Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[xixxvmcm85]

Hi x,

This is not your fault. I think it’s a general problem with LDS teaching on this topic. Some of us focus so much on differentiating our doctrine from others’ that we end up focusing solely on the differences and ignoring the similarities. For example, some of us get so caught up in making sure everyone knows that we don’t believe in the mainstream Trinity (and we usually have a distorted view of that doctrine, anyway) that we ONLY talk about the separateness of the gods. We forget to emphasize how completely one these beings are in every other way, like Orson Pratt and Brigham Young did in those quotations I provided.

We typically say (like you did) that God is one “in purpose,” but that doesn’t cover it. God is one in mind and will, as well. If two beings are so unified as to have a single mind and will, not just the same goals, this is a far more complete unity.

So we are in effect agreeing.

Being one in mind (no matter how unifying) still doesn’t address the issue of one in substance especially when one believes that deities are corporeal. Having a tangible body will naturally give rise to the question of separate substance (which you still haven’t quite answered).

In the most simplest of terms, is this statement correct (according to you):

“The LDS believe in numerous gods (individuals with individual bodies) that are all united in one will. The one individual god (with his one individual body) whom the LDS worship is Elohim, at the exclusion of all the other individual, tangible gods, and thus for technicality’s sake, the LDS are henotheist”?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

thanks for responding BDawg, The point I was bringing out to zerinus, was how the angels from heaven brought you another gospel of testament of Jesus Christ? When scripture states not to accept another gospel either from an angel from heaven or another gospel even from the apostles themselved, But Mormonism has taken another gospel of Jesus and claims it came from an angel from heaven. Here Galatians again.

Galatians 1: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!

What does this have to do with changing anything, this is recieving something new from heaven, another testament to Jesus Christ, is this not what Mormonism believe?

Without going to any sites, can you name off the top of your head a doctrine that the Catholic church changed?

If your going to make another claim like this, could you please say what it is? I would like to know what doctrine the Catholic church changed? if she has?

Peace

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hi x,

I would use the word “Christian” in a broad sense and a narrow sense, as well. For instance, the Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong is a Christian in the broad sense, because he belongs to a sect that teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. But Spong doesn’t believe that Jesus was really the Son of God, so I would say that anyone who believes such a thing isn’t really a Christian believer in a narrower sense. In an even narrower sense, LDS believe that all other churches are corrupted in some ways, and lack authority from God. In that very narrow sense, we are the only true Christians. So I could say that “Catholics are Christians in a broad sense, but I think they are heretical,” etc.

Does that makes sense?

Yes. Thank You.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Oh, here’s the book: amazon.com/Tale-Two-Citie…/dp/0933046022

 

[zerinus]

I well understand this (having been a former Mormon and currently undergoing conversion to the Catholic faith).

With these past posts, I’ve been specifically focussing on the LDS idea of “one in purpose but separate in substance” belief (without actually tackling the idea of who is right).

With respect to the LDS definition of “oneness”, I’ve stated that there are numerous gods (in substance) but conceivably one “God” (God as a concept, one in purpose [see that verse in the PoGP I believe it’s Moses 1:32?]).

I call a Christian anybody who wants to be called a Christian. Now he may be a deluded Christian. That is a different issue entirely. From our perspective, all Christians may be deluded to some degree, because none of them have the fullness of the gospel that we have—the difference being in how deluded. The JWs may be more deluded than the Baptists, and the Baptists may be more deluded than the Catholics; but all of them are different branches of Christianity, and we respect their choice if that is how they want to be called.

zerinus

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Zerinus played out on me as far a conversation on the “great apostasy” is concerned. I am reposting a point to give other LDS a chance to respond and explain, as well as show others there was no “great apostasy” in my opinion. I have asked logical questions that have yet to be answered. Where did the “great apostasy” take place? Who started the “great apostasy”? When did the “great apostasy” take place? Who defended against the “great apostasy”? So far, I have not seen any satisfactory answers to these basic questions of any event as important as the “great apostasy” would have been and the impact it would have played throughout history.

