Mormons, what do you think actually happens at your "Communion"?

[SteveVH]

In order not to derail another thread concerning the use of water instead of wine at an LDS “communion”, I have always been interested in just what Mormons believe is happening at their communion, where, apparently, anything can be used in a pinch, including apple juice and and saltine crackers.

As a Catholic, communion is more than just having a snack and remembering Jesus. We enter into the most intimate relationship possible on this earth. We become one with Christ by consuming him, as he commanded, so that he may live in us and we may remain in him.

"Jesus said to them 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:53-56)

Seems like a pretty important question to get right.

 

[benidict]

hi steve. could we not ask the same question to some of our protestant friends from other denominations, who also think its just a remembrance? not trying to get the focus off our Mormon friends. its just that you are absolutley correct. it is important to get this right. Peace

 

[ParkerD]

In order not to derail another thread concerning the use of water instead of wine at an LDS “communion”, I have always been interested in just what Mormons believe is happening at their communion, where, apparently, anything can be used in a pinch, including apple juice and and saltine crackers.

As a Catholic, communion is more than just having a snack and remembering Jesus. We enter into the most intimate relationship possible on this earth. We become one with Christ by consuming him, as he commanded, so that he may live in us and we may remain in him.

"Jesus said to them 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:53-56)

Seems like a pretty important question to get right.

SteveVH,
I hope you are doing well, as it’s been a while since I responded to a question of yours.

I personally don’t associate John 6 with the Last Supper or communion, but certainly with the atonement which Christ was testifying He was going to complete as the primary part of His mission on earth, as He taught in John 6. It would seem that if He were announcing the beginning of the communion ordinance at that time, He would indeed have begun having communion weekly with His disciples or at least with the apostles–yet did not until the Last Supper.

The Savior was associating His atoning sacrifice, including the shedding of His precious blood, with the law of sacrifice given in ancient times and practiced by Abraham, by the Levite priests, and by many prophets. So the symbol of blood being shed was very familiar to the Jews, as was the symbol of manna (of course), and by tightly relating the two symbols together in John 6, He was announcing to the Jews that He was indeed their promised Messiah who would fulfill the law of sacrifice and would be their source for eternal life through His precious blood being shed and His laying down His life and His body to raise it up again–just as He will raise up all humankind who come unto Him, and also raise up every person in that all will be resurrected.

To “eat His flesh” and to “drink His blood” would mean to me to enter into a one-to-one, deeply intimate relationship with Him so that He can “raise us up” in both the sense of His helping us become like Him and our gaining a perfect body in the resurrection. It means we really do need to “internalize” our relationship with Him so that we feel Him with us always, raising us up and helping us become a “new person” and a better person, day by day.

I hope this has helped answer your question about this.

 

[zerinus]

In order not to derail another thread concerning the use of water instead of wine at an LDS “communion”, I have always been interested in just what Mormons believe is happening at their communion, where, apparently, anything can be used in a pinch, including apple juice and and saltine crackers.

As a Catholic, communion is more than just having a snack and remembering Jesus. We enter into the most intimate relationship possible on this earth. We become one with Christ by consuming him, as he commanded, so that he may live in us and we may remain in him.

"Jesus said to them 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:53-56)

Seems like a pretty important question to get right.

We too think that it is a very sacred and important event–much more so than the Protestants do for example. We just don’t think that the emblems are transformed literally into the flesh and blood of Christ.

As to what actually happens during (or as a result of ) the partaking of the Sacrament, that is spelled out in the prayer that is pronounced during the blessing of the Sacrament. We are forgiven of our sins when we partake of the Sacrament worthily, and we qualify to alway have His Spirit to be with us. That is the greatest gift. I don’t know of any greater gift in mortality. It is a spiritual feast, when we partake of His Spirit; and not a physical feast, by putting something into our tummies.

 

[Caprica]

In addition to what has been said, we believe that we renew our baptismal covenants when partaking of the Sacrament.

 

[benidict]

We too think that it is a very sacred and important event–much more so than the Protestants do for example. We just don’t think that the emblems are transformed literally into the flesh and blood of Christ.

