Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Frank_Cox]

http://www.ajarn.com/images/mormon.jpg

Hey buddy, seen any 6 foot Quakers? Next week it off to the sun!

 

[hosemonkey]

I am a Bible believing Christian.

 

[AMDGtoo]

It was said:
“That makes being a Catholic impossible for me . One has to denounce scripture.”

Nay, not so. Catholics are Bible Christians. Historically, the Bible is a Catholic book and without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible at all. (Martin Luther himself admits that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.)

Now the question is about the LDS. Well, before the most recent LDS public relations, the LDS called Christian Churches “abominable” and considered themselves a “special people”. Even they didn’t claim to be Christian. Now they do. Well, should we believe them then or now? Wonder why they decided to change.

 

[joe_mc]

It is my understanding that LDS rejects the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Lutheran Church, Anglican Communion, and almost all branches of Protestantism including the Presbyterian Church, Methodist Church & Reformed Churches.

In addition, I believe that LDS baptisms are not considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, & Episcopal Church (USA).

If my understanding is correct they also have a doctrine of mankind attaining godhood. (Although they hold that none can ascend above the one true God). This seems at odds with the what I view as the traditional monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christianity, Mormons).

 

[1holycatholic]

They may be called such but they are not. The word Protestant was given to those who protested the RCC by the RCC. The A of God protested against other Pentecostals.

No they are not. Up until 1881 even the Southern Baptist did not call themselves Protestants, now they do. I am a Baptist but no way a Protestant. If you think about it the Protestants were reformed Catholics, hence the term, the Reformation. It was the hope of the reformers to bring and end to the abuses of the RCC, but were forced to leave it. There were always groups outside of the RCC and they went by many names but were joined by a common belief in the authority of scripture, the baptism {immersion} of the believer as a sacrament and not for salvation ,Holy Communion {not the Eucharist and transfiguration} , the Priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty. Of course they were slaughtered by the RCC from centuries.
These people were hopeful that the Protestants would be their allies but Calvin drowned them by the thousands and all the Protestants murdered them. Remember a Protestant is a reformed Catholic.so they did as mother church did and murdered anyone who rejected infant baptism. Calvin named them AnaBaptist, those that re-baptize as to they did not recognize pedobaptism and required believers baptism to join them.

The Baptist were named by those that killed them after the Reformation , the Protestants. It is like calling Jews Nazi’s to call a Baptist a Protestant although many Baptists even are too ignorant of history to know that.

No they are not, neither is every Protestant , Baptist or Pentecostal. Please read the Bible, being the member of a church is not salvation,. Spending an hour a week in a chicken house does not make you a chicken.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

If you want to believe the fairy tale that the Roman Church which did not exist before the 4th century was entrusted with God’s power that is your prerogative. From the Bibles point of view the present Pope is a heretic because He denies the creator Jesus Christ . It comes down to who you authority is, God or man. There is no mention of a Roman church in the Bible nor any where does it claim Peter was the Bishop of Rome or for that matter ever went there.

From Rome Paul’s last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, ‘At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me’ (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.

I have no more reason to care what the RCC claims than what the Muslims , Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Moonies do. If it does not square with God’s word it is a lie.

I am a Bible believing Christian.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

That makes being a Catholic impossible for me . One has to denounce scripture. To denounce the written word is to denounce the Living Word.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

You’ve got a lot of material there. Do you have anything to back up your historical claims?

Don’t simply cite the Bible. You need to provide historic references covering your assertions (the past 2,00 years.)

The Bible proceeds from the Church, the Church doesn’t proceed from the Bible. Every time you refer to the Bible you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Frank_Cox]

If you were a “Bible-believing Christian” then you would be Catholic. You believe what you choose to believe. If you believed all of Scripture, then you would know that John :6 tells us that to consume the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Baptists do not do this. You are merely regurgitating all the common myths about Catholicism, myths that have long since been refuted. Perhaps it would be better if you remained silent and learned the truth about the true Church founded by Our Lord.

