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

[mackbrislawn]

Thank you, I agree. You are being very honest in presenting both sides of the argument. The only thing I would add is that from my perspective, having continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture makes all the difference. Take the Book of Mormon for example; either it is true or it is not. If it is not, then obviously it has no value; but if it is, it makes all the difference. I would rather be with it than without it.

You make a good point. Catholics feel they have a similar advantage over the Protestants, because Protestants have no authoritative means of settling quarrels, which is why they split into thousands of denominations. Catholics have the pope or councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle arguments, while Protestants just have their own fallible human opinions.

It boils down to the reasons why one accepts a certain organization as having that authority or power from God. Of course if one receives testimony from the the Holy Spirit that settles the matter for that individual. Others may not get that testimony so have to go by their personal reasoning.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Your ignorance is showing. Protestant Reformers did not reject Real Presence; at least, Luther didn’t.

Luther didn’t, it started with Zwingli, and taken over by Calvin. Why Zwingli would want to deny the real presence I have no clue, unless it is because it is easier from a fleshly perspective. Paul says we [Christians] walk by faith and not by sight, and so maybe Zwingli had insufficient faith and had to walk by sight. He was too worldly and fleshly to accept the apostolic understanding of the real presence, since by sight the elements certainly did look like bread and wine. Zwingli and Calvin perhaps were too sophisticated and legalistic to accept supernatural occurrences such as the real presence.

The conclusion is that Joseph Smith disbelieved in the real presence because of the relict influences of Protestantism on him. He did not shed all of Protestant ideas.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m now reminded of that musical titled “book of mormon” and the song called “A mormon just believes!”

Indeed. LDS can never explain why they believe what they believe, in the face of contradictory evidence to what they believe the answer is always, “I Believe!”.

There was a time this caused me see all LDS members as incredibly gullible, and therefore, stupid. I don’t think that any more, but still believe Mormonism does something to the brain that turns off the ability to reason. For hells sake they don’t even try to reason.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I agree with most of what you said except Charles Russell and Watchtower Society. They have no resemblance to early Christianity in doctrine or organization.

That’s for sure, JW doctrine is certainly not like early Christianity .Of course they think it is, and they claim their structure is, such as the apostles formed the early governing body! Today we might compare their society president to the pope and their governing body to the college of cardinals, circuit overseers to bishops, elders to priests, and ministerial servants to deacons. They do have a strongly hierarchical structure similar to the RC, and perhaps to the LDS church. All three are unlike congregational type of Protestants.

So, this brings up the question of what did the early Christians believe? The fact is, no one knows, so it is improper to state dogmatically they believed such and such. All we have is opinion. We have the NT writings but they themselves are the battleground so they cannot be appealed to. For example, what did Jesus mean when He said, this is my body, this is my blood? Did He mean it literally or symbolically? Catholics point to 2nd century writers who seem to regard the bread and wine as more than ordinary food and drink. What does that mean? The early writers don’t say they are symbols, at least. Catholics claim the traditional belief in the real presence from the early Christians. Which makes sense, but how can this be proven to someone who doesn’t want to believe? You can’t. One the other hand, how can you disprove the real presence? You can’t.

That’s the dilemma. Catholics, LDS, and JW’s appeal to the authority of their respective churches as the foundation for their beliefs. Protestants have only faulty human opinion.

 

[mathonihah]

You make a good point. Catholics feel they have a similar advantage over the Protestants, because Protestants have no authoritative means of settling quarrels, which is why they split into thousands of denominations. Catholics have the pope or councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle arguments, while Protestants just have their own fallible human opinions.

It boils down to the reasons why one accepts a certain organization as having that authority or power from God. Of course if one receives testimony from the the Holy Spirit that settles the matter for that individual. Others may not get that testimony so have to go by their personal reasoning.

Agreed. Hard to argue against that.

 

[mathonihah]

Luther didn’t, it started with Zwingli, and taken over by Calvin. Why Zwingli would want to deny the real presence I have no clue, unless it is because it is easier from a fleshly perspective. Paul says we [Christians] walk by faith and not by sight, and so maybe Zwingli had insufficient faith and had to walk by sight. He was too worldly and fleshly to accept the apostolic understanding of the real presence, since by sight the elements certainly did look like bread and wine. Zwingli and Calvin perhaps were too sophisticated and legalistic to accept supernatural occurrences such as the real presence.

The conclusion is that Joseph Smith disbelieved in the real presence because of the relict influences of Protestantism on him. He did not shed all of Protestant ideas.

That is a possibility. Another possibility is that the revelations he received convinced him otherwise!

Actually, I don’t recall having read any statement by Joseph Smith accepting or rejecting Real Presence. The trouble with RP is that it is an ambiguous phrase to which has been given multiple definitions. Anybody can come along and give it a definition to suite their own theology, including LDS. I don’t know, historically speaking, when the term “Real Presence” came into common use. It seems to me to be relatively new. The Catholic theology however has always been, and still remains, the full-blown doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[SteveVH]

Of course if one receives testimony from the the Holy Spirit that settles the matter for that individual. Others may not get that testimony so have to go by their personal reasoning.

How about both; a testimony from the Holy Spirit and reason that does not conflict with that testimony? That is Catholicism.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That is a possibility. Another possibility is that the revelations he received convinced him otherwise!

Actually, I don’t recall having read any statement by Joseph Smith accepting or rejecting Real Presence. The trouble with RP is that it is an ambiguous phrase to** which has been given multiple definitions**. Anybody can come along and give it a definition to suite their own theology, including LDS. I don’t know, historically speaking, when the term “Real Presence” came into common use. It seems to me to be relatively new. The Catholic theology however has always been, and still remains, the full-blown doctrine of transubstantiation.

Could you provide these multiple definitions, thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

The trouble with RP is that it is an ambiguous phrase to which has been multiple definitions. Anybody can come along and give it a definition to suite their own theology, including LDS.

Yes, and the LDS are famous for giving their own definitions to commonly understood and used Christian words and phrases. Sorry, the Catholic Church, with authority, has already defined it in great detail. If you have a different definition then you are not speaking of the Eucharist and should not refer to whatever you have as the Eucharist…

I don’t know, historically speaking, when the term “Real Presence” came into common use. It seems to me to be relatively new. The Catholic theology however has always been, and still remains, the full-blown doctrine of transubstantiation.

It is as old as the Church, even older than the New Testament.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That is a possibility. Another possibility is that the revelations he received convinced him otherwise!

Actually, I don’t recall having read any statement by Joseph Smith accepting or rejecting Real Presence. The trouble with RP is that it is an ambiguous phrase to which has been given multiple definitions. Anybody can come along and give it a definition to suite their own theology, including LDS. I don’t know, historically speaking, when the term “Real Presence” came into common use. It seems to me to be relatively new. The Catholic theology however has always been, and still remains, the full-blown doctrine of transubstantiation.

I think you’re right, that phrase is relatively new and not strictly a Catholic phrase. We have been bandying it about assuming we know what it means, using it as a colloquial shorthand for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you’re right, that phrase is relatively new and not strictly a Catholic phrase. We have been bandying it about assuming we know what it means, using it as a colloquial shorthand for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

True, but the meaning behind the phrase has been part of Church doctrine since the beginning.

 

[mackbrislawn]

How about both; a testimony from the Holy Spirit and reason that does not conflict with that testimony? That is Catholicism.

Even better yet.

 

[mackbrislawn]

True, but the meaning behind the phrase has been part of Church doctrine since the beginning.

Yes, if we know what the meaning behind the phrase is, since it is relatively new and not strictly a Catholic phrase. Of course the doctrine of transubstantiation we accept as part of Christian belief since the beginning. Which is the meaning Catholics have in mind when we use the phrase.

However, I suppose “real presence” could fit with the doctrine of consubstantiation as well.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, if we know what the meaning behind the phrase is, since it is relatively new and not strictly a Catholic phrase. Of course the doctrine of transubstantiation we accept as part of Christian belief since the beginning. Which is the meaning Catholics have in mind when we use the phrase.

However, I suppose “real presence” could fit with the doctrine of consubstantiation as well.

Point taken.

 

[mathonihah]

Could you provide these multiple definitions, thanks.

Both Lutherans and Catholics accept Real Presence, but they understand different things by it. I did a search, and found that this subject has been discussed on CAF before. Here is a link to the thread.

 

[pablope]

Both Lutherans and Catholics accept Real Presence, but they understand different things by it. I did a search, and found that this subject has been discussed on CAF before. Here is a link to the thread.

But the definitions do not deny the Real Presence…as the LDS does.
Which is the point of Mark and Steve in prior posts.

 

[marimagi]

In Utah, Mormonism is not just a religion, but a lifestyle, culture and family heritage. Those who are not Mormon, are seen as somewhat inferior/less moral. It is not unusual for families to forbid their children from playing with Non-Mormons ("Nons,) and dating a Non is a no no (unless there is a reasonable possibility that he/she will convert.

Families look great on the outside. I’m not saying this to be snide, but as a therapist, I see people (especially mothers) who believe that theirs is the only family where problems are occuring. It is difficult to share problems with others, because if things are going wrong at home, it means that a good Mormon life is not being led; God is good to those who follow the Commandments (commandments generally referring to Mormon doctrine.)

Those in Utah who join the Mormon Church, are often new to the state and are impressed by the clean, orderly, seemingly close families they see. People appear happy and deeply rooted in living their faith. Those in Utah who convert, are sometimes looking to feel accepted. The Church also provides help to those in dire need, but they have to attend the Mormon Church. Social life is also dominated by Mormon activities and obligations. You are either in the club or out; and those who are out are quiety considered inferior.

I could never be Mormon because the theology a complete break from the Christianity known by the rest of the Christian world. But I do know people who are deeply spiritual and center their entire being on worshipping God as they understand him to be.

 

[Nicea325]

In Utah, Mormonism is not just a religion, but a lifestyle, culture and family heritage. Those who are not Mormon, are seen as somewhat inferior/less moral. It is not unusual for families to forbid their children from playing with Non-Mormons ("Nons,) and dating a Non is a no no (unless there is a reasonable possibility that he/she will convert.

Families look great on the outside. I’m not saying this to be snide, but as a therapist, I see people (especially mothers) who believe that theirs is the only family where problems are occuring. It is difficult to share problems with others, because if things are going wrong at home, it means that a good Mormon life is not being led; God is good to those who follow the Commandments (commandments generally referring to Mormon doctrine.)

Those in Utah who join the Mormon Church, are often new to the state and are impressed by the clean, orderly, seemingly close families they see. People appear happy and deeply rooted in living their faith. Those in Utah who convert, are sometimes looking to feel accepted. The Church also provides help to those in dire need, but they have to attend the Mormon Church. Social life is also dominated by Mormon activities and obligations. You are either in the club or out; and those who are out are quiety considered inferior.

I could never be Mormon because the theology a complete break from the Christianity known by the rest of the Christian world. But I do know people who are deeply spiritual and** center their entire being on worshipping God as they understand him to be**.

A god who was a sinful man before.

 

[kimg901]

We are 8 posts past 900 folks. So Eric, can we get a 1,200 count maybe?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Both Lutherans and Catholics accept Real Presence, but they understand different things by it. I did a search, and found that this subject has been discussed on CAF before. Here is a link to the thread.

Fundamentally they have the same understanding of Real Presence, what they differ on is the explanation of why what you see and touch still appears like bread and wine. The Orthodox to my understanding don’t explain it they just accept it as a mystery. So I don’t see that you have provided any back up on the claim of Real Presence having multiple meanings.