Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe you have a point, in that I had not addressed that particular question adequately in my article. Perhaps in the future I will edit it, and address that subject more fully. But in answer to your question, I believe there are two answers to it. Firstly, God does things in His own time and way. We cannot determine God’s timing for Him. If He had done it at any other time, you could still ask the same question: Why at that time and not at another? God does things when in His wisdom the time for it right. He obviously couldn’t have done it in the first or second centuries, because if that was the right time for it, the church would not have apostatized in the first place. So when should He have done it? In the third, forth, or fifth centuries, with all the persecution of the Christians, and the later upheavals that was going on, and the eventual fall of the Roman Empire under the weight of its own corruption and the barbarian invasions from the north? Should He have done it during the Middle Ages, with all the ignorance and prejudice, and the dictatorships that existed then? I think that before asking that question, you should at least be able to give us a suitable time when in your opinion God should have affected the Restoration, and explain why? If you can’t do that, then God’s timing will always be the correct one.

The second answer to that question is that Christ did not “abandon mankind for 1500 years or 1800 years”. This is something that I think I did address in my article. The church of God continues to survive in the hearts of the true believers in Him, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares. The purpose of this Restoration is to gather together the “wheat” to safety; while the “tares” are “bound in bundles” ready to be burned. The timing (and the place) was just right, and according to God’s plan.

It doesn’t make sense that God would have allowed generations upon generations to have been mislead by men.

I think that is a subject that I did address in my Blog. I don’t think there is any need to add anything to it at this time.

You addressed one scripture that I initially posted, but you don’t answer if you think Christ built His house (Church) on rock or sand.

I think these are all questions that I did address in my article. No need to add anything more.

Indulge me please. I didn’t see a satisfactory answer as to why people against the Church wouldn’t have made it widely known that the “great apostasy” had taken place which would have endorsed their beliefs thereby saving generation after generation instead of leaving many to be mislead.

For anyone to believe the great apostasy, you should tell when it began, where it began and who started it. I would assume you would be able to also provide who specifically defended against it.

I have re-read your “theory” of Apostolic succession not being able to continue. I use the word theory as St. Clement who died in 80AD plainly asserted his authority as Bishop of Rome. This refutes your assertion of the lack of authority until Constantine.

When one studies the early Church fathers, one will find they consistently taught Catholic Doctrines, look at St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus, just to name a few.

Peter had the authority to setup the Church since he was told all things he bound and loosed would be the same in heaven. This gives Peter great latitude to make all decisions of the Church, including basing the primacy of the Church from Rome.

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

 

[GemmaRose]

GemmaRose;3887404:

LDS are not even Christian !

They are definitely Christian and many live good christian lives according to the New Testament.

I beg to differ.

LDS are not Christian. To qualify as a Christian, one must believe in the Trinity: One God but Three Divine Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In fact, this is why Morman baptism is not recognized as valid in the Catholic Church. Valid Baptism must contain the words: “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

As to the New Testament, LDS have the habit of re-writing Scripture to suit their ideology. Therefore, they follow the New Testament as per their own interpretation.

I am not saying that many LDS are not good people, or that many aren’t leading good lives. However, sadly, their system of beliefs do not meet the qualifications to be considered a Christian religion.

 

[Nan_S]

Just a little side note, that is not actually correct. All the Apostles possessed those keys, not just Peter. Peter was the chief of the Apostles, and presided over the Twelve; but the keys were possessed by all the Apostles. Here is the quote:
John 20:

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

zerinus

I understand you interpret that to mean that post-resurrection appearance giving authority to bind and loose was equivalent to passing on keys. We see it a little more strictly. Jesus gave the power to bind and loose (which we understand as declaring sin bound or forgiven) to all the apostles, but the only mention Jesus makes in the Bible of specifically handing on keys to any apostle is this one:

Mt 16:18-19 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Regardless, the only keys passed on to Peter (or the apostles, as you see it) were the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The keys to the netherworld were not given to the apostles, they were retained by Jesus.

The next mention of keys themselves being possessed or passed on is in Revelation, and those keys were given to an angel, not an apostle. And it is those keys, the keys to the netherworld and the abyss, that I am asking about.

