Conversion to Mormonism?

[Porknpie]

IWell…this story can go on forever, but I will try to list some of the many reasons why I become a convert to the Mormon Church when I was 21 years old:

Beautiful Theology

I’ll just focus on the point above. There is nothing beautiful about Mormon theology. In fact, the theology is such a departure from the apostolic faith, the faith taught by Christ to the apostles and then to their descendants, that Christianity rejects the LDS faith as being Christian. LDS theology was created by a man nearly 200 years ago with no proof, none whatsoever, of a ancient middle eastern people that migrated to the Americas. To this point, the American Indians are not descendants of this people, rather they are from Asia as genetic science has shown. Archeology, also a science, has failed to show that the LDS theology is true as there are no remains of this ancient people. No great temples, no elephants, no swords, no human remains, no customs or language passed on from an ancient middle eastern civilization. There is nothing on Hill Cumorah. No remains of a great battle of the ancients where the LDS Church has taught definitively that millions died.

There is nothing beautiful about a theology that says that the Church that Christ Established had a great apostasy. There is no evidence for this and no one in the LDS Church can place where and when this happened. No great apostasy…no reason for a restored Church.

What we do see is a Catholic Church in step with the teachings of Christ to the Apostles as reflected in both scripture and Tradition. No matter where the apostles went, no matter where they founded churches of faith, they taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as scripture so clearly describes in John 6. The LDS theology is in error: that Christ was either a very poor teacher or all of the apostles misunderstood him and taught their descendants in error. I’ll believe the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, who himself was taught by Christ over the anything Joseph Smith said, believed and taught 1,800 years later.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

I’ll take Justin Martyr’s words too over Joseph Smith.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

PnP

 

[PaulDupre1]

You bring up a questionable part of Mormon history. I am sure you are ware of the extensive history of the Catholic Church and yet you manage to swallow and accept it. I question the so called “scandals” of the Mormon Church, which in reality pales in comparison to the almost two thousand year scandals and history of the Catholic Church. I don’t think I need to go there. I am sure you are aware of it and you probably question parts of it too. You seem to be happy in the Catholic church, then you should stay there and bring your peace and love to those around you.

I prefer not to engage or respond to your accusations, specially that you already have a made up mind and I will not even attempt to change it.

The list I provided is just a few things that popped up in my mind. I could probably come up with hundreds or even thousands of reasons whey I am Mormon…but I can tell you that the spiritual happiness that I experienced and still do cannot be described with words…all the good and inspiration to be good and the love I acquired towards my fellowman came in developing my faith around Mormon Theology…can a bad tree bear good fruits?

Hi evanfaust,
You seem like a pleasant and reasonable person, so I will explain something to you and I hope you will think about it.

There have been a great many Catholics throughout our 2000 year history that have done bad things. Some of them were popes (the bishop of Rome) or other bishops. We accept that because we know that all of us have a fallen nature and all of us are subject to temptation. Many times we give in to that temptation. Some of our bishops and priests have given in to temptation and done dreadful things.

Here’s the difference:

When a Catholic clergyman sins, he knows he is sinning and that he is condemned by the scriptures and by the Church. He keeps his sins secret and hopes he will not be discovered. When he is discovered, he cowers in disgrace and we Catholics universally condemn his sinful behavior and are embarrassed by it.

In contrast, when the married Joseph Smith had affairs with teenage girls, when he slept with married women, when he promised exaltation to an entire family in exchange for their 14 year-old daughter to come to his bed, and lied to his wife Emma about all of it; when he was discovered did he cower in shame? No, he proclaimed that God had revealed to him that these things were the right things to do, and that others should do the same!

Joseph Smith called his adultery “The New and Everlasting Covenant” (the name that Jesus gave to His body and blood present in the Holy Eucharist). He established “the principle” of polygamy that was practiced By Mormons for many years (to the detriment and misery of countless women and children) and the “prophet” who did all this is revered as a god among the Mormons.

We Catholics acknowledge that some of us (even those in leadership positions) sin gravely. But we never hold them up as people to be glorified and imitated. We don’t sing hymns to them. And we certainly don’t try to cover up their sins the way the LDS church tries to cover the sins of its leaders.

