Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[rock17]

When logic is used as the sole basis for religious beliefs, then prayer would take a “back seat” and real communication, two-way, with God would take a “back seat” to logic. Heartfelt, unrehearsed, non-memorized prayer should definitely not take a back seat to logic. And if tradition sets up a monopoly position, then it defies logic that God who values free will choice tremendously would set up a monopoly position without there being more than one real, logical choice for each person to be able to make.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.= logic
C. S. Lewis

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
C. S. Lewis

The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts.
C. S. Lewis

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
Laurence J. Peter

Fear is a disease that eats away at logic and makes man inhuman.
Marian Anderson

These are some pretty good quotes from some pretty smart people, at the Catholic colleges they teach philosophy and how to think they teach that it is possible to know God through reason and prayer I am not sure what is taught in lds schools but i find it distubing that after all the work that the greats like Thomas Aquinas and Saint Agustine and so forth that you will not even show respect for their life work, have you read the Summa Theologica? Very logical and philosophical. Using logic is a form of prayer you are thinking about God and his glory and trying to understand him better prayer does not take the back seat.

Rock17,

At the time John had the vision he had, then he was the lead living apostle so that would mean he was the “worldly” leader of the church Jesus had organized. Peter had already been killed by that point in time.

Yea unless the Christians came together and declared that St. Linus was the new leader which i can prove that he was Bishop of Rome after the time of Peter and you cannot prove that it did not happen so innocent until proven guilty right?
Probably the Anabaptists, just guessing.

So you would guess that you would side with a radical protestant group from 16th century when I asked you about right after Peter? The anabaptist where against wedding rings and taking oaths and holding politcal office because it was to mainstream christian are mormons against these things?T

he Catholic church appears to have adapted itself to be more pleasing to Pharisees converts, it appears to me.

I could go into changing to be more pleasing for a national government and to get statehood but i won’t.

Isaiah wrote, “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.” (Isaiah 26:3)

My experience is that there really is “perfect peace” in this life, through prayer, repentance, forgiveness, and knowing the voice of the Good Shepherd and the voice of the Comforter.

But that is all to get to heaven am i right? to know God so you can be with him enternally?

The effects of tradition are not always good, and often are not good.

The best source of wisdom about the Bible is to read the Bible and pray about its meaning, with heartfelt prayer using one’s own words. I think a Catholic does better to use the Douay Rheims translation than a more “modern” one.

I do use the Douay Rheims and it is a very good translation and where would we be without tradition? I mean is that not the reason you beleive the Church fell away because it was not following the tradition set out by Christ as you say?

He taught that He would still be with us. He is still with us, as a living, guiding Good Shepherd–but one must listen for His voice, His call, His guidance that He Himself gives person-to-person. That is the difference between the Shepherd and a “steward”.

So there is no place for a steward?
’
A wish of peace to you, Rock17. (By the way, “stone” and “rock” would be understood to be the same thing.)

and no stone and rock can mean many different meaning through translation and so forth if it was meant to mean rock in the sense it was used when Jesus was talking to Peter they would have used the same word and would have gotten the same translation.

God bless.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
When logic is used as the sole basis for religious beliefs, then prayer would take a “back seat” and real communication, two-way, with God would take a “back seat” to logic. Heartfelt, unrehearsed, non-memorized prayer should definitely not take a back seat to logic. And if tradition sets up a monopoly position, then it defies logic that God who values free will choice tremendously would set up a monopoly position without there being more than one real, logical choice for each person to be able to make.

Tradition, especially oral tradition gave us the Holy Bible.
It is also what has preserved the Catholic Church for 2000 years. Man made tradition would be another story. Apostolic Tradition is from Jesus so it is always good Tradition. For instance Today I am going to Mass to break bread with the Community of believers. Jesus will be at center stage offering Himself, hunility, peace and love to get us through another week. To be the best that we can be. To serve others.

As a Catholic I have the flexibility to pray daily spontaneously to God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit , More of an entering into the Conversation of the Holy Trinity. I converse with all three knowing they are One together, the Holy Spirit always prompts my prayer, to be pointed to the love between the Father and the Son. It happens during each day. The Mass enters me into a deeper form of prayer in a very unique way. When I am in the state of a memorized prayer such as the our father it gives me the ability for more spontaneously prayer. The Blessed Sacrament chapel, within this unique presence of Jesus I can just let my prayer life soar freely. More listening I suppose than praying. I find this to be a great time for listening. But you cannot go in to it thinking I will pray or listen. You go in empty in order to be filled. We have so many beautiful Catholic prayers for almost every occasion. All to give glory to the Most Holy Trinity. I would say that in my conversations with God Jesus stands out most. Yet most the time my prayer starts with Father. This happens naturally for me. When I fail, and I do often, I see him vividly, He always has a smile, gives me his hand and says “lets keep moving on”

 

[catholic-rcia]

*Parker: “When logic is used as the sole basis for religious beliefs, then prayer would take a “back seat” and real communication, two-way, with God would take a “back seat” to logic.” *

*As one growing up I Went from believing in Mormonism to not believing in it. It was my contact with other Christians, not Catholic that placed many doubts in my mind. I stuck up for the faith at first. But then I would look into what they were saying to me. A lot of it historical claims made. The Adam God theory etc. I don’t remember any contact with Catholics during those years. My girlfriend was Catholic but we did not discuss religion. It was all about us at that time. It was a very good time. I came to the Catholic Church many years later. It put me on fire for Jesus, still am 13 years later. The whole Apostasy theory that Mormons claim became more apparent in me rather than on the outside of me. I am a sinner….Jesus saves sinners like me. I see this as the whole motion behind His Church. We are not better than the others, not a better breed of people. You cannot build a better Church from the fallen Catholic Church. When your down your down. Its all up from there. Jesus’s center does not move. *

Because we know God as Trinity a Christians prayer life ascends in the Holy Spirit through Christ to the **Father. So I would say more of a 4 way conversation than a two way conversation. The Saints in heaven through the love that is the Holy Spirit are forever encouraging us to have these conversations with God. **

*This would be my experience with logic. *
*Prayer to the Saints / Asking them for support *

*Logic set in for me on this subject 13 years ago as studied the Catholic faith. I had already spent time at my mothers grave, my grandmothers and grandfathers graves, my brother Michaels grave and so forth. I always have had a connection with them, even though they are not on this earth so it was easy for me to understand what the Holy Family of God is. Because of the Communion of Saints I feel more connected to the One body of Christ. Prayer in these things led me to this kind of logic. There is only One Body of Christ. You cannot go outside of it, we are all in His body together. Encouraging one another. *

As to confession I can not think of two many other gifts that are as great as this one given to Christ people. All I knew about is in my past life was that is was wrong, this is what I was once taught. In the movies you would see a really evil person go in, maybe after he killed 7 people then be absolved or not. But it did not take me long to see the true beauty in a good honest confession to Jesus within the embrace of His Church. Very freeing. I used logic on this as well, then through actually utilizing this Sacrament I found the heart of Jesus, His mercy and love for me. In a very unique way. The less steps away in shame the better. He always wants us to turn to Him.

*Logic turned me to the reality of the Church that Christ established. Most of what I already believed about God was discovered in the Catholic Church. Epiphany after epiphany. *

 

[Stephen168]

When logic is used as the sole basis for religious beliefs, then prayer would take a “back seat” and real communication, two-way, with God would take a “back seat” to logic. Heartfelt, unrehearsed, non-memorized prayer should definitely not take a back seat to logic. And if tradition sets up a monopoly position, then it defies logic that God who values free will choice tremendously would set up a monopoly position without there being more than one real, logical choice for each person to be able to make.

Your are right; but Logic is not the sole basis for Catholicism, Catholics engage in a heartfelt, unrehearsed, non-memorized prayer, and Tradition does not hold a monopoly position; therefore you did not describe Catholicism.

Heartfelt prayer does not conflict with logic. Logic does not conflict with truth. Truth (tradition) does not change. The Catholic Church is true, it is logical and the truth does not change.

Joseph Smith changed Mormonism from a monotheistic religion to a polytheistic religion. Mormons claim to be monotheistic while believing in many gods, but they can not explain it logically. Logic does not conflict with truth.

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam,

It would make little sense for us to discuss John 6, which I am very familiar with, as I have discussed those verses before with others and it is a wall.

Jesus Christ is the One Savior, the One King of Israel, the One Rock of salvation, the one Good Shepherd, the one Messiah, the Holy One of Israel, the Son of God. He is also Jehovah, which point of understanding was obviously not accepted by the Jewish leaders and is still not understood by those who half-heartedly teach that Jesus is Jehovah as well as being the Son of God and the Son of David, yet is said to be not separate and distinct from His Father.

My religion is Christian based on what the Bible teaches a Christian is, but is certainly not accepting of the Nicene creed.

But your statement about “Christian” says far more about the person making the statement than about the person they know nothing about other than that Latter-day Saints believe in the Son of God as the true and literal Son of God, and believe in following Him daily. (I realize it’s something you have been taught to say–but you could read the Bible about the subject and make your own independent decision instead of following what you have been taught to say–though I realize that is a pretty sizable “could”.)

A wish of peace and joy to you, Miriam.

Peace and joy to you as well. I just love the little snide remarks you post just before you wish someone peace and joy. /s

Your are right; but Logic is not the sole basis for Catholicism, Catholics engage in a heartfelt, unrehearsed, non-memorized prayer, and Tradition does not hold a monopoly position; therefore you did not describe Catholicism.

Heartfelt prayer does not conflict with logic. Logic does not conflict with truth. Truth (tradition) does not change. The Catholic Church is true, it is logical and the truth does not change.

Joseph Smith changed Mormonism from a monotheistic religion to a polytheistic religion. Mormons claim to be monotheistic while believing in many gods, but they can not explain it logically. Logic does not conflict with truth.

It’s truth that Momonism is denying. They say they are Christian but deny Christian teaching. And they have also taught that they are not Christian. So, which is it?

 

[ParkerD]

and no stone and rock can mean many different meaning through translation and so forth if it was meant to mean rock in the sense it was used when Jesus was talking to Peter they would have used the same word and would have gotten the same translation.

God bless.

Rock17,

The words “upon this rock” can be made to mean Peter, or they can be understood to mean the same Rock that was very familiar to Peter and the apostles which was the Rock of salvation. So, we each are given a choice about that–a free will choice, which is helped the more we are familiar also with the Old Testament and thus with Peter’s frame of reference and with the Savior’s methods of teaching which also referred back to the prophets of the Old Testament so many times.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.= logic
C. S. Lewis

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
C. S. Lewis

The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts.
C. S. Lewis

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
Laurence J. Peter

Fear is a disease that eats away at logic and makes man inhuman.
Marian Anderson

These are some pretty good quotes from some pretty smart people, at the Catholic colleges they teach philosophy and how to think they teach that it is possible to know God through reason and prayer I am not sure what is taught in lds schools but i find it distubing that after all the work that the greats like Thomas Aquinas and Saint Agustine and so forth that you will not even show respect for their life work, have you read the Summa Theologica? Very logical and philosophical. Using logic is a form of prayer you are thinking about God and his glory and trying to understand him better prayer does not take the back seat.

I have not encountered a problem or a disagreement about the words of C.S. Lewis. He described the potential of humankind in far more glorious terms than I see Catholics present their potential, such as this thread is about.

I had not read Aquinas’ writings, but spent a few minutes this morning, and came away all the more grateful for the simplicity of the Bible and of revealed knowledge and the process of communication from God directly rather than “religious” knowledge from human wisdom and philosophy.

