Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[mntbike]

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.

Could not agree more.

 

[catharina]

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.

So very pathetic. I announce I’d prefer you use my name and you ask if I’m un-American? That would make a lot of sense in the world of un-reality. As for the disrespect inherent in the phrase “kicking aorund” is it a phrase you use in instructing your little-boy “Elders” for their time on the road? “Fellas, I mean young Elders, when you’re kicking around out there … .” Of course not. You can twist and spin as you choose but I have not insulted you (until now?) yet you say you can’t communicate with me (and others) because I’m unreasonable?

You lose on every count.

PS - I know that mormons are working hard on being relevant but the phrase “kicking around” came from the doper culture in the 60s. Advice: Don’t attempt being ‘with it.’

Your words make you look ridiculous and yes, it is a disrespectful phrase in terms of St. Peter.

Ta-ta to you, mister dawg.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Majick and AMGD,

I was just trying to put a damper on the unreasonable demands for historical proof.

 

[catharina]

I dislike whiners. If I was brought into Court, accused of serious crime, I would certainly make demands regarding the evidence presented against me. You have accused the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself of “apostacy”, thereby accusing Our Lord and Saviour of dishonesty. You have absolutely no evidence of this “apostacy” other than the words of a hostile and arguably deluded witness. You have insulted the Catholic Church and by extension, all Christians. I am sorry, but if you took your case into any Court, you would probably be held in contempt for frivolous prosecution. If you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome, but you will find no brief for your fantasies here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Which fails to take into account that fact the the Catholic Church has not fallen and the evidence that Christ’s Church remains alive and well is here, right in front of your eyes.

I suppose that the RLDS, CoC, Strangites, etc. are evidence that the Mormon Church is in the throws of a great apostasy. Why wait 1800 years for a vision from God to call Mormonism dead? Let’s nip this in the bud and call it done.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Yeah, Beccs has never been a name I have gone by either. It is a habit alright, one that helps him view others in a diminutive form. I wonder if he would call his prophet “Toms”, upon meeting him? “Hey Toms, how’s it kicking in the land of Zion?”

Beccs is close enough to Beck, which I have been called throughout my life. As my dad says, call me what you like, just don’t call me late for dinner.

 

[catharina]

Yeah, Beccs has never been a name I have gone by either. It is a habit alright, one that helps him view others in a diminutive form. I wonder if he would call his prophet “Toms”, upon meeting him? “Hey Toms, how’s it kicking in the land of Zion?”

Beccs is close enough to Beck, which I have been called throughout my life. As my dad says, call me what you like, just don’t call me late for dinner.

It is definitely a habit, and a very bad one.
It reminds me of God telling Adam: “You name the animals.”

It’s terribly offensive.

 

[BDawg]

Yeah, Beccs has never been a name I have gone by either. It is a habit alright, one that helps him view others in a diminutive form. I wonder if he would call his prophet “Toms”, upon meeting him? “Hey Toms, how’s it kicking in the land of Zion?”

Beccs is close enough to Beck, which I have been called throughout my life. As my dad says, call me what you like, just don’t call me late for dinner.

Hi Rebecca,

I honestly didn’t know it offended anyone, so I apologize, and won’ t do that anymore.

But for the record, I would call Pres. Monson “T-Bone”.

 

[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.

No! Go and look for them yourself! I have been posting here for nearly two years, and have posted nearly 3,400 posts. The search engine isn’t very clever, and I cannot be bothered to go looking for old posts and old threads. All I can tell you is that you haven’t invented any new questions. Your questions or criticisms are as old as Mormonism, and they have been addressed many times not just here but elsewhere; and I can’t be bothered to go and look for them. The relevant part of your question is the one that I answered, and no additional explanation is required.

Zerinus…Who is “The Brethren”?

The leadership of the Church. The subtitle to the Book of Mormon is a recent addition. It was not part of the original publication. It was added in order to make clear to those not acquainted with it, or with LDS in general, the nature and content of the book—that it was the gospel of Jesus Christ, not some alien book.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Rebecca,

But for the record, I would call Pres. Monson “T-Bone”.

