"Protestant Mormons"

[Vort]

I think I agree with this guy.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CyjGDRfuiqm/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==

(Please note that this person's quote is primarily from Harold B. Lee in 1970. He includes President Nelson's photograph, but this is not President Nelson. It's just some guy who goes by "gogogoff0" and who coined a new term that he thinks is fitting. As I wrote above, I think I agree with him.)

 

 

gogogoff0

 

There is a growing schism (division) within the Church fueled by Social Media Influencers. It is not a left vs. right, nor is it an American vs non-American. It is those who follow the prophet vs those who I've dubbed as Protestant Mormons. They claim to believe *most* doctrines of the Church, but protest against the prophet and seek to set up their "personal authority" that they derive from their own "personal revelation" as an alternative to prophetic teachings.

As I am prepping to write about this, I found this mic drop quote:

"We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." Matt. 23:27 We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me—as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." D&C 21:4-5 There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." D&C 21:6"
Harold B. Lee
Conference, Oct. 1970

Edited October 18, 2023 by Vort

[Carborendum]

Here is the most amazing part of the quote.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Conference, Oct. 1970

[laronius]

The original Protestants actually did try to fix some things that were wrong in Catholicism. But I get what he is saying.

I have wondered about these individuals that he is describing, whether they were deceivers from the beginning or if something happened to them along the way. I think many of them started out true to the Church but as they gained "social influence" they became wise in their eyes and that need to influence becomes more important than the truth. At that point Satan gains the influence.

I remember one of the then newly called apostles being counseled by a senior apostle that the members would fawn over them and be very gracious in their compliments but that he shouldn't "breathe it in." Wise counsel no matter our station.

Edited October 19, 2023 by laronius

[rcthompson88]

I have seen this in discussions where members divide the membership into those who are "orthodox" and those who aren't. I have also heard some describe their beliefs as "nuanced" as a way to explain this type of Protestant Mormonism that President Lee is describing.

The idea of some members trying to take a "Protestant" approach to fixing in their minds doctrines that are wrong makes me think of a book I read recently called "All Things New" by Terryl Givens. In that book he talks about some of the Protestant corrections to Catholicism and how they actually made things worse from the perspective of members misunderstanding some doctrines surrounding grace and salvation.

[Grunt]

I was just having a similar conversation with my wife last week.

[prisonchaplain]

From my outsider lense, there seems to be a similarity between LDS theology and Catholic theology when it comes to authoritativeness. In Catholicism scripture interpretation rests in the authority of the Pope and church hierarchy. In LDS practice church members sustain the prophetic mantle of the President and a few other leaders who have authority as prophets. There really is not room for private or personal interpretations, except perhaps in the area of applying prophetic utterances. I'm I understanding correctly? 

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There really is not room for private or personal interpretations, except perhaps in the area of applying prophetic utterances. I'm I understanding correctly?

I think there's a great deal of room for private interpretation and private revelation. However, revelation given me to enhance my understanding, even if perfectly true and correct, is to me. I have no authority to preach my personal revelation to anyone else, unless that has already been publicly revealed through a prophet who has been specifically called to reveal the word of God to others. Other than that, my amazing insightful personal revelations about what this or that scripture really mean is just that, personal, not for anyone else. I am, in fact, under covenant to keep such revelations to myself. If I do not, I prove myself an unworthy servant who can't keep a secret, and such revelation will terminate until I repent. (At least until then, maybe longer.)

[MrShorty]

My first reaction when I first saw this: Most histories I see claim that Martin Luther never wanted nor intended to separate from Catholicism when he first wrote his 95 theses (and maybe nailed them to the door of the church). But, for some reason, others in Catholicism, rather than engage with Luther's doubts and concerns and criticisms, chose to push him out of the Catholic church which led to the Reformation (obviously, I'm simplifying/oversimplifying the history). In the same way, it really seems to me that the conservative LDS church, when faced with "LDS Protestant" doubts and concerns and criticisms tend to call "wolf in sheep's clothing" or some such rather than really engage and wrestle and struggle with the "LDS Protestant's" doubts and concerns and criticisms. In this respect, I think Goff's observation is likely true. A "schism" is on the horizon. It sometimes seems to me that Goff and other ultraorthodox like him insist that the LDS Protestants bear all the blame for the coming schism and never want to consider their own role in promoting said schism. I think one of the most frustrating ideas that comes from them is a call for "progmos" to hurry up and leave the church, because it's inevitable (somehow) and the church has no place for progressives (or doubters or some such).

