Why I left Mormonism and didn't become a Protestant --the Eucharist

[flyonthewall]

Says who? Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Where in the Holy Bible does it say such a thing?

The scriptures say so. The reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood was in John 6, around the same time as He fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, and about the same time as He walked on water.
The last supper was the night before His arrest, which was much later in time.

Illogical… makes no sense.

No offense but your argument is devoid of faith and logic; it does not surprise me to hear such belief that comes from a person whom believes in Joseph Smith. LDS is the biggest lie since Islam… Joseph Smith is the biggest false prophet since Muhammed. The book of mormon has about as much truth as a fictional story.

No offense, but you have addressed nothing that I have said with anything more than a “nu uh”. I think you just used my post to simply take a pot shot at a faith that is different than your own.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hi flyonthewall,
My question is, regarding your bolding, what does He say He wants us to do in remembrance of Him? He says, quite literally, to take and eat His body and drink His blood in remembrance of Him.

Jon

Literally, He wanted them to eat the bread, that He was assigning the symbolism of His body, in rememberance of Him.
Same with the wine.
I don’t mean to take your beliefs lightly, but it seems like a symbolic gesture was assigned a literal meaning.

 

[JonNC]

Literally, He wanted them to eat the bread, that He was assigning the symbolism of His body, in rememberance of Him.
Same with the wine.

But that isn’t what He says. He doesn’t say He wants them to eat the bread. He tells them it is His body, to eat His body.
Christ often spoke in figurative ways, and I suspect had He wanted this understood that way, He would have said something like, “Take and eat, I am the bread of life”, or some such, in keeping with other metaphores, “I am the door…” etc. This is the only instance I know of where He puts His hands on something, blesses it, and says “This is ME” (literal), instead of “I am this” (figurative).

I don’t mean to take your beliefs lightly, but it seems like a symbolic gesture was assigned a literal meaning

And I indeed respect yours, but I see no hint of symbolism in it at all.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The scriptures say so. The reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood was in John 6, around the same time as He fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, and about the same time as He walked on water.
The last supper was the night before His arrest, which was much later in time.

I might add that I think there is a tendency by some to place too much emphasis on John 6 in regards the real presence. Clearly, the last supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul are far greater evidence of the reality of the real presence.

Jon

 

[croix_de_fer]

The scriptures say so. The reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood was in John 6, around the same time as He fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, and about the same time as He walked on water.
The last supper was the night before His arrest, which was much later in time.

No offense, but you have addressed nothing that I have said with anything more than a “nu uh”. I think you just used my post to simply take a pot shot at a faith that is different than your own.

No I did not use your post to “pot shot” LDS, rather I only express the truth. LDS and Islam are LIES; Joseph Smith and Muhammed are false prophets. Christ even warned us about false prophets that will come after Him. Remember, you addressed me first, therefore I only responded to you. Nowhere in Scripture does Christ say His body and blood is symbolic. Help me understand… do you believe He didn’t need to say it because it is common sense that His body and blood is symbolic?

 

[flyonthewall]

No I did not use your post to “pot shot” LDS, rather I only express the truth. LDS and Islam are LIES;

I think it goes without saying that there are different faiths present on this board, and that there are disagreements. From my perspective, what I beleive is 100% true and is backed up with scriptures, and your faith is in error…should I then proclaim the truth that your beliefs are lies?
No. I do not. I respect the faith of others. I can disagree without being disagreeable.

Joseph Smith and Muhammed are false prophets

.
Interesting why you would lump Joseph Smith in with Muhammed. While I disagree with the logic, I can understand why you do.

Christ even warned us about false prophets that will come after Him.

And what of the true prophets that were to come?

Remember, you addressed me first, therefore I only responded to you. Nowhere in Scripture does Christ say His body and blood is symbolic. Help me understand… do you believe He didn’t need to say it because it is common sense that His body and blood is symbolic?

I have brought up that symbolism and metaphor have been used extensively in the scriptures. The teaching method used by Christ was parables which is metaphorical. Your response what that it was illogical and didn’t make sense. If that is how you understand it, so be it. Your understanding does not change the truth, and I do

Jesus has been referred to as a rock/stone, shepherd, lamb, and, the bread of life. All of which He is not literally, but figuratively, metaphorically, and symbolically.
I have already explained that while Jesus was handing the bread to the apostles, He was assigning the symbolism of it, as His body. He told them to eat the bread he handed them in rememberance of His body.
He had already proclaimed that He was the bread of life.
You cannot see the symbolic nature of it. That reminds me of those 3-D pictures that were so popular a little while ago. At a glance there is nothing, but if you really concentrate and look, the picture will emerge. I see the picture. You cannot. Whether or not you see it does not change that it is there.

