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

[LivingWaters7]

And are the emblems used symbolically to represent the flesh and blood of Christ, or not? Are they symbols, or are they something else?

Let us be clear here (again):

In LDS belief, the bread and water do not become Christ’s body and blood (as already stated). They symbolize His body and blood. Now, the actual issue at hand, the issue I and others have been addressing for pages (after your statement that the bread and wine are not sanctified), is whether the LDS belief is analogous to the purely symbolic understanding of Evangelicals or not. It is clear that it isn’t. LDS believe that they have priesthood power and authority to “bless and sanctify” the bread and water. While they aren’t becoming Christ’s body and blood, they are set apart to do something. The blessing isn’t just on those that partake, but is on the bread and water (as multiple LDS sources demonstrate, referring to “sanctified bread”), and those that partake are thereby blessed and sanctified, as the Sacrament prayers clearly state.

There’s a difference between mere bread from the fridge and water from the faucet, and the same when blessed by the priesthood. Therein is the issue we’ve repeatedly told you.

 

[mathonihah]

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?

I derive my theology from scripture, and I am not aware of any scripture that defines the meaning of “good,” or what is “good”. It somehow assumes that you already know. There are many passages of scripture that tell you to do good, and sometimes associates that “good” with keeping the commandments of God. There are many philosophical definitions of “good,” but I am not aware of any scriptural ones—neither in the Bible, nor in LDS scripture. The closest thing to it that I could think of was the quote from the Book of Mormon which I gave you. The scriptures always talk to you as if you already know that good is; and that agrees with the Book of Mormon quote. People seem to know what good is, even though they cannot always define it; which agrees with he Book of Mormon quote, that the Spirit of Christ is given to everyone to know good and evil. The Bible also says the same. It says that Jesus is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). So everyone has this light given to them to know good from evil. Sometimes we call it conscience. Apart from that, there is no scriptural definition of what is good, as far as I know.

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.

That is your opinion, which we tend to disagree with.

 

[RebeccaJ]

One of the telling things is in how a religious group treats their sacramental items. For Catholics, the consecrated host that is not received is placed in a special container which is then placed in a tabernacle. The tabernacle being a dwelling place for the Lord. Any consecrated wine that is left in a chalice is consumed by the priest.

For LDS, bread and water (or crackers and juice) are thrown in the garbage and/or dumped down the drain (to the sewer). While comparatively, the temple garments that they believe are sacred have very specific instructions as to how they are to be disposed of. So, in this case, underwear is treated with more respect than their sacramental elements.

IF LDS had any concept of a Real Presence, at all, I think you would see it in how they treat the bread and water that has been “sanctified”, but not consumed.

 

[LivingWaters7]

One of the telling things is in how a religious group treats their sacramental items. For Catholics, the consecrated host that is not received is placed in a special container which is then placed in a tabernacle. The tabernacle being a dwelling place for the Lord. Any consecrated wine that is left in a chalice is consumed by the priest.

For LDS, bread and water (or crackers and juice) are thrown in the garbage and/or dumped down the drain (to the sewer). While comparatively, the temple garments that they believe are sacred have very specific instructions as to how they are to be disposed of. So, in this case, underwear is treated with more respect than their sacramental elements.

IF LDS had any concept of a Real Presence, at all, I think you would see it in how they treat the bread and water that has been “sanctified”, but not consumed.

Exactly what I was thinking throughout this discussion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am not aware of any scripture that defines the meaning of “good,” or what is “good”.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:16-21[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[mathonihah]

Let us be clear here (again):

In LDS belief, the bread and water do not become Christ’s body and blood (as already stated). They symbolize His body and blood. Now, the actual issue at hand, the issue I and others have been addressing for pages (after your statement that the bread and wine are not sanctified), is whether the LDS belief is analogous to the purely symbolic understanding of Evangelicals or not. It is clear that it isn’t. LDS believe that they have priesthood power and authority to “bless and sanctify” the bread and water. While they aren’t becoming Christ’s body and blood, they are set apart to do something. The blessing isn’t just on those that partake, but is on the bread and water (as multiple LDS sources demonstrate, referring to “sanctified bread”), and those that partake are thereby blessed and sanctified, as the Sacrament prayers clearly state.

There’s a difference between mere bread from the fridge and water from the faucet, and the same when blessed by the priesthood. Therein is the issue we’ve repeatedly told you.

