Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Gene_Church]

Hi zaff,

The answer is simply that the LDS idea of theosis is not exactly like the Catholic one. For us, theosis doesn’t mean much unless you end up doing the kinds of things God does.

It would seem to me that Satan had a similar thought process when it comes to theosis–if I can’t do what God does, I’m not interested. Milton put it best–“Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Bumped for a response. Why are the mormon posters letting these questions be buried with no response?

Zerinus played out on me as far a conversation on the “great apostasy” is concerned. I am reposting a point to give other LDS a chance to respond and explain, as well as show others there was no “great apostasy” in my opinion. I have asked logical questions that have yet to be answered. Where did the “great apostasy” take place? Who started the “great apostasy”? When did the “great apostasy” take place? Who defended against the “great apostasy”? So far, I have not seen any satisfactory answers to these basic questions of any event as important as the “great apostasy” would have been and the impact it would have played throughout history.

Why is there no evidence of a “great apostasy”?

There were many enemies of the Church who would have benefited from disproving the claims of the early Christians, Jews and Romans just to name two. Historians would have recorded the event as it would be a major event to disprove Christianity. 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 and never re-built. The Jews, accused of killing the messiah, would have benefited greatly from such an event. Yet nowhere in history has the “great apostasy” been recorded until the 1800s. Where are the writings documenting the event from those who apostasized?

Catholics can produce evidence of the Church continuing on through the ages, from the time of the Apostles to present day. Surely, there had been a “great apostasy”, there would be Catholic documentation defending against such a thing.

Zerinus has only produced a few scriptures that indicate some small apostasies, or schisms, all short of a “great apostasy”. Nothing has been offered outside of those few scriptures, some of which I feel are being misinterpreted for the sake of his argument. Surely a “great apostasy” would have been taught continuously through history and not just since the 1800s.

Like I said, there are many writings available from the early Church fathers, Jews, Romans and historians. Where’s the evidence of the “great apostasy” that took place as mormons claim?

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

 

[1holycatholic]

Since the LDS are polytheists “false gods” would be more apropos.
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3

:doh2:

Hi 1holy,

I think the argument you mentioned was your quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas?
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.
Why would more than one god necessarily differ from one another in any important way?

I responded in the Nature of God in Mormonism thread.

 

[BDawg]

So we are in effect agreeing.

Being one in mind (no matter how unifying) still doesn’t address the issue of one in substance especially when one believes that deities are corporeal. Having a tangible body will naturally give rise to the question of separate substance (which you still haven’t quite answered).

In the most simplest of terms, is this statement correct (according to you):

“The LDS believe in numerous gods (individuals with individual bodies) that are all united in one will. The one individual god (with his one individual body) whom the LDS worship is Elohim, at the exclusion of all the other individual, tangible gods, and thus for technicality’s sake, the LDS are henotheist”?

No, I don’t agree with that, because we worship Jesus Christ, as well. I would say something like this.

“The LDS believe that more than one being is God. In that sense, they can be called polytheists, and believe in multiple gods. They also believe that all those beings who are gods are completely unified in mind, will, and love, so that there is a single Divine mind and will. Therefore, they also speak of there being only one God. In this sense they are monotheists.”

But you might object, “You’re changing the definition of monotheism!” Well, maybe so, but at least I’m being clear about how I’m using terms. Also, in Old Testament scholarship , the nature of Israelite monotheism is still an active topic of controversy and research. For instance, you might read the following article by Peter Hayman:

Peter Hayman, “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), 1–15.

Hayman was president of the British Society for Jewish Studies at the time.

You might also read this article by Evangelical scholar Larry Hurtado:

Larry W. Hurtado, “What do we mean by ‘first-century Jewish monotheism’?” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, (1993), 348–368.

He called Israelite theology “Monarchial Monotheism.” That means there are any number of divine beings, but one of them is the “monarch” in charge of them all.

So, I think it is reasonable to disagree about what “monotheism” is supposed to be like. As long as I explain what I mean by it, I don’t think anyone has cause to complain.

 

[BDawg]

How does it makes sense that you can call a group of gods, one god. Where Joseph Smith’s descriptions of the Grand Council of Gods speaks of separate gods, all who came together to decide what your plan of salvation is, what the earth will be like, who the elect spirits are, predestination (or preordination), etc. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are described as being gods, as part of this council. So, you believe that Abraham and Moses are Incarnations of God or what?

Your description of three gods matches more to your Church leadership, a prophet and two counselors. Your definition of God has one god, who acts as the leader, and the other two counsel. Or at the very least, do the leaders bidding, with complete obedience.

This is not one essence or substance or even being. It is three gods.

Hi Beccs,

I don’t understand how three Persons can be one Being. Personally, I think our version of the Divine Unity is much easier to understand.

