Who do the Priests represent each Sunday at the Sacrament table?

[Anakin7]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Tell me more about the Council of gods.

Navidad A True Grace Empowered Gift For You Sir - http://www.thedivinecouncil.com 

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:32 AM, nuclearfuels said:

Probaby overthinking this.

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?

Thanks

Just as times of old, Priests have always made sacrifices upon the altar. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is now the Sacrament, and now the Priests, or those who hold the greater Priesthood, do for us, what the Priests of old.Their role is to call upon God, in the name of Jesus Christ to bless his “body and blood”, or “bread and water”. 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com

This link points to work by Peter Enns, one of my very favorite Biblicists and scholars. Oh, and he has strong Anabaptist roots as well. I think his book entitled "The Sin of Certainty" is one of the very best I have ever read. His perspectives on Biblical interpretation fall perfectly within a progressive Evangelical tradition. Thanks.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Navidad A True Grace Empowered Gift For You Sir - http://www.thedivinecouncil.com 

 

Thanks so much. Dr. Heiser has been struggling with a terrible disease this year. I am unaware of his current condition, but am praying for some kind of a miraculous recovery. The disease he is fighting is the same that took both my parents.  As I was many years ago, he also was/is a professor at Liberty. Take care my friend - our time here on this earth in our mortal life is never to be taken for granted.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And it is futile and distracting.

An eye-of-the-beholder thing, I guess. Poor or careless grammar is distracting to me. 

[Nacho2dope]

This is from churchofjesuschrist.org:
 

The Sacrament

The sacrament is a very sacred ordinance and is administered under the direction of the bishopric or branch presidency. Aaronic Priesthood holders usually perform these duties. However, Melchizedek Priesthood holders may bless and pass the sacrament when there are not enough Aaronic Priesthood brethren or if the bishop or branch president occasionally invites them to do so.

Every priesthood holder who participates in this ordinance should understand that he is acting on behalf of the Lord. The personal appearance and attitude of all who participate should reflect the sacred nature of the ordinance. Priesthood holders should wash their hands before preparing, blessing, or passing the sacrament.

 

[MiserereNobis]

In Catholicism, the priest acts "In persona Christi": in the person of Christ. The priest speaks the words spoken by Christ that causes the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

From an encyclical by Pope Pius XII:

Quote

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross. “It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.”

The priest is Christ offering Himself to the Father.

Edited December 13, 2021 by MiserereNobis
autocorrect messing with Latin

[JAHS]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In Catholicism, the priest acts "In persona Christi": in the person of Christ. The priest speaks the words spoken by Christ that causes the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

From an encyclical by Pope Pius XII:

The priest is Christ offering Himself to the Father.

How literally do those of the Catholic faith take the concept of transubstantiation these days?

[MiserereNobis]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

How literally do those of the Catholic faith take the concept of transubstantiation these days?

It depends on their level of faithfulness. I attend a traditional parish that celebrates the traditional Latin sacraments (as offered by the FSSP, a traditional fraternity of priests in full communion with the Pope and in the diocese by invitation of the bishop). The traditional Latin mass heavily reinforces the idea of transubstantiation. We also practice other devotions that focus on the reality of transubstantiation, such as processions where the sacred Host (the bread after transubstantiation) is carried through the neighborhood, and Eucharistic adoration, where a Host is meditatively adored in a small chapel.

Many non-traditional parishes do not focus on transubstantiation, and the new mass has removed some elements that reinforce the belief. I imagine cultural Catholics don't believe it.

It is a radical belief, for sure. We point to John 6. Christ teaches at length that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood. This scandalized many of His disciples, who then turned away from Him.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know that when the OT speaks of gods, it is referring to human judges or other pagan deities.

Just fyi- no, we take that literally.   

I think we have discussed that before.   Definitely read the King Follette discourse.

That really is the essence of Mormonism- a human God and a Council of Gods who have collectively - or singly- it's not clear- ORGANIZED-  not "created" all we are capable of even fathoming.  We are the babies that want to grow up and be like mommie and daddy.

