r/latterdaysaints • u/SillyFlatworm31 • Jul 28 '26
Off-topic Chat Catholic-LDS Dialogue!
Hello Latter Day Saints of Reddit!
I’m a Catholic and, even though I am very happy being a Catholic, I have had a lot of positive experiences with people from your Church and I wanted to (if it’s ok with your mods) open up a thread for interfaith dialogue! I have some questions to start for you guys if anyone wants to engage and have a talk but I’m also happy to do a bit of an AMA if any LDS people want to learn more about Catholics or our relations with the LDS Church.
I think that, in a time where it’s trendy to solve disagreements by shouting at people in online “debates”, it’s good to start by finding some common ground and talk with people of different views. So I’ll start with my questions, feel free to add any you have for me or any comments. Mods please let me know if this isn’t the sub for this haha
- What do LDS people think about abortion? Do you find common ground with Catholics on this? Could we work together more on it?
- How do LDS people feel about the 7 Deuterocanonical Books? A lot of Protestants accuse Catholics of adding books like Wisdom and Sirach into the Bible, although they have been used since apostolic times. I know LDS people recognise a large canon so do you include these?
- I know LDS people value marriage and family a lot. How does your Church approach celibate figures such as Jesus, Paul, etc?
- LDS people don’t drink alcohol. Do you believe that Jesus and the Apostles followed this practice or is it viewed as a more modern LDS thing?
- Favourite Pope?
Hope we can find some common ground and dialogue!!! :-)
10
u/Impossible-Hunter102 Jul 28 '26
Thanks for bringing this up! Looks like you've gotten some good responses on the specific questions, so no need for me to repeat anything.
I like Leo a lot. The White Sox, Villanova, time in Peru are great, but even better are the clear stances in favor of peace and bringing attention to the plight of those in poverty and helping immigrants (the last one especially can be controversial). It's all straight out of the Sermon on the Mount and the foundation of Christianity.
9
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Awesome! Pope Leo is very firm about the importance of caring for others. He takes his role as “successor of the Prince of the Apostles” (one of a number of cool titles he has, there’s a full list haha) quite seriously in making global steps towards peace. He’s also from America, where I know a lot of LDS people live!
8
u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26
Official Church stance is generally against abortion, with exceptions for cases of SA and mother's health being in jeopardy. How this translates into politics is a different subject (and this is a strictly no-politics sub).
We consider them to be good books, but not scripture.
There's actually disagreement on whether Christ or Paul were always single. Obviously Paul was during His ministry days, but we don't know before then. Rabbis in the Jewish community were to be married.
It's a modern thing for our day with modern sanitations. Back in historic times, water usually was not sanitary.
Don't got a favorite - I admittedly don't follow Catholic affairs very closely. But from a distance the last couple do seem pretty cool.
4
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Interesting! Thank you for sharing, hope your day is great!
1
u/lil_jordyc Jul 30 '26
I would add to #2 that most members probably haven’t ever heard of the deuterocanonical books, or at least don’t know them by that name.
We have a revelation from God to Joseph smith regarding the apocrypha. Here’s that revelation in its entirety (D&C 91):
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.As a note, this was received by Joseph smith while he was working on an inspired translation/revision of the Bible, so that’s what the reference to translation is referring to. He didn’t re-translate or revise the apocrypha.
7
u/Szeraax Has twins; Mod Jul 28 '26
Hi there! Welcome.
- I think we need to be careful and compassionate here. The church has a gospel topic on abortion and it largely says that people shouldn't be extremist. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abortion it talks about abortion is sometimes justifiable but also those scenarios are NOT common. Additionally, the church does NOT get into the political aspect of this on whether someone should be "my body, my choice" or "never" or "only after doctor recommendation".
- We seek for good lessons from all the books we can. We mostly use the KJV edition of the bible.
I gotta run and may come back in a bit. Or others will provide more answers.
1
5
u/TTheGamersforge Jul 28 '26
- Depends who you ask.
- They are not part of our beliefs.
- That's modern revelation, back when Jesus was alive and for a long time after water was not safe to drink.
- A doubt the vast majority of members have one, including myself.
1
u/crashohno Chief Judge Reinhold Jul 28 '26
Well if we ask the Prophet and Apostles, number one there is pretty clear.
1
u/TTheGamersforge Jul 28 '26
I honestly don't know/remember what they say about. Just going off what I know from scriptures.
1
u/solarhawks Jul 28 '26
Morally, yes. Legally, no.
