MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[KathleenGee]

Who do you then follow…MtOlympus…really…Mormonism is at essence anti-Catholic, because it consistently falls into alignment with the Scriptural and faith foundations of Martin Luther and Calvin, two men.

It is your choice if you want to believe in an interpretation of Christianity based on two or three men, this case Joseph Smith included.

You will readily believe the claims of Smith, but not the words of Christ Himself, Who is God…because you do not believe that Christ is God, One in being with the Father and Son.

Christ very explicitly said to drink of His Blood and eat of His Body…the only means to receive eternal life…This is the New Covenant. The Mass is the Memorial, the Daily Sacrifice in Revelations, the new, God-given form of worship fulfilling ancient Judaic worship, that was not made up by men, but directed by God to Moses, the precursor to St. Peter.

All the precursors to the Eucharist are prefigured in the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden…that was withheld after the Fall…only to begin through the root of Jesse…to enter the divine we must eat of the Lord in forms of bread and wine…the gifts that Melchizedek presented to Abraham, and prophesized the coming, perfect and perpetual sacrifice.

Christianity is based on the real presence of Jesus Christ, actual, physical, concrete. Christianity is not founded on Martin Luther, Calvin, or Joseph Smith.

We follow Christ Who said to lay down one’s life for Him, even to the shedding of one’s blood, for Him. The first 300 years of Christianity, the destruction of Christianity by Islam, and now in modern times the deaths of millions of Christians under communism.

Without the shedding of one’s life force, there is no sacrifice.

Where are your venerated martyrs?

You ignore 2,000 years of Christian practice and early writings of the Apostles, Paul, and prefer to follow the private interpretations of men that do not lead to eternal life, but only strife and division and more false teachings.

People come to true Christianity to encounter God, not narcissistic mirror of one’s self.

 

[KathleenGee]

Timeless Man…

You should read up on the history of Mormonism, its beliefs and convictions, its practices.

About proxy baptisms.

I live by the Mormon Temple and people are in there at all hours of day and night doing these rituals. My first impression of it was that of something sinister and contrary going on in there, the outward appearance grandiose but shallow, artificial. Mormon believers are encouraged to do so to earn their way into celestial heaven, and to rule over those they baptize.

In all actuality, these rituals are desecrating the dignity of lives lived out according to their beliefs, this done without their free will and knowledge, names acquired without consent.

It is especially desecrating to priests and religious who are now in the Lord.

There is no practice of baptizing the dead in the Church and the example Mormons use is always more reflective of very temporary, off -base belief among a few that was condemned by the early Church.

 

[TexanKnight]

I only said that we believe what it says in the following scripture from the NIV. It doesn’t say what you say it says. Read it again:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” NIV (1 Cor.11:23:25)

It says broken bread not unleavened bread, it says cup not wine. He said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this” That is what we believe and that is what we do. Honest readers know who is trying to mislead.

Seriously?

1. You KNOW it was wine. Please do not be misleading.
2. It says "THIS IS MY BODY. Do you believe that your bread actually becomes the body? You don;t. Please do not be misleading.
3. You KNOW it was unleavened. Please do not be misleading.

Why is it LDS do this?

 

[Telstar]

I only said that we believe what it says in the following scripture from the NIV. It doesn’t say what you say it says. Read it again:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” NIV (1 Cor.11:23:25)

It says broken bread not unleavened bread, it says cup not wine. He said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this” That is what we believe and that is what we do. Honest readers know who is trying to mislead.

The NIV is not really accepted by most Catholics, any more than the KJV is. But, that’s beside the point. (I always quote from the Douay-Rheims, which is the oldest English version of the Catholic Bible [pre-KJV] which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.)

Your argument against it being “unleavened bread” is invalid. Jesus and the Apostles were celebrating the Jewish Passover meal (Seder). It is always celebrated by eating unleavened bread, as a reminder of the bread that they made in haste at the first Passover, which had no leavening in it. It is also traditional to serve wine during the meal, as well as bitter herbs. "The Seder is a ritual performed by a community or by multiple generations of a family, involving a retelling of the story of the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in ancient Egypt. This story is in the Book of Exodus (Shemot) in the Hebrew Bible. The Seder itself is based on the Biblical verse commanding Jews to retell the story of the Exodus from Egypt: “You shall tell your child on that day, saying, ‘It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 13:8) Traditionally, families and friends gather in the evening to read the text of the Haggadah, an ancient work derived from the Mishnah (Pesahim 10). The Haggadah contains the narrative of the Israelite exodus from Egypt, special blessings and rituals, commentaries from the Talmud, and special Passover songs.

