Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[PHX_Paul]

None of us will be able to see any logic or truth in it, because these things do not exist in the LDS. It is a cult and they will continue to make things up with an interesting degree of creativity following their founder’s example.

There are " Latter Day Saints " on my father’s side of the family tree. When they used to visit, my mother never offered them Pepsi or Coke. But now when they visit, my mother stocks up on Pepsi because we were informed that it is now acceptable for them to drink Pepsi but not Coke.

Sorry to be flippant in this serious discussion but did the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take the “Pepsi Challenge”, have a divine revelation or does the Mormon Church own alot of stock in the Pepsi-Cola company?

Paul

 

[Auntie_M]

I think Jesus also implied that Christians who overcome the world will RULE with Christ, not just look at him for eternity.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

I’m sorry to disagree with your “rule the world” but this verse is followed by this verse, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter his house and dine with him and he with me.”

Dine is the key word here, Christ invites all to the messianic “BANQUET” in heaven. (See also, Is. 25:6; Luke 14,
15; 22. 300 where He sits with His Father.

 

[majick275]

There are " Latter Day Saints " on my father’s side of the family tree. When they used to visit, my mother never offered them Pepsi or Coke. But now when they visit, my mother stocks up on Pepsi because we were informed that it is now acceptable for them to drink Pepsi but not Coke.

Sorry to be flippant in this serious discussion but did the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take the “Pepsi Challenge”, have a divine revelation or does the Mormon Church own alot of stock in the Pepsi-Cola company?

Paul

actually, due to the absence of a catechism, LDs are vulnerable to “congregational doctrine”. that is unofficial “doctrine” that sometimes results in fervent practice. “hot drinks” are said in LDS scripture to be unhealthy so as a result of later definitions coffee and tea are prohibited. it is NOT because they contain caffeine. but many LDS thought so and thus wouldn’t drink caffeinated beverages and some thought decaf coffee was okay. so “officially” LDS cannot have any coffee or tea be it caffeinated or decaf, iced or hot. herbal teas are okay and all soft drinks with the “advice” to consume in moderation and attempt to maintain a healthy lifestyle.(alcohol is prohibited as is any drug not correctly taken for a valid medical condition. meat is to be eaten sparingly although you don’t usually see that one being practiced)

 

[Auntie_M]

What I was told by the LDS was that Tea had tanic acid, the same thing that “tans” animal hides for clothing. And that tea would tan your insides. ( ???) I don’t think that it was scriptural, but it was just their dietary ways.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are " Latter Day Saints " on my father’s side of the family tree. When they used to visit, my mother never offered them Pepsi or Coke. But now when they visit, my mother stocks up on Pepsi because we were informed that it is now acceptable for them to drink Pepsi but not Coke.

Sorry to be flippant in this serious discussion but did the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take the “Pepsi Challenge”, have a divine revelation or does the Mormon Church own alot of stock in the Pepsi-Cola company?

Paul

Paul, I was raised LDS and growing up any caffeinated products were banned from our house. I didn’t taste Coca Cola until I was 16 years old, and then I sneaking it.

This is based on the LDS dietary code called the Word of Wisdom. In there it says “hot drinks” are forbidden. This has been interpreted differently by different LDS leaders.

The most acceptable definition within the LDS Church for “hot drinks” is coffee and tea. For a period of time, the LDS Church leaders taught the problem with coffee and tea was caffeine. I had many a church lesson growing up about how sports competitors won their competitions by abstaining from caffeinated sodas. This correlation is because Mormons believe adhering to the Word of Wisdom makes it possible for them to “run and not be weary” and “walk and not faint”.

Today, the party line has changed and “hot drinks” is defined as coffee and tea. I have asked Mormons if this means that iced tea, herbal teas or decaf coffee and tea are ok. They say it is up to the individual and what God reveals to them (via prayer).

As for Coke and Pepsi, it seems that all caffeinated sodas are “in”. Perhaps God revealed to them personally that Coca Cola is a “hot drink”, where Pepsi is not. Serious though, I’m sure it’s just their personal preference.

 

[PHX_Paul]

actually, due to the absence of a catechism, LDs are vulnerable to “congregational doctrine”. that is unofficial “doctrine” that sometimes results in fervent practice. “hot drinks” are said in LDS scripture to be unhealthy so as a result of later definitions coffee and tea are prohibited. it is NOT because they contain caffeine. but many LDS thought so and thus wouldn’t drink caffeinated beverages and some thought decaf coffee was okay. so “officially” LDS cannot have any coffee or tea be it caffeinated or decaf, iced or hot. herbal teas are okay and all soft drinks with the “advice” to consume in moderation and attempt to maintain a healthy lifestyle.(alcohol is prohibited as is any drug not correctly taken for a valid medical condition. meat is to be eaten sparingly although you don’t usually see that one being practiced)

Thank you for your charitable response to a flippant and possibly sarcastic question. I always wanted to ask them but didn’t want to put them on the spot.

