Missionary Work In The After-Life

[Ahab]

Indirectly, this brings up an interesting issue in the general resurrection of humans. The material from which our bodies are composes has been, according to science, recycled thousands and millions of times, especially if we go as far back as the birth of the universe/galaxy, stars creating elements, supernovas, etc. In the resurrections, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that some people's bodies are sharing the same elements?

The fact that it's reasonable doesn't mean it is true. God has told us that our essence never becomes the essence of another creature, so when we and all other creatures are resurrected we'll all have our own bodies without taking anything away from another creature, or they from us. It is a fascinating statement of fact, isn't it.

[MiserereNobis]

The fact that it's reasonable doesn't mean it is true. God has told us that our essence never becomes the essence of another creature, so when we and all other creatures are resurrected we'll all have our own bodies without taking anything away from another creature, or they from us. It is a fascinating statement of fact, isn't it.

But our physical matter is constantly recycling through other organism and, in the case of cannibals, through humans. What is the distinction you are making between the essence of a human and his/her physical matter?

[Calm]

I can hear what you are saying and will, obviously, bow to your interpretation of the meeting, since you are LDS and I am not, but I hope that you can see that from an outsider's perspective, the fact that communion only takes up about 10 minutes of an hour and 10 minute meeting (and the fact that it comes in the beginning part) has the appearance of downplaying its importance. It appears as if the point of the meeting is to listen to the speakers.

Understood.

In Catholicism, we attempt to do the same. Traditionally the priest (or a deacon) would take the Blessed Sacrament to those who could not attend Mass (and to those approaching death, when the Sacrament is called the Viaticum and is part of the Last Rites). Today, lay people are authorized to do so as well, though I firmly believe it is more in the role of the priest or deacon than the laiety.

Good to know.

[Calm]

God has told us that our essence never becomes the essence of another creature, so when we and all other creatures are resurrected we'll all have our own bodies without taking anything away from another creature, or they from us.

CFR please.

[zerinus]

I can hear what you are saying and will, obviously, bow to your interpretation of the meeting, since you are LDS and I am not, but I hope that you can see that from an outsider's perspective, the fact that communion only takes up about 10 minutes of an hour and 10 minute meeting (and the fact that it comes in the beginning part) has the appearance of downplaying its importance. It appears as if the point of the meeting is to listen to the speakers.

How long do you think Jesus' own inauguration of the Sacrament take to be administered:

Luke 22:

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

I think that one can actually diminish from the value, importance, meaning, sacredness, and significance of a sacrament by adding unauthorized and unnecessary establishment to it. It is a simple affair that is meant to focus our attention on the remembrance of Jesus. We don't "transubstantiate" the emblems, and we don't "sacrifice" Jesus on the altar afresh, as the Catholics do. The emphasis is on the remembrance of Jesus, as the Bible says it should be.

In Mass, the Eucharist comes last, and everything else is a build-up to it. This is particularly clear in the traditional Latin Mass.

We think that by putting it first we give it the primary importance, and give it more emphasis prominence in the service. We give it the higher status by putting it first, rather than the other way round.

[Calm]

we don't "sacrifice" Jesus on the altar afresh

CFR that this is what Catholics really believe they are doing rather than partaking in the infinite sacrifice of the cross.

[MiserereNobis]

How long do you think Jesus' own inauguration of the Sacrament take to be administered:

We should both agree that the Last Supper, while the inauguration of Communion, is not indicative of how it is performed in either of our churches today.

The emphasis is on the remembrance of Jesus, as the Bible says it should be.

Of course, it is interesting that you highlight "remembrance" while failing to highlight "this is My Body."

In Catholicism, Mass is both; it is a remembrance, as well as re-presentation, re-creation, of the Last Supper and Calvary.

We take Christ at His word -- the Eucharist is His Body. And yes, this causes "scandal," as seen by how many disciples left Him after He told them that if they did not eat His Body and drink His Blood there would be no life within them.

We think that by putting it first we give it the primary importance, and give it more emphasis prominence in the service. We give it the higher status by putting it first, rather than the other way round.

