LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StJudePray4Me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Francis,

that is because the same people are talking all the time to each other…in cycles…
 
i have just read every post on this subject and was shocked to see that some people have failed to listen and engage with the answers put forward but mearly renewed their attack with more venom truly, your hearts have hardend when every reply you give is, dont give me that ****, why ask if you wont listen. im not saying you have to agree but you cant tell people off for answering a question according to their beleif. It seems some people are trying to wring out only what they want to hear. thats not ecumenical discusion.

rant over

befor i go on just to avoid mixup i want to make the point that i am catholic , devoutly so.

for some years now i and my partner have engaged in disscusion of faith with our local mormans. We compare faiths and though often we agree to disagree these talks have show a lot of simerlarities between Catholic an Mormon beleif. they now send any new elders to us befor they go on their mision to warm them up so to speek (last year we converted one to catholasism by accident:o).

Though i beleive that the book of mormon is nothing more than an insperational text so far i have found nothing that contradicts doctine in the basic teachings it convays. [befor anyone point out that jesus visiting america is contradictory to doctrine , im not counting that as one of the teachings but rather as setting . like the ten comandments are teachings but the fact that moses was on mount siani is a setting he could have received them in paris it wouldnt have changed the mesage they convayed ]

for exampe the trinaty . some posters have claimed that mormons do not beleive in the trinaty however in 3Nephi 11:27 (yes thats part of BOM) it says " I say unto you, that the father son and holy ghost are one ; and I am in the father , and the father in me, and the father and i are one." :eek: I think we can all agree that this is a cleaqr statement that the trinity exists . go and compare it with passages in the jerusalem bible . the definition of the trinity according to the BOM is the same as according to the jerusalem bible .

now if a mormon has at somepoint said that the trinity is different or does not exist then that is a misinterpritation of their own holy book you cant dam the whole religeon and white wash everyone as beleiving that on that basis.That would be like claiming that just because the pentacostal catholics beleive that by writhing around on the floor during mas (i have witnessed this) that they will be inspired by god to reed out relevent scripture, that all catholics practise this .

as for the asumption by non catholics that BOM replaces the Gospal. 1nephi 13:40 “These last records which you have seen amongst the Gentiles [BOM ]shall establish the truth of the First the bible] which are of the 12 apostles and the lamb” BOM is ment as an educational aide complementing the gosple. if that wasnt enough proof every new elder that comes to talk with us gets asked “if you could only save one book in the entire world would it be BOM or the Bible ?” without fail the answer has always been the bible.

finaly as long as the mormons beleive that God is the omnipotent ominipresent creator and one with the son and holy ghost does it mater if they give him a human body? most christian children (and some adults) think of god as the big beardy guy in the sky behind a set of pearly gates . do we tell them they arnt christian for being unable to comprehend/visualise god without human form?

Yes Morman Docterine is not the same in parts as Catholic Doctrine But the Lutheren doctrine and Calvanist Doctirine are radicaly diferent in places too . are you going to say they arnt Christian? in this growing atheist world we need all the christinans we can get.
 
seeking_light said:
i have just read every post on this subject and was shocked to see that some people have failed to listen and engage with the answers put forward but mearly renewed their attack with more venom truly, your hearts have hardend when every reply you give is, dont give me that ****, why ask if you wont listen. im not saying you have to agree but you cant tell people off for answering a question according to their beleif. It seems some people are trying to wring out only what they want to hear. thats not ecumenical discusion.

rant over

befor i go on just to avoid mixup i want to make the point that i am catholic , devoutly so.

for some years now i and my partner have engaged in disscusion of faith with our local mormans. We compare faiths and though often we agree to disagree these talks have show a lot of simerlarities between Catholic an Mormon beleif. they now send any new elders to us befor they go on their mision to warm them up so to speek (last year we converted one to catholasism by accident:o).

Though i beleive that the book of mormon is nothing more than an insperational text so far i have found nothing that contradicts doctine in the basic teachings it convays. [befor anyone point out that jesus visiting america is contradictory to doctrine , im not counting that as one of the teachings but rather as setting . like the ten comandments are teachings but the fact that moses was on mount siani is a setting he could have received them in paris it wouldnt have changed the mesage they convayed ]

for exampe the trinaty . some posters have claimed that mormons do not beleive in the trinaty however in 3Nephi 11:27 (yes thats part of BOM) it says " I say unto you, that the father son and holy ghost are one ; and I am in the father , and the father in me, and the father and i are one." :eek: I think we can all agree that this is a cleaqr statement that the trinity exists . go and compare it with passages in the jerusalem bible . the definition of the trinity according to the BOM is the same as according to the jerusalem bible .

now if a mormon has at somepoint said that the trinity is different or does not exist then that is a misinterpritation of their own holy book you cant dam the whole religeon and white wash everyone as beleiving that on that basis.That would be like claiming that just because the pentacostal catholics beleive that by writhing around on the floor during mas (i have witnessed this) that they will be inspired by god to reed out relevent scripture, that all catholics practise this .

as for the asumption by non catholics that BOM replaces the Gospal. 1nephi 13:40 “These last records which you have seen amongst the Gentiles [BOM ]shall establish the truth of the First the bible] which are of the 12 apostles and the lamb” BOM is ment as an educational aide complementing the gosple. if that wasnt enough proof every new elder that comes to talk with us gets asked “if you could only save one book in the entire world would it be BOM or the Bible ?” without fail the answer has always been the bible.

finaly as long as the mormons beleive that God is the omnipotent ominipresent creator and one with the son and holy ghost does it mater if they give him a human body? most christian children (and some adults) think of god as the big beardy guy in the sky behind a set of pearly gates . do we tell them they arnt christian for being unable to comprehend/visualise god without human form?

Yes Morman Docterine is not the same in parts as Catholic Doctrine But the Lutheren doctrine and Calvanist Doctirine are radicaly diferent in places too . are you going to say they arnt Christian? in this growing atheist world we need all the christinans we can get.
Click to expand...
I just have to comment on your astute observation of how much Catholicity is in the Book of Mormon. In numerous posts in other threads I expound on how much it contradicts much of LDS doctrine itself.

There are some subtle but important points of it that would be strictly heretical in Catholic terms. 1) Very early in the book it teaches that the 12 apostles, in addition to Jesus, came down from Heaven, which is heretical.
  1. It teaches that baptism was not established by Jesus specifically and was practiced 600 years before Christ.
  2. It teaches (not as metaphor but as fact) that Jesus visited another continent after ascension in the Holy Land, established a separate church there, and ordained 12 separate apostles. this diminishes the concept of Apostolic succession.
  3. the general concept of Jesus being looked forward to with the distinct specificity demonstrated in the Book of Mormon conflicts with what the catechism teaches about the gradual revelation of God according to man’s responses to his promptings.
The central internal contradiction in the Book of Mormon, when taken on its own merits and internal claim of “containing the fulness of the Gospel” is that its representation of the nature of God and the Trinity is thoroughly Catholic, conflicting with Joseph Smith’s own claim of the nature of God in the First Vision. The Book is supposed to be evidence that Jesus was a prophet. You read it pray about it, get a witness of its truth, so Joseph smith must be telling the truth – except that makes his First Vision inaccaurate because the God he describes in that account is of a different nature than what the Book of Mormon describes.

Catholicity of the Book of Mormon is even more enhanced in the original 1830 edition. In a couple of places the Book of Mormon currently calls Jesus “the very Eternal Father”. That statement is all over the original text. Where the current edition now reads “Son of the Very Eternal Father”, the words “Son of” did not appear in the 1830 text.

My favorite is a crucial line where the later editions also added “Son of”. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon calls the Virgin Mary, “the Mother of God.”
 
ParkerD said:
I hope she does also.

Excited new members read the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Jesus the Christ, The Articles of Faith, lesson manuals, Gospel Principles, the Ensign, the New Era, and certainly re-read the Bible with “new eyes.”
Click to expand...
Most new members first hear details of the controversial doctrines in casual conversations with their new LDS friends as they develop social boinds in the LDS community. Psychologically this makes them more likely to accept it, as a positive mood when learning new information engenders greater liklihood of accepting it. We are also more likely to acccept information we intentionally seek out positively than information we stumble across.

I have to comment on this because Parker’s comments indicate a crucial misunderstanding of the LDS conversion process in particular and any emotionally driven conversion experiences in general. The LDS Church teaches that once you have the Gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism you will understand better – hence Parker’s remark about “new eyes”.

