LDS: Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter sterryfamily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholics don’t believe that God stopped talking to His children, but we believe that God, through Jesus, gave us everything we need for salvation.
That is a contradictory statement. If He is still talking to them, then He is continually giving them what they need for salvation.
There is no need for any more prophets.
There were prophets in the New Testament time, long after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
How do Mormons interpret Jesus’ final words on the cross, “It is finished.”?
It means the work of the Atonement on the cross had been accomplished; his sufferings on the cross had come to an end.
 
That is a contradictory statement. If He is still talking to them, then He is continually giving them what they need for salvation.

There were prophets in the New Testament time, long after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It means the work of the Atonement on the cross had been accomplished; his sufferings on the cross had come to an end.
Please read Theosis M’s explanation after mine. (Post #66) He explained this much better than I did! 🙂
 
TheosisM,
I do think that you are a pretty thorough student of the Bible.

Go ahead and state a “mutually exclusive thing” that has been confirmed to you as pure and complete truth by the Holy Ghost, numerous times, and I’ll check it out as compared with my understanding of the Bible and what the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me is true. I would actually be very happy to have that kind of conversation with you, since I sense that you have studied the Bible quite well.
Thanks ParkerD, and I think that you are as well, and are very knowledgeable on your faith.

As Jay already mentioned, the Eucharist is particularly important to me, and the Spirit has confirmed numerous times to me personally the reality of the Real Presence.

I actually mentioned my overall view on Bible interpretation on MADB recently, and I think it’s relevant to this: I firmly believe that there is only one way that various Bible verses should be interpreted. However, while I may disagree with the way others, such as Mormons, interpret certain passages, I can definitely say that in many cases, they have a reasonable interpretation, meaning, I can see why they believe what they do on that issue, and while I disagree, it can make sense. This is something that the LDS posters over there frequently ask of the evangelical posters, and is something that I also agree with. While I disagree with the Mormon understanding of the Eucharist, and I personally have had the Spirit confirm to me the reality of the Real Presence, I still think that the Mormon understanding is reasonable, even if I disagree with it.
 
I can give you two:

1.) The validity of the priesthood of Catholic priests to administer the Sacraments, particularly Reconciliation and Eucharist. I have had this for me NUMEROUS times throughout my life. This would be mutually exclusive from the Mormon belief that Catholic priests do not have this validity.

2.) The presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, i.e. His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. From what I understand of Mormonism, you do not believe that He is physically present in the Eucharist.
Jay,
I was re-reading and enjoying Galatians as you posted this. I hope you’ll re-read the entire epistle, and note that the major worry for Paul was that some or many of the Galatian members seemed to be having a problem accepting that circumcision was no longer “the law”. Paul emphasized that even he had been led astray by false traditions (those he followed from his Jewish background when he fought against the true church).

What I meant in my post to TheosisM is that you would go ahead and list the precise quote from the Bible that is mutually exclusive as compared with LDS teachings or if one wishes, teachings from the Book of Mormon. Neither of your item 1 or 2 is from Biblical teachings.
 
What I meant in my post to TheosisM is that you would go ahead and list the precise quote from the Bible that is mutually exclusive as compared with LDS teachings or if one wishes, teachings from the Book of Mormon. Neither of your item 1 or 2 is from Biblical teachings.
Parker, seems as if I too misunderstood you. Could you clarify what you mean by “precise quote from the Bible that is mutually exclusive as compared with LDS teachings”? What I actually meant when I mentioned “mutually exclusive” was our understandings of Biblical passages, not necessarily that what the Bible says contradicts LDS teaching. I think that someone can understand what the Bible says to be in harmony with LDS teaching.
 
Jay,
I was re-reading and enjoying Galatians as you posted this. I hope you’ll re-read the entire epistle, and note that the major worry for Paul was that some or many of the Galatian members seemed to be having a problem accepting that circumcision was no longer “the law”. Paul emphasized that even he had been led astray by false traditions (those he followed from his Jewish background when he fought against the true church).

What I meant in my post to TheosisM is that you would go ahead and list the precise quote from the Bible that is mutually exclusive as compared with LDS teachings or if one wishes, teachings from the Book of Mormon. Neither of your item 1 or 2 is from Biblical teachings.
I guess I don’t understand your question then, because both of my items are indeed confirmed in Biblical teaching. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is confirmed in John Chapter 6 and Reconciliation is confirmed in John Chapter 20. :confused:
 