Yes, but don't announcements of church activities, etc, come before communion? By your logic, those announcements would have more importance than communion. But I will say again, as I said before, that it's your service so you can interpret as you wish. I'm just pointing out an outsider's view, and as an outsider attending LDS services, the focus seems firmly planted on the speakers, not communion.

[MiserereNobis]

CFR that this is what Catholics really believe they are doing rather than partaking in the infinite sacrifice of the cross.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is just that -- it is the eternal re-presentation, re-creation, of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

Here is your reference from the Catechism:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

[Calm]

Would a Catholic describe the Eucharist as sacrificing Christ afresh on the altar?

[shalamabobbi]

I think you underestimate the difficulty in voluntarily abstaining from that which our biology calls us to do: procreate.

Oh I think the LDS understand the difficulty quite well. It is quite different though to imagine doing this for one's entire life.

Here is a commentary about 1 Cor 7 from the LDS perspective if it interests you.

http://maxwellinstit...scripts/?id=117

Here's hoping your current path was the result of your sincere desire rather than the result of bad translation.

From the rest of your comments I may surmise that conversion to the Catholic religion is not a vehicle to escape a bad marriage.

[zerinus]

We should both agree that the Last Supper, while the inauguration of Communion, is not indicative of how it is performed in either of our churches today.

We know that the embellishment was added much later. The original ones were much simpler, as described by Paul.

Of course, it is interesting that you highlight "remembrance" while failing to highlight "this is My Body."

Yes, because that is not meant to be taken literally, as shown in John 6:63.

In Catholicism, Mass is both; it is a remembrance, as well as re-presentation, re-creation, of the Last Supper and Calvary.

Actually it is more. It is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ---a totally unbiblical doctrine.

We take Christ at His word -- the Eucharist is His Body. And yes, this causes "scandal," as seen by how many disciples left Him after He told them that if they did not eat His Body and drink His Blood there would be no life within them.

See above.

Yes, but don't announcements of church activities, etc, come before communion? By your logic, those announcements would have more importance than communion.

You misunderstand again! The announcements are made before the meeting formally starts! The meeting formally starts after the prayer is said. First the announcements are made; then the opening hymn is sung; then the opening prayer is given. That opening prayer marks the start of the service.

But I will say again, as I said before, that it's your service so you can interpret as you wish. I'm just pointing out an outsider's view, and as an outsider attending LDS services, the focus seems firmly planted on the speakers, not communion.

As an outsider, I have lots of issues with the way in which the Mass is conducted. They have taken the original Sacrament, and embellished it so the simplicity, spirituality, and beauty of the original is lost. They have also changed the doctrine from a simple act of memorial or remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus to all kinds of unauthorized doctrines such as transsubstantiation and re-enactment of the Lord's sacrifice.

[Damien the Leper]

I kindly ask that no missionaries come knocking on my urn or coffin. I would be more comfortable in Catholic purgatory than some form of Heaven.

Simply put, I'm not looking for redemption any time in the next 100 lifespans.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

I think it was Dan Peterson who noted there was another Joseph, son of Joseph (Joseph Knight Jr.) in the vicinity of the plates is by chance Joseph Smith had failed. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9611d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Wow- cool point!

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure if speaking about how diligent Catholic priests are at abstaining from sex is a good direction to take this.

[mfbukowski]

I kindly ask that no missionaries come knocking on my urn or coffin. I would be more comfortable in Catholic purgatory than some form of Heaven.

Simply put, I'm not looking for redemption any time in the next 100 lifespans.

Then you are not likely to get it.

[ed2276]

Really? I've been to LDS sacrament meeting and, obviously Mass (both the new and the traditional forms), and I find them very dissimilar. In the LDS meeting, the focus is on speaking -- there are 3-4 speakers which take up the bulk of the meeting. There is also very little ritual, except for the blessing and passing of communion, which is VERY short on ritual.

Sacrament meeting, despite its name, appears to me to mainly be focused on speaking.

Mass, in my experience, has been focused on singing, speaking, and eucharist. There is the occasional baptism.

LDS Sacrament is focused on singing, speaking, and sacrament. Though baptism is done outside sacrament meeting, there is the occasional blessing and naming of children, and confirmation into the church.

Both Mass and Sacrament are focused, through singing, speaking, and eucharist/sacrament upon worshipping and giving thanks to the Lord and in remembrance of His atonement for us.