That is the difference.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: Read D&C 132 and tell me: did Joseph Smith follow the rules of polygamy that he claimed had been revealed to him? Especially the part where the first wife has to give her consent before the husband can take an additional wife. Emma knew nothing of Joseph’s many “wives” until she caught Joseph in bed with one of them. Emma threw that woman down the stairs; as a result that woman lost the child (Joseph’s child) that she was carrying. Joseph married a girl and her sister (in violation of the Law of Moses). He also married a woman and her daughter (also in violation of the Law of Moses and just plain creepy).

This is your prophet???

Learn your history, then come back and preach to us who were once LDS, but learned the truth and so were set free!

 

[Marie5890]

You bring up a questionable part of Mormon history. I am sure you are ware of the extensive history of the Catholic Church and yet you manage to swallow and accept it. I question the so called “scandals” of the Mormon Church, which in reality pales in comparison to the almost two thousand year scandals and history of the Catholic Church. I don’t think I need to go there. I am sure you are aware of it and you probably question parts of it too. You seem to be happy in the Catholic church, then you should stay there and bring your peace and love to those around you.

I prefer not to engage or respond to your accusations, specially that you already have a made up mind and I will not even attempt to change it.

The list I provided is just a few things that popped up in my mind. I could probably come up with hundreds or even thousands of reasons whey I am Mormon…but I can tell you that the spiritual happiness that I experienced and still do cannot be described with words…all the good and inspiration to be good and the love I acquired towards my fellowman came in developing my faith around Mormon Theology…can a bad tree bear good fruits?

Evan, should you ever want to have an intelligent discussion over the histories of both the Catholic and Mormon church, I hope you will find the desire to do so.

There are several of us former Mormons here, and we have looked at both histories clearly and squarely. We arent afraid of either, and are willing to discuss in great length and detail both. With facts.

 

[Stephen168]

When I was in the military, a couple of friends were mormon.

One of the girls suppposedly knew the “Osmonds”, and babysat one or two of them. The other was a military dentist.

They invited me to one of their Sunday services, I believe in hopes of getting me on the conversion track.

Even being half drunk from the night before, I knew it wasn’t for me. First of all, it was waaaaay too noisy for being that early in the morning. Having a grandfather that was a Presbyterian minister might have had something to do with logic kicking in, even in that state…lol

Once out of that situation, I started doing my homework on mormonism, and realized I dodged a bullet that was worse than I would have faced on the battlefield.

I’m a cradle Catholic. When I was 12 (1968) I moved to a small town and asked a few classmates where the local Boy Scout troop was located. They invited me to theirs held at the Mormon Church. While attending for over 5 years, I learned about the Book of Mormon. Scientist were already saying the Book of Mormon story could not be true. If Joseph Smith lied about that, then why take anything he claimed to be true? It was this experience that inoculated me from ever taking Mormonism seriously.

 

[Stephen168]

Well…this story can go on forever, but I will try to list some of the many reasons why I become a convert to the Mormon Church when I was 21 years old:

Beautiful Theology

The Mormon Theology that I’m aware of is completely irrational.

I prefer not to engage or respond to your accusations, specially that you already have a made up mind and I will not even attempt to change it.

Peter, the first Catholic Pope, told us that we should defend our faith. I think all Mormons can offer is that it feels good. While as a Catholic, it is easy to defend our faith because it is so reasonable. It all fits together. I will admit that there is a lot to know and at the age of 21, I didn’t know much, but it has been a great experience learning about Christ and his Catholic Church.

 

[twopekinguys]

Hi evanfaust,
You seem like a pleasant and reasonable person, so I will explain something to you and I hope you will think about it.

There have been a great many Catholics throughout our 2000 year history that have done bad things. Some of them were popes (the bishop of Rome) or other bishops. We accept that because we know that all of us have a fallen nature and all of us are subject to temptation. Many times we give in to that temptation. Some of our bishops and priests have given in to temptation and done dreadful things.

Here’s the difference:

When a Catholic clergyman sins, he knows he is sinning and that he is condemned by the scriptures and by the Church. He keeps his sins secret and hopes he will not be discovered. When he is discovered, he cowers in disgrace and we Catholics universally condemn his sinful behavior and are embarrassed by it.

In contrast, when the married Joseph Smith had affairs with teenage girls, when he slept with married women, when he promised exaltation to an entire family in exchange for their 14 year-old daughter to come to his bed, and lied to his wife Emma about all of it; when he was discovered did he cower in shame? No, he proclaimed that God had revealed to him that these things were the right things to do, and that others should do the same!

