Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[majick275]

I’m trying to honestly answer questions, Paul. I see no need to accuse me of dishonesty.

**
According to the sources I cited, the main problem with the creeds is that they stifle further revelation by setting beliefs in stone. Given the importance of “continuing revelation” to the LDS, this is truly an “abomination” to us.

Of course, we consider most of the creeds to contain some error, and some truth, but that isn’t such a big problem for us. We don’t believe we have everything right, yet, either! Again, the problem is taking some mixture of divine truth and fallible human intellect, and then setting it in stone so it cannot be improved upon.

To us, religion is supposed to bring us into communion with God, so we can receive revelations from Him and make His will and mind, ours. The purpose is not to allow us to pass some multiple choice test given at the Pearly Gates. So to us, the whole idea behind the creeds is an abomination. It wipes out the main reason from having a religion.

The source I attached also noted that Joseph Smith also said that a few wrong beliefs don’t make a bad man, etc. We have always said that adherents to other religions could well be just as good people as us.**

which part of the creeds stifles further revelation?

 

[majick275]

I was a card-carrying member of the Mormon church for 10 years. My husband and I were sealed in the temple exactly 55 weeks after we were baptized and attended the temple every Friday for 10 years. Yes, I have been to the temple.

You are a typical relativist spinner. You said you have ritual handclasps which I further explained are to recognize one another as you ‘pass through the veil’ and you turn it around and start talking about the Catholic Church. Aren’t you the one who talked about discussing one another’s belief’s with in a nice tone? That sure didn’t last long.

actually those signs and tokens are to get past the sentinels that guard the entry into the celestial kingdom.

 

[majick275]

I’m curious. What did the Popes do about the situation, and how long did it take them to get around to it?

they sent bartolomeo de las casas.

they didn’t do as much as they coulda, shoulda, woulda BUT the doctrine of the church never changed to justify any of the bad things that happened. those who mistreated other people were sinning.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi zaffiroborant,

First, read Article of Faith 9. If you still think they have a ring of finality, look for the phrase, “and so on” in the rest of them.

If you watch the talk by Jack Welch that I linked, he answers your question about how the creeds were used in great detail. I know it’s a lot to ask, since the talk is kind of long (maybe 30 minutes, or so,) but he really does go into considerable historical detail, and I don’t have time to type that much.

Well I looked at them again and it seems that “and so forth” is in #6 where the leadership roles of the church are listed and in #7 where the gifts of the Spirit are listed. Other than those(and #9) the rest seem like I said, final.

As to the talk you linked I don’t have sound on my computer so watching the talk won’t be very helpful

 

[Philothea53]

actually, due to the absence of a catechism, LDs are vulnerable to “congregational doctrine”. that is unofficial “doctrine” that sometimes results in fervent practice. “hot drinks” are said in LDS scripture to be unhealthy so as a result of later definitions coffee and tea are prohibited. it is NOT because they contain caffeine. but many LDS thought so and thus wouldn’t drink caffeinated beverages and some thought decaf coffee was okay. so “officially” LDS cannot have any coffee or tea be it caffeinated or decaf, iced or hot. herbal teas are okay and all soft drinks with the “advice” to consume in moderation and attempt to maintain a healthy lifestyle.(alcohol is prohibited as is any drug not correctly taken for a valid medical condition. meat is to be eaten sparingly although you don’t usually see that one being practiced)

Hmmm. I learned that Emma got sick and tired of providing beverages for meetings Joe held at their house so Joe suddenly had a revelation that they were bad. Same goes for smoking. That story is verifiable.

 

[BDawg]

Actually, I don’t think so. And it is merely an opinion that we have. Please don’t assume.

Hi A,

Some people here were joking about how “translated” was just another word to add to the “LDS-Christian dictionary.”

 

[BDawg]

which part of the creeds do you feel are subject to change? does that mean that your articles of faith are NOT absolute truths? that man MIGHT be punished for adams transgression after all?

If you watch Jack Welch’s talk, you will see that he goes into great detail on this. I don’t have time right now to type out all that.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[ljahns]

they sent bartolomeo de las casas.

they didn’t do as much as they coulda, shoulda, woulda BUT the doctrine of the church never changed to justify any of the bad things that happened. those who mistreated other people were sinning.

Thank you, but I’m sure he wants to know if the Popes addressed this issue directly. I’m still looking. Anyone who knows, please respond.

 

[BDawg]

You mean like this?

Galations 1

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Good point, Rebecca. I can’t think of a good answer to that one right off the top of my head. Maybe I’ll think of a good one later.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Hi A,

Some people here were joking about how “translated” was just another word to add to the “LDS-Christian dictionary.”

