Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[GemmaRose]

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.

Also, you are aware that the Bible has many declarations of faith, where people are declaring “I believe” (or a credo), right?

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.

As soon as a good response is thought of, I’m sure it will be included as a new item on the Mormon list of beliefs.

 

[zerinus]

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.

The problem with Jack Welch’s argument is that if having a creed is inherently problematic, then LDS have a problem, because the Articles of Faith is a fully fledged creed. It is a creed even in the negative “exclusionary” sense in which Welch objects to it. One of the objections that he makes to later Protestant creeds is that they are “exclusionary,” meaning that they are designed to “exclude” those of a different faith. Well, that is exactly what the Articles of Faith is designed to do. For example, article 2 reads “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. This is designed to “exclude” those who believe that one can be punished for Adam’s transgression—which is what most of Catholic and Protestant world believed at that time. We have even canonized our creed, which they haven’t! So if having a creed is inherently wrong, then we are in trouble, because we have a nice fat juicy creed which we have even canonized and put in scriptures!

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

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.

That is a horribly unfair mis-characterization of our faith.

And by the way I agree with Paul it is an ugly thing to say our faith is training to pass a multiple choice test at the Pearly Gates while also implying it has nothing to do with coming into communion with God.

Well, I can’t help it if some of you are overly sensitive to disagreement. But consider that many of the creeds have statements about how if anyone says x, “let him be anathema.” In any case, I only meant that comment as an illustration of why having exactly correct doctrine all the time is not as important to us as being in touch with God and learning.

Not sorry, just lying for the Lord

Which creeds are those?

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.

What are you sorry about? I noticed you weren’t sorry until Paul offered you an excuse. I’m beginning to think this is typical Mormon behavior.

 

[AMDGtoo]

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

Well then, isn’t it possible that Joseph Smith used the word “creeds” for the word “beliefs”. As was said, he didn’t seem to have actually had personal experience of Catholicism and it appears that what he did know, as far as personal experience, was from the anti-Catholic sources in his area of upstate New York. And we do know that he used words that were not readily understood by all.

 

[BDawg]

Not sorry, just lying for the Lord

What are you sorry about? I noticed you weren’t sorry until Paul offered you an excuse. I’m beginning to think this is typical Mormon behavior.

Hi Stephen,

I’m not sure what you are talking about. How was I “lying”? I said what I thought was the problem with the historical creeds, i.e., that they were meant to set up boundaries that can never be crossed. Nobody ever denied that this was the intent.

The only problem anyone had with what I said was that Paul and others thought the “multiple choice” comment was a “horrible mischaracterization” of your faith. Well, I never said it was a supposed to characterize your faith. I gave it as an illustration of why I think that continuing revelation is more important than “once-for-all” revelation. At the Judgment, by what criteria are we going to be judged? Personally, I think moral character and having a personal relationship with God will count more than having all correct beliefs. So a creed that is intended to disallow further revelation on a subject could be a bad thing.

The only thing I apologized about what that I said the “anathema” clauses were in the creeds, but in fact I think others were right to point out that they generally aren’t–they are in some associated documents, if I remember correctly.

So all this complaining was precipitated simply because I tried to explain what Joseph Smith’s attitude toward creeds was. I think it was a fairly accurate explanation, backed up by numerous references in the materials I cited.

If you DISAGREE with that assessment of the historical creeds, I do not see how that makes me a liar or someone who is trying to “mischaracterize” your faith.

 

[zaffiroborant]

So a creed that is intended to disallow further revelation on a subject could be a bad thing.

I don’t read the creeds (the ones I’m familiar with) as intended to disallow further revelation. And I still am not convinced that the 13 Articles of Faith are not a creed.

 

[ljahns]

I don’t read the creeds (the ones I’m familiar with) as intended to disallow further revelation. And I still am not convinced that the 13 Articles of Faith are not a creed.

I haven’t had time to read all the posts since I’ve been gone, so if I repeat what someone said, I apologize.

a creed is according to Websters Dictionary:

1. a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faith
2. a specific statement of this kind, accepted by a church
3. a set of beliefs or pricipals

This, I think, conclusivly proves that the 13 Articles of Faith are indeed a creed.