And they are immanent beings, not transcendent in the true definition of "transcendent" or they could not be "Fathers"

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

such as processions where the sacred Host (the bread after transubstantiation) is carried through the neighborhood, and Eucharistic adoration, where a Host is meditatively adored in a small chapel.

 

I ive a block of so from a Catholic church which actually displayed a monstrance and host in a window of the rectory right on the street, during the worst of the pandemic.   It was uncovered a few hours a day

People would come up to the window and meditate.

I thought it was wonderful, but perhaps improper?

I don't t know- I just figured strange times call for strange adjustments

Edited December 13, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I ive a block of so from a Catholic church which actually displayed a monstrance and host in a window of the rectory right on the street, during the worst of the pandemic.   It was uncovered a few hours a day

People would come up to the window and meditate.

I thought it was wonderful, but perhaps improper?

I don't t know- I just figured strange times call for strange adjustments

Drive through adoration? Interesting. I wouldn't say it was improper, because of covid restrictions. It at least allowed adoration to continue.

I'm old school and cross myself when I drive past a church because of the Hosts that are (assumedly) in the tabernacle.

[Navidad]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just fyi- no, we take that literally.   

I think we have discussed that before.   Definitely read the King Follette discourse.

That really is the essence of Mormonism- a human God and a Council of Gods who have collectively - or singly- it's not clear- ORGANIZED-  not "created" all we are capable of even fathoming.  We are the babies that want to grow up and be like mommie and daddy.

And they are immanent beings, not transcendent in the true definition of "transcendent" or they could not be "Fathers"

Hola amigo - What do LDS Christians do with the gods in Exodus 20:3? Who are these gods? Are they literal? Thanks - take care!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hola amigo - What do LDS Christians do with the gods in Exodus 20:3? Who are these gods? Are they literal? Thanks - take care!

3 Thou shalt have ^ano other ^bgods before me.

Yes. Very literal.

Our Father El is seen as "the only God with whom we have to deal"

Your earthly father is one of millions of other fathers, yet is the only one who is YOUR father, and to whom you owe honor and love etc.

The phrase explains itself- there ARE other gods, but we honor only Him as the one whom we put "before" all others.

Consider the Trinity/Godhead: Three Gods united by one purpose, as  loving family may be, to bring to pass the immortality AND eternal life of their children.

Abstractly, - my belief,  not as a  church teaching, I personally see it as worshipping the Ideal Family as the Ideal paradigm for all mankind to emulate. For me, that makes Humanism theology.

But except that last paragraph, this post is pretty doctrinal.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Anakin7]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

This link points to work by Peter Enns, one of my very favorite Biblicists and scholars. Oh, and he has strong Anabaptist roots as well. I think his book entitled "The Sin of Certainty" is one of the very best I have ever read. His perspectives on Biblical interpretation fall perfectly within a progressive Evangelical tradition. Thanks.

You are welcome my friend.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The phrase explains itself- there ARE other gods, but we honor only Him as the one whom we put "before" all others.

