Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[1holycatholic]

LDS (and its offshoots) degenerated from Protestantism into a non-Christian polytheistic fertility cult.

I have always wondered how the LDS could defend their polytheism in the realm of Natural Theology.

 

[hosemonkey]

zerinus, sooner or later you and all mormons will come to the realization that you are the deluded victim of a monumental hoax.
mormonism is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, with the old men in SLC at the top and the poor suckers on the bottom. Debate and argue all you like, it is still a false religion.

 

[zerinus]

Jeremiah 1:5
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Thank you, an excllent scripture confirming the LDS doctrine of pre-existence.

Mark 4:9
And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

Very well said. And I see no “listening ears” around here:

Mark 4:1

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I meant profane but inane equally applies.

You missed out the “s”—“insane” as your crazy quotes!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Wikipedia isn’t a very credible source.

Any source that reasons correctly and provides accurate citations is s credible source.

Nonetheless, it does say:

Doesn’t sound like early onset apostasy as you claim.

I didn’t say that their theology of the Apostasy is identical to ours; but they did believe in an Apostasy, which you denied.

If you are going to cite anything about the LDS please cite material published on lds.org. When citing Catholic Church teaching please cite from vatican.va, usccb.org or newadvent.org (online Catholic encyclopedia with Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat.)

A blog or Wikipedia isn’t an credible source.

I cite from any source I consider to be credible. You can accept or reject it as you wish.

You didn’t bother to read what I wrote about the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books. It cited a source that the Church indicates is free from doctrinal and moral error. You cited a personal blog. :tsktsk:

I did have a look; but your citation was not very relevant to the point you were making. What I (and the Protestants) call the Apocrypha, is what you call the Deutrocanonicals. A more relevant article to refer to would have been this one:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As you can see from this article, the Deutrocanonicals were not always regarded on an equal standing with the rest of the biblical books by the Catholics. It is only in the Council of Trent of 1546, and the Vatican Council of 1870, that they gained full acceptance—and that only as a reaction to the Protestants’ rejection of them. But they have not always been so accepted in Catholic history.

zerinus

 

[1holycatholic]

I didn’t say that their theology of the Apostasy is identical to ours; but they did believe in an Apostasy, which you denied.

That’s not accurate. You wrote this earlier in the thread:

We agree with the Protestants in one thing, that an Apostasy occured in the early Christian church

That is what I disagree with. You have refuted yourself.

I did have a look; but your citation was not very relevant to the point you were making. What I (and the Protestants) call the Apocrypha, is what you call the Deutrocanonicals. A more relevant article to refer to would have been this one:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As you can see from this article, the Deutrocanonicals were not always regarded on an equal standing with the rest of the biblical books by the Catholics. It is only in the Council of Trent of 1546, and the Vatican Council of 1870, that they gained full acceptance—and that only as a reaction to the Protestants’ rejection of them. But they have not always been so accepted in Catholic history.

From the Newadvent link you provided:
But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.
The Canon is unchanged since it was set by the Church in 382. You have provided yet another link which refutes your claims. :doh2:

 

[Gene_Church]

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

No, those are not the keys. That is the power to forgive sins through confession.

 

[Gene_Church]

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?

zerinus

This is amusing. This is fundamentally the same as those that simply say, “read catholic.com”. It doesn’t indicate that Zerinus has the answers, only that as he finds one that promotes his position, he posts it on the blog.

 

[AMDGtoo]

No, those are not the keys. That is the power to forgive sins through confession.

Thank you. I was wondering when someone point that out. And the word “keys” are not even mentioned in the quote, so I fail to see how the LDS can even get “Jesus giving the apostles keys” from that quote.

 

[Gene_Church]

Well, I can’t accept that interpretation either. The expression “gates of hell . . .” occurs more often in LDS scripture than in the New Testament, with the same meaning; and it is obvious from the context that it means that the powers of darkness or the devil will not prevail against them.

zerinus

And if I wrote the Book of Gene, I could also place the “gates of hell” in it and define it as I wanted to as well. Not evidence, except that Joseph Smith wanted Scripture to mean what he, through his evolution of desire, wanted it to mean.

 

[Gene_Church]

Sorry Prodigal, I had a look, and I think that all of your objections have been addressed. If you can’t see it, then anything else I say will not be of any help to you.

zerinus

Sorry Prodigal, if my insufficient answers can’t help you, anything else I say will not be of any help to you.

 

[Gene_Church]

I think that you are wrong. Try this link.