First let me compare to how as Catholics we teach about some of our more controversial dogmas: Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, communion of saints, as examples. Even if a catechumen (investigator in LDS terms) believes it all, he or she must still attend classes for a year before baptism or confirmation, whichever applies. We explain these things in detail and encourage them to read or pray about it themselves.

What amounts to our RCIA classes prior to baptism are the classes for new members after baptism, when for a year each Sunday the new members study the manual “Gospel Principles” which gives a more detailed but inexhaustive treatement of LDS doctrines. They will also get lessons in Priesthood meetings and hear talks in church. After that they go into the regular adult Gospel Doctrine class. They will be exposed to some of LDS’s more controversial doctrines prior to that, but it will be in a more initiatory framework.

The crucial difference between the two approaches is the full commitment (joining the Church) before the year’s initiatory training. This allows confirmation biases and self-serving biases to more affect critical thinking. It also activates the escalation of commitment heuristic, having already commited themselves while cultivating the mentioned cognitive biases. It pretty well makes a natural apologist out of every new member in the first year. We incorporate new data in existing hierarchical cognitive frameworks. When new to Mormonism the convert still has the old cognitive hierarchy, and accepting some of these things is easier for most people when they first commit to the supremacy of LDS revelation.

I mean no offense by this, but it is an important part of the overall dynamic. Maybe they have new eyes, but these psychological mechanisms simultaneously narrow their field of vision.
 
Peter_John said:
Most new members first hear details of the controversial doctrines in casual conversations with their new LDS friends as they develop social boinds in the LDS community. Psychologically this makes them more likely to accept it, as a positive mood when learning new information engenders greater liklihood of accepting it. We are also more likely to acccept information we intentionally seek out positively than information we stumble across.

I have to comment on this because Parker’s comments indicate a crucial misunderstanding of the LDS conversion process in particular and any emotionally driven conversion experiences in general. The LDS Church teaches that once you have the Gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism you will understand better – hence Parker’s remark about “new eyes”.

First let me compare to how as Catholics we teach about some of our more controversial dogmas: Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, communion of saints, as examples. Even if a catechumen (investigator in LDS terms) believes it all, he or she must still attend classes for a year before baptism or confirmation, whichever applies. We explain these things in detail and encourage them to read or pray about it themselves.

What amounts to our RCIA classes prior to baptism are the classes for new members after baptism, when for a year each Sunday the new members study the manual “Gospel Principles” which gives a more detailed but inexhaustive treatement of LDS doctrines. They will also get lessons in Priesthood meetings and hear talks in church. After that they go into the regular adult Gospel Doctrine class. They will be exposed to some of LDS’s more controversial doctrines prior to that, but it will be in a more initiatory framework.

The crucial difference between the two approaches is the full commitment (joining the Church) before the year’s initiatory training. This allows confirmation biases and self-serving biases to more affect critical thinking. It also activates the escalation of commitment heuristic, having already commited themselves while cultivating the mentioned cognitive biases. It pretty well makes a natural apologist out of every new member in the first year. We incorporate new data in existing hierarchical cognitive frameworks. When new to Mormonism the convert still has the old cognitive hierarchy, and accepting some of these things is easier for most people when they first commit to the supremacy of LDS revelation.

I mean no offense by this, but it is an important part of the overall dynamic. Maybe they have new eyes, but these psychological mechanisms simultaneously narrow their field of vision.
Click to expand...
Here Here. Good summary. I would even wager that there are some LDS converts that NEVER hear about these doctrines…that which we used to call “deep doctrine”. Some of this stuff is touched on only tangentially or hinted at in the manuals. Unless you have an on-the-edge EQ or HP or GD instructor you wont have some of this original subject matter brought up. In my experience its more tolerated in the Priesthood quorums than in Sunday School.

A few weeks ago in Gospel Doctrine we were covering Matthew 16. This was actually the week AFTER they covered Matthew 16 and I wasn’t there that previous week when they covered the original lesson. Apparently the instructor felt they hadn’t covered it clear enough the previous week so he got permission from the Bishop to REcover the lesson, mostly the section about, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” He brought in Mormon Doctrine AND the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith to try to clarify the position that “this rock” meant revelation and NOT Peter (as most of us know it means). I thought it a bit unusual and inappropriate to bring in such resources to “clarify” scripture.
 
