Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[BDawg]

Sort of like JS writing scriptures that back up his authority as prophet.

Except that nobody expects you to believe those scriptures just because they’re in print. Mormons ask people to study things out and get their answers direct from God.

Teancum is right. Falsification of “historical records,” such as they were, was rampant in the ancient world. It’s just a fact of life for historians. The fact that some of you are demanding some kind of ultra-detailed proof from the historical record only serves to show that you are incredibly naive about the nature of the record. It’s very spotty, in fact.

Let me give you an example. I get the impression that some of you guys want us Mormons to provide you with an exact date when Peter had no more successors. After all, the Catholic Church has an official list of Peter’s successors, who were supposed to be bishops of Rome. Well, it turns out that, whether you believe in truthfulness of that list, or not, it’s very difficult to document in the contemporary historical record. That book I suggested some of you read, From Apostles to Bishops, by Father Francis Sullivan, would be an absolute shocker for anyone so naive. Here’s a quotation from the beginning of the book, just to give you the flavor:
“One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation.” (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)
Did you catch that? A Jesuit historian, publishing through a Catholic press, and arguing that people should accept the bishops (including the Pope) as the successors of the apostles, has to admit that there really isn’t any good historical evidence for the notion that there was an unbroken chain of bishops going back to the Apostles. In order to maintain that bishops are the successors of the apostles, Catholic scholars have to invoke a “theological argument.”

Do you understand why I say your demands for such precise historical proof of an apostasy only make you look naive?

 

[BDawg]

And then you pile on those who attain exaltation along with their wives(possibly polygamous) who get their godhood through their husbands. And what you have resembles a Greek Pantheon with a Vulcan mind meld twist. It definitely loses simplicity as you add in all the extras.

Zaff,

This is a very offensive and distorted description of our beliefs. My rule of thumb is that if I describe another group’s beliefs in a way that is patently offensive to them, I probably missed some of the nuances.

 

[po18guy]

poor zerinus, still feeling soooo attacked. As a Catholic, I made a truthful comment about Catholic teachings on a Catholic website. Some might ask why are you here at all?

She (he?) comes here to play the victim. Pretty good at it, too.

 

[BDawg]

But this is exactly what many LDS apologists have tried to do, yet all they can come up with are bits and pieces of “Mormon doctrine” amongst almost every group labeled heretical while tossing out the rest of the heretical groups’ teachings.

They’ll say “Oooo look, the Arians, they thought like we did!”. Mind you that the Arians were still Marians, while Mormons are not.

“Oooo look, the Gnostics, they had a similar belief in esoteric teaching!” even though the substance of that teaching is far from Mormonism.

They copy and paste all these obscure historical referrences and voila! Quasi-Mormonism!

Hi x,

I don’t think you have described Mormon scholarship on this matter very accurately. For instance, in many, many cases, the doctrines in early Christianity that resonate most with the LDS can be traced back to very early forms of Jewish Christianity. (Remember that Jesus and all the apostles were Jews.) Check out this essay for some examples. Now, not a lot is known about early Jewish Christian groups, but the similarities with the LDS definitely congregate around that region of the early Christian spectrum. I think this is quite significant.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Ummm–you speak of that book by a Jesuit not knowing whether or not his research is accurate. Now who’s being naive?

So let’s talk about someone at the time who had impeccable credentials. Let’s talk about Irenaeus, the second Bishop of Lyons from about 180-200. He studied under Polycarp who himself had been a disciple of the Apostle John. In fact, Irenaeus is considered one of the greatest theologians of the immediate post-Apostolic period. I’m sure you’ve heard of his Against Heresies. In it he points out the successions of the Bishops of the “ancient Church known to all” (the Catholic Church of course.) And Irenaeus named all the Popes succeeding Peter up to his time as well.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks, Bro. I am guilty of telling mormons the truth, namely that their “Emperor” has no clothes. Everryone is entitled to go to hell in their own way, it is called “free will.” “You can lead the horse to water, but it takes two Marines to make him drink.” If you PM me I’ll tell you how it’s done. (Adult humor) I am perhaps a little rough in my comments, but that’s the way I am(not sorry) Thanks again for your support.

Hey, Hoser, I am waiting for “them” to advise of which LDS organization is the true one:

the KKK-quality racist Brigham Young’s organization where “blacks are sub-human with no souls”

or the “Wait, now that he’s dead, he was wrong about blacks. We’ll let a few into lower level positions and show the world” organization?

