Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[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

That quote relates to the prophecy of the Second Coming, not the destruction of Jerusalem.

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

Strange that I’ve heard of Elijah being taken up to heaven thousands of years ago and this is the first I’ve heard of people from the 1800s being taken up. Was this another cover up by the Catholic Church?

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

 

[majick275]

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

his affairs were not in my mind. his actions are what angered people.

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.)

really? so LDs don’t believ in his humanity?

Also the church which the creed supported.

the creeds “church” is the universal church meaning worldwide. (that’s what catholic means BTW). the methodists and presbyterians profess that same creed.

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

so where exactly is the “abomination”?

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.

nice sound bite but that doesn’t match the BoM or the LDS church. God didn’t create a new religion every time people screwed up. he called the existing folks to repentance, he reformed them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That quote relates to the prophecy of the Second Coming, not the destruction of Jerusalem.

zerinus

Protestants believe that also. You have to read the Bible in context. Who was being spoken too as well as the times it was being spoken. Notice how he spoke this as they left the temple?

Luk 21:5 And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,
Luk 21:6 “As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Mat 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”

Over 2000 years later and still no temple has been rebuilt.

Ask other Catholics if you don’t believe me.

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

 

[BDawg]

Strange that I’ve heard of Elijah being taken up to heaven thousands of years ago and this is the first I’ve heard of people from the 1800s being taken up. Was this another cover up by the Catholic Church?

Missed the point again. I said the Apostle John and others had been translated, and were still alive in the 1800’s and now. I even gave some early Christian circumstantial evidence for the claim that John was translated.

 

[BDawg]

That quote relates to the prophecy of the Second Coming, not the destruction of Jerusalem.

zerinus

This is actually one of the reasons that Albert Schweitzer gave for disbelieving Christianity. He thought this was clearly a false prophecy.

 

[teancum79]

his affairs were not in my mind. his actions are what angered people.
really? so LDs don’t believ in his humanity?
the creeds “church” is the universal church meaning worldwide. (that’s what catholic means BTW). the methodists and presbyterians profess that same creed.
so where exactly is the “abomination”?

nice sound bite but that doesn’t match the BoM or the LDS church. God didn’t create a new religion every time people screwed up. he called the existing folks to repentance, he reformed them.

Christ was a combination of both mortal and immortal the translation mentioned implied only mortal.

The creeds church had errors in doctrine and lacked authority. To tell someone you are baptizing them when you have no authority from God to do so is ample to quilify as an abomination in my book.

It is not a new religion it is the return of the old one. Going back to Adam. Many practices have changed no more knocking off of sheep etc. but the it is the same church.

It is apparent that you are unwilling to accept anything but the worst ever told about the prophet Joseph Smith. I’m fine with discussing him, but this yes he did no he did not thing is getting old.

 

[zerinus]

The idea that some people get “translated” in this manner is also a very early Christian idea. In the late first century, Papias of Hierapolis went around collecting oral traditions from those who had known Jesus and the apostles. Irenaeus quoted several passages from Papias, including when he was talking about “translation.” (No, AMGD, Mormons didn’t make up this definition of the word.) Click here to read what Irenaeus said about it.

The early Jewish-Christian document, the Clementine Recognitions had Peter saying this about translation.
“But the time was not yet that there should be a resurrection of the bodies that were dissolved; but this seemed rather to be their reward from God, that whoever should be found righteous, should remain longer in the body; or, at least, as is clearly related in the writings of the law concerning a certain righteous man, that God translated him. In like manner others were dealt with, who pleased His will, that, being translated to Paradise, they should be kept for the kingdom. But as to those who have not been able completely to fulfil the rule of righteousness, but have had some remnants of evil in their flesh, their bodies are indeed dissolved, but their souls are kept in good and blessed abodes, that at the resurrection of the dead, when they shall recover their own bodies, purified even by the dissolution, they may obtain an eternal inheritance in proportion to their good deeds.” (*Clementine Recognitions *1:52, in ANF 8:91.)

More interesting quotes here:

Matthew 16:

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:

1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:

27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; ***We shall not all sleep *****, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That quote relates to the prophecy of the Second Coming, not the destruction of Jerusalem.

zerinus

I’m not sure about this, so I’m asking you zerinus, do mormons believe the Bible to contain contradictions? Do you believe Christ made false statements? (I’m being serious, I really do not know.)

Mat 24:44 Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come.

Mat 25:13 Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour.

Mar 13:35 Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning):
Mar 13:36 Lest coming on a sudden, he find you sleeping.
Mar 13:37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch.

Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not: and shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.

1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say: Peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance,
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence and the elements shall be melted with heat and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burnt up.

Rev 3:3 Have in mind therefore in what manner thou hast received and heard: and observe and do penance: If then thou shalt not watch, I will come to thee as a thief: and thou shalt not know at what hour I will come to thee.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

There are plenty of scriptures that says NO ONE knows the time of the second coming.

