Clarification on Mormon Belief

[TheosisM]

Yes, I have discussed this with Catholics who admit that there was disagreement among their early Church fathers over the meaning of Christ’s words to Peter. Also, their own Catechism admits the truth that Peter’s confession is a rock on which the Church is built. It also claims that Christ Himself is a rock on which the Church is built. Peter, too, is a rock on which the Catholic Church is built, it adds. So they believe there are three rocks, not one.

I suppose that I won’t know which rock is the real rock until I know which authority is the real authority.

All three are real rocks, and we are all called to be rocks in the Church. Please see this post for more information:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6008635&postcount=288

 

[TheosisM]

ParkerD,

I believe that the Bible is clear on the issue of “foundations” and “rocks” related to the Church, and that there is absolutely no “change [in] meaning”, and as I repeatedly stated, nothing that had previously been revealed through a prophet has been overturned and discarded. I don’t know how many ways I can say that there is no change in meaning of anything said with the Catholic understanding of this passage!

It is interesting to note that, as I also showed, the Eastern Orthodox see Matthew 16:18 as referring to both Peter himself and his solid faith in Jesus Christ, and they do not share the Catholic view on Peter’s successors in the Bishops of Rome, making the notion that the Catholic interpretation was unintended by Jesus Christ and is simply part of a false authority claim, quite amusing to me. Again, this is not an either/or situation, but a both/and. Similarly, I have seen Mormons state that the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 is revelation, and now I’m hearing that it is Jesus Christ. Clearly you believe that the two are related. Therefore, you should be able to see that Catholics don’t believe that Peter is the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 and that’s that, but that his faith in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, are directly related to this, and trying to separate the two/three by making claims that the Catholic belief is changing meanings or overturning and discarding what a previous prophet stated is creating a false dichotomy and is a false portrayal of the actual Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18.

The Bible clearly tells us three things:

1. Jesus Christ is the chief/sure cornerstone and foundation of the Church
   1 Corinthians 3:11-“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
2. The Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone
   Ephesians 2:20-“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”
3. Simon’s name is changed to (and/or has appended) Peter, which means “Rock” (Greek-Petros, Aramaic-Cephas), and Jesus very simply states that upon THIS rock, which must refer back to the mention of rock, which is Peter/Rock, He will build His church
   Matthew 16:18-“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The Bible tells us that the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, the foundation of apostles and prophets, and on Peter (how one can deny that “this rock” must refer back to the “rock” mentioned, which is Peter/Cephas/Petros/Rock is beyond me).

What do all three foundations have in common? Jesus Christ. This goes back again to the double meaning of “rock” in Matthew 16:18 for Catholics that I have repeatedly mentioned, but seems to be ignored. It is Peter’s faith in Jesus Christ that caused him to be the rock. Simon obviously had primacy among the apostles, a fact that cannot be ignored, and a fact associated with his name change to Peter/Rock. It is not just that the Church is built on Peter, but that it is built on Peter’s faith, as Pope John Paul II states in his homily I referenced previously. It is this faith in Jesus Christ that is our faith, and that causes US to become rocks in the Kingdom. The Catechism itself shows that this is standard Catholic teaching-

756 "Often, too, the Church is called the building of God. The Lord compared himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner-stone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles and from it the Church receives solidity and unity. This edifice has many names to describe it: the house of God in which his family dwells; the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling-place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. As living stones we here on earth are built into it. It is this holy city that is seen by John as it comes down out of heaven from God when the world is made anew, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.

(Again, we see that you created a false dichotomy, this time between the Catholic understanding of “rock(s)” and “building”)

continued…

 

[TheosisM]

I think that my posts on this subject cannot be more clear: * The Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, with Peter being the rock referred to, as his very name is, is multifaceted, and is often presented by non-Catholics in a way that does not capture this, especially when this understanding of foundations, rocks, and building the Kingdom (with ourselves being “living stones”) is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an extensive text of our doctrines) for anyone that bothers to look it up. We believe that Simon is the rock of Matthew 16:18. We believe that Simon clearly had primacy among the apostles, and had a unique role as the rock. We believe that it is because of his faith in Jesus Christ, that is common to us all, that he was the rock in that passage. It is this faith that causes us to be living stones added to the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church (which is His Body, and He is the head of His own Body), the chief cornerstone, and unity is only found in Him, symbolized (and realized) in the Eucharist, which is rightly also called Communion. We believe that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, through their own faith in God. *

I will close with words from the Eastern Orthodox priest in the book cited above on Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation that I believe highlight the multifaceted Catholic position that I have repeatedly emphasized:

"In an instrumental sense, Peter is ‘the rock’ or ‘rock:’ grafted by the power of God onto the divine Rock, in order to become the first stone of Christ’s edifice. How did Simon (Peter) become ‘rock’? By confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of the Living God. And after him, all who confess Jesus with the same faith also become rocks and stones like Peter. Hence, the double interpretation Rock=Peter and Rock=Faith are not mutually exclusive."

