Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets

[Dave Hansen]

Encyclopedia Britannica classified the LDS as a protestant group, but you did not agree with them DAVEH:   Correct, I remember the discussion.....and, I do not agree with the conclusion of the EB, but I don't worry about it one way or the other.  If they (EB) or you or anybody else wants to consider the LDS Church Protestant........if for no other reason than we do not accept papal authority.....I'm not bothered by it.  Different people have different ways of defining words, and that's what leads to discussions going sour.   Either way, it doesn't mean much.  When talking to LDS folks, it is easy to communicate on the same plane by understanding the non-Protestant aspect of LDS theology.  When chatting with you, I'm not bothered that you communicate your perspective about my Protestant image (I don't think that is the best word for it) and don't let it interfere with our discussions. Then you have John Smithson......protestant is a dirty word DAVEH:   Yes, an interesting specimen indeed!   I've got to tell you that I find it more than mildly interesting that he and several other TTers are so vehemently opposed to being characterized as a Protestant.  From my LDS perspective, I don't quite understand the negative reaction.  You would think I am slinging ad-homs when discussing a possible Protestant background of some TTers.   What's up with that?   Is this becoming common now, to consider Protestantism in a negative light?   I've always thought Protestantism was nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about.    Yet it sure seems to be a sensitive topic on TT.       I vaguely remember you saying that you do not consider yourself to be a Protestant, DavidM.  Does it offend you when I view your background as being rooted in Protestantism, relative to my LDS background? protestant is a dirty word much like the LDS has done with you DAVEH:   That's curious.  Now you are suggesting what other TTers have suggested.  Where did you get that idea?   Is it something you picked up from and LDS folks you've met, or read about?  Or did you simply assume what JD, Perry and other TTers have said is true?      FTR.........I do not consider Protestants (either people or the term) to be a dirty word, or a denigrating term.  While I certainly do not agree with all their theological concepts, I respect their right to believe as they wish about the gospel and all it entails.  I have Protestant friends and relatives, and am not bothered by their Protestantism in itself.   Most Four Square members are perfectly comfortable with the term Protestant. DAVEH:   That was the impression I had as well.   My old high school buddy and college roommate is a 4Sq, and even invited me to join him for one of their services (which I found most interesting!)   He/they did not seem bothered by being identified as Protestants.  So....imagine my surprise to find JD so sensitive about it.   There must be some underlying factor that drives John bonkers when I use the P term.  Now I am wondering if it is just because a Mormon uses the P term, or if he would be as sensitive if you or perhaps another Protestant were to use it.....??? But you do not consider yourself Protestant, DAVEH:   Yeah.....I think it has to do with the priesthood authority that I was trying to explain to John.  To boil it down to a simple discussion, as LDS see it, the RCC claimed the papal authority, and the Protestants jumped ship.  They could not logically take a sprig of that priesthood authority with them, so they had to come up with a new angle....which is the authority of the believers.  Logically, either the Catholics are right, or the Protestants are right....or, both are wrong.  LDS folks say both are wrong because the priesthood authority was lost in the apostasy.  When it was restored (to the LDS Church), it made the LDS Church neither Catholic, nor Protestant....from our perspective.  That is a bit rough around the edges, but I think it gives you an idea of the way we think. David Miller wrote: Some years ago, I quoted how the Encyclopedia Britannica classified the LDS as a protestant group, but you did not agree with them.  From my perspective, there are historical ways of looking at this classification, and there are philosophical ways.  Historically, the Church of Christ, the Baptists, the Four Square, and the LDS, all have protestant roots.  Philosophically, however, it gets a little more complicated.  One of the Reformation philosophies was Sola Scriptura.  The LDS certainly do not agree with that.  Then you have groups like the Church of Christ and the LDS which believe that they are restoring the primitive church.  Therefore, they reject any affiliation with Protestants or Roman Catholics.  Then you have John Smithson, who has a history with the Church of Christ.  They have barraged him with the perspective that protestant is a dirty word, much like the LDS has done with you.   Now he had joined the Four Square Church which has its own problems with Protestant roots, having a woman minister as a founder, believing in the restoration of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, healing, speaking in tongues, etc.  Most Four Square members are perfectly comfortable with the term Protestant.  I was a Four Square member myself back in 1972, and one of my best friends today, his mom is a Four Square pastor and his late dad was too when he was alive.  I had better stop talking about myself before Lance jumps on me for trumpeting something.  :-)   Anyway, what you are facing here is the same thing I face with the LDS and the label Protestant.  I consider the LDS to be clearly Protestant, given Joseph Smith's affiliations with the Methodist church, his family's affiliation with the Presbyterian church, Joseph Smith himself having been baptized in a Baptist church... you get the picture.  But you do not consider yourself Protestant, and neither do some of the members on this forum.  I can understand the disagreement when you look at the matter from a philosophical perspective, but from a historical perspective, you guys are only denying your historical roots.   Peace be with you. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, DAVEH:   I did remember that, DavidM.   Even so, as I remember, WIKI painted the CofC as Protestant as well.      However, in a recent discussion with you, I thought I understood John to say that he currently is worshiping with a 4Sq group, which to me indicates an association with a Protestant relationship, as I think WIKI defined them. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: If I remember correctly, you are a 4Sq adherent, which as I understand it is a branch of Protestantism. John wrote: That denomination did not come from the Portestant response to RCC theology. If I am remembering correctly, the historical root to the Four Square church is Baptist. Aimee Semple McPherson at one time claimed to have been ordained by the Baptists. I think later on she was ordained by the Assemblies of God, but later disowned those credentials. John wrote: I see "protestant" as clubhouse name for those who are apostate. That is how I believe the term is used. I have seen posts from Mormon to Mormon that gives me this opinion. DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, which is another restoration movement with historial roots similar to Mormonism. Their attitude toward other "Protestants" is not unlike Mormons. Peace be with you. David Miller.