If Jesus is the way to the Father and He completed the Ultimate Sacrifice for us, what need do we have of further prophets.
Prophets don’t come to make a sacrifice for us. They are sent by Him to tell us what He wants to know and do here and now.
I’m actually surprised that anyone would think we need more prophets? Certainly we need guidance, but that guidance is through Jesus Christ and His Church - not through anyone else or any prophets that come after Him!! :confused:
Prophets come to give us that guidance. They are His servants and He sends them to tell us what He wants us to hear.
What new message could they possibly have that tops Jesus?
He sends them to tell us what He wants us know here and now. They give us guidance concerning the circumstances and times in which we live now. There were prophets in the New Testament times. See Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Acts 15:32; Acts 21:10; Corinthians 14:29; Corinthians 14:32; Ephesians 4:10-11.
Studying the Bible “seriously and sincerely” has nothing to do with it. Even without the Bible, we still have Jesus, we still have His Sacrifice and we still have His Body and Blood in the Eucharist!
Jesus wants us to keep His commandments. His commandments are written in the Bible; they are also communicated to us through His living prophets.
 
I guess I don’t understand your question then, because both of my items are indeed confirmed in Biblical teaching. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is confirmed in John Chapter 6 and Reconciliation is confirmed in John Chapter 20. :confused:
Jay,
When Christ gave the teachings in John 6, as you know He had not yet presented communion as a new covenant sacrament. If one reads John 6 as a text by itself, then Christ as the “bread of life” and the “water of life” (see v. 35) is clearly teaching that one receives His bread and His water by receiving both His word and teachings and living by those teachings, and by accepting His atoning sacrifice which Christ was teaching that gathering of Jews that He was going to accomplish. John 6 says nothing at all about the “Eucharist” or about “communion”.

I don’t know what it is in John 20 that is mutually exclusive between what you believe and what I believe. Perhaps you could explain further what you meant by “Reconciliation”.
 
Not to throw a monkey wrench in your system of continuity of prophets, but could you point to a particular scripture (in the New Testiment) that proves this? Everything I see shifts to “anti-christs” and similar wordings.
See my previous post to Jay53. Scriptural references given in that post.
 
I would just like to correct what I see as a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the traditional Christian position. I will speak for Catholics.

Catholics do not believe that God “stopped talking to His children”. We do not believe that prophets ceased, or that He does not provide us with loving guidance, or that He is not involved in human history.

Catholics believe that all public revelation is complete. Pope Benedict XVI defined public revelation nicely-"…the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole…", and “It is called ‘Revelation’ because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. It is not a matter therefore of [merely] intellectual communication, but of a life-giving process in which God comes to meet man.”"

So, public revelation is God revealing Himself to man, culminating in God incarnate, Jesus Christ, on earth, and all that is necessary for salvation. We believe that all that is necessary for salvation, the basic “tools” for salvation, was already revealed to us. We call this the “deposit of Faith”. Now, even though this Deposit, this public revelation, has already been given once and for all, we as a Church can and do still come to deeper understandings, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of that Deposit. Thus, we may come to a deeper understanding of the nature of God (i.e. the Trinitarian doctrines), what happens in the Eucharist, etc. This deeper understanding of the Deposit, a clarification of our beliefs, happens in the Catholic Church in two ways: through the inspiration of the Pope by the Holy Spirit (Papal Infallibility), and the inspiration of the College of Bishops as a whole, in a Council.

Catholics believe that there are still prophets and prophetesses (yes, there have been female prophets in Catholicism, just like in the Bible). If we read about the lives of many canonized saints of the Church, we will see many writings on revelations received from angels, Heavenly saints, and God. Many of these revelations are very important in the Catholic Church, and have been approved by Church authorities as actual spiritual encounters to be known by the Church as a whole.

So what is the difference between that and public revelation? Public revelation is what is necessary for salvation. Again, all that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed to us, and finds its human/divine expression in Jesus Christ. Private revelations may help us on our way to salvation, and may give us future knowledge about various events, however they are not required for us to believe to attain salvation. Many important private revelations from Heaven have been incorporated into the Church’s spiritual life.

So, Catholics do not believe that God has stopped talking to His children. We do not believe that prophets ceased (what we do believe is that there is no need for prophets to reveal things required for salvation, i.e. public revelation), or that God no longer provides loving guidance. We believe that God is active in the lives of believers. God is active through His Church. All revelation required for salvation has been revealed and is complete. God can inspire through the Spirit the Pope and the College of Bishops to help in clarifying and defining the Deposit of Faith. God talks to us individually through the Holy Spirit, as well as through Scripture. Heaven has revealed various messages throughout the history of the Church as proof that Catholics do not believe that revelation (as a whole) from God has ceased.
If that were true, there should be no “public” revelations at all after Jesus Christ. But there were! The whole of the New Testament is a “public” revelation after Jesus Christ—much of it written several decades after his death. So why should it end with John? Was John greater than Jesus Christ? :confused:
 
Jay,
When Christ gave the teachings in John 6, as you know He had not yet presented communion as a new covenant sacrament. If one reads John 6 as a text by itself, then Christ as the “bread of life” and the “water of life” (see v. 35) is clearly teaching that one receives His bread and His water by receiving both His word and teachings and living by those teachings, and by accepting His atoning sacrifice which Christ was teaching that gathering of Jews that He was going to accomplish. John 6 says nothing at all about the “Eucharist” or about “communion”.