By the way, I am glad that you are on this forum even though I have serious problems with your faith. I am learning alot!

God Bless You!

Paul

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1holy,

Catholics believe the Trinity consists of 3 distinct “Persons” who make up the 1 Divine Being. Three Persons, One Being.

Mormons believe the Trinity consists of 3 distinct Beings, who are completely ONE in will, purpose, love, and covenant. Therefore, we can call them “three Gods,” or “one God” with equal ease. Our scriptures have both expressions. Like I said, if you were to read the other thread, you might be enlightened about what LDS believe about God.

Earlier in the thread I had provided an example from Natural Theology where it is shown that multiple beings existing as God is nonsensical. Why haven’t you addressed that?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In the LDS Church that Restoration was brought about by the ministration of angels, which is the only way that it could have been accomplished.

zerinus

zerinus, you raise an interesting belief in an Apostasy that history both secular and religious has no record of a “total apostasy” ever occurring in the Catholic church.

Secondly, the one thing that keeps me from seeking your religion out, is this one stumbling scripture that keeps me away from such a religion as yours. How do you answer St. Paul’s teaching in the following, when the angels gave Joseph Smith these new teachings, and a different gospel of Jesus in the book of Mormon, when sacred scripture 2000 years ago predicted this, and commanded the present day church not to follow it.

Galatians 1:6
6** I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel **
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8
**But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 7 **
9
**As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! ** Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So how does a Mormon who claims to another gospel of Jesus in the book of Mormon, received another gospel from 2 angels from heaven, claim to an apostacy of Pauls church who prophecised about your new gospel to come?

Peace be with you

 

[BDawg]

Earlier in the thread I had provided an example from Natural Theology where it is shown that multiple beings existing as God is nonsensical. Why haven’t you addressed that?

Hi 1holy,

Sorry, didn’t notice it. Which post was that?

 

[BDawg]

Thank you for your charitable response to a flippant and possibly sarcastic question. I always wanted to ask them but didn’t want to put them on the spot.

By the way, I am glad that you are on this forum even though I have serious problems with your faith. I am learning alot!

God Bless You!

Paul

Maj used to be a Mormon, but is Catholic, now.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1holy,

Sorry, didn’t notice it. Which post was that?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3891064&postcount=76

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for the citations. I have reviewed Jeff Lindsay before, and always have felt that the target was constantly moving. He criticizes earlier LDS members for making statements that he says are wrong. He finds new scientific support for references in the Book of Mormon, and if a location is proved not to meet the criteria, we look for another location.

The claims that Joseph Smith was too ignorant to have known things, and that this proves the authenticity of the gold plates is troublesome to me. This still looks like a modern day fairy tale.

As to the original DNA questions that brought this up, my problem is that now it is clear that DNA does not support understanding of the Book of Mormon, we redefine the question. Not ALL native Amercians are included in the DNA, and because Judaism includes Ashkanasi, you can’t find genetic Jewish markers. Oh yes, and of course, the Book of Mornon doesn’t tell you the genetic makeup of all its characters. Once again, a moving target.

Now I understand why the early LDS had to rewrite their history.

If Jeff Lindsay does not turn you on, you can try this article. After reading the article, if you are interested in a pureily scientific response, you can watch the video of the lecture by Dr. Michael Whiting. It requires Apple Quick Time to play it. The PDF article also makes an interesting reading.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

actually, due to the absence of a catechism, LDs are vulnerable to “congregational doctrine”. that is unofficial “doctrine” that sometimes results in fervent practice. “hot drinks” are said in LDS scripture to be unhealthy so as a result of later definitions coffee and tea are prohibited. it is NOT because they contain caffeine. but many LDS thought so and thus wouldn’t drink caffeinated beverages and some thought decaf coffee was okay. so “officially” LDS cannot have any coffee or tea be it caffeinated or decaf, iced or hot. herbal teas are okay and all soft drinks with the “advice” to consume in moderation and attempt to maintain a healthy lifestyle.(alcohol is prohibited as is any drug not correctly taken for a valid medical condition. meat is to be eaten sparingly although you don’t usually see that one being practiced)

just to be clear i am former LDS now catholic.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yet another quirky personal definition of “Christian.” Just what we need, here.

Anyway, most Catholics I’ve known define themselves as “Catholics,” when I talk to them. But I’ve always understood that they thought they were Christians, as well–just a particular kind of Christian.

This is exactly why I don’t like the “one must believe X, Y, and Z to be labeled Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist, etc”

It’s way too subjective and before you know it we have 30,000 different definitions of “Christian” for each of the 30,000 different denominations/sects.

We really ought to try to come to as objective a definition as possible.

I don’t like appealing to ecumenical councils, because at which council are we to draw the line?