If Jesus retained the keys to the netherworld and the abyss for himself as scripture says He did, it would not be possible for the apostles, nor the church, to attack the gates of Hell, nor successfully assail against it. The church doesn’t have those keys.

 

[zerinus]

As a Catholic, I can state that the Catholic Church does not consider Mormons to be Christian. I’ve heard that some Protestant denominations agree in this Catholic stance re LDS. Any former lifelong, baptized Mormon who chooses to become Catholic must be baptized as Catholics since Mormon baptism is intrinsically flawed - as is the LDS notion of divinity. The Mormon notion of God is that God is sort of God.

Thank you Catharina for your comment. Nice to see you commenting on a Mormon thread for a change instead of a Masonic one. Let me guess, you are trying to take revenge on me for my support of Masonry! It won’t work though.

Your jibe at Mormonism has two parts:

1. That Mormons are not Christians.
2. That the Catholic Church does not recognize LDS baptisms.

The first point has already been addressed by many people at numerous different occasions. But the latest one that I like best is a talk given by LDS Apostle Elder Jeffrey R Holland at General Conference in October 2007. You can read the text of it here; or listen to it (MP3) here; or watch the video of it (Windows Media Player) here. Watching the video is best; but if you find it too slow to watch directly online, it is best to download and save it to your computer first, and then play it from your PC. I just tried to watch it myself; but the link is very slow. It took me around 20 minutes to download. You can download it by clicking on it with the right mouse button, and selecting “Save As”.

On the subject of the Catholic Church not recognizing LDS baptisms, that is a subject that I have already addressed in an article in my Blog, that you can read here.

If I can do a good job of defending Freemasonry, you can bet your life that I can do a better job of defending Mormonism!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I beg to differ.

LDS are not Christian. To qualify as a Christian, one must believe in the Trinity: One God but Three Divine Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In fact, this is why Morman baptism is not recognized as valid in the Catholic Church. Valid Baptism must contain the words: “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

As to the New Testament, LDS have the habit of re-writing Scripture to suit their ideology. Therefore, they follow the New Testament as per their own interpretation.

I am not saying that many LDS are not good people, or that many aren’t leading good lives. However, sadly, their system of beliefs do not meet the qualifications to be considered a Christian religion.

Your answer given in my previous reply to catharina.

zerinus

 

[Alma147]

Jesus gave Peter, and only Peter, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Those aren’t and weren’t the only keys Jesus has possession of. Jesus also has the keys to the netherworld and the abyss, which He did NOT give to the church.

That isn’t problematic from an LDS standpoint. We believe that only one man on the earth at a time can hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that Jesus gave them to Peter. However, Jesus still held those keys even after he had given them to Peter.
We’re not talking about literal keys and locks, after all. The terms are metaphorical and refer to authority to accomplish tasks. Jesus gave Peter power of life, and the authority he held extended into Hades. Even though Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, that’s no reason to think that Jesus no longer had them.

Please comment on these keys which were not given to the church, but which were retained by Jesus:

You’re only assuming that these keys, (again they’re not literal keys,) weren’t also encompassed in the “keys of the kingdom.” Obviously Christ retains the authority represented by the word “keys” even when he committed them to others.

Alma

 

[catharina]

Thank you Catharina for your comment. Nice to see you commenting on a Mormon thread for a change instead of a Masonic one. Let me guess, you are trying to take revenge on me for my support of Masonry! It won’t work though.

Your jibe at Mormonism has two parts:

1. That Mormons are not Christians.2. That the Catholic Church does not recognize LDS baptisms.The first point has already been addressed by many people at numerous different occasions. But the latest one that I like best is a talk given by LDS Apostle Elder Jeffrey R Holland at General Conference in October 2007. You can read the text of it here; or listen to it (MP3) here; or watch the video of it (Windows Media Player) here. Watching the video is best; but if you find it too slow to watch directly online, it is best to download and save it to your computer first, and then play it from your PC. I just tried to watch it myself; but the link is very slow. It took me around 20 minutes to download. You can download it by clicking on it with the right mouse button, and selecting “Save As”.

On the subject of the Catholic Church not recognizing LDS baptisms, that is a subject that I have already addressed in an article in my Blog, that you can read here.

If I can do a good job of defending Freemasonry, you can bet your life that I can do a better job of defending Mormonism!

zerinus

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?

