The Mormon Church is "The Church"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

To deride the reformation as mere "lipstick on a pig" is to reject the work of the Spirit and the faith many died for.

I would only ask, "who at LSM is willing to suffer like them?" Many, many reformers gave up their lives for the Lord and His word. LSM, on the other hand, will sue you or quarantine their own people for the slightest of correction.


It seems that those who always like to warn us of our criticisms of LSM in light of the judgment seat of Christ, ought to apply the same words to themselves regarding all the Reformers, many of whom were martyred.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To deride the reformation as mere "lipstick on a pig" is to reject the work of the Spirit and the faith many died for.

I would only ask, "who at LSM is willing to suffer like them?" Many, many reformers gave up their lives for the Lord and His word. LSM, on the other hand, will sue you or quarantine their own people for the slightest of correction.


It seems that those who always like to warn us of our criticisms of LSM in light of the judgment seat of Christ, ought to apply the same words to themselves regarding all the Reformers, many of whom were martyred.

The Spirit and the reformers were recovering the truth. Meanwhile, the reformation became a movement of bloodshed and violence. Catholics were killing Protestants and Protestants were killing Protestants/anabaptists. That is the lipstick on the pig I'm talking about.

[Evangelical]

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for, this is where the Holy Spirit recovered truths.

2. Union of the church with the state and abandonment of religious liberty by the Reformers. Just like the Catholic church they fought in many battles. Alignment of church with state was just like Constantine and the Roman Empire.

3. Persecution of believers by Protestant state churches - by now these state churches look very much like the Catholic church.

By the end of the Reformation, there were entities which looked very much like the Catholic entity before. The difference between the two was only superficial. They all engaged in violence to solve their problems. They were all aligned with the state, notably, the Church of England.

If stages 2. and 3. did not occur, there would have been no need for the Puritan movement, the Pentecostal movement, the Brethren movement, and the recovery.

These are historical facts, you can read about them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for, this is where the Holy Spirit recovered truths.

2. Union of the church with the state and abandonment of religious liberty by the Reformers. Just like the Catholic church they fought in many battles. Alignment of church with state was just like Constantine and the Roman Empire.

3. Persecution of believers by Protestant state churches - by now these state churches look very much like the Catholic church.

Should we not consider all the LAWSUITS filed by LSM against other Christians as the union of the LOCAL church with the state?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for

You are framing the argument in a way that may have made sense in 16th century Europe but hardly in 21st century global Christianity. What about the EOC? What about the churches that split after Chalcedon in the 4th century? Your argument seems to assume they didn't ever exist. Even though they didn't exist, practically speaking, for Luther (he was persecuted by the RCC), they should exist for us, in our thinking of church history. Why frame an argument of historical narrative so contrary to the facts on the ground (there are [and were] more Christians than merely those affiliated with Protestants and RCC)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You are framing the argument in a way that may have made sense in 16th century Europe but hardly in 21st century global Christianity. What about the EOC? What about the churches that split after Chalcedon in the 4th century? Your argument seems to assume they didn't ever exist. Even though they didn't exist, practically speaking, for Luther (he was persecuted by the RCC), they should exist for us, in our thinking of church history. Why frame an argument of historical narrative so contrary to the facts on the ground (there are [and were] more Christians than merely those affiliated with Protestants and RCC)?

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

Yes, just read Broadbent's seminal work, "The Pilgrim Church" about the primitive ekklesia in the dark ages. There have have always been a remnant that didn't take man's way (and were often persecuted for it).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

I still don't see the relevance or that it changes much. Why would we not be concerned mostly with European/Western church history?

I think that viewing history in such a way - "Catholic to Reformation" is characteristic of evangelicalism as a whole. Catholicism also pretends that these other groups did not exist and that absolutely everyone was Catholic.

This way of viewing the world is common. Take American history for example. It is now known that maybe the Chinese or Phonecians discovered America first. I don't see those historical facts changing the narrative, nor is it so relevant.

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Spirit and the reformers were recovering the truth. Meanwhile, the reformation became a movement of bloodshed and violence. Catholics were killing Protestants and Protestants were killing Protestants/anabaptists. That is the lipstick on the pig I'm talking about.

If hatred is murder, as our Lord has instructed us, then Lee and LSM are guilty of as many murders as the Catholic Church.

I lived thru decades of movements coming out of Lee and LSM, winds and waves of teaching, new ways and practices, endless and fruitless vain experiments thrust on the LC's.

These were all "makeup on a moo cow." Even Lee himself would admit to this. He regularly called us all "moo cows."