Happy Reformation Sunday - What's Your Favorite Doctrine from the Protestant Reformation?

[Five Solas]

Yes, it's a thing & today's the day!

:0)

In my experience, LDS speak positively about the Reformation & see it as important historical event.  But when confronted with any of the particular doctrines which emerged therein, the LDS reaction becomes quite different.  And we needn't look far for examples of what I'm talking about.  JLHPROF got three rep points yesterday for this little gem, dismissing the Reformation doctrine, "Priesthood of Believers."

So let's have a thread to the topic.  What, if anything, do LDS actually like about the Protestant Reformation, specific to its doctrines? 

--Erik

[The Nehor]

I liked the whole 'money not being able to buy forgiveness' thing.

[waveslider]

I like the fact that not everything being taught by the church they were protesting against was true and that they realized that there is more truth to be found if you study it out yourself.

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Yes, it's a thing & today's the day!

:0)

In my experience, LDS speak positively about the Reformation & see it as important historical event.  But when confronted with any of the particular doctrines which emerged therein, the LDS reaction becomes quite different.  And we needn't look far for examples of what I'm talking about.  JLHPROF got three rep points yesterday for this little gem, dismissing the Reformation doctrine, "Priesthood of Believers."

So let's have a thread to the topic.  What, if anything, do LDS actually like about the Protestant Reformation, specific to its doctrines? 

--Erik

I find it odd that Mormons praise the reformation, and I find it self contradictory on the issue of authority. Theoretically no one is supposed to have authority to establish a denomination yet that's exactly what they did.

We supposedly can't add to or take away from the Bible yet that's exactly what they did. They supposedly reformed Christianity yet kept the Nicene Creed with its unintelligible doctrines.

It's supposed to be about one faith and one baptism while actually being a mishmash of denominations.

I don't get it.

Edited October 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I find it odd that Mormons praise the reformation, and I find it self contradictory on the issue of authority. Theoretically no one is supposed to have authority to establish a denomination yet that's exactly what they did.

We supposedly can't add to or take away from the Bible yet that's exactly what they did. They supposedly reformed Christianity yet kept the Nicene Creed with its unintelligible doctrines.

It's supposed to be about one faith and one baptism while actually being a mishmash of denominations.

I don't get it.

They praise it because without the fracturing of Christianity the LDS faith would not have survived. Also it was a good preparation. Most converts were (and are?) Protestants of one stripe or another.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I like the fact that not everything being taught by the church they were protesting against was true and that they realized that there is more truth to be found if you study it out yourself.

Yeah, ok I can go with that as an improvement I guess.

But then why keep the non Biblical Nicene Creed while keeping the idea of Sola scriptura, allowing different denominations, but denying prophets ? 

Very confusing 

[Vance]

36 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

 And we needn't look far for examples of what I'm talking about.  JLHPROF got three rep points yesterday for this little gem, dismissing the Reformation doctrine, "Priesthood of Believers."

--Erik

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

By your admitting that "Priesthood of Believers" is a Reformation doctrine you are admitting that it was fabricated, ergo false doctrine.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They praise it because without the fracturing of Christianity the LDS faith would not have survived. Also it was a good preparation. Most converts were (and are?) Protestants of one stripe or another.

Not in central America or LA.

But yes you are right that a fragmented Christianity was necessary for the restoration, and they certainly provided that.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I liked the whole 'money not being able to buy forgiveness' thing.

What? 

I still have have a piece of paper from Pope Pius XII saying that on my deathbed if I say the name Jesus I will have all my sins forgiven, an instant ticket to heaven.

You mean I can't cash that in?? Plenary indulgences are not that easy to get you know!

[waveslider]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, ok I can go with that as an improvement I guess.

But then why keep the non Biblical Nicene Creed while keeping the idea of Sola scriptura, allowing different denominations, but denying prophets ? 

Very confusing 

All I can do is speculate for an answer. I would think that they didn't know a whole lot except that there were other truths than the ones that were taught to them in the church they decided to leave. It often takes time to find what those truths are, once your realize that there are other truths, and it makes it hard to reject things that are already in place until more truth has been discovered to help differentiate between what is truth and what isn't.

That said, I think that is why Joseph was to not join any of them, but that the truth would be restored through him, instead of just reformed from what was already available.

