Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[ljahns]

Hi ljahns,

And if you don’t understand why the demands for precise historical proof of an apostasy are naive after reading the example I gave, I honestly don’t know what else to tell you.

Good Afternoon BDawg,

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But that’s ok, because the burden of proof is never on you, according to several posters on this thread.

Using this logic we could make accusations against Joseph Smith and the mormon church history and use a few blogs as proof and ask that you now provide proof. I’ve heard a lot of things spoken against Joseph Smith, but I don’t post them as I can’t seem to find what I consider a reliable source. Does this mean the mormon church covered them all up and everything I’ve heard about Joseph Smith is true? If you want to see what I’m referring too in the way of things against Joseph Smith’s character, google “truth about Joseph Smith”. There are a lot of up to date blogs out there.

Zerinus has used his own blog as proof of any allegations he has made. We rebutted offering early Church fathers as proof, but that’s out of date according to you. But zerinus’ blog is up to date therefore the allegations are true?

Do you believe the Roman Empire fell? If so why? I mean the historical evidence of such a thing is as you say is “out of date”. Did men really used to think the world was flat? Don’t know, the historical evidence is out of date. Did the crusades take place? Again, don’t know, evidence is out of date. Did the black plague really kill all those people, or was it a very wise coverup of some kind? Please explain to me when historical evidence is no longer out of date?

As I’ve mentioned, more than once, the Jews would have benefited greatly from a great apostasy and I’m sure it would be a part of their teachings today. The Christians had no control over them. Same as the Romans who tried for centuries to stop Christianity. A great apostasy would have been just what they needed to crush it. Historians from somewhere would have recorded it and it would have been a part of secular history.

When I have pushed this point, I’ve seen mormon responses along the lines of “a few apostasies”, “minor apostasies” or “some schisms”? I’ve seen some ex-mormons join this thread and deny the mormon faith. Does this mean the mormons have suffered a great apostasy? The evidence is certainly up to date, coming from living men who were witness to their schism from the LDS church.

You’re not being logical, in my opinion.

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

 

[ljahns]

Not true.

Some anti-Mormon literature focuses on statements by some of the Three Witnesses saying that they didn’t see with their natural eyes, but rather with their spiritual eyes. Then, of course, they interpret this to mean that they didn’t see anything. But this ignores the LDS belief that one must be transformed into a spiritual state to see a celestial being, and the three witnesses were shown the plates by an angel. The fact is that the witnesses affirmed over, and Over, and OVER that they really saw an angel and the plates, and that they handled the plates with their hands. They affirmed this even after they had various quarrels with J. Smith and left the Church.

Which just goes to show that your typical anti-Mormon writer is a hell-bound liar.

It is my understanding that in Mormon theology there is no hell. You have a place called the outer darkness that according to JS if we could but see it we would commit suicide to get there. This is the place where all rapists, murderers and all who commit evil acts will go. So your “typical anti-mormon” writer is going to paradise. Yipeee

 

[Stephen168]

Well, Tertullian was talking about how the Apostles set in place the bishops of various localities–e.g., John place Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna. And then Tertullian says Peter ordained Clement “in like manner.” So it seems clear that he ordained Clement as bishop of Rome. At least, that’s what Tertullian was reporting as the current tradition from Rome, around 200 AD.

It isn’t seem clear to me at all.
Pope Benedict was ordained a Priest in 1951, Bishop in 1977, and Pope (not by John Paul II) in 2005.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Well, Tertullian was talking about how the Apostles set in place the bishops of various localities–e.g., John place Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna. And then Tertullian says Peter ordained Clement “in like manner.” So it seems clear that he ordained Clement as bishop of Rome. At least, that’s what Tertullian was reporting as the current tradition from Rome, around 200 AD.

Actually, this was answered many, many posts ago and I think it was answered by majick (sorry if I didn’t getthe name right–it was many posts ago). It is more than obvious that Clement was ordained A Bishop (like so many others) not THE Bishop of Rome–Head of the Church. And no one had to “be forced” to admit (or even insinuated) that the Papal Succession “was doctored”. (That’s your assumption. :tsktsk: ) Honestly, don’t you guys realize that how you guys chose your LDS Presidency is not how the Pope is chosen and you can’t “overlay” your modern ideas onto what is ancient?

