Posted on 06/01/2007 6:12:31 AM PDT by pby
Edited on 06/01/2007 6:55:53 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Is Mormonism Christian?
A Comparison of Mormonism and Historic Christianity Copyright © 1999 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved.
Is Mormonism Christian? This may seem like a puzzling question to many Mormons as well as to some Christians. Mormons will note that they include the Bible among the four books which they recognize as Scripture, and that belief in Jesus Christ is central to their faith, as evidenced by their official name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, many Christians have heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christian hymns and are favorably impressed with the Mormon commitment to high moral standards and strong families. Doesn’t it follow that Mormonism is Christian?
[snip]
Sworn testimony from a Supreme Court Justice as to the authenticity of information seems pretty convincing to me. I’d believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg under those circumstances.
Is it LDS doctrine that every human can take the path that Jesus took, going from man to god, and possibly if one acts correctly, to be equal to Him?
So then, is there ANY church that has a meal when practicing ‘communion’?
Into this context, John inserts a powerful Eucharistic motif, the washing of the feet of the disciples by Jesus, suggesting that what this gesture symbolizes is the true meaning of Eucharist.However, he also links the Eucharist to Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life, suggesting that the Eucharist is the new manna, the new bread that God gives us as a daily feeding.Scholars, such as Raymond Brown, suspect that John’s community celebrated the Eucharist daily, while some other first-century communities had it less frequently - quite parallel to the differences in Christian practice today.
More naughtiness - avoiding the verses again.
Verses 24 through 26, if you please.
Stations of the Cross on 7 consecutive nights for you, young lady.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html has a very large Scriptural proof, followed by Church Fathers’s writings.
For those who care, the sections are divided into:
Scripture
Old Testament
Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice
New Testament
Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice Where the Lamb Must be Eaten
Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on our Behalf
The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass
Tradition / Church Fathers
Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood
I trust that all your Scriptural objections shall be answered to your satisfaction.
“The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood”
Wow - that’s heavy.
He ain’t heavy,
He’s my Saviour...
The Catholic Church has had some bad eggs. Remember though, that Peter was a bad egg in several instances and Christ did found His Church with Peter as the first Servant of the Servants of God.
Make up yer mind!
Was it thew verses I posted OR didn't POST??
I'm so confused!
Will SOMEONE just TELL me how to do it?
Which is which?
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
You did not post verses 24 through 26.
This omission changes the obvious conclusion.
And, an understanding of what the Christian Eucharist with the Real Presence is, would lead to the obvious conclusion that the more often, the better.
The entries labelled after Tradition / Church Fathers are, well, the Church Fathers’ writings.
These verses of scripture in Revelation have been cited repeatedly by those attempting to discredit the Book of Mormon, claiming that God’s revelation to man is closed. Nothing more is to be added and nothing is to be taken away. These claims were made when the Book of Mormon was first published and have continued to be made, and are made today.
A careful reading of the words makes it clear that the warning against adding to or taking away does not refer to the whole Bible or even to the New Testament, but to use John’s words, only to the words of “the book of this prophecy.” That is, the prophecy contained in the book of Revelation. This is substantiated by the fact that some of the books of the New Testament had not yet been written when John wrote the book of Revelation, and even those that had been written and were in existence at that time had not yet been gathered into one compilation.
The collection of writings consisting of the sixty-six books we know as the Bible were brought together and compiled into one volume long after John wrote the prophetic book that has been placed at the end of the collection. It is clear, that the terrible judgments pronounced upon those who add to the book could not possibly apply to the whole of the Bible or even to the New Testament, but only to the book of Revelation.
Secondly, the warning uses the words “the prophecy of this book” and also “the words of the book of this prophecy.” The word book in both instances is singular and could only refer to the book of prophecy written by John which is titled, in the King James Version, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine” and is often referred to as the Apocalypse—a Greek word which means revealed. Of necessity the word book would have been in the singular because when written it was not associated with any other book or books, and it was after many years and many ecclesiastical debates that it was added to the collection that became known as the new canon of scripture or the New Testament.
It is also interesting to note that John himself added to scripture after writing the book of Revelation, which is generally conceded to have been written while he was on the Isle of Patmos. It was long after John left Patmos that he wrote his first epistle. This fact standing alone would be sufficient to defeat the claim that revelation was closed and that man was enjoined from adding to scripture. This adds cumulative evidence that John had reference to the book of Revelation only.
In the Old Testament also are found similar vigorous denunciations and commands that there shall not be taken away or added to the words that were written. The first is found in Deuteronomy, written at the time Moses was exhorting Israel to live the law of the Lord. The Torah was oral law and had not been reduced to writing prior to the time of the codification of the law in Deuteronomy. Now that it had been reduced to writing by Moses prior to his death and assumed to be complete, Moses wrote:
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)
Later in this same book of the law, Moses repeated the admonition in similar words. He said,
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut. 12:32.) Cheers
You don't know that. When I was a Mormon it was freely discussed that Joseph Smith had probably already been exalted. Others who had been discussed were the Apostles and some of the characters in the Book of Mormon.
Um... considering exhalation means being a glorified, perfected, resurrected person, and considering that Joseph and Hyrums bones were excavated in the 80's for forensic tests, that is a bunch of hogwash... (unless it's happened in the last 20 years... [grin])
How is it not?
No; he’s not.
He’s a FALLEN ANGEL.
wow, something we can both agree on!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.