Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BDawg said:
Yes, I’ve read quite a bit of the primary and secondary literature on early Christianity. And if you don’t understand why the demands for precise historical proof of an apostasy are naive after reading the example I gave, I honestly don’t know what else to tell you.
Click to expand...
There’s not even vague historical evidence (let alone “proof”) of an apostasy. You guys can’t even define what, exactly, a mass apostasy might have entailed. You just keep insisting that it happened anyway. 🤷
 
BDawg said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is the greatest feat of all since Peter DIED in the year 67. IN Rome where he was crucified UPSIDE down.:eek:
 
But no denying that the early Christianity apostatized.
/QUOTE]

We need to continually correct, Z. The apostacy he seeks is actually happened when Joseph Smith founded the LDS.
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I have not asked you to compromise your principles. I’ve only asked that you be respectful of the Catholic faith. You don’t have to use ad hominem wording to get your point across.

I did not threaten. I merely stated, I would report posts that do not adhere to the rules of this forum.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
Click to expand...
Answer still the same. Couldn’t care less what you do. Not fightened by your threats.

zerinus
 
40.png
Auntie_M:
Wow, that is the greatest feat of all since Peter DIED in the year 67. IN Rome where he was crucified UPSIDE down.:eek:

Not only that but it goes to the confusion of using an LDS “mindset” when reading history. (I hope it’s not purposely trying to misunderstand and misrepresent.)

I mean that instead of realizing that a person can be ordained by two Bishops (I know of times when the priesthood was passed by the laying on of hands of three Bishops) a conclusion was jumped to that this “suggests” that the two in question were not Bishops at all. :hypno: Or not realizing that someone could be ordained a Bishop in one city-state, relinquish that position for another while having another take his place so history will record them both as Bishops of the city-state (there will be a succession). :ehh: Or (incorrectly) assuming that the office of Peter (BTW you’ll find that all the Popes are considered “Peter” and to be successors of Peter’s office and not of each other. It’s really the Holy Spirit that chooses the Pope.)

And I find the the citing of references as if every person’s writing is correct questionable at best. There is no attempt to see if the opinion agrees with what the Church has said, and certainly no “caveat” that what is written is from a known time when the person was not in agreement with the Church, and in some cases, had actually broken away. :eek: No wonder the LDS can’t seem to make “heads or tails” and then claim something that they are not.
 
BDawg said:
Hi zaff,

The answer is simply that the LDS idea of theosis is not exactly like the Catholic one. For us, theosis doesn’t mean much unless you end up doing the kinds of things God does.
Click to expand...
And then more trouble is stirred up when LDS apologists imply that the are the same, as seen in the following quote from the Mormon Times.

*"Another issue critics often use to attack the church is “human deification,” or the LDS doctrine that individuals can become like God. Peterson points out that the anti-Mormon film “The God Makers” ridiculed the church for teaching “wildly blasphemous doctrine.” However, Peterson says the concept, called “theosis” in scholarly literature, is “common across early Christianity.”

“It turns out, we’re not the ones with the problem on that issue,” he said. “Our critics are. We win.”*

He is equating theosis with exaltation I feel it’s deceptive.
 
Oh, just thought I’d mention it (since this thread does speak of Protestants who are Christians and the LDS and there have been citations from antiquity) that there is a pretty good Protestant–Catholic debate going on in the thread entitled “If you are a Christian , what is the reason that you aren’t Catholic?” I believe that Post #1266 has some excellent quotes from the early Church. Might want to read up to help decide if the LDS are Protestant (Christian) or actually a separate entity.

(I hope I’m allowed to suggest this.)
 
The reason Mormons really don’t want to look at the facts concerning apostacy is they themselves are complete and total Apostates. If they would honestly look at the evidence, they know they would have abandon the man-made false ‘religion’. So they prefer to live in denial.
 
VWcrazy said:
The reason Mormons really don’t want to look at the facts concerning apostacy is they themselves are complete and total Apostates. If they would honestly look at the evidence, they know they would have abandon the man-made false ‘religion’. So they prefer to live in denial.
Click to expand...
They sure try to make everyone know that they are the True Church. How much do they make up 1%😃
 
40.png
Auntie_M:
Wow, that is the greatest feat of all since Peter DIED in the year 67. IN Rome where he was crucified UPSIDE down.:eek:
Kind of makes you think that the DATES on the list of Roman bishops were a little different in 200 AD than they are on the current list. The point is that many faithful Catholic scholars like Sullivan support the Papacy, but feel forced to admit that the current tradition of Papal Succession was doctored at some point.

But that’s ok, because the burden of proof is never on you, according to several posters on this thread. 😉
 
zerinus said:
Answer still the same. Couldn’t care less what you do. Not fightened by your threats.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Hey zerinus,

What I write is not scriptures, you don’t have to twist them for your own interpretation. :rolleyes:

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1
 
zaffiroborant said:
He is equating theosis with exaltation I feel it’s deceptive.
Click to expand...
I feel it’s deceptive, too. But pointing out some close similarities is not deceptive. From what I’ve seen Dan Peterson write, I’d say he’s pretty careful about that issue.
 
BDawg said:
Kind of makes you think that the DATES on the list of Roman bishops were a little different in 200 AD than they are on the current list. The point is that many faithful Catholic scholars like Sullivan support the Papacy, but feel forced to admit that the current tradition of Papal Succession was doctored at some point.

But that’s ok, because the burden of proof is never on you, according to several posters on this thread. 😉
Click to expand...
So speculation from 2001 is your proof of a great apostasy?

We’re not the “accusers”. Seems you would provide proof to prove your speculations.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
 
BDawg said:
Kind of makes you think that the DATES on the list of Roman bishops were a little different in 200 AD than they are on the current list. The point is that many faithful Catholic scholars like Sullivan support the Papacy, but feel forced to admit that the current tradition of Papal Succession was doctored at some point.

But that’s ok, because the burden of proof is never on you, according to several posters on this thread. 😉
Click to expand...
If you allege tampering, please provide proof. You make the allegation ,YOU provide proof. Simple justice.
 
BDawg said:
[/INDENT]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.
Click to expand...
What did Peter ordain Clement to be?
 
Stephen168 said:
What did Peter ordain Clement to be?
Click to expand...
Well, Tertullian was talking about how the Apostles set in place the bishops of various localities–e.g., John place Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna. And then Tertullian says Peter ordained Clement “in like manner.” So it seems clear that he ordained Clement as bishop of Rome. At least, that’s what Tertullian was reporting as the current tradition from Rome, around 200 AD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top