John was living when Peter was killed. The rejection of John’s leadership as the lead apostle, called by Christ and given authority by Christ, is a clear sign of an apostasy and a disaffection among the leaders who sought position in the continuation of the church. John saw that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that it was for God’s ultimate triumphant purposes.

I used the term “Anabaptists” because I had a mistaken understanding that they considered their origin as having come after the time of the apostles when there were disagreements about such things as infant baptism. So whatever group taught “believer’s baptism” would be the group I would assume would be more in line with what I think was the correct direction, but all the contention would mean the Holy Ghost was lost amid that situation of argumentative disagreements, anyway.

“Perfect peace” as noted by Isaiah, is obtainable while living a mortal life on this earth.

The Bible gives simple teachings and a simple way to live the gospel fully. If “tradition” is used to digress from Biblical teachings, then “tradition” does not serve a useful purpose.

So there is no place for a steward?

When we are talking about the Good Shepherd, He doesn’t need a steward to act in His place. He is there for all of us–for each and every one of us individually, directly, personally, as intimately as we allow by our choices in how we communicate with Him and with His Father and our Father, and allow the Good Shepherd to carry out one of His important missions which is to shepherd us.

 

[ParkerD]

Peace and joy to you as well.

Miriam,

Just because we differ in beliefs, largely in your case because of what you have been taught, does not mean that when I wished you peace and joy that I was discrediting your ability to seek those qualities in your life. I think they are available to each and every person, amply given by God.

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam,

Just because we differ in beliefs, largely in your case because of what you have been taught, does not mean that when I wished you peace and joy that I was discrediting your ability to seek those qualities in your life. I think they are available to each and every person, amply given by God.

Parker you do have a way with words.

We differ in beliefs because of what I have learned. You make it sound as though I just sat there and let someone brainwash me.

Catholicism is a very simple religion and a very complex religion. You can be completely illiterate and yet be a believing Catholic. Or you can be a genius and be a believing Catholic.

It’s open to all including you, Parker. Why not read the philosophers of the Church? Why not learn why they say and think what they do?

Parker, just because we differ in beliefs, largely in your case because of what you have been taught, does not mean that the real truth of Jesus Christ cannot be yours.

 

[Jay53]

John was living when Peter was killed. The rejection of John’s leadership as the lead apostle, called by Christ and given authority by Christ, is a clear sign of an apostasy and a disaffection among the leaders who sought position in the continuation of the church. John saw that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that it was for God’s ultimate triumphant purposes.

Please show where John’s leadership was rejected - where John attempted to assert authority over the church and was outright rejected. I have NEVER seen any indication of this and would be very interested to see your support of this. I think you’ve actually mentioned this before and asserted that just because he was the last apostle that he was somehow automatically in charge. Where is there any indication that he WANTED to be in charge and attempted to take his alleged position as head of the church?? Perhaps he knew he had a different calling from God and was listening to Him - instead of what YOU think he should have been doing.

 

[Miriam1947]

Please show where John’s leadership was rejected - where John attempted to assert authority over the church and was outright rejected. I have NEVER seen any indication of this and would be very interested to see your support of this. I think you’ve actually mentioned this before and asserted that just because he was the last apostle that he was somehow automatically in charge. Where is there any indication that he WANTED to be in charge and attempted to take his alleged position as head of the church?? Perhaps he knew he had a different calling from God and was listening to Him - instead of what YOU think he should have been doing.

Parker has to think that or else he would have to acknowledge the Pope.

 

[Jay53]

Parker has to think that or else he would have to acknowledge the Pope.

