The Protestant-Mormon Problem

[Michie]

One of the biggest “red pills” behind my conversion was realizing that the vast majority of Protestants (including myself) had virtually the same theology of history as the Latter-day Saints church (the Mormons), and we didn’t even realize it. I found the consequences of this to be extremely disturbing.

The LDS church teaches that after the death of the last apostle, the authority of the priesthood and the keys was lost. As a result, Christians fell into deeper and deeper error, and the true faith was lost. They call this the “Great Apostasy.”

Many Protestants—often prevented from realizing it by historical ignorance—believe basically the same thing. This was one of the most sobering conclusions I came to in my final days as a Protestant, and it helped lead to my conversion.
Here’s why.

To have any religion whatsoever, you must, at minimum, have three doctrines:

1. How you join the religion (initiation)
2. How the members of the religion govern themselves, who has authority, etc. (government)
3. How the religion worships whatever deity/deities it acknowledges

Without these three, it’s arguably impossible to claim you even have a religion.

On these three matters, the Church Fathers—the Christian leaders of whom we have any record from the earliest days of the Church through roughly the first millennium—are UNANIMOUS.

They UNANIMOUSLY believed in:

Continued below.

The Protestant-Mormon Problem

One distinctive Mormon belief is that early Christianity underwent a "great apostasy." But many Protestants also believe this—even if they don't realize it.

www.catholic.com

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

While I'm not going to defend Protestantism (I really do dislike Evangelicals and have no time for Mormons) I think this author greatly oversimplifies the situation. After all, they don't call it the Reformation for nothing, the Catholic Church (and those claiming to represent it) was out of control in the 1500's and had been for some time. You can make the case, I suppose, that the Church should have been reformed from the inside, but that isn't how religion works (as any cursory reading of the history of religion will show).

The break from the Church was caused by people making the case that the Church itself WAS corrupted. That was the point.

To make the claim 500 years later that Protestantism was incorrect about what seem to me to be an obscure philosophical observation misses the entire driving force behind the Reformation. It seems forced give the author some feeling that they are right and the Prots are wrong based on rationality. Religion is many things, rational isn't one of them.

 

[Lady Bug]

(I really do dislike Evangelicals and have no time for Mormons)

Sorry, I hate it when I reply to a comment to a thread instead of the thread itself, but what is your specific issues with Evangelicals? Perhaps I may have the same problems. Just curious.

 

[jas3]

To make the claim 500 years later that Protestantism was incorrect about what seem to me to be an obscure philosophical observation misses the entire driving force behind the Reformation.

It's not an obscure philosophical observation, it was a major point of concern for the Protestants to show that they weren't claiming a "great apostasy." As you said, they didn't call it the Reformation for nothing - they were at pains to claim that they were simply making modifications to the church, not starting new churches.

To that point, you'll find the continuity of the church as an article of faith in many Protestant confessions, including the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (which copies that section of the Westminster Confession).

That said, "Mormons believe X, and Mormons are wrong, so you're wrong for believing X" is clearly fallacious. I've heard Eastern Orthodox apologists say the same thing about Catholicism: "Catholics teach that you can only have doctrinal certainty by having an infallible magisterium. You know who else has doctrinal certainty from a supposedly infallible teaching authority? Mormons!"

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

It's not an obscure philosophical observation, it was a major point of concern for the Protestants to show that they weren't claiming a "great apostasy." As you said, they didn't call it the Reformation for nothing - they were at pains to claim that they were simply making modifications to the church, not starting new churches.

Which was easier than it might sound to a 21st Century Catholic's ears because in the 1500s the Church was in need of Reform

To that point, you'll find the continuity of the church as an article of faith in many Protestant confessions, including the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (which copies that section of the Westminster Confession).

I'll take your word on this, but I fail to see the point as it pertains to the author original argument. "Your statement of originality is less than mine became mine came first" is not only weak, it lacks critical thought.

That said, "Mormons believe X, and Mormons are wrong, so you're wrong for believing X" is clearly fallacious. I've heard Eastern Orthodox apologists say the same thing about Catholicism: "Catholics teach that you can only have doctrinal certainty by having an infallible magisterium. You know who else has doctrinal certainty from a supposedly infallible teaching authority? Mormons!"

The Mormon's are against Caffeine and Alcohol. Those are the two reasons I get up in the morning.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Sorry, I hate it when I reply to a comment to a thread instead of the thread itself, but what is your specific issues with Evangelicals? Perhaps I may have the same problems. Just curious.