Joseph Smith called his adultery “The New and Everlasting Covenant” (the name that Jesus gave to His body and blood present in the Holy Eucharist). He established “the principle” of polygamy that was practiced By Mormons for many years (to the detriment and misery of countless women and children) and the “prophet” who did all this is revered as a god among the Mormons.

We Catholics acknowledge that some of us (even those in leadership positions) sin gravely. But we never hold them up as people to be glorified and imitated. We don’t sing hymns to them. And we certainly don’t try to cover up their sins the way the LDS church tries to cover the sins of its leaders.

That is the difference.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: Read D&C 132 and tell me: did Joseph Smith follow the rules of polygamy that he claimed had been revealed to him? Especially the part where the first wife has to give her consent before the husband can take an additional wife. Emma knew nothing of Joseph’s many “wives” until she caught Joseph in bed with one of them. Emma threw that woman down the stairs; as a result that woman lost the child (Joseph’s child) that she was carrying. Joseph married a girl and her sister (in violation of the Law of Moses). He also married a woman and her daughter (also in violation of the Law of Moses and just plain creepy).

This is your prophet???

Learn your history, then come back and preach to us who were once LDS, but learned the truth and so were set free!

Do we want to throw in how many false/failed prophecies smith had?

 

[gazelam]

There is nothing beautiful about a theology that says that the Church that Christ Established had a great apostasy. There is no evidence for this and no one in the LDS Church can place where and when this happened. No great apostasy…no reason for a restored Church.

What we do see is a Catholic Church in step with the teachings of Christ to the Apostles as reflected in both scripture and Tradition. No matter where the apostles went, no matter where they founded churches of faith, they taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as scripture so clearly describes in John 6. The LDS theology is in error: that Christ was either a very poor teacher or all of the apostles misunderstood him and taught their descendants in error. I’ll believe the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, who himself was taught by Christ over the anything Joseph Smith said, believed and taught 1,800 years later.

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.”

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, “The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament.”

Jung, C. G., “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass”, in Campbell, J., ed., The Mysteries, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955,) pp. 280-281.

 

[twopekinguys]

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.”

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, “The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament.”

Jung, C. G., “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass”, in Campbell, J., ed., The Mysteries, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955,) pp. 280-281.

Edwin Hatch was Anglican, so, that skews his views quite a bit. Especially when you consider that the book was made from his edited lectures, and was published after his death. Since they were “edited” after his death, you really can’t rely on them now can you?

Carl Jung was a practicing clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life’s work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts

Not really a theologian now is he? He was more noted for dream analysis than anything else.

Wiki can be your friend.

 

[Porknpie]

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.”

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, “The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament.”

Jung, C. G., “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass”, in Campbell, J., ed., The Mysteries, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955,) pp. 280-281.

The faith passed on from Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to their descendants included the mystery of the Eucharist, the turning of wine and bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This was prefigured in the OT Manna, whereby heavenly food was eaten but the people still died. The NT fulfillment is much greater: heavenly food is eaten but those that eat it will live forever. The language of John 6 is not symbolic, and there is nothing about drinking water anywhere in scripture nor did the apostles teach this where they evangelized. Wherever the apostles went, they established churches that believed in the Real Presence. This includes all the Catholic communities in Israel, Syria, Turkey, Africa, Italy, Spain and India (where St Thomas went).

53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

So why did the early Jewish converts to Christianity so readily believe in the Eucharist when the drinking of blood was prohibited in the OT? Brandt Pitre has an excellent book on the subject and there is a **youtube video here **that explains why.

PnP

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.”

Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, “The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament.”

Jung, C. G., “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass”, in Campbell, J., ed., The Mysteries, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955,) pp. 280-281.

Thank you for this post.

I’m not sure I really buy this. Principally because aside from what I think is a sound biblical foundation, the early Church Fathers seem to be in agreement. As far back as St. Ignatius, a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, himself a disciple of the Apostle John, refers to the real and substantial nature of the Eucharist.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (dated between 80-110 AD)

I mean, what earlier belief is there among Christians than this concerning Holy Communion? Do either of the men you referred to give examples? I’d greatly appreciate it.

