Orthodox Church Or Lds Church

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

The Saints do not believe in transubstantiation during the Eucharist. But that is not to say that we do not believe that partaking of the symbols of Christ sacrifice to be essential in our Christian worship services.

Ps. Is Jesus at the last supper early enough?

[saemo]

Saemo:

The Saints do not believe in transubstantiation during the Eucharist. But that is not to say that we do not believe that partaking of the symbols of Christ sacrifice to be essential in our Christian worship services.

Ps. Is Jesus at the last supper early enough?

Thanks. Transubstantiation and the Real Presence aren't the same thing. Real Presence is a belief that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, as opposed to your (and some Protestant) belief that He is present in a symbolic sense.

[saemo]

Ps. Is Jesus at the last supper early enough?

This is my Body. This is my Blood.

as opposed to

This symbolically represents my Body. This symbolically represents my Blood.

"How can this Man, give us His Flesh to eat?"

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

What part of Jesus' body did He cut off, and present to those early Apostles?

[LearningGuy]

Thanks. Transubstantiation and the Real Presence aren't the same thing. Real Presence is a belief that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, as opposed to your (and some Protestant) belief that He is present in a symbolic sense.

Agreed. Real presence means that Jesus is actually present in the bread and wine (some would say "in, with and under", to show belief that the bread and wine really IS the body and blood of Christ). Transubstantiation is more of an attempt to explain how it happens. Eastern Christianity tends to not focus on this aspect of the Real Presence, and simply accept it as a Mystery, instead of trying to define and reason how, why, and what happens.

In my research, I think it is important to use non-Biblical sources as well in trying to determine whether the first Christians believed in the real presence, because some of the Biblical statements can be subject to various interpretations. "This is my body" and "this is my blood" don't necessarily have to have a literal interpretation any more than any other Biblical statement. "Is" doesn't automatically mean that Jesus was really saying it IS his body and blood, and you don't have to explicitly say "This represents my body" or something like that for those statements to be taken as symbolism. Thus the necessity for extra-Biblical (as well as other statements made throughout the Bible itself) sources. Could some point me in a direction for the LDS viewpoint on this issue?

[saemo]

Saemo:

What part of Jesus' body did He cut off, and present to those early Apostles?

They, and we, are not cannibals!

[saemo]

Agreed. Real presence means that Jesus is actually present in the bread and wine (some would say "in, with and under", to show belief that the bread and wine really IS the body and blood of Christ). Transubstantiation is more of an attempt to explain how it happens. Eastern Christianity tends to not focus on this aspect of the Real Presence, and simply accept it as a Mystery, instead of trying to define and reason how, why, and what happens.

In my research, I think it is important to use non-Biblical sources as well in trying to determine whether the first Christians believed in the real presence, because some of the Biblical statements can be subject to various interpretations. "This is my body" and "this is my blood" don't necessarily have to have a literal interpretation any more than any other Biblical statement. "Is" doesn't automatically mean that Jesus was really saying it IS his body and blood, and you don't have to explicitly say "This represents my body" or something like that for those statements to be taken as symbolism. Thus the necessity for extra-Biblical (as well as other statements made throughout the Bible itself) sources. Could some point me in a direction for the LDS viewpoint on this issue?

I think John 6 is very clear on the point.

A few ECF points (www.ccel.org has the entire text)

Ignatius of Antioch: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr: "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the

flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology 66 [A.D.

151]).

Speaking of Incarnation, also something that is very different within Mormonism.

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

Exactly. The Eucharist is symbolism. Albeit VERY important and necessary symbolism.

[saemo]

saemo:

Exactly. The Eucharist is symbolism. Albeit VERY important and necessary symbolism.

That is not what I said, and is not what Jesus Christ taught.

[LeSellers]

This is my Body. This is my Blood.

as opposed to

This symbolically represents my Body. This symbolically represents my Blood.

We say "This is the earth," pointing to a map. Yet the map is not the earth. We say, "This is the earth," pointing to a globe. Yet the globe is not the earth, either, even though it is closer as a symbol than a 2-dimensional map.

The Lord says His tongue is a two-edged sword, but his tongue is not a sword. Neither is His literal footstool the earth.

The Canaanite woman was not a dog, and the healing power of the Lord was not table crumbs. Yet the scriptures say all of these things, in a symbolic way, without noting that they are symbolic.