 

[GemmaRose]

Your answer given in my previous reply to catharina.

zerinus

With all due respect, I have no desire to watch anything trying to explain false doctrine.

My Church was founded circa 33 A.D. by Jesus the Christ, called the Nazarene but born in Bethlehem according to prophecy, true God and true Man, Who was crucified, died and buried but rose again as He said, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Your church was not.

I would suggest that you find some Catholic websites if you want to learn the truth.

 

[zerinus]

Protestants don’t agree on that.

Nowadays they may not, because that tends to undermine their positions with respect to the LDS. But that was the position of their original funders.

If, as you claim, the early Catholic Church was apostate, why would the LDS (or any other group) use the Bible which was put together by the Catholic Church in the late 300’s? Are you saying the Bible is an inerrant book assembled by apostates?

That is something that I have addressed in part in this post here.

If, as you claim, the LDS aren’t offshoots of Protestantism, why would the LDS use the Bible (a Catholic book) stripped of seven books by Protestants in the early 1500’s?

Just because we agree with Protestants on some points, it does not mean that we are an offshoot of them. We have as much theological disagreements with them as we have with the Catholics; and on the fundamentals we are closer to Catholics than we are to the Protestants.

On the subject of the Apocrypha, as far as I know even in the Catholic Church the Apocrypha was not considered to be on the same footing with the rest of the biblical books.

zerinus

 

[catharina]

With all due respect, I have no desire to watch anything trying to explain false doctrine.

My Church was founded circa 33 A.D. by Jesus the Christ, called the Nazarene but born in Bethlehem according to prophecy, true God and true Man, Who was crucified, died and buried but rose again as He said, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Your church was not.

I would suggest that you find some Catholic websites if you want to learn the truth.

Agreed. I have no plans to read any of zerinus’ links even with a gun to my head.

 

[zerinus]

With all due respect, I have no desire to watch anything trying to explain false doctrine.

Then with all due respect, I have nothing further to say to (or hear from) you.

I think it is awfully smug and arrogant to engage someone is a discussion, and not be willing to hear his side of the argument.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Agreed. I have no plans to read any of zerinus’ links even with a gun to my head.

Then the same answer applies to you.

zerinus

 

[catharina]

Then the same answer applies to you.

zerinus

I offer no links to you, zerinus. Any organization that expects folks to call 18 yr-old boys ELDERs has a big credibility problem. No surprises there.

 

[zerinus]

I offer no links to you, zerinus…

I would have no objections if you did. But the criticisms that you are making of LDS are stock criticisms that have been made millions of times over, and replied to millions of times over. Why should I regurgitate the same answers over again when hundreds of readymade answers already exist elsewhere?

Any organization that expects folks to call 18 yr-old boys ELDERs has a big credibility problem.

That is just plain silly. “Elder” is simply the title of the priesthood office that they hold. It does not mean that they are “older” or “younger”.

zerinus

 

[catharina]

I would have no objections if you did. But the criticisms that you are making of LDS are stock criticisms that have been made millions of times over, and replied to millions of times over. Why should I regurgitate the same answers over again when hundreds of readymade answers already exist elsewhere?

That is just plain silly. “Elder” is simply the title of the priesthood office that they hold. It does not mean that they are “older” or “younger”.

zerinus

Yes, quite silly, yet LDS moves from simply silly to quite profane without blinking.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, quite silly, yet LDS moves from simply silly to quite profane without blinking.

That says more about you than about anybody else. That is sad.

zerinus

 

[VWcrazy]

Mormonism is not Christian - its more like Scientology, both consist of made-up fantasty.

 

[catharina]

Mormonism is not Christian - its more like Scientology, both consist of made-up fantasty.

Apt comparison - like two big cults - since neither recognizes the real Divinity of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

 

[1holycatholic]

Nowadays they may not, because that tends to undermine their positions with respect to the LDS. But that was the position of their original funders.

No, it wasn’t.

On the subject of the Apocrypha, as far as I know even in the Catholic Church the Apocrypha was not considered to be on the same footing with the rest of the biblical books.

Apocrypha has a different meaning for Catholics than is does for Protestants.
newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
The Deuterocanonical books have always been on equal footing with every other book in the Bible.