M
Mannyfit75
Guest
This always made me wonder if the Latter-Day Saints are Protestants. In my opinion they are not…
- Status
G
GemmaRose
Guest
LDS are not even Christian !
Z
zerinus
Guest
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
W
why_me
Guest
The lds are not protestant. Zernius is correct in the lds assessment of the situation.
W
why_me
Guest
They are definitely Christian and many live good christian lives according to the New Testament.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
Catholics do not recognize an LDS baptism. See vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I apologize for going off topic but I have a couple of questions of someone who is LDS.
How could there have been a great apostasy in the Church when Christ promised, not even the gates of hell will prevail against it?
Why would Christ abandon mankind from the time of the alleged great apostasy until the 15 century, in the case of the reformation, or the 18 century, in the case of restoration, in light of Christ’s promise to be with us until the consummation of the world?
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
Z
zerinus
Guest
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you for your inquiry. Since this is a question that is too oftern asked of LDS, I have already given it a comprehensive reply in my Blog that you can read here:
zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/apostasy-and-restoration.html
zerinus
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
No, the LDS are not Protestant (original breakaway from the Catholic Church). The LDS are a whole thing apart. Of course their founder was Protestant, and IMO that’s why you see Protestant doctrine in the LDS doctrine. IMO, the LDS are a group of “borrowers”. They borrowed from the Gnostic heresy. They borrowed from the Arian heresy. They borrowed from the Freemasons (their founder was a FreeMason, and many scholars seem to find that reason for the FreeMason doctrines.) And they borrowed from the Protestants.
A
Alma147
Guest
I’m adding my 2 cents because I don’t agree with Zerinus’ response.
I think most people misinterpret this passage because most English translations of the Bible have rendered the word “Hades” as “hell.” The word conjures up in the minds of most people the domain of the devil–rather than the place of departed spirits, as it should be understood.
This isn’t a promise that the domain of the devil couldn’t overwhelm the Church, it’s a promise that the place of departed spirits couldn’t keep its gates shut from an assault upon it by the Church. It’s easily understood if you look at warfare from the perspective of those of the first century rather than from today’s.
In Biblical times, you would protect your city from invasion by building a wall around the city. Walled cities were difficult to assail and warfare concentrated on the “gates.” If you could knock down the gates, you could take the city.
If you attack your enemy and his gates prevail against you, you lose the battle. But notice, (and this is very important) gates don’t ever attack. They are entirely defensive, intended only to impede access.
Consequently, Jesus’ promise should be understood to mean that the Church would attack the gates of hell, not the other way around. The language is very important. The Lord says, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Immediately following the promise that the “gates of Hades” couldn’t prevail against the Church, Jesus explains why those gates won’t remain closed: “and I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Properly understood, this is an excellent foundation for the LDS doctrine of vicarious redemption for the dead. The church would assail (successfully) the gates of Hades, that is, the barrier between us and the dead. The apostles had the keys to seal and loose so that “whatsoever” they sealed or loosed would be effective in heaven as well. That’s why we do work for the dead.
Christ didn’t abandon mankind; people abandoned his apostles and refused to be led by them. The result of the apostasy wasn’t abandonment by God. There continued to be good people who were inspired throughout the ages–Savonarola, Wesley, Several Popes, Tyndale and others.
His promise was not to the Church but to the Apostles.
And with you as well.
Alma
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Properly understood, is not what you have going here.
Once again, where Jesus and Peter were when this promise was made is just as important as what He said.
Casarea Phillipi is a massive rock, with niches carved into it. People would place carvings of pagan gods into these niches. This rock had a cave entrance, with an associated pagan belief that this was an entrance to the netherworld, what we call hell.
On this massive rock, a city had been built.
This is where they were standing, not in front of a fortified city.
Yes, people leave their beliefs for others. That does not destroy the entire Church! If you believe this, then the LDS church has been destroyed the many people who left it.