Not all symbolism is flagged as such in the scripture. In point of fact, very little of it is so marked. Why should we expect this instance to be an illogical exception?

The symbolism in the bead and wine is apparent when we realize that He was sitting (or lying) there, whole, among them as He spoke. There was nothing of His body missing as He passed them the bread, and there was no lessening of His blood as the cup went from lips to lips.

Now, please tell us, were the chalice to undergo chemical analysis, whether there would be "blood" therein, or if the wafers contain human DNA? When one eats them, I suspect that the flavor is of "wheat", not "flesh", and the texture is "bread", not "meat". (Having never tasted one, I cannot say from experience, but those who have and talked to me about it do not make a counter point in favor of your argument.)

When I was reading the book The Faith of Millions, with an imprimatur, the priest writing it said that when a parish priest says the words of the mass, Christ, the mighty God, humbly submits and offers Himself a new sacrifice on the altar, and that the wine and the bread do, indeed become that blood and the flesh of Christ. This is wholly incredible, and does not have sufficient scriptural evidence for me to accept it on any basis.

Lehi

[saemo]

We say "This is the earth," pointing to a map. Yet the map is not the earth. We say, "This is the earth," pointing to a globe. Yet the globe is not the earth, either, even though it is closer as a symbol than a 2-dimensional map.

The Lord says His tongue is a two-edged sword, but his tongue is not a sword. Neither is His literal footstool the earth.

The Canaanite woman was not a dog, and the healing power of the Lord was not table crumbs. Yet the scriptures say all of these things, in a symbolic way, without noting that they are symbolic.

Not all symbolism is flagged as such in the scripture. In point of fact, very little of it is so marked. Why should we expect this instance to be an illogical exception?

The symbolism in the bead and wine is apparent when we realize that He was sitting (or lying) there, whole, among them as He spoke. There was nothing of His body missing as He passed them the bread, and there was no lessening of His blood as the cup went from lips to lips.

Now, please tell us, were the chalice to undergo chemical analysis, whether there would be "blood" therein, or if the wafers contain human DNA? When one eats them, I suspect that the flavor is of "wheat", not "flesh", and the texture is "bread", not "meat". (Having never tasted one, I cannot say from experience, but those who have and talked to me about it do not make a counter point in favor of your argument.)

When I was reading the book The Faith of Millions, with an imprimatur, the priest writing it said that when a parish priest says the words of the mass, Christ, the mighty God, humbly submits and offers Himself a new sacrifice on the altar, and that the wine and the bread do, indeed become that blood and the flesh of Christ. This is wholly incredible, and does not have sufficient scriptural evidence for me to accept it on any basis.

Lehi

Lehi, some disciples turned away as well, because they could not accept what Jesus was telling them

John 6

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

No, the wine still tastes like wine, and wafer still tastes like a wafer. The material is the same, the substance is Our Lord. It is indeed a belief of Faith, but one that is more profound and rooted in the truth of the Gospels, taught by Christ, and believed by the earliest Christians. (And mocked from the earliest times by the unbaptized.)

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

I know what you are saying. But that does mean it makes any sense. To further symbolism of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

When we are baptized we literally do not DIE. It is symbolism.

When we are born again we literally do not go back into our mother womb. It is symbolism.

When we take up the cross. No one is expecting you to literally walk the streets of Jerusalem, and hang on a cross. It is symbolism.

The examples of this symbolism are too numerous to name. But you know what I am saying.

[saemo]

Saemo:

I know what you are saying. But that does mean it makes any sense. To further symbolism of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

When we are baptized we literally do not DIE. It is symbolism.

When we are born again we literally do not go back into our mother womb. It is symbolism.

When we take up the cross. No one is expecting you to literally walk the streets of Jerusalem, and hang on a cross. It is symbolism.

The examples of this symbolism are too numerous to name. But you know what I am saying.

When I was researching the Catholic Church, I didn't think it made any sense either. When I was in RCIA, it was something I did not understand. I left it up to God, to help me along the way. The Holy Spirit is what touches you, and tells you that what Christ taught is Truth. When I was baptized and received first communion, it was like nothing I have experienced in my life. It is not anything I can give you. Like the Eucharist, Faith comes from God, and no other.

[Rommelator]

The essence of God in Mormonism is man. A human who was one like every man you meet on the street but who is now exalted. Theosis and beatific vision are not even remotely similar to this LDS doctrine. Mormons believe that there are many gods, this is found in their scriptures in the Book of Abraham, in their Pearl of Great Price.

