Stephen168
New member
Because it is what they are taught.And how dare you insult the Eucharist in such a manner. You insult the Eucharist and therefore insult Christ himself!
Mormon Doctrine:
- Status
Mormon Doctrine:
H
Horton
Guest
Of these three I can see only one that the LDS may hold true and that is Moses & the burning bush. The LDS do not believe in Jesus Christ, at least the widely held belief of who Jesus is in Christianity.
And certainly you don’t believe in the Eucharist. Since the LDS hold a false belief of who Jesus Christ is, then there is no way the LDS hold the true and biblically sound belief of what Holy Communion is and what it means. If you really knew what it means, you would never mock it.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Why are you pretending to believe in transubstantiation?
I get what you were trying to faux mock. Personally I wouldn’t faux mock Jesus for any reason. People here are reading your willingness to do so as an affront.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
Hatikva, nowhere do I question the sincerity of anyones belief. I was saying that the first impression of those beliefs which a nonMormon gets, cannot be accurate. And janedoe, seems to agree.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
And my gosh, everyone is policing a totally calm conversation. I was not offended by anything she said, she was not offended after rereading what I said. She apologized if she offended me, and I ignored that because I did not see anything she wrote as requiring apology.
H
Horton
Guest
Here’s the deal though, you posted a question on a public forum so we, the public, are free to correct statements that are detrimental to our faith or beliefs. If you want to have a 1x1 conversation with a member here, you should do it through PM.
As for me, when anyone mocks my Church, mocks my deeply held Catholic convictions, insults our God, well yes I will respond.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
Horton, most of the stuff she mentioned was stuff Mormons believed in. She was saying that stuff that seems strange can be true.
And Mormons do believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins, Horton. So, two outta three Mormons believe.
And Mormons do believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins, Horton. So, two outta three Mormons believe.
J
jane_doe
Guest
H
Horton
Guest
But the one they call Jesus is NOT the same Jesus Christ we believe in. LDS believe Jesus is the literal biological son of God, conceived through normal means, and was just a man. They do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, just the humanity.
So no, it’s not two out of three. Jane was making the argument that most LDS resort to when they are unable to explain their theology. They make the claim of children, “they did it too”.
G
gazelam
Guest
Somewhere someone passed incorrect information to you. LDS believe that Jesus was born into this world inheriting divine aspects from His Father, and mortal aspects from His mother. Because of the mortal portion of His nature He could die. Because of the divine aspects of His Nature he had the power over death. D&C 93:12-14 states:
12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
So in a nutshell Jesus came into this world partially divine (unlike His Father who was already fully divine), and came to a point where He was fully divine (like His Father.)
I hope this helps…
G
gazelam
Guest
Sometimes I go to CARM which also argues against transubstantiation here: carm.org/transubstantiation
Of course, there’s Justin Martyr…
Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. (Dialogue with Trypho, 70)
There’s always Clement of Alexandria…
The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood (The Paedagogus 2.2)
And Origen…
We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Eusebius of Caesarea…
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
T
Tarquin
Guest
I have read some of the teachings of Mormon “prophets”, but I have never found a good reason for saying the prophet teaches and guides the Church on one hand, and rejecting a prophet’s teachings on the other hand.
Brigham Young certainly did teach that “The birth of the Savior 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”. He made it clear that Jesus was “not born by the Holy Ghost” but by the Father, as naturally as he himself (Young) was born. I have have heard this idea many times, from different Mormons, including Mormon missionaries, so I have to believe it either is the belief of Mormons, or once was the belief and was changed for some unknown reason.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
Hey gazelam, not to get into a big thing to take us even farther afield, but I read your thing, and I know Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria did unequivocally teach the real presence.
From his Justins First Apology:
The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.
The Catholic Mass to this day uses the language of remembrance but still makes an ontological claim about what occurs. You gotta remember the big anamnesis concepts that are expressed in alotta the Catholic liturgy. Now, we can argue about whether Justin Martyr fits better into consubstantiation or transubstantiation, but real physical presence is not really debatable in interpreting him. I know Evangelical apologists who concede as much. My good Calvinist theologian friend was never gonna go soft on Catholicism and he conceded that much.
And Clement of Alexandria, I think if you look up the context for that quote, he is not talking about the liturgy, but for life in general. He is telling people not to be drunk. In that same book Clement says that God says “‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”" That is in a liturgical context. Read more of him and even more real presence stuff comes up. And for Catholics, the bread and wine ARE only symbols until the Eucharistic prayer. So, outside of the Mass wine is just wine, but Clement makes the argument that it is still a symbol of Jesus blood, not to be abused
I do not know the other authors as well, so, I cannot speak to larger context for them, but I kinda suspect there is a larger context.
My point is only to clarify two of the Church fathers for Patristics nerdiness sake.
From his Justins First Apology:
The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.
The Catholic Mass to this day uses the language of remembrance but still makes an ontological claim about what occurs. You gotta remember the big anamnesis concepts that are expressed in alotta the Catholic liturgy. Now, we can argue about whether Justin Martyr fits better into consubstantiation or transubstantiation, but real physical presence is not really debatable in interpreting him. I know Evangelical apologists who concede as much. My good Calvinist theologian friend was never gonna go soft on Catholicism and he conceded that much.
And Clement of Alexandria, I think if you look up the context for that quote, he is not talking about the liturgy, but for life in general. He is telling people not to be drunk. In that same book Clement says that God says “‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”" That is in a liturgical context. Read more of him and even more real presence stuff comes up. And for Catholics, the bread and wine ARE only symbols until the Eucharistic prayer. So, outside of the Mass wine is just wine, but Clement makes the argument that it is still a symbol of Jesus blood, not to be abused
I do not know the other authors as well, so, I cannot speak to larger context for them, but I kinda suspect there is a larger context.
My point is only to clarify two of the Church fathers for Patristics nerdiness sake.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
But anyway, I have now hit 4OO posts, so, I am gonna take a break from CAF for a while, ha. I got what I wanted outta this thread, so, thanks to everyone who posted reading resources.
Stephen168
New member
You clearly have not read these anti-Mormon documents in total or the total works of any of these anti-Mormon authors.
J
jane_doe
Guest
T
Tarquin
Guest
In response to Jane Doe’s claim that the Book of Mormon covers only a portion of the western hemisphere, I would like to make a clarification.
That new teaching is the result of new knowledge from, primarily, genetic studies. No Jewish genes in North American Indians. Unless there is a small enclave somewhere that either has not been found, or whose genes have been so impossibly diluted that no trace of their trans-Atlantic flight remains. Prior to those discoveries outside of Mormonism, every prophet, apostle, elder, and everyone, believed and taught, beginning with Joseph Smith, that the Lamanites occupied all the land from north to south, plus “the isles of the sea”, and prior to them the Jaredites has occupied all the land from north to south.
Spencer W. Kimball, 12th president-prophet, stated, “Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand."
Kimball: “The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.”
Joseph Smith reported the angel telling him “the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham”, but perhaps that angel could lie?
That new teaching is the result of new knowledge from, primarily, genetic studies. No Jewish genes in North American Indians. Unless there is a small enclave somewhere that either has not been found, or whose genes have been so impossibly diluted that no trace of their trans-Atlantic flight remains. Prior to those discoveries outside of Mormonism, every prophet, apostle, elder, and everyone, believed and taught, beginning with Joseph Smith, that the Lamanites occupied all the land from north to south, plus “the isles of the sea”, and prior to them the Jaredites has occupied all the land from north to south.
Spencer W. Kimball, 12th president-prophet, stated, “Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand."
Kimball: “The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.”
Joseph Smith reported the angel telling him “the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham”, but perhaps that angel could lie?
G
gazelam
Guest
I appreciate you expressing your concerns. Though you didn’t specifically say so, you seem to infer that Brigham Young’s quote must be interpreted to mean that a literal sexual union took place between God the Father and Mary. The LDS position is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and God the Father was Jesus’ literal father. It seems easy enough to read BY’s quote through that LDS lens.
LDS do not believe that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus. Jesus never called Himself the Son of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:35 (NABRE) And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
While the Holy Spirit was clearly instrumental in the conception, here’s nothing here stating that the Father’s chromosomes couldn’t have been implanted by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:18 (NABRE) Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.
This verse again indicates the instrumentality of the holy Spirit. If someone is paid by a salary by mail, it doesn’t mean that the payment necessarily originated with the Postal Service.
And straight from the Book of Mormon…
1 Nephi 11:18-21
And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. [gazelam comment - here before conception Mary is described as a virgin]
And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! [gazelam comment - The Holy Spirit is instrumental in the conception]
And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. [gazelam comment - after bearing Jesus, Mary is still described as a virgin]
And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! [gazelam comment - Jesus is considered the Son of the Eternal Father, not of the Holy Spirit]
I’m fairly certain Brigham Young is in agreement with this passage. Take care.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Christians profess that by the power of the Holy Spirit Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. Sometime we shorten “by the power of the Holy Spirit” to “by the Holy Spirit”, which is fine for us because we aren’t changing the meaning.
As for chromosome and whatnot, well, we don’t believe in gods (plural) and demigods. Jesus’ humanity is because he was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is fully human and fully divine. Not half human, half god (demigod).
- Status