Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BDawg said:
armyross;3895500:
Thanks, Ross.

I think sometimes you guys play up Mormon “avoidance” of questions a bit too much, though.

The fact is that we have very different assumptions about things like what it means to be God, how human nature is related to the Divine Nature, and so on. And so it can be very difficult to explain our beliefs to others, especially when someone pops out with a question like, “Don’t you believe that you will become a God of your own planet?” There are a lot of things that people need to understand before they can hope to understand the answer to that one.

So can Mormons be blamed too much if they try to avoid building the roof before the foundation and walls? It takes a lot of patience to help people understand us, and some people don’t have the patience to listen. Furthermore, many LDS don’t know enough about other belief systems to understand where the differences truly are. Can they be blamed for not knowing how to proceed when someone asks about one of our more “different” beliefs? For Pete’s sake, I know dozens of Catholics who are stunningly ignorant about their own beliefs. On average, I’d put Mormons up against Catholics on that score any day of the week!

So what I’m saying is that understanding takes time and patience, and accusing others of being disingenuous just because they have a hard time knowing how to talk to someone with a very different belief system, ***doesn’t help matters. ***
Click to expand...
People often have trouble communicating–anyone who has ever been married knows this well. I suggest we just calm down and try to make the best of it.

I started posting here because I assumed that some people who ask about Mormonism on the “Non-Catholic Religions” board actually want to understand us. I have found that to be true, but I have to say that the majority of posters here seem to just want to put other people down. (I’m not including you in that assessment, Ross.)

I appreciate your civility. I simply have difficulty with your beliefs. I am not able to find them Christian, nor can I believe that Joseph Smith was not disingenuous. I do not, however, see most LDS in this fashion. I see them simply as misguided.
Click to expand...
 
BDawg said:
“God became man, so that man might become God.” [St. Augustine, Sermo 13 de Tempore]

You might also want to check out the Catechism on the subject of “theosis,” i.e., becoming gods.

And yes, I’m aware that the CCC and Augustine didn’t have the same view of deification as the LDS. My point is that Catholicism says that people can become gods, and yet, the first commandment doesn’t seem to bother them.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t bother them because it is the process of becoming one with God. The Theology of the Body, John Paul II’s excellent series on the Sacrament of Marriage, views marriage as a preparation for our relationship with God.

I have no problem with the fact that intelligent people have reviewed LDS teaching, or that over time, LDS have used findings in the world to justify their beliefs. I have a problem with my unshaking belief that Joseph Smith made this up, and that the LDS beliefs are changed when politically expedient to do so.
 
zerinus said:
Our belief in the Apostasy of the early Christian church is a fundamental principle of our religion. It is not something we can compromise on. It is not intended as disrespectful of any particular church. It is equally applicable to all churches, not just to Catholic.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Jesus only founded one Church, the Catholic Church. 👍

Your belief in an apostasy is without merit.

Have a nice day. :console:
 
BDawg said:
majick275;3895628:
Yes, I think the “communion of saints” analogy is apt. I produced quotations by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and John Taylor in support of this point in another thread. Here’s one of them.

“If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses
Click to expand...
2:305-306)

I am afraid that trying to compare Brigham Young’s statements with today, or for that matter, with Joseph Smith’s, or from one time to another, will give you different positions. It is because of evolution of belief as problems arise. This comes when a belief system is in the process of being developed. Everyday, people do this as they better understand a belief system. So do people making one up.
Click to expand...
 
PHX_Paul said:
There are " Latter Day Saints " on my father’s side of the family tree. When they used to visit, my mother never offered them Pepsi or Coke. But now when they visit, my mother stocks up on Pepsi because we were informed that it is now acceptable for them to drink Pepsi but not Coke.

Sorry to be flippant in this serious discussion but did the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take the “Pepsi Challenge”, have a divine revelation or does the Mormon Church own alot of stock in the Pepsi-Cola company?

Paul
Click to expand...
This is an example of some of the decisions and changes in the LDS that appear to be problematic. Example: is polygamy ok, or not? If it is, why has the LDS stopped it? Was Joseph Smith wrong? I am seriously confused as to how they justify the change.
 
BDawg said:
This is a very odd claim. Mormons have never wanted to be accepted as the same as other Christians, but we have ALWAYS claimed to be Christians. I just don’t understand where you get the idea that, at some point, we didn’t think of ourselves as Christians.
Click to expand...
LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley stated in Paris in June (1998) that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church.

To critics who question whether the LDS worship the same Jesus, Hinckly replied, “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times” (Deseret News, June 20, 1998>

Hinckley nonetheless maintains that he is a Christian. “Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life” (Ibid.).