LDS views on theosis or exaltation in comparison to early Christian belief can be found here:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php (You want the second one down from the top Partakers of the Divine Nature)

and

http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/

Enjoy!

[LeSellers]

some disciples turned away as well, because they could not accept what Jesus was telling them

Or didn't understand it. The two are not synonymous.

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

It is more than simple for me to read this in a way that supports our beliefs. Your citation here does not make me accept your belief in the transubstantiation from one physical material into another, and all the more when there is no material change of any sort.

Jesus had already chastised the Jews for misunderstanding Him.

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

He leads us to understand that the meat of which He spoke was not any literal meat, but the belief in Him (the One who was sent), and doing the doctrines He commanded them. This meat was symbolic of obedience and dedication to God.

You see, they were looking for literal meat, not the symbolic meat that would give them God within.

The eating of sacrificial meat, both in Judaism and among pagans, was to become "enthused", or to have "god within". The Jews to whom He spoke knew that this eating was pagan, and to eat the flesh of a living beast (or man, in this case) was blasphemous. But when Jesus said this, He was teaching a great truth: one must have God within him to be godly. He must be devoted to God, from the inside out. But He did not mean that the people should bite Him or suck His blood. Nor was He saying that they would get literal meat from Him, nor literal blood from Him (also note that eating blood was explicitly forbidden under the Mosaic Law), but that they must instill within themselves His doctrines which would place God within them.

Why would Jesus use words that do not, taken literally, mean what they say?

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

the wine still tastes like wine, and wafer still tastes like a wafer. The material is the same, the substance is Our Lord. It is indeed a belief of Faith, but one that is more profound and rooted in the truth of the Gospels, taught by Christ, and believed by the earliest Christians. (And mocked from the earliest times by the unbaptized.)

I hope you did not think I was mocking you or your beliefs. I was not.

However, I was trying to point out a singular inconsistency between the belief and the actuality that we could (were we to try it) measure: The wine of the chalice is physically wine before and after the ritual of the mass, the wafer changes not a whit as far as anyone can determine by the most careful analysis. Yet Catholics claim there is a change into the actual flesh and blood of the Lord. I simply say there is no change, either physical or any other. The wine is symbolic of the blood, the bread emblematic of His flesh. The change is in the minds (and spirits) of those who partake and of those who drink.

You make a fantastic claim and you acknowledge that the wine tastes like wine and the wafer tastes like a wafer all the while postualting some change that ought to make them distinguishably different from what they had been.

We make a claim that the bread and wine/water are the emblems, the tokens, the symbols of His boddy and blood, and that we are changed by eating/drinking them in remembrance of Him.

Lehi

[saemo]

Or didn't understand it. The two are not synonymous.

It is more than simple for me to read this in a way that supports our beliefs. Your citation here does not make me accept your belief in the transubstantiation from one physical material into another, and all the more when there is no material change of any sort.

Christ never explained the how the Eucharist becomes His Body and Blood. He did clearly state that it is. And that clarity is found throughout the NT. Transubstantiation is a philisophical manner to explain the Real Presence. The Real Presence, as has already been stated by learningguy, a Mystery. A Mystery is not something that is unknown, it is known by the fact that God has revealed it to us.

As I have already explained, the material does not change.

Jesus had already chastised the Jews for misunderstand[/quoteing Him.

He leads us to understand that the meat of which He spoke was not any literal meat, but the belief in Him (the One who was sent), and doing the doctrines He commanded them. This meat was symbolic of obedience and dedication to God.

Another reference to Himself as "meat". At the last supper this was made abundantly clear, where He compared the paschal lamb to Himself.

Also, in the scripture passage I sited before, the footnotes for verse 54 (New American Bible) indicate this:

"Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: "munch," "gnaw.""

You see, they were looking for literal meat, not the symbolic meat that would give them God within.

God within, yes, you are getting closer. We take God into us.

The eating of sacrificial meat, both in Judaism and among pagans, was to become "enthused", or to have "god within". The Jews to whom He spoke knew that this eating was pagan, and to eat the flesh of a living beast (or man, in this case) was blasphemous. But when Jesus said this, He was teaching a great truth: one must have God within him to be godly. He must be devoted to God, from the inside out. But He did not mean that the people should bite Him or suck His blood. Nor was He saying that they would get literal meat from Him, nor literal blood from Him (also note that eating blood was explicitly forbidden under the Mosaic Law), but that they must instill within themselves His doctrines which would place God within them.

