Shelly200

I think the problem stems more fully from FunkyTown's argument. When non-LDS say the LDS worship a "different Jesus" they don't say this because they are going off of Dec. 25th birthday or ethnicity. They are noting the very real, very extreme differences in doctrine on who Jesus was and who He is in relation to God. It is very true that non-LDS do not view Christ as: a progressed man, created by the Father, a separate Being than the Father/H.S., our spirit brother, etc. To the LDS, this makes up the idea of who Christ is; to the non-LDS all of these traits are foreign and do *not* describe the Jesus that they worship. So, to them, the LDS worship a "different" Jesus in the sense that they believe the LDS have gotten a lot of things about Jesus wrong, so wrong that He is almost a different person. Now, there can be arguments and discussions about who Jesus really is. But from the context of a non-LDS member looking at the doctrines of the LDS church concerning Jesus... many non-LDS cannot reconcile those doctrines with the "true" Jesus. Most non-LDS realize that the LDS church follows the Christ mentioned in the Bible, the historical, provable Jesus; but they believe that the LDS church has gotten so many doctrines concerning Him confused that they no longer follow who Jesus *really* was. What I'm trying to say, though I don't know how well I'm going about it, is that when the non-LDS say that LDS worship a "different Jesus" they don't mean that the LDS don't follow the Jesus of the Bible, but that they have misconstrued do many aspects of His character so as to render Him almost a different person altogether. Like Madriglace stated: the LDS believe to follow the same Jesus with more information... but if a person does not believe in this extra information, and this information is so radically different than the information he does have, then he very well might think that the LDS information is so far off as to make a whole new "version" of Jesus so to speak. I'm not wanting to argue here over who Jesus is, but simply try to explain how a non-LDS person might come to a conclusion that would make them say that the LDS follow a different Jesus.

Most all forms of BC today have a component that is an abortifacient. If someone wants to use birth control that is in no way an abortifacient, then probably condoms would be the best and most easily accessible bet. ... But I'm Catholic, so can't use BC anyway. So as a non-BC user, I'd recommend NFP.

Being Catholic I love the Lord's Prayer (or the Our Father, as most Catholics call it)! And, ironically, I also love The Tudors and all things about Tudor history... go figure. I wouldn't think the prayer would be frowned upon since it is in Scripture, but I always assumed that any non-liturgical churches weren't too crazy about already-written prayers - when I was SBC we knew the Lord's Prayer by heart, but never recited it in church, because all of our prayers were spontaneous. I usually just used it as a fall back if I needed to pray but couldn't think of anything to say... now I say it all the time. I think it's just personal preference.

I haven't really questioned this before, so I don't know how true or not _anatess_'s explanation is. I do know: Mass is said in the home language now, after Vatican II. There are still Latin Masses- and they are very beautiful- but they are no longer the norm or requirement. I do know that the 'Jesus Prayer' as it is called is one of the oldest, simplest prayers in Christianity. The Orthodox say it frequently, and have prayer beads to help them in the repetition of this prayer in a way similar to a Rosary. The 'Kyrie eleison' is simply the 'Jesus prayer'... all it means is "Lord, have mercy." The Kyrie can be said or sung, depending on the church. And can be said/sung in the home language or the Greek, depending on the church. I've done it all ways.

Exactly. It is a new idea to me to NOT worship all three Persons of the Trinity. I have heard the LDS mention either a.) worshiping both Father and Son, but in a different way, or b.) worshiping only the Father through the Son. I believe it is different when Trinitarians say they worship the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, because of the Oneness of the Trinity: to worship the Father IS to worship the Son IS to worship the Spirit; you cannot worship One without worshiping All, because they are all One. And at the same time, while we (as Trinitarians, and Catholics specifically from my point of view) pray to the Father through the Son... we also pray TO the Son and TO the Spirit. One of the oldest prayers of Christianity is the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." In Mass we sing: "Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison" "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy." We pray to the Father and the Son. And to the Spirit. Yet, at least in Catholic understanding, praying is not worship in and of itself. Otherwise Catholics would be worshiping Mary and the Saints as well, which we do not. Prayer can be a part of worship, but only a part. And while I don't believe the LDS think that prayer=worship, I believe the LDS and non-LDS are using different definitions for "worship." It is a hard word to define anyway, in my opinion. A man sitting in Baptist church will view worship as his singing and praying and hearing a sermon, while a man sitting in Catholic Mass will view worship as something slightly different when he is in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, in the LDS definition of "worship," the LDS would consider themselves to worship Christ, just in a different way than they worship the Father. But to non-LDS, the LDS are not seen as worshiping the Son... probably *because of* the difference in worship; because to Trinitarians, all Persons of the Trinity should be equally worshiped.