[Five Solas]

6 minutes ago, Vance said:

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

By your admitting that "Priesthood of Believers" is a Reformation doctrine you are admitting that it was fabricated, ergo false doctrine.

 

No, Vance.  I think Protestants have the better argument, based on the Bible.  You're very welcome to peruse the Wikipedia link I provided on the other thread explaining Priesthood of Believers.  It's well written and you can look up the Bible passages referenced therein & see if you can't find at least a little empathy for the doctrine/conclusion. 

Or you can just dismiss it as you've done, if that's easier for you. 

;0)

--Erik

[Vance]

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

No, Vance.  I think Protestants have the better argument, based on the Bible.  You're very welcome to peruse the Wikipedia link I provided on the other thread explaining Priesthood of Believers.  It's well written and you can look up the Bible passages referenced therein & see if you can't find at least a little empathy for the doctrine/conclusion. 

Or you can just dismiss it as you've done, if that's easier for you. 

;0)

--Erik

I don't need to peruse you link to know what the doctrine is.  I have had plenty of discussions about it.  But the bottom line is that it did not exist prior to the Reformation.  Luther being a Catholic Priest understood the need for authority.  To break away from the Catholic Church he had to FABRICATE a scheme whereby he could claim authority outside of the Catholic Church.  "Priesthood of Believers" was what he came up with.  

 

He was right about the need for authority but he was wrong in his attempt to fabricate a scheme to deceive the people.  The doctrine is not found in the Bible, and retroactively concocting a story and wresting a few verses of scripture to support you scheme does NOT a true doctrine make.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Vance

[Vance]

From you little link,

Quote

Some groups during the Reformation believed that priesthood authority was still needed, but was lost from the earth. Roger Williams believed, "There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking." Another group, the Seekers, believed that the Roman Catholic Church had lost its authority through corruption and waited for Christ to restore his true church and authority.

Some of the reformers got it right.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

......................................................

In my experience, LDS speak positively about the Reformation & see it as important historical event.  But when confronted with any of the particular doctrines which emerged therein, the LDS reaction becomes quite different.  And we needn't look far for examples of what I'm talking about.  JLHPROF got three rep points yesterday for this little gem, dismissing the Reformation doctrine, "Priesthood of Believers."

So let's have a thread to the topic.  What, if anything, do LDS actually like about the Protestant Reformation, specific to its doctrines? 

.................................

There is an entire range of aspects to the so-called Reformation.  Luther had many complaints about the corruption of Roman Catholicism of which he was priest, monk, and professor.  Most disappointing to him was the deep corruption of the papacy itself and of its dictatorial control.  Many of Luther's contemporaries felt the same, especially certain German princes who gave him protection.  Once Lutheranism took hold, the Papacy could no longer exercise absolute control over northern Europe.  Similarly in England and Scotland, the move to independence and local control was overwhelming, the King of England asserting control over the Anglican Church -- in which Roman Catholic priesthood was seen to continue unabated, same as in Lutheran churches.  Only later did the false notion of "priesthood of believers" come into play in some denominations.  This opening up of religious denominations was very helpful in the strong call for Restoration of Primitive Christianity -- particularly among the Puritans, who finally had to flee to the American Colonies to find free exercise of their religion.  The fractious denominational landscape of those colonies led to a Constitution which did away by law with any establishment of a state religion (which continued to exist in the Old World), thus paving the way for God's Restoration of All Things, along with the freedom to preach it.  Joseph Smith was not the only one preaching a restoration, only the best known and most successful.

So, Mormonism is less concerned with Protestant doctrines than with the freedom of religion which came with it, and with the ability to read Scripture and perform ordinances in the vernacular.  The practical features of the Protestant Reformation not only have value for all of us today, but also for the Roman Catholic Church, which went through a cleansing Counter Reformation -- in order to reform Catholicism itself.  Indeed, Mormonism has a great deal in common with Roman Catholicism.

Coming as I do from a long line of Presbyterian and Methodist ministers, I understand the good hearts of my forefathers.  Now that the requisite holy ordinances have been performed for them all, I am certain that they have taken their proper places in the Hall of the Valiant Defenders of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to whom they gave their all.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I find it odd that Mormons praise the reformation, and I find it self contradictory on the issue of authority. Theoretically no one is supposed to have authority to establish a denomination yet that's exactly what they did.