The reason I say Mass and LDS Sacrament meeting seem similar to me are:

Mass

1. Procession of Priest, Scripture, and Cross to the altar.

2. Choir and congregation sing.

3. Opening Prayer ("Let us pray.") by priest.

4. 1st reading (short)

5. Chorister sings with congregation response.

6. 2nd reading (short)

7. Priest gives sermon

8 Eucharist begins

(singing, recitation/prayer (done by priest), passing eucharistic emblems (priest/lay members)

9. Closing prayer ("Let us pray.")

LDS Sacrament

1. LDS priesthood make their way onto the stand. (No formal procession)

2. Opening Hymn

3. Opening prayer by member of congregation

4. 1st "talk" (longer than 1st reading)

5. Occasional special musical performance.

6. 2nd "talk" (longer than 1st reading)

7.Sacrament hymn, prayer (done by priesthood), and passing of sacramental emblems (by priesthood)

8. Closing prayer by member of congregation.

Additionally, LDS and Catholic are similar in practice:

1. Priesthood authority necessary. Only ordained clergy may perform/legitimize sacraments.

2. Baptism, confirmation, blessing/naming children, sanctity of marriage (Catholics: no divorce; LDS eternal marriage), annointing with oil/chrism, passing of sacramental/eucharistic emblems.

Edited September 20, 2012 by ed2276

[mfbukowski]

Miserere

I think if you understand our sacrament service is only the "mass of the catechumens" it will make more sense.

Our temple worship is "the rest"- it involves us deeply and directly and personally in Christ's sacrifice for us.

Just as the catechumens were kept in the baptistry and not the cathedral, we keep those not fully initiated in the chapel and not the temple.

http://en.wikipedia....the_Catechumens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

That Von Wellnitz article I sent you a while back detailed it quite well. I really would recommend that you read it if you have further questions in this regard- it will explain a lot.

https://ojs.lib.byu..../view/5185/4835

Edited September 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

Then you are not likely to get it.

Sweet. I don't want or need it.

[mfbukowski]

Sweet. I don't want or need it.

I suppose we are supposed to be shocked at this and your socialist thing and the hammer and sickle etc. or you wouldn't have posted it.

Who cares? Been there done that.

I used to carry Charman Mao's little red book, but I got better.

Edited September 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

I suppose we are supposed to be shocked at this and your socialist thing and the hammer and sickle etc. or you wouldn't have posted it.

Who cares? Been there done that.

I used to carry Charman Mao's little red book, but I got better.

Of course you're not supposed to be shocked...that's just silly.

I used to believe Christian/LDS truth claims and carried my quad around, but I got better.

[mfbukowski]

Of course you're not supposed to be shocked...that's just silly.

I used to believe Christian/LDS truth claims and carried my quad around, but I got better.

And what is truth?

Can you define it?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

That's at least a start.

Edited September 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

And what is truth?

Can you define it?

http://plato.stanfor...correspondence/

http://plato.stanfor...ruth-coherence/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

That's at least a start.

Awesome resources on philosophical discussions on truth.

But I don't see your references as advancing your argument.

[mfbukowski]

Awesome resources on philosophical discussions on truth.

But I don't see your references as advancing your argument.

What argument did I make?

[Damien the Leper]

What argument did I make?

Apologies. You didn't make an argument. But thank you for the references nonetheless.

[Ahab]

And what is truth?

Can you define it?

...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

That's at least a start.

Oh boy! Extra credit questions:

Can claims about the future be true now?

Yes, as when stating a certain thing will happen or be the case in the future.

Can there be some algorithm for finding truth – some recipe or procedure for deciding, for any claim in the system of, say, arithmetic, whether the claim is true?

Yes, as when asking someone who knows the truth what the truth is.

Can the predicate “is true” be completely defined in other terms so that it can be eliminated, without loss of meaning, from any context in which it occurs?

[sounds like Bill Clinton]That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

To what extent do theories of truth avoid paradox?

Completely, as when a particular cause or effect has its own cause and effect in each case.

Is the goal of scientific research to achieve truth?

Sometimes, and sometimes to corroborate what scientists think the truth is.