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

[eddie_too]

anyone can say and even believe that what they believe in was testified to them by the Holy Spirit.

however, saying something and even believing something does not make what is said or believed in true.

what makes it a true statement and a true belief when a member of the lds says that the Holy Spirit testified to them?

there are literally millions of people who claim that what they say and believe was testified to them by the Holy Spirit. yet, most of these people say the Holy Spirit provided them with different and even contradictory testimony from others who claim testimony of the Holy Spirit.

in addition, millions of people suffer from delusions wherein they believe in words that are nonsensical or totally unrelated to reality.

why would anyone believe the teachings of the lds come from the Holy Spirit? why would not normal people understand that ANYONE can claim to have received testimony of the Holy Spirit and that ANYONE can be in error when making that claim?

 

[SteveVH]

That is nothing like it at all.

Please explain. You have given a non-answer.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry, didn’t follow that.

Let me simplify this:

1. Christ gave his flesh for the salvation of the world. Do you agree?
2. Christ’s flesh, then, “profiteth” much (our salvation).
3. Therefore, verse 63 cannot be speaking of Christ’s flesh, but rather the flesh of those to whom he is speaking.

Verse 63 is speaking of believing what Christ has just told them and that in order to believe one must have the Spirit rather then their own “fleshly” thinking. In other words, he was telling them that you cannot think of this in human terms. This is exactly what you and all others do when you reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You think about it in human (fleshly) terms rather than by the Spirit. That is why you cannot understand what Christ meant. You ask the same question that those who turned and left him asked. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat…”? They did not understand and neither do you. That, by the way, was the first apostasy, and you are following suit.

 

[Stephen168]

Some of them, … Others were and are taught, and evidence for them in the NT can be found,…

Where do you find polygamy, blacks being barred from the priesthood, or Christ excommunicating his Apostles in the New Testament?

 

[pablope]

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.

Okay…why don’t you produce a document from anybody of authority in the early NT church…that said belief in the RP is heretical.

And again, the Bible does not teach…it is man that teaches based on one’s interpretation of the Bible.

The question is…is your interpretation of no Real Presence correct? How can we know it is correct?

 

[pablope]

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.

Wrong.

from 1John 4…4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Now look at the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The HS will not tell you the truth directly, will not seek you out and tell you (or Joseph Smith) to restore a church…but will direct you to someone with authority and submit yourself.

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

Contrasting the example of St. Paul with the claims or revelation of Joseph Smith and that of the LDS…it is unbiblical! It is against what has been revealed and how God and the HS has shown in the Bible.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus most certainly taught us the doctrine of the Real Presence. He did so on more than one occasion.

only a very scripturally ignorant person would declare that the Real Presence doctrine is not revealed in Sacred Scripture.

 

[Deana83]

Another thing is the missionaries get you with the " I feel it in my bosom. From my bosom I can say that this is true…" That’s great but let’s hear the facts and what your church teaches.

That statement sort of reminds me of the, “Being born again of the holy spirit and being saved ,” I’ve attended a couple Pentecostal revivals and the holy spirit moved in waves; people were being slain in the spirit, talking in tongues, dancing in the spirit, etc. I did feel something emotionally but didn’t have a strong spiritual reaction like others evidently did. So I walked away from that experience feeling even more lost and dejected. I’m at the point now where I no longer trust my feelings or as the Mormon’s say “The feeling in my bosom.” I’m a fairly neurotic person whose feelings can be pretty dark and bleak - I need a religion that can stabilize me and keep me grounded on those days. I recently read some of “The Confessions,” by Saint Augustine. I can’t tell you what an epiphany it was for me to realize a Saint actually had shared some of the same doubts and insecurities that I had. Please note–I’m not trying to minimize anyone else’s spiritual experience, I’m only sharing what my experience has been like.

 

[SteveVH]

Some of them, like Adam-God theory, or Mary having sex with God, were taught by some, but never accepted as Church doctrine.

Taught by some? Don’t you mean taught by your own, so-called “prophets”?

RP, however, is an incorrect doctrine, not supported by the NT.

Wrong. The doctrine of the real presence is very well supported by Scripture. The fact that you refuse to believe the very plain words of Jesus and his disciples in this regard does nothing to change the truth. It is also very well supported by the earliest Church documents. It is what the Church has always believed and continues to believe. Your position, along with most Protestant positions is the invention. As Rebecca stated, we know when and where and through whom this invention occurred. It was a dramatic change from doctrine that had been in existence for 1500 years. And if you wish to challenge this then please provide some evidence. Show us where the early Christians spoke out against the RP. Even one example would do for now.

I must say that I have not always agreed with the way you have been treated by some posters, but I must also say that I am beginning to feel their frustration. You make statements which are never backed up with evidence and pretty much never answer a question straight on. Why don’t you just be honest with yourself and us? We provide evidence and you just ignore it. That is why the frustration level always seems to rise on Mormon threads. Its the same thing every time.

