Why do Mormons Accept the Canon of the Bible?

[FromTheCrossroa]

They are not in communion with the Catholic Church, with the Pope. That’s all I really need to know. I began moving towards the Catholic Church when I noticed how miserably fractured Protestantism is. I see LDS as just another heretical branch of Protestantism. An interesting branch, to be sure, but not particularly important in the overall scheme of things.

I’m not anti-mormon either. I grew up having quite a few mormon friends. I just never went to church with them.

The basis I reject mormon theology is reason. The Bible’s accounts of places, peoples and events ring true because they are backed up by archeology, by contemporary historians of other civilizations with minor differences.

A reasonable man can look at the people and places mentioned in the BOM and realize they didn’t exist except in the mind of Joseph Smith. The stories recorded in Mormon scripture are not duplicated by other nations (tribes of native Americans). Anyone versed in religious movements of the 1800’s will attest to a prevailing attitude in America that we were the new chosen people. JS included that in his own book. If God had such favor for his remaining two faithful tribes in the America’s, surely they would have had influence rivaling that of the mayans, or aztecs.

The BOM has been altered many times since the 1830’s. How many times has the cannon been altered? Manuscript evidence indicates no change in substance.

Lastly, Mormons believe the Church went apostate after the death of the Apostles. Why then would they not accept the original writings of these men as authentic and authoritative?

 

[Chris-WA]

The Lord has made it known to us in modern LDS scripture that the current biblical canon is true scripture, although incomplete, and many “plain and precious parts” has been taken away from it.

The current biblical canon (KJV) is true scripture, and is, as you said, incomplete. It’s incomplete because it’s missing the deuterocanical books! Christ and the early church had those books in their scripture–so why doesn’t the LDS church? If having complete and correct scripture is so important to the LDS, why omit books from the Old Testament?

 

[zerinus]

There really is only the one main assertion: That Mormonism grew out of Protestant theologies.

I can also say that “There is really only one main assertion: That the moon is made of cheese”. But unless I can produce some credible evidence to prove it, it is unlikely that I will be taken seriously.

I’ve claimed that JS was heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly Protestant atmosphere in the place(s) he lived. What religious upbringing he had was Protestant. During his formative years, the country was in the grips of the Second Great Awakening, and it is apparent from what he wrote that he was captivated by the revivalism of it.

I can also claim that “Jesus was heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly Jewish atmosphere in the places He lived. What religious upbringing he had was Jewish. During His formative years the country was in the grips of the Roman occupation, and it is apparent by what He said that He was captivated by the idea of Messianic deliverance for His people.” What is wrong with that argument?

I actually have provided several concrete examples. I’ll try to touch on them again. The Mormon communion (eucharist, small e), which is almost identical, from a ceremonial point of view at least, to that practiced in most Protestant churches.

I haven’t been to that many Protestant Eucharistic services, but from what I know they definitely are NOT the same. The theology is vastly different; the sacramental prayers (which is the crux of the whole thing) are vastly different. I don’t see any similarity between them at all.

I’m not familiar with Mormon theology concerning transsubstantiation or the Lord’s Supper.

I will be glad to tell you. We don’t believe in it!

Mormons claim to have reinstituted the real priesthood that was lost thru the general apostasy, so it would seem to me that they’d have a Eucharist with the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity Real Presence as taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles and the Chruch Fathers. That fact that they evidently do NOT do this is, to me, telling.

That is amazing. You acknowledge that LDS believe that the early Christian Church apostatized. You acknowledge that they believe that they have had the true priesthood restored, which enables them to perform and administer the sacrament in a proper, authoritative, and acceptable manner. And then you tell me that their claims cannot be genuine because their theology of the sacrament and the method of its administration are not identical to the Catholic ones which they clain to be apostate. If the Catholic way was the right one, what would be the point of the Restoration? What would be the point of claiming that the Catholic is was apostate, only to turn around and follow precisely that apostate way of doing things? I can’t make any sense out of that.

The specific rejection by Mormons of art and icons in their churches is very identical to that of other Protestants. Mormons go even further, however, in a manner that supports the opinion of the orthodox that they are not, in fact, Christians. They reject even the bare cross as a signature. In a Baptist church, one is likely to see at least a wooden cross or two on a wall. A Mormon church looks more like a school theater.

So what is your claim now? Is it that Mormons are Protestants, or that they are not Christians? You need to make up your mind about that one.

The specific rejection by Mormons, which I assume is related to some specific teaching, against formulaic prayer, such as the Lord’s Prayer, or the Hail Mary, or the Salve Regina, or, for that matter, the Creed. This is very utterly Protestant.

That depends on which Protestant churches you are talking about. Some of them, such as the Anglicans (and possibly Lutherans and others, I am not familiar with all of them) do use formalistic prayers and recite the creeds etc. Only some of them don’t. Okay, there are some similarities; but what if I found you closer similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism than between Mormonism and Protestantism? What would that prove?

zerinus

Continued/ . . .

 

[zerinus]

. . . /Continued

And speaking of Mary: The utter rejection of any Mariology whatever. Mormons relegate the Mother of God onto the same backbench that other Protestants do.

Okay, I agree this is another similarity.

And speaking in more general terms of Mary: the apparent rejection by Mormons of a Communion of Saints. Given the elaborate afterlife notions of Mormons, this seems odd to me.

I don’t know what the Catholic theology of the “communion of the saints,” is. If you can explain that to me, I can tell you whether we belive in it or not; or whether we have any beliefs comparable to it or not.

OK, so there are four (or five) things that I’ve observed that make me think that Mormonism is Protestant-derived. Why don’t you address those, and after you’ve shot them down, I’ll try to give you some more.

I will be glad to. You have shown me some very superficial similarities between the LDS Church and some Protestant churches. Is that sufficient to draw the conclusion you like to draw from it? Have you considered the differences that exist between them? Have you considered the close similarities that exist between the LDS and the Catholic Churchs? I would suggest to you that any consideration of these two factors would put the LDS a lot further away form Protestantism than it does from Catholicism. Let’s briefly examine them:

1. *]The Godhead. This is probably the most fundamental theological difference between LDS and both Catholic and Protestant ones. We believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages of flesh and bones; and the Holy Ghost is a distinct and separate personage of Spirit. That pretty much sets us apart form both Catholic and Protestant churches.
   
   *]Salvation by faith alone without works. This is another very fundamental Protestant doctrine without which nobody could be truly called a Protestant. Well, guess what, we don’t believe in it. Our position on that comes pretty close to the Catholic one.
   
   *]Total depravity of man. Another fundamental doctrine of Protestantism which we don’t believe in. Our position on that is almost identical with the Catholic one. We believe that man is inherently good, although tainted with sin as a consequence of the Fall. But He is not inherently evil or “depraved”.
   
   *]The necessity of the Sacraments. Our position on that is a lot closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. We believe that the sacraments are necessary for our salvation. In fact we have more of them than the Catholic Church does! The Catholic Church has traditionally recognized seven sacraments. The Protestants have rejected most of these, and kept only baptism and the Eucharist; and they maintain that even these are not necessary for our salvation. The LDS Church is the only church on earth that has more sacraments than the Catholic Church does! And we think that they are all necessary for our salvation.
   
   *]Priesthood of all believers (or all the baptized). Another essential doctrine of Protestantism. They believe that priesthood ordination is not a sacrament, and that no priesthood authority is required to administer any of the sacraments. You automatically become a priest by virtue of your membership of the church. Again, the LDS position is diametrically opposed to that, and a lot closer to the Catholic position.
   
   *]The need for a central governing authority. On that score, the LDS Church comes a lot closer to the Catholic that to the Protestant one. The Catholics believe that a central governing authority is required, which they call the Magisterium, to authoritatively interpret scripture. The Protestants do not believe in any such thing. They believe that everyone is his own authoritative interpreter of scripture. The LDS position is a lot closer to the Catholic one. We wouldn’t dream of call it the “Magisterium” of course! But the underlying principles are the same—and very different from the Protestant position.
   
   Well, these are all the main ones that readily come to my mind. I am sure there are more, but I can’t think of them all right now. So, on the basis of these differences and similarities, I would say that Joseph Smith must have been involved in a Catholic revival rather than a Protestant one!
   
   zerinus

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

This is getting WAY beyond the topic–the topic is NOT that Joseph Smith Jr. made/introduced theology and practices that departed from 19th century Protestantism–the topic is LDS accepts the Protestant canon of the Bible, which in term is a truncated (butchered) version of the Catholic Canon.

Joseph Smith grew up in a overwelmingly Protestant milleu.

Joseph Smith was preaching to converts who, like him, were raised in and believers in (in some degree or another) Protestant Christianity–including the Protestant Canon of the Bible.

 

[PaulDupre]

*]Priesthood of all believers (or all the baptized). Another essential doctrine of Protestantism. They believe that priesthood ordination is not a sacrament, and that no priesthood authority is required to administer any of the sacraments. You automatically become a priest by virtue of your membership of the church. Again, the LDS position is diametrically opposed to that, and a lot closer to the Catholic position.

zerinus

Actually, Z, the Catholic Church does embrace the doctrine of the Common Priesthood of all the baptized. We recognize the common priesthood, which we exercise within our homes and other spheres of influence and in our participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and a ministerial (ordained) priesthood (the one most non-Catholics are familiar with).

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” 74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” 75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the “common priesthood of the faithful.” Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi).

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Actually, Z, the Catholic Church does embrace the doctrine of the Common Priesthood of all the baptized. We recognize the common priesthood, which we exercise within our homes and other spheres of influence and in our participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and a ministerial (ordained) priesthood (the one most non-Catholics are familiar with).

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

Paul

In that case then this must be where they differ:

1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi).

We do not accept any other concept of the priesthood than the one conferred through authoritative ordination. The Catholics appear to have something equivalent to that, and the Protestants don’t.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

Zerinus,

The “Catholics” actually came first; therefore, you might say it’s the “Mormons” who appear to have something similar to The Priesthood conferred through authoritative ordination. (Apostolic Succession.)

 

[Allweather]

I see, Z, that you are preferring to dance around the subject rather than address it directly. I had hoped for a more thoughtful response, given that you are a thoughtful and informed Mormon. Nevertheless, I will proceed as best I can.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, and JS was a Protestant. However, unlike JS who denies being a Protestant, Jesus did not deny being a Jew. Moreover, Jesus preached himself as being the Messianic fulfillment of OT prophesies, which BTW were Hebrew in nature. There is no disconnect between Jesus’ Jewishness and the things that he preached, just as there is no practical disconnect between JS and the Protestant-derived heresies that he promulgated as new, and which became known as Mormonism.

Actually, there is virtually no difference at all between Mormon communion and Baptist communion, or pretty much any other evangelical communion, for that matter. You evidently have little knowledge of how other Protestants celebrate communion. Take it from me: you share a lot with them. And you reinforce that here, in your response, by saying that you don’t believe in transsubstantiation. That is an utterly Protestant heresy, which further proves my point, wouldn’t you say?

As for the so-called “restoration,” no, there was nothing to restore. That restoration thing is bogus. If Mormons had restored the true priesthood lost thru apostasy, then they would also believe in transsubstantiation, because that was instituted by Jesus himself, quite a bit earlier than the so-called apostasy is said to have begun. The fact that Mormons do not believe in transsubstantiation is one very good proof that their so-called restored priesthood is bogus. The Protestants reject transsubstantiation, and have no valid priesthood. Just like the Mormons.

Zerinus wrote: ““So what is your claim now? Is it that Mormons are Protestants, or that they are not Christians? You need to make up your mind about that one””

Mormons are not truly Protestants, because most Protestants are Christians, while Mormons are not. However, much of Mormonism appears to me to be derived from various Protestant heresies. The similarities are not merely cosmetic.

Zerinus wrote: “”…Okay, there are some similarities; but what if I found you closer similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism than between Mormonism and Protestantism? What would that prove?""

Those, I would like to see. Bring 'em on!

