Clarification on Mormon Belief

[zerinus]

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.

I have already addressed that question in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5985187

 

[zerinus]

I would really be interested to see what similarities you see in the teachings of each church. I’m sure there is more about the Mormon Church that I don’t know. Thanks.

See my previous post.

 

[Jay53]

See my previous post.

I think I missed something, because your previous post links to another thread and the post of yours that comes up doesn’t appear to be about this at all. Do I have to read the whole thread?

 

[zerinus]

I think I missed something, because your previous post links to another thread and the post of yours that comes up doesn’t appear to be about this at all. Do I have to read the whole thread?

Sorry, that didn’t seem to work. Try this instead:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5985187&postcount=205

 

[Jay53]

Sorry, that didn’t seem to work. Try this instead:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5985187&postcount=205

Much better!

Why don’t Mormons believe in the Eucharist as being Jesus’ Body and Blood?

 

[zerinus]

Much better!

Why don’t Mormons believe in the Eucharist as being Jesus’ Body and Blood?

Literally no, we don’t believe in it, because there is no biblical basis for it.

 

[Jay53]

Literally no, we don’t believe in it, because there is no biblical basis for it.

What is the Mormon interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist in John 6?

(I edited the verses for space.)

34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always (A)give us this bread.”

35Jesus said to them, "(B)I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me (C)will never thirst.
I am the bread of life.

49"(AC)Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which (AD)comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and (AE)not die.

51"(AF)I am the living bread that (AG)came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, (AH)he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give (AI)for the life of the world is (AJ)My flesh."

52(AK)Then the Jews (AL)began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (AM)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (AN)raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood (AO)abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the (AP)living Father (AQ)sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

58"This is the bread which (AR)came down out of heaven; not as (AS)the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread (AT)will live forever."

Words to the Disciples
59These things He said (AU)in the synagogue as He taught (AV)in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His (AW)disciples, when they heard this said, “(AX)This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:34-70&version=NASB

 

[Stephen168]

What is the Mormon interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist in John 6?

(I edited the verses for space.)

We’ve been down this road with Zerinus before.
This might help.

 

[Jerusha]

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.

We don’t mind your intrusion at all. We welcome any LDS who would call himself Sunstone. Rational discussion is good discussion.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Literally no, we don’t believe in it, because there is no biblical basis for it.

No biblical Basis for it? Its all over the Scriptures everywhere.
Have ever played dot to dot in order to get the whole picture?

Probably best to go here (Numerous Scriptures)
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

Starts of pretty early in Genesis

The Tree of life in the middle of the garden?
Do not eat its fruit?
This tree is life for us, it is Jesus freely given

But we ate it as if it were our own

Manna in the desert…flesh from heaven

All the Sacrifices in the Old Testament

Even the discourse in the dessert between Satan and Jesus
Only the Father can give the real food…

There eyes were opened at the breaking of the bread and they knew who Jesus was

The multiplication of the loaves and fishes

 

[Jay53]

We’ve been down this road with Zerinus before.
This might help.

Sorry, I was unaware this discussion had taken place before (), although maybe (hopefully) zerinus would be kind enough to expound on his answers more this time than in that previous thread, since it is clear from what you linked that he did not answer the question there.

 

[ParkerD]

What is the Mormon interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist in John 6?

(I edited the verses for space.)

Jay53,
I realize I had stated I was basically leaving this discussion, but since I notice the topic has changed, I’ll offer a brief personal perspective, which is that when I think of Christ as being the “bread of life” and the “water of life”, which I do, and feel that intensely in a relationship that I do feel with Him–then I feel that accepting being changed by Him through His influence in my life, is what He wants us to do. He suffered the atonement so we could do that–become both changeable through repentance and forgiveness, and become actually changed, new creatures, spiritually reborn. Bread and water are something we eat and drink, and therefore they become a part of us. Christ becomes a part of us when we eat and drink that which He offers to us, which is the atonement and its nourishing and changing influence in our life if we really let Him change us.