Don’t introduce red herrings. I said nothing about Evangelicals. There two possible ways of understanding the emblems: symbolically, or some other way. Which way is it, according to you?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Don’t introduce red herrings. I said nothing about Evangelicals. There two possible ways of understanding the emblems: symbolically or some other way. Which way is it, according to you?

Point out where I said that you said anything about Evangelicals.

I have already pointed out how the emblems are understood in the LDS context, in many (more than necessary) posts. Please read them.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Christianity is full of symbolic representations. Doesn’t baptism represent the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Didn’t the brazen serpent that Moses lifted up symbolise Jesus Christ? And there are lots more one could think of.

True, baptism dies represent the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Funny you would mention the brazen serpent. Sure, the brazen serpent is a type of the crucifixion, a form of symbolism if you will. But, note also, that looking upon the brazen serpent actually effected the healing of the Israelites. They were actually healed by by this physical act, looking upon this physical object. They were not just ‘symbolically’ healed.

Also, didn’t the ‘symbolic’ act of washing in the Jordan in reality cleanse General Naaman of his leprosy? Of course. He wasn’t symbolically cleaned, but really healed, his flesh becoming like that of a baby’s.

In the same way, even though baptism does represent the death and resurrection of Jesus, it at the same time effects our death and resurrection from our old self; our death to sin and our raising to the new life in Christ. Baptism saves us now, not the washing of dirt from our bodies, but that of washing sin from our conscience, to form a clear conscience. And we know that it does this because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who did not symbolically die, but actually did die and was raised.

 

[mathonihah]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:16-21[/BIBLEDRB]

Thank you RJ, that is a good quote. The first two verses tell you who is good, not what is good. The remaining verses tell you what to do to be saved. On the subject of what is good, I think it is safe to say that whatever God says or does is good. But that still leaves open the question of how do we know it? I think we still go back to the original answer: it is only by the Spirit of Christ that we can tell or know what is good.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you RJ, that is a good quote. The first two verses tell you who is good, not what is good. The remaining verses tell you what to do to be saved. On the subject of what is good, I think it is safe to say that whatever God says or does is good. But that still leaves open the question of how do we know it? I think we still go back to the original answer: it is only by the Spirit of Christ that we can tell or know what is good.

I think it is really, very clear. But I understand LDS are pragmatic, which makes moral decision making subject to circumstance and intention.

Jesus was not pragmatic. God is good, Jesus IS God, follow him…clearly spelled out for you. It is human nature to look for wiggle room and to fool ourselves into believing we’re A-OK.

Examining one’s conscience under the guidelines of “what I think”, makes such an examination really, rather pointless.

 

[mathonihah]

True, baptism dies represent the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Funny you would mention the brazen serpent. Sure, the brazen serpent is a type of the crucifixion, a form of symbolism if you will. But, note also, that looking upon the brazen serpent actually effected the healing of the Israelites. They were actually healed by by this physical act, looking upon this physical object. They were not just ‘symbolically’ healed.

Also, didn’t the ‘symbolic’ act of washing in the Jordan in reality cleanse General Naaman of his leprosy? Of course. He wasn’t symbolically cleaned, but really healed, his flesh becoming like that of a baby’s.

In the same way, even though baptism does represent the death and resurrection of Jesus, it at the same time effects our death and resurrection from our old self; our death to sin and our raising to the new life in Christ. Baptism saves us now, not the washing of dirt from our bodies, but that of washing sin from our conscience, to form a clear conscience. And we know that it does this because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who did not symbolically die, but actually did die and was raised.

Thank you. I am not denying any of this. Likewise, the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ, though they are symbols, do affect our spiritual healing, sanctifying us, effecting our salvation.

 

[pablope]

I derive my theology from scripture,

May I point out something here…yes, you derive your theology from Scripture…but it is based on your own interpretation of Scripture.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

So the question is…is your interpretation correct? How are we to know?

 

[Stephen168]

Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”.

Yes, it does. They reject the Bishop of Rome, infant baptism, the Eucharist, and life issues for example.

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.

Mormon priesthood, sacraments, and ecclesiastical structure are not at all like the Catholic Church. The President of the United States and President of the Soviet Union both had authority but they were not the same. I can’t think of a single doctrine that is common to Mormonism and Catholicism; and rejected by Protestantism.

 

[mathonihah]

May I point out something here…yes, you derive your theology from Scripture…but it is based on your own interpretation of Scripture.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

So the question is…is your interpretation correct? How are we to know?

The post you are replying to related to finding a definition of what is “good”. What I was saying was that I am not satisfied with a philosophical definition what what is “good,” but only a scriptural one; and I haven’t been able to find one—except only indirectly. If you have a good scriptural definition of what is good, I an interested to hear it.

With regard to where I obtain my theology from, if you think my method is unreliable, that would become apparent during a discussion. When you present your reasoning on some topic and I present mine, other impartial observers will be able to judge for themselves who has presented the stronger case.

 

[pablope]

The post you are replying to related to finding a definition of what is “good”. What I was saying was that I am not satisfied with a philosophical definition what what is “good,” but only a scriptural one; and I haven’t been able to find one—except only indirectly. If you have a good scriptural definition of what is good, I an interested to hear it.

With regard to where I obtain my theology from, if you think my method is unreliable, that would become apparent during a discussion. When you present your reasoning on some topic and I present mine, other impartial observers will be able to judge for themselves who has presented the stronger case.

I did not say your method is unreliable…I asked…how are we to know what you have derived is truth? Is from God?

 

[mathonihah]

Yes, it does. They reject the Bishop of Rome,

We don’t reject the principle of authority; we argue over who has it. They reject the principle.

infant baptism,

All Protestants don’t reject infant baptism. Luther certainly didn’t. But we do.

the Eucharist,

We don’t reject the Eucharist; we reject Real Presence.

and life issues for example.

There is not a lot of difference between us in that respect either.

Mormon priesthood, sacraments, and ecclesiastical structure are not at all like the Catholic Church.

It may not look identical, but we accept the principle. Protestants reject the principle.

The President of the United States and President of the Soviet Union both had authority but they were not the same.

Irrelevant.

I can’t think of a single doctrine that is common to Mormonism and Catholicism; and rejected by Protestantism.

That is up to you. From my point of view, I can see similarities.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Thank you. I am not denying any of this. Likewise, the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ, though they are symbols, do affect our spiritual healing, sanctifying us, effecting our salvation.

Yes. To clarify the Catholic view, the sacraments are symbols that actually do, by the power of the Holy Spirit, what they symbolize. For instance, baptism, using the symbolism of washing dirt from our bodies, is the means established by Jesus for us to actually wash our sins away. That is, the various actions such as water baptism are not just ordinances that Jesus has us do, and we do them because Jesus told us to, but we do them because their is a reason Jesus tells us to do them, and hence not optional, as some groups such as the Salvation Army think.

 

[mathonihah]

I did not say your method is unreliable…I asked…how are we to know what you have derived is truth? Is from God?

That depends on what setting you are asking that question. If you asking that question is a debating situation, such as what we are engaged in here, you are in the same situation as I am! How do I know what you have derived is truth? You should know what I have derived is truth in the same way that you expect me to know if what you have derived is truth.

 

[mathonihah]

Yes. To clarify the Catholic view, the sacraments are symbols that actually do, by the power of the Holy Spirit, what they symbolize. For instance, baptism, using the symbolism of washing dirt from our bodies, is the means established by Jesus for us to actually wash our sins away. That is, the various actions such as water baptism are not just ordinances that Jesus has us do, and we do them because Jesus told us to, but we do them because their is a reason Jesus tells us to do them, and hence not optional, as some groups such as the Salvation Army think.

I am entirely in agreement with that. The only point of disagreement (which you have’t pointed out) relates to the Catholic concept of Real Presence. That is the only part that we don’t agree with. But I am not sure how essential that is to the Catholic doctrine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am entirely in agreement with that. The only point of disagreement (which you have’t pointed out) relates to the Catholic concept of Real Presence. That is the only part that we don’t agree with. But I am not sure how essential that is to the Catholic doctrine.

There is a serious disagreement on the effects of baptism, and why it is needed. The rejection of the need for infants to be baptized, by LDS, is a sign of that difference. Also a difference in priesthood, what it is for, what it does. Marriage, VERY different. Etc.

The Eucharist is the source, center and summit of Catholic faith. It is the central Sacrament to which all other sacraments point (so to speak). Without the Real Presence of Christ, the other 6 Sacraments lose importantant meaning.

Which, is why I am in agreement that there isn’t much in LDS ordinances that are common to Catholic sacraments. The names and the matter in some cases are copied, but the theological understanding of what is happening and why…has been lost in Mormonism, which is understandable as it is so far removed from Christianity.