Worthy - worthiness; righteousness; and eligible - eligibility; and authority

[MiserereNobis]

On 6/21/2023 at 12:59 PM, Calm said:

However, simply because we share the same root does not mean it is the identical ordinance.  My guess is most Catholics would challenge the claim that their Eucharist is not unique given their doctrine.  I am assuming they do not believe other Eucharists result in transubstantiation.

This exactly. And the belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are central and core -- they are not addendums.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The question which remains for me is the necessity of 3 persons in the paradigm, as well.

I speak to only One who responds, and I have not seen biblical evidence of 3 really except in the story of Jesus' baptism.  Perhaps it is a model of the Perfect family unified by purpose and love, with perhaps Mary- Wisdom - as the Holy Spirit.

Why would the Ideal Human need assistants?

 

Why does any human like to work with others?  Maybe it’s not need and just that it’s more fun for them.

There is no reason to assume the ideal human prefers their own company.  Maybe their ideal is the team.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Eucharist is rooted in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ. This is of utmost importance in Catholicism. This belief is not common across the universal church and Catholics do not believe that communion in a church without valid orders is a valid sacrament. It goes much deeper than "method and manner." I know you disagree with this, but it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in the world, so if one is speaking of the universal church, one must take into account Catholicism.

This is one of the reasons why communion is closed in Catholicism. One of the purposes of communion is to be a symbol of unity and non-Catholics are not unified with the Catholic Church and hence are not permitted to receive communion.

As a former Catholic, I understand this and realize that there is no other "Christian" denomination which believes in the Real Presence,  except of course the Orthodox churches, which I believe are regarded as "Catholic" as well.

I respect these views highly and wish others could appreciate the difference between the Catholic view of the Eucharist and the others.  Nothing else comes close.

I am not aware of any other church which has anything like the depth of the theological and philosophical basis for the Catholic Eucharist beliefs, and I respect this kind of solid grounding in an intellectual basis, even though I disagree with the philosophy itself.   But of course spiritual experience, for me at least, trumps "the philosophies of men" and the true Mystery of the Eucharist is as true for Catholics through their direct experience, as any other view, but still has the best philosophical basis in all Christianity, imo, even though I happen to disagree with it.   

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

largest Christian denomination in the world, so if one is speaking of the universal church, one must take into account Catholicism

Not only the largest, but some sites like wiki say Catholics are slightly over half of the world’s Christians, so they are the majority of Christians as well probably.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Can you provide any official Latter-day Saint source that attempts to claim there are no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christian denominations

Hi my friend. I know this was directed at me or intended for me as I certainly am not an official Latter-day Saint source. However I am a source of questions! You probably know that by now! So, a statement and a question. After almost six years on this forum and just about the same in faithful attendance and participation in an LDS ward including many wonderful dinners, picnics, rodeos, meetings, and interactions with Saints from pew-sitting to several general authorities, I claim to see no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christians. I am referring to real-world, no kidding, life-generated, day to day differences in anything that can be humanly discerned after prolonged exposure in times of stress, joy, death, life, faith, trust, etc.

So now to the question  . . . . .  having said that, what kinds of observable differences are you proposing exist experientially between Latter-day Saints and other Christians, or between the Latter-day Saints as a denomination and "other Christian denominations?" I think it is a great question for discussion. I can't think of any significant differences that I would bring up. Of course if you are not speaking of observable lived differences, then that is another thing. Are you speaking solely of doctrinal differences? Maybe I am more orthopraxic, because I tend to focus on lived differences. It is hard to pinpoint doctrines because they are malleable over time. My two exhibits A for that statement are LDS and Mennonites - two groups that are important to me, but which have each evolved doctrines over time.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A boy from Utah with a black badge would have done the same.

We usually have ladies from Mexico City who wear the black badges!

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

As a former Catholic, I understand this and realize that there is no other "Christian" denomination which believes in the Real Presence,  except of course the Orthodox churches, which I believe are regarded as "Catholic" as well.

Yes. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both believe that the other has valid orders (priesthood).

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We usually have ladies from Mexico City who wear the black badges!

No difference 

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Sara H said:

but Elder Holland explained in a General Conference address a few years ago how the Christian conception of God is incomprehensible.

 

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Eucharist is rooted in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ. This is of utmost importance in Catholicism. This belief is not common across the universal church and Catholics do not believe that communion in a church without valid orders is a valid sacrament. It goes much deeper than "method and manner." I know you disagree with this, but it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in the world, so if one is speaking of the universal church, one must take into account Catholicism.