Hang with me here, my little friend:

Evangelicals, especially American Evangelicals who seem to be going out of their way to influence the movement globally, have gone so far afield from the origins of Christianity that it's no longer possible for many of them to recognize a living example of the Anti-Christ in their midst. And, unlike you and they actually believe in an "Anti-Christ". (We understand that Revelation is just a story about not being a bad person)

They have taken, what was a sacramental and at least somewhat mystical religious movement, based on a large collection of parables, morality tales and wisdom stories and a possible semi-reality based biography of a very good person and reduced it to a transactional relationship with a personalized deity based on what they believe to be a history text.

Most collections of evangelicals are one step above a personality cult. Actually, given their obsession with a Bible being somehow a sacred thing in and of itself, many could be referred to as a cargo cult.

I'm stopping now, because it's Lent, and I'm trying to become a better person, and the feeling this is stirring in me aren't helping in the regard.

But, yeah, evangelicals, not my speed.

 

[RileyG]

Thanks for posting

Mormons believe their prophet has a direct relationship with God (who they call "Heavenly Father") that gives him revelation. I find the life of Joseph Smith very fascinating, albeit, not one someone should emulate. The Book of Mormon, I highly suspect, was a collaboration because I doubt an uneducated farm boy of 15 wrote it. (It's a rather difficult read. I've read the first two pages and gave up).

Actually, they prefer the term "Latter Day Saint" because "Mormon" is more of a slang.

 

[RileyG]

The Mormon's are against Caffeine and Alcohol. Those are the two reasons I get up in the morning.

I need coffee and vodka for my mental health (I kid )

 

[Lady Bug]

Hang with me here, my little friend:

Evangelicals, especially American Evangelicals who seem to be going out of their way to influence the movement globally, have gone so far afield from the origins of Christianity that it's no longer possible for many of them to recognize a living example of the Anti-Christ in their midst. And, unlike you and they actually believe in an "Anti-Christ". (We understand that Revelation is just a story about not being a bad person)

They have taken, what was a sacramental and at least somewhat mystical religious movement, based on a large collection of parables, morality tales and wisdom stories and a possible semi-reality based biography of a very good person and reduced it to a transactional relationship with a personalized deity based on what they believe to be a history text.

Most collections of evangelicals are one step above a personality cult. Actually, given their obsession with a Bible being somehow a sacred thing in and of itself, many could be referred to as a cargo cult.

I'm stopping now, because it's Lent, and I'm trying to become a better person, and the feeling this is stirring in me aren't helping in the regard.

But, yeah, evangelicals, not my speed.

I'm so sorry to say this but I think I'm getting dumber and can't quite get what you're saying here.
It's not a matter of life and death that I understand, but I wanted to.

 

[jas3]

I'll take your word on this, but I fail to see the point as it pertains to the author original argument. "Your statement of originality is less than mine became mine came first" is not only weak, it lacks critical thought.

The author's original argument is that Protestantism requires belief in a great apostasy. You questioned the significance of that conclusion, so I pointed out that it would be a very significant conclusion for most Protestants to come to.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Sorry, I hate it when I reply to a comment to a thread instead of the thread itself, but what is your specific issues with Evangelicals? Perhaps I may have the same problems. Just curious.

Well, geez, I'm not here to confuse you, talk over, around or under you so let me be frank:

I don't like evangelicals because they believe all the is required for salvation is to surrender to Jesus and think the Bible is actual history.
This has caused them to become mere shadows of what Christians are supposed to be and in many cases the antithesis of Christianity.

There,

I said it.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The author's original argument is that Protestantism requires belief in a great apostasy. You questioned the significance of that conclusion, so I pointed out that it would be a very significant conclusion for most Protestants to come to.

Ok,

The problem is I don't think Protestants think of it that way. I also don't think you can rationally make a protestant come to that conclusion. Because it's not what the Reformation was based on.

That's my point.

The argument is supportive of a decision that already been made, rather than convincing or mind changing. It's like it's an argument meant to support the Catholic point of view, not to convince Protestants that they are wrong. A Protestant is going to reject to argument and make on based on the Reformation.

 

[Lady Bug]

Well, geez, I'm not here to confuse you, talk over, around or under you so let me be frank:

I don't like evangelicals because they believe all the is required for salvation is to surrender to Jesus and think the Bible is actual history.
This has caused them to become mere shadows of what Christians are supposed to be and in many cases the antithesis of Christianity.

There,

I said it.

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. I have the exact problem and I could go on and on about why I can't stand it.

 

[jas3]

The problem is I don't think Protestants think of it that way.

I would agree that there are probably a great many Protestants today who are completely indifferent to their theology's implications for our Lord's promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, but there are also many Protestants who belong to a confessional denomination that makes church continuity an article of faith.

I also don't think you can rationally make a protestant come to that conclusion. Because it's not what the Reformation was based on.

You can, because I was a Protestant who was rationally brought to that conclusion. I would probably not have taken the argument as seriously though if this article were how the argument was presented to me originally.