LDS and ancient record...

  • Thread starter Thread starter eo_chibears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we question the truth of the Bible, then everything that Christianity or Mormonism believes would be false. Do you really want to go there?
Actually, that (impuning the truthfulness and intergrity of the bible) is exactly where the Mormons always go when trying to defend the Book of Mormon.

It is like an automatic reflex for them, which is what informs my opinion that Mormons, while they pay lip-service to the bible, really hate it and wish it would simply go away.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
 
To the general reader,

Please note that Latter-day Saints love the Bible with a love that is complete, deep, and sincere.

Just because there is another record that testifies of the divinity and mission of the Lord, Jesus Christ, does not mean they don’t love the Bible. I would say it leads to a deeper love for the Bible because we thus see how Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled and have been fulfilled and that this world is indeed in the latter days spoken of by Isaiah, by Ezekiel, by Hosea, and seen by them as the day when Israel would be able to come to know their Redeemer, and to have the house of Judah united with the other tribes of Israel (the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom) into a house no longer divided.
 
Actually, that (impuning the truthfulness and intergrity of the bible) is exactly where the Mormons always go when trying to defend the Book of Mormon.

It is like an automatic reflex for them, which is what informs my opinion that Mormons, while they pay lip-service to the bible, really hate it and wish it would simply go away.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
I actually had thought about that possibility. I think it’s evident in their interpretations of the Gospels and other books of the Bible, that they only read it the way they want to read it, and totally ignore what it actually says, or how anyone else interprets it. They constantly talk about the use of certain phraseology, especially when certain words are used in conjunction with other words, that has to be interpreted in a certain way to be ‘understood’. It’s like they have their own secret “Bible code” that’s only known to LDS. It seems to be a very ‘gnostic’ kind of belief, to me.

The whole concept of them having this secret knowledge that no one else has, I think is the basis for them believing that they really are some kind of ‘chosen people’, like in the OT, and they’re the only ones that can ever possibly understand God. Everyone else is pretty much doomed to be their slaves in the resurrection. It definitely makes them less inclined to ever even consider that what they believe could be wrong. They’re so afraid to have doubts because that might keep them from attaining what Joseph Smith promised them, if they ever even dared to consider it to be wrong. That’s the saddest thing about it. But, God has His own ways of overcoming all of that negativity. Eventually, He will break through their walls of defense and touch their hearts, so He can welcome them home like the prodigal son. At least, I hope so.
 

Thinking that the ‘prisoners meal’ of bread and water is better than the Bread of Life from heaven boggles my mind.
Miriam,

Thinking that there was no meaning when the Savior talked about “living water” which He offered to the woman at the well, misses one of the beautiful accounts in the New Testament about the woman of Samaria. She came to know of His meaning, and went and told others she had found the promised Messiah who offered living water.

Latter-day Saints don’t feel it inappropriate to partake of water in remembrance of and in communion with Him, remembering as covenant believers His divine mission and the atoning grace and the living water He truly offers to all of humankind. He who partakes of that water, “shall never thirst”. (See John 4)
 
Miriam,

Thinking that there was no meaning when the Savior talked about “living water” which He offered to the woman at the well, misses one of the beautiful accounts in the New Testament about the woman of Samaria. She came to know of His meaning, and went and told others she had found the promised Messiah who offered living water.

Latter-day Saints don’t feel it inappropriate to partake of water in remembrance of and in communion with Him, remembering as covenant believers His divine mission and the atoning grace and the living water He truly offers to all of humankind. He who partakes of that water, “shall never thirst”. (See John 4)
Parker this is not about the woman at the well and all the ways that you have of circling around an issue. And yes it is a beautiful account but has absolutely nothing to do with communion. You know that I am talking about communion in the way that Jesus talked about it.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:51-59[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Parker this is not about the woman at the well and all the ways that you have of circling around an issue. And yes it is a beautiful account but has absolutely nothing to do with communion. You know that I am talking about communion in the way that Jesus talked about it.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:51-59[/BIBLEDRB]
Miriam,

I was showing that people can have different perspectives about “an issue”. In the minds of some, anyone who doesn’t agree with their perspective can be “circling around an issue”, but that doesn’t mean the other person needs to agree–and I don’t agree with either point you have now made, and have dealt with “the issue” head on, squarely.

As far as John 6, which is also a beautiful and challenging teaching for the Jews in His audience, if Jesus had truly been teaching about the Eucharist on that occasion, nearly at the beginning of His ministry, and then waited over two years to actually establish communion with the apostles, then He was being inconsistent in His teaching because His teaching in John 6 describes a present tense acceptance of and belief in Him and embrace of His teachings and doctrine; that He is the promised Messiah, the Redeemer, the Rock of salvation, and the “Bread of life” (which He is) come down from heaven (which He did).

