Mormonism

[TexanKnight]

And how do you know ParkerD is not right? Is it only you who knows what Jesus really means? Is it only you who know when the Lord is speaking literally? Is this a forum for discussion? Or is this where if someone has a different interpretation than the Catholic Church they are calling Jesus a liar?

Lol. Only me? I am not the one who needs to change what Jesus said. I accept what He said. You do not

 

[TexanKnight]

SteveVH,

The apostles weren’t offended by Jesus having said He is the Bread of life, and they showed that they knew He was speaking in the way that the rabbis spoke using the heritage of their poetic language. Simon Peter answered Christ’s question with the specifically chosen words, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Thus Peter showed that he knew what the Savior was teaching.

If Peter had thought Jesus was being literal, he would not have answered in that way.

So now you will also tell us all Peter’s thoughts?

The Jews who scorned Jesus with the question about “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” were not learned Jews and had been looking for a miracle of loaves and fishes, so their question reflected their disappointment that Jesus was not going to provide another loaves and fishes miracle.

To the general reader:

It would be great if the words “liar” and “Jesus” would not be used in the same sentence, as it always comes across as being completely disrespectful of Him and completely at odds with His teachings on many levels.

To the General Reader:

It would be great if the LDS Church was not based on the presumption that Jesus was a liar or that Jesus was weak. As always, the LDS contentions come across as being disrespectful of Him and completely at odds with HIS teachings on many levels.

 

[PJM]

=LivingWaters7;9049008]I was making a distinction between “reformation” and “restoration”. Latter-day Saints do not believe that our Church was established after someone wanted to reform allegedly incorrect beliefs by reading the Bible or other methods. Instead, we believe that God, through revelation, restored His Church and various beliefs, practices, and priesthood.

I understand that that is your belief.

For a Latter-day Saint, it would be more precise to say that we do not believe in the traditional definitions ascribed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, i.e., we reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. We further believe that we are Christians, in that we believe in Jesus Christ as our divine Savior, and that it is only through His atoning sacrifice that we can receive eternal life. Many Latter-day Saints make a distinction between “traditional Christians” (i.e. those holding to the Trinity and/or the definitions of the ancient Creeds and Ecumenical Councils), and us. I believe that I am a Christian, just not a traditional or Nicene one if you will.

This is a somewhat odd question, but I think it is because you are asking it from your own view that the Catholic faith is the original, unchanged faith of the New Testament Church, which is understandable. Latter-day Saints do not share that view (and I understand that various traditional Christian churches also do not share that view), which is why we believe that God restored various beliefs and practices that were lost anciently, as well as providing continuing revelation to provide further light and knowledge about His Gospel.

IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN gOD, jESUS OR hEAVEN AND HELL

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Telstar]

SteveVH,

The apostles weren’t offended by Jesus having said He is the Bread of life, and they showed that they knew He was speaking in the way that the rabbis spoke using the heritage of their poetic language. Simon Peter answered Christ’s question with the specifically chosen words, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Thus Peter showed that he knew what the Savior was teaching.

If Peter had thought Jesus was being literal, he would not have answered in that way.

When Jesus spoke, He spoke plainly so that all would understand exactly what He was telling them. It had nothing to do with His using special “poetic language” that was only understood by ‘the elite’ Jews in the crowd. That’s a fallacy consistently taught by LDS, but it’s not true. When He spoke those words, He was speaking to a gathering of His Apostles and many of His Disciples that had been following Him for a long time, as well as many Pharisees and Sadducees, who were all very well educated in Jewish Law and Tradition. They understood His language, perfectly.

The Pharisees and all the rest of those that were present, understood perfectly that He meant to be taken literally, because He repeated the same thing several times so there would be no doubt about His meaning. It was many of the Jews that murmured and asked, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” They would not have been so shocked by it, if He wasn’t so adamant that they understood Him to be speaking literally. The Pharisees, and those of His disciples that were very weak in their faith in Him, were the ones that were most scandalized by what He said.
“John 6:[60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. [61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.” Not all of the Apostles and Disciples believed Him, because it was deeply spiritual, and was very difficult for anyone to understand in strictly human terms. But, many of them also knew that Jesus was the true Messiah. They were the ones, like Peter, that were willing to accept whatever He said as being the complete truth, even if they didn’t fully understand it at that time. They trusted Him because they knew that He was the Son of God.

But, when Judas heard it, he immediately lost what little faith he had in Jesus. He thought Jesus had gone mad. That was the moment that he decided to betray Him, because of that “hard (to understand)” teaching. But, Jesus clearly stated that His words were of “spirit and life”. He was telling them about a profound and deeply spiritual action that could only come from the power of God, that was not compatible with human understanding of the strictly physical things of this world. The only One that could literally fulfill all of His words was God, Himself, in Jesus Christ the Only Son of God.