While no one knows with 100% certainty what happens after death, I do not view it in this way. I believe more things will be revealed to us when we die, but I don't think it will make us gods. Because only God will have the *power.* Even if God bestows on us eternal life and knowledge, God alone will have all power. Revelation says we will spend our days worshiping God and singing His praises. Because He will still be God, and we will not. We can share, in a sense, in His divinity, but we cannot be Divine, we cannot be God. To me, it is important to remember that we can become *like* God, but we cannot become God or become a god. We can share in God's divinity, but we will have none of our own. Honestly, I'm not that worried about the particulars of Heaven as much. This concept is extremely important to the LDS, but most non-LDS simply think of it in terms of getting to Heaven, and then will just find out what it's like when we get there. I have recently been introduced to the idea of levels of Heaven within the Catholic Church. I do not know anything, literally, on the subject, though, because no one has mentioned it to me until a couple of weeks ago. It's something I will likely research more to learn the official RCC stance. But for now all I worry about is worshiping the Lord and pleasing Him; I trust that if I work to please Him, then He will be merciful and allow me into Heaven, and then I'll see what goes on from there. Any other non-LDS have comments? Don't leave me sitting here alone, guys!

Simply being different does not make God worthy of worship; it's *how* He's different. He is God. We are not. He is Divine, Love, Existence, Creator. We are not. I did not mean to imply that simply being different was enough; I apologize.

I thought Christ joining the Godhead went like this: Jesus was the first-born spirit child of God, along with the rest of us. So, He wasn't in the Godhead yet. He was chosen to save Mankind and show us the way to exaltation. So He received a physical body, just like the rest of us. Lived on Earth and follow God's commands, and then died and was exalted. However, since He was specially chosen, then He was exalted into the Father's Godhead.... I don't really know how the Holy Ghost fits into the equation. Is this completely wrong? I might be mashing up different things I've heard into one story. As to Christ marrying, I did not mean before He was born. I meant: if Christ was to show us how to be exalted, and one of the prerequisites to exaltation is eternal marriage, then wouldn't Christ have married, so that we would emulate His example?

This is my problem... I hear some people say one thing, and some people say something else. Perhaps it is a discrepancy with the word "worship." If dberrie is equating "worship" with the definition Justice gave, then dberrie would be correct in saying the LDS worship Jesus if this is the definition used. The problem, I think, is that I don't think many, if any, non-LDS view "worship" and anything having to do with emulating Christ. Do we emulate Christ? Yes, but I don't think we see that as worshiping Him. So I would think that, in LDS terms, the LDS worship Christ. But in non-LDS terms, the LDS only worship the Father. (What about the Holy Ghost? Worship? Emulate? Neither?) I think it boils down to different definitions to the same words again. But I think it has cleared up my question, so I thank you both for your responses.

This is honestly something I just thought of and am curious: 1.) if "God, Jesus, and we are all of the same substance" then what makes God worthy of worship? If He's just the same as every other person, why worship Him and not anyone else? I mean, if we're surrounded by people who are on their way to godhood through exaltation, why not worship each other, since we're going to be gods after death, just like the Father, anyway? That may sounds silly, but to Trinitarians, the idea that God is not the same species as Man is vital to our reasoning for worshiping Him: He is divine, He is our Creator, He has always and will always exist, He is of completely separate Being than us, and is therefore worthy of our worship, honor, and praise. To me, and I would think to many Trinitarians, it is a completely foreign concept to worship a God who is essentially the same exact kind of creature that I am, just... farther along in existence.... I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on this matter. 2.) I've heard an LDS member say that the LDS do not worship Jesus. And I've heard an LDS member say that the LDS do worship Jesus... so... do the LDS worship Jesus? And the Holy Ghost? Or just the Father? (I watched a clip on Youtube from the official LDS site by an LDS church leader answering the question of if the LDS are Christians. Even he said that the LDS believe in Him, pray in His name, etc. but he never said they worshiped him. So I'm still wondering about that.) 3.) If the way to eternal exaltation is through temple marriage, and the LDS believe that Christ was exalted, then how did Jesus become part of the Godhead if He never had an eternal marriage?

