Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[1holycatholic]

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.

Satan believes in Jesus. That doesn’t make Satan a Christian.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.
The Holy Trinity is one God, we reaffirm this every time we recite the creed at Mass. The LDS do not believe in the Holy Trinity as three persons in one God. Accordingly the Church correctly declares that LDS are not Christians since they do not have valid Baptism. The LDS aren’t alone in this; Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and certainly others pseudo Christian groups have the same problem of invalid baptism.

Having “Jesus Christ” in the name of an ecclesial community doesn’t make it Christian.

 

[BDawg]

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.

Hi Auntie M,

A lot of the info you repeated about the LDS is either false, or quite distorted. For instance, there are ritual handclasps in our Temple ceremonies, but we don’t have “secret handshakes” to recognize each other. We don’t have “degrees,” like the Masons. We believe Jesus died for our sins on the Cross, but we don’t use the Cross as a symbol. (Personally, I think this is because so many Christians have actually bowed down and worshipped before the Cross symbol for so many years, that it pretty much violates the “no graven images” commandment.) And if you wondered WHY a particular Mormon has a witness of the truth of his/her religion, why didn’t you just ask?

Anyway, my experience is that if you want someone to change their mind about their beliefs, you should start by treating their prior belief system with charity. That means figuring out what they actually believe and why they believe it, and then treating them with respect.

If you would like to make such an effort, here is a good site from which to start.

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

Joseph Smith pulled it out of his hat.

 

[1holycatholic]

That means figuring out what they actually believe and why they believe it, and then treating them with respect.

Straight from the horse’s mouth:
lds.org
Joseph Smith:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.

The existence of more than one God is logically impossible.

 

[hosemonkey]

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.

That kind of reasoning is schizophrenic ! When a Catholic is “baptised” LDS, they become apostate and a material heretic. If they return to the true Church, they must confess, and be absolved of their sin. A Catholic who believes that they can be simultaneously Catholic AND LDS is schizophrenic!

 

[zerinus]

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.

Because the ability to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, or to forgive on earth and be forginen in heaven etc., is performed by means of those “keys”. Jesus told Peter that He would give him those keys so that he could do those things. If Jesus told the other Apostles that they could do those things too, that means that they too had those keys, no?

2+2=4, right?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

A few posts later, Z said they believe only one person can hold the keys at a time.

Alma said that, not me. I know what he is saying; but that does not mean that the rest of the Twelve cannot have the keys of the kingdom too.

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.

That was said by Alma too; and he is going to have to defend it himself. I don’t agree with what he said; and I gave you that long list of LDS quotes to show you (and him) how that interpretation is not compatible with LDS doctrine.

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.

Too bad! I will reply to whoever I want to reply. You are free to read or not read it as you please.

zerinus

 

[catharina]

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

zerinus

zerinus, while I know that it’s the case that many mormons are poorly educated, I promise that both Gemma Rose and I meant inane, not insane. Inane is common word that happens to describe lds teachings to a T. Look it up if you have a BIG dictionary handy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Too bad! I will reply to whoever I want to reply. You are free to read or not read it as you please.

zerinus

I was trying to discuss your belief in an attempt to honestly understand your point of view.

I received responses such as, I’ve already addressed that and I’ve explained that already and can’t help you anymore, to which I said I couldn’t find it please point it out.

All I did was ask basic questions, who, when, where and who defended against it. To skirt the issue with your responses is not a strong defense of the mormon faith, as I saw you say something to that effect in one of your previous posts.

I was trying to avoid Bible verse ping pong with you as you seem to only accept one interpertation or you provide “scriptures” written in the last two hundred years. Because of this I ask for proof but you won’t or can’t provide any. There was approximately an 1800 year span of time, am I to take this as there is nothing documented to endorse mormon teachings prior to Joseph Smith’s revelations?

As I’ve stated, more than once now, it seems if there had been this “great apostasy”, those who apostasized would have made sure everyone knew about it, to endorse their belief or at the very least to justify their actions. Again, am I to take this as there is nothing documented throughout history?

One last time, I ask when the great apostasy took place? Where did the great apostasy take place? Who started the great apostasy? Who defended against the great apostasy?