I find it interesting that Goff chooses a quote about following the prophet as if the prophet cannot make any mistakes. I find that almost all of my own "LDS Protestant" views center around the question of prophetic fallibility and what God expects us to believe and do in the face of prophetic errors. I'm no Luther, so won't go publishing my own theses, but, if I did, they would probably center around the exact same issue that Goff chooses to highlight here.

I suppose we'll see what happens. I found it interesting in my reading of Paul Reeve's history of the priesthood and temple ban that he noted that the LDS church avoided the schisms the plagued other Protestant denominations around the race and slavery issues, in spite of having plenty of people on both sides of that particular divide. Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue. If there are bridges to be found, I doubt that Goff will be the one to find and build those bridges (someone mentioned Givens -- he might be able to do it, though).

[CV75]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:46 PM, Vort said:

I think I agree with this guy.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CyjGDRfuiqm/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==

(Please note that this person's quote is primarily from Harold B. Lee in 1970. He includes President Nelson's photograph, but this is not President Nelson. It's just some guy who goes by "gogogoff0" and who coined a new term that he thinks is fitting. As I wrote above, I think I agree with him.)

 

 

gogogoff0

 

There is a growing schism (division) within the Church fueled by Social Media Influencers. It is not a left vs. right, nor is it an American vs non-American. It is those who follow the prophet vs those who I've dubbed as Protestant Mormons. They claim to believe *most* doctrines of the Church, but protest against the prophet and seek to set up their "personal authority" that they derive from their own "personal revelation" as an alternative to prophetic teachings.

As I am prepping to write about this, I found this mic drop quote:

"We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." Matt. 23:27 We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me—as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." D&C 21:4-5 There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." D&C 21:6"
Harold B. Lee
Conference, Oct. 1970

The term "schism" is not used by President Lee. He is speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing (bolded above) who deceive the saints. No inroad (a precedent to a schism) has been made within the "authority of the Church," and a consistent message is put forth by the President, First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Members challenging and leaving the Church is not a schism. Wolves are typically called out before long and whether they are around or not, the governing quorums remain intact. President Lee's counsel is for the safety of the members, and not for the integrity and preservation of the governing quorums. Our leadership does not divide and label the membership into opposing camps, and I find it unwise to suggest this approach to dealing with increasing power of Satan as expressed through the hypocrites that are bound to worship among us.

[prisonchaplain]

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do. 

[LDSGator]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Our leadership does not divide and label the membership into opposing camps

Correct. It’s the members who do it. I’m not sure why they do it, because I can‘t read minds. I’ve never heard a bishop or SP do it. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do. 

Have you read the Eric Mextas biography of him? A+ biography. 

[Anddenex]

This post reminds me of a recent Instagram post I scrolled into. The individual was a member of the Church who said, paraphrased, "I'm a member of the Church who stays in the Church and seeks to change it from within to be more inclusive."

This follows the thought provided, "We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church."

I'm, very much, in agreement with the idea and concepts being shared. This is definitely happening in the Church today. I'm pretty sure someone posted here a while -- a while -- back sharing a video from some movie, episode, or podcast where the individual said, "I can do more damage to the Church by staying in the Church..."

President Nelson's quote regarding having the Spirit with us is the only that we will make it through these last days before Christ comes as strong followers/disciples of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the Spirit is to bear witness of truth, and to help us see things as they really are.

@MrShorty "Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue."

As to the following thought here, the Church already figured this out. The answer is Jesus Christ. If a person truly believes in Christ and His Church, the focus will be upon Christ and building up the Kingdom of God/Zion. Those who focus on this will be able to work together in peace and harmony -- despite their difference of thoughts and opinions (because these individuals will wait patiently on the Lord and how he moves His Church).

This notion extends both ways on the spectrum -- far right and far left. We have been counseled and taught to avoid any and all "religious hobbies." Religious hobbies is one of the easiest ways for the adversary to gain control and place into the heart of individuals to follow forbidden paths.

When any individual places any idea, any action, any decision above the Lord and His Church then they (the individual(s)) will choose to separate themselves from the Lord and His Church. The doctrine is very very clear on many things (the easiest one is marriage), and yet we have members who seek to blur the clarity, and place their thoughts, their decisions, their life choices above the Lord and His Church. This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Anddenex

[laronius]

29 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.