Please be patient with me. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Who are these "other gods" in the LDS pantheon? They are not the Baal-like deities of animists, are they? They are not the gods of the Boko tribe I worked with in Benin? Are they currently exalted former mortal humans? Elijah? James? Peter? Joseph Smith? Do they currently exist in their human mortal bodies in the spirit world? In the celestial kingdom? Are they currently spirit beings - exalted but subservient to Heavenly Father? Is Elohim, Heavenly Father's name (like Mark is your name, or Elijah was his name? Do they currently form some kind of a Council of Heaven or of the gods? They aren't the current Council of Fifty, are they? They were political rulers of a literal kingdom, but different from what we are talking about here, right?  And as a former bishop, can I take you replies as being within the rather permeable boundaries of LDS orthodoxy? Please, that is not a negative connotation. I just need to know whether to take your statements as mainstream within LDS beliefs. One thing that is hard for a non-member like me is to know which and whose beliefs on this forum to take as "orthodox" There seems to be a pretty broad diversity!? Thanks. There is no one local here where I live who I can ask. I am convinced the day-to-day, including Sunday, conferences, quorums, temple experiences, etc., are not adequate to train folks in exposition of the intricacies of LDS beliefs. I have no idea who else to ask! If I had a nickel for every time I have taken something I read here on this forum back to a life-long member someone in our ward and had them say, "I don't believe that!" I'd have a bunch of nickels in my pocket! Then, when I try to go on the church websites to get a deeper understanding, everything is at a Sunday School or perhaps fifth grade level. Then I read Parley Pratt and folks say "You can't go by what he says! OK. Then I read Wilford Woodruff's revelations and folks say, nope, not that. Then I read current LDS popular writers like Terryl Givens and folks say, nope, not them.

Sometimes it reminds me of the years I spent serving on the international council of a large Evangelical mission organization. We would have meetings every 14 months somewhere in Africa and 50 or so folks would come together from 14 countries and probably 20 denominations. Trying to get everyone on the same page about core beliefs was a challenge. Country and denomination were more powerful identifiers than the term "Evangelical." The mission had core beliefs but they were very broad and again, Sunday School level. Whenever we tried to get into what really mattered in the day to day life of the missionary, we went late into the night! And that was even after many prayers for the directions of the Holy Spirit in our work! Sorry I digress!

Edited December 14, 2021 by Navidad

[Stargazer]

On 12/12/2021 at 11:16 PM, Navidad said:

Thanks so much. I know that when the OT speaks of gods, it is referring to human judges or other pagan deities. When Joseph Smith speaks of the head of the Gods and a council of the Gods, who are the Gods . . . the hosts of not-yet-embodied-spirits? If that is the answer, were these not-yet-embodied-spirits already exalted in some manner? Inquiring minds need to know! Thanks!

Well, then, I shall attempt to answer the inquiring minds! 🙂 

You ask great questions! Unfortunately, though I shall attempt to answer accurately, you must remember that I am just some guy.

Here's my take on this. The Council of the Gods included as participants all those not-yet-embodied spirits (including you and I) who would be embodied at some point or another during the history of the Earth. The Council was chaired by the Father. Among the participants of notably higher status than you and I were the Son and the Holy Ghost, both of whom were not yet embodied. And who were arguably both Gods, with the large "G". Together they form the Godhead, which is one God. Not to get into a theological discussion/argument over the nature of the Godhead.

In the 4th chapter of Abraham, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find an account of the creation of the Earth given to Abraham. In this account, the word "Gods" is used, and presumably the term refers to the Godhead as I just described it. Abraham 4:1 says:

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

We find an indirect reference to the Council of the Gods in Job 38. God refers to the whining of Job's friend Elihu (in chapter 37) by asking "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" and then He asks Job the following: 

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

Who are these morning stars and sons of God who are clearly happy at the founding of the Earth? It is you, me, and the rest of humanity. It's obviously an occasion, and the occasion was the Council of the Gods.

Of course, a third of those present were not so happy about the plan presented, and under the leadership of Lucifer they rebelled. Which is another topic.

 

[Stargazer]

On 12/13/2021 at 1:54 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

My observation is that incorrect use of who is far more common than incorrect use of whom. In fact, I rarely encounter the “hyper-correcting” you identify (I don’t think I’ve ever seen “whom are you”).  

Neither have I, but it was the quickest example I could come up with.

My brother, who is by no means not an intelligent man, hyper-corrects with "whom" very frequently in emails he writes to me. I've tried to explain to him the correct use of "whom", and he says he will try, but it just doesn't stick.

On 12/13/2021 at 1:54 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not that difficult for most people if they simply remember to use who where they otherwise would use he, she or they, and whom where they otherwise would use him, her or them.

It’s largely a matter of ear training. Most of us know without thinking about it to say with him, not with he.

Yes, but some people don't seem to get it, nevertheless.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Neither have I, but it was the quickest example I could come up with.

My brother, who is by no means not an intelligent man, hyper-corrects with "whom" very frequently in emails he writes to me. I've tried to explain to him the correct use of "whom", and he says he will try, but it just doesn't stick.

Yes, but some people don't seem to get it, nevertheless.

Heh. The most frequent instances I’ve observed of hyper-correctness to the point of error are use of “myself” instead of me. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. The most frequent instances of over-correction I’ve observed are use of “myself” instead of me. 

"between you and I" is pretty common, too.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"between you and I" is pretty common, too.

One that I’m hearing quite a bit lately, from conservative commentators and politicians, is “for we the people.” To be grammatically correct, it would have to be “for us, the people,” but that doesn’t parrot the Constitution, so it lacks the rhetorical gravitas they’re going for. 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. The most frequent instances I’ve observed of hyper-correctness to the point of error are use of “myself” instead of me. 

How do feel about the younger generation adopting a glottal stop for double t ?

I hear it a lot on TV lately, even from news anchors etc.

So "bottom" becomes "bo/um" where the um sounds like the uh in "uh oh"

It's a non-vocal throat sound.

The T is disappearing!

""For example, take the word “kitten,” which phonemically is /kɪtn/. Here, the /t/ is followed directly by a syllabic /n/, so may be produced as a glottal stop, meaning this word could end up sounding more like kit'n. Other examples in American English are “cotton,” “mitten” and “button,” to name a few.""

Edited December 15, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 12/14/2021 at 2:43 AM, Navidad said:

Please be patient with me. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Who are these "other gods" in the LDS pantheon? They are not the Baal-like deities of animists, are they? They are not the gods of the Boko tribe I worked with in Benin? Are they currently exalted former mortal humans? Elijah? James? Peter? Joseph Smith? Do they currently exist in their human mortal bodies in the spirit world? In the celestial kingdom? Are they currently spirit beings - exalted but subservient to Heavenly Father? Is Elohim, Heavenly Father's name (like Mark is your name, or Elijah was his name? Do they currently form some kind of a Council of Heaven or of the gods? They aren't the current Council of Fifty, are they? They were political rulers of a literal kingdom, but different from what we are talking about here, right?  And as a former bishop, can I take you replies as being within the rather permeable boundaries of LDS orthodoxy? Please, that is not a negative connotation. I just need to know whether to take your statements as mainstream within LDS beliefs.

Who are these "other gods" in the LDS pantheon?

NO THEY ARE NOT ANY OF THE FALSE GODS

Notice terms like true or false or before or after are irrelevant "in reality"- where there IS no time, and all "is what it is" - and statements in human languages cannot exist so anything any human says about any of this is not "exactly correct" nor can it be.

Members of the Council of Gods- presumably those who have been exalted for perhaps billions of years- even before Our God who we know as "Eloheim" - plural of "El".  In human scentific jargon, perhaps  it might be said that these Gods that perhaps- (notice very cautious language) they rule other multi-verses than ours- but of course human knowledge unaided by revelation makes it impossible to get words to make sense, since this is so far far beyond our full understanding.

The following is "informed speculation" and NOT doctrinal, yet it is within doctrinal bounds- IF one reads the King Follette Discourse :

If Eloheim has a body, where did it come from?   His father.  Yes Eloheim might have existed as we do in a universe before this.  Science speaks of the "Big Bang"- perhaps after a black hole containing all the material for this universe compressed into the size of a sub-atomic particle- and then exploded in the Big Bang.  Eventually it is said it will collapse again into a black hole in the future.  So it MIGHT be the case that Eloheim was alive as we are on a planet in that previous metaverse and was exalted there, and was assigned the material of our universe to become his Kingdom to organize.   Again, MY informed speculation confirmed as possible within the King Follette Discourse.