As to what actually happens during (or as a result of ) the partaking of the Sacrament, that is spelled out in the prayer that is pronounced during the blessing of the Sacrament. We are forgiven of our sins when we partake of the Sacrament worthily, and we qualify to alway have His Spirit to be with us. That is the greatest gift. I don’t know of any greater gift in mortality. It is a spiritual feast, when we partake of His Spirit; and not a physical feast, by putting something into our tummies.

yes z, i would have to say you do go deeper than some protestants on this. thank you. ive been reading the articles of faith in the D+C i do have to say i find them very interesting. Peace to you.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SteveVH,
I hope you are doing well, as it’s been a while since I responded to a question of yours.

I personally don’t associate John 6 with the Last Supper or communion, but certainly with the atonement which Christ was testifying He was going to complete as the primary part of His mission on earth, as He taught in John 6. It would seem that if He were announcing the beginning of the communion ordinance at that time, He would indeed have begun having communion weekly with His disciples or at least with the apostles–yet did not until the Last Supper.

The Savior was associating His atoning sacrifice, including the shedding of His precious blood, with the law of sacrifice given in ancient times and practiced by Abraham, by the Levite priests, and by many prophets. So the symbol of blood being shed was very familiar to the Jews, as was the symbol of manna (of course), and by tightly relating the two symbols together in John 6, He was announcing to the Jews that He was indeed their promised Messiah who would fulfill the law of sacrifice and would be their source for eternal life through His precious blood being shed and His laying down His life and His body to raise it up again–just as He will raise up all humankind who come unto Him, and also raise up every person in that all will be resurrected.

To “eat His flesh” and to “drink His blood” would mean to me to enter into a one-to-one, deeply intimate relationship with Him so that He can “raise us up” in both the sense of His helping us become like Him and our gaining a perfect body in the resurrection. It means we really do need to “internalize” our relationship with Him so that we feel Him with us always, raising us up and helping us become a “new person” and a better person, day by day.

I hope this has helped answer your question about this.

There are two two groups of people who I associate with bread and water…prisoners and mormons. I do not believe it is mere coincindence. I have always found it odd that Mormons are soooooo particular about how baptism should be done…though Jesus NEVER gives a specific way for it to be done, but, in an area where Jesus gives explicit instructions (Communion using unleavened bread and wine), Mormons lackadaisically rip up some Wonder Bread and fill little cups with tap water.

It just seems strange

 

[RebeccaJ]

We just don’t think that the emblems are transformed literally into the flesh and blood of Christ.

It is not Catholic believe that an emblem transforms.

 

[Caprica]

There are two two groups of people who I associate with bread and water…prisoners and mormons. I do not believe it is mere coincindence. I have always found it odd that Mormons are soooooo particular about how baptism should be done…though Jesus NEVER gives a specific way for it to be done, but, in an area where Jesus gives explicit instructions (Communion using unleavened bread and wine), Mormons lackadaisically rip up some Wonder Bread and fill little cups with tap water.

It just seems strange

If Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread, then why do your** Eastern Catholic** and Eastern Orthodox brethren use leavened bread?

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

 

[SirThomasMore]

If Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread, then why do your** Eastern Catholic** and Eastern Orthodox brethren use leavened bread?

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

I have it one way. I follow Christ.

You follow Joe.

I exhort you to leave the false prophets and come to the Truth

 

[Caprica]

I have it one way. I follow Christ.

You follow Joe.

I exhort you to leave the false prophets and come to the Truth

That’s okay, your double standard has been revealed. You claim that Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use “unleavened bread”, but then those Eastern Catholics that are in full union with the Pope apparently disobey those “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread (your words) by using leavened bread, along with the Eastern Orthodox, which your church has said has valid Eucharist.

Or were you not aware of this when typing your post on “explicit instructions”? :yawn:

 

[SirThomasMore]

That’s okay, your double standard has been revealed. You claim that Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use “unleavened bread”, but then those Eastern Catholics that are in full union with the Pope apparently disobey those “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread (your words) by using leavened bread, along with the Eastern Orthodox, which your church has said has valid Eucharist.