The Holy Spirit has guided Christ’s Church, and will always do so.
There is no difference between the Church and the Apostles, they are the Church, we are the Church, Christ heads the Church. All of us, together are united as one Body.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The following is a quote from your link.
Through Peter, Christ built one Church, the same Church that lasted from his time until present day. It wasn’t until 1400 to 1500 years later that other churches came into existence.
With the above, I did not find a satisfactory answer to my second question of why would Christ abandon mankind for 1500 years, until the reformation , or 1800 years, until the restoration.
I still find other scriptures that cast doubt on the great apostasy, in my opinion.
Are you saying Jesus to be like the wise man who built His house on rock, or like the foolish man who built his house on sand?
Because we believe Christ to be like the wise man, His Church was and is on rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. If the Church had disappeared, even for a short time, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, thus making Jesus wrong.
Jesus commanded us to take disputes involving religious matters to the Church. This again presupposes the Church to always exist and remain true, as Jesus promised in Matthew 28:20 “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Again, with Jesus always with His Church, it is impossible for Christ to abandon His Church, or for His Church to apostatize or to become doctrinally corrupt.
St. Paul tell us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
While a lot of scriptures were provided on your blog, including Acts 20:29, 2 Thess. 2:3 and others, they are references to the mass apostasy that will occur prior to the end of time, or to other apostasies that describe all periods of Church history.
Tell me where in the Bible, it speaks of a total apostasy involving Apostolic authority and the successors.
Why can one find evidence of all the major splits in Church history, Arianism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism but cannot find any evidence of a total apostasy? Wouldn’t this have been of importance to have been recorded in history? It seems that someone who was against the Church would have made sure everyone knew of the “great apostasy”?
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Thank you for your response, but I think the example of the gates of hell would not prevail seems to indicate that the most extreme case would not prevail, let alone the actions of men.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Alma, to add to what Jesus said at Ceaserea Philppi. Remember all the instances throughout the Bible, OT and New, where death is equated to suffering and sin?
If you take Jesus’ words to Peter further, into those same metaphors. The gates of hell takes on the meaning of not only a literal “hell”, but also what is associated to hell. Death, sin, suffering.
Jesus is, telling Peter once again of what is to come. His conquering of death.
Jesus Sacrifice cannot be prevailed against. What He gives to Peter is tied to this Sacrifice. The Church, for which Peter is the rock, is a living part of Christ. It is Jesus’ Church, and as such belongs to Him. To say that Jesus’ Church withered on the vine, is to say that Christ Himself is unable to sustain a part of Himself.
If you take Jesus’ words to Peter further, into those same metaphors. The gates of hell takes on the meaning of not only a literal “hell”, but also what is associated to hell. Death, sin, suffering.
Jesus is, telling Peter once again of what is to come. His conquering of death.
Jesus Sacrifice cannot be prevailed against. What He gives to Peter is tied to this Sacrifice. The Church, for which Peter is the rock, is a living part of Christ. It is Jesus’ Church, and as such belongs to Him. To say that Jesus’ Church withered on the vine, is to say that Christ Himself is unable to sustain a part of Himself.
N
Nan_S
Guest
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.
Please comment on these keys which were not given to the church, but which were retained by Jesus:
Rev 1:17-18 He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.”
Rev 9:1-2 Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. It was given the key for the passage to the abyss. It opened the passage to the abyss, and smoke came up out of the passage like smoke from a huge furnace. The sun and the air were darkened by the smoke from the passage.
Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel come down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the abyss and a heavy chain. He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, which is the Devil or Satan, and tied it up for a thousand years and threw it into the abyss, which he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed. After this, it is to be released for a short time.
Z
zerinus
Guest
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 some other? 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.
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.
I think these are all questions that I did address in my article. No need to add anything more.
The Lord bless you too!
zerinus
C
catharina
Guest
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.
Z
zerinus
Guest
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
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Protestants don’t agree on that.
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?
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?
- Status