However, you still haven’t dealt with the five things I brought forward to you. You’ve danced around them, but not addressed them directly. You finally admitted that “Okay, there are some similarities.” But these are much more than mere similarities. And BTW, there are quite a few more items that lead a thinking person to believe that Mormonism had a Protestant creator, than just the five I gave this morning. If this response of yours is the very best you can do, then we’ll just have to chalk this one up to me; I made my point.

 

[Allweather]

Zerinus wrote: ““I don’t know what the Catholic theology of the “communion of the saints,” is. If you can explain that to me, I can tell you whether we belive in it or not; or whether we have any beliefs comparable to it or not””

In a nutshell, Catholics believe that those who’ve gone to heaven can intercede for us with God. They hear our prayers, and when we ask them to pray with and for us, they can and do. This can be seen in the Hail Mary, the last clause of which is “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death.” I have not seen anything comparable to this in what I’ve seen of Mormonism, and in fact, my Mormon girlfriend has had a great deal of difficulty with it. I take this to mean that Mormons are as allergic to Mary and the saints as Protestants are.

You are correct that Mormon ideas about the godhead set you apart from both Protestantism and Catholicism. That is because there is NO DIFFERENCE between most Protestants and Catholics with regard to the nature of God. In fact, this is one of the things that makes it an unfortunate fact that Mormons are not Christians.

There is some variation among Protestants with regard to salvation by faith alone, but from what I’ve seen, you are correct that the Mormons seem to me to be similar to us in this, and I have noticed it. However, I wonder if we define words the same way. My understanding is that the Mormon meaning of “salvation” is twofold: There is a meaning of it as “resurrection” which applies to all mankind, and then there is a meaning that is earned personal salvation that is achieved by being a good Mormon. In any case, this doesn’t seem to jive with Catholic teaching. Just because Mormons teach an earned salvation doesn’t mean they are like Catholics. The Mormon heaven seems quite a bit different than the Catholic Heaven, doesn’t it? I mean, aren’t there three levels of Mormon heaven? Terrestrial, Telestial and Celestial? Doesn’t this affect the way Mormons define salvation?

I thought that Mormons didn’t believe in Original Sin. I am not familiar with any mainstream Protestants who believe that man is “totally depraved.” Certainly, I never belonged to any Protestant group that had this idea, though I’m sure there are a few oddballs out there that do. Still, it doesn’t seem likely that the Mormon idea of Original Sin is compatible with the Catholic, or the Protestant for that matter. Could you point me to some Mormon chapter and verse on this?

Another poster already very adequately dealt with the priesthood of all believers. Mormons are a lot closer to Protestants in this regard, given that they have no hierarchical priesthood, at least not in the holy orders Catholic sense.

There is a tremendous difference between the so-called “central governing authority” of the RC Church, and that of the Mormon church. The only similarities, really, are that they both govern in some manner. The same can be said of the Southern Baptist Convention. One difference is that the Catholic Magisterium has an unbroken line of apostolic succession that stretches for nearly 2k years from the moment that Jesus ordained the 12 at the Last Supper. The Mormon version sprang up according to the claims of a treasure hunter who invented an apostasy in order to stake his claim, very late in the game. The fact that both Mormons and Catholics have a leadership apparatus does not make them at all similar, Mormon claims notwithstanding.

 

[Allweather]

Zerinus…

Are you giving up on this thread?? I take it, then, that you now agree with me as to the Protestant genetics of Mormonism?

Also, I’d still like an answer to a question I posed further upstream, which you ignored. In case you missed it, here it is again, rephrased:

How do Mormons deal with Joseph Smith prophesies that didn’t come to pass? There appear to be quite a lot of them.

Christians are told that the proof of a prophet is that his prophesies are true. If a person claims to be a prophet of God, yet issues prophesies that don’t pan out, then that is first-class evidence that he is false.

I assume that Mormons have an explaination for JS prophesies that proved not to come to pass. I’m curious what that explaination is.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus…

Are you giving up on this thread?? I take it, then, that you now agree with me as to the Protestant genetics of Mormonism?