And that brings us to that comment about “out-of-date” historical research. You should know better. (Unlike some others, you normally seem kind and fair.) It’s only common sense, IMO, that a person who really wants to research goes to sources closest to what is being researched–not sources hundreds of years from the original action.

 

[ibkc]

Kind of makes you think that the DATES on the list of Roman bishops were a little different in 200 AD than they are on the current list. The point is that many faithful Catholic scholars like Sullivan support the Papacy, but feel forced to admit that the current tradition of Papal Succession was doctored at some point.

But that’s ok, because the burden of proof is never on you, according to several posters on this thread.

I just went through this last month with some Protestants. The current mainstream view is that the Catholic Church’s list of popes from Peter’s time is in fact historically defensible and not at all “doctored”. Of course there are going to be dissenting opinions ranging from mild disagreement with this Pope or other, to the crackpot “Jesus never existed! It’s all a plot by the [insert-shadowy-group-here]!” conspiracy theorists. However, as I said, the mainstream view is that the Church’s list of papal succession is as close to correct as is possible. I refer you to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D. Kelly, who was one of the 20th century’s foremost scholars of early Christianity (and a non-Catholic, to boot).

And, the burden of proof IS on you, because you are the one making claims that are outside the mainstream. Yep, you have the support of a single Jesuit writing 18 years ago or whatever. Your theory is still not the commonly accepted one.

 

[majick275]

Well, Tertullian was talking about how the Apostles set in place the bishops of various localities–e.g., John place Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna. And then Tertullian says Peter ordained Clement “in like manner.” So it seems clear that he ordained Clement as bishop of Rome. At least, that’s what Tertullian was reporting as the current tradition from Rome, around 200 AD.

i still think you misunderstand. in the catholic church, bishop is a priesthood office like high priest in the LDs church. once you are ordained a bishop you will always be a bishop. MOST (but not all) bishops are assigned to a specific “see” like the bishop of antioch or the bishop of lyon. this isn’t the same as ordination but is more like the LDS concept of being “set apart”. bishops can be reassigned any number of times. “pope” isn’t a separate priesthood office. you don’t get “ordained” pope. he is the bishop of rome. if he is already a bishop then when selected he starts carrying out his duties. if he isn’t already a bishop then he gets ordained a bishop. so peter ordained clement A bishop and at some time after Peter’s death bishop clement was selected to be the bishop of rome. this is where he becomes pope.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The canon of the Bible was officially determined by the Catholic Church around 400AD. The mormons accept the canon of the New Testament exactly as the Catholic Church defined it. Yet this authoritative determination of the canon took place 200 years after the Catholic Church, according to the mormons, became totally corrupted and unable to proclaim God’s truth with certainty.

There is a glaring inconsistency of accepting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church concerning the Bible, while at the same time denying that it still had any true teaching authority.

Any of the mormon posters care to address this?

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

 

[catharina]

The notion that Joseph Smith discovered and declared a great apostasy is ludicrous. That any who consider themselves to be scholars or academics would try to support Smith’s house of cards is pathetic. The Catholic Church stood in the days of Joseph Smith. The Catholic Church stands today. Jesus Christ is faithful to His promise that not even the gates of hell will prevail against His Church. Nor will Joseph Smith and his latter-day supporters.

 

[BDawg]

i still think you misunderstand. in the catholic church, bishop is a priesthood office like high priest in the LDs church. once you are ordained a bishop you will always be a bishop. MOST (but not all) bishops are assigned to a specific “see” like the bishop of antioch or the bishop of lyon. this isn’t the same as ordination but is more like the LDS concept of being “set apart”. bishops can be reassigned any number of times. “pope” isn’t a separate priesthood office. you don’t get “ordained” pope. he is the bishop of rome. if he is already a bishop then when selected he starts carrying out his duties. if he isn’t already a bishop then he gets ordained a bishop. so peter ordained clement A bishop and at some time after Peter’s death bishop clement was selected to be the bishop of rome. this is where he becomes pope.