What I think the agrument stems from is the fact that if the LDS has a revelation that goes counter to the 13 Articles of Faith it will change those Articles.

The Creed of the Catholic Church will not change. The Catholic Church teaches that Public Revelation stoped with the Apostles. Private Revelation, on the other hand, is still alive and well. Private Revelation will not change the Creed as it has no authority over the populace as a whole. That’s why I have such a problem with JS’s first vision being private.

 

[1holycatholic]

I haven’t had time to read all the posts since I’ve been gone, so if I repeat what someone said, I apologize.

a creed is according to Websters Dictionary:

1. a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faith
2. a specific statement of this kind, accepted by a church
3. a set of beliefs or pricipals

This, I think, conclusivly proves that the 13 Articles of Faith are indeed a creed.

What I think the agrument stems from is the fact that if the LDS has a revelation that goes counter to the 13 Articles of Faith it will change those Articles.

The Creed of the Catholic Church will not change. The Catholic Church teaches that Public Revelation stoped with the Apostles. Private Revelation, on the other hand, is still alive and well. Private Revelation will not change the Creed as it has no authority over the populace as a whole. That’s why I have such a problem with JS’s first vision being private.

The LDS aren’t the only restorationists. The Stone-Campbell “Church of Christ etc.” movement (same time frame as LDS) are also anti-creedal. Ironically their creed is “No creed but Christ.”

 

[Nan_S]

I gave it as an illustration of why I

think that continuing revelation is more important than “once-for-all” revelation. At the Judgment, by what criteria are we going to be judged? The question “by what criteria” is a good one. Continuing revelation would not be problematic at all if it were always consistent with previous revelation. Continuing revelation wouldn’t even be a problem if it rejected other church’s beliefs, so long as it was consistent within your church community.

If a prophet is genuine, and reveals messages from the Lord, how can any subsequent prophet contradict him? Yet if a subsequent prophet brings evidence that the previous prophet’s message was truly wrong, shouldn’t we reject the original prophet’s entire message as untrustworthy?

The problem with Mormonism occurs when your prophets’ revelations contradict what your previous prophets have revealed.
– Originally black skin was a sign of God’s curse throughout all of human history. Now black people are welcome.
– Originally polygamy was condemned. Afterwards it was the highest virtue. Now it is condemned again, but only in this human life.
– Originally the sacrament was bread and wine. Now it is bread and water.
– Originally human spirits in pre-existence existed from all eternity and were co-equal with God; they had no beginning. Now pre-existent human spirits are begotten and literally born of heavenly parents.
– Originally Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and everything he revealed was God’s truth. Now the designation of “true prophet” is reserved to the current president. Joseph Smith revelations are subject to scrutiny and are God’s truth only inasmuch as they are accepted by current church authorities.

Do God’s criteria change? When continuing revelation is contradictory and today’s Solemn Truth becomes tomorrow’s misunderstanding, we can’t know what Truth to follow. You wind up trying to follow a chaotic god who laughs and says: “Guess what? I changed my mind!”

BDawg:

Personally, I think moral character and having a personal relationship with God will count more than having all correct beliefs.

Ahhh … the catch-all “personal relationship with God” which allows you to be the ultimate judge of divine truth. What happens when your relatives and friends define “moral character” differently than you?

BDawg:

So a creed that is intended to disallow further revelation on a subject could be a bad thing.

Catholics distinguish between Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline. Mormon prophets do not.

A dogma is a divinely revealed truth. Once revealed, dogma does not change; it is never contradictory. It applies to everyone for all time. It is the cornerstone laid upon the solid rock foundation. The Nicene Creed is a dogmatic statement. This is not a bad thing.

A doctrine is an official teaching of truth by the church magesterium. Doctrine applies equally to everyone, and is also never contradictory. Only those doctrines that are also dogmatic are included in a creed. Doctrine that is not dogmatic, however, may not forsee future events, and as such is subject to clarification.