Seder customs include drinking four cups of wine, eating matza [unleavened bread ~ Telstar], partaking of symbolic foods placed on the Passover Seder Plate, and reclining in celebration of freedom.[3] The Seder is performed in much the same way by Jews all over the world."

"**The Four Cups**

**There is an obligation to drink four cups of wine during the Seder**. The Mishnah says (Pes. 10:1) that even the poor are obliged to drink the four cups. Each cup is imbibed at a specific point in the Seder. The first is for Kiddush (קידוש), the second is for 'Maggid' (מגיד), the third is for Birkat Hamazon (ברכת המזון) and the fourth is for Hallel (הלל).[7][8]

The Four Cups represent the four expressions of deliverance promised by God Exodus 6:6-7: "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take."

The Vilna Gaon relates the Four Cups to four worlds: this world, the Messianic age, the world at the revival of the dead, and the world to come. The Maharal connects them to the four Matriarchs: Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel, and Leah. (The three matzot, in turn, are connected to the three Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) The Abarbanel relates the cups to the four historical redemptions of the Jewish people: the choosing of Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt, the survival of the Jewish people throughout the exile, and the fourth which will happen at the end of days. **Therefore it is very important.**"
This was not just any ordinary meal that they were sharing that night. It's a sacred ritual that all Jews still participate in, to celebrate Passover. It must always be done in the traditional way. [You can read more about it, here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder)

Once again, Jesus said that the bread was His "flesh, indeed", and the wine was truly His blood. At the Consecration of the Mass, the Priest's blessing changes the bread and wine into the true Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ, through transubstantiation. It's not just symbolic to Catholics. It's reality.

 

[pismopal]

Seriously?

1. You KNOW it was wine. Please do not be misleading.
2. It says "THIS IS MY BODY. Do you believe that your bread actually becomes the body? You don;t. Please do not be misleading.
3. You KNOW it was unleavened. Please do not be misleading.

Why is it LDS do this?

Because they are misled…they mislead. It is actually as simple as it is shameful.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Seriously?

1. You KNOW it was wine. Please do not be misleading.

Latter-day Saints do not deny that it was wine. False allegation.

1. It says "THIS IS MY BODY. Do you believe that your bread actually becomes the body? You don;t. Please do not be misleading.

Latter-day Saints quite clearly know that Christ said “This is my body”. We are not denying what Christ said. What we do deny is the interpretation that saying “This is my body” necessitates a transformation of the bread into the flesh of Christ (while still appearing to be bread) anymore than my holding up an orange and saying “This is the Sun” necessitates a transformation of the orange into the Sun. No one is being misleading here (and it is disingenuous to say so), we differ on our interpretations of what Jesus Christ said.

1. You KNOW it was unleavened. Please do not be misleading.

No, not everyone agrees that it was unleavened bread used. And even if we entertain the belief that it was unleavened bread, it seems as if the Catholic Church has no problem with the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, since it allows for the use of leavened bread in the Eastern Catholic churches, correct? So this is a non-issue.

 

[TexanKnight]

Latter-day Saints do not deny that it was wine. False allegation.

No, it wasn’t. MT appeared to be saying it was not wine. You have proven my piont

Latter-day Saints quite clearly know that Christ said “This is my body”. We are not denying what Christ said. What we do deny is the interpretation that saying “This is my body” necessitates a transformation of the bread into the flesh of Christ (while still appearing to be bread) anymore than my holding up an orange and saying “This is the Sun” necessitates a transformation of the orange into the Sun. No one is being misleading here (and it is disingenuous to say so), we differ on our interpretations of what Jesus Christ said.

So, Jesus lied? You believe He lied? Good to know.

No, not everyone agrees that it was unleavened bread used. And even if we entertain the belief that it was unleavened bread, it seems as if the Catholic Church has no problem with the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, since it allows for the use of leavened bread in the Eastern Catholic churches, correct? So this is a non-issue.