 

[debbie_h]

Hi evanfaust,
You seem like a pleasant and reasonable person, so I will explain something to you and I hope you will think about it.

There have been a great many Catholics throughout our 2000 year history that have done bad things. Some of them were popes (the bishop of Rome) or other bishops. We accept that because we know that all of us have a fallen nature and all of us are subject to temptation. Many times we give in to that temptation. Some of our bishops and priests have given in to temptation and done dreadful things.

Here’s the difference:

When a Catholic clergyman sins, he knows he is sinning and that he is condemned by the scriptures and by the Church. He keeps his sins secret and hopes he will not be discovered. When he is discovered, he cowers in disgrace and we Catholics universally condemn his sinful behavior and are embarrassed by it.

In contrast, when the married Joseph Smith had affairs with teenage girls, when he slept with married women, when he promised exaltation to an entire family in exchange for their 14 year-old daughter to come to his bed, and lied to his wife Emma about all of it; when he was discovered did he cower in shame? No, he proclaimed that God had revealed to him that these things were the right things to do, and that others should do the same!

Joseph Smith called his adultery “The New and Everlasting Covenant” (the name that Jesus gave to His body and blood present in the Holy Eucharist). He established “the principle” of polygamy that was practiced By Mormons for many years (to the detriment and misery of countless women and children) and the “prophet” who did all this is revered as a god among the Mormons.

We Catholics acknowledge that some of us (even those in leadership positions) sin gravely. But we never hold them up as people to be glorified and imitated. We don’t sing hymns to them. And we certainly don’t try to cover up their sins the way the LDS church tries to cover the sins of its leaders.

That is the difference.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: Read D&C 132 and tell me: did Joseph Smith follow the rules of polygamy that he claimed had been revealed to him? Especially the part where the first wife has to give her consent before the husband can take an additional wife. Emma knew nothing of Joseph’s many “wives” until she caught Joseph in bed with one of them. Emma threw that woman down the stairs; as a result that woman lost the child (Joseph’s child) that she was carrying. Joseph married a girl and her sister (in violation of the Law of Moses). He also married a woman and her daughter (also in violation of the Law of Moses and just plain creepy).

This is your prophet???

Learn your history, then come back and preach to us who were once LDS, but learned the truth and so were set free!

Excellently written, I couldn’t have put it any better myself!

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you for this post.

I’m not sure I really buy this.

And neither did the early Catholic Church (St Ignatius included). From the catholic encyclopedia on Gnosticism.

It is striking that the two earliest champions of Christianity against Gnosticism — Hegesippus and Irenaeus — brought out so clearly the method of warfare which alone was possible, but which also alone sufficed to secure the victory in the conflict, a method which Tertullian some years later scientifically explained in his “De Praescriptione”. Both Hegesippus and Irenaeus proved that Gnostic doctrines did not belong to that deposit of faith which was taught by the true succession of bishops in the primary sees of Christendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of the Bishops of Rome, from Peter to the Roman bishop of their day; as Gnosticism was not taught by that Church with which the Christians everywhere must agree, it stood self-condemned.

Here’s what St. Irenaeus said in refuting Gnosticism.

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

And Tertullian said the same against Marcion.

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

The beauty of Catholic theology is that we can trust that Christ taught his apostles without error and that the apostles faithfully taught their descendants what Christ taught them. In doing so, we see that the One faith spread across the world with a consistent belief in the Real Presence. No where do we find a Church founded by the apostles believing anything else. Within the Church founded by Christ there was no debate on the Eucharistic meal being symbolic or water being used instead of wine. That would have made the OT prototype, the manna, greater than the NT fulfillment. And that’s just bad theology.

PnP

 

[gazelam]

Thank you for this post.

I’m not sure I really buy this. Principally because aside from what I think is a sound biblical foundation, the early Church Fathers seem to be in agreement. As far back as St. Ignatius, a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, himself a disciple of the Apostle John, refers to the real and substantial nature of the Eucharist.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (dated between 80-110 AD)

I mean, what earlier belief is there among Christians than this concerning Holy Communion? Do either of the men you referred to give examples? I’d greatly appreciate it.

You are welcome. I for one am at best an amateur armchair internet theologian and know where to find a few quotes here and there that support my belief. I don’t always have the time to plow through the entire works from where these quotes are taken. Regarding the Ignatius quote, it doesn’t add additional clarity to the meaning of John 6. It just uses the same type of verbiage.