Peter John,

Again many thanks in your comparatives…they are just, fair…balanced.
 
Peter_John said:
Most new members first hear details of the controversial doctrines in casual conversations with their new LDS friends as they develop social boinds in the LDS community. Psychologically this makes them more likely to accept it, as a positive mood when learning new information engenders greater liklihood of accepting it. We are also more likely to acccept information we intentionally seek out positively than information we stumble across.

I have to comment on this because Parker’s comments indicate a crucial misunderstanding of the LDS conversion process in particular and any emotionally driven conversion experiences in general. The LDS Church teaches that once you have the Gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism you will understand better – hence Parker’s remark about “new eyes”.

First let me compare to how as Catholics we teach about some of our more controversial dogmas: Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, communion of saints, as examples. Even if a catechumen (investigator in LDS terms) believes it all, he or she must still attend classes for a year before baptism or confirmation, whichever applies. We explain these things in detail and encourage them to read or pray about it themselves.

What amounts to our RCIA classes prior to baptism are the classes for new members after baptism, when for a year each Sunday the new members study the manual “Gospel Principles” which gives a more detailed but inexhaustive treatement of LDS doctrines. They will also get lessons in Priesthood meetings and hear talks in church. After that they go into the regular adult Gospel Doctrine class. They will be exposed to some of LDS’s more controversial doctrines prior to that, but it will be in a more initiatory framework.

The crucial difference between the two approaches is the full commitment (joining the Church) before the year’s initiatory training. This allows confirmation biases and self-serving biases to more affect critical thinking. It also activates the escalation of commitment heuristic, having already commited themselves while cultivating the mentioned cognitive biases. It pretty well makes a natural apologist out of every new member in the first year. We incorporate new data in existing hierarchical cognitive frameworks. When new to Mormonism the convert still has the old cognitive hierarchy, and accepting some of these things is easier for most people when they first commit to the supremacy of LDS revelation.

I mean no offense by this, but it is an important part of the overall dynamic. Maybe they have new eyes, but these psychological mechanisms simultaneously narrow their field of vision.
Click to expand...
Peter John,

Just for the record, there was no offense taken by me with your post. As one takes an intellectual approach to the gospel of Jesus Christ, they will no doubt reach the conclusion you reached and feel satisfied.

By “new eyes” I meant the kind of eyes that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus had after Jesus taught them the scriptures that prophesied of His coming and His mission, and after they realized that their bosom had “burned within them.” I meant the kind of eyes that find revealed knowledge, as Paul was writing about in 1 Corinthians 2:11, 13, 14.

One expects in the gathering in of the “gospel net” and the planting of the seeds, that there will be about a 25% initial yield (see Matthew 13:4-8), then afterward about 50% who willingly keep their covenants and keep the Spirit (see Matthew 25:1-12) versus 50% who aren’t all that valiant.

So–to be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is just the start of a conversion process and a learning process which leads to sanctification if the person stays on the path–but the eventual retention rate can be expected to yield about 12.5% from the beginning “listeners” or “followers”, and even among those some will bring forth fruits in different capacities depending on their efforts and desires–based on the parables of the Savior.
 
ParkerD said:
Peter John,

Just for the record, there was no offense taken by me with your post. As one takes an intellectual approach to the gospel of Jesus Christ, they will no doubt reach the conclusion you reached and feel satisfied.

By “new eyes” I meant the kind of eyes that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus had after Jesus taught them the scriptures that prophesied of His coming and His mission, and after they realized that their bosom had “burned within them.” I meant the kind of eyes that find revealed knowledge, as Paul was writing about in 1 Corinthians 2:11, 13, 14.

One expects in the gathering in of the “gospel net” and the planting of the seeds, that there will be about a 25% initial yield (see Matthew 13:4-8), then afterward about 50% who willingly keep their covenants and keep the Spirit (see Matthew 25:1-12) versus 50% who aren’t all that valiant.