Being baptized into a new church is a big deal; don't take the matter lightly. If you don't feel ready to be baptized, then don't. The missionaries are already members and have already taken their faith journey, now you have to make yours. If that leads to baptism, great! If it doesn't, then that's okay too. Don't let anyone pressure you into doing something you don't feel committed to. Many people do not like the idea of being baptized after only a few weeks of lessons; some people like to investigate more thoroughly first. At the same time, though, do not let two young missionaries discourage you from the church completely. If you feel called to baptism, get baptized. If you feel called to baptism next week, next month, next year, when you're 80, then get baptized then. But if you feel called to baptism, then DO get baptized, even if the missionaries are off-putting. Simply send them on their way; you can learn from the church itself, in meetings and through appointments to talk with people about your questions. Don't let yourself feel like a number checked off a missionary's list; do what God is calling you to do in all things, whether that is baptism today, baptism next month, or baptism never. If you obey God's will, everything else will fall into place. Oh, and whatever illness your mother has, I pray for her swift and thorough recovery.

Feel free.

I think you have a few misconceptions about the Catholic Church. For one thing, most Catholics are not using the "it's a mystery" explanation as an excuse; it is a legitimate answer to questions that only God can answer. Still, we are humans and have curious minds, so we ask the questions. We will try to find the answers the best way we can, but we believe in the concept of a God who is outside our realm of reason, so we try and try to answer these questions, get as close as we humanly can, and then leave the rest to God to reveal to us after death. Every church and religion makes similar claims, just maybe with different wording; many LDS on this board have said "I don't know the answer to that, everything will be taken care of after death." It is a similar answer to "I don't know, it's a mystery." Secondly, your examples are exagerated at best. I have beent taught within the Catholic Church that we trust God and His infinite mercy in all things; we are *extremely* loathe to condemn anyone to Hell. Judas? Might be Heaven, we don't know. Hitler? Sure, maybe. 9/11 suicide bombers? Only God knows. We have our own dogmas that we teach, what God commands of us to do His will, but we do not claim to know the infinite and vast mind of God. We can *assume* some people are in Heaven (Saints) and some people are in Hell, but, unlike being able to find many lists on those propsed Saints in Heaven, you will not find a list of those condemned to Hell. The Church does not make a list because she does not know, and she puts her trust in God's mercy. Catholics are a little bit harsher on their own members -- mortal sins are indeed a ticket to Hell -- but, again, we don't live our lives in constant fear because we trust God's infinite love and mercy and our own contrition. God judges the heart. ... children digging holes in a sandy beach? I'm unfamiliar with that fable. But again, humans have a curious intellect, given to us by our Creator, and we naturally ask questions. It is only natural that we should also *attempt* to answer them in the ways we know how. That's why we provide and answer to a point... and then leave the rest to God and His understanding. I agree. You are right; we recite the Nicene Creed in Mass every day. The three legs of the Catholic Church are: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium (Church and her leaders). I'm curious then, would the LDS church not believe in the Father and Son had they not appeared to Joseph? Does it automatically take a revelation or appearance to come to a dogmatic conclusion? Have either the Father or the Son appeared to any of the recent LDS prophets/presidents?

Honestly, this is one reason why I canNOT be a Mormon today: the doctrines surrounding Creation. To each his own, I guess; I don't want to get into this subject, because this is not the point of this thread. But it is important to know that throughout the course of Christian history there have been many heresies and breakings away; so the fact that some Evangelicals and/or Bible scholars are turning away from the Trinity to something else is neither surprising nor holds much weight with Trinitarians. To Trinitarians -- especially to Catholics -- Trinitarianism is Truth and cannot be changed, so anyone leaning away from it toward another concept is leaning away from Truth toward untruth. Once again, it comes down to the idea of Authority. I will not speak for Protestants, since I left Protestantism because I felt it did NOT have Authority, but for Catholics the Truth is protected and nourished within the Authority of the Church and it (the Church) cannot teach untrue dogma. Since the concept of the Trinity was defined and nourished within the context of the Church, it is True, for the Church cannot teach dogmatic untruth, through the power and protection of the Holy Spirit. The LDS church denies this Authority and believes in its own and in its own prophet; whatever the prophet received in revelation is Truth, because God gave it to him. Truths are seen within the context of the LDS church, because it is considered the true church. The RCC makes the same claim.

The problem is that there isn't an Earthly example that can perfectly illustrate the Trinity, because the Trinity is a supernatural concept; all natural examples fall short. It is similar to trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist who only uses science; science cannot prove or disprove God, because science deals with the natural, material world, and God exists outside of the bounds of the natural, material world. So our material examples of the Trinity can help us get closer to Him, but will never explain His existence perfectly or completely. Which is frustrating, yes, but once again, God does not (and should not) fit into our intellect.

You'll be hard pressed to find a Baptist willing to go to a non-Baptist church, even once... unless he wants to go liberal and join the Methodists. :) And, just like with any group, you have so-so leaders/priest, pretty bad leaders/priests, and really awesome leaders/priests. I've been lucky to know personally 1 awesome, amazing, coolest-priest-ever, and a few really good priests, and no bad priests. When I go home to visit my parents: they have the BYU channel... I've seen a couple of "sacrament meetings" (which I put in quotes, because they don't show the whole thing, they just skip to the talks), but they all look like they're from the 80s or something. :/

I understand that point of view; I am a convert to Catholicism from the Southern Baptist church. This is also something that is considered by Catholics to set them apart from non-Catholics: the idea of worship. And the difference between worship and veneration. We save all worship for the One True God. We venerate and honor the saints in Heaven. We know the difference, we feel it. We do not pray to the saints in the same way we pray to God. Here: this tract explains the idea of Saint veneration better than I could. Reading it will help you understand the concept from the Catholic point of view. Saint Worship?

This is strictly in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church. Most -- not all, but most -- Protestant churches don't touch Mary with a ten foot pole, and usually only ever talk about her on Christmas... if they even mention her then. Some Protestants are... not necessarily hostile toward Mary, but hostile towards the *false* idea that Catholics worship her. I honestly do not know much on this subject. I know that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially declared in 1854, and the doctrine of the Assumption officially declared in 1950. However, an official declaration does not mean that the doctrines were suddenly made up one day; both doctrines were commonly held since Antiquity. Both feast days concerning these doctrines are Holy Days of Obligation. Her title as mother of the living also refers to her title as the New Eve. The Catechism quotes: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary." Other than that, I do not know much about how some of these doctrines came to be. I know the doctrine of the Assumption is only believed by Catholic and Orthodox (who call it the Dormition, or falling asleep, of Mary), but that these beliefs go back very early in Church history. There are also many claims of people throughout the world and throughout the years that Mary has made visits to them. As these are all private revelation, they are not required to be believed by the faithful, but the Church investigates the claims and says whether or not they think the claims have any right to legitimacy. I'm not sure. There are many articles, blog posts, and books on the Virgin. I know it was a hurdle for me when I came into the Faith. But I also know that now I pray everyday; to the Lord, to the Virgin for her prayers, to St. Thomas More (my patron saint) for his prayers, and recently to St. Nicholas for his prayers, and to other saints at other occasions, and I pray the Rosary every now and then (not nearly as often as I should), and pray Hail Marys and Our Fathers while doing chores. Mary is always linked to her Son; she is nothing without Him, and she points the way to Him. But as always, you will find that different people give different levels of devotion; some Catholics only ever pray to Mary if she comes up in Mass, some pray to her everyday and say a Rosary everyday and do every devotion possible. But she should always lead us back to Christ.

There is a huge distinction between asking for prayers from a person who is Heaven, and praying to a mother goddess, who is our literal mother, who helped God the Father create us, who is a woman who used to be a human like me but is now exalted, who is of a different species than me, who is divine. Mary is none of these things; the LDS heavenly mother is all of these things. She would have to be to make the concept work. Once again I think it is a wording/definition issue. Mary is our figurative mother, if you'd like. She is the mother of our Savior, we are members of the body of Christ, therefore she is like our mother as well. If you want to call her your "mother in Heaven" you may, and I don't believe any Catholic would fight you on it... *unless* you were to give her more than her due. She is not due worship, because she is not divine. She is a human, just like you and me. She has not progressed into godhood in our minds, therefore is very distinctly *not* the same, or comparable to, the LDS concept of the heavenly mother who is exalted, helped create us, etc. The LDS church does not teach that the heavenly mother is our mother metaphorically; therefore the two concepts are ultimately completely different. Forgive me, I might have misrepresented myself. We pray to Jesus and in the name of Jesus. He is the great Mediator. I was making reference to the intercessory prayer we ask for from our brothers and sisters in Christ. We ask our friends to pray for us when we have a surgery; we also ask the saints in Heaven to pray for us too. Because they are already in Heaven in the presence of God. God hears all prayers, but I would think He hears them especially so from those who are in His very presence and who are not tainted with sin and death. The saints can offer more perfect prayers because they have been purified and are no longer entangled in the snare of sin and Earthly imperfections. They also have a more perfect love for us for the same reason. Therefore, just as we ask our friends on Earth to pray for us, we should ask our friends in Heaven to pray for us too.