I don’t know what it is in John 20 that is mutually exclusive between what you believe and what I believe. Perhaps you could explain further what you meant by “Reconciliation”.
I don’t seem to be following your posts here today, Parker. Probably because I’m trying to do too many other things at the same time. 🙂 You asked for Biblical teachings (which I took to mean the understandings of those Scriptures) that are mutually exclusive that I have had a confirmation from the Holy Spirit about. I gave you two. The Real Presence of the Jesus in the Eucharist and the validity of Catholic priests to administer God’s forgiveness of our sins through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

I certainly understand that you don’t agree with the my/the Catholic Church’s interpretation of those Scriptures, (if you did you would probably be Catholic ;)), but I have had the Holy Spirit confirm the Truth of them to me numerous times. You giving me your/the Mormon interpretation does not then make it the Truth for me. The confirmation that I have that my “personal revelation” is correct is the Catholic Church, all of the writings of the Apostles/Early Church Fathers that confirm the celebration of the Mass and the belief that they were receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

Regarding Reconciliation, I was referring to John 20:21-23. This, I don’t think, is in contradiction to Mormonism, as I thought you also have some form of this sacrament, but my confirmation has been to the validity of the Catholic priesthood. I have absolutely no doubt that the priests I have confessed to were acting with the authority of Jesus and that my sins were absolved.
 
But as TheosisM said, we don’t need any of these prophets for salvation. Jesus Christ is our salvation!
Prophets are sent by Him. They are His servants whose commission is to tell us what He wants us to know and do.
 
If that were true, there should be no “public” revelations at all after Jesus Christ. But there were! The whole of the New Testament is a “public” revelation after Jesus Christ—much of it written several decades after his death. So why should it end with John? Was John greater than Jesus Christ? :confused:
Except I never said that public revelation ended after Jesus Christ arrived. Straw man.
 
I don’t seem to be following your posts here today, Parker. Probably because I’m trying to do too many other things at the same time. 🙂 You asked for Biblical teachings (which I took to mean the understandings of those Scriptures) that are mutually exclusive that I have had a confirmation from the Holy Spirit about. I gave you two. The Real Presence of the Jesus in the Eucharist and the validity of Catholic priests to administer God’s forgiveness of our sins through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

I certainly understand that you don’t agree with the my/the Catholic Church’s interpretation of those Scriptures, (if you did you would probably be Catholic ;)), but I have had the Holy Spirit confirm the Truth of them to me numerous times. You giving me your/the Mormon interpretation does not then make it the Truth for me. The confirmation that I have that my “personal revelation” is correct is the Catholic Church, all of the writings of the Apostles/Early Church Fathers that confirm the celebration of the Mass and the belief that they were receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

Regarding Reconciliation, I was referring to John 20:21-23. This, I don’t think, is in contradiction to Mormonism, as I thought you also have some form of this sacrament, but my confirmation has been to the validity of the Catholic priesthood. I have absolutely no doubt that the priests I have confessed to were acting with the authority of Jesus and that my sins were absolved.
Jay,
Have you ever tried doing a confession in prayer to God without the priest being involved, and if so how did you feel differently than what you described in this last paragraph?
 
Jay,
Have you ever tried doing a confession in prayer to God without the priest being involved, and if so how did you feel differently than what you described in this last paragraph?
I definitely have and there is a night and day difference in the feeling!! The feeling after confession to a priest is completely different and words cannot describe it accurately. This may be TMI, but there have been several occasions when I have been moved to tears simply because of the joy/elation/freedom/acceptance that I have experienced from God through confession. :extrahappy: :signofcross: Believe me when I tell you that there is no one on this earth that will ever convince me that the Catholic priests do not act as Christ in the confessional and that they do not have the authority to forgive sins. 👍
 
Except I never said that public revelation ended after Jesus Christ arrived. Straw man.
This is what you said: “So, public revelation is God revealing Himself to man, culminating in God incarnate, Jesus Christ, on earth, and all that is necessary for salvation.” That was the logic behind your argument that there should be no more “public” revelation. If that argument is valid, there should be no New Testament either; but there is. Unless John is greater than Jesus, why should he be the last revelator here on earth?
 
The New Testament is about Jesus Christ. He is the message, the revelation.

All the saints who share private revelation always bear the same message and fruits of the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ. He is the Alpha and Omega.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top