Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[hosemonkey]

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.

Man, I really wish I had that Mormon-Christian Dictionary that I was talking about.
OK mormons, help me out here:

Mormon… …OR…Christian
God = Just another god… God=Creator of All
Christ = A God …Son of God=2ndPerson
Holy Spirit = Another God …Third Person HT
Angels =Familiar Spirits …God’s Messengers

His family DID give him a good start in various con-games and schemes to avoid work, but as for the local Churches, he condemned them all as “corrupt.”

 

[AMDGtoo]

Man, I really wish I had that Mormon-Christian Dictionary that I was talking about.
OK mormons, help me out here:

I know, when my convert to Mormonism daughter told that Jesus was just “a” god, I darn near lost my breath! Somehow I feel that I would not have had that reaction if I had only known in advance.

Let’s see, in Christianity it’s the Trinity–3 in 1, and is spirit. In Mormonism it’s a Godhead of 3 separate “personages” that have bodies of men. Christians think of Adam, while Mormons think of Michael. And the Christian Gabriel is either Noah or Moses (I can’t remember which.) The Mormon “outer darkness” is the Christian “hell”. Christians “evangelize” while Mormons "proselytize. I think Mormon, “Celestial Marriage” was (or is it still) Christian “polygamy”. (Not sure since the Mormons have changed the practice.)

And we can’t forget that that some regular concepts have different meanings too. In regular circles a martyr is “an innocent who willingly (and without a fight) gives up his life for another”, while in Mormon circles it evidently means “someone who died in a shootout”. In regular circles “allow” is just that, but in Mormon circles it must mean “command”.

I know there’s a bunch more. You are so right, we need that Mormon/Christian dictionary–and we need people who know both Mormon and Christian words and definitions. But I guess we’ll have to make another thread for it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let’s see, in Christianity it’s the Trinity–3 in 1, and is spirit. In Mormonism it’s a Godhead of 3 separate “personages” that have bodies of men.

Nope, the Holy Spirit in Mormonism is spirit. He hasn’t had the privilege of being embodied,just yet. I have yet to figure out how he is a god, as godhood in Mormonism requires an exalted body.

 

[majick275]

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.

JS was the one who ORDERED the destruction of the press. let’s not kid ourselves that he was only following the city council. he wasn’t just mayor, he was their prophet and if that wasn’t enough he was general of their militia. of course killing him wasn’t justified. the REASON why he “suppressed” the press and slandered and libeled other leaders in his church was because they were on to him. his dirtiest laundry was being aired. JS wasn’t sought by mobs for preaching, he was sought by those who felt defrauded of their money and/or that was trying to bed their wives and daughters. JS “revelations” were just excuses to justify his own immoral behaviors.

 

[zerinus]

why are YOU here?

I am here to prevent folks like you from spreading falsehood about Mormonism.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

Nope, the Holy Spirit in Mormonism is spirit. He hasn’t had the privilege of being embodied just yet.

Two separate personages and a spirit? (And they think that the Trinity is hard to understand.)

 

[majick275]

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.

please…it’s taught in your classes today. just go to www.lds.org and look up eternal progression. no speculation needed here. and we all know that when “the prophet” speaks in general conference it’s NOT speculation. despite GBH’s dissembling, LDS claim to know quite a bit about this.

 

[majick275]

I am here to prevent folks like you from spreading falsehood about Mormonism.

zerinus

nobody cares. BTW, i am here to prevent folks like you from spreading falsehood about mormonism.

 

[majick275]

Two separate personages and a spirit? (And they think that the Trinity is hard to understand.)

it used to be described in their scriptures that only the father and son were “beings”. the holy ghost was their “shared mind” which allowed them to be “one God”. they started out pretty orthodox monotheists and then over time became henotheistic.

 

[hosemonkey]

I am here to prevent folks like you from spreading falsehood about Mormonism.

zerinus

Pssssst! zerinus, nobody is spreading falsehoods but you. You just don’t recognize TRUTH when you see it. BTW, zerinus, you can’t PREVENT anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am here to prevent folks like you from spreading falsehood about Mormonism.

zerinus

I wouldn’t post falsehoods. I would however, post truths everyone should know that might be considering mormonism.