A discipline is a simply a rule for good order. However, someone can take solemn vows to follow certain disciplines permanently, even though the rule may later change for other people. Priestly celibacy is a discipline.

For Mormons, everything Joseph Smith and all subsequent prophets proclaim is given to the church as divinely revealed dogmas. This has always happened, even though in retrospect your later generations downgrade such “revelations” to doctrinal statements or set them aside altogether.

You tell me, then:
Since Mormon revelation is contradictory, by what criteria are you going to be judged?

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

The question “by what criteria” is a good one. Continuing revelation would not be problematic at all if it were always consistent with previous revelation. Continuing revelation wouldn’t even be a problem if it rejected other church’s beliefs, so long as it was consistent within your church community.

If a prophet is genuine, and reveals messages from the Lord, how can any subsequent prophet contradict him? Yet if a subsequent prophet brings evidence that the previous prophet’s message was truly wrong, shouldn’t we reject the original prophet’s entire message as untrustworthy?

The problem with Mormonism occurs when your prophets’ revelations contradict what your previous prophets have revealed.
– Originally black skin was a sign of God’s curse throughout all of human history. Now black people are welcome.
– Originally polygamy was condemned. Afterwards it was the highest virtue. Now it is condemned again, but only in this human life.
– Originally the sacrament was bread and wine. Now it is bread and water.
– Originally human spirits in pre-existence existed from all eternity and were co-equal with God; they had no beginning. Now pre-existent human spirits are begotten and literally born of heavenly parents.
– Originally Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and everything he revealed was God’s truth. Now the designation of “true prophet” is reserved to the current president. Joseph Smith revelations are subject to scrutiny and are God’s truth only inasmuch as they are accepted by current church authorities.

Do God’s criteria change? When continuing revelation is contradictory and today’s Solemn Truth becomes tomorrow’s misunderstanding, we can’t know what Truth to follow. You wind up trying to follow a chaotic god who laughs and says: “Guess what? I changed my mind!”

 

[zerinus]

The problem with Mormonism occurs when your prophets’ revelations contradict what your previous prophets have revealed.
– Originally black skin was a sign of God’s curse throughout all of human history. Now black people are welcome.
– Originally polygamy was condemned. Afterwards it was the highest virtue. Now it is condemned again, but only in this human life.
– Originally the sacrament was bread and wine. Now it is bread and water.
– Originally human spirits in pre-existence existed from all eternity and were co-equal with God; they had no beginning. Now pre-existent human spirits are begotten and literally born of heavenly parents.
– Originally Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and everything he revealed was God’s truth. Now the designation of “true prophet” is reserved to the current president. Joseph Smith revelations are subject to scrutiny and are God’s truth only inasmuch as they are accepted by current church authorities.

Those are your false presentations and misrepresentations of Mormonism. That is not how I see Mormon history evolving.

zerinus

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Those are your false presentations and misrepresentations of Mormonism. That is not how I see Mormon history evolving.

zerinus

Hi Z,

False presentations and misrepresentations ??? ( seem to me to be a very accurate account of the history of Mormanism )

Morman history evolving ??? ( Morman history can NOT evolve , it is history ) ( If you would like to talk of Mormanism evolving, I guess that can be discussed, But indeed the history is the history.

God bless,
Carl

 

[AMDGtoo]

Nan posted:

– Originally black skin was a sign of God’s curse throughout all of human history. Now black people are welcome.
– Originally polygamy was condemned. Afterwards it was the highest virtue. Now it is condemned again, but only in this human life.
– Originally the sacrament was bread and wine. Now it is bread and water.
– Originally human spirits in pre-existence existed from all eternity and were co-equal with God; they had no beginning. Now pre-existent human spirits are begotten and literally born of heavenly parents.
– Originally Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and everything he revealed was God’s truth. Now the designation of “true prophet” is reserved to the current president. Joseph Smith revelations are subject to scrutiny and are God’s truth only inasmuch as they are accepted by current church authorities.

And then it was posted

Those are your false presentations and misrepresentations of Mormonism.

Would someone kindly explain how what Nan said is false or a misrepresetation of Mormonism if it is admitted (or at least known) fact?