This is one of the reasons why communion is closed in Catholicism. One of the purposes of communion is to be a symbol of unity and non-Catholics are not unified with the Catholic Church and hence are not permitted to receive communion.

I think we are speaking on two completely different levels about different things. That is ok. My comments were specifically referring to Paul's outline of what he received from Christ in I Cor. 11 when he wrote about the Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Communion, or Sacrament. Let me ask you this: With what in I Corinthians 11 do you or does the Catholic church specifically disagree? That was my total frame of reference for my comments that it is a framework for the universal church.

Of course the Catholic church has added transubstantiation and made it and the Real Presence of Christ a vital part of its ordinance. No one would question that. My point was that I Cor. 11, lets say verses 23-32 provides the basic outline of Paul's understanding of Christ's understanding about the ordinance. That scriptural passage is a common ground/foundation across the universal church is it not? Certainly groups have added to it in their own way, but I was trying to get down to the common framework. I didn't mention that the LDS have added commemoration of baptismal covenants to it; that Mennonites added feet-washing to it, or that Catholics have contributed their additions you mentioned as well. So again I ask, what is there in I Cor. 11 that as a core framework the Catholic church disagrees with? I would ask the same question of my LDS friends. In what ways does the LDS church specifically disagree with I Cor. 11 as a core framework?

I would also add that I have attended scores of Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist services. I have never been asked to leave, nor have I ever asked to partake of the elements. I am already partaking of the service, enjoying it, taking the opportunity to thank God for the gift of the shed blood and broken body of His son, learning from it, and drawing inspiration from the entire process. Even the faithful Catholics in the services I have attended don't actually any more participate in the cup, only in the wafer. They are considered full participants even though they don't fully participate with the elements.  Am I wrong? So is the Catholic Eucharist closed to its own adherents since they don't participate in the cup? Of course not. Is it closed to me because I partake by participating with my presence, thoughts, prayers, and my own remembrances. It might make a distinction to claim that, but I have never felt ostracized or left out and certainly very very very few men ever participate with the wafer and none with the cup. I believe I am correct if I say that our priest never failed to, in our small village Catholic church give me a nod and a smile when I have attended a Eucharist here. Ditto for the Catholic church masses I attended in San Diego and the Antiochan Orthodox church there as well.  

Edited June 23, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No difference 

Hmmm. Can't agree with you there.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I know this was directed at me or intended for me as I certainly am not an official Latter-day Saint source. However I am a source of questions! You probably know that by now! So, a statement and a question. After almost six years on this forum and just about the same in faithful attendance and participation in an LDS ward including many wonderful dinners, picnics, rodeos, meetings, and interactions with Saints from pew-sitting to several general authorities, I claim to see no differences between Latter-day Saints and other Christians. I am referring to real-world, no kidding, life-generated, day to day differences in anything that can be humanly discerned after prolonged exposure in times of stress, joy, death, life, faith, trust, etc.

So now to the question  . . . . .  having said that, what kinds of observable differences are you proposing exist experientially between Latter-day Saints and other Christians, or between the Latter-day Saints as a denomination and "other Christian denominations?" I think it is a great question for discussion. I can't think of any significant differences that I would bring up. Of course if you are not speaking of observable lived differences, then that is another thing. Are you speaking solely of doctrinal differences? Maybe I am more orthopraxic, because I tend to focus on lived differences. It is hard to pinpoint doctrines because they are malleable over time. My two exhibits A for that statement are LDS and Mennonites - two groups that are important to me, but which have each evolved doctrines over time.

I wasn't referring to observable differences (in practice).  Christians are known by their fruit, whether they be Latter-day Saints or otherwise.  I think you are right in that there should be no observable differences.

But Sara was asserting (in this post on the other thread), that "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS", as if the church is trying to hide its distinctive doctrines and teachings, and she said "it seems as though the brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents".   So the differences I was talking about had to do with distinctive doctrines and teachings. 