The Jews were familiar with metaphors in their language and heritage. They were also very familiar with the Bread of life and both the metaphorical and literal meanings of the word Manna. Just because some asked scoffing questions, doesn’t mean they didn’t have the kind of background through what had happened in the wilderness to the children of Israel that they couldn’t have discerned His meaning. They just didn’t want to discern His meaning.
 
Miriam,

I was showing that people can have different perspectives about “an issue”. In the minds of some, anyone who doesn’t agree with their perspective can be “circling around an issue”, but that doesn’t mean the other person needs to agree–and I don’t agree with either point you have now made, and have dealt with “the issue” head on, squarely.

As far as John 6, which is also a beautiful and challenging teaching for the Jews in His audience, if Jesus had truly been teaching about the Eucharist on that occasion, nearly at the beginning of His ministry, and then waited over two years to actually establish communion with the apostles, then He was being inconsistent in His teaching because His teaching in John 6 describes a present tense acceptance of and belief in Him and embrace of His teachings and doctrine; that He is the promised Messiah, the Redeemer, the Rock of salvation, and the “Bread of life” (which He is) come down from heaven (which He did).

The Jews were familiar with metaphors in their language and heritage. They were also very familiar with the Bread of life and both the metaphorical and literal meanings of the word Manna. Just because some asked scoffing questions, doesn’t mean they didn’t have the kind of background through what had happened in the wilderness to the children of Israel that they couldn’t have discerned His meaning. They just didn’t want to discern His meaning.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Future.
 
Lefty

Because of the “testimony” of one Joseph Smith (another of America’s homegrown religious pied pipers) many have been misled to believe other than basic tenants of Christianity that have held for 2000 years:
  1. Jesus Christ is divine, the God-Man
  2. God the Father is one God (See the Psalm, the Schema “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one”, I am He, there is no other) however 3 natures in one unchanging God.
  3. There is no marriage in heaven & humans in heaven live like the angels (See St Paul)
  4. An “angel” has “delivered” ANOTHER (a lbeit)message to Smith; said angel should be anathema
  5. Created spiritual beings, angels, do not switch natures back and forth; nor do humans (See St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae)
On the Smith side:
  1. “Lt Gen Smith” as Smith FANCIED himself being called - was NO LT GENERAL
  2. Smith, begins his career as a GLASS-LOOKER in jail and ends it in jail; a DEAD END TO BE SURE.
  3. Biblical concept of 1 bridgegroom, 1 bride (Christ & his one Church namely all of us) completely lost on LUSTING OPPORTUNISTS starting with Smith, Young; foisted on ignorant women under false pretenses
How are we to judge the fruits of SMITH’S imagination? This theological train wreck is strewn across 185 years or so & continues, one of many American theological inventions, what was Oxford’s last count? 50,000 denominations & LDS have over 50, fragmenting as soon as Joseph Smith is dead with a gun in his hand; EMMA splits off to RLDS; UNITY is one of the 4 transcendentals, apparently does not apply as LDS split from the get go.

St Paul bluntly says, “There is no marriage in heaven” and in heaven human beings "live like the angels. Mormons have a true and sincere love of the Bible you say. How does that square with marriage in heaven?

So God has St Paul’s truth and in early 1800’s Joseph Smith has a new “truth” 😊

New Testament reveals and fulfills what was hidden in the Old Testament so don’t try to use Solomon and his wives. 6 covenants of the OT are all realized in the NT’s 7th Covenant of Jesus Christ; Google Dr. Scott Hahn: 7 the number of PERFECTION, the # of God, to Seven yourself is to take an OATH, to SWEAR.

Christ Jesus’ 7th Covenant is the ONE of PERFECTION; impossible to fall into so-called “APOSTASY” & therefore have the need to be “RESTORED”

With that I sincerely wish you MERRY CHRISTMAS!👍

PS
At the Nativity, Christ is placed in a feeding trough (notice from day one) symbolizing what is to come in JOHN 6 we are to eat HIS FLESH; the word eat in John - trogos- is to heartily “gnaw” on Him in the EUCHARIST! The word gnaw is not to be a symbolic action but a physical action.
 
To the general reader,

Please note that Latter-day Saints love the Bible with a love that is complete, deep, and sincere.

Just because there is another record that testifies of the divinity and mission of the Lord, Jesus Christ, does not mean they don’t love the Bible. I would say it leads to a deeper love for the Bible because we thus see how Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled and have been fulfilled and that this world is indeed in the latter days spoken of by Isaiah, by Ezekiel, by Hosea, and seen by them as the day when Israel would be able to come to know their Redeemer, and to have the house of Judah united with the other tribes of Israel (the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom) into a house no longer divided.
My dear Parker, that is simply not true. First, you do not accept the Bible at all…you accept the book that Joseph translated to his benefit.

