Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[PaulDupre]

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.

No, that statement refers to the Telestial Kingdom. Although that supposed statement by JS has been quoted often by LDS leaders, there is no real evidence that Smith ever said it. It may well be that one of Smith’s contemporaries said it and it was mistakenly attributed to Smith. Nevertheless, it is now established in Mormon culture.

This is the place where all rapists, murderers and all who commit evil acts will go.

No, that again is the Telestial Kingdom.

So your “typical anti-mormon” writer is going to paradise. Yipeee

Unless he is an ex-Mormon. I was told by my LDS bishop and stake prez in no uncertain terms that, due to my apostasy from Mormonism, I was fated to spend eternity in outer darkness in endless torment with Satan and his demons and all the other apostates. I told them I’d risk it.

These days, they seem to be a bit softer on us “sons of perdition”, so I guess I’ll end up in the Telestial ghetto. What a relief!

Paul

 

[AMDGtoo]

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?

I second that, because I’m fast “losing it” with the confusion and it simply can’t go on. I nominate you to the committee, majick, Paul Dupre, and Rebecca. (There’s probably a few others that seem to know that there are in fact different LDS/Christian definitions and have been able to point that out.) Suggested names?

 

[BDawg]

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!

Hi AMDGtoo,

I’m not sure why you are saying this. Everyone here seems to agree that Peter was given the keys, but we disagree about whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and passed those keys to subsequent bishops of Rome. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.

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!

I already addressed that in this thread. He said nothing about Peter being the bishop of Rome.

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

I can’t remember the details of this one off the top of my head. It was about the Easter controversy, I think. So where, exactly, did Polycrates say that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and passed universal authority on to subsequent bishops?

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?

The dating of this letter ranges from around 80 to the late 90’s. Catholics prefer the earlier date, for obvious reasons, but since the proposed dates range so widely, we can’t be sure where John was at the time. In any case, where does this letter say that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and passed universal authority on to subsequent bishops? Nobody disputes the fact that the bishops of Rome were important and respected figures in early Christianity.

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

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but my wife thinks I’m incredibly obtuse. I also definitely like making things difficult and confusing, but not because I’m a Mormon. I think it’s genetic, from my father’s side.

 

[BDawg]

These days, they seem to be a bit softer on us “sons of perdition”, so I guess I’ll end up in the Telestial ghetto. What a relief! l

I’ll drop by and we’ll do lunch, sometime.

 

[majick275]

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?

i’ll agree that 1st and 2nd century christian writers weren’t all in perfect communication and sometimes made mistakes. I believe that Peter as the first leader of the church is pretty solid. that he ended his life in rome is also pretty well established. that he was a bishop and ordained others bishops is on firm ground. so i don’t think that him ending his life as bishop of Rome is a stretch at all nor do i think it a stretch that men whom he ordained as bishops succeeded him in that position after his death. i understand that some disagreed with the roman bishop being prime. most of those though either rejected any and all central authority in favor of a “council” approach or were pretty much complete heretics. i see good evidence for the papal position pretty early on. from an LDS perspective this shouldn’t even be in question. the LDS claim is that one of Peter’s successors apostatized (or an apostate usurped the position)and there were insufficient apostles to correct the situation.

 

[hosemonkey]

I’ll drop by and we’ll do lunch, sometime.

While you are “doing” lunch, please give us an answer to post #516, regarding false prophets.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

While you are “doing” lunch, please give us an answer to post #516, regarding false prophets.

Thanks hosemonkey.

I brought up several points that seem to be ignored.

Post #505

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?

Post #509

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?

Post #511

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?

Post #516

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

Quote:
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?

Any mormon care to address these issues?

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

 

[majick275]

I’ll drop by and we’ll do lunch, sometime.

well just so you don’t get mugged in the trailer park (some folks there don’t like “celesties” slumming for “bad girl” plural wives) it’s prolly best to just go to the sports bar. Paul and I will be having a beer and watching football. …oh wait maybe that’s heaven after all. well if it gets too hot in your “celestial kingdom” we’ll try to get some ice water down to you.

 

[hosemonkey]

well just so you don’t get mugged in the trailer park (some folks there don’t like “celesties” slumming for “bad girl” plural wives) it’s prolly best to just go to the sports bar. Paul and I will be having a beer and watching football. …oh wait maybe that’s heaven after all. well if it gets too hot in your “celestial kingdom” we’ll try to get some ice water down to you.

