How are Mormons, Muslims and non-Catholic Protestant Christians really that different?

[JonNC]

That’s not true. The canon was definitively settled in the late fourth century. The dogmatic definition didn’t come until some in the Protestant rebellion started removing books from the canon. If there were no Protestant rebellion we would still have the Bible with the same seventy three books infallibly determined by the Catholic Church in the late fourth century.

Well, here is what Cardinal Cajetan wrote:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

The Cardinal appears to express an opinion about the canon in a way that can only reflect a certain liberty, prior to Trent, that Luther exercised.

While I’m of the opinion that the D-C’s ought to be included in the Bible, and this is not refuted by the Lutheran Confessions, the truth of the matter is that Catholics, well after the 4th century, regularly execised the liberty to consider certain books of the old and new testaments to be on a lesser level than the undisputed books.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

You know that’s not entirely correct… you remember the “three legged stool”… right?

Catholics follow, or in other words, don’t reject Holy Tradition or reject the authority of the Church, as many Protestants do. That’s the difference. We follow Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Holy Catholic Church (Pope, Bishops, Magisterium and so on…). Readings from the Bible are read at every Catholic Mass on a liturgical cycle… but you knew that.

It is good to see you again too!

Yes, Jimmy, exactly. So, for me to say that Catholics don’t follow scripture is polemic at best, but I believe, quite honestly, that you don’t believe that protestants (or speaking for myself, Lutherans in particular) are no different than Muslims in terms of our relationship to the Christian faith, which is the basis of the thread. At least, you’ve never expressed that before.

Jon

 

[Roy5]

Gosh, I haven’t read all the previous postings, but the question caught my attention as I passed by it. Probably what I am about to say has been said by others.

Mormons, Muslims and Protestants differ enormously from one another. And, of course, Protestants differ from one another, too. Quakers, for example, are very different from Episcopalians, Mennonites from Lutherans, etc,

 Mormons and Muslims have different prophets, different scriptures and many other differences from mainstream Protestantism. I would suggest that mainstream Protestantism is more akin to Catholicism than to either Mormonism or Islam. Yet, there are serious differences between these Protestants and official Catholicism.

 What sets mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalistic Protestantism) off from Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Muslim faith is that it permits considerable freedom when it comes to doctrine and liturgy. If one attends a Bible study at a typical mainline Protestant church - e. g., Methodist or Presbyterian or UCC or Episcopalian - you will find members of the group voicing various interpretations of various verses without the minister or anyone else saying in effect: "Hold on, that's heresy" or "That's not what our church teaches." Mainline Protestantism permits a widespread spectrum of beliefs. It is more concerned with a Christian heart than rigid adherence to doctine. Some may believe in Adam and Eve, many will not. Some will believe that Jesus literally fed 5000+ people with a few fishes and loaves, others will not. Some may take II Kings 2:23-24 seriously, while others will feel that it tells of a gross injustice or is nonsensical and doesn't belong in the Bible. These Protestants have a problem with the many stories of genocide that are presented as God-ordered - such as the Lord telling Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho and insisting that Saul kill every remaining Amalekite. Think of all the babies in the womb this must have killed? Would God really demand such wholesale murder? How is that compatible with the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount or I Cor. 13?

 Mormons and Muslims are basically fundamentalists when it comes to their religion. Believe it all! Traditional Catholicism is similiar, although most Catholics I chat with are quite open-minded, more so than many evangelical Protestants.I know.  

God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. Religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier!

 

[JonNC]

=Roy5;8267983]
Mormons, Muslims and Protestants differ enormously from one another. And, of course, Protestants differ from one another, too. Quakers, for example, are very different from Episcopalians, Mennonites from Lutherans, etc,

All true, Roy.

Mormons and Muslims have different prophets, different scriptures and many other differences from mainstream Protestantism. I would suggest that mainstream Protestantism is more akin to Catholicism than to either Mormonism or Islam. Yet, there are serious differences between these Protestants and official Catholicism.

Yup.

What sets mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalistic Protestantism) off from Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Muslim faith is that it permits considerable freedom when it comes to doctrine and liturgy. If one attends a Bible study at a typical mainline Protestant church - e. g., Methodist or Presbyterian or UCC or Episcopalian - you will find members of the group voicing various interpretations of various verses without the minister or anyone else saying in effect:** “Hold on, that’s heresy” or “That’s not what our church teaches**.”

You will hear this in a Lutheran setting. I would suggest that one of the distinguishing marks of Lutheranism from some/many others is the fact that we are a doctrinal Church.