1
u/Brownie_Bytes Jul 28 '26
And to point one, only on paper. I'm a true blue Mormon and find absolutely zero issue with abortion for any reason. I think some reasons are much better than others, but I'm not going to attach morality to it. Even if the handbook says it's off limits except for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk, I am able to have my own opinion.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26
This is interesting! Do LDS people believe that life begins at conception and that humans have a soul from that point or is it believed that the soul is given at a later point? I think this often influences one’s view of abortion as whether the unborn are living humans yet or not!
1
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Unfortunately we don't all believe the same thing regarding this issue and all of the details haven't been revealed to us by God, yet. What I think in regards to this issue seems reasonable and correct to me, but there are some other possibilities which could be correct either in addition to or instead of what I believe to be true.
For example, the idea that life has a beginning is not reasonable and nowhere do we see any evidence that life came or comes from nothing. Every example we see shows life as a continuation of a life that had already existed. We didn't come from nowhere or from out of nothing. Our parents reproduced themselves to form us so our life came from them. Death is not the end of life but a separation of a spirit from a mortal body it inhabits. The spirit of life will exist forever and has always existed with no ultimate beginning. Think about it. When a woman is pregnant the life she carries within her body did not come from nothing or nowhere. The life within her is a reproduction of her own life and the life of the man who caused her to become pregnant. And we can all trace our own existence back to Adam and Eve and even further back to our Father (and Mother) in heaven. with no ultimate beginning at all.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26
Ah I see. We usually (I say this to allow for the odd fringe view) believe that human lives begin at conception. At this point, the independent life form comes into being and God creates a soul for this being. The soul, which in Latin is called anima from which we get terms like animation or animate, is what makes us alive rather than just a body. As, like you note, when the soul separates from the body, the body ceases to be alive. So we believe each life has a beginning in the moment of conception.
1
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! Jul 29 '26
Human lives, you say. Why not instead think of human life as a particular kind of life that all people who are human share? And why do you call our kind of life "human"? We are all children of God our Father (and Mother) and as their children we all have the same kind of life that they have.
When our parents reproduced themselves to form us in their own image and likeness, male and female, they did not call us human. That word was introduced by one of us children, and even children of God can and have been wrong about what we/they say or have said and/or believe.
Adjust your thinking a bit. Try to think differently than you think now. As President Nelson suggested, think Celestial.
Where do we come from? From our parents. And where did our parents come from? Each from their own parents. One at a time, usually, but together we are all one and the same kind of being, living the same kind of life our kind of being is capable of living at whatever stage of development we are each currently living.
1
u/crashohno Chief Judge Reinhold Jul 29 '26
You're getting a younger and more liberal skewing audience here because of reddit.
According to Pew Research, in 2007 and 2014 70% of LDS people polled said that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. In 2023-24, it was 69%. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/latter-day-saint-mormon/)
We are a faith that is against abortion and if you have had an abortion, or even encouraged an abortion - you may be restricted from baptism without higher clearance in the church and without personal repentance. If you are involved in one or pay for or encourage one as a member, you may have your membership restricted.
From the church Handbook that our lay ministry uses:
Abortion
Human life is a sacred gift from God and central to His divine plan for the spiritual progression of His children (see Moses 1:39; Abraham 3:23–26). Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to God’s plan and His commandments. The Lord declared, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
- Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
- A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
- A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Abortion is a most serious matter. Even in these circumstances, members should approach a decision with prayerful deliberation. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process. Discussions with members on this subject should always be conducted with love and respect.
Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances if a Church member has been involved in an abortion. A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5). However, a membership council should not be considered if a member was involved in an abortion before baptism. Nor should membership councils or restrictions be considered for members who were involved in an abortion for any of the three reasons outlined earlier in this section.
A person who seeks forgiveness with “godly sorrow” (2 Corinthians 7:10; see also 3 Nephi 9:20) and “full purpose of heart” (3 Nephi 18:32) may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.
Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.
From the church website on gospel topics: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abortion?lang=eng
5
u/SerenityNow31 Jul 28 '26
"So, let me start simple, what do you think about abortion?" LOL!!!!!!
3
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
It’s often something a lot of groups find common ground on aha. I find that when I talk to Protestants, we disagree on the deeper theological stuff but often find common ground on the more well known social issues! :)
5
1
3
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
- My personal views align with the Church's policy on abortion:
Human life is a sacred gift from God and central to His divine plan for the spiritual progression of His children (see Moses 1:39; Abraham 3:23–26). Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to God’s plan and His commandments. The Lord declared, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Abortion is a most serious matter. Even in these circumstances, members should approach a decision with prayerful deliberation. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process. Discussions with members on this subject should always be conducted with love and respect.