Hi Majick,

That’s a good point, but why would Tertullian start the Roman list with Clement? Why not say that Peter ordained Linus, Anicetus, and Clement, or just refer to Linus? We can never know for sure, but the fact is that we don’t have anyone pegging Peter as the first bishop of Rome until the third century–I believe it was Cyprian. Why would they wait a couple centuries to make something as important as that explicit?

This is one of the reasons you have Catholic historians talking about the Papacy being “implicit” in the second century, and “developing” over time.

In any case, I don’t expect you to just roll over and agree with these interpretations. But can you at least agree with me that the “historical record” of the transfer of authority in early Christianity isn’t nearly as clearcut as some of the posters here seem to believe?

 

[catharina]

Hi Majick,

That’s a good point, but why would Tertullian start the Roman list with Clement? Why not say that Peter ordained Linus, Anicetus, and Clement, or just refer to Linus? We can never know for sure, but the fact is that we don’t have anyone pegging Peter as the first bishop of Rome until the third century–I believe it was Cyprian. Why would they wait a couple centuries to make something as important as that explicit?

This is one of the reasons you have Catholic historians talking about the Papacy being “implicit” in the second century, and “developing” over time.

In any case, I don’t expect you to just roll over and agree with these interpretations. But can you at least agree with me that the “historical record” of the transfer of authority in early Christianity isn’t nearly as clearcut as some of the posters here seem to believe?

Another fine example of faulty scholarship:

“We can never know for sure, but the fact is that we don’t have anyone pegging Peter as the first bishop of Rome until the third century–I believe it was Cyprian.” (per Bdawg)

Except for Jesus Christ in the Gospels - HE named Peter head of the Church. Peter was martyred in Rome - where he was working as head of the Church.

Dooooh.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have a “real” apostasy from the Gospels I’d be interested in seeing a mormon response too.

Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John describes an apostasy by many of the followers of Jesus because they refused to accept His teaching on the Eucharist. Many of Jesus’ disciples walked away because they wouldn’t accept His teaching that they must eat His body and drink His blood. They apostasized because they wouldn’t accpet the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Why do mormons follow the apostate disciples by rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

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

 

[ibkc]

Hi Majick,

That’s a good point, but why would Tertullian start the Roman list with Clement? Why not say that Peter ordained Linus, Anicetus, and Clement, or just refer to Linus? We can never know for sure, but the fact is that we don’t have anyone pegging Peter as the first bishop of Rome until the third century–I believe it was Cyprian. Why would they wait a couple centuries to make something as important as that explicit?

What on earth are you talking about?

earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=27

Dionysius, c. 170
Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25 -] You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.

St. Irenaeus, c. 189
Against Heresies 3, 3, 3 -] The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.

There is much more at the above link.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve heard mormons use Amos 3:7 as evidence that God would always have inspired prophets on earth.

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (KJV)

Why do mormons believe that there were no prophets for 1700 years, until the revelations of Joseph Smith?

This seems to be a contradiction between the mormon interpretation of Amos 3:7 and the mormon belief in a 1700 year period without prophets.

On another point, God confirmed His inspired prophets with many public miracles. If Joseph Smith was given the task of restoring the fallen away Church of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t God have confirmed this with signs and miracles equal to those the Apostles were given?

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

 

[hosemonkey]

I propose that we commission a “Mormon-Christian Dictionary,” so that those of us who do not speak “Mormon” can follow along with the discussion. You know, on one side we have the “Mormon” word and definition and on the other side, the Christian word and definition. This may clear up a lot of confusion by allow ing Christians to see that, while mormons use the same words, they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Whattaya think?

 

[PaulDupre]

“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.)

Your King James bible thinks of the 12 apostles as bishops:

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
-Acts 1:16-20

BDawg:

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.