And I have NEVER heard that a man can get closer to God reading the Bible. What Mormons have said is that they can get closer reading the Book of Mormon. I have never heard the GAs challenge anyone to read the Bible in a given amount of time, but I have heard them lots of times to challenge people to read the Book of Mormon in 2 months or three months, etc.
 
Miriam,

Thinking that there was no meaning when the Savior talked about “living water” which He offered to the woman at the well, misses one of the beautiful accounts in the New Testament about the woman of Samaria. She came to know of His meaning, and went and told others she had found the promised Messiah who offered living water.

Latter-day Saints don’t feel it inappropriate to partake of water in remembrance of and in communion with Him, remembering as covenant believers His divine mission and the atoning grace and the living water He truly offers to all of humankind. He who partakes of that water, “shall never thirst”. (See John 4)
First, that is NOT the reason you use water. Second, Jesus DISCUSSING living water is a LOT different than Jesus COMMANDING to “Take and Drink”
 
Miriam,

As far as John 6, which is also a beautiful and challenging teaching for the Jews in His audience, if Jesus had truly been teaching about the Eucharist on that occasion, nearly at the beginning of His ministry, and then waited over two years to actually establish communion with the apostles, then He was being inconsistent in His teaching…

lol…yet you do NOT find it inconsistant that Jesus taught to teach His gospel to all nations then waited over 1500 YEARS to restore the Gospel…

Sorry, Dear Parker. That will not fly.

Be Blessed and Merry Christmas
 
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Future.
Miriam,

Yes, that verse is “'future tense”.

Verses 55 through 59 are “present tense”.

Peace and Merry Christmas.🙂
 
Christ transformed the baptismal waters of the Jordan by stepping into it
  • those waters did not transform Him!
    Christ transformed the water into the best wine at Cana
    Christ transforms what & who He enters into
Mere men evolving into godhood or angels cannot do these nor can they FORGIVE SINS.
 
I wish the Mormons would realize the truth that all prophecy, revelation necessary for salvation was with Jesus Christ and His established church…the universal Catholic, and apostolic church…

Look at Adam and Eve…they were offered fruit ‘to eat’…of the Tree of Life but forbidden to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil…

They chose the fruit that leads to death…tasting that to become as gods…

And note at this time of the year…as Scripture says, ‘Look!..’…Christ being placed in a manger…an animal feeder…

‘To eat’…not of the forbidden fruit but to eat of the gifts of bread and wine…the Eucharist!

Merry Christmas!
 
Miriam,

Yes, that verse is “'future tense”.

Verses 55 through 59 are “present tense”.
[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
So, are you saying that Jesus was actually telling His disciples that they should eat His flesh and drink His blood when He first told them this, even though He was still very much alive at that point in time? Was He telling them that they should kill Him and eat Him without cooking, or that they should roast Him over a spit like a sacrificial lamb, first? (I apologize to everyone reading this for using such a graphic depiction, but it seems like that’s what was implied by Parker’s response, if that passage is to be taken, literally, in the “present tense”.) :bigyikes:

How else would you explain that whole passage, Parker? If the Holy Eucharist was never intended to be His actual Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity, then what good does it do to just eat ‘symbolic’ bread and water? How could that ever have any real physical or spiritual effect on us? Wouldn’t it be more meaningful to be His real Body & Blood, that can really nourish both, our bodies and our souls? Why would He ever say such an outrageous thing that He knew would cause such dissension amongst His followers, even causing many of them to desert Him?
 
Actually, that (impuning the truthfulness and intergrity of the bible) is exactly where the Mormons always go when trying to defend the Book of Mormon.

It is like an automatic reflex for them, which is what informs my opinion that Mormons, while they pay lip-service to the bible, really hate it and wish it would simply go away.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
Exactly, Paul! And thanks so much for the informative, well-reasoned arguments and absolutely devastating sources you cite in support of your charge. Picture me prostrate before your erudition and social analysis of the Mormons!

The LDS Church has an institutionally mandated, four-year course of study for all adults who attend its Sunday School. One year is spent studying the Book of Mormon, one the Doctrine and Covenants in context of church history, one devoted exclusively to the Old Testament, and one spent entirely studying the New Testament. Then the cycle repeats. For the fractionally impaired, that’s half the time spent studying the Bible. I’ve attended these classes my entire adult life and in my own personal experience have never noticed that we spend any time “impuning the truthfulness and intergrity of the bible” (get that spell-checker working, will you?). But obviously I lack Paul’s ability to see the dark underbelly of the LDS hate machine. All I ever get out of our Bible study is a deepened appreciation of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice for my sins. I guess I need to pay better attention per Paul.