If there is no evidence of this, simply say so. If you don’t know of any evidence, simply say so. So far it appears as you’re offering a song and dance that to be quite honest, no one is buying.

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

 

[zerinus]

I was trying to avoid Bible verse ping pong with you as you seem to only accept one interpertation or you provide “scriptures” written in the last two hundred years. Because of this I ask for proof but you won’t or can’t provide any. There was approximately an 1800 year span of time, am I to take this as there is nothing documented to endorse mormon teachings prior to Joseph Smith’s revelations?

Not quite sure what you are asking from me here.

As I’ve stated, more than once now, it seems if there had been this “great apostasy”, those who apostasized would have made sure everyone knew about it, to endorse their belief or at the very least to justify their actions. Again, am I to take this as there is nothing documented throughout history?

I am puzzled by that question. I don’t know what you are asking. I had given some scriptural references to show that the apostasy had already begun during the lifetime of the Apostles. Here are the quotes from that article from my Blog:

There are many passages which suggest that the Apostasy had already begun in the days of the Apostles. For example, to Timothy Paul again writes: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Tim 1:15). To the Galatians he writes: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel . . . O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth . . . ?” (Galatians 1:6; 3:1). Jud writes of “certain men crept in unawares . . . ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4). Paul writes to Titus of those who “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable . . .” (Titus 1:16). To the Corinthians he writes: “I hear that there be divisions among you . . .” (1 Cor. 11:18). To Timothy again Paul writes of those who “concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18). John the Beloved writes of those who “went out from us, but they were not of us . . .” (1 John 2:19); and in the Revelation he writes of those who “say they are Apostles, and are not . . .” (Revelation 2:2).

So what exactly do you expect these apostates should have done to have “made sure everyone knew about it, to endorse their belief or at the very least to justify their actions”? Are not the above scriptures that detail to us an apostasy taking place, or having already taken place, as recorded by the Apostles, proof enough that such a thing did actually happen? If you don’t accept the words of the Apostles, what other evidence would you like me to produce that would be acceptable to you?

One last time, I ask when the great apostasy took place? Where did the great apostasy take place? Who started the great apostasy? Who defended against the great apostasy?

If there is no evidence of this, simply say so. If you don’t know of any evidence, simply say so. So far it appears as you’re offering a song and dance that to be quite honest, no one is buying.

I answered that too in my article. Here is a quote:

Q1. When did the Apostasy occur?

Those who ask that question seem to think that that is a trump card. They appear to believe that unless one can put an exact date to the Apostasy, it invalidates the claim. That in itself is based on a false assumption, because there are many historical events which we know have occurred, but which we are not able to put an exact date to—or at least, one that all historians will agree with. For example, when did the Roman Empire fall? Ask two different historians that question, and you may get two different answers. But there is one thing that no one will argue about: the Roman Empire did fall! We know that it fell because we can see that it is not around any more. But ask two different people for a date, and you are likely to get two different answers. The same applies to the early Christian church. We know that it apostatized because we can see that the same church, with its original doctrinal and organizational characteristics, no longer exists in the world; but putting an exact date on it will not be possible for obvious reasons.

The Apostasy was more of a process than an event. That can be illustrated with an analogy. If you cut someone’s head off, he still has his limbs and torso, but they are lifeless and he cannot use them. It takes time for the rest of his body to decompose and crumble to the earth. The same is true of the church. When the head was cut off, the organizational structure that the Apostles had left behind still existed, and it took time for it to degenerate into something completely alien to it. Paul in fact compares the church to a human body, where every limb is necessary for it to function properly.

1 Corinthians 12:

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

So although all members are necessary for the functioning of the body, the head is the most important part. If the head is cut off, then everything else dies, and that is what happened to the Christian church. The head was cut off, but the rest of the body was still around, giving the impression that it was still alive, while in reality it was dead, and in process of time it degenerated, doctrinally as well as structurally, into something alien to what the Apostles had originally established.

However, since the critics often insist that we should put a date on the Apostasy, that is also possible by coming to an intelligent approximation—just as historians attempt to put an intelligent date on the fall of the Roman Empire. If I had to put a date on the Apostasy, I would say that it occurred when the last Apostle died, or when his ministry in the church was terminated. That is when the priesthood authority was lost. That is when the keys of the kingdom were taken away, and the line of communication between the heavens and the earth was cut off. That is the point at which the church could no longer be led by revelation from the Lord, and began to drift away doctrinally and structurally from that which Jesus and the Apostles had left it with. Equally important, that is the point at which valid sacraments could not longer be performed in the church.