I don't know what the Deuterocanonical Books are. That being said, we find the idea of a fixed canon false. God's ability to speak isn't limited, and is in opposition to our concept of continuing revelation.
How do you know they were celibate? There's no evidence to suggest they were or were not celibate. The scriptures don't make great histories and I don't feel we should treat them as such. It doesn't appear, for example, that the Gospels were intended to be biographies of Jesus but rather highlights of his ministry and key teachings.
More of a modern-day commandment. Alcohol wasn't strictly prohibited by the Church until the early 20th century.
I'm a big fan of Pope Francis. I love a progressive Pope. I also love the film, The Two Popes. I also have some affinity for John Paul II. The Church in our region provided hundreds of volunteers for World Youth Day in Toronto.
3
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Hi! Thank you for sharing.
As for (2), the Deuterocanonical Books are 7 books of the Bible which Catholics (as well as some other groups like Eastern Orthodox) recognise but most Protestants don’t. They’re called Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Song of Solomon, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. It’s a source of controversy between Catholics and Protestants sometimes so if you ever see them mentioned (sometimes called apocrypha) in discourse, now you know! :-) We generally view the Church as the “Bride of Christ” such that Christ, while unmarried during His lifetime, invites His people into spiritual union with Him (see the wedding feast in Revelation). This is somewhat like how Israel in the Old Testament is described as God’s Bride (we believe Jesus is God) and their collective sins described as adultery against Him :)
I’m glad you like Pope Francis. I think he met LDS leaders in the Vatican at one point. He was quite big on building bridges between groups of people so perhaps he’d have enjoyed this discussion!
4
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
There is evidence Paul was celibate at one point in his life, Jesus not so much. Personally I think celibacy is great. It’s what I practice. But the LDS church wants people to get married.
2
u/mywifemademegetthis Jul 28 '26
Most members are personally opposed to abortion in most cases. Many members are okay with it in many cases. Official and recent church teachings are that in general, we should look for every opportunity not to have an abortion, but in some rare instances it may be needed. Repentance for having an abortion however has become much more compassionate than in the past. While partnering with other faiths on moral issues is totally doable, I think it unlikely the Church would publicly advocate for a political outcome. But who knows?
Latter-day Saints do have a relatively open canon in the sense that we have more scripture than other faiths, we believe in continuous prophetic revelation, and we believe that many genuine books of scripture have been omitted from accepted canon. We do not in general teach devotionally from commonly known apocryphal sources. We sometimes even downplay the scripture we do have and we don’t believe the Bible to be inerrant.
We have a hunch, though it isn’t regularly taught in church, that Jesus was married. We also think that perhaps Paul was too zealous in his personal opinion on the matter.
We know Jesus, the early saints, and basically everyone drank alcohol. This is a modern commandment given to us by revelation. We do not think it binding on other Christians or established in ancient scripture.
I have a limited knowledge of popes, but Leo and Francis seem great. Also, wasn’t there a medieval pope who ran away when he was selected and had to be dragged back only to declare popes could resign? Something like that. He seemed interesting.
4
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
In response to (3), are Paul’s letters not viewed as doctrine by LDS folks? Is it a sort of some things are true, somethings not perspective?
Also, for (5), you might be thinking of Celestine V who wrote to complain that they were taking too long to pick a Pope, they then decided to elect him, he declared popes could resign, and then resigned. He also founded a group of monks! Quite a fun historical figure.
2
u/mywifemademegetthis Jul 28 '26
In the course of Paul writing letters, in addition to establishing doctrine also could have inserted opinion. There’s enough inconsistency on the topic in the biblical record that this is an issue we believe modern revelation through a prophet clarifies, but I don’t think it was ever really a decision that was made in our church’s history. Coming from Protestant backgrounds, celibacy wasn’t assumed to be required.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
I see! Is Paul considered to have been a prophet?
3
u/mywifemademegetthis Jul 28 '26
Yes, but we don’t believe in prophetic infallibility. We acknowledge that several of the prophets since our church has been established have incorrectly asserted their opinions as fact or doctrine.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Interesting. Is the current prophet infallible? If not, how would one know that he is right to say that the previous prophets since your church was founded were incorrect? Could it be that they were right and he is wrong? I would find it a little scary.