Again, the paschal lamb is a sacrifice to God, Jesus made it clear that He is the sacrifice that the paschal lamb symbolized. The symbolisim is over, God is present in the flesh. The night of His arrest He declares His love for the Apostles, and replaces the unleaven bread and the 3rd cup of wine (the sacrificial cup) with a New Covenant. He then lays down His life for our salvation, and on the 3rd day He rose again, in fulfillment of scripture.

Later ascended into Heaven. This ascension, he refers to in John 6, and tells the Jews that they will no more believe that than what He is telling them. That we are to eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Son of Man. The ascension is not symbolic, thus, it is clear He was not speaking symbolically. He is comparing one non-symbolic truth to another. It can't get any clearer than that.

Why would Jesus use words that do not, taken literally, mean what they say?

Again, we are not vampires and neither are we cannibals. Christ gave us the Eucharist and taught us what it is. It is His Flesh and His Blood, a divine mystery, known only by Faith.

I hope you did not think I was mocking you or your beliefs. I was not.

I never know, it is a favorite anti-Catholic rhetoric. But while I was researching Catholicism I did tell a friend of mine that he is a vampire. He didn't think it was very funny. And no, I didn't mean to mock his faith (what is now my faith), but it was as fantastical to me as it is to you.

However, I was trying to point out a singular inconsistency between the belief and the actuality that we could (were we to try it) measure: The wine of the chalice is physically wine before and after the ritual of the mass, the wafer changes not a whit as far as anyone can determine by the most careful analysis. Yet Catholics claim there is a change into the actual flesh and blood of the Lord. I simply say there is no change, either physical or any other. The wine is symbolic of the blood, the bread emblematic of His flesh. The change is in the minds (and spirits) of those who partake and of those who drink.

Nope, not psychological. I cannot pretend to believe something I don't believe. That was my struggle to find faith, at all. I can tell you that I have those moments of doubt, where I ask myself, what in the world are you thinking? I can no more deny the Real Presence than I could deny God Himself. It is not me, it is God.

Today, when I went up for Communion, I stood in line behind the person in front of me, and as I get closer to Monsignor, I always get overwhelmed by Jesus' presence and feel like I could fall on my face in awe. When Monsignor places the wafer in my hand, I always stare at it for a second in wonder, because it looks like a wafer, tastes like a wafer, feels like a wafer in my hand. But in my mouth, and inside my body, it feels like nothing I can describe. After taking the Cup I go back to the pew, and kneel in prayer, and thank God for this unimaginable gift that I had no idea existed prior to my conversion to Catholicism. Sometimes, the song during Communion has the words "taste and see, taste and see, the Goodness of the Lord". Which is not symbolic, it is very literal. We taste the Goodness of the Lord and I can't imagine how I lived without this in my life.

You make a fantastic claim and you acknowledge that the wine tastes like wine and the wafer tastes like a wafer all the while postualting some change that ought to make them distinguishably different from what they had been.

It is not my claim, it is what Jesus taught, what you find in the Gospels, what the Apostles knew as truth.

We make a claim that the bread and wine/water are the emblems, the tokens, the symbols of His boddy and blood, and that we are changed by eating/drinking them in remembrance of Him.

Yes, I understand this. And I find it beautiful, and also vastly empty.

[Bibletruth]

First post, awesome! I've been browsing these forums for a long time, even before it became mormonapologetics. I've been fascinated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a number of years, and still have the Book of Mormon that I ordered in 2002. I've been raised Catholic, but stopped going to church recently, though I still believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the truth of the Christian message. I'm now trying to find the Church that is the same one of the Apostles, and continues apostolic beliefs and practices. I'm now trying to decide between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Both churches have drawn me in at various times over the years. I've attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox church before, and LOVED it. I love the use of candles, incense, bells, etc., and you definitely feel like if you're in the house of God, and that this was the way the first Christian worshipped. Did the first Christians used incense, bells, etc? The symbolism found in these Orthodox churches is great, and is a very important part of why I'm drawn to the Orthodox. Miracles such as the holy fire on great saturday in jerusalem, crosses in the sky, etc., seem to draw me closer to the Orthodox Church as well, with these supposed Divine manifestations. Orthodox have services such as vespers, matins, compline, hours, etc., offering services throughout the day (though not all churches do).