 

[mike00077]

thats a good post:thumbsup:

 

[teancum79]

Whose God? Whose Christ? Joseph Smith’s or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that has stood the test of time for 2000+ years? The one that has historic legitimacy or Joseph Smith’s whose claims cannot be verified? The one that has many unimpeachable witnesses to it’s Truth or Joseph Smith who has no unimpeachable witnesses?

There is only one Christ who lived and died and rose again that all men might come unto God. If you worshiping anything outside of that Christ and his father I feel sorry for you.

I suppose we will have to disagree on the “unimpeachable” witness of the CC.

 

[mntbike]

thats a good post:thumbsup:

I agree great post.

 

[majick275]

There is only one Christ who lived and died and rose again that all men might come unto God. If you worshiping anything outside of that Christ and his father I feel sorry for you.

I suppose we will have to disagree on the “unimpeachable” witness of the CC.

while that “sounds” Christian, LDs doctrine defines “all men” in this case as only the children of elohim. so while they believe that “we” only worship elohim they believe that there are infinite worlds out there with their own gods and saviors. elohim himself was once a mortal sinner who worshiped his father and had a savior of his own in a endless chain of god/mortal/god cycles

 

[teancum79]

while that “sounds” Christian, LDs doctrine defines “all men” in this case as only the children of elohim. so while they believe that “we” only worship elohim they believe that there are infinite worlds out there with their own gods and saviors. elohim himself was once a mortal sinner who worshiped his father and had a savior of his own in a endless chain of god/mortal/god cycles

Those are possibilities based on what we do know. We know rather little about it (and some love to speculate), but very little has been revealed on the subject.

 

[teancum79]

Considering the import of this vision, it surprising to say the least, that there were no witnesses as with all other major events that changed biblical history. Also, stating that it is a rather private vision, means that it is just that private and not binding upon anyone else.

The original vision (or visitation and some people like to distinguish) was primarily a private one, but it set the stage for others that would follow.

…
Samuel was given to Eli to be trained. Who trained JS?

God, Christ, the holy spirit and angels. Though he did get a good start with his family and likely even learned some from the local churches.

 

[hosemonkey]

teancum79;3905952]There is only one Christ who lived and died and rose again that all men might come unto God.

There WAS, until mormonism “invented” a new one. This one is “all new and improved.”

 

[mntbike]

JS was the biggest con’s around. I swear LDS give 10% and then get your buddy to give 10% it sounds like AMWAY LOL:thumbsup:

 

[mntbike]

:clapping: :dancing:

That is good

 

[teancum79]

I know that Oliver Cowldry was there at the translation of the golden plates. However, the testimony that I’m aware of is that they did not actually see the plates. Also, Oliver Cowldry & Hiram Page were sent by JS to Toronto, Canada to sell the copywrite to the book of mormon. This mission was ordered by a revelation that JS claimed he had from God. Please explain the failure of this mission.

No they were not. The record shows otherwise. Please provide copies of said slander for proof. Even 150 years ago this was considered vigilante justice or JS would never have been arrested for it!

If I recall correctly the Canada mission provided the church with several of its strongest leaders. (Can’t be sure its been a few years sense I study church history in depth).

I don’t have the specific quotes in the printing press publications I’ll see if I can ding them up, but thats going back a few years.

JS was often accused and of stuff he did not do. That aside he did support the decision of the city council to destroy the printing press. He was arrested and while awaiting trial he was murdered by a large mob who also killed his brother and nearly killed a 3rd man. I don’t know anyone who has ever been drunk enough to think that a little “suppression” of the press justifies murder. The printing press was just an excuse used by the mobs so they could try to justify their criminal behavior.

 

[ibkc]

JS was often accused and of stuff he did not do. That aside he did support the decision of the city council to destroy the printing press. He was arrested and while awaiting trial he was murdered by a large mob who also killed his brother and nearly killed a 3rd man. I don’t know anyone who has ever been drunk enough to think that a little “suppression” of the press justifies murder. The printing press was just an excuse used by the mobs so they could try to justify their criminal behavior.

Ol’ Joe fired off a few bullets in that brouhaha himself, and IIRC, killed at least one person, maybe more.

“I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, `Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!’ He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died…”
(John Taylor, as quoted in History of the Church, Vol. 7, pages 101-2)