Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[BDawg]

I will retract the “sub-human with no souls” portion of my statement. My apologies until and unless I can find the source. Apparently, he did believe they had souls, but also that they must always be servants, even after attaining celestial glory.

Hi Po,

Where did he say that anyone would be a servant “even after attaining celestial glory”?

 

[Auntie_M]

The questions that you are asking each requires a separate thread—all of which, incidentally, have already been addressed many times over here and elsewhere. The only relevant point that needs to be made in relation to your post is that we do not teach anything that contradicts what was taught by Paul (or other Apostles). “Another gospel” meant something that contradicted what they taught. But the LDS Church being a completely new dispensation of the gospel, with the power to add to the canon of the scripture, we reserve the right to add new knowledge and information about various aspects of the gospel by revelation that may not have existed in the church in Paul’s day.

zerinus

Could be so kind as to refer me to those posts by numbers, I evidently missed them when reading through the posts.I would really like to know the answers.

 

[Auntie_M]

I think that you are nitpicking and hairsplitting. The choice of what word you use is a rhetorical one, not a theological one. The Brethren felt that that is an appropriate one to use. “Another” does not necessarily mean “different”. Go and look it up in the dictionary.

As for whether you accept the D&C or not, we couldn’t care less either way. You asked for an explanation of the subtitle, and I gave you an explanation based on our theological context, which is the only one that matters as far as we are concerned.

zerinus

Zerinus…Who is “The Brethren”?

 

[catharina]

The fact that mormons wish to be viewed as Christians based on the formal name “church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints” is a grand irrelevancy.

One can call a dandelion a rose but it remains a dandelion.

 

[BDawg]

This is your evidence of a great apostasy? You use teancum79’s “guesses”. I suppose next we should accept “ifs”, “maybes” and “perhaps”?

Hi Prod,

I wish you would respond to what I actually said. I said that the kind of historical evidence you are demanding is hard to come by–even for Catholics wanting to support the idea of apostolic succession. I did not say I was giving evidence for a great apostasy. And it seems significant to me that you were unable to say one word to counter Father Sullivan’s point. At least AMGD pulled out a passage from Irenaeus to counter it. My conclusion is that at least AMGD has read some early Christian material, but that you haven’t.

In fact, in some of the articles I linked and zerinus linked, there is some historical evidence for Christians falling into various forms of apostasy. But it doesn’t seem like anything we say would count as evidence in your book, so it’s enough for me just to link those articles and point out that all your spouting off about “the historical record” derives from a deeply naive view of history.

 

[BDawg]

The LDS Church is a restoration, or renewal, of the original or “Covenant” (or Testament) of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a different or another testament. It is the original one that has been “renewed”. The reason for the “renewal” is that the original covenant was broken through the Apostasy; therefore it had to be “renewed” by revelation in our time.

Hi Z,

That was a really good answer. Thanks!

 

[BDawg]

I know I cannot change you, as that is the place of the Holy Spirit. But I will pray for you.

I appreciate that, Gene.

 

[Catholic_Kenpo]

I think that you are nitpicking and hairsplitting. The choice of what word you use is a rhetorical one, not a theological one. The Brethren felt that that is an appropriate one to use. “Another” does not necessarily mean “different”. Go and look it up in the dictionary.

As for whether you accept the D&C or not, we couldn’t care less either way. You asked for an explanation of the subtitle, and I gave you an explanation based on our theological context, which is the only one that matters as far as we are concerned.

zerinus

MeriamWebster:

Main Entry: 1an·oth·er
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnə-thər also a- or ā-\
Function: adjective
Date: 12th century
1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle>
2 : some other <do it another time>3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie>

Seems that Mr. Webster would disagree. As to whether or not I’m picking nits, I don’t think that I am. Especially when we were specifically warned against this (the exact scripture verses were quoted earlier in this thread). I’m not a theologian or scripture expert by any means, but this seems significant to me.

-CK

 

[AMDGtoo]

Sullivan has half a chapter on Irenaeus. Here’s a little taste:

“According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those who followed as successors of Peter more than of Paul.” (From Apostles to Bishops, 148-149.)
About the same time as Irenaeus, Tertullian wrote about the Roman tradition of “apostolic succession.”
“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32, in ANF 3:258.) So around 200 AD, the Roman tradition was that Peter ordained the THIRD bishop of Rome–Clement–after Linus and Anicetus. If that’s so, then Peter obviously wasn’t the first bishop of Rome.

And yet the list of Roman Pontiffs (which can be found in any public library) lists Peter, then Linus, then Anacletus or Cletus, then Clement, then Evaristus, then Alexander I, then Sixtus I, then Telesphorus, then Hyginus, then Pius I, then Anicetus, then Soterus, then Eleuterius… It’s an unbroken line all the way to our present Pontiff.

As far as I can see, that’s the same thing–just in list form. You said that you have read Irenaeus. He named all the Popes succeeding Peter up until his time. (I believe that would be about twelve.) Are the lists the same?

 

[BDawg]

Seems that Mr. Webster would disagree. As to whether or not I’m picking nits, I don’t think that I am. Especially when we were specifically warned against this (the exact scripture verses were quoted earlier in this thread). I’m not a theologian or scripture expert by any means, but this seems significant to me.

-CK

CK,

Did you even read what you wrote? One of the definitions you listed was “being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie>”. This is exactly what Z said.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Prod,

I wish you would respond to what I actually said. I said that the kind of historical evidence you are demanding is hard to come by

 

[BDawg]

And yet the list of Roman Pontiffs (which can be found in any public library) lists Peter, then Linus, then Anacletus or Cletus, then Clement, then Evaristus, then Alexander I, then Sixtus I, then Telesphorus, then Hyginus, then Pius I, then Anicetus, then Soterus, then Eleuterius… It’s an unbroken line all the way to our present Pontiff.