Ignatius says “they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

John 6:56 (KJV) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

There is no reason either can’t refer to symbolic eating of the Lord’s flesh. LDS do believe in the necessity of symbolically partaking of the Lord’s flesh and blood weekly.

I hope this helps.

 

[Porknpie]

You are welcome. I for one am at best an amateur armchair internet theologian and know where to find a few quotes here and there that support my belief. ** I don’t always have the time to plow through the entire works from where these quotes are taken.**

That’s a problem. Better to log off CAF (for a short while) and read the early church writings. When one does take the time to read what the early Church wrote, one finds the teachings of the Catholic Church, specifically all seven Catholic sacraments, but belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist especially. Read the early writings of the Church and one can not find an apostasy, let alone a great apostasy. No reason for Joseph Smith to restore something that was never lost. Also, one does not have to read the “entire works”. William Jurgens does a nice job of summarizing the writings of the ECF in his book "Faith of the Fathers".

Regarding the Ignatius quote, it doesn’t add additional clarity to the meaning of John 6. It just uses the same type of verbiage.

Ignatius says “they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

John 6:56 (KJV) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

There is no reason either can’t refer to symbolic eating of the Lord’s flesh. LDS do believe in the necessity of symbolically partaking of the Lord’s flesh and blood weekly.

I hope this helps.

Actually there are a lot of reasons but two of them foremost.

1. the language of John 6 is not symbolic.

55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

Quiet the opposite, Christ is graphically describing that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood (we receive his resurrected body and blood, soul and divinity). His description is so graphic that

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”

And

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

If Christ was speaking symbolically, no one would have left him.

1. The Church universally believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The words of St Ignatius reflect this and whereever the apostles went to evangelize, the Churches they started believed this. All twelve apostles, plus St Paul taught the same. None of them taught a symbolic meal as held by the LDS and none of them used water instead of wine.

For me, I’ll trust the consistent teachings of the Church in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries (and for 2000 years) over new gospel invented in the 16th century and adopted by Joseph Smith.

PnP

 

[HojaVerde]

You are welcome. I for one am at best an amateur armchair internet theologian and know where to find a few quotes here and there that support my belief. I don’t always have the time to plow through the entire works from where these quotes are taken. Regarding the Ignatius quote, it doesn’t add additional clarity to the meaning of John 6. It just uses the same type of verbiage.

Ignatius says “they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

John 6:56 (KJV) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

There is no reason either can’t refer to symbolic eating of the Lord’s flesh. LDS do believe in the necessity of symbolically partaking of the Lord’s flesh and blood weekly.

I hope this helps.

Hi Gazelam,

Note that Ignatius says “they do not accept that…”. It wouldn’t be a problem for them to accept the Eucharist if it was symbolic.

The same applies to Jesus’ words. Most disciples said “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:60) and stopped following Jesus (John 6:66). I don’t see a reason to refuse such a symbolic doctrine. So if it was a symbolic Eucharist they would have accepted it.

Symbolic Eucharist is a much easier doctrine to accept than the Real-Presence Eucharist. Indeed for many people have been difficult to accept.

We are the Body of Christ, so that we have to receive His Body and Blood somehow. Furthermore, as a Body of Christ, we need a soul, that’s the reason we also receive His Holy Spirit (not symbolically).

Think of that! And have a good day!

 

[gazelam]

Edwin Hatch was Anglican, so, that skews his views quite a bit. Especially when you consider that the book was made from his edited lectures, and was published after his death. Since they were “edited” after his death, you really can’t rely on them now can you?

Carl Jung was a practicing clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life’s work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts

Not really a theologian now is he? He was more noted for dream analysis than anything else.

Wiki can be your friend.

Sure sounds like an attempt to “kill the messenger”…

 

[FabiusMaximus]

You are welcome. I for one am at best an amateur armchair internet theologian and know where to find a few quotes here and there that support my belief. I don’t always have the time to plow through the entire works from where these quotes are taken. Regarding the Ignatius quote, it doesn’t add additional clarity to the meaning of John 6. It just uses the same type of verbiage.

Ignatius says “they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

John 6:56 (KJV) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

There is no reason either can’t refer to symbolic eating of the Lord’s flesh. LDS do believe in the necessity of symbolically partaking of the Lord’s flesh and blood weekly.