I know. So he will most likely give me some spiel about how John HAD to be the next in charge just because he was the last apostle and then quote random scripture from Revelation. I’ve told him before, Mormons can argue all they want about baptism, the papacy, etc etc etc - and to the unknowledgeable they even seem to have credible arguments. But for ME, it all boils down to the fact that they do not have Reconciliation or the Eucharist. Those are, to me, the two most powerful Sacraments that Christ gave us and I have personally experienced God’s mercy and peace through both. So, for me, Mormons reject that, ERGO, they are false!! It’s that simple for me. (You’ll also notice that he didn’t want to discuss John 6 with you at all. )

 

[Miriam1947]

I know. So he will most likely give me some spiel about how John HAD to be the next in charge just because he was the last apostle and then quote random scripture from Revelation. I’ve told him before, Mormons can argue all they want about baptism, the papacy, etc etc etc - and to the unknowledgeable they even seem to have credible arguments. But for ME, it all boils down to the fact that they do not have Reconciliation or the Eucharist. Those are, to me, the two most powerful Sacraments that Christ gave us and I have personally experienced God’s mercy and peace through both. So, for me, Mormons reject that, ERGO, they are false!! It’s that simple for me. (You’ll also notice that he didn’t want to discuss John 6 with you at all. )

Yeah, that John 6 will get 'em every time.

As for the rest of it, I completely agree with you. Anybody who can read, can quote the Bible all day long. But, in order to make their argument they must take it out of context or quote something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. And it isn’t just LDS who do that.

I have been on forums where it actually came down to one poster asking:

So God so loved the world he sent a book?

I laughed out loud at that one.

 

[Jay53]

yeah, that john 6 will get 'em every time. :d

as for the rest of it, i completely agree with you. Anybody who can read, can quote the bible all day long. But, in order to make their argument they must take it out of context or quote something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. And it isn’t just lds who do that.

I have been on forums where it actually came down to one poster asking:

So god so loved the world he sent a book?

I laughed out loud at that one.

:d :d :d <------ those were supposed to be the big grins - apparently they don’t want to show up properly today. Maybe they didn’t find that as funny as I did. LOL!!

 

[ParkerD]

Please show where John’s leadership was rejected - where John attempted to assert authority over the church and was outright rejected. I have NEVER seen any indication of this and would be very interested to see your support of this. I think you’ve actually mentioned this before and asserted that just because he was the last apostle that he was somehow automatically in charge. Where is there any indication that he WANTED to be in charge and attempted to take his alleged position as head of the church?? Perhaps he knew he had a different calling from God and was listening to Him - instead of what YOU think he should have been doing.

Hi, Jay53,

I would think that someone who reads the writings of John, including the book of John as well as his epistles and Revelation, would glean that he tried to move attention away from himself as much as possible. “The other disciple Jesus whom Jesus loved” is a phrase he would use in his writing, instead of writing “John”.

So no question that John did not “seek” leadership in the way that the world looks at leaders. But his calling was as a leader, and he held keys and the apostleship as a leader, and will be a judge as a leader–yet Jesus taught that the apostles, though being leaders, should be as servants.

John showed that quality of being a servant in his writing about love and discipleship. He also showed an acknowledgement that the living leader was Jesus Christ, still the head of the church.

He certainly did listen. He wrote what he wrote as a leader, teaching the people to believe in Christ and to have testimonies of Jesus, “the spirit of prophecy”.

It is amply evident to me that God had placed John in the role of being the leader of the church when he had the vision recorded in the book of Revelation. He didn’t need to “assert” his authority–it was already there, having been given to him by the Savior. The vision he had shows that things were happening among the members that he was praying would not happen, but they happened anyway. And he was also shown that the church was going to be taken into the wilderness, and recorded that in recounting his vision.

So, one could say he didn’t “want to be in charge”–that if someone asked him, “do you want to have the leadership role you have been given?” he might well have said, “It is not something I desire, but if it’s the Lord’s will, then I will do my best and I will not draw attention to myself, but rather draw attention to Him Whom I serve.”

 

[rock17]

I have not encountered a problem or a disagreement about the words of C.S. Lewis. He described the potential of humankind in far more glorious terms than I see Catholics present their potential, such as this thread is about.

