Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[majick275]

i think i see the confusion. Peter the apostle had ordained a number of men as bishops during his lifetime. some of these bishops succeeded him as bishop of Rome after Peter’s death. no one was “ordained” bishop of Rome. to be the pope you are either already a bishop or you get ordained bishop when chosen. these 3 successors had been ordained bishops by Peter when he was alive. they were chosen to succeed him in the specific see of rome (and thus as vicar of Christ) after his death.

i think this confusion may be due to LDS trying to apply LDS thoughts on the “presidency” of the church to the papacy.

 

[catharina]

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.

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.

The normal respect that mormons expect others to give to men such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is so often lacking when they refer to the greatest of saints.

“… if Peter was still kicking around Rome …” and I rest my case.

 

[po18guy]

They also look upon him as the savior.

And, so He is. However, as with so many other points, it is the vast difference in definitions of Christian terms that the LDS differs from Christianity. You may indeed call yourself Christian, but it is a different Christ, as it is a different God. That is the debating point.

 

[mntbike]

And, so He is. However, as with so many other points, it is the vast difference in definitions of Christian terms that the LDS differs from Christianity. You may indeed call yourself Christian, but it is a different Christ, as it is a different God. That is the debating point.

I find it funny that LDS have to try and prove they are Christian when the whole Christian world doen not accept them as so and never will. LDS needs to get over it and just practice their faith and not worry about it so much. Its like me trying to prove that I am Elivis or somthing.

 

[po18guy]

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.

 

[hosemonkey]

I find it funny that LDS have to try and prove they are Christian when the whole Christian world doen not accept them as so and never will. LDS needs to get over it and just practice their faith and not worry about it so much. Its like me trying to prove that I am Elivis or somthing.

Agreed! What is funny is that mormons come on a Catholic forum, attack the Church and then whine when nobody takes them seriously. I mean, it’s like the army of Costa Rica attacking the United States and then whining when they get their butt kicked. Duh! Good advice from mtnbike mormons, get a clue.

 

[catharina]

I find it funny that LDS have to try and prove they are Christian when the whole Christian world doen not accept them as so and never will. LDS needs to get over it and just practice their faith and not worry about it so much. Its like me trying to prove that I am Elivis or somthing.

To me, it’s way beyond funny. It’s pathetic and very sad. mormons lock themselves into a “faith” that is built on shifting sands - and they usually refuse to see that fact. Very sad.

 

[BDawg]

hosemonkey;3899824:

Are we to dismiss credibility, and focus only on the seriousness of the charge? One dissenter out of hundreds of thousands over almost 2,000 years is nothing short of amazing. This is not much reason to investigate further. Actually, this one anomaly tends to prove the reliability of that which he dissents from.

Scant evidence, but if it is all you have…

Hi Po,

Perhaps you failed to notice that Sullivan referenced a bunch of other faithful Catholic scholars who have come to similar conclusions. If you were to pick up his book, you could find out who they were. So once again, you are making wild statements about what historians have concluded, without a shred of supporting evidence.

But that’s really not that surprising, is it, since you don’t read much history? You can go on and on talking about what historians say, without ever reading any of it!

 

[BDawg]

The normal respect that mormons expect others to give to men such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is so often lacking when they refer to the greatest of saints.

“… if Peter was still kicking around Rome …” and I rest my case.

Hi Catharina,

Sorry about the nickname–it’s just a habit, and nobody else seemed to mind. I’ll try to remember that it bothers you.

As for Peter, I certainly meant no disrespect to him, since LDS see him as Christ’s chief apostle. I am sort of at a loss to figure out why you think using a common phrase like “kicking around” is disrespectful. Are you from a country other than the USA? Here a phrase like that is just informal slang, with no disrespect implied.

 

[po18guy]

po18guy;3900242:

Hi Po,

Perhaps you failed to notice that Sullivan referenced a bunch of other faithful Catholic scholars who have come to similar conclusions. If you were to pick up his book, you could find out who they were. So once again, you are making wild statements about what historians have concluded, without a shred of supporting evidence.

But that’s really not that surprising, is it, since you don’t read much history? You can go on and on talking about what historians say, without ever reading any of it!

Of course there are more. But, so what? Is the evidence overwhelming? Clear and convincing? A preponderance? No. It remains an interesting point of debate, but nothing more.

 

[mntbike]

Agreed! What is funny is that mormons come on a Catholic forum, attack the Church and then whine when nobody takes them seriously. I mean, it’s like the army of Costa Rica attacking the United States and then whining when they get their butt kicked. Duh! Good advice from mtnbike mormons, get a clue.

Its funny that they waste so much of their time on a Catholic site. When we have strength in numbers. What LDS makes up 1% of the population? I would never even care to go on a LDS site and spend a second on it. Oh and I am Elivis, really I am LOL.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Po,

I have noticed that you have a used-car salesman approach to others on this forum. Is “po” the same person as “Cat?” And sometimes I’m “hose.” Very interesting, I know that you are attempting to be “just one of the guys”, but it sounds real phony. Maybe you can’t help it.

 

[po18guy]

I have noticed that you have a used-car salesman approach to others on this forum. Is “po” the same person as “Cat?” And sometimes I’m “hose.” Very interesting, I know that you are attempting to be “just one of the guys”, but it sounds real phony. Maybe you can’t help it.

I think BDawg was responding to my response to one of your posts, so your username was somehow attached to it. I may have to draw a chart.

