Thanks for detailing your church services. Now for this:

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Another question:

Why do you not take Jesus' request to "Do this in remembrance of me" literally? You have the bread and wine which are blessed, but without transubstantiation. Why is this? Jesus said that it was necessary to eat his flesh to inherit eternal life in the Bread of Life Discourse (John 22-71). What interpretation do Mormons give to that passage, as well as the Last Supper passages and 1 Corinthians 23-32.

We do take it in remembrance of him. I don't need his literal flesh and blood to be reminded of him. And though I don't want to sound argumentative, it sounds quite clearly to me like a metaphor. Christ also says he is the bread of life in the same discourse (in John 6, it's nice to see you make omissions now and then ;) ). So does the bread become Christ, or is he already made of bread? See what I mean? Christ is also love. We are the light of the world, as is he. It's all metaphoric imagery. Hope that doesn't come off as a rude answer.

Can't believe I missed the chapter number....

Now, the thing is, the word Christ uses for "eat" translates as "gnaw" or "munch" and not the regular word for "eat". Why use such a word if he meant it metaphorically? Of course, he himself wasn't speaking in Greek, but the fact that the gospels use that word indicates that they took it literally. Here's the other thing, why did he not attempt to clarify if he meant it metaphorically? We read in verse 66 that "As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." Only the Twelve were left after this, and he started out with a huge crowd! Don't you think he would have explained that no, he didn't really mean that they had to eat him, if that's why they were all leaving him? Nowhere do Paul or Jesus say, or imply, that it is merely a symbol, in my opinion. It is always "this is my body," or "this is my blood."