I provided several examples (in this post) where the church says that we are Christians and also goes into detail about how we are different in our doctrines and teachings than other Christian denominations.  I was trying to get Sara to back up her claims about the church trying to project an image of being "more Christian than LDS" (whatever that means) and that the "brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it" from official church sources, but she hasn't done it.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I think we are speaking on two completely different levels about different things. That is ok. My comments were specifically referring to Paul's outline of what he received from Christ in I Cor. 11 when he wrote about the Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Communion, or Sacrament. Let me ask you this: With what in I Corinthians 11 do you or does the Catholic church specifically disagree? That was my total frame of reference for my comments that it is a framework for the universal church.

I (and the Church) do not disagree with anything in 1 Corin. 11:23-32. However, those verses do not sufficiently describe the Eucharist. They are incomplete. They are necessary but not sufficient. An analogy might be if there were a description of my father (and my father only) and someone asked me if that was my family. I would say yes, but I also have a mother and siblings. My complete family includes them. So while my father is part of it, by himself he is not my family. Similarly, while those verses describe part of the Eucharist, they do not describe it fully.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Of course the Catholic church has added transubstantiation and made it and the Real Presence of Christ a vital part of its ordinance.

You misunderstand the Catholic position. Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were not added. They were there at the very beginning, when Christ told his Apostles, "Take. Eat. This is My Body." It is not a vital part of the Catholic ordinance. It is a vital part of THE ordinance. Non-Catholic/Orthodox communion is not a valid ordinance. I view non-Catholic communion as a prayer to God, but it is not a valid sacrament. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is that only a priest with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

So again I ask, what is there in I Cor. 11 that as a core framework the Catholic church disagrees with?

As I mentioned above, it is insufficient.

Remember, from the Catholic standpoint, Catholicism is Christ's visible Church on Earth. The authority of Christ was given to the Apostles, who then gave it to their successors the Bishops, who then passed it on to today. The Pope is the visible head of Christendom. The Church of the Apostles is the Catholic Church today. This is a core teaching in Catholicism. Take it away and we are no longer Catholic. Catholicism does not view Christian denominations as equal. The priesthood of Catholicism is not something that is simply valid in our church, equal to the priesthood that is valid in, say, a Baptist church. The priesthood of Catholicism is God's authority. There is no priesthood in a Baptist church, or in any other church (except Orthodoxy). I say this bluntly in the hope that you can understand the Catholic position as taught by the Catholic Church. Of course, with over 1 billion members, you can find a Catholic that believes anything, and you can find Catholic priests that disagree with the Church's teachings. They are still the Church's teachings, however.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would also add that I have attended scores of Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist services. I have never been asked to leave, nor have I ever asked to partake of the elements.

Traditionally there were two parts of the Mass: the Mass of the Catechumens, followed by the Mass of the Faithful. The Catechumens (not yet baptized) would leave at the end of the Mass of the Catechumens, before the Eucharist.

I went to daily Mass for months before even speaking to a priest. There is nothing wrong about non-Catholics attending Mass. I highly recommend it! However, it is not permitted for non-Catholics to receive communion.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Even the faithful Catholics in the services I have attended don't actually any more participate in the cup, only in the wafer. They are considered full participants even though they don't fully participate with the elements.  Am I wrong?

Sort of. The Real Presence of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is fully present in both species: the bread and the wine. In fact, it is a heresy to believe that one must receive both bread and wine in order to fully receive Christ. In the traditional Latin mass, the faithful never receive the wine -- there is no option, as there is in the new Mass. So, one is still fully participating when one receives only the bread.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is it closed to me because I partake by participating with my presence, thoughts, prayers, and my own remembrances.

Yes, the communion is closed to you because you are not Catholic. Participating with "presence, thoughts, prayers, and remembrances" is not participating in the Eucharist. There is nothing wrong with what you are doing -- it is wonderful, in fact. However, it would be a mistake to say you are partaking in the Eucharist.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It might make a distinction to claim that, but I have never felt ostracized or left out

I'm glad! It would be a shame if a Catholic ostracized you at Mass. However, if you presented yourself to receive communion, and the priest knows you are not Catholic, the priest should deny you communion.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I believe I am correct if I say that our priest never failed to, in our small village Catholic church give me a nod and a smile when I have attended a Eucharist here. Ditto for the Catholic church masses I attended in San Diego and the Antiochan Orthodox church there as well.  

That's wonderful! Please attend as often as you wish  

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I wasn't referring to observable differences (in practice).  Christians are known by their fruit, whether they be Latter-day Saints or otherwise.  I think you are right in that there should be no observable differences.