I've never visited a LDS meetinghouse, but have been reading a lot about Mormon beliefs. I like that Mormons claim to continue the same organization of the church that was seen in the first century, including Apostles, a prophet, seventies, patriarchs, etc. However, I'm not really aware of there being a "first presidency" in the past. Who was the last prophet before the apostasy? Peter? I like the sense of community and emphasis on an all encompassing faith that affects your life always, whether through family home evening, blessings by the father/husband, priesthood/relief society meetings, etc. The temple definitely fascinates me, especially the washing and anointing and sealing. One question that I always think about is, when someone dies, wouldn't they realize that the LDS view is true, and that when a baptism is performed by proxy for them, why would someone reject it if they see what the truth is? Both Orthodox and LDS believe in some form of theosis, but the belief in exaltation is interesting, especially the belief that we could become like God and have our own spirit children. I'm not sure i've seen that aspect of theosis in my own limited research (that we could have spirit children).

So, I'm having a difficult time choosing what I believe or which Church is the true original Christian Church. I'll start reading the Book of Mormon soon, but the Orthodox Church always pulls my attention as well, esp. due to its worship style, which seems more ancient than LDS meetinghouse worship. Has anyone else had to decide between the LDS and another church? How did you come to your decision? Any thoughts on anything I brought up above would be welcome.

Exactly how much do you know about Mormonism? I cannot believe that you are actually attemtping to make a choice between Orthodoxy and Mormonism. They have different deities. The Orthodox believe in an eternal, immutable, omnipresent God, who was God from everlasting to everlasting (see Ps. 90), and Who eternally subsists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that there are many gods, and that the Mormon deity was once a man and had to learn to become god. In other words, there was a point where the Mormon deity was not god. See the King Follett Discourse by Joseph Smith. Also, this site will explain the difference:

http://bible-truth.org/LDStheism.html

Mormons likewise believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of Mormonism, they can attain exaltation and become gods and goddesses. In other words, there is no ontological difference between humans and gods. Humans are simply "gods in embryo," as oneof their former prophets stated.

You really need to study the more esoteric doctrines of Mormonism. They are totally incompatible with Christianity, not just Orthodox or Catholic Christianity, but the most basic forms of Christianity. Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, not to mention the Apostle's Creed. Their "priesthood" has nothing to do with the Apostolic Succession of authority found in Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican priesthoods ( holy orders deriving authority from Christ and the Apostles). Mormons claim their priesthood was bestowed by dead and resurrected beings - this is totally anti-Scriptural. Mormon sacraments, therefore, have no validity whatsoever according to Orthodoxy. The Roman Church demands rebaptism for any Mormon attempting to join Rome, as do Protestant evangelicals.

There are significant differences between the Mormon religion and Christianity. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are only familiar with the Book of Mormon. Understand this, you will find no unique Mormon doctrines in the Book of Mormon. That book is more in line with 19th century Campbellite doctrine. Mormonism's unque doctrines are found in Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

And since you love the liturgical worship of Orthodoxy, remember that Mormons substitute water for wine in the Lord's Supper, and do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

You need to seek counseling from a Christian pastor or priest before making any move to enter Mormonism. I strongly suggest that you contact a Christian pastor who can explain to you the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Usually, if you contact your local Calvary Chapel the pastors are very knowledgeable in that area. Look in your yellow pages under churches-non-denominational. You really need to know what Mormonism teaches before embracing it. The elders do not tell you.

Also, read Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse which I mentioned above: http://www.mrm.org/topics/documents-speech...llett-discourse

[jwhitlock]

You need to seek counseling from a Christian pastor or priest before making any move to enter Mormonism. I strongly suggest that you contact a Christian pastor who can explain to you the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Usually, if you contact your local Calvary Chapel the pastors are very knowledgeable in that area. Look in your yellow pages under churches-non-denominational. You really need to know what Mormonism teaches before embracing it. The elders do not tell you.

What a bunch of hogwash. To claim that one can only really find out the truth about the restored gospel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from some anti-Mormon - because the Mormons won't tell you - is the height of arrogance.

"Bibletruth" has accurately demonstrated the hatred and misdirection that characterizes far too much of mainstream Christianity and is solid evidence of the apostasy that has made the restoration of the gospel necessary.