Bearing in mind that we define the Apostasy as the loss of the priesthood authority of the church, and that John the Revelator (the last Apostle) is believed to have continued in the church until around 90 AD, I would put the date of the Apostasy at the close of the first century. By the end of the first century the Apostasy was complete. This does not mean that there were no more good Christians left. It means that at that time the authority was lost. It means that the church could no longer be led by revelation, which in turn means that the ministry could not be kept pure. People were called to high positions in the church who were not worthy of it, as Jesus foresaw in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24–30). It meant that the doctrinal and organizational purity of the church could no longer be maintained.

What is there in that passage that you could not understand?

zerinus

 

[1holycatholic]

What is there in that passage that you could not understand?

Your claim that Joseph Smith’s “church” holds the same view: “that an Apostasy occured in the early Christian church” which was also held by the first Protestants is odd given your repeated repudiation of your own position. :whacky:

 

[zerinus]

Your claim that Joseph Smith’s “church” holds the same view: “that an Apostasy occured in the early Christian church” which was also held by the first Protestants is odd given your repeated repudiation of your own position. :whacky:

So it is not a question of not understanding what I am saying; but rather that you do not want to understand. You are just wasting my time as well as yours by asking me these rather silly and ridiculous questions. My original assesssment was right. I have nothing further to say to you, and I am not interested in your further questions. With hindsight, it was a mistake to have answered your previous question too. It won’t happen again. Have a nice day.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

zerinus, while I know that it’s the case that many mormons are poorly educated, I promise that both Gemma Rose and I meant inane, not insane. Inane is common word that happens to describe lds teachings to a T. Look it up if you have a BIG dictionary handy.

I know you meant “inane”. I meant “insane”! And very aptly too!

zerinus

 

[Philothea53]

Hi Auntie M,

A lot of the info you repeated about the LDS is either false, or quite distorted. For instance, there are ritual handclasps in our Temple ceremonies, but we don’t have “secret handshakes” to recognize each other. We don’t have “degrees,” like the Masons. We believe Jesus died for our sins on the Cross, but we don’t use the Cross as a symbol. (Personally, I think this is because so many Christians have actually bowed down and worshipped before the Cross symbol for so many years, that it pretty much violates the “no graven images” commandment.) And if you wondered WHY a particular Mormon has a witness of the truth of his/her religion, why didn’t you just ask?

Anyway, my experience is that if you want someone to change their mind about their beliefs, you should start by treating their prior belief system with charity. That means figuring out what they actually believe and why they believe it, and then treating them with respect.

If you would like to make such an effort, here is a good site from which to start.

Have you been to the temple? therre are secret handshakes taught to allow one lds to recognize another passing through the ‘veil’. Don’t lie.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Because the ability to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, or to forgive on earth and be forginen in heaven etc., is performed by means of those “keys”. Jesus told Peter that He would give him those keys so that he could do those things. If Jesus told the other Apostles that they could do those things too, that means that they too had those keys, no?

2+2=4, right?

zerinus

No. Two different things. Peter (and his successors) were given the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16:19) and in your quote, the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins. I guess you could say that “2 = keys of heaven” and “3 = power to forgive sins” and there is no 2 + 2, but 2 + 3. Two different things.

And yes, it is of supreme importance that it be known when a total apostasy took place. (If it didn’t, there would be no need of a restoration. Yes, one set of Mormon missionaries admitted that much to me.) Besides giving the “keys” to Peter, Jesus gave His authority to His Church in Matthew 28:19-20. We believe that Jesus, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is all powerful and not a liar.

And so, I too have to wonder how can you be so determined to believe that there was a Total Apostasy of the Catholic Church in only about a time period of Jesus founding His Church to the death of the last apostle–a period of less than 100 years. I assume that you’ve studied Bible quotes, the history of the times, and the history of each of the apostles of the Church at the time (for that I guess you’d have to research the individual histories of churches that made up the one Catholic Church). IOW was there evidence that the authority Jesus gave His Church through his apostles was passed on? Did the Church conduct councils to properly guard Jesus’ teachings (as the Bible suggests)? What did the Roman emperors say about each new Pope? How about historians at the time?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not quite sure what you are asking from me here.