But Sara was asserting (in this post on the other thread), that "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS", as if the church is trying to hide its distinctive doctrines and teachings, and she said "it seems as though the brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents".   So the differences I was talking about had to do with distinctive doctrines and teachings. 

I provided several examples (in this post) where the church says that we are Christians and also goes into detail about how we are different in our doctrines and teachings than other Christian denominations.  I was trying to get Sara to back up her claims about the church trying to project an image of being "more Christian than LDS" (whatever that means) and that the "brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it" from official church sources, but she hasn't done it.

OK. Ditto! I am with you!

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I (and the Church) do not disagree with anything in 1 Corin. 11:23-32. However, those verses do not sufficiently describe the Eucharist. They are incomplete. They are necessary but not sufficient. An analogy might be if there were a description of my father (and my father only) and someone asked me if that was my family. I would say yes, but I also have a mother and siblings. My complete family includes them. So while my father is part of it, by himself he is not my family. Similarly, while those verses describe part of the Eucharist, they do not describe it fully.

You misunderstand the Catholic position. Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were not added. They were there at the very beginning, when Christ told his Apostles, "Take. Eat. This is My Body." It is not a vital part of the Catholic ordinance. It is a vital part of THE ordinance. Non-Catholic/Orthodox communion is not a valid ordinance. I view non-Catholic communion as a prayer to God, but it is not a valid sacrament. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is that only a priest with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist.

As I mentioned above, it is insufficient.

Remember, from the Catholic standpoint, Catholicism is Christ's visible Church on Earth. The authority of Christ was given to the Apostles, who then gave it to their successors the Bishops, who then passed it on to today. The Pope is the visible head of Christendom. The Church of the Apostles is the Catholic Church today. This is a core teaching in Catholicism. Take it away and we are no longer Catholic. Catholicism does not view Christian denominations as equal. The priesthood of Catholicism is not something that is simply valid in our church, equal to the priesthood that is valid in, say, a Baptist church. The priesthood of Catholicism is God's authority. There is no priesthood in a Baptist church, or in any other church (except Orthodoxy). I say this bluntly in the hope that you can understand the Catholic position as taught by the Catholic Church. Of course, with over 1 billion members, you can find a Catholic that believes anything, and you can find Catholic priests that disagree with the Church's teachings. They are still the Church's teachings, however.

Traditionally there were two parts of the Mass: the Mass of the Catechumens, followed by the Mass of the Faithful. The Catechumens (not yet baptized) would leave at the end of the Mass of the Catechumens, before the Eucharist.

I went to daily Mass for months before even speaking to a priest. There is nothing wrong about non-Catholics attending Mass. I highly recommend it! However, it is not permitted for non-Catholics to receive communion.

Sort of. The Real Presence of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is fully present in both species: the bread and the wine. In fact, it is a heresy to believe that one must receive both bread and wine in order to fully receive Christ. In the traditional Latin mass, the faithful never receive the wine -- there is no option, as there is in the new Mass. So, one is still fully participating when one receives only the bread.

Yes, the communion is closed to you because you are not Catholic. Participating with "presence, thoughts, prayers, and remembrances" is not participating in the Eucharist. There is nothing wrong with what you are doing -- it is wonderful, in fact. However, it would be a mistake to say you are partaking in the Eucharist.

I'm glad! It would be a shame if a Catholic ostracized you at Mass. However, if you presented yourself to receive communion, and the priest knows you are not Catholic, the priest should deny you communion.

That's wonderful! Please attend as often as you wish  

Thanks for the reply. I would just reiterate that I was seeking to describe the foundation, that which is accepted by the vast majority of the universal Christian church. The core, the foundation, the basis on which the rest has been built. You keep talking about the differences. Perhaps that is because that tends to be what happens here. And because those differences do indeed exist. I would rather find four points we can agree on than ten points of how we are different. That is simply my personal preference.

I remember in the 1960s, my oldest sister and my brother-in-law bought a home in one of those new subdivisions in our little town. Every home was built on the same floor plan. Your choice was two or three bedrooms. That was about it. I spent a summer staying with her when my parents were gone to Israel or Africa, or somewhere. I jogged a lot in that little subdivision. Oh my, how the owners fixed up, added to, improved, expanded, painted different colors, replaced the shingled roofs, planted different shrubs and plants, and seemed to take pride in different color doors. It became a show sub-division at a modest price. However with all the differences created by the individual owners, the foundation and original floor plan remained a constant.