Now you’re getting it, A. The list you can pick up in the library lists Peter as the first bishop of Rome. And yet, Irenaeus evidently did not view Peter as the bishop of Rome, and neither did Tertullian. It wasn’t until a bit later in the third century that people started claiming that. So the conclusion is… the bit about Peter being the first bishop of Rome was a later fabrication.

 

[BDawg]

Exactly. You are asking us to believe the opinion of one Jesuit priest as opposed to the scholarship of two thousand years of study and prayer in the history of the Church. Very thin “evidence.” No “great Apostacy” except in the mind of your "prophet."Without this bogus “apostacy”, you entire “church” is rendered null and void.

 

[catharina]

Now you’re getting it, A. The list you can pick up in the library lists Peter as the first bishop of Rome. And yet, Irenaeus evidently did not view Peter as the bishop of Rome, and neither did Tertullian. It wasn’t until a bit later in the third century that people started claiming that. So the conclusion is… the bit about Peter being the first bishop of Rome was a later fabrication.

There is no fabrication in Catholic Teaching. There is Scripture and Tradition. Tradition is documented for us and it instructs by way of agreements and conclusions.

On the other hand, mormons denounce Scripture and fabricate their ‘tradition’ with their every offering. All Christians agree that Our Lord taught that His Church would not fall/fail, even unto the forces of hell. It would stand. Only mormons insist that the Church fell - and that singular belief leaves them outside of Christian tradition.

That primary error makes mormons non-Christians.

 

[hosemonkey]

And yet, you haven’t produced any of this scholarship for us to consider. You just seem to assume its there, and when someone else produces some of it, you just automatically discount it. Please try to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.

The first thing that you have to understand is the burden of proof is not upon us, it is upon you. mormons have made the allegation that a “Great Apostacy” had taken place. You have never been able to offer any evidence for this other than the opinion of your founder, whose credibility is dubious, at best. There is simply no historical evidence for your position. You have even commited blasphemy in the implication that Jesus Christ’s promise to us was a lie. Your false “religion” rests upon only one premise, that it “restores” that which was lost. It restores nothing. No apostacy ever occured, and you cannot prove otherwise.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Now you’re getting it, A. The list you can pick up in the library lists Peter as the first bishop of Rome. And yet, Irenaeus evidently did not view Peter as the bishop of Rome, and neither did Tertullian. It wasn’t until a bit later in the third century that people started claiming that. So the conclusion is… the bit about Peter being the first bishop of Rome was a later fabrication.

No, no, no. You aren’t “getting it”. It has nothing to do with what anyone thought what happened later. What the list is is the successors of Peter–the Prince of the Apostles, who received from Jesus Christ the Supreme Pontifical Power to be transmitted to his successors. Is what Irenaeus wrote different?

BTW, I do hope you aren’t saying that Peter wasn’t in Rome. First he lived at Antioch (Ignatius of Antioch was his immediate successor as Bishop there) then he lived at Rome for about twenty-five years where he was martyred. Archeologists have found where he was buried under the now Basilica of St. Peters which is near the former Roman Circus where martyrs were put to death.

 

[BDawg]

No, no, no. You aren’t “getting it”. It has nothing to do with what anyone thought what happened later. What the list is is the successors of Peter–the Prince of the Apostles, who received from Jesus Christ the Supreme Pontifical Power to be transmitted to his successors. Is what Irenaeus wrote different?

Hi A,

If Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, then how could the bishops of Rome be his “successors”? That’s my point.

BTW, I do hope you aren’t saying that Peter wasn’t in Rome. First he lived at Antioch (Ignatius of Antioch was his immediate successor as Bishop there) then he lived at Rome for about twenty-five years where he was martyred. Archeologists have found where he was buried under the now Basilica of St. Peters which is near the former Roman Circus where martyrs were put to death.

Why would I say Peter wasn’t in Rome? I just pointed out that the Roman tradition around 200 AD was that Peter had personally ordained Clement I, who was supposed to be the third bishop of Rome. Once again, if Peter was still kicking around Rome by the time the third bishop was ordained, then obviously Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome himself.

 

[BDawg]

There is no fabrication in Catholic Teaching. There is Scripture and Tradition. Tradition is documented for us and it instructs by way of agreements and conclusions.

Hi Cat,

Thank you for your testimony. Unfortunately, I still disagree, and I see no reason to change my mind when all you do is make claims like this without producing any evidence, whatsoever.

 

[catharina]

Hi Cat,

Thank you for your testimony. Unfortunately, I still disagree, and I see no reason to change my mind when all you do is make claims like this without producing any evidence, whatsoever.

I’ve noticed your tendency to change the names of people but my name is not Cat. Never has been, never will be. As far as my statement/claim, there is nothing needed to prove a claim that requires NO evidence. The words of Jesus Christ stand alone and those words are quite clear.

mormons might attempt to twist and turn the words, but they can’t change the words.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I just pointed out that the Roman tradition around 200 AD was that Peter had personally ordained Clement I, who was supposed to be the third bishop of Rome. Once again, if Peter was still kicking around Rome by the time the third bishop was ordained, then obviously Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome himself.

Peter ordained Clement what? One of the Bishops? It wasn’t Pope (Bishop of Rome–head of the Church). Irenaeus lists him as the fourth pope (that’s the third successor of Peter ) after Linus and Anencletus/Cletus. And we know that he was a Roman who had learned the Faith from Peter and Paul during their years in Rome.