Actually, it has been shown it was leavened bread. So, you are correct, it is a non issue.

Now, show me where leavened bread and water was used.

 

[Telstar]

Latter-day Saints do not deny that it was wine. False allegation.

But to LDS, water is a suitable substitute, even though it’s not a true representation of what Jesus did.

Latter-day Saints quite clearly know that Christ said “This is my body”. We are not denying what Christ said. What we do deny is the interpretation that saying “This is my body” necessitates a transformation of the bread into the flesh of Christ (while still appearing to be bread) anymore than my holding up an orange and saying “This is the Sun” necessitates a transformation of the orange into the Sun. No one is being misleading here (and it is disingenuous to say so), we differ on our interpretations of what Jesus Christ said.

But, by denying that Jesus meant everything that He said in those passages, even though He emphasized it by saying, “Amen (“So be it”), Amen, I say unto you” in John 6:55 (repeating the “Amen” twice was always used by Him to verify that He was clearly speaking the truth, and not speaking in a parable), LDS are, in effect, calling Him a liar, just like all others that deny the Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist. The bread and wine that He blessed at that Passover meal, was in fact His Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity, that He gave to the Apostles to eat and drink.

No, not everyone agrees that it was unleavened bread used. And even if we entertain the belief that it was unleavened bread, it seems as if the Catholic Church has no problem with the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, since it allows for the use of leavened bread in the Eastern Catholic churches, correct? So this is a non-issue.

Please, read my previous post that explains the Passover Seder meal. It was ***always ***unleavened bread. Also, the Roman Catholic Church (under the Pope) does not allow leavened bread to be used for the Eucharist.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Please, read my previous post that explains the Passover Seder meal. It was ***always ***unleavened bread. Also, the Roman Catholic Church (under the Pope) does not allow leavened bread to be used for the Eucharist.

To interrupt, it IS an Eastern Catholic tradition to us leavened bread, not unleavened as in the West, but leavened, as the leaven symbolizes the fulfillment of the Passover by rising. And don’t say Eastern Catholics are any less under the Pope than Western Catholics. So yes, there are Catholic Churches that legitimately use leavened bread for the Eucharist.

The West uses a more historical interpretation while the East is more symbolic in our respective choices for bread to be Consecrated.

However, denying that Christ Himself used unleavened bread is stating that Christ disobeyed the prescriptions of Passover. Given the past allegation that it is “unknown” what Christ used is a lie and is open to an interpretation that Christ is disobedient to the Law of the Father.

 

[CarterJoe]

I have been reading what everyone has typed the last week now on different LDS subjects. I wasnt sure if I wanted to register here but I have a question that I think goes with the topic.

Why do current LDS members consider all other writings (their own too. old doctrine) or what ex-LDS members say about their faith ANTI-Mormon? Ive been reading different blogs and have been to other forums and it seems to be the norm. Ive read here that a few of you members here are ex-LDS and been taught their beliefs so it seems to me you know what your talking about. Why do the current LDS argue then when they are presented the facts of their faith? To me it would be saying “Hey, maybe im wrong about what I believe in”

Another thing that ive seen typed here is the LDS always say “As long as its been interpeted correctly” (The Bible) So I decided to go to LDS.org and Mormon.org and investigate it. One site states Smith was 21 years old and the other 14 when he found the tablets and that he was uneducated. So how did he write the book of mormon in 3 months if he was uneducated? Was it because of some rocks? It also says he was a faithful husband and loving father. What is true and whats not?

 

[Jerusha]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith

The Book of Mormon was cobbled together, borrowing from Ethan Smith, Solomon Spalding, Shakespeare, the Bible, including the Deuterocanon, Snorre Sturlason’s Heimskringla, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Francesco Clavigero’s History of Mexico, and still other works. It was a collaborative project, possibly masterminded by Ethan Smith, who lost control of it and repudiated it.

Well, go ahead and continue your research.

 

[Telstar]

To interrupt, it IS an Eastern Catholic tradition to us leavened bread, not unleavened as in the West, but leavened, as the leaven symbolizes the fulfillment of the Passover by rising. And don’t say Eastern Catholics are any less under the Pope than Western Catholics. So yes, there are Catholic Churches that legitimately use leavened bread for the Eucharist.