God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. Religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier!

And yet, syncretism and relativism necessarily should be avoided.

Jon

 

[Roy5]

JonNC

** I gather that you are a Missouri Synod Lutheran. While I respect every religious faith that sincerely embraces faith, hope and love (especially love), I am disappointed with fundamentalist Lutherans.** Most Lutherans I know happen to be ELCA (two of their churches in town, no MS), but I have come across Missouri Synod Lutherans here and there over the years and discovered that they are can be rather exclusivist. That is, they seem to feel that they are practically alone in espousing the true version of the Christian faith. Fine! Thank God for freedom of religion in our beloved nation.

** A memory or two stick in my mind. **A Missouri Synod minister in a place we formerly lived was a wonderful pastor, revered by his congregation and many others in the community, but when it came to the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity he and a few of other clergy (fundamentalist Protestants and one hardshell Catholic priest) would not participate in our citywide ecumenical service. Sad. When we held a communitywide 9-11 memorial service, he indicated that he could not participate in that either. Some of his most vociferous communicants would be upset. Even sadder.

** My own heritage is mixed: Catholic (paternal) and Protestant (maternal).** I always have been interested in warm ecumenical relations among Christians. While I admire much of what Catholicism and much of evangelical Protestantism do in their efforts to reach out to those in need, I have become increasing unsympathetic to narrow theology. This would require a long discussion, but my general conclusion is that we live in a mammoth, miraculous, majestic and mysterious universe and that we all need te be humble and stand in awe before God’s creation.

 **Along with this I have come to believe that our human brain simply doesn't know all that much when it come to ultimate spiritual truth**, that we should avoid harsh dogma, that we should emphasize love as Christ did, that we should demonstrate enormous tolerance for modern-day Samaritans among us who may have very different religious views than we embrace, that we should pattern our attitude after the publican and not the Pharisee when they approached God in prayer, etc. I am content to travel through life by faith and not worry that much about sight or knowledge. I believe Luther emphasized faith over good works, and I personally place 'correct doctrine' in the category of works.

** But, believe as you wish, and may it give you joy and peace.** Unfortunately narrow religion has been (and still is) the source of much bigotry in the world, Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. I am content to live under God’s grace, willing to wait until eternity until I have access to the full realities of the world.

** My guess is that we’ll all be surprised to find how wrong our complex dogmas are **and why Christ held up love of God and one another when the lawyer asked him how to inherit eternal life. He said nothing about doctrine in response. The parable of the Good Samaritan combined with Matt. 25:31ff pretty well sums it up.

 

[JonNC]

=Roy5;8268140]JonNC

** I gather that you are a Missouri Synod Lutheran. While I respect every religious faith that sincerely embraces faith, hope and love (especially love), I am disappointed with fundamentalist Lutherans.** Most Lutherans I know happen to be ELCA (two of their churches in town, no MS), but I have come across Missouri Synod Lutherans here and there over the years and discovered that they are can be rather exclusivist. That is, they seem to feel that they are practically alone in espousing the true version of the Christian faith. Fine! Thank God for freedom of religion in our beloved nation.

I’ve rarely heard a Lutheran of any synod describe him/herself as fundamentalist. I certainly don’t consider myself such, though confessional does apply. I also think exclusivist misses the mark. Our cleargy tend to not participate in ecumenical worship, that is for sure, but in other types of fellowship and charity, we are not exclusivist. Do we believe that the Lutheran confessions rightly reflect the true faith? Obviously.

** A memory or two stick in my mind. **A Missouri Synod minister in a place we formerly lived was a wonderful pastor, revered by his congregation and many others in the community, but when it came to the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity he and a few of other clergy (fundamentalist Protestants and one hardshell Catholic priest) would not participate in our citywide ecumenical service. Sad. When we held a communitywide 9-11 memorial service, he indicated that he could not participate in that either. Some of his most vociferous communicants would be upset. Even sadder.

Yeah, I don’t share their view. I think, for example, that what Bishop Benke did at Yankee Stadium was much overblown. That said, I do think we should avoid syncretism.

** My own heritage is mixed: Catholic (paternal) and Protestant (maternal).** I always have been interested in warm ecumenical relations among Christians. While I admire much of what Catholicism and much of evangelical Protestantism do in their efforts to reach out to those in need, I have become increasing unsympathetic to narrow theology. This would require a long discussion, but my general conclusion is that we live in a mammoth, miraculous, majestic and mysterious universe and that we all need te be humble and stand in awe before God’s creation.