I do n ot speak for other denominations. I speak for The Roman Catholic Church. So, there have been no double standards. I understand your need to make it seem so, as you need to deflect away from your church’s failure to follow Christ.

Or were you not aware of this when typing your post on “explicit instructions”?

I am aware that I speak for what the Roman Catholic Church does. I am also aware of your need for red herrings.

:yawn:

I am sorry that truth bores you.

 

[Caprica]

I do n ot speak for other denominations. I speak for The Roman Catholic Church. So, there have been no double standards. I understand your need to make it seem so, as you need to deflect away from your church’s failure to follow Christ.

The Eastern Catholics are not another denomination. They are part of your own church, the Catholic Church! So, you claimed that Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread, while members of your own Church, the Eastern Catholics, who are in full communion with Rome, apparently disobey those “explicit instructions” and use leavened bread, all with the approval of the Pope.

This isn’t about “other denominations”. This is about part of your Church doing something contrary to the “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread. Therefore, your original argument fails. :yawn:

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is getting into intricate detail regarding the form and matter of the Eucharist which is decidedly off-topic. I’ll remind that the opening post was to explore what the Eucharist meant to other faiths, specifically the Mormon faith.

Having said that, let’s look at the situation factually and practically. The Eucharist, as instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, was a Passover seder, where only unleavened bread is used. Passover seders also include the ritual consumption of wine at specific points of the celebration.

In the Latin Rite, only unleavened bread is used for the host and the ingredients consist solely of wheat flour and water ~ no yeast, no eggs, no sugar, nothing else. Eastern Catholics have a different tradition. In the Latin Rite the use of leavened bread would not be appropriate. According to what I once heard from Fr. Corapi, the use of leavened bread in the Latin Rite would invalidate the Eucharist, at least that element.

I submit we should return to the original question. Discussion of the Eucharistic elements in Eastern and Latin Rite Catholic churches have no bearing on it and any discussion of them that does not further any understanding about the original topic.

 

[Caprica]

This is getting into intricate detail regarding the form and matter of the Eucharist which is decidedly off-topic. I’ll remind that the opening post was to explore what the Eucharist meant to other faiths, specifically the Mormon faith.

Having said that, let’s look at the situation factually and practically. The Eucharist, as instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, was a Passover seder, where only unleavened bread is used. Passover seders also include the ritual consumption of wine at specific points of the celebration.

In the Latin Rite, only unleavened bread is used for the host and the ingredients consist solely of wheat flour and water ~ no yeast, no eggs, no sugar, nothing else. Eastern Catholics have a different tradition. In the Latin Rite the use of leavened bread would not be appropriate. According to what I once heard from Fr. Corapi, the use of leavened bread in the Latin Rite would invalidate the Eucharist, at least that element.

I submit we should return to the original question. Discussion of the Eucharistic elements in Eastern and Latin Rite Catholic churches have no bearing on it and any discussion of them that does not further any understanding about the original topic.

A Catholic brought up the issue of the necessity of proper form, so I hope you are addressing him.

The fact of the matter is that a Catholic claimed that Jesus gave “explicit instructions” to use unleavened bread, and that because Mormons do not (among other things), we are in violation of Jesus’ “explicit instructions”. The problem with his argument is that Eastern Catholics, who are in full union with the Pope and are not “another denomination”, use leavened bread in their Eucharist. So, if the argument is valid for all (and not just Latter-day Saints), then these Catholics are also in violation of Jesus’ “explicit instructions”. Since the Catholic Church itself would not agree with such an assessment (since it allows the use of both leavened and unleavened bread within itself, dependent on which sui iuris church we’re talking about), then his argument is fallacious.

The OP also has already been asked and answered.

 

[SirThomasMore]

This is getting into intricate detail regarding the form and matter of the Eucharist which is decidedly off-topic. I’ll remind that the opening post was to explore what the Eucharist meant to other faiths, specifically the Mormon faith.

