERYBODY was mad at me.

I applaud you for feeling this way when most LDS I know like to reserve the term “Mormon” for themselves. Even while a practicing LDS, I never understood how many in the church were able to on one hand insist that we had a right to use the term “Christian” yet on the other insist that the FLDS, TLC, Strangites, Manti House, etc could not call themselves “Mormon”.

And there you have identified my problem with the whole thing.

I understand though that the common understanding in our culture is that Mormon = LDS just like Catholic = the Vatican. I’m sure it confuses many when one uses “Mormon” to describe the Strangites just as it would when one uses “Catholic” to describe the sedevacantists. Nonetheless, I don’t know if we could ever say neither group has a legitimate claim to the identification.

All we can do, and what we should do, is simply add the adjectives until the identification is accurate. I am a Christian, a Mormon and a Latter-day Saint.

Another person might be a Christian and Eastern Orthodox. Or a Christian and Roman Catholic. Or a Christian, a Lutheran, and a member of the Missouri synod. (shrug) It’s a classification drill down.

 

[dianaiad]

ricko;5563766:

Originally Posted by dianaiad View Post

Therein lies one of religions biggest problems that should have many wonderning.

There is ONE God, one truth. So it cannot be a sin for some to drink coffee and not for others. It is a sin for all or for none. God is for equality and fairness don’t forget. So that indicates that someone is being taught incorrectly. Since everyone here believes in the bible then why don’t they practice it as it says “Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden”

I didn’t write the above. Ricko did.

Ok Ricko, proceeding from this scripture quote that “Everything created by God is good” ~ that’s fine, as far as it goes. But we also have to allow for the possibility that humans, with their natural curiosity and active imagination, will come up for a USE of something created by God that has a bad effect or result.

Prime example ~ tobacco. If all plant life was created by God, then that includes the tobacco plant. Maybe there is a use for tobacco that doesn’t risk cancer (if there is, I don’t know what it is!) but the most well known use of tobacco often leads to a very unpleasant, often fatal, result. That’s not “good”. So I’m wondering if we’re missing some context here? Anyone have any more information about this?

I am going to address Ricko’s post here. If anybody knows that something may be a sin for one person, but not another, it should be Catholics–and for the same reason. By Ricko’s logic, having sex would be a sin no matter who did it, when, or for what purpose–because priests and nuns make a vow of celibacy. After all, if they promised to abstain, so that indulging in sex would be a grave sin for them, then it should be a sin for everybody else, too, right? Even married couples?

 

[kikkichan]

I didn’t write the above. Ricko did.

I am going to address Ricko’s post here. If anybody knows that something may be a sin for one person, but not another, it should be Catholics–and for the same reason. By Ricko’s logic, having sex would be a sin no matter who did it, when, or for what purpose–because priests and nuns make a vow of celibacy. After all, if they promised to abstain, so that indulging in sex would be a grave sin for them, then it should be a sin for everybody else, too, right? Even married couples?

Dianaiad,

I’m missing something here, cause this has got me scratching my head. Am I thinking too hard about this?

– Why is this an “if anyone knows, it should be Catholics” situation?

– and for what same reason? The " if for one, than for all" reason?

– the sin, I think you’re talking about is not sex, (which isn’t a sin) but extra-marital sex, which is a sin even w/o a vow of celibacy. There’s also no correlation between any vow priests and nuns make and what constitutes sin for someone else. (But I doubt that’s a news flash!)

There’s a requirement that a behavior must be known to be sinful, for it to a sin. So that could be a situation where what’s a sin for one, may not be for another.

–kc

PS as an aside, there are some married priests. Even married w/ children.

 

[PaulDupre]

for the same reason. By Ricko’s logic, having sex would be a sin no matter who did it, when, or for what purpose–because priests and nuns make a vow of celibacy. After all, if they promised to abstain, so that indulging in sex would be a grave sin for them, then it should be a sin for everybody else, too, right? Even married couples?

There is a fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics when it comes to abstinence. Mormons abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea because they believe those things are bad (“not for the body or the belly”) They demonize these things and demonize those who use them.

Catholics abstain from things because they are good, and giving them up (whether temporarily or permanently) is a way of demonstrating to ourselves and to God that our attachment to good things and pleasures (the flesh) is less important to us than our relationship with God (the spirit). We train ourselves through “mortifying the flesh” (to quote St. Paul) so that our spirits will be more finely attuned to God’s voice and His influence in our lives.

Catholics and Mormons, when they fast, both do it for this same reason.

When a priest takes a vow of celibacy, he does not do it because marriage is bad, but rather because marriage is a beautiful and sacred thing. He gives it up, at great personal sacrifice, in order to more fully serve the people and the kingdom of God.

…and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
-Matt 19:12

Avoiding something bad is only what we are expected to do. Giving up something good is going the extra mile,

I agree with Diana, btw, that if you do something that you believe is a sin, it is a sin, whether or not the act is intrinsically evil. If you believe it is a sin, then by doing it you make a conscious act of rebellion against God, and that rebellion is itself the sin.