Then when Lewis said phrase i am christian not only because i see the sunrise but becuase i see everything around that is a logical statement, so than if there is no problem than you agree that logic has a place in ones spiritual life.

I had not read Aquinas’ writings, but spent a few minutes this morning, and came away all the more grateful for the simplicity of the Bible and of revealed knowledge and the process of communication from God directly rather than “religious” knowledge from human wisdom and philosophy.

You came away more grateful for the tradition that has been passed down. yes i agree that the writings a Aquinas are very difficult to undrestand in one sitting but they make sense and can not be discredited
John was living when Peter was killed. The rejection of John’s leadership as the lead apostle, called by Christ and given authority by Christ, is a clear sign of an apostasy and a disaffection among the leaders who sought position in the continuation of the church. John saw that the church was being taken into the wilderness, and that it was for God’s ultimate triumphant purposes.

What made it that John had to be a leader when Peter’s successor would have all the authority needed?
I used the term “Anabaptists” because I had a mistaken understanding that they considered their origin as having come after the time of the apostles when there were disagreements about such things as infant baptism. So whatever group taught “believer’s baptism” would be the group I would assume would be more in line with what I think was the correct direction, but all the contention would mean the Holy Ghost was lost amid that situation of argumentative disagreements, anyway.

What i was trying to get at is that if there was truth at the time of Peter and after for awhile then someone had to have it and i was just tyring to figure out who had it if not the Catholics?
“Perfect peace” as noted by Isaiah, is obtainable while living a mortal life on this earth.
I am not going to argue this one becuase i am not sure and that may be true. But remeber you learned that from Tradition.

The Bible gives simple teachings and a simple way to live the gospel fully. If “tradition” is used to digress from Biblical teachings, then “tradition” does not serve a useful purpose.

Disgress from the Bible? from what i can see many traditions came from the Bible, and the people who wrote it.

When we are talking about the Good Shepherd, He doesn’t need a steward to act in His place. He is there for all of us–for each and every one of us individually, directly, personally, as intimately as we allow by our choices in how we communicate with Him and with His Father and our Father, and allow the Good Shepherd to carry out one of His important missions which is to shepherd us.

I am going to suppose that you beleive in organized religon, and that you see the purpose of having people who devote thier lives to further understand God and to help others see it to. If God did not need a steward than why did he send the Aposltes out and tell them spread the word, they where stewards of the faith. As are the lds missionaries so i do not see why there is a problem with having stewards.

 

[ParkerD]

…(You’ll also notice that he didn’t want to discuss John 6 with you at all. )

Jay53,

The reason being that any time I discuss John 6 with Catholics on this forum, they don’t seem willing to grasp that the Savior was talking to the Jews about things they were familiar with–the Bread of life representing one of their great poetic symbols from their history (Manna from heaven)–and blood representing another primary symbol of course, due to the law of sacrifice. It just is not grasped, but is passed over, which again is an example of the Savior knowing perfectly well that by using those symbols and very meaningful realities in His teaching which the Jews were familiar with, that the meaning would become changed into a literal meaning as has been done, and become a choice that people can make as to what they believe He was talking about.

I’ve gone down the road of that discussion a few times, and nothing I can write overcomes the strong desire that is in place to have John 6 be a literal meaning.

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Jay53,

I would think that someone who reads the writings of John, including the book of John as well as his epistles and Revelation, would glean that he tried to move attention away from himself as much as possible. “The other disciple Jesus whom Jesus loved” is a phrase he would use in his writing, instead of writing “John”.

So no question that John did not “seek” leadership in the way that the world looks at leaders. But his calling was as a leader, and he held keys and the apostleship as a leader, and will be a judge as a leader–yet Jesus taught that the apostles, though being leaders, should be as servants.

John showed that quality of being a servant in his writing about love and discipleship. He also showed an acknowledgement that the living leader was Jesus Christ, still the head of the church.