So–to be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is just the start of a conversion process and a learning process which leads to sanctification if the person stays on the path–but the eventual retention rate can be expected to yield about 12.5% from the beginning “listeners” or “followers”, and even among those some will bring forth fruits in different capacities depending on their efforts and desires–based on the parables of the Savior.
Click to expand...
You make me think of a few things (go figure):
First, I probably neglected pointing out another important thing regarding the processes I described. While it may sound like this initiatory method is simply manipulative, it would not be in an LDS perspective. These cognitive tendencies would be considered tools God placed in our own brains to facilitate the conversion process.

I get the point in the parable of the sower, but I do not think the source material justifies the proportional relations. the Savior says some and never quantifies it.

I am glad you mention the Roafd to Emmaus. Their eyes were really opened in the breaking of the bread. Christ was not revealed until the Breaking of the Bread. This is important as a key passage in recognizing the Eucharistic organization of the New Testament-- particularly in the Gospels. I maintain that reinforcing the Eucharistic pratice was the primary liturgical motivation in comiling the New Testament. It makes a lot more sense when read that way – for example:

Consider that Jsus was born in a town called “House of Bread” and placed in a feeding trough. The miraculous feasts show that he can alter the nature of substance, multiply substance with no apparent limitiations, the transfiguration shows that he can alter the qualities of his own substance, and on the road to Emmaus we find him revealed in the Breaking of the Bread: the Eucharist opens the eyes.
 
Peter John,

Once again, that’s fine for you to have found comfort in how the disciples realized their hearts had burned within them when they had heard the Savior teaching them. He could have broken fish, and it would have had the same effect.

Here is a pertinent passage in John 4 that shows that the metaphor of eating is more expansive than just with “living bread”, besides the earlier verses talking about His living water or everlasting water:

28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
 
[QUOT]E=StJudePray4Me;7836148]During a recent conversation, someone I know claimed that LDS are not Christians. (I know that this is a common belief among non-LDS, but bear with me). I questioned this, because as I understood it, LDS believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is Christ and Redeemer. This other person claimed that the LDS do not believe in Christ, that they believe he was a prophet and a great man, but not the true Christ.

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I didn’t really feel confident arguing. The other person claims that the Book of Mormon has conflicting messages from the Bible and that it states that Jesus was not the Savior.

I’m still pretty sure he was wrong. And (name removed by moderator)ut from LDS would be appreciated.

Hi,

I’m inclined to side with you’re friend.

My understanding is that they do NOT believe in God [as we do: the Trinity] and that Jesus was only a great prophet; a mon, not God.
 
Parker,

We have to look at the consistency of images used in Sacred Scriptures…the Lord led the Jews out of Egypt in a Pillar of Fire…He fed them manna from heaven…the Lord Jesus was placed in an animal feeder…Jesus said at the Last Supper…‘Do this in memory of Me’…the fulfilled form of worship…by the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as outer form…to be realized in His Body and Blood…the ‘feeder’ for our eternal life.

The feeding of the 4,000, the 5,000 use both bread and fish…we already discussed the Road to Emmaus…and Christ realizing His presence to them…in the sharing of the Word…teaching them everything…and finalizing it in the breaking of Bread again…and then disappearing.

What they experienced…the burning…was Jesus Himself…and the new life His Word and Sacrament.

The Lord uses fish…and calls the Apostles to become now fishers of men…fish meaning us…this consistently taught for 2,000 years.
 
ParkerD said:
Peter John,

Once again, that’s fine for you to have found comfort in how the disciples realized their hearts had burned within them when they had heard the Savior teaching them. He could have broken fish, and it would have had the same effect.
Click to expand...
Parker
Let me speak to you about my own heart that is burning
Receiving the body and blood of Christ, this desire led me to become a Catholic, it can not be denied among the first Christians, it will not be denied to the last Christian on earth. Words will never do it justice.

You are much better surrendering to Christ in His words directly spoken than to try to wrap your mind around God the Eternal Son. Its all about surrender, its all about being fed, to become immersed, to be grafted into the Most Holy Trinity…. this is Sanctification. No more ego, no more pride, no more being right or wrong, just loved the way we were created to be loved by Him who loves us.

My own eyes were opened in the breaking of the bread many years ago. Out of no where I began to have a desire to enter into the line of those I had watched walk by for years. I was asleep, I was asked to bring the gifts up one day and that was it. As I approached the Alter of our Lord my own heart was pierced. I remember the Alter being close, but on this day it looked to be a mile away as if the heavens just opened and I was told by God that this will become my home.
This is the day I began to crave the Eucharist, the desire to be in that line.