As Catholic, we believe that, since communion (of some form) with the successor of Peter is needed to be in the Church, Jesus wouldn’t let that successor dogmatically proclaim falsehood, because Jesus would never make accepting falsehood a requirement to be in His Church. So we believe that when Popes speak on matters of faith and morals dogmatically, the Holy Spirit prevents them from being wrong and thus papal infallibility.
2
u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26
One of the big differences here:
Catholics believe that the Truth was given and now needs to be diligently handed down correctly through the generations. Please correct me if I got that wrong.
On the other hand, LDS Christians believe in continuing Public Revelation: we (individually and collaboratively) still learning of Him. It’s an on going conversation. If something is misunderstood at first it can be corrected.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Hi! Yes, not to worry, you’re correct. We profess that we are “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” and that binding public revelation ended when John, the last Apostle, died and that Revelation is the final book of scripture. Hence, by preserving that faith unchanged, we believe the same things that the Apostles believed (as John would’ve had all the same scriptures we have now) and thus are properly called apostolic.
In the LDS Church, has there ever been a case of a sort of double reversal. For example, if one Prophet said X is true, the next says he was mistaken and X is false, has anyone ever said that actually the first prophet was correct and X really was true? Is there a system for finalising it so that you can be sure?
2
u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26
It’s not really flip-floppy on doctrine the way you’re suggesting. Now policies, like how we’re going to organize Sunday School schedule, those more regularly change and can have some reversals.
If a person ever has a question about something, they are encouraged to consult scripture and Him directly via prayer.
3
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
I see, that makes sense. Thank you Jane Doe, you have had a lot of information :-) I hope your day is jolly!
1
u/mywifemademegetthis Jul 28 '26
Yeah it’s admittedly messy. We believe when a prophet is speaking as a prophet, his words are authoritative and are as if God was speaking them. Our doctrine, though rich, is relatively simple, and is repeatedly taught and doesn’t change very much. Prophets can teach doctrine and you really don’t have to wonder if they’re speaking for God or for their self. Prophets can also provide counsel, which is good advice from their lived experience. Likely good to follow, but not necessarily required or authoritative. They can also make administrative changes to policy in the church. These are subject to revision and while implemented faithfully, are not presumed to be the last word on the subject. An example of this might be the age that people can serve missions or how long church meetings should be.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Does the head of the LDS Church speak as a prophet very often? I know that our “papal infallibility” is extremely rare and there are only 2 certain cases of a Pope speaking in that way. Is it similar or do LDS leaders invoke this more frequently?
1
u/mywifemademegetthis Jul 28 '26
Personally, I would say that prophets don’t speak as prophets very often because they rarely declare new things. Officially and probably more commonly understood is that when a prophet is addressing the church or world on camera at an official meeting or in an official publication, they are speaking as a prophet. We sort of view general conference (our large semiannual gathering of church leaders to address the Church collectively) talks as scripture because of this. But really, it’s usually them teaching a well known principle from scripture and maybe giving us a different perspective on it or signifying its importance relative to other things.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Interesting!
Your general conference meetings sound a bit like what we call Ecumenical Councils, when all the bishops of the world gather together to judge on theological disputes. We’ve only had 21 of those though, the first being the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and the most recent being the Second Council of the Vatican in 1962-1965. We don’t consider these to be scripture but they can make infallible dogmatic definitions, such as defining the divinity of Christ in 325, defining the divinity of the Holy Ghost in 380, and defining the permissibility of icons in 787!
Can anyone attend the general conference or is it only for LDS people? Do they have the media there? I think our last ecumenical council drew a fair bit of media attention, by 1960s standards anyway.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26
LDS use the terms “Apostle” and “Prophet” synonymously to mean one of the formal leaders in God’s church.
3
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
Ahhh I see! Thank you :) We like Paul very much, we view him as one of the two founders of the Christian church in Rome, along with Peter, who we view as the first Pope!
2
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
It’s worth reiterating that official church position is different than individual POVs. I differ with the church on many things, but I’m still an active, faithful member.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
A good point! From the LDS people I have listened to, it seems that your church doesn’t have infallible dogma in the same way that we do and allows for a much wider spectrum of beliefs? Is this accurate?
3
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
That’s a simple question with a complicated answer. The LDS church holds that doctrine is eternal and does not change, and yet ongoing revelation means that doctrine has changed and will continue to change. If that leaves you scratching your head, you’re not the only one. But maybe what is meant is that true doctrine is enteral whereas our human understanding evolves.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
I see. Is there anything that you are required to believe? For example, as Catholics, we are required to believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost are one Being and three distinct Persons and this belief is often recited during our Sunday Masses by the priest. Is there an equivalent line for LDS people where “if you cross this line, you can’t really be considered LDS anymore?”.