The Jews who scorned Jesus with the question about “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” were not learned Jews and had been looking for a miracle of loaves and fishes, so their question reflected their disappointment that Jesus was not going to provide another loaves and fishes miracle.

Aux contraire. They were the Pharisees and other very learned men that were also listening to Jesus preach in the synagogue. They were looking for anything controversial in His preaching, that they could use against Him. So, when they heard it, they made sure to react in an overt manner, to show their complete disapproval of His teachings. They wanted to discourage others from following Him, and it worked. Those who lacked true faith in Jesus were the ones who turned away from Him, because He told them that they*** must*** eat His flesh and drink His blood to have any life in them, or to be raised up by Him on the last day.

To the general reader:

It would be great if the words “liar” and “Jesus” would not be used in the same sentence, as it always comes across as being completely disrespectful of Him and completely at odds with His teachings on many levels.

It would also be great if certain people would refrain from teaching things that disparage the great dignity and holiness of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who is the embodiment of God’s Truth, by making Him look like a liar, or a fool, that wasn’t capable of keeping His word to His Own Church.

 

[David]

To the general reader.
Mormons do not believe in the same God as Christians. They have a different jesus and heaven and hell. This is why they are not considered Christians.

Not only do they believe in a different God, the believe in many gods. The belief in many gods is a violation of the 1st commandment.

They use Christian terminology and that is the only similarity. They have totally re-defined Christian terminology, which is what confuses the discussion.

They insist the Church was restored, when we know the gates of hell have never prevailed.

They misunderstand the Scriptures mostly due to not understanding the terms. They are not reading about the Christian God or the Christian Jesus.

Please pray for them
David

 

[mtolympus]

So, you can address the scriptures from where our belief is based, or complain that we’re not being “nice”.

Up to you.

Rebecca, At least your comments are rational and you generally refrain from personal insults. I believe that the Catholic forum is very generous to allow non-Catholics a chance to express their beliefs and views of the scriptures. I am not complaining that we are not being treated “nice.” My complaint is that in some cases the dialog turns to a third grade level, such as: “I believe what Christ says and you don’t.” “Do so” “Do not” “Do so” “Do not.”

 

[Marie5890]

To the general reader.
Mormons do not believe in the same God as Christians. They have a different jesus and heaven and hell. This is why they are not considered Christians.

Not only do they believe in a different God, the believe in many gods. The belief in many gods is a violation of the 1st commandment.

They use Christian terminology and that is the only similarity. They have totally re-defined Christian terminology, which is what confuses the discussion.

They insist the Church was restored, when we know the gates of hell have never prevailed.

They misunderstand the Scriptures mostly due to not understanding the terms. They are not reading about the Christian God or the Christian Jesus.

Please pray for them
David

Very honest and charitable way of putting it.

The same terminology is used, but the meaning is radically different.

 

[TexanKnight]

Rebecca, At least your comments are rational and you generally refrain from personal insults. I believe that the Catholic forum is very generous to allow non-Catholics a chance to express their beliefs and views of the scriptures. I am not complaining that we are not being treated “nice.” My complaint is that in some cases the dialog turns to a third grade level, such as: “I believe what Christ says and you don’t.” “Do so” “Do not” “Do so” “Do not.”

Then refrain from doing that

 

[TexanKnight]

The problem is that we, as Catholics, tend to take Jesus at His Word.

it goes like this:

Jesus says "You are now Peter and on Peter I will build my Church. The gates of Hell will NEVER prevail.

Joseph Smith says: hell prevailed and there was an apostasy. God restored the Church thru me.

Now, do I believe Jesus who made a promise that hell would NEVER prevail? Or do I believe Joseph who says hell DID prevail?

 

[hosemonkey]

I could not agree with you more, Parker. The Jews of that time understood the language in which he spoke, which is why the first apostasy occurred after the Bread of Life discourse. They were completely offended that he told them that they must eat his body and drink his blood. They understood his words perfectly and understood that he was not speaking metaphorically. It offended their Jewish senses profoundly. He never backed off, but rather the conversation went from “I am the Bread of Life” to “If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life in you.” They left him at that point and he did not, as any teacher worth his salt would be obligated to do, call them back and expalin that he was speaking metaphorically.

Those who reject the Eucharist follow those who left him into apostasy. He meant what he said.

Amen!!!

 

[Marie5890]

Joseph Smith wasnt a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is not of divine origins and is not the record of an ancient American people. It is not the Gospel. It’s all that simple.

None of it is true. None.

 

[pismopal]

Joseph Smith wasnt a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is not of divine origins and is not the record of an ancient American people. It is not the Gospel. It’s all that simple.

None of it is true. None.

Thank you…all of discussion about the odds and ends of LDS theology is going the long way around. LDS theology is all about Joseph Smith and he was transparently wrong from beginning to end. LDS collapses around JS.

 

[TexanKnight]

Thank you…all of discussion about the odds and ends of LDS theology is going the long way around. LDS theology is all about Joseph Smith and he was transparently wrong from beginning to end. LDS collapses around JS.

That is true. Mormons like to compare Joseph Smith to OT prophets. And they shouldn’t. Look at him.

OT Prophets: it was never about them. Most never wanted the mantle.
JS: He WANTED to be king. He WANTED to be the one. It allowed him to have people build him houses and give him their wives, etc.

OT Prophets: Did not want notoriety.
JS: Wanted to run for President. Wanted to be mayor. Wanted to be general and dress up in military clothing.

OT Prophets: Did not like war, but helped when it happened.
JS: Formed several armies and even marched on Missouri to do battle.

OT Prophets: Tried diligently to be faithful in all their doings
JS: Convicted con man and really messed people up with his bank scheme.

OT Prophets: were basically peaceful.
JS: Shot wildly downstairs, not caring who he killed, while in jail for breaking the law.

It all rests on him. and it all falls around him.

 

[Marie5890]

Thank you…all of discussion about the odds and ends of LDS theology is going the long way around. LDS theology is all about Joseph Smith and he was transparently wrong from beginning to end. LDS collapses around JS.

Exactly. It really is that simple, that basic. Smith was not a prophet. Period. The Book of Mormon is not of divine origin.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

The apostles weren’t offended by Jesus having said He is the Bread of life,

Please show me where I said they were offended by Jesus saying he was the Bread of Life? As I clearly said, they were offended that he told them that they must eat his body and drink his blood. The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Rather than backing off from that question, he instead made the stronger statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood that offended them. “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

They didn’t leave because he didn’t have a sandwich for them. They left because what he said offended them to their core as Jews. Read their response: “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” You’re reading in something that just isn’t there.

Simon Peter answered Christ’s question with the specifically chosen words, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Thus Peter showed that he knew what the Savior was teaching.

No. Peter did not show that he knew what the Savior was teaching. Look at his response. After the crowds had left he turned to the Apostles and asked “will you also leave?” They didn’t respond with , “No Lord, we know you are only speaking metaphorically.” They said “Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, we believe because of the one who said it. Any indication that they understood him is simply not in the text. As hard as his words were to accept, they accepted them anyway because they knew who he was, not because they fully understood what he said. They knew he spoke the truth.

The Jews who scorned Jesus with the question about “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” were not learned Jews and had been looking for a miracle of loaves and fishes, so their question reflected their disappointment that Jesus was not going to provide another loaves and fishes miracle.

They had already witnessed the miracle. They were following him because the miracle gave some indictation of his authenticity. They were now following a prophet, not a lunch wagon. And how do you know who was learned and who was not in that crowd? You are simply creating a scenario to fit your presumptions rather reading the text in a critical manner.

 

[ParkerD]

Please show me where I said they were offended by Jesus saying he was the Bread of Life? As I clearly said, they were offended that he told them that they must eat his body and drink his blood. The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Rather than backing off from that question, he instead made the stronger statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood that offended them. “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

SteveVH,

Here was your earlier comment to which I responded where I specifically wrote about the apostles:

The Jews of that time understood the language in which he spoke, which is why the first apostasy occurred after the Bread of Life discourse. They were completely offended that he told them that they must eat his body and drink his blood. They understood his words perfectly and understood that he was not speaking metaphorically. It offended their Jewish senses profoundly. He never backed off, but rather the conversation went from “I am the Bread of Life” to “If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life in you.” They left him at that point and he did not, as any teacher worth his salt would be obligated to do, call them back and expalin that he was speaking metaphorically.

The apostles wouldn’t have been offended if they knew Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and my comment was that the apostles weren’t offended. So we are talking about several different groups of people with different backgrounds when we see the events described in John 7:

1. The apostles, several of whom had a background in their Jewish religious heritage through study and association.
2. Other disciples besides the apostles who didn’t “also go away”, such as the sisters Mary and Martha and presumably some others.
3. The followers who did “go away”. I wouldn’t call this an apostasy, because they weren’t really staunch followers. They were “fair weather” kinds of followers.
4. The possibility of some Pharisees or Sadducees who perceived Jesus as a threat and thus went where He went to see how the crowds were responding to Him.

I’m going to have to just add to this as I can get to it, but this is a start.

 

[ParkerD]

…You’re reading in something that just isn’t there.

No. Peter did not show that he knew what the Savior was teaching. Look at his response. After the crowds had left he turned to the Apostles and asked “will you also leave?” They didn’t respond with , “No Lord, we know you are only speaking metaphorically.” They said “Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, we believe because of the one who said it. Any indication that they understood him is simply not in the text. As hard as his words were to accept, they accepted them anyway because they knew who he was, not because they fully understood what he said. They knew he spoke the truth…

SteveVH,

This comment shows that a person making such a comment doesn’t trust that Simon Peter had an understanding about what the words “the Christ” or “Messiah” meant–that he hadn’t studied or listened about the prophesied Messias and the Anointed One.

Yet Andrew, Peter’s brother, showed as described in John 1:29, 36, 40 and 41 that he understood what John the Baptist had said concerning the Lamb of God “which taketh away the sin of the world” and he (Andrew) believed this was true. Therefore, Andrew knew that Jesus was the Anointed One, the Lamb of God and the Son of God (John 1:34). He told his brother, Simon (called Peter), who also believed and started following Jesus.

Andrew and Simon Peter would know that this entailed a blood sacrifice, in order to take away the sin of the world, and that the words “Lamb of God” meant that the law of Moses was going to be fulfilled through the blood of the Lamb of God. (See Leviticus 17:10 and 11). So whenever Simon Peter used the word “Christ” meaning “Anointed One”, then he was showing that he had a knowledge of the prophesies about the Anointed One.

Anyone thinking about the Anointed One should read and be familiar with Psalms 2 and Isaiah 61:1-3. These words were familiar to Simon Peter and Andrew–this is why Andrew told Simon Peter that he had “found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.”

Thus, Simon Peter already had a knowledge that Jesus was the Anointed One and the Son of God and the Lamb of God. He didn’t need to think that Jesus was asking the Jews to break the law of Moses (Leviticus 17:10)–because he (Simon Peter) knew that Jesus was going to take away the sin of the world through a perfect blood sacrifice. He knew that Jesus is “that Christ”.

So looking again at John 6:68 and 69, Simon Peter was showing that he understood both the words “Bread of life” (the “words of eternal life” which he had already begun to hear from the Savior of the world), and understood the “blood of atonement” to be shed for the sin of the world by the Lamb of God “which taketh away the sin of the world”.

If someone has taken the time to read the above, but hasn’t looked up the passages noted, then they aren’t going to “get it”. One needs to have in their mind that Simon Peter had a knowledge, just as John the Baptist did, to know what the words “Lamb of God” and “Anointed One” meant.

 

[mtolympus]

JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity,

The mere fact that an Anglican writer has noted there were “anti-Nicene” parties in existence does not support your comment that most Christians held that view. We all know there was an Arian heresy. The fact that some people believed it doesn’t make it any more true. It was a heresy then, and it’s a heresy now. Only by claiming that the Gospel of John included forged verses can JWs and LDS explain away the Scriptural proof for the Trinity.

I just want to make it clear that JW and LDS are completly opposite on this point.

The JW views are very similar to those of Arius in 325 AD who argued that the Word was not coeternal with God, a position which denied the divinity of the Word, and therefore the divinity of Jesus. And that, if Jesus and the Father were both divine, he argued, that this would result in a the denial of Christian monotheism.

The LDS believe that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are indeed divine and yet Jesus prayed to the Father “the only true God.” (John 17:3) Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one with the Father in perfect unity of purpose and authority; and therefore there is only one true God.

 

[TexanKnight]

SteveVH,

Here was your earlier comment to which I responded where I specifically wrote about the apostles:

The apostles wouldn’t have been offended if they knew Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and my comment was that the apostles weren’t offended. So we are talking about several different groups of people with different backgrounds when we see the events described in John 7:

1. The apostles, several of whom had a background in their Jewish religious heritage through study and association.
2. Other disciples besides the apostles who didn’t “also go away”, such as the sisters Mary and Martha and presumably some others.
3. The followers who did “go away”. I wouldn’t call this an apostasy, because they weren’t really staunch followers. They were “fair weather” kinds of followers.

It is truly sad that for you to be right, you must be a mind reader and heart reader of everyone in the Bible. You are always here to tell us what Jesus really meant, what Peter really meant and now what the disciples who left felt. How sad that you need to be able to read everyone’s mind to be LDS

1. The possibility of some Pharisees or Sadducees who perceived Jesus as a threat and thus went where He went to see how the crowds were responding to Him.

I’m going to have to just add to this as I can get to it, but this is a start.

Please do, there are still thousands of Biblical people that you have not told us what they REALLY meant yet

 

[Jerusha]

How sad that you need to be able to read everyone’s mind to be LDS

Hpw sad we need to go to such lengths in this debate, when Joseph Smith was not a prophet, in any sense of the word.