Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Gene_Church]

Mormons do not recognize Cathlic baptism.

zerinus

Catholics have the Magisterium. And the fact they lack this basic understanding indicates the lack of Christianity. But as to the original question, LDS are not Protestant, nor are they Christian.

 

[Gene_Church]

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

False interpretation, but entertaining. Lack of a Magisterium allows anyone, even 1800 years later, to rewrtie history and reinterpret what one chooses.

 

[zerinus]

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.

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. Here are the quotes:

2 Nephi 4:

32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite! O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me, that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road

3 Nephi 11:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

3 Nephi 11:

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

3 Nephi 18:

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

D&C 10:

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

D&C 17:

8 And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 18:

5 Wherefore, if you shall build up my church, upon the foundation of my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 21:

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

D&C 33:

13 And upon this rock I will build my church; yea, upon this rock ye are built, and if ye continue, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 98:

22 And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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

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

 

[zerinus]

No, it wasn’t.

I think that you are wrong. Try this link.

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.

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

 

[zerinus]

Catholics have the Magisterium.

Unheard of in the Bible!

And the fact they lack this basic understanding indicates your lack of Christianity.

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.

But as to the original question, LDS are not Protestant, nor are they Christians!

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

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

False interpretation, but entertaining.

Thank you. Better than nothing I guess!

Lack of a Magisterium allows anyone, even 1800 years later, to rewrtie history and reinterpret what one chooses.

Lack of Twelve Apostles makes for Apostate Christianity.

zerinus

 

[VWcrazy]

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

If LDS is any part Christian, it is totally apostate Christianity.

The LDS love to claim all others are apostate to deflect the reality that they are the epitome of apostacy.

 

[Nan_S]

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.

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

Yes, Peter drove out demons and raised the dead back to earthly life. But Peter was not alone in performing those duties. So that was not evidence of any key-holding authority that extended into Hades.

I’ll have to disagree with you that Peter’s authority extends into making an offensive assault on Hades. That is the job of the angel with the fifth trumpet. The way we see it, Peter’s authority with regard to the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is a heavenly restoration of the earthly office held by the OT Levites who guarded the Ark of the Covenant. It’s not an offensive position to go out and wage war upon a distant army. Peter’s authority is actually a defensive position to keep intruders from broaching the Gate of Heaven.

1 Chron 9:22-27 The gatekeepers had been assigned to their positions of trust by David and Samuel the seer. They and their descendants were in charge of guarding the gates of the house of the LORD -the house called the Tent. The gatekeepers were on the four sides: east, west, north and south. Their brothers in their villages had to come from time to time and share their duties for seven-day periods. But the four principal gatekeepers, who were Levites, were entrusted with the responsibility for the rooms and treasuries in the house of God. They would spend the night stationed around the house of God, because they had to guard it; and they had charge of the key for opening it each morning.

 

[GemmaRose]

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

You may call it smug. You may call it arrogant. You may call it whatever you want. It doesn’t matter what you call it, because what it is is the TRUTH.

I feel very sad for you that you have been indoctrinated and believe in false, very false, doctrine.

You can defend your doctrine until the day you die, it will still not be TRUTH.

It will never be TRUTH because it never has been TRUTH.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Hmmmm, 1500 years after the canon of the New Testament. It seems you think that their meaning supercedes Christ’s usage of the phrase, even though they had the luxury of reading it first in the New Testament. How does that make it obvious?

Below are find what some (from much earlier than those who wrote the LDS scriptures you refer too) had to say about the verse, as recorded in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea.

Hilary: But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Gloss. interlin.: That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.

Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

Raban.: The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they shew the path of destruction.

Origen: He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.

Cyril: According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, ‘et nos necessario salutis,’ the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

Below, find what the Catholic commentary has to say from the Douay-Rheims Bible which was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate about 300 years before Joseph Smith started the Mormon church.

The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

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

 

[GemmaRose]

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

Did you mean “profane” or “inane”?

 

[GemmaRose]

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. Here are the quotes:

Quoting LDS “scripture” is not much different than quoting a book of fairy tales.

The only scripture that exists is the Bible - true Scripture - the Divinely inspired Word of God.

Anything that came so many hundreds of years later is pure fantasy coming from a severely deluded individual.

 

[bpbasilphx]

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

Oh, I believe you’re mistaken, please point out where you answered the following questions.

When did the great apostasy start? Who started it? Where did it start? Who defended against it?

As I stated before, and you still haven’t addressed it, if there was a “great apostasy” as the mormon church claims, surely those against the Church would have made certain to document it or at the very least make it well known to endorse their own beliefs or as justified reasons for leaving the Church. As far as I know, no such evidence exists.

In my opinion, this casts doubts on a religion started in the 1800s that claims a great apostasy took place but cannot offer any documents, other than someone’s private interpretations of scriptures, as proof.

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

 

[zerinus]

You may call it smug. You may call it arrogant. You may call it whatever you want. It doesn’t matter what you call it, because what it is is the TRUTH.

I feel very sad for you that you have been indoctrinated and believe in false, very false, doctrine.

You can defend your doctrine until the day you die, it will still not be TRUTH.

It will never be TRUTH because it never has been TRUTH.

"and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, Treason" (2 Kings 11:14)

zerinus

 

[GemmaRose]

"and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, Treason" (2 Kings 11:14)

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.”

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

 

[catharina]

You may call it smug. You may call it arrogant. You may call it whatever you want. It doesn’t matter what you call it, because what it is is the TRUTH.

I feel very sad for you that you have been indoctrinated and believe in false, very false, doctrine.

You can defend your doctrine until the day you die, it will still not be TRUTH.

It will never be TRUTH because it never has been TRUTH.

Very well-said and perfectly true.

 

[catharina]

Did you mean “profane” or “inane”?

I meant profane but inane equally applies.

 

[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.

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

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

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

Wikipedia isn’t a very credible source. Nonetheless, it does say:

…Lutherans and Calvinists hold that the Ecumenical Councils of the early and medieval church are true expressions of the Christian faith…

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

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.

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: