Jump to content

Communion in the Lds Church


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think we're supposed to enjoy it though.  That's why we eat bread (or crackers) and drink water, instead of caviar and champagne.

My enjoyment is not because of the taste. Well, except in one ward where a lady baked a loaf of amazing bread every Sunday for the sacrament. Let me tell you: the body of Christ has never before or since tasted that good.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, poptart said:

The baptised Catholic in me disagrees, the Baptised Lutheran see's similarities in that link, thanks.

This was always the take I had as a kid, made more sense.  Even though I'm a cultural Christian at best, this was what made the most sense. That and hey, I like the vestments and bling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

So it's an oath of sorts?

There we go, that's the point blank answer I was looking for.  BTW, committment?  So it's like a mini Confirmation?

Yes, the sacrament reminds us of our baptismal commitment and confirmation.

Link to post
1 hour ago, poptart said:

With Lutherans the idea of original sin is it's always there, Jesus did enough.  The Lords supper is just a supreme help, one that everyone partakes in and washes away as well as bestows a ton of grace.  Lutheranism sought to keep Catholic elements in a reformed state so a lot of that lingers.  With Catholicism Baptism washes everything away so it's on you if you mess it up, hence confession and the Eucharist.  Confession + Eucharist = you are now in a state where if you died, you're good provided you didn't mess up so bad you get to got purgatory for a while. 
Still prefer the Lutheran take on it, it's easier, more humane and geez who can remember every little thing you've done.  No offense to the Catholics here, this is me I'm just the speshul poster, no offense intended.  Just going off what i've experienced. 

In regards to original sin, we differ from both Lutheran's and Catholics, in that we believe the atonement has already cleansed us all from original sin.  No need for baptism to do that - hence, no child baptism. Christ's grace covers that regardless of what we do.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."  

As far as I understand, Lutheran's are not much different than Catholics or Latter-day Saints in that we don't believe in OSAS - we all believe that we will be held accountable for our sins and need continual repentance/cleansing, as far as I know.  I think all 3 of us would agree with the following:

Quote

Priest I knew said one of the best things I've ever heard when it comes to confession and the Eucharist and your own personal feelings regarding what you did/didn't do.  "My son, God doesn't care what you feel when it comes to sin, you broke his laws and committed sins that his son had to die for.  You broke the rules and you know it, confess it and knock it off".  I'm sure Jesus would care but I very much like that take on things, quit feeling so entitled.  We all know deep down when we do something wrong, quit blaming everyone else and using your feelings as an excuse.

Personal accountability.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Islander, hi.

We Catholics are easily bored. We just want something new, inventive, and especially something that no Catholic or anybody else has ever even dreamed of before. And so finally in the 12the Century, Aquinas hit a grand slam when he made up that whopper about transwhateveritiscalled (TWC). That was so far from what anybody ever believed before, that it was immediately adopted without any debate by virtually all Catholics. Obviously, it fulfilled the profound need for Catholic novelty at the time. Of course now it has worn off and most Catholics are more than ready for something new and weird with "absolutely no evidence" to believe in. The sad thing is that all that anybody can think of is to go back to what the Catholics believed before Aquinas. Yawn. Surely there has to be something more exciting than that?

Just kidding,

3DOP

Yeah, okay, I think I see now, the problem was that they adopted that idea without having any debate about it.  We all know that is never a good idea.  The more debate the better.  None at all is, what, I don't know, it just boggles my mind.

Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

The sad thing is that all that anybody can think of is to go back to what the Catholics believed before Aquinas. Yawn. Surely there has to be something more exciting than that?

Hey, I have an idea.  Instead of turning the bread and water into God, what if partaking of the bread and water turns you into God - To where you actually recognize His image engraven upon your countenance in mortality, and become unified in Godhood with Him in immortality via covenant making/keeping?  Is that new and exciting enough?

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, poptart said:

Reason why I said confirmation, when you get dunked/splashed as an infant your parents/sponsor take on the promises for you, during confirmation you pretty much own those vows/promises and are let into the fold.  Kind of the same thing isn't it?  Know you guys don't do infant baptisms.

Nope.

That's why we wait until the child is 8 - taken to be the Age of Reason - for them to follow Jesus Christ.

We don't do infant baptism is because we do not believe in original sin. We are not punished for Adam's sin but only for our own, and a child cannot sin until she understands good and bad, around age 8.

For Catholics, the belief used to be that an unbaptized child could not get into heaven as others could.

Some believed there was a place that was like halfway between Earth and Heaven, a place of Peace and calm and happiness but not heaven, and it was called Limbo.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'd like to hear some more about that sometime.  His Spirit with us. Knowing what we now know about how the Spirit of a resurrected person is forever within his resurrected body which is never to be divided again, as in death, although as our Father in heaven is able to create children who also have his spirit in them, as reproductions of him.

I don't think that is meant to imply that His Spirit is reproduced inside us. To me it means His spiritual influence resides within us. 

Link to post
6 hours ago, pogi said:

Hey, I have an idea.  Instead of turning the bread and water into God, what if partaking of the bread and water turns you into God - To where you actually recognize His image engraven upon your countenance in mortality, and become unified in Godhood with Him in immortality via covenant making/keeping?  Is that new and exciting enough?

If food caused the fall, then sanctified food could....

Hmmm...  ;)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, pogi said:

Hey, I have an idea.  Instead of turning the bread and water into God, what if partaking of the bread and water turns you into God - To where you actually recognize His image engraven upon your countenance in mortality, and become unified in Godhood with Him in immortality via covenant making/keeping?  Is that new and exciting enough?

What a great idea.  :)  What you say here reminds me of something Justin Martyr wrote (between AD 155-157), but not so much for what he wrote but what it says in the footnotes of one of the translations of his works.  Here's the quote from Justin Martyr (The First Apology, Chapter 66😞

Quote

Chapter LXVI.
Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh [see footnote].  For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me,this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

And here's what it says in the footnote to the above in Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I, p.185:

Quote

This passage is claimed alike by Calvinists, Lutherans, and Romanists; and, indeed, the language is so inexact, that each party may plausibly maintain that their own opinion is advocated by it. [But the same might be said of the words of our Lord himself; and, if such widely separated Christians can all adopt this passage, who can be sorry?] The expression, “the prayer of His word,” or of the word we have from Him, seems to signify the prayer pronounced over the elements, in imitation of our Lord’s thanksgiving before breaking the bread. [I must dissent from the opinion that the language is “inexact:” he expresses himself naturally as one who believes it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d. 490), “By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” etc. (See original in Bingham’s Antiquities, book xv. cap. 5. See Chryost., Epist. ad. Cæsarium, tom. iii. p. 753. Ed. Migne.) Those desirous to pursue this inquiry will find the Patristic authorities in Historia Transubstantionis Papalis, etc., Edidit F. Meyrick, Oxford, 1858. The famous tractate of Ratranin (a.d. 840) was published at Oxford, 1838, with the homily of Ælfric (a.d. 960) in a cheap edition.]

As the footnote suggests, this particular quote from Justin Martyr tends to be the center of a lot of debate, since it is one of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.   

Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If food caused the fall, then sanctified food could....

Hmmm...  ;)

 

I want to eat the fruit of the tree of life. I heard from Lehi that it is particularly sweet and I have a bad sweet tooth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If food caused the fall, then sanctified food could....

Hmmm...  ;)

 

It reverses the effects of the fall PLUS leaves us with a lot of good sweet memories of all of the good things we experienced while we were mortals PLUS gives us some really good ideas about all of the good things we can continue to do in the future.

I've had a taste of it and the thoughts I had in my mind were wonderfully delicious.

  • Like 2
Link to post
20 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Islander, hi.

We Catholics are easily bored. We just want something new, inventive, and especially something that no Catholic or anybody else has ever even dreamed of before. And so finally in the 12the Century, Aquinas hit a grand slam when he made up that whopper about transwhateveritiscalled (TWC). That was so far from what anybody ever believed before, that it was immediately adopted without any debate by virtually all Catholics. Obviously, it fulfilled the profound need for Catholic novelty at the time. Of course now it has worn off and most Catholics are more than ready for something new and weird with "absolutely no evidence" to believe in. The sad thing is that all that anybody can think of is to go back to what the Catholics believed before Aquinas. Yawn. Surely there has to be something more exciting than that?

Just kidding,

3DOP

Seriously that's not a major problem in my view. Were I Catholic I would have dropped Aquinas a long time ago and still believed in the Eucharist being the body blood soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. 

The problem is with substance theology, not the core belief. Two different things.

Even contemporary secular philosophy shows us that evidence is what you find in your heart in matters of the spirit.

There have to be Catholic philosophers who know that better than I do. ;)

But chances are they're not going to be conservatives. !! 

So all you have to do is drop Aquinas and get a little more contemporary!

And it's okay to be conservative in your beliefs and liberal and your overall theology.

Hey it's all a mystery anyway!  ;)

The belief just has to be reframed a little bit. ;)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
On 8/18/2020 at 5:55 PM, poptart said:

Since there's a baptism thread, here's one on the Lord's Supper.  Do you guys do anything like transubstantiation or the glorified body/blood of Christ like the Lutherans?  Is it just ceremony?

Mormon sacrament isn't in any way like the Anaphora we experience in the Divine Liturgy. Furthermore, Mormons lack the ability to enact the epiklesis and anamnesis to provide a valid Eucharist. Mormons, like most Protestants, believe in a pneumatic presence communion and blatantly disavow the fact that Jesus said that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I've debated this before on here concerning the literal language uses employed by Jesus in the scriptural text.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Mormon sacrament isn't in any way like the Anaphora we experience in the Divine Liturgy. Furthermore, Mormons lack the ability to enact the epiklesis and anamnesis to provide a valid Eucharist. Mormons, like most Protestants, believe in a pneumatic presence communion and blatantly disavow the fact that Jesus said that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I've debated this before on here concerning the literal language uses employed by Jesus in the scriptural text.

I have no idea what you just said. 

I do understand the last sentence though.  I don't understand how you can prove that what he said in that passage was literal, however.  

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have no idea what you just said. 

I do understand the last sentence though.  I don't understand how you can prove that what he said in that passage was literal, however.  

 

It was literal because it's what was written in a book of literature.   And I also believe that it was what Jesus actually said, which was later written as what Jesus had said.

But what he literally gave the apostles to eat was bread, while saying it was his body, and what he literally gave them to drink was wine, while saying it was his blood.  So all of the confusion is Jesus' fault, and I think it was intentional.

Have you ever noticed how Jesus said some things sometimes while leaving what he meant up for personal interpretation, instead of making his meaning perfectly clear to avoid any possible chance of anyone being confused?  

I have.  It's as if he wanted everyone who heard him to pray to God for help to understand what the heck he meant when he said whatever he said.  At least sometimes.

 

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have no idea what you just said. 

I do understand the last sentence though.  I don't understand how you can prove that what he said in that passage was literal, however.  

 

Calm and I had a discussion in another thread a few months back on this subject. I demonstrated that the textual variants of the Greek support a literal interpretation. One of those variants was used in the text where Jesus said that He is the way, the truth and the life. I asked Calm, because she was making the case that it could be figurative, that perhaps we should take Jesus' proclamation as to who He is figuratively as well.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Mormon sacrament isn't in any way like the Anaphora we experience in the Divine Liturgy. Furthermore, Mormons lack the ability to enact the epiklesis and anamnesis to provide a valid Eucharist. Mormons, like most Protestants, believe in a pneumatic presence communion and blatantly disavow the fact that Jesus said that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I've debated this before on here concerning the literal language uses employed by Jesus in the scriptural text.

I am not so sure I agree with that. I am actually not sure what happens. I don't know why eating the bread and drinking the water causes such a change in me. Is it physical? Is it something in the act? If the Priesthood can turn water to wine why not alter the physical elements of bread and water?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2020 at 3:43 PM, Damien the Leper said:

Mormon sacrament isn't in any way like the Anaphora we experience in the Divine Liturgy. Furthermore, Mormons lack the ability to enact the epiklesis and anamnesis to provide a valid Eucharist. Mormons, like most Protestants, believe in a pneumatic presence communion and blatantly disavow the fact that Jesus said that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I've debated this before on here concerning the literal language uses employed by Jesus in the scriptural text.

Have sources for that?

On 8/21/2020 at 8:08 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure I agree with that. I am actually not sure what happens. I don't know why eating the bread and drinking the water causes such a change in me. Is it physical? Is it something in the act? If the Priesthood can turn water to wine why not alter the physical elements of bread and water?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

It's not Catholic but in some ways it's not that different.  High Church Lutherans use the same vestments, bling and all. 

It's tricky finding that in places here, what irritates me is how many of the Lutheran synods play back stabby politics yet wonder why so many people leave.  The few times I ever feel like darkening a churches doorstep I usually end up going to a traditional Catholic parish because i'm such a stickler about vestments and music, it has to be just so with me or not at all.  Vid related is so very, very hard to find, it's the Catholic Church that's doing more to preserve what the Martin Luther risked all for.  Sad.  Nothing against Rome, it's the wayward backstabbing flock here I have issues with. 

 

Edited by poptart
Link to post
On 8/21/2020 at 2:43 PM, Damien the Leper said:

Mormon sacrament isn't in any way like the Anaphora we experience in the Divine Liturgy. Furthermore, Mormons lack the ability to enact the epiklesis and anamnesis to provide a valid Eucharist. Mormons, like most Protestants, believe in a pneumatic presence communion and blatantly disavow the fact that Jesus said that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I've debated this before on here concerning the literal language uses employed by Jesus in the scriptural text.

You have no idea what I experience and I don't need symbolic preparation and a great show to achieve it.

Out of charity I'll leave it at that.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 8/19/2020 at 11:52 AM, The Nehor said:

My enjoyment is not because of the taste. Well, except in one ward where a lady baked a loaf of amazing bread every Sunday for the sacrament. Let me tell you: the body of Christ has never before or since tasted that good.

When I lived in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the youth in our ward asked that we have only homemade bread for the sacrament. It was that way for some time.

Link to post
On 8/18/2020 at 5:55 PM, poptart said:

Since there's a baptism thread, here's one on the Lord's Supper.  Do you guys do anything like transubstantiation or the glorified body/blood of Christ like the Lutherans?  Is it just ceremony?

Here is a talk by LDS Prophet and President David O McKay If you want a fuller understanding of the ordinance of the sacrament, this is one of the best sources.

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:tec:p51c

Link to post
On 8/19/2020 at 11:05 PM, InCognitus said:

As the footnote suggests, this particular quote from Justin Martyr tends to be the center of a lot of debate, since it is one of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.   

Here is the earliest  expression of the Eucharist. About 34 AD.

Quote

3 Nephi 18: 1 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.
2 And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.
3 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.
6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.
7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.
9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.
10 And when the disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.
11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
12 And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.
13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.
14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here is the earliest  expression of the Eucharist. About 34 AD.

 

Not quite the earliest  expression of the Eucharist. Here's an earlier one:

John 6: 25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”

26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 

Edited by Spammer
Link to post
2 hours ago, Spammer said:

Not quite the earliest  expression of the Eucharist. Here's an earlier one:

John 6: 25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”....

I see what you mean. I was referring to a written expression such as that by Justin Martyr. John 6 was written after 3 Nephi. 3 Nephi predates Martyr. 

 

Quote
Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...