And there are things that are intrinsically evil (contrary to the natural law as expressed in the ten commandments).

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad,

I’m missing something here, cause this has got me scratching my head. Am I thinking too hard about this?

– Why is this an “if anyone knows, it should be Catholics” situation?

Because Catholics understand the concept behind covenants, promises and vows. Your clergy make some rather important ones when they become priests.

– and for what same reason? The " if for one, than for all" reason?

The promises made. Catholics understand (according to everything I’ve read and been told, anyway) about promises made to God, and the nature of them. Some religious orders have one set of vows, some others; some strict in one area, some another. Yet one is no more or less holy than another because the nature of the promises they make are slightly different. Am I wrong about this?

Is the idea of Lenten sacrifices different because the nature of the individual promises may vary among those who observe it?

– the sin, I think you’re talking about is not sex, (which isn’t a sin) but extra-marital sex, which is a sin even w/o a vow of celibacy. There’s also no correlation between any vow priests and nuns make and what constitutes sin for someone else. (But I doubt that’s a news flash!)

Don’t look now, but I agree with you. What makes sex, ANY sex, a sin for priests and nuns is the fact that they make a vow to not have it. They vow not to marry—and thus for them getting married would be a very big sin, even though for Catholics other than the clergy, it is anything but sinful to marry. It’s the promise.

There’s a requirement that a behavior must be known to be sinful, for it to a sin. So that could be a situation where what’s a sin for one, may not be for another.

–kc

PS as an aside, there are some married priests. Even married w/ children.

You don’t get an argument from me on that, m’friend. You are absolutely right. It is RICKO who claims that a sin for one is a sin for all, when he starts giving Mormons grief for not drinking coffee.

I understand that Lutheran/Anglican ministers who decide that they would rather be Catholic priests can bring their wives along with them when they ‘convert.’ I understand that this also can cause some hard feelings to those Catholic priests who had to leave the priesthood in order to marry. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out.

 

[dianaiad]

There is a fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics when it comes to abstinence. Mormons abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea because they believe those things are bad (“not for the body or the belly”) They demonize these things and demonize those who use them.

I see your point. The problem is that the Word of Wisdom was given as advice, not as a commandment, and thus was not considered ‘sinful’ to ignore. Indulging in the things it warned against didn’t mess up your Temple going privileges, just the floor or your health. Therefore it’s not like we were making a virtue of giving up, oh, drinking hemlock tea.

Therefore, we also were giving up ‘pleasures’ that were not intrinsically sinful in and of themselves.

Catholics abstain from things because they are good, and giving them up (whether temporarily or permanently) is a way of demonstrating to ourselves and to God that our attachment to good things and pleasures (the flesh) is less important to us than our relationship with God (the spirit). We train ourselves through “mortifying the flesh” (to quote St. Paul) so that our spirits will be more finely attuned to God’s voice and His influence in our lives.

Catholics and Mormons, when they fast, both do it for this same reason.

When a priest takes a vow of celibacy, he does not do it because marriage is bad, but rather because marriage is a beautiful and sacred thing. He gives it up, at great personal sacrifice, in order to more fully serve the people and the kingdom of God.

Avoiding something bad is only what we are expected to do. Giving up something good is going the extra mile,

I agree with Diana, btw, that if you do something that you believe is a sin, it is a sin, whether or not the act is intrinsically evil. If you believe it is a sin, then by doing it you make a conscious act of rebellion against God, and that rebellion is itself the sin.

And there are things that are intrinsically evil (contrary to the natural law as expressed in the ten commandments).

I agree with this–and note that almost every human belief system has pretty much the same group of rules.

 

[why_me]

There is a fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics when it comes to abstinence. Mormons abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea because they believe those things are bad (“not for the body or the belly”) They demonize these things and demonize those who use them.

I don’t think so. But the use of your words does portray mormons to be demons since only demons can demonize others. Such loaded vocabulary belies your intentions as a former mormon. It is unfortunate that you use such hateful adjectives but…such is the way it is. I hope that catholicism has not done that to you: to write such words. Catholicism is about love and understanding. It is about bringing peace between people. The Sacrament of Reconciliation asks: Do I judge without mercy in deeds and in words? Am I intolerant…? Do I speak ill…? and more importantly: **Do I despise those of another creed…? ** (your words show this leaning as do the words of other catholic members on these threads)

I have seen catholics break the Sacrament of Reconciliation wíthout thought. And it is sad for me to see it on these threads.

I have never seen ‘mormon demons’ demonize people for using tobacco or alcohol. In terms of tobacco, mormons would rather see people stop the habit since it is harmful. And mormons who know of mormons who do not keep the word of wisdom may feel compassion for them because they should be living their religion.

 

[Religio71]

I don’t think so. But the use of your words does portray mormons to be demons since only demons can demonize others. Such loaded vocabulary belies your intentions as a former mormon. It is unfortunate that you use such hateful adjectives but…such is the way it is. I hope that catholicism has not done that to you: to write such words. Catholicism is about love and understanding. It is about bringing peace between people. The Sacrament of Reconciliation asks: Do I judge without mercy in deeds and in words? Am I intolerant…? Do I speak ill…? and more importantly: **Do I despise those of another creed…? ** (your words show this leaning as do the words of other catholic members on these threads)

I have seen catholics break the Sacrament of Reconciliation wíthout thought. And it is sad for me to see it on these threads.

