YHWH: Jesus to Mormons, the Father to other Christians

[PaulDupre]

Mormons are no different than members of any other religion in that most have never read or studied their holy books and understand little if any of their religion’s teachings.

An amusing anecdote:

After my mom (now Catholic again), brother, sister and I joined the Morg, my Dad read everything he could so as to understand what we were into, though he didn’t buy into it for a minute.

One sacrament meeting, a general authority came to visit and was the guest speaker. He spoke on the importance of the scriptures. Near the end of his talk, he asked that everyone who had read the entire Book of Mormon stand. Only about 50 people stood up, my Dad included. The GA then asked those who had read the entire bible to remain standing. All but a handful of people sat down. He them asked those who had read the Pearl of Great Price to remain standing. A few more sat down. Lastly, the GA asked that only those who had read the entire Doctrine and Covenents remain standing. My Dad was the only one still standing.

The GA proclaimed “This man is one of the elite of the Church. I am sure that this fine brother has been a great leader here.” The Ga was obviously confused by the giggling among the members. He asked my Dad, “Have you held many leadership positions in your ward?” “No,” answered Dad. “That would be difficult for me.” “Why?” asked the GA. “Because I am a Catholic!” said Dad. The room erupted in laughter.

The GA was speechless. When he recovered himself, he said to the red-faced bishop seated nearby “We need to get this man into the church, pronto!” “Not likely,” said Dad. “I’ve read the LDS scriptures.”

Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

After my mom (now Catholic again), brother, sister and I joined the Morg, my Dad read everything he could so as to understand what we were into, though he didn’t buy into it for a minute.

What is this “Morg” is it a combination of Moromon Organization and the Borg? If so, that’s pretty clever. I may use it myself, I like it!

Also I can sympathise with the story. A lot of people aren’t readers but reading will get you a long way.

 

[rmcmullan]

I was reading the wiki on purgatory. The teachings on purgatory and the Mormon teaching on eternal progression seems to be in contrast with the Protestant teachings. It seems that they believe the atonement perfects you upon passing from this life. Interesting. Can any of you explain to me the differences between the Mormon spirit world and purgatory?

 

[Nan_S]

I was reading the wiki on purgatory. The teachings on purgatory and the Mormon teaching on eternal progression seems to be in contrast with the Protestant teachings. It seems that they believe the atonement perfects you upon passing from this life. Interesting. Can any of you explain to me the differences between the Mormon spirit world and purgatory?

I KNEW I should have picked up that copy of Mormonism for Dummies . I hope I’m not too far off the mark here.

Rather than wikipedia, I’d like to offer you the official Catechism of the Catholic Church on line:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - USCCB Website
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Vatican Website

Purgatory is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Purgatory is the process or etherial place of purging after earthly death, when we are purified of our last remaining vestiges of unclean, sinful selfishness, and therefore made ready to enter heaven.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

The Mormon spirit world, if I understand it correctly, has to do with spirit-children who are mostly unenlightened innocents awaiting bodies, so that they can be taught and mature.

Of course, Catholics don’t have a doctrine of heavenly pre-existence before earthly life. We hold that God blesses each person with a brand-new immortal soul, created at the moment of their conception in their mothers’ wombs.

The closest parallel I would draw to the Mormon pre-existent spirit word is Limbo. By the way, the existence of Limbo as a etherial place or situation is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. It’s simply a way of saying “we don’t know what their fate may be.”

You used to hear, and sometimes still do hear, Catholics say that unbaptised babies go to Limbo (because we also don’t have a belief in baptism for the dead). Their situation has been more specifically defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Nan

 

[rmcmullan]

The other major thread on purgatory (Why do Protestants object to Pergatory) seems to be concerned on that old Protestant “saved by grace” theme. They don’t like the idea that you can’t be made perfect through the atonement and need to hang around purgatory to be purged. The atonement should cover it all (from a Mormon general authority). My view of the atonement is in the parable I am about to (in my next posting, it’s too long for this one). Excuse me for this overly lengthy quote but I’ve been meaning to do it for a long time:

If you think this parable is reasonable, let me know because it ties into a lot of other things, especially the eternal progression and saved by grace principles. If you can’t agree with it. I’ll drop it but I view it as central.

 

[rmcmullan]

The Mediator by Boyd K Packer

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended-but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.

Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.

And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.

Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.

But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.

 

[rmcmullan]

It was probably a bad idea to post the whole thing but I wanted to get some middle ground. The question that seems to be roaring through the other purgatory thread is how responsible we are for our own salvation. I like this particular story because it puts us in the position of being very responsible. It reconciles the “be ye therefore perfect” admonition and being perfected through Christ. But it doesn’t say anywhere that the process is instantaneous. But we need to give ourselves over in order to be remade. But that seems so controversial. The purgatory doctrine sounds like I’m getting some support though.

 

[Nan_S]

I want to give you a proper answer, but I hadn’t been following the current Why do Protestants Object to Purgatory thread. That ground has been covered so many times before…

The short answer is that as long as we are human, living on earth, we have both the temptation and opportunity to change our minds, for good or for ill. Yes, our atonement is complete, and we would be perfect if we clung to that atonement. But our perfection does not - indeed, can not - be completed as long as we feel the tug of temptation. This is the downside to Free Will.

At the end of your parable, mercy and justice are satisfied for that moment. However, nothing is said about the debtor being prohibited from signing another contract and falling further into debt. What are the benefactor’s terms, anyway? And does the debtor fulfill them?

In fact, it is human nature to take out more debt once being relieved of the burden of the previous debt. The statistics regarding people who purchase new cars, etc., after receiving bankruptcy discharges are staggering. No one ever goes back to repay the original creditors anymore.

An honest Protestant would admit to you that he does continue to sin, in fact can not help sinning since he is completely corrupt by nature. He claims that since he is repentant-in-anticipation God does not see the sin. He is covered by a “Cloak of Righteousness” but underneath is still filthy. He believes that he can never be made perfect, just made to appear perfect by the cover of the cloak.

Protestants believe in purification, too: 1 Cor 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. What Protestants deny is that their purification can be made perfect.

Therein lies the objection to Purgatory. Purgatory provides both purification and perfection in God, something many Protestants believe is impossible. Yet, if they are not truly made perfect, I wonder how they reconcile that with Rev 21:27, “Nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem”

In your parable, true perfection would demand the commitment to refuse to enter into debt ever again, just as perfection in God demands we sin no more. Ever. And it is part of Catholic teaching that we can, indeed must, be made completely perfect, not just covered by a cloak of perfection. The purification we call purgatory cleanses us of the tendency to stray from God, while maintaining our unique identity as individual members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Perhaps this will help. It’s from the Wisdom of Solomon, one of the Deuterocanonical books (a.k.a Apocrypha), so most Protestants are unfamiliar with it. This is the example of a debtor who was completely purified.

Wis 4:7-16 But the righteous man, though he die early, will be at rest. For old age is not honored for length of time, nor measured by number of years; but understanding is gray hair for men, and a blameless life is ripe old age.

There was one who pleased God and was loved by him, and while living among sinners he was taken up. He was caught up lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind. Being perfected in a short time, he fulfilled long years; for his soul was pleasing to the Lord, therefore He took him quickly from the midst of wickedness.

Yet the peoples saw and did not understand, nor take such a thing to heart, that God’s grace and mercy are with his elect, and he watches over his holy ones. The righteous man who had died will condemn the ungodly who are living, and youth that is quickly perfected will condemn the prolonged old age of the unrighteous man.

Nan

 

[scapularkid8]

From what I’m hearing from both sides, the Mormon view of God and the universe seems like a huge rat race for perfection. Not a loving plan for salvation and peace. After hearing these arguments (and others), I no longer regard Mormonism as a legitimate faith, but a “fuzzy feely” emotional warping that completely disregards logic and reason. (Sorry, I needed to vent)

 

[rmcmullan]

Why don’t Protestants think their purification can be made perfect? I agree that a purification must take place and that a man must be made perfect.

 

[Nan_S]

Why don’t Protestants think their purification can be made perfect? I agree that a purification must take place and that a man must be made perfect.

If you believe, as many Protestants do, that man is totally corrupt and depraved, no purification is possible. However if you believe, as Catholics do, that we can be perfected and cleansed of our selfishness, then a purgation (Purgatory) is necessary.

It started with Martin Luther when he was ordained a priest in 1507. As a young man he struggled with sin, becoming convinced that his own sinfulness and guilt were so depraved that he was about to be struck down and cast into hell. We don’t know what his sin was. If I had to guess I would speculate it was something sexual. The harder he tried to live a holy life by force of will, the further away he seemed to be from his heavenly goal.

In about 1513 he felt he had a mystical illumination which resolved his crisis. He could indeed have assurance of salvation despite his sinful depravity, because God would justify him by his faith in spite of his sin. The Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation with confession of sin and absolution were pointless. Having proclaimed his faith God no longer looked at his sin.

Luther began with the idea of God’s justice, His saving righteousness, the gracious gift of salvation extended to us in Christ. Human merit pays no role. Man is, in fact, totally corrupt as is evident from concupiscence, the fermenting, restless egotism that vitiates human decisions at every level.

According to Luther, there is no Free Will. The human will is totally enslaved to sin and totally rebellious to God. It is only through faith that we appropriate the salvation that God has effected for us in Christ. For God does not impute to us this sinfulness once we confess it by faith, hate it, and seek to be healed of it.

Whatever righteousness we have then, according to Luther, is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us because of our faith. We are still, and will always remain, filthy rags.

It didn’t help matters that Luther’s time was one of the low points for the papacy, when prayers on behalf of the dead, to hasten their purification in Purgatory, were being sold to the highest bidder as a way of raising funds for temporal projects (the selling of indulgences). So Luther had two reasons to reject Purgatory: he believed that because humans were totally depraved no purification was possible, and he objected to the fund-raising methods of corrupt church officials.

You may not have known it, but Luther was responsible for the Dueterocanonical (Apocryphal) books being removed from the Old Testament. Luther objected to 2nd Maccabees 12:44-46, where prayers and a temple offering were made on behalf of Israelite soldiers who were killed in battle, then discovered to have been wearing amulets of Baal. Since this book specifically justified a doctrine he rejected, he reasoned that the book itself was to be rejected.

Something that significantly aided Luther’s cause was the newly-invented printing press. Luther exploited it to its fullest potential to have his voice heard in every village and hamlet.

 

[Nan_S]

(Part 2)

While Martin Luther was revolutionizing religious thought in Germany, John Calvin carried Luther’s ideas to France and Geneva in the 1540s, laying the groundwork for Protestantism in the rest of Europe. Playing successfully to the forces of emerging nationalism, Calvin urged the rulers to break with Rome by offering them an empowering alternative, a Christian faith beholden to no one except the national ruler.

Calvin insisted on God’s absolute transcendence and total otherness, his mysterious, incomprehensible essence, his unfathomable purpose, and his inscrutable decrees. Calvin’s God is a hidden God, and saving knowledge of Him could only be found in scripture read with reverence, faith, and love. God revealed himself to us in scripture only through Jesus Christ, who is the whole core and content of scripture.

How did Calvin proclaim we could know that scripture is true? Only through the interior witness of the Holy Spirit in which we recognize the Word of God speaking to us (sound familiar?). Scripture testifies to the all-embracing sovereignty of God and reveals God as the ruler who governs all things by his providence. To Calvin, the logical conclusion of this divine providence was that some are predestined infallibly to eternal life, and others are predestined infallibly to eternal punishment.

Calvin asserted predestination to safeguard one of his main concerns, the absolute gratuitousness of God’s saving grace which is in no way dependent on our merit or works. According to Calvin, man does not initiate his movement of faith. Rather it is the Holy Spirit’s work awakening in us to make us aware of our destiny. Our personal faith is worthless. We merely become increasingly aware of our own impotence and selfishness as we are more deeply grafted into Christ, who accomplishes for us what we can not do for ourselves.

Even after our justification, Calvin held that our works are still contaminated by sin. The righteousness of Christ remains His righteousness, not ours, and is only imputed to us through the instrument of our faith.

For Calvin, therefore, someone who was predestined to heaven has no need of a purification - he is already cloaked in the righteousness of Christ. And for someone who was predestined to hell, the purification of Purgatory was useless.

 

[rmcmullan]

How did Calvin proclaim we could know that scripture is true? Only through the interior witness of the Holy Spirit in which we recognize the Word of God speaking to us (sound familiar?).

Ha, ha, yes, it’s Moroni 10:3-5 Well, thanks a lot for going through all that, it helps to explain a lot of what I’ve heard in other threads and even back in the old days when I was a missionary. I do have some real problems with what the Protestants believe but at least now I can see how it evolved.

Merry Christmas!

 

[zerinus]

Nan S

That was a pretty accurate description of Protestant theology. You appear to be very well read and knowledgeable on the subject. Here are a few comments about what you have said:

If you believe, as many Protestants do, that man is totally corrupt and depraved, no purification is possible. However if you believe, as Catholics do, that we can be perfected and cleansed of our selfishness, then a purgation (Purgatory) is necessary.

I don’t know exactly how the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory plays out in the context of Catholic theology. But I can tell you that we have something similar, although I am not sure how close it comes to the Catholic theology of Purgatory. We believe that those who have not had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life will have that opportunity given them in the spirit world. LDS doctrine also teaches that those who had committed serious sins in this life, or those who have had the opportunity to repent of their sins and accept the gospel in this life, but refused to do so, will be punished for their sins in the spirit world; but after they have been punished and purified thereby, they will have the opportunity to repent and accept the gospel:

D&C 138:

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.

58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.

60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that this record is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.

LDS doctrine teaches that those who are saved in the Telestial kingdom include those who had committed very serious sins in this life (and not repented of them), who then are cast down into hell where they pay a full price for all their sins, before being redeemed and saved in the Telestial kingdom:

D&C 76:

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

These are the closest things to the LDS equivalent of Catholic Purgatory. I am not sure how “close” that would be!

How did Calvin proclaim we could know that scripture is true? Only through the interior witness of the Holy Spirit in which we recognize the Word of God speaking to us (sound familiar?).

Yes it does! And what conclusion do you intend to draw from that? Just because a couple of things taught by Calvin happen to agree with LDS doctrine, does that mean that both must be equally false? Calvin may have been a heretic; but he was a very intelligent heretic. His motives also cannot always be suspected of being evil. Just because he got some things (even most things) wrong, it does not follow that he got everything wrong, or that he couldn’t have got a few things right. By the way, if you could give me some online references for this, it would be appreciated. Did you know that Calvin’s successors (the modern Evangelicals) completely renounce this aspect of Calvin’s teachings when debating with LDS? So if you can give me some good references for this I can put it to good use when debating with Evangelicals!

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

zerinus:

Yes it does! And what conclusion do you intend to draw from that? Just because a couple of things taught by Calvin happen to agree with LDS doctrine, does that mean that both must be equally false? Calvin may have been a heretic; but he was a very intelligent heretic. His motives also cannot always be suspected of being evil. Just because he got some things (even most things) wrong, it does not follow that he got everything wrong, or that he couldn’t have got a few things right. By the way, if you could give me some online references for this, it would be appreciated. Did you know that Calvin’s successors (the modern Evangelicals) completely renounce this aspect of Calvin’s teachings when debating with LDS? So if you can give me some good references for this I can put it to good use when debating with Evangelicals!

zerinus

Merry Christmas Zerinus and Rmcmullin,

I’ll be brief. It is Christmas after all, and I need to attend to family matters.

Rmcmullan, Thanks for the reference on Moroni 10:3-5. I have it bookmarked now.

Z, thanks for the life-after-death theology. That’s interesting.

Something similar was advanced for possible inclusion in the New Testament during the 4th century, the book we now know as the Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter. In it, some of the dead who are condemned at the Last Judgment are released from hell after a time of purging.

The Apocalypse of John was one of the last books to be accepted into the Canon of the New Testament. For some decades, the Early Church Fathers debated whether any apocalypse should be included at all, or which of the two it should be, before finally settling on John’s over Peter’s. The part of Peter’s that led the Fathers to set it aside was, in fact, the release of the condemned from Hell. Purification of the Elect was one thing, not-so-eternal damnation for the damned was something else entirely.

It’s not quite the same as Mormon theology as you quoted it, but it’s as close as Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox Christians seem to get.

Z, No slur intended, just a commonality in perspective noted that perhaps makes ordinary Protestants more receptive than Catholics to the invitation of the missionaries: Please take this book, read it, pray over it, and “ask if God if these things are not true…He will manifest the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

I don’t have a biography of or copy of the writings of John Calvin. Z, you’d have to check them for the specific cite. What I have are several histories of Christianity which cover the Protestant Reformation in depth (as well as the other 1900 years…)

Here are two histories you might look at:
A very extensive series: Warren Carroll’s A History of Christendom, Vol IV, The Cleaving of Christendom
A one-book history, not without its faults as any brief history would be, but useful nontheless: Thomas Bokenkotter’s A Concise History of the Catholic Church

Regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Protestants in general:
Many, many evangelicals have told me that they are certain of a truth because they have prayed over it in faith and sincerity and have felt the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They even select the congregations they join - or leave - based on prayerfully listening for the voice of the Holy Spirit to tell them that a given church is proclaiming the Word of God accurately. Unfortunately, what many of them are actually doing is superimposing their own will over God’s will, finding or forming congregations based on their own biases.