I share that now because I have often thought that is what has happened to Christianity. It is not, despite my colleagues comment, a circus. It is a beautiful world of diversity, built on the foundation and floor plan of Jesus Christ who will continue to knock on all the different colored doors of our hearts. It is not the product of a God who is a God of confusion, I agree. I don't see confusion in what my Catholic, LDS, Lutheran, or Pentecostal friends believe or teach. I also don't believe it is the failed product of a God of uniformity, or of a God who is put off by complexity or of differences. The universal bride of Christ is a magnificent community, a mosaic, a tapestry, or if you prefer a fractal which appears chaotic or confusing, but indeed is a beautiful repeated pattern of each part mirroring the whole.  In Christ, that is who I believe we are and what we have in common. 

I do believe that there is a body of agreement within the various Christian groups that, however small would be wonderful to celebrate. About the person of Christ, the atonement, about the Lord's Supper, about baptism, about being kind, loving, about the eternities, mercy, and judgment. Ranking, onlying, normalizing, and dehumanization (indeed as someone today deemed non-LDS Christianity a circus) have proved over and over to divide the family of Christ. For a few, that evens seems to be the goal that only be achieved by differentiation. 

We have a new young priest in our little village now. My friend, Padre Arnulfo has retired to wherever diocesan priests in Mexico retire. I will miss him, his smile, and his wink or wave, especially during a service. He never refused an offer of Mennonite gravel, paint, adobes, baked goods, or pesos to help his parish. At six years here in the village, Padre Arnulfo served well and long. We had much in common. That is why I will miss him . . . . he wasn't afraid to acknowledge that. My best wishes to all, especially to retired Bishop Hatch, who also served six years and believed we had much in common, and to retired Padre Arnulfo from retired voyager Navidad.

[Stargazer]

On 6/23/2023 at 2:36 PM, mfbukowski said:

No difference 

Hmmm. Vive l'Difference not apply where you live?

[Sara H]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:53 PM, InCognitus said:

I wasn't referring to observable differences (in practice).  Christians are known by their fruit, whether they be Latter-day Saints or otherwise.  I think you are right in that there should be no observable differences.

But Sara was asserting (in this post on the other thread), that "In today's culture, it makes sense for Latter-day Saints to want to project an image that is more Christian than LDS", as if the church is trying to hide its distinctive doctrines and teachings, and she said "it seems as though the brethren [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints] are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it in order to avoid direct attacks from opponents".   So the differences I was talking about had to do with distinctive doctrines and teachings. 

I provided several examples (in this post) where the church says that we are Christians and also goes into detail about how we are different in our doctrines and teachings than other Christian denominations.  I was trying to get Sara to back up her claims about the church trying to project an image of being "more Christian than LDS" (whatever that means) and that the "brethren are making an effort to conceal the gospel by waving the flag of Christianity in front of it" from official church sources, but she hasn't done it.

I've shown, of course, that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS. If you look back over the last 30 to 40 years, you can see that Mormon society has been getting less and less important and trying to look more "Christian." The best way to figure out where LDS society is going is to look at how the Community of Christ branch of Latter Day Saintsism has changed over the past 50 years. We are going in the same direction as them, but 30 to 40 years later in terms of how our  policies and doctrines change. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the changes in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet to see what I mean. Gone are the modesty rules based on gender, the bans on tattoos and piercings, and much of the language used to "shame" people has been changed to be more "inclusive." Changes like this will continue to happen until the LDS society is the same as that of every other traditional Christian church. 

 

 Over the next 30 years, you will see that the church's policies and beliefs will change, making the church seem more open and accepting. This will make the church seem like any other group. The church will no longer stand out in any way. We used to take pride in standing out. I think this is why I'm having a faith crisis. I think I finally understand that everything on the boat can and will be thrown overboard to keep the boat from sinking. And I don't want to be there while that happens. My husband and I don't have a lot of years left, and I don't want to waste them being a part of an organisation that instructs me how to live, and at the same time, also changes its culture to make church critics happy. I grew up thinking that when the church is being attacked, the brother are supposed to show that they have backbone and act like real men. I feel like I'm being pushed out so that the next generation of tithe payers can take my place. 

 

[Tacenda]

On 6/22/2023 at 2:12 PM, Navidad said:

Wow, you sound like my mom . . . That is what she would have said to me. Oh, and that is now officially a second compliment! All my writing energy is now going into my thesis today ! 80,000 words, 468 footnotes and counting!

Even though Calm and I might be a couple of years apart, I say she is like a mom to me sometimes with her wisdom and the way she will tell you straight up!

Edited June 25, 2023 by Tacenda

[Navidad]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:26 PM, Calm said:

Not only the largest, but some sites like wiki say Catholics are slightly over half of the world’s Christians, so they are the majority of Christians as well probably.

I am together with you and Miserere with everything you are saying. There is no disagreement about the centrality of those attributes of the Lord's Table for Catholics and they represent a large portion of Christianity. I could only debate the activity level of many Catholics in my part of the word. Nine-hundred self-identified Catholics in our village. Less than fifty in any Sunday service. In the Catholicism where I live, activity level is not important for membership. No one loses membership for lack of attendance. In my branch of Christianity you would lose your membership after six months or so of inactivity without a reason, like military service or the like.  But I won't debate that. That has nothing to do with what I am suggesting.

I think you are missing my point, or simply aren't used to thinking in terms of what are beliefs we can describe as common for the vast majority of Christians. That is all I am talking about - trying to identify common beliefs held by, let's say 95% of Christianity on any one given subject. I used the passages in I Cor. 11 as the minimum in this case for the Sacrament. He said that he didn't disagree with anything in that passage. No LDS church member has posted that they disagree with something in that passage. Of course different groups add other things that then become core for them, but I am interested in core for Christianity, not for any one sub-group even the biggest one group. I am setting the bar high at 95%. My LDS friends have added remembering covenants, my Mennonite friends have (in the past mostly) added feet washing.

If I were to write an article on the common elements (no pun intended) of various aspects of Christianity, I would not include remembering baptism covenants or transubstantiation because they simply aren't common elements among 95% of Christianity. I am leaving in a couple of hours to watch a baseball game. What are the common elements of a baseball game? Balls, no matter how crude, bats, no matter how crude, bases, no matter how crude or fancy, players, etc. You will expect to find them at a baseball game everywhere, in every country, and of any age. Gloves? Probably not at 95%. Popcorn? Certainly not. A rule book? Probably not. I hope I am clarifying my purpose and thinking. Take care.

[Navidad]

On 6/23/2023 at 11:05 AM, MiserereNobis said:

This exactly. And the belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are central and core -- they are not addendums.

Neither are they common to 95% of Christianity. That is what I am talking about.

[Navidad]

On 6/23/2023 at 5:07 PM, MiserereNobis said:

However, those verses do not sufficiently describe the Eucharist.

I was never trying to "sufficiently" describe the Eucharist. I have said that every way I know how.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've shown, of course, that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS. If you look back over the last 30 to 40 years, you can see that Mormon society has been getting less and less important and trying to look more "Christian." The best way to figure out where LDS society is going is to look at how the Community of Christ branch of Latter Day Saintsism has changed over the past 50 years. We are going in the same direction as them, but 30 to 40 years later in terms of how our  policies and doctrines change. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the changes in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet to see what I mean. Gone are the modesty rules based on gender, the bans on tattoos and piercings, and much of the language used to "shame" people has been changed to be more "inclusive." Changes like this will continue to happen until the LDS society is the same as that of every other traditional Christian church. 

 

 Over the next 30 years, you will see that the church's policies and beliefs will change, making the church seem more open and accepting. This will make the church seem like any other group. The church will no longer stand out in any way. We used to take pride in standing out. I think this is why I'm having a faith crisis. I think I finally understand that everything on the boat can and will be thrown overboard to keep the boat from sinking. And I don't want to be there while that happens. My husband and I don't have a lot of years left, and I don't want to waste them being a part of an organisation that instructs me how to live, and at the same time, also changes its culture to make church critics happy. I grew up thinking that when the church is being attacked, the brother are supposed to show that they have backbone and act like real men. I feel like I'm being pushed out so that the next generation of tithe payers can take my place. 