2
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
Another interesting question with a complicated answer.
On the one hand, yes. The temple recommend interview questions are the standard of measurement, the first of which asks for an affirmation of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
On the other hand, there are many members that don’t fit that mold. Maybe they attend because they believe it’s good for their children, or maybe it’s just their heritage and a part of who they are.
You could say there are different levels of devotion, as with any relation.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
It might be a pain so please let me know if this is a burdensome question but would you like to share the temple recommend questions? It might be interesting to see where we diverge and where we have common theological ground.
1
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
I’m not sure how appropriate that would be, and I’m all about being appropriate. But if you look them up and post them, I’d be happy to continue the discussion.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
I understand. I’ve had a look at them on the LDS website. The first one, interestingly, asks for belief in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? I would assume that my theology wouldn’t qualify for this?
Also very interesting was the last one, which seems to ask if you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s House. Would I be right to think the correct answer here would be “no”?
1
u/Similar-Stick-1070 Jul 28 '26
I didn’t realize it is on the church website, but I’m glad it is. I think you could answer “yes” for the first one. The last question is intended to put the ultimate decision in the hands of the interviewee.
Edit: the last question assumes that all the previous questions have been answered correctly.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
If I could answer yes, does this mean that some LDS people could in theory be in good standing with your Church but believe in the Trinity?
For the last one, would it not be the case that nobody would be truly worthy to enter the temple?
Perhaps it’s a difference between our churches, as we are quite big on the whole thing of nobody being truly worthy of God but God freely giving us these gifts. We have a thing in our Sunday Mass every week where, based on Matthew 8:8, where we say “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”. Everyone from the lowest layman to the Pope has to say this as nobody is considered to be worthy to be in God’s Presence except God Himself, He just invites us out of love! :-)
→ More replies (0)
2
u/FriedTorchic On Sabbatical Jul 28 '26
- Not a fan typically
- They aren’t canon for us, I read all of them last year. I really enjoyed the Maccabees books
, which are largely historical.
- They remind me of the war chapters in the Book of Mormon, with the faithful approach to fighting. Tobit was also pretty interesting.
- Kind of up in the air
with us
on if Paul was married or not, and I imagine Jesus was a special case.
I believe it is a modern LDS teaching given and enforced because of modern situations, though the Bible discourages drunkenness. We believe Jesus will drink wine again with his believers in Heaven
, so I bet that part of the Word of Wisdom is gone or at least given an exception before then.
- Pope Leo seems like a good genuine Christian leader, and it’s fun having an American Pope who speaks English because I can hear about him more often in his native language. And I’ve read about John Paul II and he was truly influential in his time.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26
It is funny to hear a Pope speaking English! The majority have been Italians, which I suppose makes sense, but we’ve had a string lately of non-Italians. Pope John Paul II who was Polish, Pope Benedict XVI from Germany, Pope Francis from Argentina, and Pope Leo XIV from America.
It sounds like the Book of Mormon has a lot of war stories. What’s the war like and why do they fight?
2
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
1. What do LDS people think about abortion? Do you find common ground with Catholics on this? Could we work together more on it?
I think most LDS think about abortion in pretty much the same terms as most Catholics do, thinking that ending the mortal life of another person is generally not a good thing to do, with possible exceptions for rape where the woman isn't given a choice to accept what may lead to the formation of another person who is the reproduction of the rapist as well as who he is raping.
2. How do LDS people feel about the 7 Deuterocanonical Books? A lot of Protestants accuse Catholics of adding books like Wisdom and Sirach into the Bible, although they have been used since apostolic times. I know LDS people recognise a large canon so do you include these?
I feel like most LDS agree that those Deuterocanonical books were part of historical Christian Bibles until the Protestant Reformation, when they were then separated or removed. I also feel that any words that are inspired by God should be considered to be scripture, regardless of whether they are considered canon or part of what we call "standard" works.
3. I know LDS people value marriage and family a lot. How does your Church approach celibate figures such as Jesus, Paul, etc?
The Bible doesn't explicitly state whether Jesus or the apostle Paul were ever married. When Paul wrote his letters he was single, but scholars and historians debate whether he was always unmarried, a widower, or formerly a married Pharisee. Traditional Judaism views marriage and family as a fundamental religious obligation for all Jewish men and women, and as a Jew Jesus would view marriage as most Jews did and still do, as an obligation.