Paul wrote of “putting on Christ”. We speak of “becoming His sons and His daughters,” and of being “spiritually begotten by Him.” That is not an ending point in our lives. It is a beginning point. Spiritual growth happens as we continue to change through His influence and His actual presence in our life by the promised influence of the Holy Spirit and by the promise that His atonement really does enable us to repent, forgive, grow, and change, and He actually guides that process in our personal life.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I realize I had stated I was basically leaving this discussion, but since I notice the topic has changed, I’ll offer a brief personal perspective, which is that when I think of Christ as being the “bread of life” and the “water of life”, which I do, and feel that intensely in a relationship that I do feel with Him–then I feel that accepting being changed by Him through His influence in my life, is what He wants us to do. He suffered the atonement so we could do that–become both changeable through repentance and forgiveness, and become actually changed, new creatures, spiritually reborn. Bread and water are something we eat and drink, and therefore they become a part of us. Christ becomes a part of us when we eat and drink that which He offers to us, which is the atonement and its nourishing and changing influence in our life if we really let Him change us.

Paul wrote of “putting on Christ”. We speak of “becoming His sons and His daughters,” and of being “spiritually begotten by Him.” That is not an ending point in our lives. It is a beginning point. Spiritual growth happens as we continue to change through His influence and His actual presence in our life by the promised influence of the Holy Spirit and by the promise that His atonement really does enable us to repent, forgive, grow, and change, and He actually guides that process in our personal life.

This sounds like you agree that He is present in the Eucharist and that He becomes a part of us when we partake of communion. Sometimes, Parker, I think you are more of a traditional Christian than a Mormon.

 

[Marie5890]

Jay53,
I realize I had stated I was basically leaving this discussion, but since I notice the topic has changed, I’ll offer a brief personal perspective, which is that when I think of Christ as being the “bread of life” and the “water of life”, which I do, and feel that intensely in a relationship that I do feel with Him–then I feel that accepting being changed by Him through His influence in my life, is what He wants us to do. He suffered the atonement so we could do that–become both changeable through repentance and forgiveness, and become actually changed, new creatures, spiritually reborn. Bread and water are something we eat and drink, and therefore they become a part of us. Christ becomes a part of us when we eat and drink that which He offers to us, which is the atonement and its nourishing and changing influence in our life if we really let Him change us.

Paul wrote of “putting on Christ”. We speak of “becoming His sons and His daughters,” and of being “spiritually begotten by Him.” That is not an ending point in our lives. It is a beginning point. Spiritual growth happens as we continue to change through His influence and His actual presence in our life by the promised influence of the Holy Spirit and by the promise that His atonement really does enable us to repent, forgive, grow, and change, and He actually guides that process in our personal life.

Parker, that is pretty much what I remember. Do you know if there is an official LDS response to John 6 from the GA’s however? (I honestly dont recall).

I remember when re-reading that scripture how many who had up until that time had been disciples, that when Christ talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood , were offended at His teachings and no longer followed Him, that I couldn’t remember what the apologetic LDS response was.

Is there one that you know of?

 

[Jay53]

I found this in my search and thought it might help some of our Mormon friends. I’m just posting the introduction, but the link will take you to the site where there are many quotes from the Early Church Fathers.

If Mormons don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, then do they believe that all of these early Christians misunderstood Jesus and His Apostles and therefore immediately upon Jesus’ ascension started preaching something different? So then the “Great Apostasy” started immediately after Jesus left and the Apostles couldn’t even keep this teaching correct?

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration. The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well. Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ’s presence at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.

Thus, I decided to research what the Early Christians believed on this issue. I searched the indices for “Eucharist” in many volume sets on Early Christian writings, and I was astonished at my discovery. The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn’t even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search. Some Christians, e.g. St. Augustine, had very much to say about the Real Presence of Our Lord, so I did not include everything. Also, I want you to know that I did not include other Christians who believed in the Real Presence in this article because they later fell away from the Church for different reasons. Therefore, even though these Christians defended the Real Presence, e.g. Origen, Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuetta, etc., I did not include their statements.