 **Along with this I have come to believe that our human brain simply doesn't know all that much when it come to ultimate spiritual truth**, that we should avoid harsh dogma, that we should emphasize love as Christ did, that we should demonstrate enormous tolerance for modern-day Samaritans among us who may have very different religious views than we embrace, that we should pattern our attitude after the publican and not the Pharisee when they approached God in prayer, etc. I am content to travel through life by faith and not worry that much about sight or knowledge. I believe Luther emphasized faith over good works, and I personally place 'correct doctrine' in the category of works.

Again, I’d urge that one not confuse limits on worship to be exclusivist, nor would it be good to interpret Luther’s stance on faith alone regarding justification as any kind of reputiation of the importance of doctrine. But as you say, I am thankful for religious liberty.
In fact, it is in defense of religious liberty that coined the term “prtestant”, not a protest of the Catholic Church.

** But, believe as you wish, and may it give you joy and peace.** Unfortunately narrow religion has been (and still is) the source of much bigotry in the world, Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. I am content to live under God’s grace, willing to wait until eternity until I have access to the full realities of the world.

I agree, to a large extent, when it comes to judging the salvation of others. IOW, I believe that the Lutheran confessions rightly reflect the truth of scripture, but I do not exclude grace for those who believe otherwise.

** My guess is that we’ll all be surprised to find how wrong our complex dogmas are **and why Christ held up love of God and one another when the lawyer asked him how to inherit eternal life. He said nothing about doctrine in response. The parable of the Good Samaritan combined with Matt. 25:31ff pretty well sums it up.

His peace, Roy.

Jon

 

[1holycatholic]

What sets mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalistic Protestantism) off from Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Muslim faith is that it permits considerable freedom when it comes to doctrine and liturgy. If one attends a Bible study at a typical mainline Protestant church - e. g., Methodist or Presbyterian or UCC or Episcopalian - you will find members of the group voicing various interpretations of various verses without the minister or anyone else saying in effect: “Hold on, that’s heresy” or “That’s not what our church teaches.” Mainline Protestantism permits a widespread spectrum of beliefs. It is more concerned with a Christian heart than rigid adherence to doctine. Some may believe in Adam and Eve, many will not. Some will believe that Jesus literally fed 5000+ people with a few fishes and loaves, others will not. Some may take II Kings 2:23-24 seriously, while others will feel that it tells of a gross injustice or is nonsensical and doesn’t belong in the Bible. These Protestants have a problem with the many stories of genocide that are presented as God-ordered - such as the Lord telling Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho and insisting that Saul kill every remaining Amalekite. Think of all the babies in the womb this must have killed? Would God really demand such wholesale murder? How is that compatible with the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount or I Cor. 13?

How is it possible for something to be true and not true at the same time? Everyone can’t be right.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yes, Jimmy, exactly. So, for me to say that Catholics don’t follow scripture is polemic at best, but I believe, quite honestly, that you don’t believe that protestants (or speaking for myself, Lutherans in particular) are no different than Muslims in terms of our relationship to the Christian faith, which is the basis of the thread. At least, you’ve never expressed that before.

Jon

Not at all Jon. Obviously, all properly baptized Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Have you ever seen the movie, **My Big Fat Greek Wedding? **In that movie, the “proud to be Greek father” explains how everything originated from Greece. I’m the proud to be Catholic guy. I sort of view Catholicism in the same light… minus the Windex spray bottle.

I can’t tell you how many times, over the years that I’ve told my kids (they’re all grown-up now) that , “Did you know that was started by the Catholic Church?” or, “Did you know that that began as a Catholic belief?” It seems to me that all non-Catholic Christians and Mormons and Muslims have taken what they like from Catholicism, rejected the rest and then attempted to re-invent religion, all the while attacking the Catholic beliefs that they chose to reject. Am I wrong?

Jon, you’ve been a good CAF friend for a long time now and I hope that this post helps put my thread into context…

 

[ibneahmad]

Mormons was not founded by a truthful Messenger Prophet.

 

[JonNC]

Not at all Jon. Obviously, all properly baptized Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Have you ever seen the movie, **My Big Fat Greek Wedding? **In that movie, the “proud to be Greek father” explains how everything originated from Greece. I’m the proud to be Catholic guy. I sort of view Catholicism in the same light… minus the Windex spray bottle.