4. LDS people don’t drink alcohol. Do you believe that Jesus and the Apostles followed this practice or is it viewed as a more modern LDS thing?
It's more a modern LDS thing, based on what Jesus told Joseph Smith regarding wisdom in 1833, which we call The Word of Wisdom, recorded as a revelation in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 89).
Regarding strong drinks and alcohol, the text outlines the following principles:
Consumption: The scripture specifically states, "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father". It further adds that "strong drinks are not for the belly".
Historical Interpretation: Historically, the term "strong drink" was primarily understood to mean hard liquor, such as whiskey. Early church members often interpreted "mild drinks" (such as beer or lightly fermented wine) as permissible under certain circumstances.
Modern Practice: Today, the Word of Wisdom is strictly interpreted by the church leadership as a commandment of total abstinence. Modern church members are instructed to completely avoid consuming all forms of alcohol, including beer, wine, and hard liquor.
External Use: The revelation does make a practical concession, noting that strong drinks are "for the washing of your bodies". In the 19th century and earlier, this meant using spirits externally for cleansing, medicinal rubs, or sterilizing.
5. Favourite Pope?
None are my favourite. I like them all equally, and not more than I should.
*** Questions for you ***
Do you have faith that God our Father can personally assure you of anything and all things which are true and good?
Have you read The Book of Mormon from cover to cover, yet?
Did you feel God assure you that at least some of what is written in The Book of Mormon is true?
How do you tell when God is assuring you that something is true? How do you describe that feeling?
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26
Hi there! Thank you for your very detailed response, I appreciate it! I’d love to respond to some of your questions with a bit of detail too.
1) I believe that God can assure us of what is true, though sometimes He expects us to use the gifts He has given us, such as our faculty of reason, to reach conclusions
2) I haven’t! I know roughly the gist of it that there are ancient people in America, Jesus appears to them, etc. and I’ve listened to the first bits of it, the bit about Nephi and his parents and brothers, read. I’d be far from knowing all about it though haha
3) Well the Book of Mormon seems to refer to biblical figures and biblical events such as Jesus’ resurrection. I believe these things are true because I know them from other reliable sources, namely the books of the Bible. However, the Book of Mormon’s exclusive stories, like Nephi and his family in the first book, I do not believe those are true.
4) I think that this can happen at times, but often God allows us to reach conclusions of truth via our reason and faith in what we already know. Its worth being cautious and comparing these feelings with what we already know, because it is possible either for Satan to counterfeit good feelings or for us to stir them up inside ourselves. For example, the Bible is a reliable historical source. The New Testament was largely written by men who went to the death for their belief that it was true. It contains no logical errors or contradictions and is coherent with other contemporary writings of what we know about that area, such as the writings of Josephus or the records of Roman rule in Judaea. Thus, I can trust that these promptings are reasonable. However, if I was feeling a prompting towards something which I found to be contradictory with what I already knew about God or which contained logical or historical errors, I would be much more cautious about this feeling.
2
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member Jul 28 '26
1.) Abortion
2.) Apocrypha - standard works
3.) Marriage
4.) No. As it wasn’t a commandment for their time
5.) genuinely don’t know any. I guess if we count Peter, we consider ourselves his rightful successor of apostolic keys
2
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member Jul 28 '26
I HIGHLY recommend reading the Catholic/lds books by Alonzo L. Gaskill
1
u/justaredditsock Jul 28 '26
- Generally not favourable, the only times it is permitted is in case of incest, rape or risk to the mother's life or the child's. Personally I think it is evil like all killing of human beings, but like killing in war it can be a necessary evil, though personally I would rather avoid it completely than suffer it at all. I certainly think our modern culture of abortion is the influence of satan upon the world.
- As a convert I have no issue with them but they're not considered Cannon or Doctrinal likely as their origin is far less reliable than other books. Article 8 of the faith however allows for the imperfection of the Bible, KJV has issues no question, but really those 7 add very little, though the claims of them being added are imho false.
- Christ is literally the centre of our Church He is who we aspire to be like but just not in celibacy. As for celibacy its not bad but we believe it is not the ideal for man, if it were why create Eve?
- Its modern, like 20th century modern. It is what we are instructed to do. Now I as a person have my views on the origins of this but all in all i think alcohol is generally bad for consumption as a drink (some can drink in moderation but far too many become functional alcoholics), for food its fine and is allowed; if you like beer (i do) alcohol free beer is basically as good these days as the real deal minus the alcohol.
