Do LDS hold to "Sola Fide" or "Tradition Plus Scripture"

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

I have a better proof the words in ruby text are the words of Jesushimself which in my opinion trump the Early Church Fathers with their arcane notions. Note also in that first eucharistic meal there was no real presence:

19 Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God’s new covenant to save you-an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.*
21 “But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me. 22 For I, the Son of Man, must die since it is part of God’s plan. But how terrible it will be for my betrayer!” 23 Then the disciples began to ask each other which of them would ever do such a thing.
24 And they began to argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the coming Kingdom. (Luke 22 NLT)

Regards,

Asa

It’s interesting that you found a translation that used the word “token”. Why wouldn’t a LDS use the KJV? Very odd. Anyway, the KJV puts it:
19: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, **This is my body ** which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20: Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

The RSV tells it this way:
19: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “**This is my body ** which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
20: And likewise the cup after supper, saying, **"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. **

Looking at the original Greek, the word “token” doesn’t exist and was obviously added by the translator. A translator with an obvious agenda.

What do the other Gospel’s say about this? All from the LDS Bible, the KJV:

Gospel of Mark:
22: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23: And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24: And he said unto them, **This is my blood ** of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Gospel of Matthew:
26: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; **this is my body. ** 27: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28: For **this is my blood ** of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Gospel of John:
53: 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.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

I already gave you Paul’s words on the matter, which also support Catholic doctrine. It’s no wonder the ECF’s had this understanding of the Real Presence. It could not be LESS arcane.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Tmaque:

I am thankful. The Catholic church teaches the same thing. People can worship who, where, or what they may. But, what has that to do with the subject?

Was does the truth or falsity of the doctrine have to do with how hard it is to swallow? I agree it’s hard to accept, yet I accepted it because it’s true, I had no choice at that point.

You seem to be insinuating that I left the LDS Church because I was “unable to meet the obligations of church membership”. You would be totally incorrect. I submit that it’s more difficult to be a faithful Catholic than to be a faithful LDS for many reasons that I don’t want to list here. There is nothing easy about being a faithful Catholic.

I have no problem calling LDS, or JW’s for that matter, non-mainstream “Christians”, although most Catholics in this forum would disagree with my terminology. But, I don’t know what this has to do with the subject of transubstantiation.

Freedon in religion is very important especially when we are considering whether or not the authority/teaching of the church is with scripture or with men.

I agree religious belief in this secular world is not easy, whatever the label, especially when Christians are divided about key teachings about the nature of God and the scope/access to salvation in Jesus Christ. What I meant by ‘hard to swallow’ is the notion of transubstantiation, not the verity of the presence of God in ones life through the Comforter, The Holy Ghost.

Transubstantiation is in my opinon a novel spin on teaching in the Gospel of St. John, it is a pity that Christians did not put greater attention to finding ways in actually loving one another as Jesus loved the world, especially the sinner or those whom we might consider lost. Christians tend to be very inward looking, clannish and petty.

I am sure that your reasons for leaving the LDS church are genuine.

God is Love,

Asa

 

[majick275]

Romans 3:23

*for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
*

Romans 5:12

*Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— *

Thank God that Christians have Christ

 

[ben_dy]

Asa Ben Judah:

P.S. the RCC in England have recently published a teachnig document “The Gift of Scripture” in which it is argued that not everything written in the Bible is historically true. I am looking forward to reading it. I will not take the interpretation of the popular press too seriously

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1811332,00.html

Please be reassured that I Love you,

Asa

That article has the following quote:

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

With which I completely agree: the headline, though, is a bit sensationalized - Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible. Makes one long for the Times of old…

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Robert in SD:

Doctrine is always binding, while theological conclusions may or may not be binding, depending upon the context of the statement. From Chris J’s last post, it seems that there is some confusion as to when the LDS Church leadership utters a doctrine which must be accepted, and when the LDS Church utters a theological conclusion that is mere speculation about the divinity. Which begs the question - How can you trust that a prophet is speaking God’s word as opposed to his own opinion about what God’s word may be?

Wow, I let this thread slip too much. Not going to read all the posts, though, there are too many. I’ll reply to this though, and hope it hasn’t already been dealt with.

Yeah, you could put it like that.

As for examining the validity of a prophet’s statement, remember that we can all be prophets. If one of us says something about doctrine should we ignore it just because that person’s not a GA? I don’t think so, because maybe that person has had revelation and knows what she’s talking about. On the other hand, should we accept everything a general authority mentions to us or even to others? I don’t see it written anywhere in scripture where it says we should. We should certainly be more inclined to consider it, but to accept it blindly is kind of dumb.

So then how would I decide? About 2 weeks ago we had an east coast LDS Education Conference at Harvard. It was lots of fun, and one of the speakers talked about how we can recognise the Holy Ghost, or basically how to differentiate when God’s talking to us, when we’re just thinking / feeling something auto-produced, or even when Satan is communicating to us. We should ask questions to help us decide, such as:

“Is this important?” Some things just don’t matter to us, or to anyone right now. If I get a sudden inspiration in my head that tells me that Kolob is really Pluto, or if my stake president tells me that God looks kind of like Bill Cosby I should ask myself that question. This especially applies if we do not hold the position of GA in the Church.

“Does this communicate some kind of intelligence?” Maybe the information isn’t doctrinally important, but it helps us feel comforted, such as if we feel that a departed one is happy where she is. Maybe a leader can feel inspired to tell us something that doesn’t really make any sense to him, but it helps us. Then, when in a church someone gets up and acts possessed, jumping up and down and shouting and falling down, we should ask ourselves if that’s really productive. The lector told us the story of a girl in his seminary class who was at home alone one night, and as she was watching TV she heard a voice inside her head tell her, “Turn off the TV.” So she turned it off. Then it said, “Get out of your chair.” She got out of her chair. It said, “Go! Get under your bed!” So she got under her bed. Then it said, “Get out from under your bed!” She did that. “Run into the backyard!” She did that, and then the following instructions, which she did, were, “Run around in a circle three times. Go back inside. Sit down. Turn on the TV again.”

“Is the person who received it worthy of getting such revelation?” Sometimes very not-so-good people feel entitled to direct communication from God. So if a brother that has been recently ex-communicated for murder directs all the members of the ward to come and follow him instead, those members should know better.

“Does it comply with scripture?” If such a command goes against official revelation then it is not of God. A man once went to his bishop and explained to him that he had felt the direction of the Spirit to go and kill his son because that’s what had happened with Abraham, and it was to test his faith. Afterall, in the scriptures there are exceptions to “thou shalt not kill.” The bishop answered, “Leave the exceptions to the prophets.” So the general rule is to keep the commandments and believe the scriptures. If we get to the point that Moses and Nephi were at we will know it.

“Does it go against the order of the Church?” Is God telling us to go against the decisions of our priesthood leaders? The revelation is for us and within our stewardship only.

Generally the same thing goes for when the GAs speak. We can ask ourselves the same questions. My general rule is that if my priesthood leader is asking me to do something that is in accordance with scripture, I don’t hesitate. If, however, he is talking doctrine, I analyze it and consider it. I often believe it, but sometimes I don’t. I don’t think that makes me bad. It all depends on the situation. There is no solid rule to say how we decide what is revelation and what isn’t (outside of the official canon).