I can’t tell you how many times, over the years that I’ve told my kids (they’re all grown-up now) that , “Did you know that was started by the Catholic Church?” or, “Did you know that that began as a Catholic belief?” It seems to me that all non-Catholic Christians and Mormons and Muslims have taken what they like from Catholicism, rejected the rest and then attempted to re-invent religion, all the while attacking the Catholic beliefs that they chose to reject. Am I wrong?

Jon, you’ve been a good CAF friend for a long time now and I hope that this post helps put my thread into context…

It does indeed, Jimmy. I intend for our friendship to continue, as I value and treasure it.

Jon

 

[1holycatholic]

Mormons was not founded by a truthful Messenger Prophet.

That’s right. The Catholic Church was founded by God Himself. The public revelation by God ceased with the death of the last apostle. So every religion that claims that it was founded based on a revelation from God after the foundation of the Catholic Church is false.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Hi Jon,

All true but if you ask a Mormon (LDS), they will tell you that they are Christian. The full name of the Mormon Church, is after all - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

---

Mormons - created their own “bible”, the Book of Mormon.
Muslims - created their own “bible”, the Koran.
Protestants - created their own “bible”, The King James Version (KJV) bible

I’d like to correct the error that the Book of Mormon is the mormon “Bible”

The Book of Mormon is a separate book. The Bible is as much a part of our faith studies and services as it is of yours.

In English, we tend to use the KJV, but we’re not married to it; we do look at other translations. In other languages, we often use the Catholic Bible.

You are correct that we have different views on the Godhead, i.e. what you call the Trinity. But the differences aren’t as big as you might imagine.

Essentially, you believe in One God in Three Persons.

We on the other hand believe in Three Persons in One God.

It would be inaccurate to call us polytheistic, since after all, we still believe in One God.

But from your perspective, we might seem polytheistic, just as from the Jewish or Muslim perspective, you seem polytheistic.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’d like to correct the error that the Book of Mormon is the mormon “Bible”

The Book of Mormon is a separate book. The Bible is as much a part of our faith studies and services as it is of yours.

In English, we tend to use the KJV, but we’re not married to it; we do look at other translations. In other languages, we often use the Catholic Bible.

You are correct that we have different views on the Godhead, i.e. what you call the Trinity. But the differences aren’t as big as you might imagine.

Essentially, you believe in One God in Three Persons.

We on the other hand believe in Three Persons in One God.

It would be inaccurate to call us polytheistic, since after all, we still believe in One God.

But from your perspective, we might seem polytheistic, just as from the Jewish or Muslim perspective, you seem polytheistic.

Do you believe that Jesus is divine? Also, do you believe as Catholics do that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three persons, one God, all equal? Finally, why is there a Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible?

Thank you for your post.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Do you believe that Jesus is divine?

Thank you for your post.

Absolutely. Would it violate the rules of this site if I linked you to lds dot org’s book of mormon reference, to demonstrate the passages that establish that Jesus is divine? The doctrine of Christ’s divinity is actually more clear in the Book of Mormon than in the New Testament.

Also, do you believe as Catholic do that God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three persons, one God

Yes. Three persons in one God – three in substance, but one in mind and will. I realize that’s a significant difference from what you believe, but not anywhere near as far apart as what some here would have you believe.

, all equal?

Wow, good question. My first impulse was to say no, because both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon emphasize Jesus’ reverence and submission to the Father, e.g. “not my will but thine.” And yet … on reflection, there are other scriptures that emphasize that the Father has given the Son all that he hath … Seems to me that if they are one in mind, that they are equal in every respect that matters. so I’m not sure. Heck, you might persuade me one way or the other on the matter.

Equality among the Godhead isn’t something we’ve much contemplated. Remember You have the advantage of nearly two thousand years of theology. While you split with the Greek Orthodox over the “Fidei” doctrine, our church nearly fell apart over an argument over whose cow gave better milk. Plus we’ve got three small books of scripture in addition to what you use … we’ve got a lot of catching up to do on theological pondering.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are correct that we have different views on the Godhead, i.e. what you call the Trinity. But the differences aren’t as big as you might imagine.

Essentially, you believe in One God in Three Persons.

We on the other hand believe in Three Persons in One God.

It would be inaccurate to call us polytheistic, since after all, we still believe in One God.

But from your perspective, we might seem polytheistic, just as from the Jewish or Muslim perspective, you seem polytheistic.

Yes. Three persons in one God – three in substance, but one in mind and will. I realize that’s a significant difference from what you believe, but not anywhere near as far apart as what some here would have you believe.