 

[Stephen168]

Please consider the passage you mentioned:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

You appear to be telling me that our Jesus meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [myself] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

While someone by the name of Catholic Carl will likely say He really meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [you] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Then again, someone named Evangelic Ed might throw in the opinion that Jesus truly meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [truth that I am the Son of God, which you just spoke] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Thus the figure of speech I mentioned before. I find myself at a crossroad, and do not know where to go.

Yes, Christ built A Church, his Church. The facts of history show his Church has Bishops with Apostolic succession. There are a small handful of Churches which have it. They all, also, have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as taught by Christ himself. When deciding which of these small handful of Churches with the historical claim to be the true Church of Christ; it is then we can turn to Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-17. Calvinism is a 16th century invention and the Latter Day Saint movement is a 19th century American invention. The don’t believe in the real presence because they have no authority to make it happen and neither have any historical claim to be a Church started by Christ.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I quite agree! Let’s see if Moses is able to put his eternal treasure where his mouth is! If he is not able, we’ve found him to be a liar and a cheat. The same goes for Isaiah, for he makes the same claim Moses does–that claim being that God alone can predict the future. I suppose once we are done exposing Moses as a fraud, we can move on to Isaiah, too. But first, Moses. Near the end of his life, he wrote that God gave him this prediction:

(Deuteronomy 31)

Please explain how this is not evidence of God predicting the future through Moses.

Thank you for that interesting quote. It is “evidence” if you are already a believer. But looking at it from the eye of a skeptic, such as an atheist or an agnostic, it hardly appears to be convincing. The Israelites were a murmuring and rebellious lot. Moses led them through the wilderness for 40 years, during which time they did nothing but rebel and murmur against him and against God every day of their lives! Many of them periodically had to be destroyed by plagues, and pestilence, and the sword for that reason until they were brought to the land they had been promised. So it did not require a lot of intelligence to know that they were going to continue along that path after they had been brought to the Promised Land. You see, you are asking me to play the role of the skeptic here. I am not trying to undermine somebody’s faith. But looking at it from the point of view of somebody who does not already believe, and needs to be convinced, that is hardly a credible “prediction”. It is something that any good observer, especially an experience leader like Moses, would have been able to guess.

Yes, I have discussed this with Catholics who admit that there was disagreement among their early Church fathers over the meaning of Christ’s words to Peter. Also, their own Catechism admits the truth that Peter’s confession is a rock on which the Church is built. It also claims that Christ Himself is a rock on which the Church is built. Peter, too, is a rock on which the Catholic Church is built, it adds. So they believe there are three rocks, not one.

I suppose that I won’t know which rock is the real rock until I know which authority is the real authority. Catholics have explained to me why I should trust their Church as the authority to resolve Christ’s apparent ambiguous statement to Peter.

Thank you. Since that “explanation” was apparently conducted in private, I cannot comment. I think it is disingenuous of our Catholic friends to advise you in secret, and then send you to debate with me in public! I am a lone ranger; I don’t have any secret advisers! But in any case, I cannot refute or comment on what your Catholic friends have told you, since I was not privy to that conversation. But I can certainly attempt to answer the question you have asked:

Please explain why the modern LDS scriptures are the authority I should trust instead.

We believe that the truth of all the revelations of God, not only of those specific to Mormonism but also of the Bible, can only be known with conviction and certainty by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Without that, you can no more know and be sure of the truth of the Bible than you can be of the truth of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has a promise made within it that if you read it and study it carefully, with an open mind and a sincere desire to know of its truth, God will reveal the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. There are millions of Mormons who have put the Book of Mormon to that test, and can testify that they have received a witness that it is true. It is entirely your decision whether you want to take up that challenge or not.

I also need to comment on the “instead” bit. We don’t want you to believe in the authority of the Book of Mormon “instead” of the Bible. They are equally authoritative as far as we are concerned.

 

[Jay53]

I also need to comment on the “instead” bit. We don’t want you to believe in the authority of the Book of Mormon “instead” of the Bible. They are equally authoritative as far as we are concerned.

I’m curious as to why the Book of Mormon doesn’t fall under the “gospel other than the one we preached to you” as warned by St. Paul?