Having said that, let’s look at the situation factually and practically. The Eucharist, as instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, was a Passover seder, where only unleavened bread is used. Passover seders also include the ritual consumption of wine at specific points of the celebration.

In the Latin Rite, only unleavened bread is used for the host and the ingredients consist solely of wheat flour and water ~ no yeast, no eggs, no sugar, nothing else. Eastern Catholics have a different tradition. In the Latin Rite the use of leavened bread would not be appropriate. According to what I once heard from Fr. Corapi, the use of leavened bread in the Latin Rite would invalidate the Eucharist, at least that element.

I submit we should return to the original question. Discussion of the Eucharistic elements in Eastern and Latin Rite Catholic churches have no bearing on it and any discussion of them that does not further any understanding about the original topic.

Melanie, it is what mormons do when they are exposed…they try to deflect. They hope that by deflecting, they can ignore that they disobey Christ each week when using a loaf of bread and water

 

[SteveVH]

hi steve. could we not ask the same question to some of our protestant friends from other denominations, who also think its just a remembrance? not trying to get the focus off our Mormon friends. its just that you are absolutley correct. it is important to get this right. Peace

You’re exactly right benedict. This thread stems from the thread concerning the use of water instead of wine. In that thread the LDS posters stated that basically anything could be used as far as the species is concerned. It made me wonder just what they thought was going on at “communion”. You are correct in that grape juice and wonder bread would be in the same category.

Peace to you also.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I hope you are doing well, as it’s been a while since I responded to a question of yours.

I personally don’t associate John 6 with the Last Supper or communion, but certainly with the atonement which Christ was testifying He was going to complete as the primary part of His mission on earth, as He taught in John 6. It would seem that if He were announcing the beginning of the communion ordinance at that time, He would indeed have begun having communion weekly with His disciples or at least with the apostles–yet did not until the Last Supper.

The Savior was associating His atoning sacrifice, including the shedding of His precious blood, with the law of sacrifice given in ancient times and practiced by Abraham, by the Levite priests, and by many prophets. So the symbol of blood being shed was very familiar to the Jews, as was the symbol of manna (of course), and by tightly relating the two symbols together in John 6, He was announcing to the Jews that He was indeed their promised Messiah who would fulfill the law of sacrifice and would be their source for eternal life through His precious blood being shed and His laying down His life and His body to raise it up again–just as He will raise up all humankind who come unto Him, and also raise up every person in that all will be resurrected.

To “eat His flesh” and to “drink His blood” would mean to me to enter into a one-to-one, deeply intimate relationship with Him so that He can “raise us up” in both the sense of His helping us become like Him and our gaining a perfect body in the resurrection. It means we really do need to “internalize” our relationship with Him so that we feel Him with us always, raising us up and helping us become a “new person” and a better person, day by day.

I hope this has helped answer your question about this.

Wow. We have a lot to talk about. It is Father’s Day however and so I will be spending it with my wife and children and don’t have time to address the issues you brought up right now. Thanks for your response though. May be this evening.

God bless.

 

[Caprica]

Melanie, it is what mormons do when they are exposed…they try to deflect. They hope that by deflecting, they can ignore that they disobey Christ each week when using a loaf of bread and water

No, it’s more like you getting caught in your own argument by claiming that unleavened bread is part of Jesus’ explicit instructions, when members of your own Church do not follow these explicit instructions by using leavened bread.

So, if MelanieAnne is correct by stating that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper, then Eastern Catholics are using something other than what Jesus used. Your argument about Mormons using something other than what Jesus used can therefore apply to members of your own Church.

 

[Caprica]

Wow. We have a lot to talk about. It is Father’s Day however and so I will be spending it with my wife and children and don’t have time to address the issues you brought up right now. Thanks for your response though. May be this evening.

God bless.

Just an additional thought to what ParkerD said.

I think that because John 6 is tied to the Atonement, the Sacrament is also tied to John 6. In fact, the LDS Topical Guide references verses in John 6 on the topic of “Sacrament” (meaning our Eucharist). The Sacrament is a remembrance of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The difference then is that we don’t believe that the elements used in the Sacrament become the body and blood of Jesus.