You know, all through the OT and NT are mentions of places and things. The sermon on the mount? You can still go there. The Red Sea crossing. Sat photos show what looks like a land bridge under shallow water. The upper room? It’s still there! The Via Dolorosa? You can walk it today.

Anything and everything in the BOM? You have to trust JS. There is not one shred of evidence for anything, ever. No images from sat photos, no archaeological evidence, nothing. Just trust. In god(s)? No. In man.

 

[BDawg]

Ummm–you speak of that book by a Jesuit not knowing whether or not his research is accurate. Now who’s being naive?

Yo, A.

Well, I read Sullivan’s book. I’ve read all the Apostolic Fathers. I’ve read most of the Apologists. I’ve read most of Irenaeus’ and many other late 2nd and early 3rd century Christian writings. I’ve read other Catholic scholarly defenses of the Papacy that reach many of the same conclusions… I could go on.

So why do you assume I don’t have any idea whether Sullivan’s research is accurate? I at least have done enough background reading to make some kind of informed judgment. What about you?

Case in point:

So let’s talk about someone at the time who had impeccable credentials. Let’s talk about Irenaeus, the second Bishop of Lyons from about 180-200. He studied under Polycarp who himself had been a disciple of the Apostle John. In fact, Irenaeus is considered one of the greatest theologians of the immediate post-Apostolic period. I’m sure you’ve heard of his Against Heresies. In it he points out the successions of the Bishops of the “ancient Church known to all” (the Catholic Church of course.) And Irenaeus named all the Popes succeeding Peter up to his time as well.

Sullivan has half a chapter on Irenaeus. Here’s a little taste:

“According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those who followed as successors of Peter more than of Paul.” (From Apostles to Bishops, 148-149.)
About the same time as Irenaeus, Tertullian wrote about the Roman tradition of “apostolic succession.”
“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32, in ANF 3:258.) So around 200 AD, the Roman tradition was that Peter ordained the THIRD bishop of Rome–Clement–after Linus and Anicetus. If that’s so, then Peter obviously wasn’t the first bishop of Rome.

 

[BDawg]

the KKK-quality racist Brigham Young’s organization where “blacks are sub-human with no souls”.

Wow, Po, that’s pretty damning stuff. Would you mind providing a citation for where Brigham Young said “blacks are sub-human with no souls”? That would truly shock me.

(Hint: I don’t think you can do it, because I think you just made that up. Don’t get me wrong–I think Brigham Young inherited some racist attitudes that were prevalent during his day. I just don’t recall seeing any of his comments that were even close to what you said.)

 

[po18guy]

Wow, Po, that’s pretty damning stuff. Would you mind providing a citation for where Brigham Young said “blacks are sub-human with no souls”? That would truly shock me.

(Hint: I don’t think you can do it, because I think you just made that up. Don’t get me wrong–I think Brigham Young inherited some racist attitudes that were prevalent during his day. I just don’t recall seeing any of his comments that were even close to what you said.)

I will retract the “sub-human with no souls” portion of my statement. My apologies until and unless I can find the source. Apparently, he did believe they had souls, but also that they must always be servants, even after attaining celestial glory.

This was not simply opinion, it was LDS policy until 1978, banning blacks from Mormon priesthood. Here’s one rather infamous Brigham Young quote from among others:

“You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.

Not as bad, but not good. And for this policy to remain until the 1970s?

 

[why_me]

You say God did not precede creation, that Christ was, essentially, manufactured. That is not Christianity. That is a pseudo-Christian faith. You cannot live by the NT, because you ignore Matthew 16 regarding the gates of hell not prevailing against Christ’s church. Either you believe what Christ said, or you do not. I never got this leap of faith!

Mormons do not believe that Christ was manufactured unless of course, all of us are manufactured. Mormons consider Christ to be the saviour and a brother. For mormons,we are all spirit children of heavenly father and heavenly mother.

The gates of hell is always open to interpetation and is a constant debating point on christian boards. The mormons are christians because they believe in Christ and attempt to follow his commandments. They also look upon him as the savior.

 

[zerinus]

Do Mormons use Isaiah very much? I’d be interested in hearing how Mormons interpret these passages, particularly Isaiah 43:10.

Is 43:10-13 You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none. It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me. It is I who foretold, I who saved; I made it known, not any strange god among you; You are my witnesses, says the LORD. I am God, yes, from eternity I am He.

Is 44:6 Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.

