Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[BDawg]

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 remember reading in the Catechism that there will be no further “public revelation.” I also read about how the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered “infallible.” Given that the “public revelation” in the Bible never says anything about Christ having “two wills,” for instance, do you foresee any chance that this interpretation of the Councils could ever be changed?

 

[BDawg]

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

Hi Carl,

We discussed some of these on other recent threads. Nan’s statements are indeed blatant distortions of the history of LDS thought.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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,

why did you think that was put-down? How is telling you to follow Jesus a put down? What the ???

You’re alright in my book B*DAWG, I have nothing against people who are mormon, ya know, my entire family is mormon. It is your church that has led you astray.

 

[PaulDupre]

I remember reading in the Catechism that there will be no further “public revelation.” I also read about how the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered “infallible.” Given that the “public revelation” in the Bible never says anything about Christ having “two wills,” for instance, do you foresee any chance that this interpretation of the Councils could ever be changed?

Hi again BDawg,
No, an infallible pronouncement of an ecumenical council concerning faith and morals, ratified by the pope, can never be changed.

Jesus is the final and complete public revelation of the Father. There is no more to be revealed. But that does not mean we fully understand all of the implications of that revelation. The infallible pronouncement of an ecumenical council is not public revelation, because it does not proclaim new doctrine. What it does is to clarify and better understand the public revelation (expressed in scripture and sacred tradition) that we already have. Infallible interpretation of scripture is one fulfillment of Christ’s promise (John 16:3). If you read those conciliar documents, you see that this is the intent and the result of the council.

One of the problems for communication between Mormons and Catholics is that a Mormon would call the above Holy Spirit-guided infallible pronouncement “revelation”. I’m sure it is by your standards, but we just don’t use that word as casually as you do. By Mormon standards, new public revelation has never ceased in the Catholic Church. But by the very narrow Catholic definition, there has been no new public revelation since the death of the apostles, who reported to us their eye-witness of Jesus.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[Stephen168]

… like saying that Christ has “two natures and two wills.”

Which Creed are you talking about?

 

[AMDGtoo]

the creeds are an abomination because they are not just simple statements of belief.

So Joseph Smith thought that all creeds (that means every one of ours too) were abominations because they weren’t simple? Is it just possible that Joseph Smith was simply mistaken?

You see, if there is any Creed that is simple, it is the Apostles’ Creed which was composed from the Biblical baptismal formulas of the early Church. This Creed was probably composed about 200 A.D. and it is so simple that it is used in Masses for children in lieu of the more refined Nicene Creed (which addressed a certain heresy of the time back when it was first agreed upon in a Council) normally used at all Masses.

The Apostles’ Creed consists of nine sentences and for those who don’t know it, it is as follows:

"I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius
Pilate, was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended to the dead.

On the third day He rose again.

He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the
right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting."

As far as what Nan said, I’m still “in the dark” about how her statements are false and misrepresent Mormonism when the statements have been admitted as being true.

 

[Nan_S]

Hi Nan,
If I had 2 and a half weeks and a dozen pens I could have not said it any better
God bless,
Carl

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!).

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

Thank you all for the support. I appreciate it.

Paul, I believe you have accurately presented the current LDS position on pre-existent spirits. “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.”

The previous position which was contradictory from that is found in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, and in the History of the Church. Joseph Smith proclaimed that the intelligences ARE spirits, and spirits of men can not be created, even by God. Here is what he said:

I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, &c., had their existence in an elementary state from eternity. Our Saviour speaks of children and says, “Their angels always stand before my Father.” The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Hi Carl,

We discussed some of these on other recent threads. Nan’s statements are indeed blatant distortions of the history of LDS thought.

Hello BDawg, ( my new friend )

Hope this post finds you well

Context first ( if you will be patient with me )

1. I am obviously a real amature in the study of Mormanism
2. What I have learned is directly due to many people on this forum ( including you ) that have been willing to share their knowledge and perspective with me.
3. I have never and still do not desire to debate you, rather I appreciate the availabilty you offer me in being a devout Morman to gain understanding and reason. ( thank you for that )

Now that I have softened you up

The above mentioned post by Nan ( right on the mark as I see it ) was not " blatant distortions " of the history of the LDS nor was it as Z claimed " misrepresentation" of the so called ( EVOLVEMENT OF MORMAN HISTORY )??? ( how does history evolve or change - IT IS WHAT IT IS ( HISTORY )
Nan’s post was fact based on the factual history.

I might add ( from little old me ) that the " Nan post " we are discussing goes much further that citing facts, It speaks volumes to the complete context of this serious and personal topic.

God bless,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

The above mentioned post by Nan ( right on the mark as I see it ) was not " blatant distortions " of the history of the LDS nor was it as Z claimed " misrepresentation" of the so called ( EVOLVEMENT OF MORMAN HISTORY )??? ( how does history evolve or change - IT IS WHAT IT IS ( HISTORY )
Nan’s post was fact based on the factual history.

Hi Carl,

No, Nan’s post had some facts, and some interpretations of those facts. And she left out a number of important facts, without which, those interpretations must be distorted.

Let me give you one example.

She talked about how the LDS have flip-flopped about polygamy, saying that at first we condemned it, then glorified it, then condemn it, etc.

Here’s ONE thing she left out (there are several others.) The foundational document of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi told his children that they were forbidden to practice polygamy, and went on to say how it can lead to excesses, like those of David and Solomon.

But then he added this caveat.
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:30)
So, Lehi was careful to point out that sometimes God commands his people to practice polygamy “to raise up seed unto him.” And sometimes he commands them to be strictly monogamous.