 

[GemmaRose]

Would someone kindly explain how what Nan said is false or a misrepresetation of Mormonism if it is admitted (or at least known) fact?

Well, it must be false because zerinus says it’s false (and we all know how he has a little trouble with hearing the truth!).

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Those are your false presentations and misrepresentations of Mormonism. That is not how I see Mormon history evolving.

zerinus

Hi again Z,

You make an accusation of false presentations and misrepresentations and when I and others try and have a conversation with you about YOUR STATEMENTS THAT YOU OFFER, you seem to go AWOL.

I have no other choice but to feel your contributions are not valid nor do they carry any weight in these serious matters.

At any rate, I guess I will see you post a " hit and run "down the road.

Peace,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Hi again Z,

You make an accusation of false presentations and misrepresentations and when I and others try and have a conversation with you about YOUR STATEMENTS THAT YOU OFFER, you seem to go AWOL.

I have no other choice but to feel your contributions are not valid nor do they carry any weight in these serious matters.

At any rate, I guess I will see you post a " hit and run "down the road.

Peace,
Carl

Her accusations are so ridiculous and pathetic that that is all the response they deserve. No self-respecting Mormon would want to give them more than a passing shot. As Jesus said of the Pharisees: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14).

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

– Originally human spirits in pre-existence existed from all eternity and were co-equal with God; they had no beginning.

Where was that taught? As I understood it, in Mormonism intelligences (the raw material from which spirits are made) have always existed along with other types of matter. But spirits, as personages with a spiritual body in the shape of a human, did not exist until they were born of heavenly parents. That is why they can say that Jesus, God the Father and all of us are co-eternal - only as raw material.

By Mormon logic, then, I am as old a man as my father; the raw materials (nutrients in the eco-system) that I am made of are every bit as old as the raw materials he is made of. It sounds fine until you realize that when I was nothing but raw materials, I was not me.

If you pin them down on it, Mormons might admit that there was a time where their god did not exist as a god, but he (it?) always existed as an intelligence.

They have never really defined what an intelligence is, though. So it is a difficult subject to discuss. Most rank-and-file LDS have never even thought about this stuff, and so will most likely respond with a blank stare and then denial.

Paul

 

[ljahns]

Her accusations are so ridiculous and pathetic that that is all the response they deserve. No self-respecting Mormon would want to give them more than a passing shot. As Jesus said of the Pharisees: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14).

zerinus

I wonder zerinus, are you a convert or were you born into the LDS? Also, are you paid member of the LDS?

Just curious

 

[BDawg]

This, I think, conclusivly proves that the 13 Articles of Faith are indeed a creed.

Hi ljahns,

God told JS that the creeds of the Christian churches were an “abomination.” He didn’t say that any “creed,” in the sense of being a “statement of belief” is bad. I tried to explain WHAT I and some other Mormons think was bad about the historic creeds, so you can take that or leave it.

The fact is that the Articles of Faith EXPLICITLY talks about further revelation in #9, so it is inherently open-ended. And the Articles are VERY SIMPLE statements of belief that don’t get into a bunch of philosophizing, and such. They are very basic statements of fact, not rampant philosophical interpretation, like saying that Christ has “two natures and two wills.” When did God ever reveal explicitly that Jesus had “two wills,” for Pete’s sake? So what is that? It’s demonstrably a human interpretation based on the philosophy current in the day. Now it’s set in stone in a creed, which Catholics hold to be infallible.

So there it is. I think the creeds are an abomination because they are not just simple statements of belief. They combine simple statement with philosophical speculations, which wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t treated as inviolable.

 

[BDawg]

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

Gemma Rose:

As soon as a good response is thought of, I’m sure it will be included as a new item on the Mormon list of beliefs.

Wow. I admit to Rebecca that she had a good point, and I can’t think of a good response. So Rebecca and Gemma jump on EVEN THAT as a chance to put me, or my faith, down. I was mad, but now I really just feel sorry for you two. You obviously have some real bitterness in your hearts toward Mormons, and I hope you can work through it.

God Bless,