If you know the ECFs as thoroughly as you claim, then you know perfectly well that there has never been universal agreement among the ECFs about whether Clement was the 1st, 2nd or 3rd successor to Peter, and that Jurgens and others discount Tertullian’s saying that Clement was consecrated by Peter himself (see Jurgens Vol 1 page 6). I think you are beginning to be disingenuous, and it is disappointing.

Paul

P.S.: The official Church list of popes has Clement as the 4th pope, Peter’s 3rd successor. This goes along with the majority of the earliest documents and ECFs.

 

[BDawg]

It is my understanding that in Mormon theology there is no hell. You have a place called the outer darkness that according to JS if we could but see it we would commit suicide to get there. This is the place where all rapists, murderers and all who commit evil acts will go. So your “typical anti-mormon” writer is going to paradise. Yipeee

Now you’ve got our beliefs about heaven/hell all mixed up, too, ljahns. If you were actually asking questions about our beliefs, I might bother to correct you, but it’s obvious you don’t want to understand us. You look into our beliefs just enough to clamp onto some excuse to criticize us.

 

[AMDGtoo]

but the fact is that we don’t have anyone pegging Peter as the first bishop of Rome until the third century–I believe it was Cyprian.

What?!!!:bigyikes: First you agreed that Peter was given the keys by Jesus & now you say that it wasn’t mentioned until the third century by Cyprian!

BTW, Cyprian was 200-258 A.D. What about Irenaeus of Lyons (died about 202 A.D.) He named all the Popes succeeding Peter up until his time!

What about Polycrates letter to Pope Victor I in 190 A.D.?

And how about Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth? In about 80 A.D. the Church at Corinth called him to settle a dispute, even though the Apostle John was still alive and was closer. Now how can that even be? Could it be possible that Clement held authority as the Bishop of Rome especially he is the third successor to Peter?

How obtuse can a person be? Are the LDS purposely trying to make things difficult and confusing? :banghead:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 tells us how to distinguish a true prophet from a false one.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.(KJV)

A single failed prophecy proves that the prophet is false.

Joseph Smith prophesied he would be alive at the second coming. (Doctrines and Covenants, 112).

In 1832, Smith predicted that before the generation that was then alive passed away, a mormon temple (the city “New Jerusalem”) would be built in Western Missouri (Doctrines and Covenants, 84). Over 160 years later, with everyone in that generation long dead, there was still no mormon temple there.

In 1843, Smith predicted that if the US would not redress the wrongs suffered by the mormons in the state of Missouri, then “in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted” (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.394).

In 1863, Smith’s successor Brigham Young foretold that the Civil War would not result in freeing the black slaves (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 350).

There are many major mormon doctrines like polygamy and the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood that have been abandoned by the LDS church. How could a church that is led continuously by inspired prophets teach doctrines that are later discarded?

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

 

[BDawg]

Your King James bible thinks of the 12 apostles as bishops:

Hi Paul,

“Episkopos” just means “overseer,” so the passage you cited is not necessarily speaking of the specific office of “bishop.” This is part of the problem in interpreting the NT documents regarding ecclesiastical structure. Lots of examples of this in Sullivan’s book.

If you know the ECFs as thoroughly as you claim, then you know perfectly well that there has never been universal agreement among the ECFs about whether Clement was the 1st, 2nd or 3rd successor to Peter, and that Jurgens and others discount Tertullian’s saying that Clement was consecrated by Peter himself (see Jurgens Vol 1 page 6). I think you are beginning to be disingenuous, and it is disappointing.

Of course I understand this, Paul. Personally, I take it as evidence that the traditions about Roman apostolic succession were “in flux” over a few hundred years. I mean, if Peter really passed on universal authority to the Roman Bishop, and was the first Bishop of Rome himself, why didn’t anyone say so for a century or two after the fact?

So please don’t misunderstand my point. I was merely trying to say that the way Irenaeus and Tertullian present the Roman tradition about apostolic succession was different than the way it was presented by later authors. Taking a majority vote of writers over several centuries is no way to decide historical questions, after all, so I don’t really take Jurgens very seriously on this issue, if that’s what he says.