If we say one must believe the first 7 (as to include Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) then we exclude churches such as the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (both of which I would say are very “Christian” though their ideas of the nature of God differ. These two churches rejected the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, respectively.

Since we don’t know where to draw this theoretical line, who’s to say that the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t be included in the Christian body for merely rejecting the first council, the Council of Nicaea?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think appealing to volumes of scripture has served the world best in defining religious bodies.

Christians are not Jews because we have accepted additional scripture

Muslims are neither Christian nor Jewish because they have accepted a different scripture

Likewise, I’d propose that Mormons are not Christian because they have accepted additional scripture

The addition of scripture (thus completely changing the playing field for definition of doctrine) is what ultimately leads to profound doctrinal differences between the larger body and the sect.

Due to the LDS belief in the BoM, D&C (and more importantly an open canon of revelation) I wouldn’t be surprised if in a couple hundred years, the LDS are so dramatically different from mainstream Christianity that even they won’t want to use the title “Christian”.

I admit this is a very sticky situation, and somebody is going to leave the table upset, so the question is, how are we all going to objectively come to a consensus, even if that means it results in the loss of the title for our own group?

---

ETA: Also, I’d like to point out the LDS original reluctance to using the term “Christian”. When doing my genealogy, and reading some journals of my pioneer ancestors, many a times I read (in their writing) a very explicit distinction between "the Saints (Mormons) and the CHRISTIANS. It seems that some LDS originally didn’t like the term “Christian” as it lumped themselves with their oppressors (the “good Christians” of the States of New York, Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois).

I wonder what provoked the paradigm shift in the LDS beginning to embrace the term…

 

[hosemonkey]

ETA: Also, I’d like to point out the LDS original reluctance to using the term “Christian”. When doing my genealogy, and reading some journals of my pioneer ancestors, many a times I read (in their writing) a very explicit distinction between "the Saints (Mormons) and the CHRISTIANS

Probably because they didn’t want to be regarded as just another whacko cult. Witness the very much increased use of the logo “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” This came about in the 70s and 80s when the LDS wanted to present a much more mainstream face to the world. It was definately a huge PR campaign to lull the average joe into believing that mormons were just another protestant denomination.

 

[BDawg]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think appealing to volumes of scripture has served the world best in defining religious bodies.

Christians are not Jews because we have accepted additional scripture

Muslims are neither Christian nor Jewish because they have accepted a different scripture

Likewise, I’d propose that Mormons are not Christian because they have accepted additional scripture

This is still your own personal, and rather quirky, definition. For instance, Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books. Are they Christians? Should they view Catholics as non-Christians because you have a larger canon? What about the Ethiopian Orthodox, who have a different canon that includes some things like the Book of Enoch? Are they Christians?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Probably because they didn’t want to be regarded as just another whacko cult. Witness the very much increased use of the logo “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” This came about in the 70s and 80s when the LDS wanted to present a much more mainstream face to the world. It was definately a huge PR campaign to lull the average joe into believing that mormons were just another protestant denomination.

Brigham Young spat the word “Christian” out like it would be the last thing he would want to be called.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Am I to take no response to my request of proof of the great apostasy to mean there is no proof? I asked, when it started, who started it, where it started and who defended it. I had also brought up other points that are seemingly being ignored.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I have never gotten a straight answer either;

Iam still waiting for a response from zerinus, about Galatians , that talks about their other gospel of Jesus Christ in the book of Mormon, and how their founder Joseph Smith heard another gospel of Jesus come from angels from heaven?

Galatians 1:6 ** I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. **
8
**But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 7 **
9
**As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! **
11
**Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 10 **

 

[BDawg]

Iam still waiting for a response from zerinus, about Galatians , that talks about their other gospel of Jesus Christ in the book of Mormon, and how their founder Joseph Smith heard another gospel of Jesus come from angels from heaven?

Galatians 1:6 ** I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. **
8
**But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 7 **
9
**As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! **
11
**Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 10 **

Hi Gabe,

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember seeing the part that mentions the Book of Mormon. I always thought that Galatians passage was talking about how Catholicism and other groups changed various Christian doctrines over time.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

This is still your own personal, and rather quirky, definition. For instance, Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books. Are they Christians? Should they view Catholics as non-Christians because you have a larger canon? What about the Ethiopian Orthodox, who have a different canon that includes some things like the Book of Enoch? Are they Christians?

Yes but even the LDS have never believed that the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP were extensions of the Bible (extra-canonical) rather entirely different scriptures.

The pre-rabbinic Jews had the same issue of canon going on. There were sects that accepted the Septuagint in its whole (as we Catholics do) while others did not.

I do agree though, that this is still merely my own opinion (as you properly have pointed out).

This is exactly the problem here, there will always be a bit of bias. The point at hand is to minimize bias the best we all can as to come to as objective a definition as possible.

What are your thoughts? Any suggestions?