The problem happens when a pastor of this-denomination-over-here and a pastor of that-denomination-over-there pray over the same scripture and “hear” totally contradictory messages from the Holy Spirit. Then they turn around and start issuing declarations about who is going to heaven and to hell, based on the scripture interpretation truths they think the Holy Spirit has given to them. Most can’t even come to a consensus within their own denominations. :whacky:

That’s a very big reason why I am a Catholic!

Merry Christmas again. May your families prosper.

Nan

 

[Allweather]

Yes it does! And what conclusion do you intend to draw from that? Just because a couple of things taught by Calvin happen to agree with LDS doctrine, does that mean that both must be equally false? Calvin may have been a heretic; but he was a very intelligent heretic. His motives also cannot always be suspected of being evil. Just because he got some things (even most things) wrong, it does not follow that he got everything wrong, or that he couldn’t have got a few things right.

zerinus

The conclusion I draw is that Mormonism ladles its confused theologies from the same heretical bucket that Luther and Calvin used. We’ve had this argument before, and you abandoned it when it became tedious for you to refute the obvious.

I still wonder why it is that Mormon apologists are so allergic to suggestions that Mormonism derives from Protestantism. Whenever I’ve brought this up in converstational debate with Mormons, they’ve reacted strongly, and gone off in a direction intended to claim that Mormonism is actually more similar to Catholicism than Protestantism. In this particular instance, it has been pointed out that Mormons and Protestants essentially agree on the meaning and importance of BITB, while Catholics warn against attaching too much significance to warm fuzzies, and FOR SURE not using warm fuzzies as a proof of the truth of doctrines or “scriptures.”

This is one very important area in which Mormons and Protestants agree, and in which both are in disagreement with Catholics. Why, then, would Mormons insist that they’ve got more in common with Catholics than with the erroneous teachings of Protestants?

 

[zerinus]

The conclusion I draw is that Mormonism ladles its confused theologies from the same heretical bucket that Luther and Calvin used. . . .

We have indeed gone down that rout before, and there is no need to go over the same ground again. In the mean time, allow me to assure you once again that I strongly disagree with your opinions.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

zerinus:

We have indeed gone down that rout before, and there is no need to go over the same ground again. In the mean time, allow me to assure you once again that I strongly disagree with your opinions.

zerinus

What? No elaboration? Can we just assume that you have no argument to explain why Mormons and Protestants work off the same BITB page, yet you claim not to be descended from them?

 

[zerinus]

What? No elaboration? Can we just assume that you have no argument to explain why Mormons and Protestants work off the same BITB page, yet you claim not to be descended from them?

You are the one who is proposing this theory, and therefore it is up to you to prove your point, not for me to disprove it—and as far as I am concerned, you have not proved your point. The only thing that you have done is to point to some superficial similarities between the two religions; which is not sufficient to prove that one religion has been derived from the other. I have also shown you more fundamental dissimilarities between the two; and also more fundamental similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism. If your line of reasoning was valid, you would have to conclude that Mormonism is derived from Catholicism, not Protestantism. The truth is of course that it is derived from neither.

I am not interested in pursuing this discussion with you any further beyond this point. I don’t know of any other reputable LDS scholar (in the Church or out of the Church) that has proposed your theory, or tried to demonstrate it with sound scholarly research. If you genuinely believe that you have something new and innovative to offer to the world of scholarship on this subject, my suggestion to you would be to do your research, and write a paper on it, and publish it in a journal that publishes LDS related material. Alternatively, you could send your paper to some reputable LDS scholars and ask them to send you a critique of it. My own personal studies, however, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and he received his doctrines and religion directly by revelation from God without any human intervention, and therefore there is no possibility that it could have been derived from Protestantism, or for that matter from any other religion.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

In this particular instance, it has been pointed out that Mormons and Protestants essentially agree on the meaning and importance of BITB, while Catholics warn against attaching too much significance to warm fuzzies, and FOR SURE not using warm fuzzies as a proof of the truth of doctrines or “scriptures.”

OK, I’m totally clueless here.

What does “BITB” mean???

I tried googling it and got:
Boulder Industry Test Bed
Bulldogs in the Bluegrass
Back in the Black
Boy in the Box
Building Industries Training Board
BITBurg High School

something about the Brady Bill and National Instant Registration for firearms purchases…

and some pornographic definitions :bigyikes: that I won’t repeat here.

Life is never dull in this forum.

Nan