I hope this helps.

The issue for me here is that Ignatius doesn’t seem to leave room for interpretation. In fact, he seems to hammer home the point by saying*** “the same flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” *** Neither the Catholic Church nor the LDS Church teach that Christ symbolically rose from the dead. If he’s tying Holy Communion with the resurrection, then he’s certainly referring to his body and blood being physically there.

I also think John 6 leaves no room for equivocation because Jesus makes explicit reference to his flesh, while in other passages, he’s clearly being symbolic. Compare John 15:1-4 where he calls himself the ‘vine’:
*
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” *

Or with the ‘temple’:
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
*
‘They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.’* (John 2:21)

Both passages in John offer clarification. But compare it with John 6, and Jesus reiterates his “eat my flesh” concept.

What do you think? What suggests to you it is symbolic?

Thanks

 

[twopekinguys]

Sure sounds like an attempt to “kill the messenger”…

I have no idea where you would get that. Merely showing the flaws in your argument.

Just sayin…

 

[Porknpie]

The issue for me here is that Ignatius doesn’t seem to leave room for interpretation. In fact, he seems to hammer home the point by saying*** “the same flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” *** Neither the Catholic Church nor the LDS Church teach that Christ symbolically rose from the dead. If he’s tying Holy Communion with the resurrection, then he’s certainly referring to his body and blood being physically there.

**I also think John 6 leaves no room for equivocation because Jesus makes explicit reference to his flesh, while in other passages, he’s clearly being symbolic. **Compare John 15:1-4 where he calls himself the ‘vine’:
*
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” *

Or with the ‘temple’:
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
*
‘They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.’* (John 2:21)

Both passages in John offer clarification. But compare it with John 6, and Jesus reiterates his “eat my flesh” concept.

What do you think? What suggests to you it is symbolic?

Thanks

Also, the disciples left him because they took him literally. And because Jesus was being literal, he did not stop them and as he did many times when they were confused, clarify his teaching (that he was speaking symbolically).

The Catholic Eucharistic celebration was prophesied in Malachi 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

A perfect offering (Christ himself, body, blood soul and Divinity), in every place (world-wide), all day long (sun rising to setting) with incense.

The Catholic Mass.

PnP

(On the map below, wherever there was a Church founded by the apostles, they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And all of them used bread and wine)

 

[evanfaust]

That’s a problem. Better to log off CAF (for a short while) and read the early church writings. When one does take the time to read what the early Church wrote, one finds the teachings of the Catholic Church, specifically all seven Catholic sacraments, but belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist especially. Read the early writings of the Church and one can not find an apostasy, let alone a great apostasy. No reason for Joseph Smith to restore something that was never lost. Also, one does not have to read the “entire works”. William Jurgens does a nice job of summarizing the writings of the ECF in his book "Faith of the Fathers".

Actually there are a lot of reasons but two of them foremost.

1. the language of John 6 is not symbolic.

55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

Quiet the opposite, Christ is graphically describing that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood (we receive his resurrected body and blood, soul and divinity). His description is so graphic that

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”

And

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

If Christ was speaking symbolically, no one would have left him.

1. The Church universally believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The words of St Ignatius reflect this and whereever the apostles went to evangelize, the Churches they started believed this. All twelve apostles, plus St Paul taught the same. None of them taught a symbolic meal as held by the LDS and none of them used water instead of wine.

For me, I’ll trust the consistent teachings of the Church in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries (and for 2000 years) over new gospel invented in the 16th century and adopted by Joseph Smith.

PnP

If Christ was speaking literally, then how would you explain the following verses:

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Does it literally mean that when we eat of the bread of Christ we will never be hungry again? Does it mean that when we drink of his cup we will never be thirsty again? …And by the way, being thirsty implies “water” and not wine, which is another argument in favor of symbolism.

The entire meaning is metaphorical, symbolic and spiritual…no implication of literal meaning here.

Some Jews and disciples were shocked of his words because eating blood was not accepted according to the laws of Moses.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Does it literally mean that if we do not partake of the bread of Christ we will have no life in us? Of course “life in you” means spiritual life and partaking the bread is also a spiritual meaning, which is accepting the Christ and his gospel. He clarifies the spiritual meaning of his words even further when he says in verse 63

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.