 

From an outsider's view, I think the LDS church has stood apart, not stood out. The Community of Christ stands out, not apart. Second, I think what has primarily changed and is changing is LDS culture, not LDS doctrine. Or what is changing is the realization that the two are separate. There is a strong Mennonite culture and a not-quite-so-strong Mennonite doctrine. The culture has change, except for among the most conservative by 70% just in my life time. Like with the LDS, there are now more Mennonites of color in the world than Anglo Mennonites. If for no other reason, the culture will certainly change. I don't that Mormons in Africa eat green jello or snickerdoodles, those cultural icons of Anglo Mormons, not mestizo in my part of the world. Ditto with sauerkraut, head coverings, and overalls in the Mennonite world. We used to stand out by our different dress. That is gone, except in Old Order Mennonite communities. That doesn't impact doctrine however.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've shown, of course, that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS. If you look back over the last 30 to 40 years, you can see that Mormon society has been getting less and less important and trying to look more "Christian." The best way to figure out where LDS society is going is to look at how the Community of Christ branch of Latter Day Saintsism has changed over the past 50 years. We are going in the same direction as them, but 30 to 40 years later in terms of how our  policies and doctrines change. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the changes in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet to see what I mean. Gone are the modesty rules based on gender, the bans on tattoos and piercings, and much of the language used to "shame" people has been changed to be more "inclusive." Changes like this will continue to happen until the LDS society is the same as that of every other traditional Christian church. 

 

 Over the next 30 years, you will see that the church's policies and beliefs will change, making the church seem more open and accepting. This will make the church seem like any other group. The church will no longer stand out in any way. We used to take pride in standing out. I think this is why I'm having a faith crisis. I think I finally understand that everything on the boat can and will be thrown overboard to keep the boat from sinking. And I don't want to be there while that happens. My husband and I don't have a lot of years left, and I don't want to waste them being a part of an organisation that instructs me how to live, and at the same time, also changes its culture to make church critics happy. I grew up thinking that when the church is being attacked, the brother are supposed to show that they have backbone and act like real men. I feel like I'm being pushed out so that the next generation of tithe payers can take my place. 

 

Honest question here.  For the Strength of Youth says:

"Your Father in Heaven trusts you. He has given you great blessings, including the fulness of the gospel and sacred ordinances and covenants that bind you to Him and bring His power into your life. With those blessings comes added responsibility. He knows you can make a difference in the world, and that requires, in many cases, being different from the world. Seek your Heavenly Father’s guidance as you make choices. He will bless you with inspiration through the Holy Ghost. The purpose of For the Strength of Youth is not to give you a “yes” or “no” about every possible choice you might face. Instead, the Lord is inviting you to live in a higher and holier way —His way. This guide will teach you about His way."

Have you prayed to find out if this is a higher way than we had before? 

I've seen so many people say that it gives you more freedom to do whatever you want, but that is not what the book says.  In many places it has you counsel with the Lord to find out what He wants.  There may be sometimes when what he asks of a specific person is even stricter than what the book said before.

For example, I don't think that it included caffeine before though it has certainly been discussed in other places. As a type 1 diabetic it was hard to get diet sodas that were not caffeinated so I didn't avoid them. I finally prayed as FSOY now suggests (this was before the change) and felt He was strongly inspiring me to stop with the caffeine.  I did so and my kidneys immediately were doing better.  For me the Word of Wisdom became even stronger when I did what FSOY teaches now.

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm. Vive l'Difference not apply where you live?

In LA during pride month?

I ain't goin' der.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

Gone are the modesty rules based on gender, the bans on tattoos and piercings, and much of the language used to "shame" people has been changed to be more "inclusive." Changes like this will continue to happen until the LDS society is the same as that of every other traditional Christian church. 

How were these LDS “peculiar” characteristics or even a uniquely Christian characteristic?

Everyone else who has seen this as a negative change in church culture has claimed it’s the Church becoming more secular, less religiously oriented in my experience. I don’t think I remember anyone claiming no tattoos and less modesty based on gender and less shaming is traditional Christianity.

Quote

I've shown, of course, that the church is trying to be more Christian than LDS.

You have documented this or just stated it?  If documented, please link to the post(s) you see as doing that because I have missed it and I don’t want to report someone for not fulfilling a CFR when they have.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Even though Calm and I might be a couple of years apart, I say she is like a mom to me sometimes with her wisdom and the way she will tell you straight up!

I was mothering adults when I was 14…it is in my genetics as Mom did it and apparently her dad as well and my upbringing was drenched in it (Mom created a very little club when I was 9 or 10 for earning badges called “Mother’s Little Helpers” for me and my sister since at that time there was nothing in the Church for girls like Cub Scouts that my brother was highly involved in, so much so that he chose to decorate his room in Cub Scout colors).

Edited June 25, 2023 by Calm