Why is there no evidence of a “great apostasy”?

There were many enemies of the Church who would have benefited from disproving the claims of the early Christians, Jews and Romans just to name two. Historians would have recorded the event as it would be a major event to disprove Christianity. The pagan Romans studied the Christian religion to combat it more effectively. Julian the Apostate unsuccessfully tried to rebuild the Temple in order to discredit the prophecy of Christ that the Temple would be destroyed and never re-built. The Jews, accused of killing the messiah, would have benefited greatly from such an event. Yet nowhere in history has the “great apostasy” been recorded until the 1800s. Where are the writings documenting the event from those who apostasized?

Catholics can produce evidence of the Church continuing on through the ages, from the time of the Apostles to present day. Surely, there had been a “great apostasy”, there would be Catholic documentation defending against such a thing.

Zerinus has only produced a few scriptures that indicate some small apostasies, or schisms, all short of a “great apostasy”. Nothing has been offered outside of those few scriptures, some of which I feel are being misinterpreted for the sake of his argument. Surely a “great apostasy” would have been taught continuously through history and not just since the 1800s.

Like I said, there are many writings available from the early Church fathers, Jews, Romans and historians. Where’s the evidence of the “great apostasy” that took place as mormons claim?

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

Your commentary deserves a repost here, the false claim from the Mormon faith that the Roman Catholic church went into full apostacy cannot be proven by history, or fact. Because it never happened.

Mormons have a distinct way of looking at things, to me they deal with alot of what if’s? and conclude by believing their what If’s? as if it were a reality. I have read some of their commentary about the alledged apostacy, they only deal in grey areas of belief. One with no history knowledge are moved by this wind of doctrine, with the false claim the Catholic church is not the same Catholic church as the apostles, The grey area is this is half right, because the Catholic church has grown up since the first century Catholic church, but the doctrinal belief’s have not and never will change. Anyway just my experience, I hope you get a clear anwer on when and where the apostacy took place. Oh!, beware of the Mormons who still believe that Constantine was the Roman Catholics Pope.

Peace

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I call a Christian anybody who wants to be called a Christian. Now he may be a deluded Christian. That is a different issue entirely. From our perspective, all Christians may be deluded to some degree, because none of them have the fullness of the gospel that we have—the difference being in how deluded. The JWs may be more deluded than the Baptists, and the Baptists may be more deluded than the Catholics; but all of them are different branches of Christianity, and we respect their choice if that is how they want to be called.

zerinus

Methinks you quoted the wrong post.

 

[BDawg]

What does this have to do with changing anything, this is recieving something new from heaven, another testament to Jesus Christ, is this not what Mormonism believe?

Hi Gabe,

Galatians is thought to be one of the earlier books of the New Testament. Should we reject anything that was written later? I think not. So the question is not whether God ever revealed anything new, but whether it constitutes a completely different gospel than the original. So the answer is no, we don’t believe we received another gospel in the Book of Mormon. It’s just another book that clarifies and strengthens the one that was already preached.

Without going to any sites, can you name off the top of your head a doctrine that the Catholic church changed?

If your going to make another claim like this, could you please say what it is? I would like to know what doctrine the Catholic church changed? if she has?

Peace

Here’s a partial list.

1. The nature of God and the Divine Unity (see the other thread).
2. Creation from nothing instead of pre-existing material.
3. Lost the doctrine of different levels of heaven.
4. Lost the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of souls.
5. Lost the doctrine of salvation for the dead.
6. Eventually forbade priests to marry.
7. Introduced some doctrines about Mary that were not original.
8. Allowed priesthood offices to be bought and sold (Simony).

There’s more.

If we’re talking about loss of authority, the charge of simony is the most serious, in my opinion. That Catholicism allowed this for so long seems to me to be a big indicator that something was VERY wrong in the authority department.