 

[ufamtobie]

No, they are not! We claim a Restoration

of the original gospel; whereas the Protestants claim a Reformation of the Christian Church.

We agree with the Protestants in one thing, that an Apostasy occured in the early Christian church; but we disagree with them on how to fix it. They thought they could fix it by a Reformation. We believe that is not possible. Apostasy entails a loss of priesthood authority; and priesthood authority when lost, can only be regaind by a Restoration, not a Reformation. In the LDS Church that Restoration was brought about by the ministration of angels, which is the only way that it could have been accomplished.

zerinus

Zerinus,

And people who believe like you, abaout an apostasy in the early Church, WAKE UP! and Smell the TRUTH!

Is Jesus a liar?

If there was ever an apostasy that occured in the early Christian Church then Jesus Christ was telling a fib about the Gates of Hell will not prevail over his Church!

Zerinus, This is exactly what you are saying, that Jesus Christ is a Liar, when you say that there was an apostasy in the earlie Church.

Hell = apostasy! Therefore apsotasy can never enter the Catholic Church

Jesus is not a Liar, the gates of hell/apostasy Never prevailed over his Catholic Church and never will. Amen

Ufam Tobie

 

[JohnVIII]

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.”

Perhaps you didn’t know Mormons do use the words: “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”. The only thing that is incorrect about the “form” of a Mormon baptism is the fact they only do one dipping in the water instead of three. Nevertheless, this is not the reason they’re baptism is not accepted; it is because there are not only heretics, but they are extreme, manifest heretics.

An additional note: Most people do not know that the baptizer in a Mormon baptism holds his arms and a certain symbolic way just prior to the baptism that secretly represents one of the secret signs and tokens of the Masonic-like priesthood revealed only in their secret Mormon temples. Thus there is a link between their secret (Gnostic like) knowledge and a Mormon baptism.

 

[chrisse]

Frank Cox:
As long as they had the power to the RCC killed anyone who dare …

After that doozy, the rest of his rant was irrelevant; pure hate and bigotry.

The RCC has never had the power, nor the prescribed punishment, to kill. The civil authorities, however, did have that power and used it.

Excommunication could be called death to the soul, but never used for reading the Bible.

The small fact that mass printing wasn’t available until … (I’ll leave that to you to fill in)

 

[1holycatholic]

1. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, “Mother of God” applied at Council of Ephesus – 431 AD.
2. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) – 526 AD
3. Doctrine of Purgatory (Gregory I) – 593 AD
4. Prayers to Mary & dead saints – 600 AD
5. Worship of cross, images & relics – 786 AD
6. Canonization of dead saints – 995 AD
7. Celibacy of priesthood – 1079 AD
8. The Rosary – 1090 AD
9. Indulgences – 1190 AD
10. Transubstantiation (Innocent III) – 1215 AD
11. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest – 1215 AD
12. Adoration of the wafer (Host) – 1220 AD
13. Cup forbidden to the people at communion – 1414 AD
14. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma – 1439 AD
15. Apocryphal books added to Bible – 1546 AD
16. Immaculate Conception of Mary – 1854 AD
17. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council – 1870 AD
18. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) – 1950 AD
19. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Roman Catholic Church – 1965 AD

The material you posted is online and attributed to Dr. Jack L. Arnold.

Why did you do this? Is the intellectual dishonesty and theft of plagiarism acceptable?

 

[dianaiad]

Zerinus,

And people who believe like you, abaout an apostasy in the early Church, WAKE UP! and Smell the TRUTH!

Is Jesus a liar?

If there was ever an apostasy that occured in the early Christian Church then Jesus Christ was telling a fib about the Gates of Hell will not prevail over his Church!

But if we are correct, the gates of hell did NOT prevail, did they?

Here we are.
ufamtobie;4696452:

Zerinus, This is exactly what you are saying, that Jesus Christ is a Liar, when you say that there was an apostasy in the earlie Church.