Far from it. I agree to no such thing. But I am in a way giving up on this thread because you do not appear to be capable of a retinal debate. Your thinking process does not appear to me to be a logical one. You present me with a few highly superficial and incidental similarities between Mormonism and some Protestant sects, and on the basis of that come to the illogical conclusion that Mormonism is derived from Protestantism. And when I present you with much weightier and more significant theological differences between Mormonism and Protestantism (and greater similarities with Catholicism), you completely ignore that and persist in a blind adherence to your own illogical and unjustifiable inferences. That does not leave any room for a serious discussion.

Also, I’d still like an answer to a question I posed further upstream, which you ignored. In case you missed it, here it is again, rephrased:

How do Mormons deal with Joseph Smith prophesies that didn’t come to pass? There appear to be quite a lot of them.

Christians are told that the proof of a prophet is that his prophesies are true. If a person claims to be a prophet of God, yet issues prophesies that don’t pan out, then that is first-class evidence that he is false.

I assume that Mormons have an explaination for JS prophesies that proved not to come to pass. I’m curious what that explaination is.

Yes, I do have explanations for these; but I am not interested in giving it because I don’t believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. I would be wasting my time and effort to make such an attempt. My short answer to all of your questions is that I have read the Book of Mormon and other revelations of Joseph smith, and have a divine testimony born of the Holy Ghost that they are true, and that he was a prophet; and I leave it at that. Nobody can convince you (or anybody else for that matter) that Joseph Smith was prophet by logical or scientific arguments. Only the Holy Spirit can; and that is the process by which I have gained an assurance that he was a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon is true.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

For the record, God has revealed to me through the Holy Spirit, Sacred Scripture, sacred tradition and all of the faculties that he blessed me with that the Book of Mormon is a piece of fiction (except for the parts copied from the Bible), Joseph smith was an evil womanizing con man who should be denounced for his blasphemies, The LDS church is a cult based on multiple false prophets’ teachings than cannot lead one to salvation and that Jesus Christ established the Catholic church and kept his promise as recorded in scripture to be always with us and never let the gates of hell prevail against his church. There was no global apostasy and the Nicene Creed pronounces divine truth. I testify to all of that in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Karin]

For the record, God has revealed to me through the Holy Spirit, Sacred Scripture, sacred tradition and all of the faculties that he blessed me with that the Book of Mormon is a piece of fiction (except for the parts copied from the Bible), Joseph smith was an evil womanizing con man who should be denounced for his blasphemies, The LDS church is a cult based on multiple false prophets’ teachings than cannot lead one to salvation and that Jesus Christ established the Catholic church and kept his promise as recorded in scripture to be always with us and never let the gates of hell prevail against his church. There was no global apostasy and the Nicene Creed pronounces divine truth. I testify to all of that in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Allweather]

My argument may’ve gotten thin in places, but that is because my arguing abilities are thin, not because the ideas themselves are insupportable. Still, I don’t believe there is anything “illogical” or “unjustifiable” in concluding that Mormonism has its theological roots in Protestantism. In fact, it is as obvious as anything CAN be. Yet, it is relatively unimportant to me. I merely raise the question because I’ve noticed that Mormons are sensitive to this Protestant connection, and I wondered why. Maybe if you could just explain that part of it: why are you so sensitive to it? Earlier, I mentioned that a schooled Mormon had told me that the “restoration” began with the 16th century Reformation, and that it was consummated with Joseph Smith. If this is true, then, it seems to me, Mormons shouldn’t be so hot to deny the Protestant connection. Do you have any response to this?

Z testified: ““My short answer to all of your questions is that I have read the Book of Mormon and other revelations of Joseph smith, and have a divine testimony born of the Holy Ghost that they are true, and that he was a prophet; and I leave it at that. Nobody can convince you (or anybody else for that matter) that Joseph Smith was prophet by logical or scientific arguments. Only the Holy Spirit can; and that is the process by which I have gained an assurance that he was a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon is true.””

