Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is my judgement that we catholics have come up against “invincible ignorance” in the persons of the mormon posters here, and the general run of mormons. I think that they are probably the province of sociologists or perhaps anthropologists who study the tribes of the Amazon or perhaps New Guinea. Their beliefs are strange enough to perhaps open up a new field of wierdness and would be a very good subject for a doctorate. In the the beginning, I thought mormons to be just a little off center regarding their theology. I have since found out that, at least for the mormons on this forum, they have got the National Inquirer beat hands down! Wandering John and the three nephites! Sounds like a good name for a rock band. Please mormons, please do not think that I am making fun of you, 'cause I am.

 

[BDawg]

thank you but no it didn’t. perhaps i didn’t ask it right. i am wondering what causes you to believe that john and the 3 nephites were reserved to minister only during the time of the apostasy. i do not recall a time limit for their ministry nor a specific focus on them to minister “outside” the true church being taught.

You’re right. They were called to minister until Christ’s return.

i have some follow ons as well. first it seems somewhat problematic to keep 4 such “special” apostles around and yet claim all priesthood authority is absent from the earth. one would think they could convert a sufficient number to maintain some semblance of a church.

Of course there were people who would have been converted–why else would we perform baptisms for the dead? But according to Alma 29:8, God gives as much of his word to every nation as they are ready to receive. So if some aborigines in 70 AD Australia would have accepted the Gospel, they will be saved. But if their culture in general wasn’t able to assimilate the Gospel without freaking out and stomping the believers to death, then God would send them portions of his word in other ways.

This is something some posters here need to understand. LDS think of other Christian denominations as “apostate,” because they drifted from the original Christian organization and message. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t work through them, or that they don’t have quite a bit of truth and goodness to them. I think some people would be quite a bit less offended by the LDS if they could realize that.

secondly it seems especially strange that moroni would visit JS rather than one or more of these 4. same goes for John the baptist “restoring” the aaronic priesthood when these 4 all have those keys. same argument again for peter and james joining john instead of the nephites.

After Christ rose from the dead, that opened the door for others to be resurrected. The NT talks about many of the saints being resurrected when Christ rose. Anyway, for this reason it doesn’t seem problematic to me.

Moroni came regarding the Book of Mormon because was the last one entrusted with it. Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood because they were the three chief apostles in the last dispensation. Etc.

Thanks for asking about these things politely. Some others have asked similar questions in a really mean, accusing way.

 

[hosemonkey]

BDawg;3910431]
Thanks for asking about these things politely. Some others have asked similar questions in a really mean, accusing way.

We find that you should speak gently to disturbed people.

 

[BDawg]

I also find the mormon reasoning of generations still being around because they have died and become angels also a far stretch.

You missed the point, Prodigal. We believe they DIDN’T die.

I had an thought after posting this post. Why did you feel it necessary to leave out two verses describing the temple being built if there was such an “ironclad” answer? It appears you thought no one would go and find out the wording provided by my “stupid” sources, as you call them, was the same as your LDS sources.

Maybe the problem was just a misunderstanding, caused by me. You said the prophecy was that “the generation of people that was alive at the time” would not have passed away by the time the Temple was built. I was going to point out that it just says “this generation,” and “generation” is used in more than one way in the scriptures. Then I thought of the other argument, which I think is better. Sorry for the confusion–I have no problem with those other verses.

 

[1holycatholic]

Moroni came regarding the Book of Mormon because was the last one entrusted with it. Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood because they were the three chief apostles in the last dispensation. Etc.

Moroni doesn’t exist, except in the mind of Joseph Smith and his followers.

The Book of Mormon is not Christian teaching.

Since no “Great Apostasy” occurred, no restoration.was possible.

There were not three “chief apostles.”

Dispensational theology is a Protestant fabrication from the early 1800’s. Surprise!

You have at least five errors in the two quoted sentences.:doh2: Congratulations on your efficiency!

 

[BDawg]

Again, I’m not trying to carry the argument further as I see no way for us to agree on everything (even though I haven’t found anything yet I can comfortably agree with), but I want to respond with my thoughts.

Thanks, Prodigal.

I think everyone has said about as much as can be said about that issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread moves rather quickly and I have a post that is quickly being buried. Please let me know your thoughts about post #673. As I said, I am going one subject at a time.

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

 

[BDawg]

Moroni doesn’t exist, except in the mind of Joseph Smith and his followers.

The Book of Mormon is not Christian teaching.

Since no “Great Apostasy” occurred, no restoration.was possible.

There were not three “chief apostles”, only Peter and his successors.

Dispensational theology is a Protestant fabrication from the early 1800’s. Surprise!

You have at least five errors in the two quoted sentences.:doh2: Congratulations on your efficiency!

Be nice, 1holycatholic. I was just explaining how Mormons view the issue that was under discussion.

I see no way to answer any of your points (since they are just dogmatic assertions that we can’t agree upon), except the last two.