Hell = apostasy! Therefore apsotasy can never enter the Catholic Church

Jesus is not a Liar, the gates of hell/apostasy Never prevailed over his Catholic Church and never will. Amen

Ufam Tobie

Then what did it mean then, when Paul wrote, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, about the second coming of Christ,in chapter 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, aor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Evidently it was rather well known that an apostasy was pretty much inevitable.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Evidently it was rather well known that an apostasy was pretty much inevitable.

IMO, of course apostasy well well known. It’s right in the Bible–John 6:66:

“From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him”

“time” refers to when Jesus told them all that He was the real bread of life and that they were to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”.

“His” refers, of course, to Jesus, our God

But the second part of dianaiad’s statement that “an apostasy was pretty much inevitable” doesn’t appear to be “inevitable”. Afterall we have John 6:67 where Jesus asks if the twelve will go away and John 6:68-69 which indicates that they would not.

And we have Matthew 28:20 that says that Jesus will be with us “even unto the end of the world” and we have Matthew 16:18 which has Jesus telling us that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” Jesus’ Church.

Hmm–if “an apostasy is pretty much inevitable”, wouldn’t that mean that Jesus (God) is a liar? Truth a liar? I don’t think so.

 

[truthsilence]

Then what did it mean then, when Paul wrote, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, about the second coming of Christ,in chapter 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, aor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Evidently it was rather well known that an apostasy was pretty much inevitable.

Yes. But never a Universal one, and we can trust our Lords word on that.

2 Thes:2 is an exhortation for those early Christians not to be alarmed, to be keenly aware of the conflict between good and evil, and to trust God’s victory over evil. They (and we) are to remain vigilant against deception. They are told to hold fast to the traditions they were taught either by oral statement or letter.

When looking at NT writings and early church writings as a whole, it seems to me that the unique teachings which sprung up under Joseph Smith are not present there and so I reject them. I suppose you could assume they were taught orally, but to me they contradict what we already have, so again I reject them.

Peace,
Tami

 

[hosemonkey]

Sounds as though you have aquired all your information either from Jack Chick or Lorraine Boettner, both anti-Catholic bigots who had their facts wildly wrong. Catholics couldn’t read the Bible until 1961? Wildly absurd. C’mon man, read something other than comic books.

 

[Frank_Cox]

After that doozy, the rest of his rant was irrelevant; pure hate and bigotry.

The RCC has never had the power, nor the prescribed punishment, to kill. The civil authorities, however, did have that power and used it.

Excommunication could be called death to the soul, but never used for reading the Bible.

The small fact that mass printing wasn’t available until … (I’ll leave that to you to fill in)

Is the truth hateful?
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Those laws are still on the book. All one has to do is read the V2 and the Cannons from the Reformation Council at Trent. The RCC condemns me to death and hell over 100 times and you say I am a hater?
To claim the RCC did not burn people to death for reading the Bible is no different than denying the Holocaust. In a way it is worse because most people know the Holocaust happened but never have I met a Catholic that even knows those anathemas used to kill my ancestors are enthusiastically upheld by the present day church.
I read your laws, you have not , go figure?
BTW I am past 50 and I know many Catholics and none of them who were old enough to remember deny being told the Catechism is for you, the Bible for the preist, That was 50 years ago, not ancient history.

 

[Frank_Cox]

It was said:
“That makes being a Catholic impossible for me . One has to denounce scripture.”

Nay, not so. Catholics are Bible Christians. Historically, the Bible is a Catholic book and without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible at all. (Martin Luther himself admits that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.)

Now the question is about the LDS. Well, before the most recent LDS public relations, the LDS called Christian Churches “abominable” and considered themselves a “special people”. Even they didn’t claim to be Christian. Now they do. Well, should we believe them then or now? Wonder why they decided to change.

How can you say something so stupid and so heretical? The Bible has either always existed or it is trash , read it sometime.