I am puzzled by that question. I don’t know what you are asking. I had given some scriptural references to show that the apostasy had already begun during the lifetime of the Apostles. Here are the quotes from that article from my Blog:

So what exactly do you expect these apostates should have done to have “made sure everyone knew about it, to endorse their belief or at the very least to justify their actions”? Are not the above scriptures that detail to us an apostasy taking place, or having already taken place, as recorded by the Apostles, proof enough that such a thing did actually happen? If you don’t accept the words of the Apostles, what other evidence would you like me to produce that would be acceptable to you?

I answered that too in my article. Here is a quote:

What is there in that passage that you could not understand?

zerinus

I visited your blog where you stated the apostasy took place because there was no one of authority left, yet you post above the apostasy took place while the Apostles were still alive?

While some of the scriptures you provided show signs of small apostasies or schisms but nothing you have produced shows a “great apostasy”. When someone leaves the mormon church, do you cry out an apostasy was taking place?

Yes, it is very reasonable that had a “great apostasy” occurred, those who left would have shouted it from the rooftops, documented everything and passed the information along so future generations would not be mislead. They would have seen this as a very important religious event not to be overlooked or forgotten. Even if they, themselves, did not document it the Jews, Romans, historians or any of the list of enemies with the Church would have made it well known to prove the Church was not what it claimed to be. For example, the pagan Romans studied the Christian religion to combat it more effectively. Julian the Apostate unsuccessfully tried to rebuild the Temple in order to discredit the prophecy of Christ that the Temple would be destroyed. Surely the “great apostasy” would have been just what they were looking for.

Catholics can and have provided you documentation from the early Church fathers, and there are lots and lots of documentation to offer. None who even addressed this “great apostasy”. Surely, our Church, or the non-apostasizing Christians, would have found it just as important to have defended against it. In fact, the documentation affirms authority of the Church throughout the ages.

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

 

[catharina]

I know you meant “inane”. I meant “insane”! And very aptly too!

zerinus

Your attempt at humor is as worthy as your attempts at truth.

 

[Auntie_M]

Hi Auntie M,

A lot of the info you repeated about the LDS is either false, or quite distorted. For instance, there are ritual handclasps in our Temple ceremonies, but we don’t have “secret handshakes” to recognize each other. We don’t have “degrees,” like the Masons. We believe Jesus died for our sins on the Cross, but we don’t use the Cross as a symbol. (Personally, I think this is because so many Christians have actually bowed down and worshipped before the Cross symbol for so many years, that it pretty much violates the “no graven images” commandment.) And if you wondered WHY a particular Mormon has a witness of the truth of his/her religion, why didn’t you just ask?

Anyway, my experience is that if you want someone to change their mind about their beliefs, you should start by treating their prior belief system with charity. That means figuring out what they actually believe and why they believe it, and then treating them with respect.

If you would like to make such an effort, here is a good site from which to start.

Sorrry, I meant you no harm, nor was I trying to get you to “Change” your religion. As a matter of fact I didn’t even know you were Mormon.

I was just telling everyone MY experience of visiting the Mormon church. The info I related IS VERY TRUE.

If you are Mormon, you should know that.
the Apron, handshake, “secret” places in the Temple that only a FEW can go in. I studied this very thoroughly because, at first, I really thought they had something going there. They put up a very convincing argument. See, I prayed for 10 years to find the True Church. During this time I read, visited, talked etc. about alot of different religions. (Funny, I was too scared to talk to a CATHOLIC!!! LOL)
But when I finally got my answer, it was beyond a shodow of a doubt where I was supposed to be…That “CATHOLIC” Church that I was so scared of… funny how things happen…LOL

If you took offense about my post, please accept my apologies.

 

[zerinus]

Your attempt at humor is as worthy as your attempts at truth.

I have to admit, I am more skilful at truth than I am at humor.

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to admit, I am more skilful at truth than I am at humor.

zerinus

Now that was funny.

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