8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:8-9

 

[Marie5890]

Thank you for that interesting quote. It is “evidence” if you are already a believer. But looking at it from the eye of a skeptic, such as an atheist or an agnostic, it hardly appears to be convincing. The Israelites were a murmuring and rebellious lot. Moses led them through the wilderness for 40 years, during which time they did nothing but rebel and murmur against him and against God every day of their lives! Many of them periodically had to be destroyed by plagues, and pestilence, and the sword for that reason until they were brought to the land they had been promised. So it did not require a lot of intelligence to know that they were going to continue along that path after they had been brought to the Promised Land. You see, you are asking me to play the role of the skeptic here. I am not trying to undermine somebody’s faith. But looking at it from the point of view of somebody who does not already believe, and needs to be convinced, that is hardly a credible “prediction”. It is something that any good observer, especially an experience leader like Moses, would have been able to guess.

Thank you. Since that “explanation” was apparently conducted in private, I cannot comment. I think it is disingenuous of our Catholic friends to advise you in secret, and then send you to debate with me in public! I am a lone ranger; I don’t have any secret advisers! But in any case, I cannot refute or comment on what your Catholic friends have told you, since I was not privy to that conversation. But I can certainly attempt to answer the question you have asked:

We believe that the truth of all the revelations of God, not only of those specific to Mormonism but also of the Bible, can only be known with conviction and certainty by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Without that, you can no more know and be sure of the truth of the Bible than you can be of the truth of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has a promise made within it that if you read it and study it carefully, with an open mind and a sincere desire to know of its truth, God will reveal the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. There are millions of Mormons who have put the Book of Mormon to that test, and can testify that they have received a witness that it is true. It is entirely your decision whether you want to take up that challenge or not.

I also need to comment on the “instead” bit. We don’t want you to believe in the authority of the Book of Mormon “instead” of the Bible. They are equally authoritative as far as we are concerned.

Zerinus,

Spockrates is in an unenviable position that is a great struggle.

He is seeking intellectual answers for spiritual fundamentals and I expect he intellectually understands that.

But that is a hard loop to break out of (esp when one has had reason to with draw the exercise of faith) once one is stuck in it and I expect that frustrates him. I know it did me. Sort of like a mouse stuck on its exercise wheel. You try and try and try, and it just keeps circling without going forward.

(Im surprised I was ever able to break out of it to be honest, but looking back I can tell I didn’t break out of it. The Spirit broke that loop for me when I least expected it)

Spockrates could be in a similar situation at the moment. And it it will be only the Spirit that can break that loop for him.

It can be very frustration for us to watch the frustration of another knowing we can only do so much. We really are just weak human beings after all.

 

[Sunstone]

I haven’t read through all of the discussion, although I did notice that ParkerD cited Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse.

In practice, what I think Mormons often do is this:

They start from a concrete scripture like Doctrine & Covenants 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

And then they filter less concrete scriptures–including ones like the Genesis passage that has been cited–through the more concrete scriptures.

I think that there’s room for interesting discussion with LDS on this topic. For example, I’m open to discussing the possibility of a difference between the “Father has a body” and the “Father is a body.” I’ve been entertaining the idea for some time.

 

[Jay53]

I haven’t read through all of the discussion, although I did notice that ParkerD cited Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse.

In practice, what I think Mormons often do is this:

They start from a concrete scripture like Doctrine & Covenants 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

And then they filter less concrete scriptures–including ones like the Genesis passage that has been cited–through the more concrete scriptures.

I think that there’s room for interesting discussion with LDS on this topic. I’m open to discussing the possibility of a difference between the “Father has a body” and the “Father is a body.”

What makes “Doctrine & Covenants” a “concrete scripture”?

 

[TheosisM]

What makes “Doctrine & Covenants” a “concrete scripture”?

I think he means that the verse is clear. It clearly states that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. He contrasts this with the Genesis passage (and others) where the Bible of course doesn’t outright say “the Father has a body of flesh and bones”.

 

[Sunstone]

What makes “Doctrine & Covenants” a “concrete scripture”?

The fact that it says “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”

That scripture is pretty straight forward for Mormons. They tend to project it into what they would see as less straight forward scriptures.

I like the idea of distinguishing between “has” and “is.” The difference could provide wiggle room in Mormon theology.

 

[Sunstone]

I think he means that the verse is clear. It clearly states that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. He contrasts this with the Genesis passage (and others) where the Bible of course doesn’t outright say “the Father has a body of flesh and bones”.

Yes.

 

[Sunstone]

Lest anyone think I’m just parsing minutae here, there are major implications for Mormonism and it’s theology in the difference between “has” and “is” in the Mormon scripture I cited above (D&C 130:22).

For example, in Mormon thinking, Joseph Smith’s First Vision may not have been of the Father and the Son, but only of their bodies (i.e., something that they “have” and not what they “are”).

 

[Jay53]

I think he means that the verse is clear. It clearly states that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. He contrasts this with the Genesis passage (and others) where the Bible of course doesn’t outright say “the Father has a body of flesh and bones”.