If that's so, I apologize. When I refreshed the page her comment came up before Vort's for some reason. But actually, it is the official Catholic take that Mary is "the mother of us all" and no Catholic would be confused if someone said that. (In fact, it is quite common. Mary has many titles. We say she is mother of a lot of things.) We just do not mean she is *literally* our mother.

Ah yes, Mary. Catholics *do* say that Mary is the mother of us all. But not in the way that the LDS church has to conclude that in order for God the Father to create all of His spirit children, He would need a fellow progressed god to help him do it. Mary is not our literal, biological mother. She is our mother in the sense that Christ named her mother over all of us from the cross (the RCC interprets -- yes, interprets -- Christ's giving of Mary to John, who we believe is not Mary's real son, as Him giving Mary to all His people), and that she is the mother of the Lord. We pray to all of the saints in heaven, because we believe they can hear us, want to help us, and are in the very presence of God. Who better to ask for intercession than someone in the very presence of the One who can do all things? We believe that Mary is special and is especially beloved by God. He, in the Person of Christ, honored His mother and so we honor His mother. She cannot grant prayers, only God does that, but we can ask her to pray to Him for us. Just as we ask our fellow brother and sister Christians on Earth to pray to Him for us. But Mary is not a goddess, is of the same species as all humans, is not equal to God, cannot grant prayers of her own power, does not share in creation, did not exist before she was born on Earth, and is not our literal mother. So I think the ideas are very different.

To what are you referring? The Trinity? Once again I say: let's face it, it's *all* about interpretation. The Catholic Church interprets and claims to be right. Each Protestant church interprets and claims to be right. The LDS church interprets and claims to be right. Since God didn't come down to Earth and say: "Okay, guys, it's like this: I'm up in Heaven with the Son and the Holy Spirit, we're made up like this and this and this..." Then all we have to go on is what we do have and the way it is interpreted.

That phrase wasn't in reference to the LDS idea of a heavenly mother; it was more to say that if, by chance, an LDS person had heard of, or could come up with an example of, a Protestant or Catholic making references to a mother goddess, that such claims are extremely rare and not taken seriously within orthodox Christianity. The whole point, from the beginning, was to separate the idea of a mother in Heaven; this is a strictly LDS doctrine, and not a Protestant or Catholic one. I didn't want anyone getting confused and thinking this is doctrine taught in any orthodox Protestant or Catholic circles. I honestly don't know much on the topic from an LDS viewpoint anyway. I've heard many different ideas from different people. The best I can come up with is that it isn't spoken of, but it is understood, that there is a Heavenly companion for God the Father... He didn't make all these spirit children on His own. Other than that I get different explanations as to how that matters/relates to ourselves.

Exactly. No Earthly example will ever be sufficient, but I think this comes closer than any other I've seen. As for your understanding: I'm not gonna say "Don't give up!" Though I want to. I feel as if I can't say it because I don't expect you, or me, or Pope Benedict XVI to fully and completely understand the concept while still living. It is a mystery that we can partially understand while on Earth, but won't fully grasp until the afterlife. Scholars spend their entire lives delving into the intricacies of Christian dogma, and the beauty of it is that there is always something more to learn. It's good that you are trying to understand the concept in the first place; you've gone farther than many people would. Check out a book, Youtube video, or blog post from Protestant and Catholic sources; they're out there and they're numerous. (I highly, highly *highly* recommend videos by Fr. Robert Barron. He has a ministry called Word on Fire, and they have a bunch of Youtube videos in which he discusses everything under the sun, especially movies, books, and Bob Dylan [he really likes Dylan] and shares them in light of the Catholic faith.) Heck, if you're feeling really crazy, you can attend a Mass once. Just to see what it's like and gain some perspective on the Catholic view of things. I have an LDS friend myself who I'm thinking of asking if I can go to church with her one Sunday (as long as I've gone to Mass Saturday night - a precept of the Church), so I can see a service for myself and maybe sit it on one of the Sunday School classes that visitors can go to. No better way to learn about someone than from the source. Keep up the journey!

I thought that's what you were meaning, but I just don't want the LDS reading it to get confused, since your post was on non-LDS doctrine; I didn't want anyone to think this was a legitimate speculation by any Catholics or Protestants. As far as I know, I've never heard any non-LDS make this speculation within the Christian community.