Those of us who receive the Blessed Sacrament along with a strong desire for Confession just know its miraculous life giving power. What exactly flowed from Christ as he was pierced? Can you find some meaning in this?

“Living water”

Quote: “Blessed Mother Teresa placed great value on the daily Holy Hour in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. She and her sisters depended upon this devotion to the Eucharist for the graces to accomplish their daily work among the poor. In fact, Blessed Mother Teresa attributed the success of their work and their growth in the Missionaries of Charity vocations to the many hours they spent in adoration.

In a letter to the people of St. Alexander Parish in Villa Park, Illinois, July 15, 1996, Blessed Mother Teresa wrote the following:"
Author unknown

“I am very glad to know about the perpetual adoration movement in your parish. Thank God for His love for you - for His presence in you and the joy with which you love and serve Him in the Blessed Sacrament and in each other.
Each one of us is a co-worker of Christ - we must labor hard to carry Him to the hearts where He has not yet been known and loved. But, unless we have Jesus, we cannot give Him; that is why we need the Eucharist. Spend as much time as possible in front of the Blessed Sacrament and He will fill you with His strength and His power. Tell Him, ‘Come to our hearts Lord and stay with us’. Then you will become the instruments of His love, peace and joy.”

Dear Parker
Find the Blessed Sacrament Chapel in a Catholic Church close to you and go in. Spend some quiet time in there. Keep an open mind. Try this.
God Bless
Rich
 
PJM said:
[QUOT]E=StJudePray4Me;7836148]During a recent conversation, someone I know claimed that LDS are not Christians. (I know that this is a common belief among non-LDS, but bear with me). I questioned this, because as I understood it, LDS believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is Christ and Redeemer. This other person claimed that the LDS do not believe in Christ, that they believe he was a prophet and a great man, but not the true Christ.

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I didn’t really feel confident arguing. The other person claims that the Book of Mormon has conflicting messages from the Bible and that it states that Jesus was not the Savior.

I’m still pretty sure he was wrong. And (name removed by moderator)ut from LDS would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I’m inclined to side with you’re friend.

My understanding is that they do NOT believe in God [as we do: the Trinity] and that Jesus was only a great prophet; a mon, not God.
The Book of Mormon is adamant that Jesus is the Savior. Mormons believe this definitively. They differ on the nature of God in Trinity, though the Book of Mormon, most emphasized in the 1830 edition includes Trinitarian language.
 
ParkerD said:
Once again, that’s fine for you to have found comfort in how the disciples realized their hearts had burned within them when they had heard the Savior teaching them. He could have broken fish, and it would have had the same effect.

Here is a pertinent passage in John 4 that shows that the metaphor of eating is more expansive than just with “living bread”, besides the earlier verses talking about His living water or everlasting water:
28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Click to expand...
This passage constitutes one of the Savior’s greatest sharing of God’s own internal dialogue, demonstrating the Christian principle of Christ as God’s most complete self-revelation. Consider this Trinitarian application in light of these Book of Mormon passages:
… I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father being the Father and the Son— The Father,because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
Book of Mormon, current ed.; Mosiah 15:1-4
Click to expand...
  1. And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.
  2. And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?
    Book of Mormon, current ed.; Ether 3:8, 9
Click to expand...
I agree that there are multiple metaphors at play on numerous levels. The Bible’s economy of communication distinguishes it as the Word of God, not man. In this “meat” is a concrete metaphor for the abstract concept of sustenance. Bread itself can be a metaphor for food in general, but is that so in the story of the miraculous feast in Emmaus?
How they would have responded had he broken fish has no bearing, because it says he broke bread, recalling the establishment of the Eucharist. Metaphors need interpretation in light of the literal. To my knowledge the only thing Jesus denied as metaphor when asked by disciples was that the Eucharist was his literal body and blood. Now, nobody questioned this in your Book of Mormon account of the Eucharist being established among Ancient Americans, but the statement is just as literal as in the Bible.
And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.
Book of Mormon, current ed.; 3 Nephi 20:8
Click to expand...
Nothing declares it a symbol. In addition, the perpetuation of this after his model is given such a sacred role that only one among the congregation can be ordained to bless it:
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold*** there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church*** unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.
Book of Mormon, current ed.; 3 Nephi 18:5
Click to expand...
It is his body and blood, not a symbol, it uses water and wine, only one person among a congregation has authority to bless it, and …
  1. But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.
  2. Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.
    Book of Mormon, current ed.; 3 Nephi 18:13-14
Click to expand...
Even your Book of Mormon demonstrates the internal dialogue of God in Trinity in establishing the commandments. Your own Book of Mormon affirms we cannot keep God’s commandments or have His spirit without the perfect institution of the Eucharist. Diminishing its literalness, altering its content with water instead of wine, or augmenting its administration by allowing any covenant keeping adult male in the congregation to bless it – according to your “most correct book” brings condemnation.
He is revealed in the breaking of the bread. His “meat”, our sustenance, is also thus revealed by Eucharistic practice without deviation from His model. Of course, as Christians we do not need the Book of Mormon to tell us that. We already practiced it before canonizing the records we used in exercising our Eucharistic devotion into the Bible, which has helped us preserve the practice intact through the centuries.
 