I pray that this research article will inspire lukewarm Catholics to become excited about their Faith which has faithfully been passed on for over 2000 years. I pray that the Holy Spirit will grant you Faith to believe in Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to receive Him at Mass and visit Him in the tabernacle. He is patiently waiting for you because he loves you and wants you to come home. therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[TheosisM]

I found this in my search and thought it might help some of our Mormon friends. I’m just posting the introduction, but the link will take you to the site where there are many quotes from the Early Church Fathers.

If Mormons don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, then do they believe that all of these early Christians misunderstood Jesus and His Apostles and therefore immediately upon Jesus’ ascension started preaching something different? So then the “Great Apostasy” started immediately after Jesus left and the Apostles couldn’t even keep this teaching correct?

I think I mentioned it earlier, but some Mormons believe that the Apostasy happened quite quickly, with some doctrines being corrupted almost immediately (such as infant baptism and the Real Presence).

It is interesting to see the Real Presence being believed in from the beginning, in places as diverse and geographically separated as Antioch, Alexandria, India, Jerusalem, Rome, Ethiopia, Constantinople, Armenia, etc. Today, these groups are among the Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Churches.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, that is pretty much what I remember. Do you know if there is an official LDS response to John 6 from the GA’s however? (I honestly dont recall).

I remember when re-reading that scripture how many who had up until that time had been disciples, that when Christ talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood , were offended at His teachings and no longer followed Him, that I couldn’t remember what the apologetic LDS response was.

Is there one that you know of?

Marie5890,
I would assume that there have been talks and articles on this subject many times over the years, which could probably be found using the search option on lds.org but for now I can point out a reliable source which is James E Talmage, Jesus the Christ, chapter 21 and pages 314-319.

What I wrote earlier was from my own personal inner-core experience and feelings, so thanks, Jay53, for your reaction, but I wasn’t saying I believe the doctrine of the Eucharist, per se. What needs to happen inside of us is how we treat what Christ has offered to us. Talmage explains this well, and highlights that the Jewish leaders would have understood what Jesus was saying because the symbolism of bread and water was already an important kind of symbolism from their understanding of the Old Testament teachings.

 

[Jay53]

I think I mentioned it earlier, but some Mormons believe that the Apostasy happened quite quickly, with some doctrines being corrupted almost immediately (such as infant baptism and the Real Presence).

It is interesting to see the Real Presence being believed in from the beginning, in places as diverse and geographically separated as Antioch, Alexandria, India, Jerusalem, Rome, Ethiopia, Constantinople, Armenia, etc. Today, these groups are among the Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Churches.

I think you did mention that. Sorry, I didn’t remember. I guess I forget because there isn’t any one point that marks this “Great Apostasy” - as Parker mentioned once before, some Mormons believe that it was more of a “drifting away”, but that doesn’t jive with an immediate shift in a doctrine as important as the Eucharist.

 

[ParkerD]

I think I mentioned it earlier, but some Mormons believe that the Apostasy happened quite quickly, with some doctrines being corrupted almost immediately (such as infant baptism and the Real Presence).

It is interesting to see the Real Presence being believed in from the beginning, in places as diverse and geographically separated as Antioch, Alexandria, India, Jerusalem, Rome, Ethiopia, Constantinople, Armenia, etc. Today, these groups are among the Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Churches.

TheosisM and Jay,
I see the change in the writing of Ignatius, but if I remember correctly there has been some question as to whether there were two different people named Ignatius, and two different time periods potentially represented by writings of Ignatius. However, be that as it may, it appears that the person Ignatius did indeed have a different belief than what it appears to me that the apostles themselves taught. I don’t see that Clement clarified the issue in what he wrote.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM and Jay,
I see the change in the writing of Ignatius, but if I remember correctly there has been some question as to whether there were two different people named Ignatius, and two different time periods potentially represented by writings of Ignatius. However, be that as it may, it appears that the person Ignatius did indeed have a different belief than what it appears to me that the apostles themselves taught. I don’t see that Clement clarified the issue in what he wrote.

ParkerD,

Can you please cite the works of Ignatius where we can see the change in Eucharistic belief, compared to…what exactly (as in, what did the apostles themselves teach that is different)? I’m leaving for work in a few minutes, so I’ll respond tomorrow, thanks.