Are Mormons Protestant or their own thing?

[RuthAnne]

Your viewpoint is a legitimate misunderstanding. What was taken away was the exercise the Priesthood on behalf of others (i.e., baptism, confirmation, blessing of the sick, etc.).

I don’t think so. Here’s what your official doctrine says:

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth.

First of all, according to your doctrine, only some of the apostles were killed. Even you admit that there were at least four that were not killed and are still alive.

Secondly, it clearly says that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth. Since the Mormonite definition of priesthood “is the power and authority to act in the name of God”, if you remove the authority, then you have also removed the priesthood, since they are one and the same.

You can’t have it both ways, although, I understand that the Mormonite religion seems to think otherwise.

 

[gazelam]

I don’t think so. Here’s what your official doctrine says:

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth.

This is an imprecise statement in an official publication. it is not official doctrine. Official doctrine is found in the standard works (i.e., the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.)

First of all, according to your doctrine, only some of the apostles were killed. Even you admit that there were at least four that were not killed and are still alive.

The Three Nephites are never referred to Apostles in the Book of Mormon, but rather as Disciples. So, only one Apostle (John) was not killed.

Secondly, it clearly says that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth. Since the Mormonite definition of priesthood “is the power and authority to act in the name of God”, if you remove the authority, then you have also removed the priesthood, since they are one and the same.

Again, there is some imprecision in this non-doctrinal statement in this official publication

You can’t have it both ways, although, I understand that the Mormonite religion seems to think otherwise.

God works with imperfect people from the Prophet on down. There will be oversights from time to time.

 

[Legend]

Mormons do not worship the same God, or the same Jesus, as Catholic/Christians do. Therefore, they are not Christians. Yes, they have all sorts of arguments to challenge us with. But notice…how often do the ‘doctrines’ contained in these arguments turn up, in their own apologetics? Seldom to never…they’re just arguments to get us to look bad, while they’re trying to convert people around us!

And, no, I have no intention of engaging any of them in arguments…I think I’ve made my views clear enough! Most will start by saying that it’s enough they have Jesus’ name in the title of their church. It’s enough for them…until challenged.

I repeat, the God I believe in has always been. He wasn’t born, can’t die, and is a spiritual being. That’s where I differ with Mormons. And, I feel no need to defend it.

 

[RuthAnne]

The Three Nephites are never referred to Apostles in the Book of Mormon, but rather as Disciples. So, only one Apostle (John) was not killed.

Apostle is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the twelve Nephite disciples were given that very office. This was taught by Joseph Smith, and has been reaffirmed by Elder McConkie in Mormon Doctrine.

Christ visits Book of Mormon people “The Twelve Disciples among the Nephites ministered in an ordained apostolic capacity. (3 Ne. 18; 19; 27; 28) In writing about the Book of Mormon, the Prophet said that it ‘tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection; that he planted the gospel here in all its fullness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings as were enjoyed on the eastern continent.’ (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 538)” (Apostles).

Again, there is some imprecision in this non-doctrinal statement in this official publication

Good way to dance around that. But I’ll accept something from LDS.org to be more in line with LDS teachings than I will from some unknown on CAF.

 

[RuthAnne]

The Three Nephites are never referred to Apostles in the Book of Mormon, but rather as Disciples. So, only one Apostle (John) was not killed.

Just curious, how many of the apostles would have to be killed for the statement “The Apostles were killed” to be correct? One of them? Four of them? Nine of them? All of them?

 

[RuthAnne]

Mormons do not worship the same God, or the same Jesus, as Catholic/Christians do.

When their prophet Hinckley was asked if they believed in the “traditional” Christ, he said, “The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” So, by their own admission, they do not honor the same Christ. They honor a different Christ. As far as worship goes, they do not worship Christ. Not even their version of Christ. They only worship God the Father.

 

[Legend]

I’ve heard that too. And this author of ‘Mormon Doctrine’, McConkie, has become sort of an embarrassment to LDS…he all but rejects Jesus!

And one of the infallible writings, ‘Pearl of Great Price’ was part of some ancient Egyptian manuscripts, that Joseph bought from a carnival sideshow attraction, whose owner wanted to get out of the business. At the time of the sale, there was no known link between English and Egyptian hieroglyphics, so Joseph, by ‘inspiration’ translated part of it as being an account of Abraham in Egypt. This, I believe, is where the name ‘Kolob’ comes, as the name of the star closest to the planet where God (Elohim-the god of our world) lives (so, the Mormon scriptures do mention planets!) Other stories came from these papyri, also. I didn’t have time to read them, but there’s something about Abraham escaping an Egyptian priest, who wanted to sacrifice him.

Years went by. The Rosetta Stone made it possible for scholars to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs more accurately. The LDS church gladly turned over Joseph’s papyri to some excellent scholars. But, what did they find? Not a word of Joseph’s translation was correct!

The official LDS spin is that Joseph’s translation stands, as he was ‘inspired by god’. But, then, why were the leaders of the church sooo happy to turn them over to the scholars in the first place?

Oh, I’m sure there is plenty of Mormon spin. Wonder if we’ll hear any here?

Just wondering. Hope everyone here is safe from the COVID virus. God Bless!