Psa 119:89 Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No where in the Bible is Rome , a city named after a pagan love goddess, mentioned as anything but a historical place. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written 150 years before Christ and they were copies of scripture that date back 1500 years before Christ. To say the RCC wrote the Bible is as convincing as the visions of Smith and Mohammad…

You are dishonestly misrepresenting Luther. Yes it was Catholic Monks that helped preserve the Bible. Luther was a Catholic Monk but in no way did he credit the RCC with its existence in the first place. It existed long before the RCC did and Luther made it plain the story of Peter being the leader of the Church and having descendants was a lie from hell. You expose yourself by these statements as a yes person. I seriously doubt you have spent 10 minutes reading the V2. the councils o much less Luther.

The Bible is the word of God, not the RCC.

 

[truthsilence]

How can you say something so stupid and so heretical? The Bible has either always existed or it is trash , read it sometime.

You are dishonestly misrepresenting Luther. Yes it was Catholic Monks that helped preserve the Bible. Luther was a Catholic Monk but in no way did he credit the RCC with its existence in the first place. It existed long before the RCC did and Luther made it plain the story of Peter being the leader of the Church and having descendants was a lie from hell. You expose yourself by these statements as a yes person. I seriously doubt you have spent 10 minutes reading the V2. the councils o much less Luther.

The Bible is the word of God, not the RCC.

You’re making a lot of assumptions here.

The early Catholic church compiled and copied the Bible into the books we now have, and has preserved it along with sacred oral tradition, to this day.

By the way, what does the Bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Peace to you,
Tami

 

[Frank_Cox]

You’re making a lot of assumptions here.

The early Catholic church compiled and copied the Bible into the books we now have, and has preserved it along with sacred oral tradition, to this day.

By the way, what does the Bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Peace to you,
Tami

They are justified by you statements, they are observations, not assumptions.
That is a stupid argument. The church is not a building or an organization . The Bible teaches the priesthood of the believer .The Bible never mentions the Roman Catholic Church, it never indicates Peter ever went to Rome much less was a Bishop of Rome , that there ever was a Bishop of Rome . This whole fairy tale should have been trash canned with the exposure of the greatest fraud in the history of the world the RCC perpetrated. The False Decretals.

 

[dianaiad]

IMO, of course apostasy well well known. It’s right in the Bible–John 6:66:

“From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him”

“time” refers to when Jesus told them all that He was the real bread of life and that they were to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”.

“His” refers, of course, to Jesus, our God

But the second part of dianaiad’s statement that “an apostasy was pretty much inevitable” doesn’t appear to be “inevitable”. Afterall we have John 6:67 where Jesus asks if the twelve will go away and John 6:68-69 which indicates that they would not.

And we have Matthew 28:20 that says that Jesus will be with us “even unto the end of the world” and we have Matthew 16:18 which has Jesus telling us that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” Jesus’ Church.

Hmm–if “an apostasy is pretty much inevitable”, wouldn’t that mean that Jesus (God) is a liar? Truth a liar? I don’t think so.

Then what did Paul mean, when he wrote that Christ would not com again until after a falling away happened?

 

[AMDGtoo]

You’re making a lot of assumptions here.

The early Catholic church compiled and copied the Bible into the books we now have, and has preserved it along with sacred oral tradition, to this day.

By the way, what does the Bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Thank you Tami.

The New Testament was written, copied, and collected by Catholic Christians. And the official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritativel determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. The Catholic translator into the Latin Vulgate, Jerome (c.343-420), is quoted “ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ”. So yeah, the Bible is from the Church.

I have many versions of the Bible and I recently inherited yet another. The copyright is only from 1914, but the interesting part is that it not only includes an indulgence by Pope Leo XIII (dated 1898) encouraging the Faithful to read the Holy Gospels at least a quarter hour each day, but also includes a letter by Pope Pius VI (dated 1778) praising the Archbishop of Foresnce on his Translation of the Holy Bible into Italian among the papers in this Bible’s forward.

BTW did you all know that the Douay-Rheimes translation of the Bible (a Catholic English translation) is actually the older translation between it and the King James Version? And that the original King James Version included the 7 deuterocanonical books that have been taken out of many modern KJV Bibles?