I think you are wrong about this one too. I don’t have the time right now to search for the information on the Internet; but I believe originally the Catholic Church did not regard the Apocrypha to be on a par with the rest of the biblical books.

zerinus

If you mean, were there people in the early Church who would agree with your position, then yes. Was that Church position, then no.

 

[Gene_Church]

Unheard of in the Bible!

We have the Council of the Twelve Apostles, which Paul says is the “foundation” of the church. The fact that you lack this basic understanding, indicates your lack of Christianity.

LDS are the only true Christian. All the rest are Apostate Christians!

zerinus

That and 75 cents will buy you a real cheap cup of coffee.

The Magisterium is not unheard of. Ironically, LDS uses this basis to justify their Council of the Twelve Apostles. Without the concept of a Magisterium, what the LDS says is meaningless.

You might be able to claim a lack of knowledge on my part about LDS, but not Christianity.

Paul does not say that LDS’ Council of the Twelve Apostles are the foundation of the Church. Would you like to cite that?

LDS is a false religion, with a false god. There are many good people there, but they are simply misguided.

 

[Gene_Church]

Lack of Twelve Apostles makes for Apostate Christianity.

zerinus

Sorry, but once again, a non-Catholic, and non-Christian, attempted to interpret the actual Church of Jesus Christ. When King Henry VIII decided he didn’t like the Church, he made his own. Joseph Smith did the same.

It was Peter and the apostles that led the early Church, and established Bishops, and decided the structure of the early Church, not someone else 1800 years later.

 

[Nan_S]

Thank you. I was wondering when someone point that out. And the word “keys” are not even mentioned in the quote, so I fail to see how the LDS can even get “Jesus giving the apostles keys” from that quote.

A few posts later, Z said they believe only one person can hold the keys at a time. So Jesus can’t have given keys to the apostles as a group. This quote is a red herring that proves apostolic authority, but is mute on the keys.

Z wasn’t even the poster that I was asking about the “keys” anyway.

I’m still waiting for a decent answer explaining how they think Peter’s keys to heaven could be used to launch an offensive assault against Hades, especially since Peter wasn’t given the keys to the netherworld and the abyss. None of the quotes Z posted from his LDS books give that answer.

I’ve grown weary of Z’s continual reversals, red herrings, and self-contradictory statements. He’s back on my ignore list.

Don’t bother answering, Z. I won’t be reading it.

 

[1holycatholic]

LDS is a false religion, with a false god. There are many good people there, but they are simply misguided.

Since the LDS are polytheists “false gods” would be more apropos.
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3
St. Thomas' Summa Theologica:

If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist.

:doh2:

 

[Auntie_M]

If I may put my 2 cents worth in…

I visited an LDS a long time ago with some friends. (Before I converted to Catholism). It was very interesting. There was no pastor/priest/minister. Someone from the congregation would go to the pulpit and “talk”. Most of what I remember about their “talks” was like a memorized line that everybody used…
“I know that the LDS is the True church”, Never really giving an explaination as to WHY they knew this.

There were alot of very sweet, nice, loving people there, but when they referred to “God’s Wife” and that He has “Many” wives, I really couldn’t take that at all. They don’t believe Jesus is anything but “OUR BROTHER”, that His death on the cross was as a martyr. (Hence the reason for NO cross on their buildings)

Joseph Smith was a mason, and the LDS has alot of “masonic
like” “customs”. They both have an “apron”, they both have similar
handshakes, (that tells others they are LDS or masons without blurting it out verbally) They both have “degrees”, and “secrets”, etc. etc…

I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I do believe that the people who attend the LDS are being led astray. Let’s keep them in our prayers because they are truly good hearted people who are just being led the wrong way. Pray that they will get a burning desire to “find the REALLY true church”, as I did.

 

[why_me]

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.

To qualify as a christian one must believe in Jesus Christ. The trinity is not a qualification for christian belief. Many lds live good christian lives because they attempt to keep the commandments and to live according to the word of god. They also believe Jesus to be the savior. I am not sure that it is correct to define a christian according to the trinity. Many mormons would be considered great ‘catholics’ by the way they live their lives.

 

[why_me]

Catholics do not recognize an LDS baptism. See vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

Which is one reason that when a catholic is baptized lds, he or she has no problems in coming back to the catholic church. Since both churches do not recognize the other baptisms, a catholic/mormon can do both religions without much of a problem.

But to do this, the person can not be dogmatic but open minded.

 

[Auntie_M]

Excuse me but I forgot one part…

They believe that we all become Gods when we die (if you have lived a very good LDS life). We will go on to another universe and start our own “earth”. We will be the God of that earth.

I really don’t know how or where they get this belief.