It is said that Jesus has only done what he has seen his Father do- which, if it is correct as scripture- THEN the person we now call "Eloheim" was the Savior of his World.  That is about as much doctrine as anything not yet officially in the Canon can be.

We are given a new name if exalted so we know that "Eloheim"- more of a title than anything- was NOT his name on his "earth"

The reason for your lack of knowledge of this stuff is 1- that you have not been baptized and 2- that you have not been endowed, and perhaps that you have been excluded from knowledge of some higher principles of the gospel due to-- who knows what.  One other might be the simplicity of the knowledge of others who are not aware of these teachings.   When I was first baptized, I did not know them myself.   I learned them from reading  LDS scripture daily- including footnotes-  which lead to questions and research.  If you want to know advanced doctrine- it is there for the asking but you are not going to get all this stuff in sunday school- usually.

We are taught that we must grow into these more advanced beliefs- remember our "exclusiveness" that you find so ..... unsatisfying.

So now, as I have suggested before, please read the King Follette discourse, and we can then continue this discussion.

Read for yourself what the church has published on the subject and so you will know its source.

YES the discourse is definitely within - and an important part of LDS beliefs.

The informed speculation is strictly my opinion of how to make some sense of it in the attempt to square it with our present understanding of science, which changes continually.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF- from church sources.   It is still uncanonized- but I am confident will be, and yes it is part of mainstream beliefs-as stated here.   Portions of this post were of course my personal opinion about the Big Bang etc.   But this is the real stuff, below

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/king-follett-discourse?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How do feel about the younger generation adopting a glottal stop for double t ?

I hear it a lot on TV lately, even from news anchors etc.

So "bottom" becomes "bo/um" where the um sounds like the uh in "uh oh"

It's a non-vocal throat sound.

The T is disappearing!

""For example, take the word “kitten,” which phonemically is /kɪtn/. Here, the /t/ is followed directly by a syllabic /n/, so may be produced as a glottal stop, meaning this word could end up sounding more like kit'n. Other examples in American English are “cotton,” “mitten” and “button,” to name a few.""

The glottal stop has been around, I dare say, for as long as language itself. I have not noticed any particular predominance of it among the young people of today (unlike the slightly annoying upspeak, in which most every declarative sentence is spoken as though it were followed by a question mark). 
 

But I regard the glottal stop as characteristic of spoken dialect, and no, it doesn’t bother me any more than I would be bothered by, say, a southern accent or a Bronx accent or a New England or Australian accent. Such is ingrained within an individual from infancy, is very difficult to erase, and can, in fact, be appealing if not charming. 
 

Grammar and usage are another matter. They affect both written and spoken communication. My sense is that mastery of the fundamental rules that govern grammar and usage is within the capacity of most anyone of average-or-above intelligence. 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 12/13/2021 at 1:03 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Drive through adoration? Interesting. I wouldn't say it was improper, because of covid restrictions. It at least allowed adoration to continue.

I'm old school and cross myself when I drive past a church because of the Hosts that are (assumedly) in the tabernacle.

It wasn't even drive through- it was just on a street corner, people standing on a corner crossing themselves, prayerful positions, women wearing scarves, etc., cars driving by.

Knowing me, I am sure you would not think I find that objectionable, but man it really bothered me!   I respect your beliefs strongly- I just don't believe all of them. 

Vast majority of core beliefs- loving the Lord, prayer, meditation, being a "Christian"- anti-abortion, the importance of family and traditional values- I agree with all of that.

In fact I have no problem with my own version of the Old Apostles Creed 

First the original:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.   And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic* Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.  Amen.

Now my version - WITH a few clarification words thrown in   IN caps and italics- :

I believe in God the Father Almighty,  the ULTIMATE  Maker of heaven and earth.  And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by THROUGH the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into HADES TO TEACH THOSE AWAITING HIM ; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy UNIVERSAL  Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

Fergit about all that Nicene consubstantiality stuff!  THAT's the apostasy in action! 

But seriously, except for those few words and all they imply- we are that close!    IMO!