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

[Marie5890]

I do continue to pray (though not as frequently as I should) for guidance to the truth, wherever it may be (just trying to be open and not have blinders up or narrow focus).

Being open, truly open, is a life time goal of mine. Because you are right, we need to avoid blinders or a narrow focus.

 

[armyross]

But without the apostasy, there would be no mormonism for anyone to join, or need to join.

The apostasy is very much connected with this subject, and is not a derailment.

Nice dodge though.

Well said. Growing up Momon sucks!!! Let me just put that out there. Now that I have a brain and can think for myself all these mormons will do on here to justify there CULT is make up excuse and find any way possiblle to answer. They make everything up including there FICTION Book Of OZ.

Here is why we as the True Church dont need to lie.

Why do Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, founded 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ Himself?

The Catholic Church is the only church today that can claim to be the one church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Other denominations can trace their origins back to various human founders at a later date in history. (How old is your church?)
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Jesus handed the authority to guide the Church in His name to Peter and the apostles, to be passed down through the centuries.

The Church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23). Christ established only one Church—one body—so that there would not be multiple “bodies” with conflicting doctrines. After all, God cannot contradict Himself. Christ also wanted His Church to be visible, so all may see that the Church is indeed one, just as Christ and the Father are one (John 17:22 ).

This one, visible church, with divine authority and consistent doctrine that Christ established 2,000 years ago is the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As Paul asks in 1 Corinthians, “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). No. That is not what the Christ intended. So, He established one Church.

 

[twopekinguys]

Well said. Growing up Momon sucks!!! Let me just put that out there. Now that I have a brain and can think for myself all these mormons will do on here to justify there CULT is make up excuse and find any way possiblle to answer. They make everything up including there FICTION Book Of OZ.

Here is why we as the True Church dont need to lie.

Why do Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, founded 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ Himself?

The Catholic Church is the only church today that can claim to be the one church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Other denominations can trace their origins back to various human founders at a later date in history. (How old is your church?)
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Jesus handed the authority to guide the Church in His name to Peter and the apostles, to be passed down through the centuries.

The Church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23). Christ established only one Church—one body—so that there would not be multiple “bodies” with conflicting doctrines. After all, God cannot contradict Himself. Christ also wanted His Church to be visible, so all may see that the Church is indeed one, just as Christ and the Father are one (John 17:22 ).

This one, visible church, with divine authority and consistent doctrine that Christ established 2,000 years ago is the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As Paul asks in 1 Corinthians, “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). No. That is not what the Christ intended. So, He established one Church.

 

[Sally1955]

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Army, I am glad you have a Bible to consult. You may want to invest in a new one. I can tell from the quotes you are using that you are using the LDS version.

The New American Bible (Which the Roman Catholic Church prefers) quotes “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

King James Version of the Bible “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

As you can see, changing a single word can alter the meaning. Good Luck in your quest.

 

[mathonihah]

To be clear, while Mormons do not completely agree with the Catholic/Orthodox view on the sacraments, they also don’t hold to the symbolic-only view of Evangelical Christians. Mormons believe that the ordinances all “do” something. They aren’t just symbols.

I was referring to the bread and wine as “symbols,” not the ordinance itself. Indeed, the fact that, according to Mormon revelation, “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins” (D&C 27:2), is evidence that the bread and wine are symbols, and that the real significance lies elsewhere.

For example, baptism is for the remission of sins. It is believed to be the gateway to the straight and narrow path. Confirmation confers the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Etc.

Agreed. As far as the Sacrament is concerned, I certainly agree that, like baptism and confirmation, it “does” something; but whatever that is, it is spiritual, and pertains what happens (spiritually) to us, not to the bread and wine. The bread and wine are just symbols, and have no other significance than that. The “change” is something that happens to us, when we partake of the Sacrament in faith, and “with an eye to God’s glory”.

And as for “the Sacrament” (i.e. the Eucharist/Communion), yes, Mormons reject the Real Presence. However, they don’t just believe that it’s a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Yes, that’s part of it, but not all.

As I said, by “symbol” I meant the emblems themselves, not the rite.

They also believe that the bread and water are “blessed and sanctified” by their priesthood, …

Again, the “blessed and sanctified” refers to what happens to us, when we partake of the Sacrament worthily; not to the actual bread and wine itself. The essence or substance of the material doesn’t change. The “change” is what happens to us, not to the bread and wine.

and that by partaking, they renew their baptismal covenants, become clean through a remission of sins, and the Spirit to be with them. They take it very seriously (Mormons are asked to examine their lives prior to receiving the Sacrament, and to refrain from partaking if they find themselves unworthy), and view it as a very important ordinance in their weekly spiritual life and spiritual development that puts them more in “tune”, if you will, with God. It really isn’t just “pretend” for them.

Agreed.

This isn’t to comment on whether or not LDS hold to the correct understanding of sacraments and the Eucharist. It is merely to comment on how Mormons view their own ordinances and the Sacrament, and that it isn’t just mere symbolism for them (even if mathonihah’s statements could be read to imply such).

Obviously not. See above.

 

[mathonihah]

I appreciate your position but keep in mind the words to which I was responding:

Originally Posted by mathonihah View Post
If you are suggesting that the use of the symbols must necessarily mean something more than remembrance, or must imply real presence etc., then we do not agree. Christianity makes use of many symbols, baptism itself being one of them. The use of symbols need not mean more than it does.

See my previous post. The “symbols” (i.e. bread and wine) have no other significance than for “remembrance”. This does not mean that “nothing changes” when we partake of the Sacrament. The “change,” however, is something that happens to us, when we partake of the Sacrament worthily, and “with an eye single to the glory of God”. The “change” is spiritual and happens to us, not to the bread and wine. We are the ones who are “sanctified” thereby, not the bread and wine. And that “sanctification” comes by virtue of the “remembrance,” not the physical eating of the bread and wine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We are the ones who are “sanctified” thereby, not the bread and wine.

Mormon sacrament prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it;

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormon sacrament prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it;

Exactly. . Odd that he didn’t realize I was directly alluding to that. No further comment required.

 

[TexanKnight]

I was referring to the bread and wine as “symbols,” not the ordinance itself. Indeed, the fact that, according to Mormon revelation, “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins” (D&C 27:2), is evidence that the bread and wine are symbols, and that the real significance lies elsewhere.

Ah…so, the God who never changes changed again when Joe gives Him words…again, “if someone preaches a different Gospel…”

Agreed. As far as the Sacrament is concerned, I certainly agree that, like baptism and confirmation, it “does” something; but whatever that is, it is spiritual, and pertains what happens (spiritually) to us, not to the bread and wine. The bread and wine are just symbols, and have no other significance than that. The “change” is something that happens to us, when we partake of the Sacrament in faith, and “with an eye to God’s glory”.

I get it…you believe Jesus was done baptized by immersion, so it MUST be done by immersion, but the fact Jesus used wine means nothing. I LOVE the LDS “pick-and-choose Theology”

Again, the “blessed and sanctified” refers to what happens to us, when we partake of the Sacrament worthily; not to the actual bread and wine itself. The essence or substance of the material doesn’t change. The “change” is what happens to us, not to the bread and wine.

So, Jesus lied when He said THIS IS MY BODY?"

I see you were gone long enough to avoid answering the tough questions. We will take that to mean you give up on those points

 

[mathonihah]

Mormon sacrament prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it;

The real significant bit, however, is the one I have highlighted in red. The sanctification takes place to [or in] the souls of the participants, not to the actual bread and wine. The essential nature or substance of the bread and wine does not change.

 

[TexanKnight]

The real significant bit, however, is the one I have highlighted in red. The sanctification takes place to [or in] the souls of the participants, not to the actual bread and wine. The essential nature or substance of the bread and wine does not change.

So, again, you call Jesus a liar when He said THIS IS MY BODY…

it is a real shame that, in order for your Church to be true, you must make Jesus a liar.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The real significant bit, however, is the one I have highlighted in red. The sanctification takes place to [or in] the souls of the participants, not to the actual bread and wine. The essential nature or substance of the bread and wine does not change.

The words of the Sacrament prayers are clear: God is being asked to bless and sanctify the bread/water to the souls of those that partake. It is clear that the bread and water are being blessed (otherwise, what exactly are the priesthood holders doing when they are asked to “bless” the Sacrament, and kneel at the table?). You seem to be making this an “either/or” proposition, when it isn’t, and no one is claiming that it is. The bread and water are blessed and sanctified, so that those that partake may be blessed and sanctified. The fact that the emblems are “blessed” doesn’t necessitate that the “essential nature or substance” changes, and neither I nor Rebecca is saying that (this is made even more clear when we realize that in the ordinance of Administering to the Sick, the oil used is consecrated/blessed prior to anointing.

This is also made clear in the Church Handbook of Instructions, which clearly talks about who will bless the sacrament (i.e. the bread and wine), that they “bless the bread”, and who will pass it. Heck, whenever we ask someone to help in administering the Sacrament, we’d ask if they would like to “bless” or “pass”.

Anyway, my point is that the Sacrament prayer is explicit-the bread and water are blessed and sanctified by the power of the priesthood (which already sets it apart from the common Evangelical purely symbolic understanding of Communion, which doesn’t necessitate an ordained priesthood to bless anything). And again, I’m not saying that there is a metaphysical change in the elements, in the LDS understanding. Those that worthily partake of the blessed emblems receive a blessing themselves, renewal of the baptismal covenant and remission of sins, and the Spirit to be with them. The Sacrament therefore helps the individual on their path of sanctification and spiritual strength and growth. It isn’t an either/or, as you seem to be setting it up as.

 

[kimg901]

Anyone can correct me if im wrong but didnt the Apostles continue to break bread and partake of the wine after Christ died? So how is it only symbolic when Christ commanded it be done?

 

[Imcatholic7]

Cant speak about JW, but can speak to Mormonism.

The LDS church is very family oriented with strong family values. And the WoW is a draw for those seeking to live a healthy life style. Mormonism is very much a lifestyle, not just a Sunday thing.

Also the idea of “families are forever” and the idea of couples being together forever and not “until death due you part” has a strong romantic componant to it…

When I was LDS and talking with other LDS converts, the idea of marriage is only “until death due you part” was a big turn off when it comes to traditional Christianity.

The idea that the person you marry is your partner for “all time and eternity” is very powerful, esp for young people falling in love

Also the idea of being exalted to godhood

 

[mathonihah]

The words of the Sacrament prayers are clear: God is being asked to bless and sanctify the bread/water to the souls of those that partake. It is clear that the bread and water are being blessed (otherwise, what exactly are the priesthood holders doing when they are asked to “bless” the Sacrament, and kneel at the table?). You seem to be making this an “either/or” proposition, when it isn’t, and no one is claiming that it is. The bread and water are blessed and sanctified, so that those that partake may be blessed and sanctified. The fact that the emblems are “blessed” doesn’t necessitate that the “essential nature or substance” changes, and neither I nor Rebecca is saying that (this is made even more clear when we realize that in the ordinance of Administering to the Sick, the oil used is consecrated/blessed prior to anointing.

I am trying to distinguish it from the Cstholic dogma, which teaches that as a result of blessing the emblems, the essential nature of the substance changes. In Mormonism it doesn’t. The emblems are sanctified to the souls of those who partake of it. They do not become sanctified in and of themselves.

This is also made clear in the Church Handbook of Instructions, which clearly talks about who will bless the sacrament (i.e. the bread and wine), that they “bless the bread”, and who will pass it. Heck, whenever we ask someone to help in administering the Sacrament, we’d ask if they would like to “bless” or “pass”.

Anyway, my point is that the Sacrament prayer is explicit-the bread and water are blessed and sanctified by the power of the priesthood (which already sets it apart from the common Evangelical purely symbolic understanding of Communion, which doesn’t necessitate an ordained priesthood to bless anything). And again, I’m not saying that there is a metaphysical change in the elements, in the LDS understanding. Those that worthily partake of the blessed emblems receive a blessing themselves, renewal of the baptismal covenant and remission of sins, and the Spirit to be with them. The Sacrament therefore helps the individual on their path of sanctification and spiritual strength and growth. It isn’t an either/or, as you seem to be setting it up as.

Perhaps I should now ask you a question: what do you think actually happens to the bread and wine when it is “sanctified”? If the nature of the substance doesn’t change, what does happen to it? What does it entail for it to be sanctified—other than “to the souls of those who partake of it?

 

[TexanKnight]

I am trying to distinguish it from the Cstholic dogma, which teaches that as a result of blessing the emblems, the essential nature of the substance changes. In Mormonism it doesn’t. The emblems are sanctified to the souls of those who partake of it. They do not become sanctified in and of themselves.

Perhaps I should now ask you a question: what do you think actually happens to the bread and wine when it is “sanctified”? If the nature of the substance doesn’t change, what does happen to it? What does it entail for it to be sanctified—other than “to the souls of those who partake of it?

What does Jesus say? Assuming you will stop thinking he lied, He says, “this is my Body”. he dpes not say, "this is symbolic of my Body. Read John 6 and tell us what it says

 

[LivingWaters7]

This will be my last post on this issue.

I am trying to distinguish it from the Cstholic dogma, which teaches that as a result of blessing the emblems, the essential nature of the substance changes. In Mormonism it doesn’t. The emblems are sanctified to the souls of those who partake of it. They do not become sanctified in and of themselves.

And again, we are quite well aware that the Mormon Sacrament is not understood to involve a substantial, metaphysical change into the body and blood of Christ (no one has claimed or implied otherwise). This has been stated repeatedly, and the two beliefs have been distinguished multiple times. What has been stated is that the LDS Sacrament prayer specifically calls for the blessing and sanctifying of the bread and water, and that partaking of the blessed and sanctified bread and water (as opposed to bread and water not blessed by the priesthood, correct?) results in the renewal of baptismal covenants, remission of sins, and having the Spirit to be with the partaker. Again, just because we’re saying that it is clear, from the Sacrament prayer itself, as well as statements in the Handbook and other documents, that the bread and wine are actually blessed and sanctified, does not mean that we’re saying that the LDS emblems are believed to undergo a substantial change into the Body and Blood of Christ. You seem not to be able to separate the two issues, despite repeated statements to the contrary.

Whether or not the souls of the partakers are blessed and sanctified (again, I have not said otherwise, and explicitly said that that is what also occurs, and is the purpose of partaking), it is clear that the Sacrament prayer states that the bread and water are blessed and sanctified, and goes on to state the purpose of them being blessed and sanctified. Case closed.

Perhaps I should now ask you a question: what do you think actually happens to the bread and wine when it is “sanctified”? If the nature of the substance doesn’t change, what does happen to it? What does it entail for it to be sanctified—other than “to the souls of those who partake of it?

The same thing that happens when oil is consecrated for use in administering to the sick. Don’t tell me you’d have us believe that olive oil that is consecrated is just mere olive oil, just like before consecration, nothing special? In both cases they are blessed by the power of the priesthood, and are consecrated, or set apart, for a specific sacred purpose. The fallacious nature of your argument is even more clear when we ask whether or not it is important to have the properly ordained priesthood to administer the Sacrament. If the answer is yes (and obviously the answer is yes for both Catholics and LDS), then clearly when we ask a priesthood holder to “bless” the bread and water, something happens to them whereby they are set apart for a religious purpose, and it isn’t the same as eating and drinking any old bread and water. I can go to the fridge right now, get a piece of bread and a glass of water, eat and drink them, and think about the atonement of Christ. That is not the same as participating in a priesthood ordinance, where the same bread and water are blessed by priesthood power and authority.

This is very simple, I’m not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand, and why I have to use so many words to explain something that Aaronic priesthood holders understand.

 

[kimg901]

I was referring to the bread and wine as “symbols,” not the ordinance itself. Indeed, the fact that, according to Mormon revelation, “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins” (D&C 27:2), is evidence that the bread and wine are symbols, and that the real significance lies elsewhere.

And look who gave this revelation, joe smith. None of which can be believed. Lets look at what Jesus used, wine. Smith said not to partake of wine but yet from this verse Jesus will partake, ** 5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;** So do we listen to Christ or smith? So why would God give a rule to smith but then His Son Jesus turn around and so 'Sorry Pop, I wanna get crunk" Why the contradiction?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The real significant bit, however, is the one I have highlighted in red. The sanctification takes place to [or in] the souls of the participants, not to the actual bread and wine. The essential nature or substance of the bread and wine does not change.

Bread and water symbolically sanctify? How is one symbolically sanctified? That doesn’t make sense.

What does this mean? “As we worthily partake of the sanctified bread and water…”; from here: 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

I understand that Mormons do not believe in the Real Presence, the same as the disciples in John 6, who said “this saying is hard”, and followed Jesus no more. I certainly don’t believe the Mormon sacrament does anything, so you don’t have to convince me.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by mathonihah
The real significant bit, however, is the one I have highlighted in red. The sanctification takes place to [or in] the souls of the participants, not to the actual bread and wine. The essential nature or substance of the bread and wine does not change.

Naaa…thanks,but no thanks! I rather much stick to the words of Jesus.