Oh, OK. I guess that’s where I get confused with Mormon theology. Mormons have the Book of Mormon/Doctrines & Covenants which clearly present their beliefs such as Sunstone quoted, and then they use verses from the Bible that IMO they then twist to fit those beliefs - when the Bible verses were never interpreted that way before Joseph Smith.

 

[zerinus]

I’m curious as to why the Book of Mormon doesn’t fall under the “gospel other than the one we preached to you” as warned by St. Paul?

Because the Book of Mormon teaches the same gospel that Paul preached.

Zerinus,

Spockrates is in an unenviable position that is a great struggle.

He is seeking intellectual answers for spiritual fundamentals and I expect he intellectually understands that.

But that is a hard loop to break out of (esp when one has had reason to with draw the exercise of faith) once one is stuck in it and I expect that frustrates him. I know it did me. Sort of like a mouse stuck on its exercise wheel. You try and try and try, and it just keeps circling without going forward.

I think that is a journey that most seekers after truth have to go through before they find it. In my experience most converts to Mormonism have gone through a phase in which they have been yearning to know the truth; and it was after a hard struggle, and humbling themselves in prayer before the Lord, that their eyes have been opened to see it.

 

[Jay53]

Because the Book of Mormon teaches the same gospel that Paul preached.

St. Paul never taught that God had flesh and bones, that God is married to a “Heavenly Mother”, and he most definitely believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe Mormons believe.

As I mentioned to Parker, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church are so dissimilar that I find it hard to believe at all in Joseph Smith’s prophethood or visions. I guess I just find it hard to believe that every single thing about the Catholic Church would have been changed in the “Great Apostasy” so that the current Catholic Church is nothing like what Jesus and the Apostles would have intended (according to Mormon belief).

 

[zerinus]

St. Paul never taught that God had flesh and bones, that God is married to a “Heavenly Mother”, …

He did not deny it either.

… and he most definitely believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe Mormons believe.

I don’t know what you mean by “Real Presence”. If you mean transubstantiation and the like, then we don’t believe in that, and neither did Paul; but if you mean something else, then maybe we do.

As I mentioned to Parker, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church are so dissimilar that I find it hard to believe at all in Joseph Smith’s prophethood or visions. I guess I just find it hard to believe that every single thing about the Catholic Church would have been changed in the “Great Apostasy” so that the current Catholic Church is nothing like what Jesus and the Apostles would have intended (according to Mormon belief).

That is certainly not Mormon belief. I don’t know who has been telling you that. The basic gospel message taught by the Catholic Church is correct as far as I can tell. Mormon doctrine disagrees with Catholic doctrine in some details, but not in the most essential core of the gospel message.

 

[Sunstone]

The basic gospel message taught by the Catholic Church is correct as far as I can tell. Mormon doctrine disagrees with Catholic doctrine in some details, but not in the most essential core of the gospel message.

Please forgive my intrusion. I’d like you to define what you mean by “gospel,” because, depending on the definition, differences between Catholics and Mormons are more than differences of doctrinal detail.

Mormons can’t have it both ways. They can’t talk about a Great Apostasy, advance their own exclusive claims (i.e., that the LDS Church is the one and only restored Church of Jesus Christ) and then retreat to “doctrinal details” when taken to task.

 

[Jay53]

He did not deny it either.

Where was it even mentioned to agree or deny? I’ve never even heard this “Heavenly Mother” idea or the idea that God has flesh and bones until now. I tried to find more information about these concepts in the early church (anytime before Joseph Smith), but the only thing I found was a group in the 4th century who espoused the idea that God had a physical body which the Church promptly condemned as heresy. The references for this are probably somewhere earlier in this thread.

I don’t know what you mean by “Real Presence”. If you mean transubstantiation and the like, then we don’t believe in that, and neither did Paul; but if you mean something else, then maybe we do.

I do mean transsubstantiation. St. Paul did believe in it - as did all of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 ourcatholicfaith.org/thelastsupper.html

 

[TheosisM]

I think what Zerinus is referring to is perhaps related to the whole “monergism vs. synergism” debate, in that we agree on the necessity of our participation in the Gospel for salvation, the need for various sacraments/ordinances, and the role of the institutional Church in that.

As far as “transubstantiation”, the early Church most definitely believed in the Real Presence, or that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. They did not explain it in terms of “transubstantiation”, or this change of “substance” with the “accidents” remaining, especially when we consider that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox all retain a belief in the Real Presence, and yet do not explain it in terms of transubstantiation. I see “Real Presence” as the “what”, and “transubstantiation” as the “how”, and the “how” of transubstantiation is a Western/Latin doctrinal development.

Some Mormons will say that the Apostasy started to occur so quickly that we can’t even notice these false doctrines infecting the Church, such as Real Presence and infant baptism.