You need to bone up on your Mormonism.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=d98da41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (History of the Church, 6:474).
That’s polytheism.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You need to bone up on your Mormonism.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=d98da41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (History of the Church, 6:474).
That’s polytheism.

Joseph Smith also said that a Prophet is only a Prophet when he speaks as a prophet.

To the extent that he contradicted the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, JS erred. Not the first prophet to make a mistake, nor the last.

See Alma 11:27-39, 44; 2 Nephi 31:21; Mormon 7:7; 3 Nephi 11:27, and the Title Page of the Book of Mormon. Or any current official LDS General Conference talk.

Some of your Church Fathers said things that you don’t take for official doctrine, too, and you won’t find LDS forum sites gloating about it.

 

[1holycatholic]

Joseph Smith also said that a Prophet is only a Prophet when he speaks as a prophet.

To the extent that he contradicted the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, JS erred. Not the first prophet to make a mistake, nor the last.

See Alma 11:27-39, 44; 2 Nephi 31:21; Mormon 7:7; 3 Nephi 11:27, and the Title Page of the Book of Mormon. Or any current official LDS General Conference talk.

Some of your Church Fathers said things that you don’t take for official doctrine, too, and you won’t find LDS forum sites gloating about it.

That’s current LDS teaching.

No sale.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

That’s current LDS teaching.

No sale.

Not trying to convert you, or “sell” you on any doctrine, “holy1”; I’m just to correct misrepresentations about my religion.

The idea that prophets can err, and that ongoing revelation corrects earlier error, is a key part of my religion. And even Joseph Smith taught that. Denied that he was infallible. If you choose to pretend not to understand that, it’s your choice. But if anyone believes what you’re saying, it’s them that needs to “bone up on Mormonism.”

 

[1holycatholic]

Not trying to convert you, or “sell” you on any doctrine, “holy1”; I’m just to correct misrepresentations about my religion.

The idea that prophets can err, and that ongoing revelation corrects earlier error, is a key part of my religion. And even Joseph Smith taught that. Denied that he was infallible. If you choose to pretend not to understand that, it’s your choice. But if anyone believes what you’re saying, it’s them that needs to “bone up on Mormonism.”

It’s what they (LDS) teach right now.

From a natural theology standpoint the Mormon concept of God disproves Mormonism.

The fact the Mormons use a Protestant version of a Catholic book disproves Mormonism’s claims of apostasy, but then the historical record is no friend of Mormonism as it does not support Mormon claims.

And of course Mormonism can err on points of faith and morals since they aren’t the Catholic Church established by Christ, but a splinter from Protestantism with an incoherent theology unknown in historical Christianity.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Not at all Jon. Obviously, all properly baptized Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Have you ever seen the movie, **My Big Fat Greek Wedding? **In that movie, the “proud to be Greek father” explains how everything originated from Greece. I’m the proud to be Catholic guy. I sort of view Catholicism in the same light… minus the Windex spray bottle.

I can’t tell you how many times, over the years that I’ve told my kids (they’re all grown-up now) that , “Did you know that was started by the Catholic Church?” or, “Did you know that that began as a Catholic belief?” It seems to me that all non-Catholic Christians and Mormons and Muslims have taken what they like from Catholicism, rejected the rest and then attempted to re-invent religion, all the while attacking the Catholic beliefs that they chose to reject. Am I wrong?

I can’t speak for Muslims, who aren’t Christians. Nor can I speak for the Protestants. But as an LDS Christian, I’m very grateful to the Catholic church for assembling the Bible, and for doing the best you could to preserve the traditions and history of the Apostles. Just as I’m grateful to the Jews for preserving the Tenach, which we call the Old Testament. To reject these gifts would be to reject the original Giver, whom we all worship.

There are several Catholic beliefs and practices which I disagree with. I don’t think that I’ve “attacked” the Catholic church over those issues. Indeed, I’ve defended your church and your Pope in arguments with atheists, and particularly with ex-Catholics, who are sometimes nearly as nasty in their vehemence as some ex-Mormons.

Since the publication of your 1993 catechism, I don’t think there’s been any publication from the LDS church which could reasonably be construed as an attack on your Church. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

---

It’s what they (LDS) teach right now.

That sounds like an admission that you knew that what you previously said was misleading, even when you said it. You can’t go pick and choose from what long dead prophets said, to construct what “Mormonism” means.

As for the rest of your post, thank you for your opinion. Since your more recent post does not contain actual false factual claims, I’ve got nothing else to say in response.