But Paul is nonetheless correct. There are, after all, more obvious examples to be given where Mormons “pay lip-service to the bible, (but) really hate it and wish it would simply go away.” Here are some:

At BYU’s Neal A.Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, there is housed the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts (CPART). Funded primarily by the tithes and offerings of LDS Church members, CPART is devoted to improving access to the written records of Judaism and Christianity through digitally imaging and creating electronic versions of important ancient religious texts.

Paul needs to alert the folks at the Vatican Aposolic Library about these nefarious Mormons who so hate the Bible. Those rubes at the library have actually allowed CPART Mormons access to its incomparable collection over 800 Syriac manuscripts which were gathered in the early eighteenth century under the pontificate of Clement XI. In 1999, Mar Bawai Soro, a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East, approached BYU to be a partner in the project to make this Syriac collection more accessible both to scholars and to the religious communities who originally produced them. Scandalously, the Mormons agreed, because obviously this work will undercut the veracity of the Bible they so hate.

In another act of utter disdain for ancient religious texts like the Bible, The Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome was suckered by the CPART Mormons to allow for the digitizing and cataloguing of some of its collection, which included a small but valuable collection of Slavonic manuscripts. Old Church Slavonic is the liturgical language of the Russian and Eastern European Orthodox Christians.

The same thing was done for the Christian Arabic manuscripts at Notre Dame University-Louziae where digital preservations were made of ancient editions relating to Eastern Christianity and its history.

But the smoking gun that proves Mormon hatred of the Bible is the unparalelled work CPART has done in the digital preservation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course these despised records contain not only the records and teachings of a particular Jewish community, but also the Bible of that community. The significance of this part of the discovery cannot be overstated. When a scholar picks up a copy of the Hebrew Bible today, it is based on a text that was copied nearly a thousand years after the Dead Sea Scrolls Community flourished. If we want to study our earliest manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible, we must turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls. And the Mormons are preserving it! :eek:

What more evidence is needed to prove Mormon hatred of the Bible and anything that supports its truth claims? Can there be any lingering doubt?
 
Mormons study the bible only to find things in it that (in their interpretation) support the teachings of Joseph Smith.

If you want to see this in action, watch “Discussions on the Old Testament” or “Discussions on the New Testament” on the BYU channel. It’s a real hoot. Four or five guys sit around a table. They will read a verse or two from the bible, and then one of them will always say “The prophet Joseph Smith expressed this idea much more clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants (or the BoM or the PoGP). Let’s turn to D&C section…”. Then the rest of the segment is spent discussing Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Yeah, that’s real bible study.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
 
You can choose to believe whatever you like. I’m still highly skeptical.

First, Peter and Simon are the same person. Jesus gave Simon the nickname, Cephas (Peter/rock). O.o

If we question the truth of the Bible, then everything that Christianity or Mormonism believes would be false. Do you really want to go there?

Your use of the term “anti-Mormon” is a red herring that is always used by Mormons to denigrate anyone that disagrees with their doctrines (which I do). Not everyone that disagrees with the Mormon religion is “anti-Mormon”. I may disagree with your philosophy, but I have nothing against the Mormon people, themselves. Should I label you as being “anti-Catholic”, just because you don’t believe in Catholic doctrines? 🤷
Peter and Andrew (my proof-reading really stinks, doesn’t it?).

I’m not questioning the truth of the Bible, just the faulty logic of rejecting BOM witnesses simply on the basis of their familial relationships to Joseph Smith. That turns out to be a double-standard if you apply the same logic vis-a-vis the Bible. Sorry you missed the point.

Rejecting/disagreeing with the doctrines of my church does not make one an anti-Mormon. Mocking, demeaning, insulting is another matter. It always amazes me that Catholics, of all people, can’t make this distinction, given all the trashy anti-Catholic sites that caricature your faith. 🤷
 
Mormons study the bible only to find things in it that (in their interpretation) support the teachings of Joseph Smith.

If you want to see this in action, watch “Discussions on the Old Testament” or “Discussions on the New Testament” on the BYU channel. It’s a real hoot. Four or five guys sit around a table. They will read a verse or two from the bible, and then one of them will always say “The prophet Joseph Smith expressed this idea much more clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants (or the BoM or the PoGP). Let’s turn to D&C section…”. Then the rest of the segment is spent discussing Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Yeah, that’s real bible study.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
And Catholics don’t study the Bible to find in it things that support their theology? That doesn’t happen where I come from. And where I come from is earth! :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top