The West uses a more historical interpretation while the East is more symbolic in our respective choices for bread to be Consecrated.

However, denying that Christ Himself used unleavened bread is stating that Christ disobeyed the prescriptions of Passover. Given the past allegation that it is “unknown” what Christ used is a lie and is open to an interpretation that Christ is disobedient to the Law of the Father.

I had no intention of slighting any branch of the Catholic Church, so I apologize if that’s the way it sounded. I was specifically referring to “Roman” Catholics under the Pope, who only use unleavened bread. I really don’t know very much about the other Catholic Traditions, and try not to answer for any of them because I don’t want to make any false statements about them. I’m also still somewhat confused about which ones are in full communion with Rome. Sorry if I misspoke.

I do agree that it’s false to say that it’s “unknown” as to what kind of bread they ate at the Last Supper. That’s something that is definitely unquestionable, since they were sharing in the Passover Seder. To imply otherwise would be to claim that Jesus didn’t follow Jewish Law or tradition. He was compelled to do everything that was required under the Law, in order to fulfill the scriptures concerning the Messiah.

 

[Miriam1947]

I only said that we believe what it says in the following scripture from the NIV. It doesn’t say what you say it says. Read it again:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” NIV (1 Cor.11:23:25)

It says broken bread not unleavened bread, it says cup not wine. He said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this” That is what we believe and that is what we do. Honest readers know who is trying to mislead.

It was the Passover, the Jews and Jesus was one, used unleavened bread and wine.

Not bread from the grocery store and water.

And read John 6.

[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [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. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

 

[mtolympus]

The NIV is not really accepted by most Catholics, any more than the KJV is. But, that’s beside the point. (I always quote from the Douay-Rheims, which is the oldest English version of the Catholic Bible [pre-KJV] which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.)

I understand that. I was only pointing out that what I believe about the Sacrament is in the Bible which was written by the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” NIV (1 Cor.11:23:25)

Your argument against it being “unleavened bread” is invalid. Jesus and the Apostles were celebrating the Jewish Passover meal (Seder).

I am not arguing against unleavened bread! Unleavened bread is fine. However, I have not seen any scriptures in the Bible, even in the Catholic translation of the Bible, that says unleavened bread is required. Yes, I agree unleavened bread was used for passover but I am not Jewish and therefore I do not celebrate passover. After Jesus died the disciples continued the practice of breaking bread on the first day of the week, (Sunday). It doesn’t say what kind of bread they used.

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” (Acts 20:7)

 

[mtolympus]

To interrupt, it IS an Eastern Catholic tradition to us leavened bread, not unleavened as in the West, but leavened, as the leaven symbolizes the fulfillment of the Passover by rising. And don’t say Eastern Catholics are any less under the Pope than Western Catholics. So yes, there are Catholic Churches that legitimately use leavened bread for the Eucharist.

Thank you for your interesting and informative comments. I like your interpretation that rising is symbolic of the fulfillment of the Passover.

However, denying that Christ Himself used unleavened bread is stating that Christ disobeyed the prescriptions of Passover. Given the past allegation that it is “unknown” what Christ used is a lie and is open to an interpretation that Christ is disobedient to the Law of the Father.

You are correct of course that Jesus used unleavened bread during the Passover.

 

[LivingWaters7]

It was the Passover, the Jews and Jesus was one, used unleavened bread and wine.

Not bread from the grocery store and water.

Why does it matter where the bread is coming from (I assume this is what you’re implying by stating “bread from the grocery store” (emphasis added))? Surely the way Catholics get the hosts used in the Eucharist (in general. I have been to at least one parish where a parishoner brought homemade flat bread. Similarly, I’ve been to a Latter-day Saint ward where a member brought homemade bread) is not the same way Christ received the bread used in the Lord’s Supper.

 

[LivingWaters7]

No, it wasn’t. MT appeared to be saying it was not wine. You have proven my piont

To me it did not seem that he was saying that it was not wine. He can clarify what he said, however it is clear that Latter-day Saints fully acknowledge that wine was used.

So, Jesus lied? You believe He lied? Good to know.

Please read what I wrote again. No one is claiming that Jesus Christ lied. We believe what he said. The difference is in the interpretation of what His words mean.

Actually, it has been shown it was leavened bread. So, you are correct, it is a non issue.