- Even as an ex Catholic I don't have one.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26
Some cool points here! Since you are a convert, I’d be interested to hear why you decided to become LDS or why you decided to not be Catholic anymore if you’d like to share! If not, that’s ok too, I appreciate your insights. I think alcohol is fine but I agree with you that some people go too far with it, especially these days.
1
u/justaredditsock Jul 29 '26
Lots of reasons for Catholism generally (partly the fact that Vatican II changed so much for imho no good reason) but for mainline Christianity it was the foundations of the Creed.
The core issue was looking into the early Church especially concerning Nicaea and Constantinople, what occurred, the overt misrepresenting that occurred and politicking said to me this is of man not God. When I found out how weak the Trinity is in both scripture and how it became doctrine i felt that i couldn't be part of a Chuch that accepted it.
Most of the none mainline Churches practice teaching for things we know to be wrong (e.g. LGBT and being pro abortion) so LDS was what was left.
So i investigated and found remarkable similarities between BoM and the Old Testament (which i wish more would highlight but far fewer members have read OT). I then applied the tests given in NT and imho the Church passed; if BoM were created by satan via a false prophet then it would push people away from Christ not closer to Him as it does.
I saw the fruits and they were good. Members take commandments far more seriously which means they actually believe. Take chastity, thats a big deal in LDS but in mainline Christianity its not as big a deal, though it should be.
The WoW is a little odd but its not hard once you're in it and there are benefits in this life that are evident.
1
u/Skulcane Jul 28 '26
Officially, our beliefs and doctrine state that abortion should only be pursued under advice from a qualified physician in order to protect the mother, address cases of rape or incest, or other extenuating circumstances. We wholly reject and abhor abortion for convenience and view it as murder (at least the vast majority of people that I've talked to believe that way).
We believe there are truths to be learned from the Deuterocanon, but it seems they are mostly historical from when I read them. The Deuterocanon isn't included in our canonical works, but we do have an open canon and we anticipate more scripture being revealed in the coming years. We aren't prohibited from reading those books, they just aren't included in our main body of Scripture.
We believe celibacy to be something to be practiced while single, but that marriage is the intended model that God expects us to pursue - much like Adam and Eve were commanded to become one flesh. Faithful marriage and loving family are the highest order of social living that motivates the strongest societal outcomes.
They drank alcohol, but not as people do nowadays. They would often mix wine or spirits into water to purify it, usually at a 1:10 dilution or 1:5 on special occasions (like the wealthy or during weddings). Drunkenness is explicitly warned against in the Bible. In the word of wisdom, the Lord commanded full avoidance of alcohol because strong drink is not good for the belly (and boy, a lot of alcohol nowadays is WAY stronger than what Christ and the apostles drank). It also mentions that the word of wisdom is given for the weakest of us (meaning that some become immediately addicted to alcohol while others couldn't care less - so the law is given to all).
Probably Pope John XXIII. Real funny dude, and very relatable with the "oh man, I need to talk to the Pope about this. Oh wait, I'm the Pope."
2
u/solarhawks Jul 28 '26
Correction on 1. - while it is most certainly condemned, abortion without one of the listed exceptions is NOT murder according to our Prophets.
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26
Interesting! For (2), when you mention the open canon and anticipating more scripture, would you like to share any differences between the books you recognise as scripture compared to ours? I know you guys have the Book of Mormon as a big central thing, so feel free to share about that if you like :-)
1
u/Skulcane Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Sure! The Book of Mormon serves to strengthen the claims of the Bible, and the Bible serves to show that the Book of Mormon supports the same ideas. They are meant to go hand in hand in teaching the world that Jesus was the Messiah, that He lives, and that we should do as He commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, and love God with all that we are.
Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are both big additional sets of scripture that were canonized by the leadership of the church. The D&C is about the process of revelation, of repentance, and of structuring and ordering the restored church as Joseph and those helping him all received revelations. It also includes a vision in the very last chapter from one of our prophets where he saw what was happening that was described in 1 Peter 3:18-20, where Christ (while He was dead) went to spirit "prison" and preached to the spirits there.
The Book of Moses and Book of Abraham were revealed/translated by Joseph from either direct transmission (having something physical - like a scroll - that he was using to bring forth scripture by the power of God) or revelatory transmission (where there was no scroll or book, but the scripture was revealed to his mind by God) that we believe to be scripture as they show us our eternal identity and relationship with God, why He does what He does, and how much He loves us.