Wouldn’t that be like calling the Holy Father “Benny?”
'course, “T-Bone” is not an actual prophet.

 

[hosemonkey]

The subtitle to the Book of Mormon is a recent addition. It was not part of the original publication. It was added in order to make clear to those not acquainted with it, or with LDS in general, the nature and content of the book—that it was the gospel of Jesus Christ, not some alien book.

zerinus

That addition was made as a part of the massive PR campaign that the mormons undertook to try to reduce the “Wierdness factor” of the LDS organization. This is when the logo “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” gained prominence. They were trying to make themselves appear “more Christian.”

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

That was a really good answer. Thanks!

Thank you. I enjoy your informative posts too. Another scripture that is relevant to that question is the depiction of the LDS Church in LDS scripture as the “new and everlasting covenant” (D&C 131:2; 132:6, 19, 26, 27, 41, 42). It is “new” because it is “renewed” to us by a new dispensation of the gospel; but it is not really “new” because it is the same “everlasting covenant” that had existed before.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Another scripture that is relevant to that question is the depiction of the LDS Church in LDS scripture as the “new and everlasting covenant” (D&C 131:2; 132:6, 19, 26, 27, 41, 42). It is “new” because it is “renewed” to us by a new dispensation of the gospel; but it is not really “new” because it is the same “everlasting covenant” that had existed before.

zerinus

Keeping in mind that D&C is “scripture” only to mormons. Christians do not recognize any mormon “scripture” as being in any way authoritative or legitimate.

 

[zerinus]

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.

You do yourself a disservice with this kind of irrelevant messages. You can do better than that. If you really can’t, then silence I am sure would be a more respectable option.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

You do yourself a disservice with this kind of irrelevant messages. You can do better than that. If you really can’t, then silence I am sure would be a more respectable option.

zerinus

Your presumption and arrogance is remarkable, you are the Prince of irrelevant posts. Given the weakness and falsity of the entire mormon belief system, YOU would do well to be silent.

 

[armyross]

I think that we all need to be a little bit nice to to our LDS posters, unless of course they are coming to bash Catholics. But as for Bdawg he is not here to bash anyone. So what if LDS want to call themselfs Christains. No matter what some of you may post they will still call themselfs Christians. They belive in God and that is really all that matters. Granted I would love for everyone that not Catholic to go to RCIA and become Catholic but thats probly not going to happen.

 

[zerinus]

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

Then Webster cannot be a very good dictionary—or did a poor job of defining this particular entry. I did an online dictionary search, and came up with the following definition (among others):

“additional to, repeating, or following one that came before or was previously mentioned.” (Emphasis mine.) Source

It does not always mean different.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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.

Thank you. That was an even better answer than the one I gave!

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I honestly didn’t know it offended anyone, so I apologize, and won’ t do that anymore.

But for the record, I would call Pres. Monson “T-Bone”.

BDawg I have a SIL who has nicknames for everyone she knows. But, she usually waits until she knows them well enough before pulling out names like “pookey”.

I was raised to call people what they call themselves, until they gave you their ascent to call them something else. I go by Rebecca, or Becky, feel free to use either one.

 

[hosemonkey]

I think that we all need to be a little bit nice to to our LDS posters, unless of course they are coming to bash Catholics. But as for Bdawg he is not here to bash anyone. So what if LDS want to call themselfs Christains. No matter what some of you may post they will still call themselfs Christians.

They belive in God and that is really all that matters.

Your points are good, but let me point out one thing. “They believe in God and that is really all that matters.” This called “indifferentism” and is a sin. It implies that “one religion is just as good as another”. Not the case. Jews believe in God, moslems believe in “God”, Hindus believe in “God”, but none possess the true Faith. It DOES matter that one belongs to the True Faith, and not some imitation. Thank you for your service. My thoughts.