Now, show me where leavened bread and water was used.

I assume that you meant “Actually, it has been shown it was UNleavened bread.” Anyway, Latter-day Saints know what was used in the Lord’s Supper. As already mentioned, no one is denying that wine was used, or even that unleavened bread was used. And again, the issue of unleavened or leavened bread is really a non-issue for the Catholic Church, since it allows for the use of both within itself (i.e. the Roman Catholic sui iuris church uses unleavened bread, while many if not most of the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches (in full communion with Rome) use leavened bread).

 

[LivingWaters7]

But to LDS, water is a suitable substitute, even though it’s not a true representation of what Jesus did.

Yes, Latter-day Saints believe, through what we believe is modern revelation from God, that water can be used in place of wine for the Sacrament (what you refer to as the Eucharist), and even then, our revelation allows for the use of pure wine made by ourselves. We believe that water is of course an appropriate symbol of Christ, who is the living water. It is not necessary to carry out all that Christ did in the Lord’s Supper for it to be in remembrance of Him (and as already mentioned, the Eastern Catholic churches seem okay with using leavened bread for their Eucharist even though Christ used unleavened, so it seems to not be important to do and use exactly what Christ did).

But, by denying that Jesus meant everything that He said in those passages, even though He emphasized it by saying, “Amen (“So be it”), Amen, I say unto you” in John 6:55 (repeating the “Amen” twice was always used by Him to verify that He was clearly speaking the truth, and not speaking in a parable), LDS are, in effect, calling Him a liar, just like all others that deny the Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist. The bread and wine that He blessed at that Passover meal, was in fact His Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity, that He gave to the Apostles to eat and drink.

No, Latter-day Saints are not denying that Jesus meant everything He said in those passages. We believe He meant what He said. The difference is in interpretation of His words. Christ can still be the door or the gate without literally being those things, and He means what He says in those instances as well. I fail to see how saying “Amen” twice means that He was speaking the truth and not speaking in a parable (and within that, I don’t understand what you mean by “speaking the truth” vs. “speaking in a parable”. Christ’s parables are speaking the truth…). Metaphors are true, symbols are true, etc. We believe Jesus meant what He said when He said “This is my body”. The difference is in what He meant by that (Similarly, I mean what I say when I hold up an orange and say “This is the Sun” to a group of students in an astronomy class or something).

Please, read my previous post that explains the Passover Seder meal. It was ***always ***unleavened bread. Also, the Roman Catholic Church (under the Pope) does not allow leavened bread to be used for the Eucharist.

I believe this has been explained. Yes, the Roman Catholic sui iuris church under the Pope uses unleavened bread for the Eucharist. However, many if not most of the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches (also under the Pope) use leavened bread. So it seems as if whether the bread is leavened or not is a non-issue as far as the Eucharist is concerned, since the Catholic Church has both forms in use within itself.

 

[mtolympus]

To me it did not seem that he was saying that it was not wine. He can clarify what he said, however it is clear that Latter-day Saints fully acknowledge that wine was used.

Yes. Of course Jesus used unleavened bread and wine during the Passover. I was trying to say that the terms used in the scripture below did not specify that these and only these items be use in the future and is completely consistent with what we believe about the modern Sacrament.

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” NIV (1 Cor.11:23:25)

 

[TexanKnight]

To me it did not seem that he was saying that it was not wine. He can clarify what he said, however it is clear that Latter-day Saints fully acknowledge that wine was used.

Please read what I wrote again. No one is claiming that Jesus Christ lied. We believe what he said. The difference is in the interpretation of what His words mean.

Ok…So, Jesus saying THIS IS MY BODY is unclear and needs your interpretation?

I assume that you meant “Actually, it has been shown it was UNleavened bread.” Anyway, Latter-day Saints know what was used in the Lord’s Supper. As already mentioned, no one is denying that wine was used, or even that unleavened bread was used. And again, the issue of unleavened or leavened bread is really a non-issue for the Catholic Church, since it allows for the use of both within itself (i.e. the Roman Catholic sui iuris church uses unleavened bread, while many if not most of the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches (in full communion with Rome) use leavened bread).

And yet you use wonderbread and water. Again, bread and water is prison food. Come out of the LDS prison into truth.