The fact that Peter, James, and John all three had special status among the apostles is evidenced by the following tradition passed on by St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 A.D.)
“The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.” (Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eusebius,* Ecclesiastical History *2:1, in NPNF Series 2, 1:104.)
The idea of “dispensations” was not a Protestant fabrication. For instance, a number of early Christian writers wrote that Adam, Abraham, etc., were really Christians.
“For the divinest prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential.” (Ignatius, Magnesians 8, in ANF 1:62.)

“These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 31, in ANF 2:77.)

“If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth . . . . So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.” (Theophilus, Theophilus to Autolycus 3:29, in ANF 2:120.)

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:4:6-10, in NPNF Series 2, 1:87-88.)

This common teaching was summarized by Father Daniélou, who claimed that it was the positon of “the earliest Christian theologians.” (Daniélou, J., The Lord of History: Reflections on the Inner Meaning of History, tr. Abercrombie, N., Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1958, 2.)

 

[AMDGtoo]

This is something some posters here need to understand. LDS think of other Christian denominations as “apostate,” because they drifted from the original Christian organization and message.

I’m sorry if the answer to this was in your posts. (I’ve read them, honest I have.) But I don’t see any proof of this. Some opinions and assumptions and some “well, it possibly coulds”. Just Mormon words and opinions against the rest of Christians.

As for the word “dispensation”, should that also go into our Mormon/Christian dictionary? I mean, the American Heritage Dictionary says that it means the act of dispensing or giving out, and even their theology definition states that it is a religious system of commands. (That sounds to me as if they are tacitly agreeing that Mormonism is a separate system than Judeo-Christian, or Muslim, or…)

BTW, thank you, BDawg, for being open enough to attempt to answer our questions without the usual “I’m not even going to bother answering your questions” that we’ve heard from others so many times. (I guess the fact that there are so many questions by so many–plus the confusion that is so evident when each group tries to understand the other, there seems to be no “level playing field”–bears testament to the fact Mormonism and Christianity are two separate things.)

 

[hosemonkey]

Moroni doesn’t exist, except in the mind of Joseph Smith and his followers.

The Book of Mormon is not Christian teaching.

Good Post!!
It never ceases to amaze me that mormons continue to try to buy goods with worthless currency. Citing BOM,POGP,D&C etc. etc. is like citing Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. All works of fiction. Remember in the old days when Russian Rubles would buy nothing outside the Soviet Union? mormon “scripture” is like Soviet Rubles, nobody out side mormonism attaches ANY credibility to them.

 

[BDawg]

As for the word “dispensation”, should that also go into our Mormon/Christian dictionary? I mean, the American Heritage Dictionary says that it means the act of dispensing or giving out, and even their theology definition states that it is a religious system of commands. (That sounds to me as if they are tacitly agreeing that Mormonism is a separate system than Judeo-Christian, or Muslim, or…)

I’m not sure why you bring that up. Mormons believe that, from time to time, God “dispenses” his Truth and authority (“a religious system of commands,” so to speak.) This is a “dispensation.”

BTW, thank you, BDawg, for being open enough to attempt to answer our questions without the usual “I’m not even going to bother answering your questions” that we’ve heard from others so many times.

I don’t mind answering any question to anyone I feel actually wants to hear my answer, and wants to have a good discussion. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who those people are, given how easy it is to come off sounding rude on the Internet, and responding does take time, so I don’t blame anyone who decides not to bother.

Honestly, A. Look at some of the posts by Catholics on this thread. Can you blame some of us for getting a little surly? One Catholic poster messaged me privately saying he was checking out of the whole “Non-Catholic Religions” forum because of the hate-fest he saw on this thread. So I know it’s not just me!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good Post!!
It never ceases to amaze me that mormons continue to try to buy goods with worthless currency. Citing BOM,POGP,D&C etc. etc. is like citing Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. All works of fiction. Remember in the old days when Russian Rubles would buy nothing outside the Soviet Union? mormon “scripture” is like Soviet Rubles, nobody out side mormonism attaches ANY credibility to them.

Lembas bread was the bread of life for the hobbits!

“Run you fools!”

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

 

[BDawg]

“These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 31, in ANF 2:77.)

“If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth . . . . So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.” (Theophilus, Theophilus to Autolycus 3:29, in ANF 2:120.)

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:4:6-10, in NPNF Series 2, 1:87-88.)

Sorry, I got my citations mixed up, there. Here is the corrected version, in case anyone wants to track them down.
“Let us, then, institute a comparison between them; and we shall find that our doctrines are older, not only than those of the Greeks, but than the invention of letters.” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 31, in ANF 2:77.)

“These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.” (Theophilus, *Theophilus to Autolycus *3:29, in ANF 2:120.)

“If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth . . . . So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:4:6-10, in NPNF Series 2, 1:87-88.)

 

[majick275]

You’re right. They were called to minister until Christ’s return.

Of course there were people who would have been converted–why else would we perform baptisms for the dead?

i have to stop you here. if thse 4 apostles are on the physical earth preaching and ministering to living mortal beings then what would that have to with baptisms for the dead? why wouldn’t these 4 baptise them?