 

 

I was thinking about this the other day. Those general authorities who are most blunt about certain truths are the ones these individuals are most critical of. That's not to say other general authorities aren't direct but those like Elder Packer, Oaks and Bednar are known for addressing certain trying doctrines with a directness that leaves no room for misinterpretation or justification. This forces these individuals to accept or outright reject the teachings of modern prophets and they don't like that. It makes plain where they stand and exposes them for what they are.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

I was thinking about this the other day. Those general authorities who are most blunt about certain truths are the ones these individuals are most critical of. That's not to say other general authorities aren't direct but those like Elder Packer, Oaks and Bednar are known for addressing certain trying doctrines with a directness that leaves no room for misinterpretation or justification. This forces these individuals to accept or outright reject the teachings of modern prophets and they don't like that. It makes plain where they stand and exposes them for what they are.

We are in agreement, and this is also why I love the teaching in the Book of Mormon where we are counseled to be bold but not overbearing, and it is in some ways a fine line between the two.

True boldness keeps intact the core doctrine of agency. We know there is agency when (2 Nephi 2: 16) an individual is still able to "act for themselves" because they are able to be enticed by one (truth spoken in plainness or boldness) or the other (the opposite error).

To speak with plainness (which is often to be bold) is also a show of greater love. This is one witness to me that these individuals "love" Christ because they speak his truth in plainness of speech (boldness). They are willing, like Christ, to bear their crosses and to receive shame for his name. We know Christ's love is perfect. We know that when he spoke in plain terms (not in parables for a good reason) that some of his disciples were no longer disciples because it was too hard to hear. It cut too deep.

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do. 

This is interesting to compare to this phenomenon of "Protestant Mormons".  This sounds a whole lot like the CES letter.  Although I believe (of course) that Martin Luther's motivation was more well-founded sincere than the CES letter.

If you believe in apostolic authority, we can't demand answers as they did.  It wasn't just asking questions to help find faith when we don't understand some things.  It was a criticism of their authority.

We can certainly ask questions.  But they must be to explore what the answers might be.  This is a completely different attitude than demanding answers in such a public and accusatory manner.

[estradling75]

Martin Luther may not have wanted a schism.. but actions have consequences.

Public displays are going to provoke public reactions.

While we do not control how other may react, we need to be aware of our potential as influences.  So we do not get to entirely excuse ourselves by saying we do not control others.  

When we nail our complaints to the door (Or Post to social media) we do need to take responsibly for some very predictable reactions

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Martin Luther may not have wanted a schism.. but actions have consequences. ... When we nail our complaints to the door (Or Post to social media) we do need to take responsibly for some very predictable reactions

I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.

[Vort]

On 10/22/2023 at 1:00 PM, MrShorty said:

[I]t really seems to me that the conservative LDS church, when faced with "LDS Protestant" doubts and concerns and criticisms tend to call "wolf in sheep's clothing" or some such rather than really engage and wrestle and struggle with the "LDS Protestant's" doubts and concerns and criticisms. In this respect, I think Goff's observation is likely true. A "schism" is on the horizon. It sometimes seems to me that Goff and other ultraorthodox like him insist that the LDS Protestants bear all the blame for the coming schism and never want to consider their own role in promoting said schism. I think one of the most frustrating ideas that comes from them is a call for "progmos" to hurry up and leave the church, because it's inevitable (somehow) and the church has no place for progressives (or doubters or some such).

I believe I understand and, to an extent, sympathize with this point of view. But I think it distorts the reality. Insofar as the "LDS Protestants" or "progmos" or whatever label you want to give them are simply Saints wrestling with the flesh and the doubts that arise from the flesh, I suspect the body of Saints would be nearly unanimous in embracing them and encouraging them to continue their fellowship. If we encourage those with doubts to leave, then we all are lost.

The problem is not with those who doubt or whose revelatory testimonies are sometimes weak. Rather, it is with those who, doubting the veracity of the Church's claims about itself and the inspiration of its leaders, try to lead the Saints down another path, one more to their societal and political liking. There is no sin in saying, "I do not know that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ is the one and true kingdom of God upon the earth", but there is grave sin in saying, "Russell Nelson is no prophet of any God I care to follow", or "The 'Mormon' Church is wrong in not recognizing the sacred beauty of homosexual relationships, and we should stop paying our tithing and stay away from that cult until such a time as they receive a 'revelation' <wink wink> that gay couples can be sealed in the temple the same as anyone else."