Is 45:5-7 I am the LORD and there is no other, there is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not, so that toward the rising and the setting of the sun men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other; I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Is 46:3-5 Hear me, O house of Jacob, all who remain of the house of Israel, My burden since your birth, whom I have carried from your infancy. Even to your old age I am the same, even when your hair is gray I will bear you; It is I who have done this, I who will continue, and I who will carry you to safety. **Whom would you compare me with, as an equal, or match me against, as though we were alike? **

Is 46:8-9 Remember this and be firm, bear it well in mind, you rebels; remember the former things, those long ago: **I am God, there is no other; I am God, there is none like me. **

Will be glad to answer. Check out this article, written by yours truly!

zerinus

 

[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

You have misunderstood Paul’s statement. At that time there were certain Jewish converts to Christianity who still adhered to their Jewish roots and customs, such as circumcision for example; and they taught that the Gentile converts to Christianity should also adhere to the same customs, otherwise they could not be saved. The people whom Paul was addressing had come under the influence of those Jewish converts, and that is what Paul was referring to by “another gospel”. The significant verse you want to look at is verse 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!” The gospel that LDS preach is not a “different” gospel from the one that Paul preached. It is the same gospel, restored from heaven because the original one was lost through the Apostasy. In reality it is you who believe in “another gospel,” because the gospel that you believe in is not the same gospel that Paul preached. So that condemnation, if there is one, is applicable to you rather than to us; because we teach the original gospel that Paul preached, while you teach a different gospel.

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Except that nobody expects you to believe those scriptures just because they’re in print. Mormons ask people to study things out and get their answers direct from God.

Teancum is right. Falsification of “historical records,” such as they were, was rampant in the ancient world. It’s just a fact of life for historians. The fact that some of you are demanding some kind of ultra-detailed proof from the historical record only serves to show that you are incredibly naive about the nature of the record. It’s very spotty, in fact.

Let me give you an example. I get the impression that some of you guys want us Mormons to provide you with an exact date when Peter had no more successors. After all, the Catholic Church has an official list of Peter’s successors, who were supposed to be bishops of Rome. Well, it turns out that, whether you believe in truthfulness of that list, or not, it’s very difficult to document in the contemporary historical record. That book I suggested some of you read, From Apostles to Bishops, by Father Francis Sullivan, would be an absolute shocker for anyone so naive. Here’s a quotation from the beginning of the book, just to give you the flavor:
“One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation.” (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)
Did you catch that? A Jesuit historian, publishing through a Catholic press, and arguing that people should accept the bishops (including the Pope) as the successors of the apostles, has to admit that there really isn’t any good historical evidence for the notion that there was an unbroken chain of bishops going back to the Apostles. In order to maintain that bishops are the successors of the apostles, Catholic scholars have to invoke a “theological argument.”

Do you understand why I say your demands for such precise historical proof of an apostasy only make you look naive?

This is your evidence of a great apostasy? You use teancum79’s “guesses”. I suppose next we should accept “ifs”, “maybes” and “perhaps”?

I apologize for stumping you, to use your words. But as I said before, the Church did not control Romans, Jews and historians. Our Church has documentation of the defense against the schism of Martin Luther. It would certainly have documentation of a defense against a great apostasy. We have not demanded precise, nor a lot of evidence. We’ve asked for who, when, where and who defended against it? Four words would answer the entire question. You have none.

You find yourself stumped because you use the arguments of someone who fabricated a great apostasy in the early 1800s. Which by the way seems you are having enough trouble defending with such a very short history.

Coming to a Catholic website to try and sway Catholics was your choice. You use a theological basis for your accusations and therefore you want to limit us to a theological defense. You should expect such a heated defense when there is so much physical evidence against what you teach.

Not one scripture in the Christain Bible was written from the bottom of a hat. In fact, I don’t recall any scriptures being written from “seer stones” or “golden plates”. I do recall a story about a “golden calf”, but we all know that was a false god.

Maybe it’s time to ask questions of yourself.

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

 

[Catholic_Kenpo]

You have misunderstood Paul’s statement. At that time there were certain Jewish converts to Christianity who still adhered to their Jewish roots and customs, such as circumcision for example; and they taught that the Gentile converts to Christianity should also adhere to the same customs, otherwise they could not be saved. The people whom Paul was addressing had come under the influence of those Jewish converts, and that is what Paul was referring to by “another gospel”. The significant verse you want to look at is verse 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!” The gospel that LDS preach is not a “different” gospel from the one that Paul preached. It is the same gospel, restored from heaven because the original one was lost through the Apostasy. In reality it is you who believe in “another gospel,” because the gospel that you believe in is not the same gospel that Paul preached. So that condemnation, if there is one, is applicable to you rather than to us; because we teach the original gospel that Paul preached, while you teach a different gospel.

zerinus

I’m just curious why it says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” on the cover of the BoM if it’s not actually another testament.