We supposedly can't add to or take away from the Bible yet that's exactly what they did.

I'd say for the most part no. They didn't do that. I think that was immensely important. The first translators tried to go back to the oldest available manuscripts which for the OT was the Masoretic Text, and the NT the Greek. So they were bypassing the Latin translations as unreliable. If I were trying to translate the Bible, that's exactly what I would have done. In fact that the Lord told Joseph the KJV was OK to use says something for it. Yeah, they got rid of the apocrypha, but Joseph said they weren't inspire either, so I think the Protestants did good here - not that I think their translations are perfect, but they are definitely more reliable than the Douay-Rheims for example.

Quote

They supposedly reformed Christianity yet kept the Nicene Creed with its unintelligible doctrines.

It's supposed to be about one faith and one baptism while actually being a mishmash of denominations.

I don't get it.

Yeah, this was their downfall - keeping some of the Catholic doctrines. I agree. Unscriptural, and untrue. They got deceived on these points. But then I view them as daughters of you-know-who.

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is an entire range of aspects to the so-called Reformation.  Luther had many complaints about the corruption of Roman Catholicism of which he was priest, monk, and professor.  Most disappointing to him was the deep corruption of the papacy itself and of its dictatorial control.  Many of Luther's contemporaries felt the same, especially certain German princes who gave him protection.  Once Lutheranism took hold, the Papacy could no longer exercise absolute control over northern Europe.  Similarly in England and Scotland, the move to independence and local control was overwhelming, the King of England asserting control over the Anglican Church -- in which Roman Catholic priesthood was seen to continue unabated, same as in Lutheran churches.  Only later did the false notion of "priesthood of believers" come into play in some denominations.  This opening up of religious denominations was very helpful in the strong call for Restoration of Primitive Christianity -- particularly among the Puritans, who finally had to flee to the American Colonies to find free exercise of their religion.  The fractious denominational landscape of those colonies led to a Constitution which did away by law with any establishment of a state religion (which continued to exist in the Old World), thus paving the way for God's Restoration of All Things, along with the freedom to preach it.  Joseph Smith was not the only one preaching a restoration, only the best known and most successful.

So, Mormonism is less concerned with Protestant doctrines than with the freedom of religion which came with it, and with the ability to read Scripture and perform ordinances in the vernacular.  The practical features of the Protestant Reformation not only have value for all of us today, but also for the Roman Catholic Church, which went through a cleansing Counter Reformation -- in order to reform Catholicism itself.  Indeed, Mormonism has a great deal in common with Roman Catholicism.

Coming as I do from a long line of Presbyterian and Methodist ministers, I understand the good hearts of my forefathers.  Now that the requisite holy ordinances have been performed for them all, I am certain that they have taken their proper places in the Hall of the Valiant Defenders of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to whom they gave their all.

I can't imagine living in 15th century Catholicism. I think they would have burned me at 8 yrs old as a heretic...

Countries which have abandoned Catholicism in favor of Protestantism have generally fared much better economically, and brought about a lot of good in the world.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What? 

I still have have a piece of paper from Pope Pius XII saying that on my deathbed if I say the name Jesus I will have all my sins forgiven, an instant ticket to heaven.

You mean I can't cash that in?? Plenary indulgences are not that easy to get you know!

I would hold onto it in case it works. I said the Evangelical prayer of accepting the Savior and being saved once and for all just for fun. Nothing I do not believe anyways and if they are right I can always try to recant because I am not sure I want to go to that heaven.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What? 

I still have have a piece of paper from Pope Pius XII saying that on my deathbed if I say the name Jesus I will have all my sins forgiven, an instant ticket to heaven.

You mean I can't cash that in?? Plenary indulgences are not that easy to get you know!

 

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would hold onto it in case it works. I said the Evangelical prayer of accepting the Savior and being saved once and for all just for fun. Nothing I do not believe anyways and if they are right I can always try to recant because I am not sure I want to go to that heaven.

I don't know about yuze giyz but I plan to completely bypass that purgatory place... but a plenary indulgence may get your there.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What? 