Indeed, this is the final answer I’ve gotten whenever I’ve presented a Mormon with a hard question. I guess people have to judge for themselves. If the BoM can’t survive the scrutiny of logic and science, then the liklihood of it containing very much truth is slim. And none.

 

[IanS]

My argument may’ve gotten thin in places, but that is because my arguing abilities are thin, not because the ideas themselves are insupportable. Still, I don’t believe there is anything “illogical” or “unjustifiable” in concluding that Mormonism has its theological roots in Protestantism. In fact, it is as obvious as anything CAN be. Yet, it is relatively unimportant to me. I merely raise the question because I’ve noticed that Mormons are sensitive to this Protestant connection, and I wondered why. Maybe if you could just explain that part of it: why are you so sensitive to it? Earlier, I mentioned that a schooled Mormon had told me that the “restoration” began with the 16th century Reformation, and that it was consummated with Joseph Smith. If this is true, then, it seems to me, Mormons shouldn’t be so hot to deny the Protestant connection. Do you have any response to this?

Z testified: ““My short answer to all of your questions is that I have read the Book of Mormon and other revelations of Joseph smith, and have a divine testimony born of the Holy Ghost that they are true, and that he was a prophet; and I leave it at that. Nobody can convince you (or anybody else for that matter) that Joseph Smith was prophet by logical or scientific arguments. Only the Holy Spirit can; and that is the process by which I have gained an assurance that he was a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon is true.””

Indeed, this is the final answer I’ve gotten whenever I’ve presented a Mormon with a hard question. I guess people have to judge for themselves. If the BoM can’t survive the scrutiny of logic and science, then the liklihood of it containing very much truth is slim. And none.

This has also been the standard response I’ve gotten from missionaries, “Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it and let the Holy Spirit Lead you”. Of course, this is a very dangerous practice because they are also asking me to throw every ounce of common sense I have out the window in the process. This is far different than what I was told by the Catholic Church. I was told to study Scripture and pray about it. However, I was also told to study history, early Christians, recent archeological findings and challenge anything that did not seem to make any sense. Don’t stake your entire salvation on your own sensuality because it can fail you!

 

[zerinus]

My argument may’ve gotten thin in places, but that is because my arguing abilities are thin, not because the ideas themselves are insupportable. Still, I don’t believe there is anything “illogical” or “unjustifiable” in concluding that Mormonism has its theological roots in Protestantism. In fact, it is as obvious as anything CAN be.

I don’t see anything “obvious” about that at all. To me it is anything but.

Yet, it is relatively unimportant to me. I merely raise the question because I’ve noticed that Mormons are sensitive to this Protestant connection, and I wondered why. Maybe if you could just explain that part of it: why are you so sensitive to it?

Nobody is “sensitive” to anything. It just isn’t true.

Earlier, I mentioned that a schooled Mormon had told me that the “restoration” began with the 16th century Reformation, and that it was consummated with Joseph Smith. If this is true, then, it seems to me, Mormons shouldn’t be so hot to deny the Protestant connection. Do you have any response to this?

There is no “Protestant connection”. That comment by your Mormon friend does not imply that. LDS believe that the Protestant Reformation had one positive outcome: it made possible the separation of Church and state, and the atmosphere of religious freedom that characterises the US government’s relationship with religion in society, that made the restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith possible. If there were a “state religion” in the US at that time, and government supported one particular religion and suppressed others, the LDS restoration could not have gotten root in the US. And that was one of the consequences of the Reformation. The freedom of religion is actually enshrined in the US Constitution; something that was unique at the time that the Constitution was written. LDS also believe that the Protestant Reformers were sincere in their attempts to reform the Catholic Church, which was badly in need of reform at that time (as acknowledged by independent historians including Catholic ones). Whether they actually succeeded in reforming anything is very doubtful. My personal opinion is that they made things a lot worse rather than reforming anything; but that is a different issue. That is all the “connection” there is between Mormonism and Protestantism. The LDS Church claims to be, and is, a new dispensation of the gospel revealed from heaven by revelation and angelic ministration for the restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ on earth; complete with the full authority of the priesthood and Apostolic authority, which the Protestants believe is not even necessary. Any similarity that may exist between the LDS Church and any other is superficial and incidental, and does not by any system of logic prove that the one has been derived from the other. As a matter of fact, there is far greater similarity between the LDS and Catholic churches than with Protestant ones.