-CK

 

[Auntie_M]

Zerinus

I have been reading all the posts by both sides. Please explain to me how or when did Paul preach that God has a wife/wives.
No where in any NT book have I ever read anything like this. Nor have I ever read in ANY book of the Bible that we would “become Gods and rule our own earth in another universe”. I really don’t understand where alot of your teachings come from, please explain.
Nor do I ever remember reading about the different “levels” of heaven. Where is that in the Bible also. Please give me Biblical references. As I understand it, the Mormon Bible does not replace the Bible but it further explains it. Isn’t this what the BoM teaches. That it is an"extension" of the Bible.

 

[zerinus]

I’m just curious why it says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” on the cover of the BoM if it’s not actually another testament.

-CK

The word “testament” means “covenant”. The subheading added to the Book of Mormon as “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” refers to, or is derived from, the following verse in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 84:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

The LDS Church is a restoration, or renewal, of the original or “Covenant” (or Testament) of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a different or another testament. It is the original one that has been “renewed”. The reason for the “renewal” is that the original covenant was broken through the Apostasy; therefore it had to be “renewed” by revelation in our time.

zerinus

 

[Gene_Church]

I understand, hose. But from my perspective, good intentions aren’t a good enough reason to ignore the second of the Ten Commandments.“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” (Exodus 20:4-5)
And once again, I was only trying to explain why Mormons avoid using the Cross as a symbol, when we believe Jesus died on the Cross for us. Genuflecting to the Cross doesn’t offend me, personally, and I have rather enjoyed it the many times I have visited Catholic masses. I just wouldn’t genuflect to the Cross myself, because that would be bowing down to a graven image, in my opinion.

Also, I have read many defenses by Catholics saying that the Israelites did make graven images, such as the cherubim on the ark of the covenant. That’s true, but they didn’t bow down to them.

I know I cannot change you, as that is the place of the Holy Spirit. But I will pray for you.

 

[Catholic_Kenpo]

The word “testament” means “covenant”. The subheading added to the Book of Mormon as “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” refers to, or is derived from, the following verse in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 84:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.
The LDS Church is a restoration, or renewal, of the original or “Covenant” (or Testament) of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a different or another testament. It is the original one that has been “renewed”. The reason for the “renewal” is that the original covenant was broken through the Apostasy; therefore it had to be “renewed” by revelation in our time.

zerinus

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I accept D&C as divinely inspired, it still seems to me that you’re contradicting yourself. It says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”, but then you state that it’s not actually another, but merely a renewal of the original. If that were the case, shouldn’t it say “The Renewed Testament of Jesus Christ”? Maybe I’m just being dense, but I can’t seem to get my mind around this one.

-CK

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus

I have been reading all the posts by both sides. Please explain to me how or when did Paul preach that God has a wife/wives.
No where in any NT book have I ever read anything like this. Nor have I ever read in ANY book of the Bible that we would “become Gods and rule our own earth in another universe”. I really don’t understand where alot of your teachings come from, please explain.
Nor do I ever remember reading about the different “levels” of heaven. Where is that in the Bible also. Please give me Biblical references. As I understand it, the Mormon Bible does not replace the Bible but it further explains it. Isn’t this what the BoM teaches. That it is an"extension" of the Bible.

The questions that you are asking each requires a separate thread—all of which, incidentally, have already been addressed many times over here and elsewhere. The only relevant point that needs to be made in relation to your post is that we do not teach anything that contradicts what was taught by Paul (or other Apostles). “Another gospel” meant something that contradicted what they taught. But the LDS Church being a completely new dispensation of the gospel, with the power to add to the canon of the scripture, we reserve the right to add new knowledge and information about various aspects of the gospel by revelation that may not have existed in the church in Paul’s day.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I accept D&C as divinely inspired, it still seems to me that you’re contradicting yourself. It says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”, but then you state that it’s not actually another, but merely a renewal of the original. If that were the case, shouldn’t it say “The Renewed Testament of Jesus Christ”? Maybe I’m just being dense, but I can’t seem to get my mind around this one.

-CK

I think that you are nitpicking and hairsplitting. The choice of what word you use is a rhetorical one, not a theological one. The Brethren felt that that is an appropriate one to use. “Another” does not necessarily mean “different”. Go and look it up in the dictionary.

As for whether you accept the D&C or not, we couldn’t care less either way. You asked for an explanation of the subtitle, and I gave you an explanation based on our theological context, which is the only one that matters as far as we are concerned.

zerinus