But according to Alma 29:8, God gives as much of his word to every nation as they are ready to receive. So if some aborigines in 70 AD Australia would have accepted the Gospel, they will be saved. But if their culture in general wasn’t able to assimilate the Gospel without freaking out and stomping the believers to death, then God would send them portions of his word in other ways.

so one wold think these 4 would only go places where they could be “received”. that implies that such a place existed and that they would have been somewhat successful there. so wouldn’t that be a valid church and thus no apostasy?

This is something some posters here need to understand. LDS think of other Christian denominations as “apostate,” because they drifted from the original Christian organization and message. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t work through them, or that they don’t have quite a bit of truth and goodness to them. I think some people would be quite a bit less offended by the LDS if they could realize that.

i think then that YOU don’t understand the catholic position. only individuals can “drift” NOT the church that Christ established. you go farther than the protestants in that you assert such a “drift” as to render any and all sacramental grace non-existent. apostasy is a very serious charge to us even the “kinder gentler” way that mormons define it. calling the creeds an abomination is always going to be offensive no matter your efforts to redefine abomination.

After Christ rose from the dead, that opened the door for others to be resurrected. The NT talks about many of the saints being resurrected when Christ rose. Anyway, for this reason it doesn’t seem problematic to me.

i’m okay with Christ raising the dead and saints and angels appearing to people. i think that different than “translation” but not a big deal. since our bible actually HASN’T had many plain and precious things removed from it we can read that this was not the case with john though.

Moroni came regarding the Book of Mormon because was the last one entrusted with it. Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood because they were the three chief apostles in the last dispensation. Etc.

and i don’t buy that. it would seem to invalidate the nephites who were still around after peter and james were dead. even then why not just john? surely he had the keys. and john the baptist? furhtermore, LDS teaching requires elijah for the sealing keys which would then imply by your analysis that the temple ordinances were not performed during jesus time on the earth. that’s even more problematic.

Thanks for asking about these things politely. Some others have asked similar questions in a really mean, accusing way.

i don’t see reason to be mean to you. i have strong opinions and you know them so i don’t have any fear that you will mistake me for a potential convert or try to sneak anything by me to others. besides you have been one of the few mormons here to be up front and honest about your beliefs. i respect that even though i disagree with those beliefs. God bless you.

 

[teancum79]

abomination is a bit stronger than error. i think even staunch LDs would have to admit that by your standards the mormon church has taught “error”. this “scripture” calls the abomination so great that none of these creed professing churches should be joined, they are not salvageable. compare the nicene creed with D&C 20 and then tell me what is so “abominable” about it. BTW…JS didn’t seem to have a problem with adultery.

The "problem: is in your mind not his actions.

according to creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

there is an issue with the nature of Christ humanness (as stated in the English Language Liturgical Commission translation.)

Also the church which the creed supported.

Aside from those issues the basic concepts of the creed seem reasonable, but much is a matter of interpenetration.

As far the being salvageable Christ taught that we should not put new wine in old bottles. The standing churches could not make the changes needed to conform with Christ full gospel.

 

[zerinus]

As far a the word “generation”, well I guess this is another word that should be added to our Mormon/Christian dictionary, because the concept in regular circles is not the same one that the Mormons use. According to the dictionary a generation is the average time interval between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. That averages a little over tweny years. But the Mormons seem to think that the generation alive in the 1830s is still alive in 2008.:ehh: :hypno: :tsktsk:

Luke 21:

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;

30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Hi again, Rebecca,

The idea is just like the following in 1 Cor. 15:24-25.
“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.”
Christ has the rulership of the Kingdom, until the end, when He delivers it to his Father. Of course, Christ will still rule with his Father. Anyway, this is the same kind of concept as “delivering up the keys” back to Christ.

D&C 112:

15 Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph; for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him; and the keys which I have given unto him, and also to youward, shall not be taken from him till I come.

JS-History 1:

72 The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, . . .

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luke 21:

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;

30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

zerinus

I’ve responded to the post that used Matthew 24 which says the same thing. In Luke 21, the author is reporting the same event.

This was a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem. It occured in 70AD, and the temple was destroyed. To this day the temple has not been rebuilt.

I’ve also relayed the story of the Roman Julian the Apostate who unsuccessfully tried to rebuild the temple to prove Jesus’ prophesy as false.

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

 

[AMDGtoo]

furhtermore, LDS teaching requires elijah for the sealing keys which would then imply by your analysis that the temple ordinances were not performed during jesus time on the earth.

Huh??? I missed something else? Plain and simple, my eye! This is plain confusing!!! I’ve read convoluted mysteries that are less confusing! I sure don’t think God intended to visit such confusion on His creation! I think I too need a break for a bit.

 

[zerinus]

BTW add the word “translated” to that Mormon/Christian dictionary. Normal circles think of it as meaning “to express in another language”, and “to explain”. Mormons somehow mean it to not die.

2 Samuel 3:

10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba.

Colossians 1:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son

Hebrews 11:

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

zerinus