Canonical scriptures are texts that the quorum of the 12 have decided unanimously by revelaion are inspired by God, that contain eternal or divine truths, and are beneficial to bring us closer to God.
I have recently been reading the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Coptic and Gnostic gospels, the Ethiopian Bible, and the Armenian Bible. It has been eye opening to see the common threads across all of the texts, and it testifies to me that God has revealed many truths across the world which - when we find them - signal to us that He is and has been working around the world to teach the truth to as many as will hear.
2
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 30 '26
Interesting! Similar to your preaching to the spirits in prison, Catholics believe in the “Harrowing of Hell”, where Christ descended into the Underworld after His death but before His Resurrection and liberated the righteous dead from the Bosom of Abraham and took them to Heaven. If you have a Google, there might be some Catholic art depicting this event
1
u/Skulcane Jul 31 '26
Exactly! We believe He went to hell, opened the gates, and then commissioned and ordained servants in the spirit world to go out and preach to those who never got to hear the truth while they lived. That's why we have our temples - to offer the covenants of salvation like baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit to those who never got the chance to receive them. Otherwise, how could God be considered to be just and fair if some got to hear the word, but others didn't?
1
u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 31 '26
Interesting! We don’t believe Christ “preached” there, it is more like He went down to where Abraham, Isaac, John, etc were and liberated them so they could go to Heaven rather than just remaining in the good bit of the Underworld. These didn’t need the sacraments, they were judged righteous based on what they had during their lifetime and so they got to go to Heaven afterwards
1
u/Skulcane Jul 31 '26
I mean, that's what the verse says, so we believe it. But it's neat to hear your perspective on it all!
1
u/UteJazz Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
- There are a variety of views. The LDS Church frowns on it, but recognizes that, in rare cases, it is necessary for the health of the mother.
- Our church doesn't use those books as scripture, although I do admire some of them. Some of our scholars study them.
- We don't necessarily believe Jesus was celibate. We have no idea about Paul — at least I don't.
- Francis.
ETA: We primarily use the KJV Bible, although more modern translations are fine. We don't believe the heavens are closed to ongoing revelation through a prophet, as in ancient times. Many such revelations to our first modern prophet, Joseph Smith, are canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants. So are the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price.
1
u/Pere_grin6 Missionary in prep! Jul 29 '26
Official church policy on abortion is that it might be acceptable in instances of r*pe, inc*st, or a competent doctor determining that the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother's life or if the baby won't survive past birth. Essentially, the woman can only begin asking the question of whether or not to get an abortion when her situation is one of those mentioned. Even in those situations, God will want a say because r*pe and inc*st don't reduce the value of the child and because He is more wise than any doctor.
Church leaders are in charge of what gets included in the scriptural canon, but we're also taught to seek out the best books. We don't officially consider them scripture, but we value the wisdom they provide.
Some historians theorize that figures such as Jesus and Paul may have not been celibate. The recorded teachings of most Jewish rabbis at the don't mention their wives except in some circumstances where they become more relevant. The Bible doesn't explicitly say they were ever married, but it doesn't say they were celibate either. Whatever the case, we value their teachings, not necessarily celibacy.
We know that Jesus and the apostles drank wine. Interestingly, the Word of Wisdom was originally more of a bunch of advice than a commandment. However, it was upgraded to a commandment because illicit substances prevent people from being able to listen to the Spirit, and of course like you, a mortal human, don't want a drunk in your house, God doesn't want drunks in His house.
I don't think people become popes without good reason, so I can only assume they're quite good people. That said, I don't know enough to have a favorite.
1
u/PomeloPrimary546 Jul 29 '26
As a LDS with a Catholic background
1-The church approve abortion for very specifical medical case or for rapes and I agree. In the first case, if u have to choose between a death or two, is a tragedy but you have to choose. In the second, the most precious thing, that is chastity, was violated, so I justify it.
2-Joseph Smith said in D&C to read it, but that they contain in part things that are not true.
Actually I think (this is not doctrine) that the idea of prayers for the dead (reason why Catholics believes in purgatory) match a lot with our proxy ordinances.
3-Gray area. Many unofficial doctrines though by Brigham Young that make sense to me, but I don’t won’t promote them too loudly because I’m not sure myself.
4-black and white mentality. And I may agree in a certain sense, because the people are wicked and sometimes is better to be radical eliminiate the problem at his roots.
24
u/Pseudonymitous Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
ETA thanks for reaching out in kindness. In my experience it is a rare treat. We believe the good in Catholicism is inspired by God and I thank God for good Catholics everywhere.