CCCC

this +1

So then does Luther agree with the Catholic Church as far as interpretation of scripture, but differ from them only in points of tradition and ritual?

Catholics are also pretty big on priesthood "keys", at least as far as I understand Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that their ordained priests have authority to perform ordinances in the name of God? The way I think of keys is sort of like a sheriff in Western movies having authority to choose his own deputies. As in, when the bandits get too strong, the sheriff goes around and picks a few of the toughest guys in town, hands then some badges and makes them take an oath, and they're now officially recognized lawmen. Now, suppose Jesus is the sheriff. In the Catholic Church, He doesn't give out many badges. In the LDS Church, he gives out badges to every able-bodied (read: worthy) male. In various branches of Protestant and Evangelical churches, nobody actually needs a badge as long as they're on the sheriff's side (or everyone gets a badge, which means essentially the same thing). If my analogy is accurate, then does that mean that Luther's sola scriptura argument is the basis for Evangelicals believing that you don't need a badge (ordination) to carry out baptisms and other ordinances? Edit: Obviously Mormons and Catholics don't believe that Jesus is directly ordaining everyone, so just suppose in my analogy that deputies also have the authority to pick new deputies.

Keep in mind that your bishop is there to help you, not to judge you. It's a lot harder to quit if you keep it as your own dirty little secret. And you're definitely not the only person (not even the only person you know) who's had to overcome this problem. Masturbation easily turns into a habit, which turns into an addiction, and it can really poison your mind -- especially your attitude towards women, which is going to have a huge impact on your marriage years down the road if you don't fight it now. My advice -- in addition to talking to your bishop -- is to just find another hobby (and scripture study) to keep yourself too busy to think about that stuff any more.

Interesting... I see that when Luther pointed out that the Eucharist was not the literal body and blood of Christ it must have been a real "the Emperor's wearing no clothes!" moment. And then like you said, floodgates are opened. So was it Luther himself who believed that there was no need for a Church with authority, as in, led by prophets and apostles with priesthood keys? Or did he believe that any true believer had those keys? Or did Luther believe that authority was necessary but that it just wasn't found in the Catholic Church or anywhere else, and so Christians had to do the best they could with what they had (i.e., the Bible) until authority was restored?

Okay, so I'm glad that I'm basically correct in how I understand Evangelical beliefs. I'm still curious to know where these ideas came from, since they were absent from Christian (i.e., Catholic) writings from essentially the 4th through 16th centuries (at least). Again, I'm not really concerned with whether or not early Christians shared those beliefs -- I'm more interested in understanding when these ideas began being in more modern times.

So did Luther actually teach that there never was an organized priesthood, or did he believe that there had been one, but that it was no longer in the Catholic Church? Follow-up questions: Did Luther also believe that there never was an institutionalized Church? Did Luther believe that baptism was just an outward expression of faith and not a required ordinance?

I'm very sorry that you've had to go through as much as you have. It's really just not fair what some people have to deal with, but unfortunately we don't get to choose our trials. I have a distant aunt and uncle who had to deal with pornography addiction and infidelity several years ago (I didn't even really know them back then) and today you would never have any idea how close their marriage once came to utter ruin. Not everyone is that lucky, but it IS possible to overcome these sorts of things. If that's really the way you feel, I urge you read Luke 15 as soon as you get the chance. That chapter contains three famous parables -- the Prodigal Son, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Sheep -- that hopefully will change your outlook on how willing God is to hear and answer your prayers. God is always reaching out to us. If you open your heart to Him you will be amazed at how quickly He will fill it with His Spirit. It sounds like what you need more than anything is to bring the Holy Ghost back into your home, for your sake, for your kids' sake, and for your husband's sake. You won't be able to change him on your own, but you can bring the Spirit back into your life and into your house. Your husband will be sure to notice, and hopefully that will inspire him to soften his heart. But even if he doesn't, you will still be able to find great strength and happiness if you focus on nourishing your own spiritual needs.

Thanks for the post -- when I was a missionary I had most of those references memorized. (I'd love to be as good with the scriptures as I was back then!) And yet there still seems to be a large number of Christians today who apparently only believe in the priesthood of the believers, even to the point of denying that an authoritative priesthood ever existed. Does anyone know where and when and with whom that idea originated?

I'm a Mormon married to a non-Mormon so I can give you my perspective from the other side. I don't think you should worry about anyone trying to force Mormonism on you. Nobody joins the church against their will (and even then, they're free to leave if they want). If your fiance loves you for who you are and is comfortable with you having different beliefs, then you should have nothing to worry about. Basically, the biggest question to look at is what changes your fiance plans to make in his life if he decides to be a practicing Mormon again (Gwen gave a good description in post #8), and whether you feel you can still love him if he starts doing those things.

I've come across this claim quite a bit recently, although I'm sure it's been around for a while. Many (not all!) Evangelical Christians, when faced with the claim that the LDS Church is the restored church that Christ and his apostles established when they were alive, counter the claim by arguing that: 1) There never was an institutionalized church per se, but that the "Church" is simply anyone who believes in Christ. 2) There is no "priesthood" as Mormons use the term, but that any believer in Christ is authorized to perform baptism and other ordinances. 3) Finally, some of them also claim that baptism is simply an outward expression of one's faith in Christ, but the ordinance itself is not necessary for salvation. (Again I should point out that not all Evangelicals believe these points, but I've met several who do... I don't want to set up a straw man here.) My question is, how recently did these ideas start being taught? According to the Evangelical perspective, this is what the Bible means, and what the first generations of Christians believed. But it's certainly not what was taught during the Middle Ages. So I suppose it's an idea that was either re-discovered (if you believe it) or invented (if you don't) some time after the Protestant Reformation. So when did people start teaching these ideas?