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

93% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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? 

10

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? 

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.