Believing in a christ, talking of a christ, praying throught a christ, and living a gospel that has no credible witnesses does not make one a Christian.
 
majick275 said:
actually, due to the absence of a catechism, LDs are vulnerable to “congregational doctrine”. that is unofficial “doctrine” that sometimes results in fervent practice. “hot drinks” are said in LDS scripture to be unhealthy so as a result of later definitions coffee and tea are prohibited. it is NOT because they contain caffeine. but many LDS thought so and thus wouldn’t drink caffeinated beverages and some thought decaf coffee was okay. so “officially” LDS cannot have any coffee or tea be it caffeinated or decaf, iced or hot. herbal teas are okay and all soft drinks with the “advice” to consume in moderation and attempt to maintain a healthy lifestyle.(alcohol is prohibited as is any drug not correctly taken for a valid medical condition. meat is to be eaten sparingly although you don’t usually see that one being practiced)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
ljahns said:
LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley stated in Paris in June (1998) that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church.

To critics who question whether the LDS worship the same Jesus, Hinckly replied, “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times” (Deseret News, June 20, 1998>

Hinckley nonetheless maintains that he is a Christian. “Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life” (Ibid.).

Believing in a christ, talking of a christ, praying throught a christ, and living a gospel that has no credible witnesses does not make one a Christian.
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving support to my statement that we have never wanted to be confused with other types of Christians, but have always considered ourselves Christians.
 
BDawg said:
This is still your own personal, and rather quirky, definition. For instance, Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books. Are they Christians? Should they view Catholics as non-Christians because you have a larger canon? What about the Ethiopian Orthodox, who have a different canon that includes some things like the Book of Enoch? Are they Christians?
Click to expand...
I like the idea that if you don’t follow the Magisterium, then you are not Christian 😃
 
BDawg said:
Hi Gabe,

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember seeing the part that mentions the Book of Mormon. I always thought that Galatians passage was talking about how Catholicism and other groups changed various Christian doctrines over time.
Click to expand...
Touche. But fortunately, the Magisterium and the teachings of the early Church fathers come to the rescue.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Yeah, but Pres. Young was always the weirder of all LDS presidents (at least in my humble opinion). Note that he single handedly instituted racism in the LDS priesthood (where Joseph Smith Jr. himself ordained a number of Black men to the priesthood).

Either way, we must acknowledge that none of this is doctrinal speculation. To my knowledge there has never been defined LDS doctrine that labels themselves as “Christian”. Only mere “mortal opinions” (as the LDS like to point out) that some like to be called Christian while others don’t.

I guess this brings us all the way back to square one 😦
Click to expand...
Do LDS presidents not have any authority? Just a question.
 
BDawg said:
Hi 1holy,

I think the argument you mentioned was your quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas?
Code: 
            *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?
Click to expand...
If we assume that a god, and by extension, all gods are perfect, then ALL ways would be important ways.
 
BDawg said:
Thanks for giving support to my statement that we have never wanted to be confused with other types of Christians, but have always considered ourselves Christians.
Click to expand...
I’m getting the picture here. The Mormon MO is to take words that have established meanings, and redefine them according to the new, improved Mormon ideas.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Technically this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas would not be at variance to your LDS beliefs, since Mormons are technically NOT polytheist, rather henotheist.

In LDS dogma, there is only ONE god for our world (Elohim) whom we are to worship, while the LDS acknowledge that there are numerous other gods of other worlds with whom us mortals have no relationship, and to whom we owe no recourse.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. Max Muller, the person who coined the term henotheist stated that a henotheism is “monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact.” LDS doctrine seems to prefer the claim of monotheism, since it is easier to defend publicly.
 
Gene_Church said:
Do LDS presidents not have any authority? Just a question.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we don’t have any doctrine of complete “infallibility” for prophets, scriptures, councils, or whatever. For LDS, the major point of having prophets, etc., is to help people learn to get in touch with God themselves. If God were to give “infallible” statements to humans, then I think many people would be content to just do what they’re told without thinking and experiencing God’s revelations for themselves.

I certainly don’t think all Catholics are that way, but consider the numerous people who have posted on this thread saying that they don’t care what anyone says, or what evidence is presented, they know Catholicism is the true Christian Church, so THERE! I think they get too comfortable with what someone else told them about “infallibility” and history, and can’t deal with it when someone argues against their viewpoint. They don’t even point to any personal religious experiences, or anything. It’s just that somebody said… etc., and they don’t even know who said it.

And by the way, if you were to read everything Joseph Smith or Brigham Young are recorded to have said, I think you would find that they differed with modern LDS on a few issues, but the vast majority of issues are quite consistent.
 
ibkc said:
I’m getting the picture here. The Mormon MO is to take words that have established meanings, and redefine them according to the new, improved Mormon ideas.
Click to expand...
Gene, I would say this is a HUMAN MO. The meanings of words are constantly shifting as new things come up, and people struggle to communicate. That’s why we don’t speak Old English, Latin, or Greek.
 
BDawg said:
Gene, I would say this is a HUMAN MO. The meanings of words are constantly shifting as new things come up, and people struggle to communicate. That’s why we don’t speak Old English, Latin, or Greek.
Click to expand...
And it is why we’re glad with Christ’s Church, which protects the Truth, including against human distortions of that truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top