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.

You call ever-changing doctrine an advantage? I call it confusion. What we have is the fullness of truth given first by Christ to the Apostles. We have Jesus Christ, God’s only word. We need no other truth than Truth himself. The Mormon position, on its face, assumes that the truth found in Jesus Christ is not sufficient. It is certainly not sufficient to support polygamy, polyandry, Adam-God, blacks prohibited from priesthood, eternal marriage, etc., etc., which is why you require an open canon. You never know what your “prophets” will come up with next or what errors they will find in their previous “prophets”. They need a mechanism to make those things go away. Its pretty much the same as the JW’s “new light”. It allows one to conveniently make changes as they see fit. The problem is that truth never changes.

 

[eddie_too]

the Holy Spirit informs me that it is not Him that is causing burning in the hearts of those converted to the LDS.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Indeed. In addition to the Bible, the two books that I’d recommend to help one see that the Real Presence is not only scriptural but the most ancient view of the Eucharist/Communion (and that the LDS and ‘low’ Protestant views are the un-Biblical innovations) are:

Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church by Dr. Scott Hahn

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre

Pitre’s book is particularly enjoyable because it clearly and firmly ties the doctrine of the Real Presence into Jewish beliefs and practices (showing how Jewish the Real Presence is), especially as related to the Old Testament temple.

 

[pablope]

Indeed. In addition to the Bible, the two books that I’d recommend to help one see that the Real Presence is not only scriptural but the most ancient view of the Eucharist/Communion (and that the LDS and ‘low’ Protestant views are the un-Biblical innovations) are:

Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church by Dr. Scott Hahn

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre

Pitre’s book is particularly enjoyable because it clearly and firmly ties the doctrine of the Real Presence into Jewish beliefs and practices (showing how Jewish the Real Presence is), especially as related to the Old Testament temple.

Another book recommendation: Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper.

From another forum, someone posted the interview of Dr. Hahn regarding his new book on the Eucharist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=791988

 

[CyndiTo411]

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.

Ah yes, the divine revelation always comes at just the most opportune moments like when JS got caught cheatin “oh but God told me too” nice save Joe that was a close one or letting people of color serve that “revelation” came around the same time as the civil rights movement maybe your a little confused but Jesus was the final revelation and he gave us all we need to achieve salvation. When God not your mormon God but The God speaks something it can never change because God CANNOT be wrong. take that into account the next time God contradicts himself through your " prophets"

 

[TexanKnight]

Wrong.

from 1John 4…4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Now look at the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The HS will not tell you the truth directly, will not seek you out and tell you (or Joseph Smith) to restore a church…but will direct you to someone with authority and submit yourself.

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

Contrasting the example of St. Paul with the claims or revelation of Joseph Smith and that of the LDS…it is unbiblical! It is against what has been revealed and how God and the HS has shown in the Bible.

but…but…isn’t a burning in my bosom enough?

 

[Imcatholic7]

I wouldn’t say so!

The Bible doesn’t say that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones; we know that from modern revelation. But the Catholic Catechism teaches that men can become gods.

Peter was the “Prophet” that led the Church after Jesus. As for the rest, the Restoration entails not only restoring that which was lost, but also many things which had not been revealed before.

Please show me were the Catechism says men may become gods and creators of other planets.

 

[CyndiTo411]

Jesus most certainly taught us the doctrine of the Real Presence. He did so on more than one occasion.

only a very scripturally ignorant person would declare that the Real Presence doctrine is not revealed in Sacred Scripture.

I tried not to go there but thanks

 

[LivingWaters7]

Please show me we the Catechism says men may become gods and creators of other planets.

Well the Catechism certainly doesn’t say that we can become creators of other planets, but this is most likely what he’s referring to (quoted many times by LDS apologists. I used to myself):

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

 

[CyndiTo411]

Well the Catechism certainly doesn’t say that we can become creators of other planets, but this is most likely what he’s referring to (quoted many times by LDS apologists. I used to myself):

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

The words in quotations were said by St. Thomas Aquinas he said them when he was speaking concerning the eucharist when Jesus said he will dwell in us as God dwells in him therefore we share in his divinity and become “gods” not “Gods” or God.

 

[Miriam1947]

Uploaded on Dec 20, 2011
PerfectTheSaints.org Why our whole family left the Mormon Church all at the same time after holding leadership positions for many years including Elders Quorum President, Relief Society 1st and 2nd Councilor, Executive Secretary, Ward Mission Leader, Sunday School President, Ward Clerk, Young Women’s President and more.

youtube.com/watch?v=a989OOSOycw

At about 15 minutes in he talks about the differences in JS’s visions.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

How comical. I’ll ask you again:

Show me ONE primary source (outside the Bible) from the early church did not believe or taught the Real Presence? As of today you have produced ZILCH,ZERO,NADA,ZIP.