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.

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.

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?

Please feel free to respond to any mistakes I might have made.

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

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

I’ve brought up this same point too. Anyone acknowledging the Bible as Scripture honors the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[BDawg]

I’ve brought up this same point too. Anyone acknowledging the Bible as Scripture honors the authority of the Catholic Church.

That’s sort of a ridiculous argument.

Mormons accept the New Testament as is, but note that there has probably been some stuff excised from it, and various writings suppressed that maybe should have made it in. We don’t accept the same books in the Old Testament as you (i.e., we leave out the deuterocanonicals), and Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn’t an inspired document. And what’s more, we have added all sorts of writings that aren’t in your canon.

So much for bowing down to every Catholic decision on the canon. Obviously, the Mormons don’t accept any writings as canonical based on the decisions of any council, and we feel free to accept anything else we want, no matter what your opinion.

 

[BDawg]

Paul and I will be having a beer and watching football. …oh wait maybe that’s heaven after all.

Ah, yes. The “Beautific Vision”.

 

[ljahns]

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.

I am only asking about what I’ve heard. You don’t really seem to be answering my questions with real answers. I know almost nothing about mormonism just what i’ve heard which is not good and nothing i’ve seen you respond to me with makes me think any differently. how am i supposed to learn anything when all i’m getting from you are pat answers that only raise more questions. like the one I have about your hell. if i seem to be less than enthusiastic, it’s because you seem to be less than forthcoming in your responses about defending your faith when i question its veracity.

 

[ljahns]

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.

No, that again is the Telestial Kingdom.

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

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s sort of a ridiculous argument.

Mormons accept the New Testament as is, but note that there has probably been some stuff excised from it, and various writings suppressed that maybe should have made it in. We don’t accept the same books in the Old Testament as you (i.e., we leave out the deuterocanonicals), and Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn’t an inspired document. And what’s more, we have added all sorts of writings that aren’t in your canon.

So much for bowing down to every Catholic decision on the canon. Obviously, the Mormons don’t accept any writings as canonical based on the decisions of any council, and we feel free to accept anything else we want, no matter what your opinion.

It isn’t ridiculous. It is an embarrassing truth for Protestants to acknowledge. It is a devastating truth for Mormons, who can’t acknowledge it because it completely undermines the central tenet of their faith.

 

[majick275]

That’s sort of a ridiculous argument.

Mormons accept the New Testament as is, but note that there has probably been some stuff excised from it, and various writings suppressed that maybe should have made it in. We don’t accept the same books in the Old Testament as you (i.e., we leave out the deuterocanonicals), and Joseph Smith said the Song of Solomon wasn’t an inspired document. And what’s more, we have added all sorts of writings that aren’t in your canon.

So much for bowing down to every Catholic decision on the canon. Obviously, the Mormons don’t accept any writings as canonical based on the decisions of any council, and we feel free to accept anything else we want, no matter what your opinion.

how can you say you accept the NT “as is” in light of JS-Matthew? you only accept insofar as it’s been translated correctly and even though JS-M is the only “canonized” piece of your JST we all know he completed the NT portion of it.

 

[BDawg]

I wouldn’t post falsehoods. I would however, post truths everyone should know that might be considering mormonism.

Oh, you wouldn’t? Case in point:

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).

Well, I had never heard of this one, so I looked up the Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 350 here. I read the whole sermon, which was by Brigham Young, and I couldn’t find where it said anything about the slaves or the war. In fact, the sermon was given in 1864.

So I don’t know whether Brigham Young said that, but I suspect that neither do you. That is, I’m sure you were quite satisfied to cut and paste this from some anti-Mormon page, without checking your references. And if some of what you post is falsehood, you would never know it, because you don’t care.

 

[majick275]

Ah, yes. The “Beautific Vision”.

giant plasma screen version.