 

[zerinus]

That seems fair enough. So I have a question for you. By your own definition of what a Christian is, are there any contemporary “Christian sects” that you would not consider to be Christian?

I’m simply trying to better understand your position. I think an example of the negative would help.

Thanks!

I call a Christian anybody who wants to be called a Christian. Now he may be a deluded Christian. That is a different issue entirely. From our perspective, all Christians may be deluded to some degree, because none of them have the fullness of the gospel that we have—the difference being in how deluded. The JWs may be more deluded than the Baptists, and the Baptists may be more deluded than the Catholics; but all of them are different branches of Christianity, and we respect their choice if that is how they want to be called.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Methinks you quoted the wrong post.

Yes, that happens when you try to do things too quickly here. I fixed it for you though!

zerinus

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabe,

Galatians is thought to be one of the earlier books of the New Testament. Should we reject anything that was written later? I think not. So the question is not whether God ever revealed anything new, but whether it constitutes a completely different gospel than the original. So the answer is no, we don’t believe we received another gospel in the Book of Mormon. It’s just another book that clarifies and strengthens the one that was already preached.

If this is so, then why are reinventing a new christian theology, from the one, Galatians teaches, John, Peter, Luke, Mark, Paul etc. Because your theology doesnt fit the New Testament first century church, if you have not received a different gospel? Why does the Mormon church teach about another testament of Jesus Christ? or am I missing your meaning to what is another testament of Jesus Christ by Latter Day Saints?

Here’s a partial list.

1. The nature of God and the Divine Unity (see the other thread).
2. Creation from nothing instead of pre-existing material.
3. Lost the doctrine of different levels of heaven.
4. Lost the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of souls.
5. Lost the doctrine of salvation for the dead.
6. Eventually forbade priests to marry.
7. Introduced some doctrines about Mary that were not original.
8. Allowed priesthood offices to be bought and sold (Simony).

There’s more.

If we’re talking about loss of authority, the charge of simony is the most serious, in my opinion. That Catholicism allowed this for so long seems to me to be a big indicator that something was VERY wrong in the authority department.

**Wow, and these changes are recorded by the Mormon church huh? Because all that you have labeled here has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines, including the mystery ones you mention about Mary.

Come on BDAWG, I was expecting a more convincing argument from you. Can you name one doctrine in the Catholic church that has changed? just one, without going through your Mormon literature?

There is no apostacy and their has not been a changed to any defined doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Unless you can mention one?**

 

[hosemonkey]

**Wow, and these changes are recorded by the Mormon church huh? Because all that you have labeled here has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines, including the mystery ones you mention about Mary.

Come on BDAWG, I was expecting a more convincing argument from you. Can you name one doctrine in the Catholic church that has changed? just one, without going through your Mormon literature?

There is no apostacy and their has not been a changed to any defined doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Unless you can mention one?**

That list contains NO Catholic doctrine.
Example: Baptism for the dead.
I Cor. 6:2 says, “Behold, now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation.” Heb 9:27 also says, "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” the first part of that verse is obviously true. Will the last part be untrue? Psalm 49:7 declares, “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.” Thus no one can save anyone else (dead or alive) by vicarious work.

Priestly celibacy: Is a discipline, NOT a doctrine.

Simony: Is an abuse, Not a doctrine.

The teachings on Our Blessed Mother and her role in our redemption have changed hardly at all since the very early Church.
bdawg seems to have very little understanding of doctrine vs. practice.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The LDS scriptures say there is “one God” in some places, and in other places talk about more than one god. So to us, it is proper to say either, depending on the “sense” in which the words are meant.

Please explain then, the Mormon belief of a “Council of Gods”. That is, individual gods who meet together and decide things, such as, how to create a planet together.

 

[BDawg]

Please explain then, the Mormon belief of a “Council of Gods”. That is, individual gods who meet together and decide things, such as, how to create a planet together.

Hi Beccs,

I’m not sure what you don’t understand about it.