Tell me, "BT"; why was the whole purpose of your post to tear down Mormonism, and instead not to proclaim faith in Christ? Wouldn't "Calvary Chapel" have a better chance of conversion if they proclaimed Christ first and above all, rather than first tearing down Mormonism? The fact that you mentioned nothing concerning coming to Christ, and instead concentrated on a hate filled post denigrating Mormonism certainly makes your claims about being a representative of true Christianity highly suspect.

[Bibletruth]

Thanks for your views. As far as Catholic vs. Orthodox on theology of God, yes, they are both Trinitarian in the usual sense of that word. However, there IS a difference in understanding God within that Trinitarian viewpoint. Catholics tend to emphasize what God IS, whereas Orthodox tend to start from a viewpoint of what God is NOT. Like I said above, Orthodox make a distinction between the energies and essence of God, in that the essence of God is distinct from the energies of God (how God acts). It is the energies of God that allow us to experience Him. This is a distinction not found in Catholicism. And of course there's the issue of the filoque, where Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox believe that it proceeds from the Father. This has led to many other discussions, including some modifying the former statement to procession from the Father through the Son. So yes, Catholics and Orthodox both believe in a Trinitarian God, but there is still a difference in understanding God in many aspects.

I am well aware of the LDS position of God, as well as exaltation. I agree that theosis doesn't equal exaltation, however we can see some similarities in theology, especially when considering that the Orthodox don't necessarily agree with Catholics on this issue either. I do agree that the theology of God in the Orthodox Church isn't compatible w/ the LDS understanding, however that is also part of the research that I've been doing for a period of time. Which view of God is the original Christian view? Is the LDS God the restored understanding? These are more questions that I have asked and am still learning views on today.

As far as Orthodox vs. LDS, I've been doing research on the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and more recently the Church of JC of LDS, for a number of years, and my own conclusion is that the Orthodox Church has more of a claim to continuing ancient Christian beliefs than the Catholic Church. Obviously some will disagree with that. My new question now is whether the LDS Church is a restoration of the original Christian Church (aka is it restoring Christian beliefs that are more ancient than those of the Orthodox Church), or whether the Orthodox Church IS continuing those original Christian beliefs. I think that LDS would agree that the Orthodox Church does have very old beliefs and continues many old Traditions, however it is their view that many of these beliefs stem from after the apostasy and therefore are not what the first Christians believed, no matter how old those beliefs are anyway.

Oh and the Book of Abraham IS part of the Pearl of Great Price.

I cannot believe you asked, what view of God is the original view! Get out your Bible and read, for heaven's sake:

Deut. 6 (the Shema, the Jewish Creedal Statement):

Shema Yisrael

The first, pivotal, words of the Shema, the creed of all Jews, found in Deut. 6. This distinguished Jews from all their neighbors: There is only ONE God.

שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד

Judaism teaches that the Tetragrammaton (י-ה-ו-ה) is the ineffable name of God, and as such is not read aloud in the Shema but is traditionally replaced with אדני, Adonai ("my Lord"). For this reason, the Shema is recited aloud as:

Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.

The literal word meanings are roughly as follows:

Shema (A three part word) â?? listen, or hear and "act on"

Yisrael â?? Israel, in the sense of the people or congregation of Israel

Adonai â?? often translated as "Lord", it is used in place of the Tetragrammaton

Eloheinu â?? our God, the word "El" or "Elohei" signifying God (see also: Elohim), and the plural possessive determiner suffix "nu" or "einu" signifying "our"

Echad â?? the Hebrew word for "1" (the number) (Wikipedia)

So literally, the SHEMA states: Hear O Israel, Jehovah your Elohim is ONE Jehovah. (Mormonism teaches that Elohim is not Jehovah).

Then, go to Isaiah 43:10:

10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

In order for Mormonism's teaching that men can be exalted (formed) into gods and goddesses, you must remove this verse from the Bible. Interestingly, however, Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version" of the Bible leaves this verse as is........no change.

The earliest Christian doctrine regarding God is found in the oldest Christian document, the New Testament:

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/god.htm

I cannot believe you are even considering that Christians have ever historically taught the existence of more than one God. Read the early church Fathers, who confirm that monotheism is the one and only doctrine the Christian Church has ever taught. And by the way, that doctrine is also taught in the Book of Mormon, which is monotheistic from cover to cover - Smith later became polytheistic, teaching that there were millions of gods who were exalted human beings.

