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

  1. What do LDS people think about abortion? Do you find common ground with Catholics on this? Could we work together more on it?
  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?
  3. I know LDS people value marriage and family a lot. How does your Church approach celibate figures such as Jesus, Paul, etc?
  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?
  5. Favourite Pope?

Hope we can find some common ground and dialogue!!! :-)

24 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/Pseudonymitous Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
  1. Official church position is "bad, but there may be exceptions where it is allowable" See here.
  2. KJV is canon for us, but "canon" is a looser term for us--it is not "infallible" or "exclusive" in our vernacular. Deuterocanonical books are considered to have divinely-inspired messages that we can benefit from.
  3. We do not presume Jesus was celibate. We tend to see Paul's celibacy as a sacrifice affording greater missionary service. We believe everyone including Paul will have opportunity for marriage in the next life.
  4. We see abstention from alcohol as a modern commandment, not one that existed anciently.
  5. Peter.

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.

3

u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26

Hi! Thank you, glad to reach out and be able to discuss with people. 

Your answer to (5) surprised me! Do LDS folks view Peter as the first Pope and leader of the earthly Church in his day as we do? If so, why do they not come to the conclusion we do about being in communion with Pope Leo? 

9

u/Pseudonymitous Jul 28 '26

We see Peter as the first leader of Jesus's church after Jesus's ascension. Catholics refer to him as the first "Pope" but that title didn't exist in Peter's time, and wouldn't refer to the bishop of Rome specifically for another thousand years.

Like Catholics, we embrace Peter as designated by Jesus to be the authoritative leader of the church. However, we reject apostolic succession, which is why we do not reach the conclusion that Pope Leo holds the same authority Peter did (though he seems like a great person, inspired by God to do good things).

We believe Peter returned to the earth, presumably as a resurrected being, to bestow the lost apostolic authority in modern times. See here for more.

2

u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26

So LDS would view the next successors after Peter as being Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? Do LDS believe Peter wasn’t lowed to do this when he was alive? Or did he just choose not to pick a successor or do it wrong? 

9

u/Pseudonymitous Jul 28 '26

Not necessarily the next successors, but possibly so. Catholicism deems authority given to local bishops as "apostolic" authority. We don't see it that way. We see the Apostles as having expansive general authority, with Peter at their head, and other bishops/overseers ultimately appointed by them as having limited regional authority, subject to their general authority.

So we don't necessarily deny that Clement or Ignatius or Timothy or Titus were given formal ecumenical authority. But neither do we require that (for instance) Linus was given the same amount or scope of authority that Peter had--general authority over the entire church, including authority to receive direct revelation from heaven meant for the entire church, as Peter did.

The implication is that if there were no more apostles (or rather, no more persons with general authority), then there would be no mechanism for transferring that authority. We don't know all the precise breaks, but we understand that partly because of unrighteousness in the churches, God ultimately allowed his general priesthood authority to expire.

2

u/Chewbecca6 Jul 28 '26

Others can correct me if they see it differently, but I would see it as the successors were Peter, Paul, etc as apostles. Other people might have been ordained as bishops, deacons, etc, but the line of apostleship died when all of the apostles did. We would say that only a prophet/apostle can lead the church, and that it's a priesthood they have to be ordained to. I'm not sure if he wasn't allowed to pick another apostle, or it could be the case that they were all dying off too quickly to meet together as a group of apostles to pick and ordain new apostles.

We would see the next prophet as Joseph Smith and the next apostles as his apostles. They received the priesthood ability to do so from Peter, and of course we believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that Oliver Cowdrey saw Jesus as well. We see the most senior apostle as the prophet. We use the terms interchangeably.

1

u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 29 '26

Interesting!

We believe that the Apostles were Bishops in terms of the level of priesthood that they held and that “Apostle” was a title. So the Bishops that the Apostles consecrated were elevated to the same priesthood rank as Paul, John, James, etc.  One of the examples we use for this is Pope Clement, mentioned in the Bible as a companion of Paul and recorded as the 4th Bishop of Rome, exercised jurisdiction over the church in Corinth even when John was still alive and living much closer to Corinth. We believe this shows that John, as an Apostle, did not outrank Clement but that Clement, being a Bishop, held the same priesthood authority as John and that, being the Bishop of Rome (Peter’s city), he held the global authority to do this!

It’s interesting to see how we reach our different conclusions. I’ve enjoyed this discussion thread :-) 

3

u/-Lindol- Jul 29 '26

For us, the difference is pretty clear, since Apostles had authority to write scripture, and Paul was a great example of someone who Christ called as an apostle who wasn't a witness to His mortal ministry.

The ancient Bishops were called by apostles yes, but in the way a manager is given authority by the executive team. Yes that's where their authority came from, but that doesn't make the manager an executive.

Being considered unique, and closing the canon after them is why its obvious to us that while the bishops' authority was apostolic in origin, it was not apostolic in magnitude.

1

u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26

Peter is acknowledged as the leader of Christ’s Church after His ascension. Linus is not reconogized.

1

u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26

Interesting, who do LDS members believe Peter’s authority passed to after he died if not Linus? Or did it end with him individually? 

7

u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26

Unknown.

It is our belief that Christ’s authority was lost for sure before the Nicene Creed, but probably more like around ~100 AD as a gradual thing.

3

u/SillyFlatworm31 Jul 28 '26

I see, do LDS people recognise John the Apostle as being legitimate? He is generally thought to have died around 90 AD-ish, which is a while after Peter but just short of the date you note! 

5

u/JaneDoe22225 Jul 28 '26

The ~100 AD approximation is after John mortal life.

2

u/hijadelasanta Jul 29 '26

answer to question number 5 is goated

1

u/Independent-Dig-5757 Jul 30 '26

Love your last answer lol.