 

[AMDGtoo]

That list contains NO Catholic doctrine.
Example: Baptism for the dead.
I Cor. 6:2 says, “Behold, now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation.” Heb 9:27 also says, "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” the first part of that verse is obviously true. Will the last part be untrue? Psalm 49:7 declares, “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.” Thus no one can save anyone else (dead or alive) by vicarious work.

Priestly celibacy: Is a discipline, NOT a doctrine.

Simony: Is an abuse, Not a doctrine.

The teachings on Our Blessed Mother and her role in our redemption have changed hardly at all since the very early Church.
bdawg seems to have very little understanding of doctrine vs. practice.

Not only that, there is absolutely no proof that some of the things listed (that there were many gods, etc.) were ever taught by Catholic/Christians.

 

[BDawg]

**Wow, and these changes are recorded by the Mormon church huh? Because all that you have labeled here has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines, including the mystery ones you mention about Mary.

Come on BDAWG, I was expecting a more convincing argument from you. Can you name one doctrine in the Catholic church that has changed? just one, without going through your Mormon literature?

There is no apostacy and their has not been a changed to any defined doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Unless you can mention one?**

Hi Gabe,

I’m not sure what you are asking for. I gave a list, off the top of my head, of doctrines/practices that the Catholic Church changed/rejected. I think these kinds of things are indicative of apostasy. I wasn’t trying to lawyer you into admitting an apostasy happened by showing how the Catholics officially “defined” a doctrine, and then later changed it. Catholics didn’t begin “officially defining” things until centuries after Christ. I’m saying that some of the original teachings/practices of Christianity were changed over the first few hundred years. You may disagree that this happened. You may admit that it happened, but disagree about whether it implies apostasy. Whatever.

It seemed to me like I gave you the kind of list you asked for, and what remains is to discuss whether such changes occurred, and whether they are indicative of a general apostasy.

I said I thought simony was the practice most indicative of institutional apostasy. Do you want to start with that one?

 

[Namesake]

This always made me wonder if the Latter-Day Saints are Protestants. In my opinion they are not…

I think because they don’t accept the Christian concept of the trinity they are not Christians let alone protestants.

 

[1holycatholic]

Technically this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas would not be at variance to your LDS beliefs, since Mormons are technically NOT polytheist, rather henotheist.

In LDS dogma, there is only ONE god for our world (Elohim) whom we are to worship, while the LDS acknowledge that there are numerous other gods of other worlds with whom us mortals have no relationship, and to whom we owe no recourse.

Aquinas’ quote also disproves henotheism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Beccs,

I’m not sure what you don’t understand about it.

How does it makes sense that you can call a group of gods, one god. Where Joseph Smith’s descriptions of the Grand Council of Gods speaks of separate gods, all who came together to decide what your plan of salvation is, what the earth will be like, who the elect spirits are, predestination (or preordination), etc. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are described as being gods, as part of this council. So, you believe that Abraham and Moses are Incarnations of God or what?

Your description of three gods matches more to your Church leadership, a prophet and two counselors. Your definition of God has one god, who acts as the leader, and the other two counsel. Or at the very least, do the leaders bidding, with complete obedience.

This is not one essence or substance or even being. It is three gods.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi x,

My suggestion is to say, “Mormons are Christians in the broad sense, but Catholics see them as heretics who aren’t true Christians.”

It’s blunt and to the point. Everyone would understand what you mean. It’s good enough for me, at least, and I think any Mormon who would be offended by a statement like that should man up and quit being such a baby.

I would call Mormons “Apostates from Christianity” considering J. Smith was a disgruntled Protestant who rolled his own non-Christian religion using elements of Masonry and of Christianity in the Protestant tradition.

At the core there is no significant difference between Mormons and Protestants, except that Mormons have carried the ball outside the playing field of Christianity. In the train-wreck that is Sola Scriptura the LDS, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. have either gone completely off the Christianity track, or, as in the case of the LDS, started off that way.