Even if you soften the inflammatory language, the point is that those who encourage apostasy, heresy (a term seldom used among Latter-day Saints), and rebellion against legitimate authority are the majority of the loud "progmo" voices. Theirs is not a mild, honest seeking through personal doubts and struggles; rather, theirs is a revolutionary spirit of pride and intolerance to "the establishment" and "the patriarchy". So if we are limiting our conversation to those people, those who are concerned about imposing their preferences and with absolutely no desire to repent and conform to the revealed word of God, then frankly I completely agree that (in the words of Elder McConkie) such people have found or should find their way out of the Church.

On 10/22/2023 at 1:00 PM, MrShorty said:

I find it interesting that Goff chooses a quote about following the prophet as if the prophet cannot make any mistakes. I find that almost all of my own "LDS Protestant" views center around the question of prophetic fallibility and what God expects us to believe and do in the face of prophetic errors. I'm no Luther, so won't go publishing my own theses, but, if I did, they would probably center around the exact same issue that Goff chooses to highlight here.

And here exactly is where the progmos completely miss the boat. Of course prophets, being mortal men, are fallible. That is neither the question nor the point. When the First Presidency chose to reduce the missionary service period for elders from 24 months to 18 months, they were attempting to extend the blessings of missionary service to more young men who otherwise might not have been able to afford a two-year mission. After several years, when it became apparent that the anticipated increase in missionary service numbers did not happen and that the net effect was a drastic reduction of missionaries around the world, the First Presidency changed course and returned the missionary period to 24 months. Yet even if we choose to view this effort as some sort of failure or mistake, it makes zero difference. My duty was not to decide whether the First Presidency was making the right choice in reducing the period of missionary service; my duty was to serve as called.

Are our prophets calling upon us to sacrifice our children? To engage in sexually destructive behavior? To lie to our fellow man, or embezzle funds from our work? What, exactly, are the prophets preaching that is so dangerous? To avoid fornications? Yes, in our modern perverse society, chastity itself is seen, not merely as risible, but as dangerous. So what are we to do? We are to ignore the voices of mockery and wickedness and choose to hold tight to the iron rod, and to teach our children so to do. We are to meet together with the Saints every week, drawing strength from those who share our covenants. We are to be a light to the world, so that those with eyes to see (and they do exist) may witness God in action through us, hear his voice through his Spirit and our actions, and come unto him and be our sisters and brothers in Christ.

The "September Six" and their ilk liked to pretend there were great "spiritual abuses" going on in the Church. When asked to show these, they inevitably trotted out examples of aberrant behavior (e.g. leaders engaged in illegal activity) or, mostly, of leaders simply doing what they were called to do, including acting as common judges in Israel. Yes, those leaders sometimes excommunicated people they thought were unrepentant. That's the authority they were given. Excommunicating someone who openly rebels and fights against the Church is not an abuse; it is an obvious action taken by any entity that is concerned with preserving its own survival.

On 10/22/2023 at 1:00 PM, MrShorty said:

I suppose we'll see what happens. I found it interesting in my reading of Paul Reeve's history of the priesthood and temple ban that he noted that the LDS church avoided the schisms the plagued other Protestant denominations around the race and slavery issues, in spite of having plenty of people on both sides of that particular divide. Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue. If there are bridges to be found, I doubt that Goff will be the one to find and build those bridges (someone mentioned Givens -- he might be able to do it, though).

Neither will. This is not an issue that can be resolved by smart people with smooth speech. Our hope lies only and entirely in Jesus Christ and in the Church and kingdom he has restored. Resolution of these issues will come through prophetic guidance from above through the First Presidency, not merely through individual initiative of random Saints. (Though such individual initiative could potentially prove very profitable, if done in earnest effort and honest humility of heart.)

[mikbone]

I keep returning to the concept of the different types of doctrine.  

Core or Eternal

Supportive

Policy

Esoteric

Our testimonies should be based upon core and eternal doctrines.  Every GC talk dwells on core and supportive doctrine.

What we see in these “Protestant Mormons” is that they don’t have a testimony based on core doctrine. They ignore core and supportive doctrine and are critical of policy and esoteric doctrine.

The adversary is insidious.  He loves misdirection.