Indeed, this is the final answer I’ve gotten whenever I’ve presented a Mormon with a hard question. I guess people have to judge for themselves. If the BoM can’t survive the scrutiny of logic and science, then the liklihood of it containing very much truth is slim. And none.

You stick to your “logic and science” and I will stick to my testimony of the Holy Ghost. As a matter of fact, you haven’t brought any arguments against the Book of Mormon except to tell me that it contains extracts of the Bible. Well, so what? The Bible also contains many extracts from itself. That is how they wrote scripture in those days, and the Book of Mormon is no different. That is no argument against the Book of Moremon.

zerinus

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

1. *]The Godhead. This is probably the most fundamental theological difference between LDS and both Catholic and Protestant ones. We believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages of flesh and bones; and the Holy Ghost is a distinct and separate personage of Spirit. That pretty much sets us apart form both Catholic and Protestant churches.
   
   The fundamental Christian belief and understanding is in a triune God. All eternal, The Son begotten, NOT CREATED, all aware of the other (interaction), having different functions yet united in substance and purpose.
   
   newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
   
   Now in contrast, here is the mormon teaching:
   
   mormonolympians.org/mormon/godhead_mormonism.html
   
   The difference is profound! Not even Protestants have this warped of a view of the trinity. The mormon teaching is very humanistic and would be considered herasy.
   

   *]Salvation by faith alone without works

 

[Allweather]

LDS believe that the Protestant Reformation had one positive outcome: it made possible the separation of Church and state, and the atmosphere of religious freedom that characterises the US government’s relationship with religion in society, that made the restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith possible. If there were a “state religion” in the US at that time, and government supported one particular religion and suppressed others, the LDS restoration could not have gotten root in the US. And that was one of the consequences of the Reformation.

Z, I quoted you in part, and would like to ask you a question regarding this separation of church and state thing. I’ll study the rest of your post when I have time.

My understanding is that the Mormons built a theocracy whereever they went. The early Mormons did not distinguish between church and state. The Mormon church WAS the state. In fact, it is my understanding from reading, that when Utah applied for statehood in 1849, Congress denied for the main reasons of polygamy and theocracy. It took over 50 years of U.S. federal involvement in Utah’s territorial affairs, removing the connections between the LDS church and the territorial (state) gov’t before it would grant statehood, which finally occurred, I think, in 1894 after the then-prophet had a revelation that allowed for the legal prohibition of polygamy.

So, my question is, if LDS people value this American separation of church and state so highly, why is it that the early Mormons were so determinedly theocratic?

I realize that this is steering far afield of the original thread, so if we need to move to another thread, maybe we should. I’ve always found this theocratic tendency in the early Mormons interesting and perhaps revealing. Now that you’ve brought it up, I’d like to explore it a little.

 

[zerinus]

Z, I quoted you in part, and would like to ask you a question regarding this separation of church and state thing. I’ll study the rest of your post when I have time.

My understanding is that the Mormons built a theocracy whereever they went. The early Mormons did not distinguish between church and state. The Mormon church WAS the state. In fact, it is my understanding from reading, that when Utah applied for statehood in 1849, Congress denied for the main reasons of polygamy and theocracy. It took over 50 years of U.S. federal involvement in Utah’s territorial affairs, removing the connections between the LDS church and the territorial (state) gov’t before it would grant statehood, which finally occurred, I think, in 1894 after the then-prophet had a revelation that allowed for the legal prohibition of polygamy.

So, my question is, if LDS people value this American separation of church and state so highly, why is it that the early Mormons were so determinedly theocratic?

I realize that this is steering far afield of the original thread, so if we need to move to another thread, maybe we should. I’ve always found this theocratic tendency in the early Mormons interesting and perhaps revealing. Now that you’ve brought it up, I’d like to explore it a little.

Not interested; and neither are you. Have a nice day.

zerinus