 

[Usige]

Years went by. The Rosetta Stone made it possible for scholars to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs more accurately. The LDS church gladly turned over Joseph’s papyri to some excellent scholars. But, what did they find? Not a word of Joseph’s translation was correct!

The official LDS spin is that Joseph’s translation stands, as he was ‘inspired by god’.

The more I read about LDS biblical “scholarship” the less likely I would be to ever hire someone with a degree from BYU.

On the LDS web site they have an article from a BYU scriptural researcher that explains the difference in translation as either a) the papyri fragments are obviously not the ones Smith used or b) translation doesn’t mean translation, but inspired revelation (obviously devoid of any inherent meaning from the text). So essentially Smith could have had a plate of spaghetti and said that he “translated” it into secrets revealed only to him. It is not possible to contradict him, because he is inspired and therefore any evidence that he was wrong must be an issue with the evidence and not Smith’s conclusion.

If that is the quality of BYU scholarship then it’s about as reliable as reading tea leaves, casting bones, reading bird entrails or listening to my 6 year old explain why they don’t need to go to bed.

 

[gazelam]

Apostle is an office…, and the twelve Nephite disciples were given that very office. This was taught by Joseph Smith, …reaffirmed by Elder McConkie in Mormon Doctrine.

Christ visits Book of Mormon people “The Twelve Disciples among the Nephites ministered in an ordained apostolic capacity. (3 Ne. 18; 19; 27; 28) In writing about the Book of Mormon, the Prophet said that it ‘tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection; that he planted the gospel here in all its fullness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings as were enjoyed on the eastern continent.’ (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 538)” (Apostles).

A few of points.

1. I believe the above paragraph to be true.
2. The canonized record accepted by Latter-day Saint is silent as to whether the Nephite Disciples were ordained to the office of Apostle or not. Therefore, is it not an official doctrine.
3. In the Preface of “Mormon Doctrine”, Elder McConkie specifically states “For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility.” The book “Mormon Doctrine” is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
4. Joseph Smith specifically said “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such”. So, if the Prophet Joseph was merely acting as a teacher when he made this statement, am I duty bound to accept it?

Again, there is some imprecision in this non-doctrinal statement in this official publication

Good way to dance around that. But I’ll accept something from LDS.org to be more in line with LDS teachings than I will from some unknown on CAF.

Let’s dance around something else…

Colossians 1:20 (GNT) Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven.

This verse states that “all things” were reconciled to Christ. All things would include both Lucifer and unrepentant murderers. I personally do not believe that Lucifer and unrepentant murderers have been reconciled to Christ even though that’s what the verse literally says. I chalk this up to imprecise language. How about you?

PS - Please feel free to continue visiting lds.org often!!

 

[RuthAnne]

I’ve heard that too. And this author of ‘Mormon Doctrine’, McConkie, has become sort of an embarrassment to LDS…he all but rejects Jesus!

In the 1958 edition, page 129, McConkie, in defining the church of the devil, cites the Roman Catholic Church specifically as being “most abominable above all other churches.”

Even though he later edited that edition, the Mormonites today act all chummy and friendly towards us Catholics (it’s fake), but they still believe that our church is an abomination and that our clergy is corrupt. Ask them to deny that we are lead by corrupt clergy, or, if we no longer are, when did that change.

 

[RuthAnne]

PS - Please feel free to continue visiting lds.org often!!

I do. It’s very entertaining, but not much uplifting about it.

 

[Horton]

Let’s dance around something else…

Colossians 1:20 (GNT) Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven.

This verse states that “all things” were reconciled to Christ. All things would include both Lucifer and unrepentant murderers. I personally do not believe that Lucifer and unrepentant murderers have been reconciled to Christ even though that’s what the verse literally says. I chalk this up to imprecise language. How about you

No dancing needed. The paragraph clearly states what St Paul wanted to say.

He is the head of the body, the church.

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

that in all things he himself might be preeminent.

For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,

and through him to reconcile all things for him,

making peace by the blood of his cross
[through him], whether those on earth or those in heaven.

And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister.

Once again Gaz - context and audience. One cannot understand the bible without knowing these two things.

 

[Legend]

I agree. A very entertaining page!

 

[adamhovey1988]

That’s exactly why the first vision accounts all differ significantly, right?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I love the Mormon discussions on CAF. It’s like going to the movies! Could someone give me a summary of what’s happened so far? Haven’t really been paying attention.

 

[adamhovey1988]

So is much of what Protestants believe, but that is not why they are not Protestant.

 

[Apache78]

Same ole gazelam stuff. Cherry picking from the Bible and ECF’s trying to prove his point. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever will with him.

 

[adamhovey1988]

You know, I find it really odd when Mormons and Protestants appeal to the Church fathers, because I highly doubt they’ll agree with what Ignatios of Antioch said about the Eucharist. I mean, if the Church went into apostasy so quickly, then they should go very early with the quotations.

 

[rIz0]

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

You mean like this. Or this

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3[A.D. 110]).

Yeah pretty vague stuff.

 

[RuthAnne]

That’s exactly why the first vision accounts all differ significantly, right?

You would think that if such a fantastic event actually happened, the guy would remember details like how old he was, who he saw, why he went there, etc. Joe would have made a terrible witness in court.

And the said event is just another anachronism. The events described in the burned over district do not line up with 1820. It was more like 1824.