 

[hosemonkey]

I think BDawg was responding to my response to one of your posts, so your username was somehow attached to it. I may have to draw a chart.

Right! That post was directed at the chihuahua(Sorry, I meant bdawg)

 

[BDawg]

Agreed! What is funny is that mormons come on a Catholic forum, attack the Church and then whine when nobody takes them seriously. I mean, it’s like the army of Costa Rica attacking the United States and then whining when they get their butt kicked. Duh! Good advice from mtnbike mormons, get a clue.

Hi hose,

In what way did any of us Mormons start off by attacking Catholicism? On this thread, someone started off by asking whether we are Protestants, or something else. We responded with our take on what we are. Then some Catholics on the board started attacking our faith, and demanding various forms of evidence for it. We tried to comply. Some of you demanded detailed historical evidence for our belief about the apostasy, and I quoted a Catholic historian to show that this kind of historical evidence isn’t easy to come by for anyone.

And who is whining? It seems to me that most of you are not even providing any evidence for anything you say. You whine about the bits of evidence we try to provide, but then don’t bother coming up with your own. You just spout off your opinions as if they were fact. Not surprising, in your case, since you said:

The first thing that you have to understand is the burden of proof is not upon us, it is upon you.

Wouldn’t it be nice to never have to support anything you say, because the “burden of proof” is always on someone else?

Well, this is BDawg, signing off to Prod, Po, hose, mtnbike, and Catharina. I’ll restrict my comments, from now on, to people like Majick and AMGD, who at least make some attempt at a reasonable conversation.

 

[po18guy]

We need to master the “quote” function in this thread!

 

[po18guy]

Well, this is BDawg, signing off to Prod, Po, hose, mtnbike, and Catharina. I’ll restrict my comments, from now on, to people like Majick and AMGD, who at least make some attempt at a reasonable conversation.

Amen!

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi hose,

In what way did any of us Mormons start off by attacking Catholicism? On this thread, someone started off by asking whether we are Protestants, or something else. We responded with our take on what we are. Then some Catholics on the board started attacking our faith, and demanding various forms of evidence for it. We tried to comply. Some of you demanded detailed historical evidence for our belief about the apostasy, and I quoted a Catholic historian to show that this kind of historical evidence isn’t easy to come by for anyone.

And who is whining? It seems to me that most of you are not even providing any evidence for anything you say. You whine about the bits of evidence we try to provide, but then don’t bother coming up with your own. You just spout off your opinions as if they were fact. Not surprising, in your case, since you said:

Wouldn’t it be nice to never have to support anything you say, because the “burden of proof” is always on someone else?

Well, this is BDawg, signing off to Prod, Po, hose, mtnbike, and Catharina. I’ll restrict my comments, from now on, to people like Majick and AMGD, who at least make some attempt at a reasonable conversation.

The burden of proof IS on you because the entire premise of your false “religion” is the allegation that some sort of “Great Apostacy” occurred in the early days of the Church. You have provided NO supporting evidence for that allegation. Nor will you be able to provide that evidence, because it does not exist. You have been duped by an upstate New York con-man. We have the weight of two thousand years of study, prayerful scholarship and the very words of Jesus Christ Himself to stand upon. You have the fevered delusions of a 14 year old boy, who came to a bad end. You’ll simply have to do better.

 

[mntbike]

Hi hose,

In what way did any of us Mormons start off by attacking Catholicism? On this thread, someone started off by asking whether we are Protestants, or something else. We responded with our take on what we are. Then some Catholics on the board started attacking our faith, and demanding various forms of evidence for it. We tried to comply. Some of you demanded detailed historical evidence for our belief about the apostasy, and I quoted a Catholic historian to show that this kind of historical evidence isn’t easy to come by for anyone.

And who is whining? It seems to me that most of you are not even providing any evidence for anything you say. You whine about the bits of evidence we try to provide, but then don’t bother coming up with your own. You just spout off your opinions as if they were fact. Not surprising, in your case, since you said:

Wouldn’t it be nice to never have to support anything you say, because the “burden of proof” is always on someone else?

Well, this is BDawg, signing off to Prod, Po, hose, mtnbike, and Catharina. I’ll restrict my comments, from now on, to people like Majick and AMGD, who at least make some attempt at a reasonable conversation.

We don’t need to back up anything. We know that our church is truth and has been around for over 2000 years.

 

[BDawg]

i think i see the confusion. Peter the apostle had ordained a number of men as bishops during his lifetime. some of these bishops succeeded him as bishop of Rome after Peter’s death. no one was “ordained” bishop of Rome. to be the pope you are either already a bishop or you get ordained bishop when chosen. these 3 successors had been ordained bishops by Peter when he was alive. they were chosen to succeed him in the specific see of rome (and thus as vicar of Christ) after his death.

i think this confusion may be due to LDS trying to apply LDS thoughts on the “presidency” of the church to the papacy.

Hi Majick and AMGD,

I think your latest comments were reasonable. That is, you seem to be trying to make sense of the historical evidence within your belief system, and the evidence is spotty enough that any number of interpretations are possible.

I hope you know that this was my major point. I did not quote Francis Sullivan to “prove” that the Catholic position on authority is impossible. I was just trying to put a damper on the unreasonable demands for historical proof.

Anyway, thanks for trying to make a reasonable conversation. I really do appreciate it, especially when this thread has been inundated by people who think that they can “win” an argument if enough of them practice hate-bombing.