He certainly did listen. He wrote what he wrote as a leader, teaching the people to believe in Christ and to have testimonies of Jesus, “the spirit of prophecy”.

It is amply evident to me that God had placed John in the role of being the leader of the church when he had the vision recorded in the book of Revelation. He didn’t need to “assert” his authority–it was already there, having been given to him by the Savior. The vision he had shows that things were happening among the members that he was praying would not happen, but they happened anyway. And he was also shown that the church was going to be taken into the wilderness, and recorded that in recounting his vision.

So, one could say he didn’t “want to be in charge”–that if someone asked him, “do you want to have the leadership role you have been given?” he might well have said, “It is not something I desire, but if it’s the Lord’s will, then I will do my best and I will not draw attention to myself, but rather draw attention to Him Whom I serve.”

So in what way did the rest of the church “reject” him. What did he do/say that would have changed the church from what it teaches now??? There is nothing in John’s writings that conform to the path that Mormonism has diverged onto. If he was indeed “the leader” it was his job to protect and preserve the church as Jesus intended. So, he either failed and Jesus did not fulfill His promise to remain with him or your assertions are false.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

The reason being that any time I discuss John 6 with Catholics on this forum, they don’t seem willing to grasp that the Savior was talking to the Jews about things they were familiar with–the Bread of life representing one of their great poetic symbols from their history (Manna from heaven)–and blood representing another primary symbol of course, due to the law of sacrifice. It just is not grasped, but is passed over, which again is an example of the Savior knowing perfectly well that by using those symbols and very meaningful realities in His teaching which the Jews were familiar with, that the meaning would become changed into a literal meaning as has been done, and become a choice that people can make as to what they believe He was talking about.

I’ve gone down the road of that discussion a few times, and nothing I can write overcomes the strong desire that is in place to have John 6 be a literal meaning.

You may encounter resistence more because Catholics who have actually received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ KNOW that you are wrong and are unwilling to give up the precious gift that we have been given in order to follow a false promise of inheritiing a planet and having spirit children etc etc. I know that I, for one, would NEVER give that up. Of course, you, having never received Jesus in this manner cannot possibly understand that - just as you accuse Catholics of not understanding your position.

 

[ParkerD]

So in what way did the rest of the church “reject” him. What did he do/say that would have changed the church from what it teaches now??? There is nothing in John’s writings that conform to the path that Mormonism has diverged onto. If he was indeed “the leader” it was his job to protect and preserve the church as Jesus intended. So, he either failed and Jesus did not fulfill His promise to remain with him or your assertions are false.

Jay53,

I can’t help it if you don’t see that he was being told that his job was not “to protect and preserve the church” if that word “church” means the body of the members if they were choosing some other path and some other leader(s), and that Jesus had prophesied during His mortal ministry that not only would He be killed, but that His inheritance would be impacted also and that the “kingdom of heaven” would be given to another nation.

John was obliged to teach, and he did, and to lead, and he did. His obligation was not to fight those who sought to take the leadership from where it had been divinely given. That would have been exactly counter to the message of the gospel–to fight, or to contend with words or arguments. He shows exactly the correct approach in his writing–showing that he knew Christ is in charge of His work, and that the church going into the wilderness was not “failure” of the church nor failure of the mission of Jesus Christ on earth and in heaven, and that it is a work of success but that success ultimately doesn’t fully come until after His glorious Second Coming.

As far as John’s teachings, they lead squarely to the beliefs that are being scorned on this thread about becoming like Christ and inheriting a joint throne with Him. The Latter-day Saint beliefs along those lines simply restore that which was lost when the book of Revelation was philosophized into not meaning what the words say.

 

[Miriam1947]

Parker, you need to read more.

You’re stuck in the land of not making sense. You must have an apostasy or you would have to admit that Mormonism is man-made and by not such a very nice man at that.

Prayers for you.