Finally, really read the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom:

http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/liturgy1.html

There you will find the earliest teachings of Christians which is liturgically preserved by the Orthodox.

Furthermore, remember that Mormons conceal from potential converts the more esoteric doctrines of their religion. They call it giving milk before meat. You won't find out what Mormonism really teaches from either this site or the missionaries. You need to dig into it yourself. There are many sites which will help you learn what Mormons really teach, including this one: http://www.C***.org/mormon.htm

CARM also has a discussion group addressing Mormonism which you might wish to join: http://www.C***.org/boards.htm

[jwhitlock]

I cannot believe you are even considering that Christians have ever historically taught the existence of more than one God. Read the early church Fathers, who confirm that monotheism is the one and only doctrine the Christian Church has ever taught. And by the way, that doctrine is also taught in the Book of Mormon, which is monotheistic from cover to cover - Smith later became polytheistic, teaching that there were millions of gods who were exalted human beings.

Still misrepresenting our beliefs in your cut and paste anti-Mormonism? Why do you find it necessary - in the name of your "claimed" Christianity - to lie so much in order to tear down something you barely understand?

Your continued arrogance in coming here with the only purpose to tear down our Church is becoming tiresome.

[Bibletruth]

Still misrepresenting our beliefs in your cut and paste anti-Mormonism? Why do you find it necessary - in the name of your "claimed" Christianity - to lie so much in order to tear down something you barely understand?

Your continued arrogance in coming here with the only purpose to tear down our Church is becoming tiresome.

Give me one doctrine which I "misrepresented." Go ahead.

[jwhitlock]

Give me one doctrine which I "misrepresented." Go ahead.

You lied in your first post by claiming only "Calvary Chapel" can tell someone the truth about Mormons - that the Mormons won't do it.

You've lied in claiming that CARM gives an accurate representation of Mormonism.

You've lied in the simplistic way you've characterized monotheism and polytheism, including Joseph Smith's theology.

You've lied in claiming that this board hides doctrines of Mormonism - when it's evident to anyone that we discuss an extremely wide variety of topics.

You've lied in characterizing how Mormons claim exaltation is attained - as if Christ has no part in it.

Your entire purpose is to misdirect and to tear down the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. You've made a very clear demonstration of what a wolf in sheep's clothing really can be like. And you've made a clear demonstration of the type of person an anti-Mormon typically is.

Perhaps the only purpose of your posting here is to serve as a warning to others of what belief in a corrupt Christianity leads to.

[Bibletruth]

You lied in your first post by claiming only "Calvary Chapel" can tell someone the truth about Mormons - that the Mormons won't do it.

You've lied in claiming that CARM gives an accurate representation of Mormonism.

You've lied in the simplistic way you've characterized monotheism and polytheism, including Joseph Smith's theology.

You've lied in claiming that this board hides doctrines of Mormonism - when it's evident to anyone that we discuss an extremely wide variety of topics.

You've lied in characterizing how Mormons claim exaltation is attained - as if Christ has no part in it.

Your entire purpose is to misdirect and to tear down the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. You've made a very clear demonstration of what a wolf in sheep's clothing really can be like. And you've made a clear demonstration of the type of person an anti-Mormon typically is.

Perhaps the only purpose of your posting here is to serve as a warning to others of what belief in a corrupt Christianity leads to.

In other words, t his guy doesn't like CARM or Calvary Chapels (which doubt he knows zilch about) - but can't point to even one Mormon doctrine I misrepresented. Go ahead, what Mormon doctrine did I misprepresent?

Momons believe in an infinite regression of exalted deities. A mathematical impossibility.

[jwhitlock]

In other words, t his guy doesn't like CARM or Calvary Chapels (which doubt he knows zilch about) - but can't point to even one Mormon doctrine I misrepresented. Go ahead, what Mormon doctrine did I misprepresent?

Gee, did you even read my post? Did you miss my references to your lies concerning exaltation and polytheism? Are you so immersed in your deception that you ignore what is right in front of your nose?

And finally, are you saying that CARM and Calvary Chapel both sport the same types of "Christians" that you so highly regard?

[LeSellers]

Momons believe in an infinite regression of exalted deities. A mathematical impossibility.

An eternal, infinite God is a mathematical impossibility. What's your point?

Lehi