RicOlie_2 said:
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 "knaw" 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."
Well, as you point out, Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, he was speaking Aramaic. So the exact words may not be the same. Moreover, I see no reason why "knaw" (I never gnu you could spell it that way!) or "munch" makes it any less metaphorical. It just doesn't seem to make any difference in my mind. They were still gnawing or munching on bread. Why did he not clarify? "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Jesus spake in parables for two reasons: to give deeper meaning to those who were spiritually prepared to hear his message; so those who were not prepared would NOT understand! It was a weeding out process. That crowd (not the last large crowd he had, BTW) was simply not willing to dig deeper and truly understand his meaning. Jesus didn't want them to know what he meant.
Let's look again at 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 ;) Look at v. 25 specifically. It tells us that the cup (not the wine, if we are to be overly literal) is the new testament or new covenant in or of his blood, not the wine (since, if we are to be practical, was clearly meant) actually being his blood. Not that it is his blood. Looking at this as a whole, and in conjunction with the Gospels, we are to do this in remembrance. Reminders are not usually the thing itself, but something that draws our attention to that thing. The bread reminds of his flesh, the wine reminds us of his blood.
And to once again make a point of the metaphorical nature of Christ's words, he also tells us that we must be born again of the water and of the Spirit in John 3. This confused Nicodemus, who wondered how we could again enter our mothers' wombs. Do the waters of baptism become amniotic fluid? I don't think so. That is because the nature of a covenant with God is not some magical property of the physical objects that serve as part of our ordinance. Baptismal water is special, not because it we bless it and its nature has changed (its purpose, yes, but not its nature). What makes it special is that it represents a change in our nature. We are covenanting with God. Same with the bread and wine. It doesn't change. It changes us. This because we are making promises to God in a prescribed fashion with the symbols he specifically delineated. This we do in remembrance of him.
Hope that clarifies and satisfies the LDS POV. Also I hope it doesn't come across as demeaning to the Catholic POV :)