posted
I was going to start a thread called "Are Mormons Protestants", but I guess I'll participate here.
Each member of the LDS church is responsible to seek revelation for their own responsibilities. The prophet is responsible for the whole church. Also, we don't believe they are infallible. Though we have faith that God would not allow a prophet to lead the whole church astray.
Though I can see where if all the members were seeking revelation, a democratic process should work. But in the Book of Mormon it says that a democracy is the second best form of government, a righteous monarchy being better. But they are hard to come by.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It’s probably going to be as hard for me to explain this as it was for Hobbes to explain what the speaking of the Holy Ghost felt like to him. But I’ll try.
Note: I’m speaking as a member of the Untied Methodist Church. Other protestant denominations (though not all) also believe that God continues to direct the work of the church, but their specifics may differ.
We believe that God speaks to individuals in ways that I suspect are pretty analogous to what the LDS church believes. It’s different for everyone, but often amounts to a sense of surety, or a voice in your heart, a nagging on your soul, however you want to phrase it. We also believe that exactly what God is trying to say becomes clearer though conference with other believers. There are various processes for this, all of them lumped under the word “discernment.” Discernment = listening for God. We use these processes for our individual decisions – by discussing things with discipleship groups or spiritual directors, and we also use them to listen for God’s will for us as groups and as a denomination.
We gather periodically at various levels of the church – local church, charge conference, district conference, annual conference, jurisdictional conference, and general conference. At those conferences, we worship together, talk together, pray together, eat together, and listen for God together. And then we have a parliamentary-style process by which we attempt to agree on what it is God is saying to us.
Sometimes it works better than others. Sometimes it degenerates into a political process – with factions and debate and people more interested in getting their way than listening for God. But when it works well, it is splendid, and the whole assembly feels the presence of the Holy Spirit in the work of the body.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking off from what you clarified about Luther and the Protestant Reformation, are there protestant churches that came later and didn't attempt to reform? Anglican, for example? How would you class LDS in that sense? I know it's not so important as we will continue to call ourselves the one true and living church, I was just curious. Do we form a group with Jehovah's Witnesses and others that proselytize Christians as well as non-Christians?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've understood, the Official LDS Church statement (too lazy to hunt down the quote from the newsroom at lds.org) is very much that they certainly do not view themselves as a 'Protestant' church, that only 'Restoration' truly explains what they are.
Pooka, you're the first LDS I've seen who may consider your Church included in the Protestant movement.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many different ways of defining what it means to be protestant – historically, theologically, and the common definition of “not Catholic.”
The only one of those that I see the LDS church fitting is the last one. The Anglican church, on the other hand, includes both protestants and catholics. The United Methodist Church is historically not descended from the Protestant reformation (being an off-shoot of the Anglican church) but is theologically protestant.
Thank you for your explanation. I can see where mine and other's explanations were not correct. I will, in the future, temper my explanations based on my new understanding.
posted
If you go to www.lds.org, run a search under Church publications and then enter in 'Luther", there are some some dated, yet interesting Mormon views on Martin Luther.
edit to get rid of links that didn't work.
[ February 11, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Dana, I have a completely different question I've been wondering about. Doesn't the name Barabbas literally mean "Son of God"? Was this a common name in Judea during Jesus's lifetime, or is the author trying to make a point of some sort when he has the crowd choose to have Pilate spare Barabbas' life rather than Jesus'? Or both? And if the author was making a point, what point would that be, exactly?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon- right, I know we believe the reformation is separate from the restoration. I was just wondering what the view of other protestant churches is.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, it’s actually “Son of the father” or “Son of our teacher,” I think. (I don’t know much Greek). The author was definitely making a point about the crowd’s rejection of Jesus, but I don’t think the name was part of the point, in this case.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about in Greek, but in Aramaic, "bar" is son, and "abba" is father (I think -- it definitely is in Hebrew).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*giggle* Well, I know about a dozen words in Aramaic, and "bar" is one of them. (bar mitzvah, Bar Kochba -- I'd better know that one!) Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don’t know. None of the commentaries I’ve looked at make a big deal about the name, though, and they tend to comment on unusual or symbolic names.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