PJM said:
StJudePray4Me;7836148:
During a recent conversation, someone I know claimed that LDS are not Christians. (I know that this is a common belief among non-LDS, but bear with me). I questioned this, because as I understood it, LDS believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is Christ and Redeemer. This other person claimed that the LDS do not believe in Christ, that they believe he was a prophet and a great man, but not the true Christ.

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I didn’t really feel confident arguing. The other person claims that the Book of Mormon has conflicting messages from the Bible and that it states that Jesus was not the Savior.

I’m still pretty sure he was wrong. And (name removed by moderator)ut from LDS would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I’m inclined to side with you’re friend.

My understanding is that they do NOT believe in God [as we do: the Trinity] and that Jesus was only a great prophet; a mon, not God.
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon adamantly affirms Jesus as the Savior. Mormons do believe that Jesus is Jehovah, but that God the Father is Elohim. They believe Jesus is the Creator, not just a great prophet. Elohim is the architect of Creation, Jehovah the general contractor, so to speak. Elohim himself stepped in in the creation of Man.
 
Mormons use Christian terms, but what they mean is very different from what a Christian means. For example, a Christian believes in the Trinity. According to Catechism 253 “The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.”

The Mormons also acknowledge the Trinity, but for them God the father is a man from another planet and is married to a goddess and who birth to Christ, the “first born of spirit children”. The Holy Ghost, is an entirely other god.

So, don’t be confused when a Mormon says that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. His Jesus is not the Christian Jesus.

Here are some statements from Mormon sources:
  • God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
  • “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…” (D&C 130:22).
  • “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
  • “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
  • “Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh …” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).
Quotes are courtesy of: carm.org/mormon-beliefs
 
Agree with Joseph…there is a link Peter John gave us…that explains the Catholic Church’s position in regards to Mormonism and its beliefs…

They use some of the same symbols or personages but in context of deities, and a very different goal vs Christianity’s.

Also, we can’t just look at a feeling or passion regarding the ‘burning in the bosom’…it is coming into relationship with the Divine Presence…the source of Life…among us.

Christ waits at the door of our hearts…we need no other mortal prophet to re-explain a new message…with many different meanings…

Saying we need a new prophet after the fact is truly giving us a different religion as is the case with Mormonism.
 
Joseph said:
Mormons use Christian terms, but what they mean is very different from what a Christian means. For example, a Christian believes in the Trinity. According to Catechism 253 “The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.”

The Mormons also acknowledge the Trinity, but for them God the father is a man from another planet and is married to a goddess and who birth to Christ, the “first born of spirit children”. The Holy Ghost, is an entirely other god.

So, don’t be confused when a Mormon says that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. His Jesus is not the Christian Jesus.

Here are some statements from Mormon sources:
  • God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
  • “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…” (D&C 130:22).
  • “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
  • “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
  • “Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh …” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).
Quotes are courtesy of: carm.org/mormon-beliefs
Click to expand...
These are all god references. I think the most important thing to note is how they conflict with the Book of Mormon, especially the 1830 edition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top