I know, I was one who spoke about an LDS/Christian dictionary. And I wasn’t joking. I really do think we need a “level playing field.” There are separate words and even different words depending on the translation (meaning to express in a different language) of the Bible–some in archiac Old English (which is hard to understand since the language isn’t in usage anylonger) and some that have the more understandable usage of our time. (And please don’t tell me that I’m wrong in this because I do have several different versions of the same Bible and yet the missionaries that came to my door and for some reason needed to use one of my versions, insisted on only the one with archaic language.)

 

[ljahns]

Ok, I’m stating here that what follows is a joke. Something I found funny:

In Answering The New Atheism: Dismantaling Dawkins’ Case Against God, Scott Haan and Banjamin Wiker sum up Dawkins theory (which used, please note or you won’t get the joke, faulty logic & faulty science).

In their summation they write: "…Dawkins denied that God could exist as an Intelligent Creator because any being with sufficient intelligence to create would Himself have to be a product of evolution, and hence would require an evolutionary explanation of the development of His intelligence in turn.

Dawkins seems to have come up with a crude explanation of the LDS doctrine of progression using faulty logic & faulty science!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good point, Rebecca. I can’t think of a good answer to that one right off the top of my head. Maybe I’ll think of a good one later.

Maybe you should trust Jesus, rather than coming up with stuff off the top of your head.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, I’m stating here that what follows is a joke. Something I found funny:

In Answering The New Atheism: Dismantaling Dawkins’ Case Against God, Scott Haan and Banjamin Wiker sum up Dawkins theory (which used, please note or you won’t get the joke, faulty logic & faulty science).

In their summation they write: "…Dawkins denied that God could exist as an Intelligent Creator because any being with sufficient intelligence to create would Himself have to be a product of evolution, and hence would require an evolutionary explanation of the development of His intelligence in turn.

Dawkins seems to have come up with a crude explanation of the LDS doctrine of progression using faulty logic & faulty science!!

I’d say this is why many former Mormons become atheists.

 

[zerinus]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for asking. You can read a summary of how LDS view the “creeds” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article I have attached to this post.

Also, if you want to get deeper into it, there is a nice talk by Jack Welch on this topic available on the BYU TV website, here.

I just had the time to listen to Welch’s lecture. I have to say that I am not entirely in agreement with him on the creeds, nor with the PDF article on the same subject. The main problem I see with them is that they both condemn “creedalism” as a thing in itself, as a matter of principle; and then try to sidestep the obvious problem of the Articles of Faith by classifying it somehow as something other than a creed! That I am afraid does not work. Like it or not, the Articles of Faith is a creed. It is a fully fledged creed. Any attempt to classify it as something else will be seen as a whitewash, and will not solve the theological problem for Latter-day Saints. So, if “creedalism” is inherently wrong (as Welch and the PDF article affirm), then so is the Articles of Faith! You are going to have to define your problem in some other terms if you want to be able to come to a satisfactory resolution of it.

Some years ago I came across this interesting article which sheds a different light on the subject.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

But consider that many of the creeds have statements about how if anyone says x, “let him be anathema.”

Which creeds are you talking about?

 

[ibkc]

Which creeds are you talking about?

I went through the creeds recognized by the Catholic Church and couldn’t find any such line. Our creeds emphasize the positive: what we DO believe, rather than the negative (anyone who disagrees with this is a poopiehead!) Maybe there are some Protestant creeds that say something like that.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

I went through the creeds recognized by the Catholic Church and couldn’t find any such line. Our creeds emphasize the positive: what we DO believe, rather than the negative (anyone who disagrees with this is a poopiehead!) Maybe there are some Protestant creeds that say something like that.

Hi ibkc

I have just checked ALL protestant creeds and nowhere at anyplace did I even find a hint of the word " poopiehead ". I will ( to make absolutly sure ) check with father on sunday to see if he can shed any light on this " poopiehead " scenario.

God bless,
Carl

 

[PaulDupre]

BDawg may be thinking of Conciliar documents, like the canons of the Council of Trent (1547 AD):

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

These are not creeds, but they are statements of belief and policy.

 

[BDawg]

Which creeds are you talking about?

Sorry, it may not be the creeds themselves I was thinking of. I remember reading quite a few council documents that went along with the creeds, however, that said that kind of thing over and over.

 

[GemmaRose]

We think traditional Christianity is Apostate.

zerinus

One can also think that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth - it doesn’t mean the belief has any relation to reality.