 

[JonNC]

Jesus has been referred to as a rock/stone, shepherd, lamb, and, the bread of life. All of which He is not literally, but figuratively, metaphorically, and symbolically.
I have already explained that while Jesus was handing the bread to the apostles, He was assigning the symbolism of it, as His body. He told them to eat the bread he handed them in rememberance of His body.

Orginally posted by JonNC
Christ often spoke in figurative ways, and I suspect had He wanted this understood that way, He would have said something like, “Take and eat, I am the bread of life”, or some such, in keeping with other metaphores, “I am the door…” etc. **This is the only instance I know of where He puts His hands on something, blesses it, and says “This is ME” (literal), instead of “I am this” (figurative). **

You cannot see the symbolic nature of it. That reminds me of those 3-D pictures that were so popular a little while ago. At a glance there is nothing, but if you really concentrate and look, the picture will emerge. I see the picture. You cannot. Whether or not you see it does not change that it is there

I am curious; I cannot see the symbolic nature of it either, but more importantly, neither could the whole Church, east and west, for centuries. Phillipp Melanchton testifies to this in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession when he states on the subject:
*“And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.” *

Why is it Rome, Orthodoxy, and later, Lutherans and most Anglicans were not able to see the symbolic nature of it?

Jon

 

[flyonthewall]

I am curious; I cannot see the symbolic nature of it either, but more importantly, neither could the whole Church, east and west, for centuries. Phillipp Melanchton testifies to this in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession when he states on the subject:
*“And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.” *

Why is it Rome, Orthodoxy, and later, Lutherans and most Anglicans were not able to see the symbolic nature of it?

Jon

I can give several reasons from the LDS point of view, but I think you already know what they are.

 

[croix_de_fer]

flyonthewall;7101941]

I think it goes without saying that there are different faiths present on this board, and that there are disagreements. From my perspective, what I beleive is 100% true and is backed up with scriptures, and your faith is in error…should I then proclaim the truth that your beliefs are lies?

Effectively you are doing such a thing but in a more subtle manner by denying the true flesh, blood and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist… and by proclaiming it is only a symbol. This is a Catholic forum, yet you, a mormon (among other LDSers), come here with subtle attempts at proselytizing with your lies. Your religion is a LIE, your faith is a LIE, Joseph Smith was a false prophet either because he was a pathological liar or he was mentally sick and delusional. This is NOT to say you are a bad person or mormons are bad people. On the contrary, most of the mormons I met (including the sisters that tried to convert me to your “faith”) are good people. However, even good people with good intentions can propagate the works of Satan and NOT realize it.

No. I do not. I respect the faith of others.

I do not respect your faith because it’s based on a lie, but that does not mean I do not respect you as a person and recognize your human dignity.

I can disagree without being disagreeable.

With all do respect, that is being spineless. Again I will respect your human dignity and I recognize God loves us all equally but I will not sugar coat any disagreement with a lie.

Interesting why you would lump Joseph Smith in with Muhammed.

It’s not lumping JS with Muhammed because both are radically different in the false dogmas they spread. It’s simply calling out both as being the two biggest false prophets to date.

I have brought up that symbolism and metaphor have been used extensively in the scriptures. The teaching method used by Christ was parables which is metaphorical. Your response what that it was illogical and didn’t make sense. If that is how you understand it, so be it. Your understanding does not change the truth, and I do

Jesus has been referred to as a rock/stone, shepherd, lamb, and, the bread of life. All of which He is not literally, but figuratively, metaphorically, and symbolically.
I have already explained that while Jesus was handing the bread to the apostles, He was assigning the symbolism of it, as His body. He told them to eat the bread he handed them in rememberance of His body.
He had already proclaimed that He was the bread of life.
You cannot see the symbolic nature of it. That reminds me of those 3-D pictures that were so popular a little while ago. At a glance there is nothing, but if you really concentrate and look, the picture will emerge. I see the picture. You cannot. Whether or not you see it does not change that it is there.

Everyone knows Christ sometimes spoke using parables but that does NOT mean he was referring to His body and blood in a symbolic manner. His words were direct, His actions were direct, His instructions to His disciples/apostles were direct regarding His body and blood. You have not answered my question. It’s simple question… do you believe it is common sense that Christ spoke symbolically about His body and blood, therefore He did not have to say it was a symbol? And do not try to bring up parables Christ used to hold claim He was speaking in parables regarding His body and blood. This is elementary post hoc fallacy.

 

[flyonthewall]

flyonthewall;7101941]
Effectively you are doing such a thing but in a more subtle manner by denying the true flesh, blood and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist… and by proclaiming it is only a symbol.

I am not doing such a thing. I disagree with the physical presence of the body of Christ, but I am not saying anyone is lying.

This is a Catholic forum, yet you, a mormon (among other LDSers), come here with subtle attempts at proselytizing with your lies. Your religion is a LIE, your faith is a LIE, Joseph Smith was a false prophet either because he was a pathological liar or he was mentally sick and delusional.

This is your opinion. I am not here to proselytize. I am actually here to better understand your faith, while correcting misconceptions of my own.
The title of this forum is “Non-Catholic religions”. Do you feel it is appropriate to invite those not of your faith here only to call the founders of their faith liars? That tells me a lot about you.

This is NOT to say you are a bad person or mormons are bad people. On the contrary, most of the mormons I met (including the sisters that tried to convert me to your “faith”) are good people. However, even good people with good intentions can propagate the works of Satan and NOT realize it.

Well said. I agree with this. Think on this some more.

I do not respect your faith because it’s based on a lie, but that does not mean I do not respect you as a person and recognize your human dignity.

Should I be saying “Thank you sir, may I have another”?

With all do respect, that is being spineless. Again I will respect your human dignity and I recognize God loves us all equally but I will not sugar coat any disagreement with a lie.

You must simply adore the Westboro Baptist Church.
How long would I be allowed to stay here if I came with the same attitude as that?

Everyone knows Christ sometimes spoke using parables but that does NOT mean he was referring to His body and blood in a symbolic manner. His words were direct, His actions were direct, His instructions to His disciples/apostles were direct regarding His body and blood. You have not answered my question. It’s simple question… do you believe it is common sense that Christ spoke symbolically about His body and blood, therefore He did not have to say it was a symbol? And do not try to bring up parables Christ used to hold claim He was speaking in parables regarding His body and blood. This is elementary post hoc fallacy.

Ahh, finally back on topic.
My direct answer to your question is: Yes. It is common sense. As I stated before, Jesus is referred to as a rock, stone, shepherd, lamb, bread of life, etc. All of which He was not literally, but metaphorically, figuratively, and symbolically.
I understand why you don’t want me to bring up parables, afterall that was His main teaching method.
He gave them a piece of bread, not a piece of His body. He then assigned the symbolic meaning of it by stating: this is my body, eat it(the bread) in rememberance of me(my body). It just doesn’t make ANY sense to say: eat my body in rememberance of my body.

Again, I disagree with the concept of the physical presence, but do not ridicule, mock, or otherwise revile anyone in my disagreement.

 

[Windfish]

Huh, I see things have gotten a bit rowdy.

Interesting to see non-Catholic interpretations of the John 6 and the other passages on the Eucharist. I’ll read them more in-depth later.

 

[Windfish]

By the way, if they were to interpret his words metaphorically it would have been just as bad, as I am sure you know. To eat someone’s flesh meant to hate, revile and kill, to Jesus’ Jewish audience.

Among the other reasons, this delivers a knock-out blow to the notion that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Radical’s response to this was not adequate; he will have to provide a better response. Otherwise, interpreting Jesus’ words metaphorically results in nonsense.

 

[croix_de_fer]

My direct answer to your question is: Yes. It is common sense.

I thought you were being taught by Scripture not by common sense. Do you believe Christ is Divine? If your answer is “yes” then I say to you common sense did not teach you that… why would it teach you Christ’s body and blood is only a symbol? You are arbitrarily interpreting Scripture and your interpretation is against the truth that has been passed down to us for 2000 years. The first fathers of our Church taught the true flesh, blood and Divinity of the Eucharist.

You are saying the first bishops of the Church had it all wrong… some of the very same bishops whom knew Christ personally and lived with Him. But a man named Joseph Smith whom lived 1800 years after Christ and the first bishops had it all right? What is the difference between Joseph Smith and a person that wakes up tomorrow claiming he had a divine revelation and goes to the street corner to tell everyone? Why should we trust the person or believe the person? What gives that person the authority or anointing? How do you know he/she is not a liar or mentally sick person?

Since you are here partly to clear up any misconceptions about mormonism, maybe you can answer questions I posed to other mormons that went unanswered on this forum. According to Joseph Smith, the inhabitants of the America’s were visited by Jesus. Were these inhabitants Native Americans or another race of people? We already know the Vikings visited here too because of archaeological evidence such as helmets were discovered. If another race of people other than Native Americans lived here then where is the anthropological evidence that another race (according to mormonism) inhabited the America’s? Where is the archaeological evidence? If Jesus appeared to Native Americans and not another “earlier” people, then why is there no mention of Christ by them? Where is the archeological and/or historical evidence of the events in the America’s proclaimed by Joseph Smith?