I still have have a piece of paper from Pope Pius XII saying that on my deathbed if I say the name Jesus I will have all my sins forgiven, an instant ticket to heaven.

You mean I can't cash that in?? Plenary indulgences are not that easy to get you know!

I would hold onto it in case it works. I said the Evangelical prayer of accepting the Savior and being saved once and for all just for fun. Nothing I do not believe anyways and if they are right I can always try to recant because I am not sure I want to go to that heaven.

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Yes, it's a thing & today's the day!

:0)

In my experience, LDS speak positively about the Reformation & see it as important historical event.  But when confronted with any of the particular doctrines which emerged therein, the LDS reaction becomes quite different.  And we needn't look far for examples of what I'm talking about.  JLHPROF got three rep points yesterday for this little gem, dismissing the Reformation doctrine, "Priesthood of Believers."

So let's have a thread to the topic.  What, if anything, do LDS actually like about the Protestant Reformation, specific to its doctrines? 

--Erik

So by now you no doubt know my strong opinions about aspects of the Reformation. Having said that, I do respect the fact that they went with their conscience. I have always been very fond of the Anabaptists and Quakers (I have a high level of esteem for George Fox), and I guess they wouldn't have been around if not for the Reformation.

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

So, Mormonism is less concerned with Protestant doctrines than with the freedom of religion which came with it, and with the ability to read Scripture and perform ordinances in the vernacular.  The practical features of the Protestant Reformation not only have value for all of us today, but also for the Roman Catholic Church, which went through a cleansing Counter Reformation -- in order to reform Catholicism itself.  Indeed, Mormonism has a great deal in common with Roman Catholicism.

 

This has been my observation as well. The  Counter Reformation is a fascinating topic in and of itself by the way. I recall Givens pointing out the irony of how much we admire the Reformers, as theologically we are closer to Catholicism/Orthodoxy in regards to our soteriology. Having said this, I think it's fair to say New England Puritan worship styles certainly affected LDS worship styles

[boblloyd91]

Also, on a lighter note, if it wasn't for the Reformation we wouldn't have the back and forth between Martin Luther and Thomas More. You don't see arguments like that anymore!

[Five Solas]

3 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Also, on a lighter note, if it wasn't for the Reformation we wouldn't have the back and forth between Martin Luther and Thomas More. You don't see arguments like that anymore!

Unless I don't have good grasp of the history, you're confusing Thomas More with Desiderius Erasmus.  Luther and Erasmus went back and forth, in epic fashion.  And Luther's replies compiled in On the Bondage of the Will should make any LDS think twice about their emphasis on free agency/agency.  Much has been made of little.   

Although More did publish rebuttals to Luther, More is better known for his burning of Luther's books & Luther's followers than engaging in dialogue or debate.  Regarding the former, Erasmus would remark, "Burning Luther's books would remove them from the libraries, but not from men's minds."

Still true.  Something for those castigating Reformation doctrines to at least consider...

:0)

--Erik

[paulhadik]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would hold onto it in case it works. I said the Evangelical prayer of accepting the Savior and being saved once and for all just for fun. Nothing I do not believe anyways and if they are right I can always try to recant because I am not sure I want to go to that heaven.

Few Reformed Believers would say that there is such a thing as an "Evangelical prayer of accepting the Savior and being saved once for all". Sole Fide is just that, believing and being saved. The Mr. Ronco magic prayer is practiced in places but has no basis in Scripture

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Unless I don't have good grasp of the history, you're confusing Thomas More with Desiderius Erasmus.  Luther and Erasmus went back and forth, in epic fashion.  And Luther's replies compiled in On the Bondage of the Will should make any LDS think twice about their emphasis on free agency/agency.  Much has been made of little.   

Although More did publish rebuttals to Luther, More is better known for his burning of Luther's books & Luther's followers than engaging in dialogue or debate.  Regarding the former, Erasmus would remark, "Burning Luther's books would remove them from the libraries, but not from men's minds."

Still true.  Something for those castigating Reformation doctrines to at least consider...

:0)

--Erik

Could be. All I know is that Luther certainly had a way with words involving those he disagreed with! Though to be fair More certainly wasn't very nice himself. But yes it may be Erasmus I'm thinking of.