My testimony is based upon Jesus Christ.  Not a statement about COVID vaccines.

Policy changes.  Esoteric doctrine is fun but cannot grant salvation.  Esoteric doctrine can also lead to dark nebulous paths.  

Jacob 6:8, 12 O be wise; what can I say more?

Edited October 24, 2023 by mikbone

[mirkwood]

Quote

The problem is not with those who doubt or whose revelatory testimonies are sometimes weak. Rather, it is with those who, doubting the veracity of the Church's claims about itself and the inspiration of its leaders, try to lead the Saints down another path, one more to their societal and political liking.

 

This is the cancer infecting the Church.

[estradling75]

11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.

You don't have to be able to predict a schism years down the road to be able to ask the question "Does this action I'm about to take strengthen my friends or empower my enemies?"  That is usually a much clearer answer.  We protect our friends and attack our enemies

And since our Judgement is suppose to be based on the Fruit people bring forth...  When I see someone 'Nail' something to the door, I can get a pretty good feel for what/who they consider friends and who/what they consider enemies.

Now can people make mistakes???  Sure... we all sin, and we can all repent...  But repentance has some very clear steps.  Including trying to fix damage we did.  Martin Luther was given this chance and declined.  In doing so he made it clear where he stood.  Now I am not a Catholic, I do not accept their claims.  But to those that do... the next steps of the Catholic Church become very clear. Even Martin Luther should have been able to understand what his refusal to repent(in the eyes of the Catholic faith) would bring about for him personally.

 

  

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

And here exactly is where the progmos completely miss the boat. Of course prophets, being mortal men, are fallible. That is neither the question nor the point.

I will call to attention the scripture:

Quote

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 -- Eph 2:20

I happen to know a thing or two about foundations.  While the foundations we build are quite different than in Biblical times, some principles remain.  That is why they used to teach us how the ancients did it.  Unfortunately, I've since learned that a lot of the old stuff is no longer taught.  But be that as it may...

When setting up a square or rectangular building, they would set four cornerstones.  One of them was determined to be the chief cornerstone.  Why is there a "chief" corner?  Well, there has to be something that defines the rest of the building.  Something has to be the definition of "correct".  Everything else is relative to that standard.

There was great care to make the chief cornerstone perfectly rectangular by use of the 3-4-5 triangle.  The other stones were also supposed to be squared at each corner. But slightly less care was used in making those.  The "last little bit of imperfection" was hard to get rid of.  So, by getting 95% there, was a huge time/cost saver for the other stones.

Once all four stones were set in place, the corners were then checked.  They were always off by a little bit. So, if the three were in alignment with each other, but they were off of the chief corner, they did not move the chief corner.  They moved the other three, because the chief corner is always correct.

While the other three were allowed some error, the most important part of the other corners was to have a single point exactly at the secondary corners of the building as defined by their location from the Chief Corner.  And again, the 3-4-5 triangle was very helpful in guiding those locations.  If there was misalignment, we moved all three other corners before we'd move the chief corner.

Rotation from that corner point was also important.  It could be off a small amount.  And sometimes construction and earth movement caused some shifting of the stones. But the chief corner was not rotated.  The other three stones would have to move to accommodate the chief corner. 

They did what they could.  But a little bit of error was always expected.  The most important thing was that the actual corner of each cornerstone was set in the correct place as the actual corner of the building.  The rest of the stone could be a little off and the building would still be sound.

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You don't have to be able to predict a schism years down the road to be able to ask the question "Does this action I'm about to take strengthen my friends or empower my enemies?"  That is usually a much clearer answer.  We protect our friends and attack our enemies

And since our Judgement is suppose to be based on the Fruit people bring forth...  When I see someone 'Nail' something to the door, I can get a pretty good feel for what/who they consider friends and who/what they consider enemies. 

Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms.

We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day. 

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Except that Martin Luther was right.

 

And?!?   If Martin Luther believed it was God's church and God was in control... Then he failed the test of Faith.

You and I and most on this fourm do not believe that the Catholic is God's church and he is in control of it... So we have no problem with declaring that Martin Luther was right and did the right thing.  A man pointed out for correction the failures of men.

But it is an Faith and Logical paradox to believe/claim that it is God church and he is in control, while simultaneously believe the right/faithful thing to do is rebel against it.  Either God is in control and you need to be patient and long-suffering, trusting in God to make it right in his own time, or he is not in which case do as you think best.