Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheSufi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mathonihah said:
It is not a numbers game. You can have a hundred verses saying one thing, and one verse at the end that modifies, or clarifies, the meaning of the rest.
Click to expand...
No…the one verse you MISREAD to justify following a false prophet.

the Versions thread is there for you to prove me wrong…

dont be afraid
 
Stephen168 said:
It is taught by Christ as record by the Apostle John. It is also recorded in Christian history from the time of the Apostles. We also know from history it was Christian protesters during the 16th century that began to reject this teaching of Christ. Because Mormonism is a 19th century invention of Joseph Smith, it adopted the beliefs of the protesters. This is the main reason I know that Mormonism is an invention and not a restoration.
Click to expand...
Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”. In fact, in many ways Mormonism has a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism. With regard to the priesthood, Apostolic authority, the sacraments, ecclesiastical structure, and certain doctrinal matters too it has stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism.
 
mathonihah said:
Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”. In fact, in many ways Mormonism has a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism. With regard to the priesthood, Apostolic authority, the sacraments, ecclesiastical structure, and certain doctrinal matters too it has stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Catholics follow a never-changing God. You follow a often-changing god. Catholics follow a perfect God, you follow a god who was once a sinful man. Catholics believe Jesus to be all-powerful, honest and loving, you believe in a Jesus that MUST be week, dishonest and cruel. Catholics follow Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, you use bread and water.

We are nothing alike
 
mathonihah said:
I thought you said, “This will be my last post on this issue.” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: It is your gross misunderstanding of the simple, plain English Sacrament prayer that tells me to help ensure that others don’t fall for your misunderstanding of LDS belief, as much as I would like to avoid going in continuous circles with you.

It is clear, despite your personal statements to the contrary, that LDS believe that the bread and water used in the Sacrament are blessed and sanctified. They are blessed and sanctified to the souls of those that partake, which does not change the fact that they are blessed and sanctified, since that’s what the prayer clearly states. Similarly, the oil used in administering to the sick is consecrated. In both cases, the physical elements used are blessed/consecrated by the power of the priesthood (a concept lacking from Evangelicals that hold to purely symbolic notions of ordinances, including Communion), setting them apart from religious use. No, this doesn’t mean that they undergo a substantial, metaphysical change (it is still just bread and water), despite you trying to say that some LDS understandings of bless and sanctify approach Real Presence beliefs (again, a claim without substantiation, ironic). It is clear that the common LDS understanding of the emblems is that they are “sanctified” by the priesthood.

The bread and water are blessed and sanctified, and by partaking of these emblems set apart by priesthood power, we too are blessed and sanctified, renew covenants, etc.

Even in the “last supper” in the scriptures, we see it said that Jesus took bread, “and blessed it”. Further proof of your erroneous personal interpretation of LDS beliefs.

lds.org/manual/print/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/new-york-and-pennsylvania-period/doctrine-and-covenants-27?lang=eng

lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/search-me-o-god-and-know-my-heart?lang=Eng&clang=eng

ce.byu.edu/cw/womensconference/sharing/2011/sharing_stations/pdf/5a.pdf

mormonfaq.com/about/about-mormon-ordinances

lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/20.4#204

Etc Etc

Thanks for the laugh though. 👍
 
beyond the commands to “do good” and to “avoid evil”, there is next to nothing the same in LDS and catholic teachings.
 
mathonihah,

how do you and the LDS church define good? how do you know that the spirit that testifies to you is testifying to what is good?
 
mathonihah said:
Why don’t you tell us what you think John 6:63 means, and support it with convincing exegesis—instead of shouting from the sidelines?

I think it means that the the physical eating of his flesh profiteth nothing, which is what some of his his disciples had misunderstood him as saying.
Click to expand...
I do hope that you don’t think your “exegesis” is convincing to anyone.

The proper exegesis of that verse has already been given in this thread multiple times. That you don’t agree with it or find it “convincing” means nothing, just like we don’t find your eisegesis convincing either.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
It is clear, despite your personal statements to the contrary, that LDS believe that the bread and water used in the Sacrament are blessed and sanctified. They are blessed and sanctified to the souls of those that partake, which does not change the fact that they are blessed and sanctified, since that’s what the prayer clearly states.
Click to expand...
How do you differentiate that from the various concepts of Real Presence? That is what I am trying to do.
 
mathonihah said:
Hyperbole or exaggerated form of speech is a common feature of oriental and Hebrew speech and culture. The Bible is full of it. Here are some typical examples from the New Testament:

“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
“And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matt. 5:29–30)

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matt. 7:3–5)

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24)

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

“The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.” (John 12:19)

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25).

It is used to emphasize an important point. In the case of Christ’s teachings regarding the Eucharist, the emphasis is that it is through the death and sufferings of Christ that salvation comes to us. That is the purpose of the hyperbole.

Jesus sometimes also deliberately used a provocative language in order to drive away disciples who were just hangers on, and did not have genuine faith in him. Here is an example:

“And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
“And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
“And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
“Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
“And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
“And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:57–62)

In the case of the Eucharistic teachings, however, the fact that the “flesh and blood” was not meant to be taken literally is amply demonstrated by John 6:63. Jesus said that in response to some of his disciples taking offense at his saying that he would give them his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink. The idea it conveys is that it is not meant to be taken literally.

Other passages, which teach that the rite is to be performed in remembrance of him, also confirm this. Paul for example gives the following instructions regarding the Eucharist:

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Cor. 23–26)

Nowhere is it taught that the bread and wine are literally transformed into his flesh and blood. It is a hyperbole, and exaggerated form of speech. The emblems are a symbolic representation of his suffering and death on our behalf.
Click to expand...
Tisk tisk… there you go again, do you think we don’t recognize a hyperbole when we see one? This is NOT one of them. When did the the word “is” become a synonym for “like”, incase you didn’t know one is an absolute or literal and the other is a comparative. If Jesus wanted us to take this account of the “flesh” as a symbol he would have said it is like my flesh or like my blood or drink as if it were my blood.

Also, why would he say eat, eat, eat of my flesh and then say but its of no good anyways its not my real flesh I want you to eat it’s my spirit, oh but then at the last supper say again this IS my body which will be given up for the forgiveness of sins take it and eat of eat… Jesus must have been really confused or the context you put on that verse incorrect I like to think Jesus knew what he was doing;)
 
eddie_too said:
mathonihah,

how do you and the LDS church define good? how do you know that the spirit that testifies to you is testifying to what is good?
Click to expand...
This is how:

"For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
"For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
"But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
"And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
“Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.” (Moroni 7:15–19)
 
LivingWaters7 said:
I do hope that you don’t think your “exegesis” is convincing to anyone.

The proper exegesis of that verse has already been given in this thread multiple times. That you don’t agree with it or find it “convincing” means nothing, just like we don’t find your eisegesis convincing either.
Click to expand...
That is a cop out.
 
CyndiTo411 said:
Tisk tisk… there you go again, do you think we don’t recognize a hyperbole when we see one? This is NOT one of them. When did the the word “is” become a synonym for “like”, incase you didn’t know one is an absolute or literal and the other is a comparative. If Jesus wanted us to take this account of the “flesh” as a symbol he would have said it is like my flesh or like my blood or drink as if it were my blood.

Also, why would he say eat, eat, eat of my flesh and then say but its of no good anyways its not my real flesh I want you to eat it’s my spirit, oh but then at the last supper say again this IS my body which will be given up for the forgiveness of sins take it and eat of eat… Jesus must have been really confused or the context you put on that verse incorrect I like to think Jesus knew what he was doing;)
Click to expand...
They you don’t know what hyperbole is. Hyperbole says is, not like. That would be a simile, not a hyperbole. Hyperbole says, You have a beam in your eye; or, You are swallowing a camel; or, Pluck our your eye, cut off your hand, hate your father and mother, eat my flesh and blood, etc. That is hyperbole.
 
mathonihah said:
How do you differentiate that from the various concepts of Real Presence? That is what I am trying to do.
Click to expand...
Simple:

The “Real Presence” refers to the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. There is some sort of “change”, whereby the body and blood of Christ become present. Some concepts of Real Presence say that the body and blood are present with the bread and wine, while others, such as the traditional Catholic/Orthodox view, states that the bread and wine are no longer there (only the “accidents” or outer qualities), and that it is only the body and blood of Christ. Either way, “Real Presence” refers to the presence, in some way, of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

The LDS Sacrament has nothing to do with that, and I have not said a single word about the LDS Sacrament involving the presence of Christ in some fashion. Instead, as I have repeatedly stated, the LDS Sacrament involves the blessing and sanctifying of bread and water. How you go from blessing bread to that implying Real Presence is beyond me, and is illogical. Blessing the bread and water, just like consecrating oil in administering to the sick, means that the elements are set apart for a specific religious use, through the power of the priesthood. If I just go to the fridge right now, eat some bread and drink some water, and think about the Atonement, that is not participating in a priesthood ordinance. In contrast, in the Sacrament ordinance, priesthood holders bless and sanctify bread, to the souls of those that partake. When partaking in this blessed bread and water (which has nothing to do with Christ being present in them), we can renew our baptismal covenants, have the Spirit to be with us, etc.

In a sentence or two: The Real Presence means that Christ’s body and blood are present in the elements used in the Eucharist, a belief which LDS do not hold to. Instead, bread and water are blessed, set apart, by the priesthood, and remain bread and water, but are now, through priesthood power, set apart for the renewal of baptismal covenants, having the Spirit, etc, as we remember Christ’s atonement. It is through partaking of that blessed bread and water (as opposed to unblessed bread and water) that this happens.
 
mathonihah said:
Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”. In fact, in many ways Mormonism has a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism. With regard to the priesthood, Apostolic authority, the sacraments, ecclesiastical structure, and certain doctrinal matters too it has stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism.
Click to expand...
That is indeed true, in regards to authority, priesthood, sacraments, structure, their is a strong similarity to Catholicism. This is a strength of Mormonism from a Catholic perspective, because one of the things the Protestant reformers did was to throw out the concept of an authoritative church, and an authoritative interpreter of scripture. They were wrong to do so, and Joseph Smith recognized the need for an authority, which the Protestants had denied. So he (or the Holy Spirit) established such a church. The Watchtower Society started by Charles Taze Russell is another such authoritative church, created to fill the void left by the Protestant reformation.
 
mathonihah,

you did not provide a definition of good. different people interpret the teachings of Jesus to mean different things. you basically say that you determine what is good in a totally subjective manner. who would disagree that believing in Jesus and His teachings are good?

the problem is people do not agree on who Jesus is and what He taught.

your logic about good is that whatever you say is good is good and whatever you say is not good is not good.

why cannot you define good in a way that informs people and gives them a basis for making moral decisions?

the LDS teaches of a Jesus of whom all of history and all other christians have never heard. the LDS interprets the Bible in a way that there is NO evidence of its ever having been interpreted in a similar manner. the LDS imagines and apostasy that neither it nor anyone else can p(name removed by moderator)oint as to when the apostasy occurred and what the apostates rejected of the truth. the LDS denies all of the teachings of christianity up to the writings of joseph smith. why? because it makes them feel good. there is no evidence in history supporting what the LDS teaches.

there is no evidence anywhere that supports what the LDS teaches about God and Jesus except for a document that a 19th century man produced and contains no information that can be supported by history, facts or evidence.

saying, as the LDS says, that i believe because the spirit testifies that my belief is good is totally meaningless to any people who employ the use of reason in their lives.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Simple:

The “Real Presence” refers to the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. There is some sort of “change”, whereby the body and blood of Christ become present. Some concepts of Real Presence say that the body and blood are present with the bread and wine, while others, such as the traditional Catholic/Orthodox view, states that the bread and wine are no longer there (only the “accidents” or outer qualities), and that it is only the body and blood of Christ. Either way, “Real Presence” refers to the presence, in some way, of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

The LDS Sacrament has nothing to do with that, and I have not said a single word about the LDS Sacrament involving the presence of Christ in some fashion. Instead, as I have repeatedly stated, the LDS Sacrament involves the blessing and sanctifying of bread and water. How you go from blessing bread to that implying Real Presence is beyond me, and is illogical. Blessing the bread and water, just like consecrating oil in administering to the sick, means that the elements are set apart for a specific religious use, through the power of the priesthood. If I just go to the fridge right now, eat some bread and drink some water, and think about the Atonement, that is not participating in a priesthood ordinance. In contrast, in the Sacrament ordinance, priesthood holders bless and sanctify bread, to the souls of those that partake. When partaking in this blessed bread and water (which has nothing to do with Christ being present in them), we can renew our baptismal covenants, have the Spirit to be with us, etc.

In a sentence or two: The Real Presence means that Christ’s body and blood are present in the elements used in the Eucharist, a belief which LDS do not hold to. Instead, bread and water are blessed, set apart, by the priesthood, and remain bread and water, but are now, through priesthood power, set apart for the renewal of baptismal covenants, having the Spirit, etc, as we remember Christ’s atonement. It is through partaking of that blessed bread and water (as opposed to unblessed bread and water) that this happens.
Click to expand...
And are the emblems used symbolically to represent the flesh and blood of Christ, or not? Are they symbols, or are they something else?
 
mathonihah said:
Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”. In fact, in many ways Mormonism has a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism. With regard to the priesthood, Apostolic authority, the sacraments, ecclesiastical structure, and certain doctrinal matters too it has stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism.
Click to expand...
Mormonism is an inevitability of Protestantism. Both are based on an idea that Truth (Who is Jesus Christ) is subject to personal interpretation.

Every LDS member who posts here displays their own personal interpretation. The inevitability of Mormonism, are the individuals claiming to be “prophets”, who fire up their own religion.
 
As Mark Twain said:

“It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth, and remove all doubt.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top