 

[BDawg]

Bumped for a response. Why are the mormon posters letting these questions be buried with no response?

Hi Prod,

You are basically asking us to write a book. If you really cared to know what answers we might give (instead of just wanting to show off by “stumping” us) I think you would try harder to allow for a reasonable discussion. As it is, I have seen no evidence that you care what we say about anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prod,

You are basically asking us to write a book. If you really cared to know what answers we might give (instead of just wanting to show off by “stumping” us) I think you would try harder to allow for a reasonable discussion. As it is, I have seen no evidence that you care what we say about anything.

I don’t expect a book. Tell me who started the great apostasy, when it started, where it started and who defended against it, then provide links to the answers. Everything is on the internet nowadays. How is that not reasonable? Who, where, when and who defended against it? Your answer could be as short as this paragraph.

My purpose is not to stump you. I would certainly read any evidence produced.

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

 

[catharina]

Hi Prod,

You are basically asking us to write a book. If you really cared to know what answers we might give (instead of just wanting to show off by “stumping” us) I think you would try harder to allow for a reasonable discussion. As it is, I have seen no evidence that you care what we say about anything.

The point is that THEY have a book: book of mormon. Contradictory and a rejection of the Holy Bible (mormons barely recognize the Bible) but it’s their PRIMARY book. So negating Salvation History from Creation through the establishment of the Jewish people, Messianic promises and then the Messsiah Jesus Christ Himself, Who promised His Church would never fall, mormons take the view: “So what about all that? Listen to Joseph Smith Read his book.” Hope someone notified the Greeks that the gods of Olympus have returned.

 

[teancum79]

I don’t expect a book. Tell me who started the great apostasy, when it started, where it started and who defended against it, then provide links to the answers. Everything is on the internet nowadays. How is that not reasonable? Who, where, when and who defended against it? Your answer could be as short as this paragraph.

My purpose is not to stump you. I would certainly read any evidence produced.

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

LOL everything is on the I-net you can’t be serious.

If the LDS had a blow by blow account of the events I’m sure it would be published. We don’t.

 

[ibkc]

I’m not sure what you are asking for. I gave a list, off the top of my head, of doctrines/practices that the Catholic Church changed/rejected. I think these kinds of things are indicative of apostasy.

BDawg, your list was extremely vague and confusing. The mixing up of doctrines and practices is bewildering. For instance, you mentioned the Catholic Church disallowing priests to marry; that is a discipline, not a doctrine or a practice, really, and it only extends to one single Rite of the Church - the Latin rite. Priests in the Eastern rites may marry, and there are even priests in the Latin rite who converted from the Anglican faith and were allowed to remain priests even though they were married and had families. Also, something like the rosary is a practice which developed long after apostolic times. Are you honestly making the argument that something like the rosary, since it didn’t exist in Jesus’ time, is indicative of an apostasy? If so then couldn’t it also be said that your own church has aposticized from Joseph Smith’s church, since doctrines in the LDS church shift and change with each “Prophet”?

 

[hosemonkey]

If the LDS had a blow by blow account of the events I’m sure it would be published. We don’t.

So all you have is the baseless allegation that Joseph Smith started with. The only justification for mormonism is this “Great Apostacy” that you cannot identify or prove. You may as well close the store.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

LOL everything is on the I-net you can’t be serious.

If the LDS had a blow by blow account of the events I’m sure it would be published. We don’t.

Thank you for your honesty teancum79.

As I stated earlier, it’s common sense that with all the enemies of Christianity and historians wanting to make a name for theirself, someone would have documented evidence of such an important event that would have had a tremendous impact on religion throughout history. At the very least, with all the documents Catholics have, at their fingertips (yes through the internet), there would be evidence of a defense against a great apostasy.

Edited to add: If this logic makes you feel stumped, you might want to ask questions yourself.

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

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, your list was extremely vague and confusing. The mixing up of doctrines and practices is bewildering. For instance, you mentioned the Catholic Church disallowing priests to marry; that is a discipline, not a doctrine or a practice, really, and it only extends to one single Rite of the Church - the Latin rite. Priests in the Eastern rites may marry, and there are even priests in the Latin rite who converted from the Anglican faith and were allowed to remain priests even though they were married and had families. Also, something like the rosary is a practice which developed long after apostolic times. Are you honestly making the argument that something like the rosary, since it didn’t exist in Jesus’ time, is indicative of an apostasy? If so then couldn’t it also be said that your own church has aposticized from Joseph Smith’s church, since doctrines in the LDS church shift and change with each “Prophet”?

Hi ib,

Zerinus had earlier quoted a passage from the NT that talked about the apostates of the future “forbidding to marry.” So I think it’s reasonable to include that in the list.