Luke 21 and Matthew 24 have two fold prophesies, one about the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70AD and the second being the second coming, which only the Father in heaven knows when.

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

 

[zerinus]

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.

D&C 7:

3 And the Lord said unto me [John]: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.

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.

There were more than 4 people who were “translated,” or allowed to “tarry”. These four have become the most famous because more special mention has been made of them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I’m not sure about this, so I’m asking you zerinus, do mormons believe the Bible to contain contradictions? Do you believe Christ made false statements? (I’m being serious, I really do not know.)

There are plenty of scriptures that says NO ONE knows the time of the second coming.

Luke 21 and Matthew 24 have two fold prophesies, one about the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70AD and the second being the second coming, which only the Father in heaven knows when.

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

You tell me! See my previous post #704

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Christ was a combination of both mortal and immortal the translation mentioned implied only mortal.

what creed are you reading then? we have always believed jesus was fully God.

The creeds church had errors in doctrine and lacked authority. To tell someone you are baptizing them when you have no authority from God to do so is ample to quilify as an abomination in my book.

you seem to be having difficulty showing these errors in doctrine. the creed is a profession of faith. what “authority” does that require? please…that’s not grounds for abomination. even jesus spoke against his disciples for having that point of view when they complained about the people not in their group who were doing things in jesus name. nowhere in the CREED (which is what we are discussing) does it say wea re baptizing anyone. it says we BELIEVE in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. and you find that an abomination because?

It is not a new religion it is the return of the old one. Going back to Adam. Many practices have changed no more knocking off of sheep etc. but the it is the same church.

then show us any evidence that ancient peoples went through the endowment ceremony, sealing their marriages for eternity, every man (unless unworthy) holding the priesthood, or any other uniquely mormon core doctrines. not even the BoM describes the mormon church. you have to get to the D&C before you get truly mormon doctrine. and that doesn’t even claim to be a restoration. it’s proud to be new.

It is apparent that you are unwilling to accept anything but the worst ever told about the prophet Joseph Smith. I’m fine with discussing him, but this yes he did no he did not thing is getting old.

do you actually believe that JS was a faithful monogamous husband to emma? even you know he was with these women. you just to believe he was commanded by God to do so and then you can just be okay with the sneaking around part. so if you want to believe that God commanded JS to sleep with the teenage maid and foster daughters, other mens wives and such and that it was holy and oliver and william just couldn’t handle it because they were evil apostates i can’t stop you. buy seriously…think about that for a minute. is that really what you believe?

 

[zerinus]

Next point BDawg or any other mormon willing to address it.

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

They apostatized because they had not undrstood His teaching.

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You tell me! See my previous post #704

zerinus

I don’t see it? Really, do mormons believe the Bible to be inerrant and the fact that Christ did not make false statements?

It’s no use me bringing up scriptures to discuss if you don’t.

Your quick “snap” answers seem to be avoiding the questions. Please forgive me if I’m wrong.

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

 

[Stephen168]

They apostatized because they had not undrstood His teaching.

Why did Joseph Smith apostatize from Christ’s teaching?

 

[zerinus]

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!

Those who act in that way for the most part are not genuine Cathlics at all. They are Mormon apostates who no more believe in Catholicism than they believe in Mormonism. They have merely chosen Catholicism as a suitable platform from which to bash Mormonism. They give the Catholic Church a bad name. Genuine Catholics don’t act in that way at all.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I don’t see it? Really, do mormons believe the Bible to be inerrant and the fact that Christ did not make false statements?

Why don’t you answer that question for yourself? I didn’t invent those scripturs. They are out of the Bible. Do you see them as being contradictory? If you do, what is your explanation? If you don’t, what objection do you have to my quoting them to prove my point?

zerinus

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why don’t you answer that question for yourself? I didn’t invent those scripturs. They are out of the Bible. Do you see them as being contradictory? If you do, what is your explanation? If you don’t, what objection do you have to my quoting them to prove my point?

zerinus

More song and dance? What’s the deal about giving a straight answer? And, I just read your post about people being non-charitable.

I do not see contradictions but it’s a waste of time if you believe there to be errors. I’m tired of the circular discussion myself. I have other scriptures to provide to, in my opinion, endorse other points being made. I just provided a lot of scripture stating no one but the Father in heaven knows when the second coming will happen and you didn’t respond.

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

 

[zerinus]

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…)

Ephesians 1:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.
zerinus

 

[majick275]

D&C 7:

3 And the Lord said unto me [John]: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.

There were more than 4 people who were “translated,” or allowed to “tarry”. These four have become the most famous because more special mention has been made of them.

zerinus

i was specifically after BDawg’s opinion on this but interesting to see your additions. i think your post goes even further to showing how mormonism can’t show a complete global apostasy.