If Nan had bothered to look up any LDS apologetics web page–and I mean ANY of them—that covers this topic, she would have discovered this fact. And any reasonable person, upon discovering this fact, would conclude that the LDS stance on polygamy has been much more consistent than Nan let on. Sometimes we believe God has commanded us to practice monogamy, and sometimes we believe he has commanded us to practice polygamy.

It’s very easy to give a distorted view of history by leaving out all the bits that contradict your interpretation. That’s exactly what Nan did in all those cases.

 

[PaulDupre]

The previous position which was contradictory from that is found in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, and in the History of the Church. Joseph Smith proclaimed that the intelligences ARE spirits, and spirits of men can not be created, even by God. Here is what he said:

I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, &c., had their existence in an elementary state from eternity. Our Saviour speaks of children and says, “Their angels always stand before my Father.” The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them.

I think this is just another example of sloppy Protestant/Mormon thinking. Joseph Smith does not bother to differentiate between intelligences and spirits. Does this mean that our intelligences had identities and personalities before they were “organized into spirit bodies” (whatever that means )? If so, from whence did those personalities/persons arise? Mormons have provided no answers to the problem of first cause, they have merely avoided it.

If matter, energy, space and we have always existed, then that means that there has always been time. If there has always been time, and gods arose from the primordial intelligences that have always existed in time, then there is no eternity and there is no God. There is only “forever” which is not and cannot be eternal.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I remember reading in the Catechism that there will be no further “public revelation.” I also read about how the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered “infallible.” Given that the “public revelation” in the Bible never says anything about Christ having “two wills,” for instance, do you foresee any chance that this interpretation of the Councils could ever be changed?

None of these are creeds. It’s creeds you say are an abomination and disallow further revelation. Are you looking to expand the scope of abomination

 

[shanenigans]

I am Lds and we are not protestants. We are separate.

 

[PaulDupre]

I am Lds and we are not protestants. We are separate.

I am formerly LDS. You say you are not Protestant, but all of your orientation, attitudes, KJV bible, and world view are extremely 19th century Protestant. Mormons are more puritan than the Puritans. I see Mormonism as a natural outgrowth of 19th-century American Individualist Protestantism run amok.

All of Joseph Smith’s teachings (BoM, BoA, D&C, etc) are just confirmations of Protestant American folk magic and the popular American Protestant notions of the day (Indians as lost Israelites, buried treasure *, restoration of the “original Christian Church”, spiritualism and visions, seer stones, charismatic prophets, abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, meat and hot drinks, etc).

Someone once said the fastest way to become a leader is to find a crowd that’s going somewhere and get in front of it. That is precisely what Joseph Smith and his fellow conspirators did.

Paul*

 

[Nan_S]

No, Nan’s post had some facts, and some interpretations of those facts. And she left out a number of important facts, without which, those interpretations must be distorted.

Let me give you one example.

She talked about how the LDS have flip-flopped about polygamy, saying that at first we condemned it, then glorified it, then condemn it, etc.

Here’s ONE thing she left out (there are several others.) The foundational document of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi told his children that they were forbidden to practice polygamy, and went on to say how it can lead to excesses, like those of David and Solomon.

But then he added this caveat.“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:30)So, Lehi was careful to point out that sometimes God commands his people to practice polygamy “to raise up seed unto him.” And sometimes he commands them to be strictly monogamous.

Oh, please. Let’s see who is quoting out of context here. Jacob 2:30 makes no reference whatsoever to conditional approval to periodic polygamy. The entire passage condemns the practice. Read the verses before and after to see the context.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

In the BoM, God condemns David’s and Solomon’s polygamy as an abomination.

Jacob 2:23 For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Here is the flip-flop. In the D&C, David’s and Solomon’s polygamy was sinless, except in the case of Bathsheba.

D&C 132:38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

It’s very easy to give a distorted view of history by leaving out all the bits that contradict your interpretation. That’s exactly what Nan did in all those cases.

The proof is quite plain. The person leaving out contradictory bits is not me.

Were David’s and Solomon’s polygamies an abomination, or were their wives given by God?

Which “truth” are we to believe?

 

[ljahns]

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.

Good grief, the only thing I was stating was that the 13 Articles of Faith of the LDS according to the Websters Dictionary definition of the word creed makes it a creed. Nothing more.

There seemed to be a debate over whether the 13 AoF were a creed or not. I simply looked up the definition of the word creed to determine if, in fact, it was or was not. There also seemed to be debate over whether or not devine revelation would alter said creeds. LDS’s could be altered while the CC cannot. I was simply stating the differences. I was not critiquing the validity of either.

 

[ljahns]

Hi Carl,

Here’s ONE thing she left out (there are several others.) The foundational document of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi told his children that they were forbidden to practice polygamy, and went on to say how it can lead to excesses, like those of David and Solomon.

But then he added this caveat.
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:30)
So, Lehi was careful to point out that sometimes God commands his people to practice polygamy “to raise up seed unto him.” And sometimes he commands them to be strictly monogamous.
.

I must be an incredible dolt, but I don’t interpret that to mean the practice of polygamy. Maybe if you sited the whole passage I’d get a better picture.

Never mind. Nan S did it for me. Thanks Nan. Please explain how you get polygamy out of that?

 

[ljahns]

Question just occured to me:

Why are non of the LDS prophets women?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Question just occured to me:

Why are non of the LDS prophets women?

To be an LDS prophet you have to be ordained in the LDS priesthood.

 

[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

I am paid by Karl Keating to post here. He thinks this place would be too boring if I wasn’t around!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Question just occured to me:

Why are non of the LDS prophets women?

A woman can be a prophet (prophetess) if she has that spiritual gift. But the President of our Church is more than just a prophet. He is called the “Prophet” in popular talk; but he is a lot more than that. To cut out the jargon, he is the Presiding High Priest that presides over the whole Church. That is a position that can only be held by a male.

zerinus