 

[ibkc]

Hi ib,

Zerinus had earlier quoted a passage from the NT that talked about the apostates of the future “forbidding to marry.” So I think it’s reasonable to include that in the list.

Well, it certainly applies to the Cathars. But I don’t see how it applies to the Catholic Church, or any other orthodox Christian church. And you ignored the meat of my question.

 

[teancum79]

I’m quite familiar with the various claims the CC has to its being the church Christ set up. I don’t buy it. Some have published books citing all the various evils and errors of the CC over time. This sort of evidence however is of little interest to me. I don’t need to attack the CC to feel safe in my own beliefs.

My personal guess is that the the church lost its central authority around 150 AD. give or take. Pauls writings make it clear that misunderstandings and people seeking to lead others from the truth was occurring in the churches. The CC claim that they kept it together I don’t see it.

One of the primary problems with the records of that era is that the fox guarded the hen house. Nearly all of our records on the ancient church have passed through the hands of those whose best interest it is in to have nothing obstructing their claim to authority. That does not mean that the CC did alter/manufacture records, but they could have making all such records suspect.

 

[BDawg]

Well, it certainly applies to the Cathars. But I don’t see how it applies to the Catholic Church, or any other orthodox Christian church. And you ignored the meat of my question.

Sorry. I also don’t think the Rosary would matter one way or the other. However, simony and forbidding to marry are specifically mentioned in the NT, so I consider them to be indicative of apostasy. I also understand the objection that simony was an abuse, not an official practice, but the fact is that it was institutionalized for centuries, even though it wasn’t officially on the books, so to speak.

 

[ibkc]

Sorry. I also don’t think the Rosary would matter one way or the other. However, simony and forbidding to marry are specifically mentioned in the NT, so I consider them to be indicative of apostasy. I also understand the objection that simony was an abuse, not an official practice, but the fact is that it was institutionalized for centuries, even though it wasn’t officially on the books, so to speak.

You need to provide some evidence that simony was ever something sanctioned by the Church, rather than something that some corrupts bishops may have indulged in.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m quite familiar with the various claims the CC has to its being the church Christ set up. I don’t buy it. Some have published books citing all the various evils and errors of the CC over time. This sort of evidence however is of little interest to me. I don’t need to attack the CC to feel safe in my own beliefs.

My personal guess is that the the church lost its central authority around 150 AD. give or take. Pauls writings make it clear that misunderstandings and people seeking to lead others from the truth was occurring in the churches. The CC claim that they kept it together I don’t see it.

That appears to be a problem teancum79. I mean if it happens as you say, it would make the words of Jesus false. Believing in the divinity of Jesus means he could not have erred.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. **And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

One of the primary problems with the records of that era is that the fox guarded the hen house. Nearly all of our records on the ancient church have passed through the hands of those whose best interest it is in to have nothing obstructing their claim to authority. That does not mean that the CC did alter/manufacture records, but they could have making all such records suspect.

The problem with this logic, as I see it, is the fact that no matter who documented it, Jew, Roman or Historian, all of them would have preached the great apostasy. The Church did not have control over all of them.

But since you bring it up, it appears, again as I see it, that the lack of evidence until the 1800s means the great apostasy might have been a fabrication.

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

 

[hosemonkey]

My personal guess is that the the church lost its central authority around 150 AD. give or take. Pauls writings make it clear that misunderstandings and people seeking to lead others from the truth was occurring in the churches. The CC claim that they kept it together I don’t see it.

So it is only “your personal guess?” That won’t feed the bulldog. It is the grossest cop-out to say that we “altered the records” in order to provide the most favorable view of the question. If there is any organization that is guilty of altering records to hide unpleasant truths, the mormon organization is second to none. And we do not need to look at ancient history to prove that point. Come up with some real proof or admit that Joseph Smith was nothing but a cheap con-man.

 

[teancum79]

That appears to be a problem teancum79. I mean if it happens as you say, it would make the words of Jesus false. Believing in the divinity of Jesus means he could not have erred.

The problem with this logic, as I see it, is the fact that no matter who documented it, Jew, Roman or Historian, all of them would have preached the great apostasy. The Church did not have control over all of them.

But since you bring it up, it appears, again as I see it, that the lack of evidence until the 1800s means the great apostasy might have been a fabrication.

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

Okay back to logic 101

1. Your understanding of Jesus’s words does not = their true meaning. You are very welcome to your opinions, but the specific meanings of many scriptures is debatable.
2. How many Jews or Romans or any non Christian really cared about minor details changing in some cult? Most things change slowly over time. Church doctrines being lost/altered slowly would not have gotten much attention.
3. Ever hear about the protestants? A very large number of people over the years have rejected the CC in favor of what they read in the Bible. Not an air tight case, but clearly a lot of evidence to support the idea that the CC is not Christ’s church as set up 33ish AD.