I have never seen ‘mormon demons’ demonize people for using tobacco or alcohol. In terms of tobacco, mormons would rather see people stop the habit since it is harmful. And mormons who know of mormons who do not keep the word of wisdom may feel compassion for them because they should be living their religion.

WhyMe, you are just TOO funny, and should just leave the Catholic church already. I’m tired of all the wishy-washy types that don’t actually believe the DOGMAS (yes I said that horrible word) of the Church. Try reading some of the books by Pope Benedict XVI.

Speaking of Confession:

scborromeo.org/confess.htm

“Did I deny that I was Catholic?”
"Did I leave the Catholic Faith? "

I hope you’ve confessed your sins of being baptized into another religion, thus denying and leaving the Faith.

Yes, we all sin, including yourself (btw “breaking the sacrament of Reconciliation” doesn’t make any sense here). So before you start judging the sins of others, make sure you haven’t sinned yourself, especially when one exposes those sins in a public forum.

So why not defend the Faith you claim to follow instead of another one. The LDS on here do a good job of saying and defending what they believe. If you’re back in Catholicism, why not defend The Faith. You say many contradictory things that expose your bias against Catholicism, such as “Catholicism is about love and understanding”, but then immediately before that you say “It is unfortunate that you use such hateful adjectives, but…such is the way it is. I hope that Catholicism has not done that to you…”. How could it have, if it’s about “love and understanding”?

 

[why_me]

WhyMe, you are just TOO funny, and should just leave the Catholic church already. I’m tired of all the wishy-washy types that don’t actually believe the DOGMAS (yes I said that horrible word) of the Church. Try reading some of the books by Pope Benedict XVI.

I hope you’ve confessed your sins of being baptized into another religion, thus denying and leaving the Faith.

So why not defend the Faith you claim to follow instead of another one. The LDS on here do a good job of saying and defending what they believe. If you’re back in Catholicism, why not defend The Faith. You say many contradictory things that expose your bias against Catholicism, such as “Catholicism is about love and understanding”, but then immediately before that you say “It is unfortunate that you use such hateful adjectives, but…such is the way it is. I hope that Catholicism has not done that to you…”. How could it have, if it’s about “love and understanding”?

Have catholics on these threads that deal with mormonism broken the sacrament of reconciliation? Yes, they have. I see no reason to defend the catholic here since it is not being attacked by mormons. I see no mormon starting a thread attacking the lds church. I see no mormon starting a thread or mocking the catholic church. But I do see catholics under the unbrella of defending the catholic faith, use hateful language about the mormon church and mormons. And that is a sin.

And I will let you in a little secret. The LDS do not want to be here defending their faith. They are here because catholics are attacking the lds faith.

And what is sad about it all is that most catholics posting attacks against mormonism haven’t a clue what saint therese and mother theresa have said and done to gain converts to the catholic faith. But one thing I do know: they did not become saints or blessed by attacking someone’s faith or religion.

Now that aint’t funny.

 

[Religio71]

Have catholics on these threads that deal with mormonism broken the sacrament of reconciliation? Yes, they have. I see no reason to defend the catholic here since it is not being attacked by mormons. I see no mormon starting a thread attacking the lds church. I see no mormon starting a thread or mocking the catholic church. But I do see catholics under the unbrella of defending the catholic faith, use hateful language about the mormon church and mormons. And that is a sin.

And I will let you in a little secret. The LDS do not want to be here defending their faith. They are here because catholics are attacking the lds faith.

And what is sad about it all is that most catholics posting attacks against mormonism haven’t a clue what saint therese and mother theresa have said and done to gain converts to the catholic faith. But one thing I do know: they did not become saints or blessed by attacking someone’s faith or religion.

Now that aint’t funny.

Why me, you keep talking about the sins of others, when you keep forgetting this part of my post:

**Speaking of Confession:

scborromeo.org/confess.htm

“Did I deny that I was Catholic?”
"Did I leave the Catholic Faith? "

I hope you’ve confessed your sins of being baptized into another religion, thus denying and leaving the Faith.

Yes, we all sin, including yourself (btw “breaking the sacrament of Reconciliation” doesn’t make any sense here). So before you start judging the sins of others, make sure you haven’t sinned yourself, especially when one exposes those sins in a public forum.**

Can you explain what it means to “break” the sacrament of reconciliation? That doesn’t make sense.

Your secret is nothing new. People have to defend their religions everywhere, all the time. That’s how it works when there are multiple religions claiming to have “the truth”. I’ve started to post on MADB, because there are quite a few posts about Catholic beliefs that need defending, including some interesting ones by a certain ex-Catholic that you should go criticize, since I notice you post over there.

And if you don’t see some Mormons on this forum mocking the Church, you should open your eyes.

 

[Religio71]

For why me and any others that have fallen away:

catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml