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.
SteveVH said:
Not to mention that John 6:63 is unrelated to whether or not the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ. The one verse upon which his focus is placed has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
Of course it is related. There is a direct relationship between the two.
 
pablope said:
Ignorance in what?

It was those after Luther, those who did not agree with Luther…that you see a rejection of the Real Presence…which Smith inherited from…from which the LDS takes after their rejection of the RP…so you disbelief in the RP is recent…taken from protestant roots.

To demonstrate that you are not ignorant…how about answering this question from the same post:

Why don’t you provide proof to us here…provide someone who did not believe in the Real presence prior to the Reformation and who was not declared a heretic.
Click to expand...
The answer is simple. Nobody in the Bible believes or teaches RP. It is not a biblical doctrine. The NT Church never believed or taught it. It is a latter development.
 
pablope said:
Look at post 755:

You said:

My questions below:

[SIGN]And how has the HS accomplished this?

How does the HS testify? Can you show how the HS does and accomplish this testifying?

How does one test whether what is being testified is true or not? How does one test the truthfulness of a spirit?

A lot of catholics do ask in faith, with real intent and acting no hypocrisy before God…yet the HS tells us the LDS is a not a true church from God…so is the HS testifying to us wrongly?

Are there different kinds of Holy Spirits? Or is there only one? [/SIGN]
Click to expand...
There is no “how” about it; it just does. The scriptures never describe how the Holy Spirit testifies; they just say that it does. It leads one to all truth. The Bible says it does. But it never says how. The operations of the Spirit cannot be described in human terms, and the Bible never tries to.
 
mathonihah said:
The answer is simple. Nobody in the Bible believes or teaches RP. It is not a biblical doctrine. The NT Church never believed or taught it. It is a latter development.
Click to expand...
you need to provide sources in order to back up this claim.
 
mathonihah said:
It is up to those who claim the doctrine was taught to provide the evidence.
Click to expand...
That’s not an effective way to get your point across. When you make a claim, it’s better to provide a source. For this instance, provide a source that confirms that Real Presence was taught later on. That way, there could be no refuting it. Just some suggestions on trying to prove something is right. If you don’t provide any sources for your claims, why bother listening or believing what you have to say?

And remember, this is a Catholic Forum. If you are going to make claims and points that contradict the Catholic faith. YOU have to provide the evidence, not them.

Take it or leave it.
 
mathonihah said:
The answer is simple. Nobody in the Bible believes or teaches RP. It is not a biblical doctrine. The NT Church never believed or taught it. It is a latter development.
Click to expand...
;)ok we can just take your word for it:rolleyes: okay Jesus never ever said “this is my flesh” got it I will remeber to x that part when I see it again;)

I will tell you what they never taught, they never taught the Adam-God theory but that didnt stop BY from teaching it, they never taught you need special undies to protect you from evil, they never taught that God was a once human, they never taught that the blessed virgin had coitus with a God of flesh and bones, they never taught that Jesus was too weak to hold His own church together, they never taught that people of color were descendants of Cain and therefore could not be part of the church, they never taught polygamy, and they never taught that certain foods were prohibited from eating or drinking but none of these teachings or false doctrines which by the way are NOT biblical stopped a con like JS from convincing people and leading the LDS church into a true apostasy. I know I know it was divine revelation but let me tell you the only thing divine about JS was his trickery:thumbsup:

now you prove to me when these falsehoods were taughf by the NT church… I will be waiting
 
TheIrishman said:
That’s not an effective way to get your point across. When you make a claim, it’s better to provide a source. For this instance, provide a source that confirms that Real Presence was taught later on. That way, there could be no refuting it. Just some suggestions on trying to prove something is right. If you don’t provide any sources for your claims, why bother listening or believing what you have to say?

And remember, this is a Catholic Forum. If you are going to make claims and points that contradict the Catholic faith. YOU have to provide the evidence, not them.

Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. Everybody knows that you do not prove a negative. And since when did you become the forum admin?
 
CyndiTo411 said:
;)ok we can just take your word for it:rolleyes: okay Jesus never ever said “this is my flesh” got it I will remeber to x that part when I see it again;)

I will tell you what they never taught, they never taught the Adam-God theory but that didnt stop BY from teaching it, they never taught you need special undies to protect you from evil, they never taught that God was a once human, they never taught that the blessed virgin had coitus with a God of flesh and bones, they never taught that Jesus was too weak to hold His own church together, they never taught that people of color were descendants of Cain and therefore could not be part of the church, they never taught polygamy, and they never taught that certain foods were prohibited from eating or drinking but none of these teachings or false doctrines which by the way are NOT biblical stopped a con like JS from convincing people and leading the LDS church into a true apostasy. I know I know it was divine revelation but let me tell you the only thing divine about JS was his trickery:thumbsup:

now you prove to me when these falsehoods were taughf by the NT church… I will be waiting
Click to expand...
LOL! You can say what you like. You are mixing up a lot of falsehood about Mormonism with dome truth, and then wrapping it up into an incorrect doctrine of RP which the early Church never believed or taught. That is not going to help you a lot with RP.
 
mathonihah said:
LOL! You can say what you like. You are mixing up a lot of falsehood about Mormonism with dome truth, and then wrapping it up into an incorrect doctrine of RP which the early Church never believed or taught. That is not going to help you a lot with RP.
Click to expand...
HAHA you make me laugh!! your going to tell me that YOUR “church” didnt at one point or another teach, endorse, or cannonize these beliefs???
 
mathonihah said:
That is nonsense. Everybody knows that you do not prove a negative. And since when did you become the forum admin?
Click to expand...
So you’re saying you can’t prove Real Presence was taught later on because it is a negative? All i’m asking for is for you to provide some sort of substantial evidence to show that the early church did not teach Real Presence. If it’s true like you say, then it shouldn’t be hard to provide a source.

And i’m not the forum admin, i’ve just read the forum rules.👍
 
CyndiTo411 said:
HAHA you make me laugh!! your going to tell me that YOUR “church” didnt at one point or another teach, endorse, or cannonize these beliefs???
Click to expand...
Some of them, like Adam-God theory, or Mary having sex with God, were taught by some, but never accepted as Church doctrine. Others were and are taught, and evidence for them in the NT can be found, like baptism for the dead for example. Other doctrines are unique to Mormonism, but that does not mean that they cannot be true. RP, however, is an incorrect doctrine, not supported by the NT. That alone does not prove that it is false. LDS do not derive their doctrine entirely from the Bible; but also from modern revelation. That gives us an advantage that you do not have. Obviously if you don’t believe it, it is not going to work for you; but to us it means a lot.
 
mathonihah said:
The Bible tells us that God will not hear the ungodly, but in the hearts of the righteous does he dwell. It also says that he has respect to the lowly, but the proud he knoweth from afar off. If you want to hear from the Lord, you have to pay a price.
Click to expand...
The Bible also tells us that there will be false prophets who will appear and lead away good people.

Stop following the false prophet
 
mathonihah said:
Some of them, like Adam-God theory, or Mary having sex with God, were taught by some, but never accepted as Church doctrine.

Ah…so you call Brigham Young a liar? And you admit Brigham was a false prophet? Because HE taught it and said it was doctrine!

Stop being afraid of me…
Click to expand...
 
mathonihah said:
Some of them, like Adam-God theory, or Mary having sex with God, were taught by some, but never accepted as Church doctrine. Others were and are taught, and evidence for them in the NT can be found, like baptism for the dead for example. Other doctrines are unique to Mormonism, but that does not mean that they cannot be true. RP, however, is an incorrect doctrine, not supported by the NT. That alone does not prove that it is false. LDS do not derive their doctrine entirely from the Bible; but also from modern revelation. That gives us an advantage that you do not have. Obviously if you don’t believe it, it is not going to work for you; but to us it means a lot.
Click to expand...
Catholics are not sola scriptura. John 6 contains Christ"s teachings. Sacred Tradition contains the practice, that has been handed on from the Apostles.

if there is innovation you can point to a specific time and place when it began. Please do so, otherwise you are being anti Catholic.

We can point out the innovation that denies the Real Presence. Time and place, which is the innovation you adhere to.
 
mathonihah said:
We believe that the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith, to those who ask in faith, with real intent, acting no hypocrisy before God. The Holy Spirit will not testify to that which is not true.
Click to expand...
Here is where I have one of a many problems. I have prayed with real intent. With my whole heart, mind, body and soul. And the answers I’ve received have only strengthened my faith and resolve that the Catholic Church is the Fullness of Truth revealed in Jesus Christ. Yet, I have been accused of not praying hard enough, or that I already had the answer in my mind when I prayed. And I was accused in a not so nice way with plenty of harsh words regarding how I view my faith.

So, it is my fault that I am not getting the “real” answer from the Holy Spirit.
 
mathonihah said:
It restored priesthood keys and Apostolic authority, and an open canon of scripture. Those are the fundamentals that really matter.
Click to expand...
Christ established the Catholic Church with the keys and Apostolic authority which it has passed down to this day. Christ did not establish any scripture. Scripture was established by his Catholic Church. Mormon ‘scripture’ has been proven by science to not be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be; so it is false. History has proven Mormonism to be a 19th century invention.
 
mathonihah said:
They are not just feelings. I do know.
Click to expand...
Your feelings are not supported by the facts of reason, science, and history. The Holy Ghost tells me things which are also supported by reason, science and history. The Holy Ghost does not lie therefore your feelings are not a testimony of him, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top