Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 20

To add to what I wrote about the deuterocanon, most of them may be relatively unimportant, but not because they are less inspired or less authoritative. Rather, some of them are less important because they have less original or fewer important messages contained within them. However, this is not always the case, nor is it limited to the deuterocanon. For example, 2 Maccabees is the book on which the important Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is based while many canonical prophetic books contain little that is original or relevant. They are still inspired Scripture and authoritative books, but few would say they (or any books in the Bible, for that matter) are as important as the gospels.

Thanks for clarifying.  Hopefully you understand our reasoning for not necessarily accepting it as canon.  Again, if you read the Doctrine and Covenants reference, it states that most of the material is correct, though there are substantial errors in other parts.  I am particularly fond of 1 Maccabees for its historical value, and there are other aspects of those books that I find interesting and worthwhile.  We don't reject them outright.  We simply haven't canonized them or feel they are necessary, in part based on unspecific inaccuracies.

Do Mormons have any kind of liturgical year like Catholics? What about feast days, etc. besides Christmas and Easter?

Also, could you outline a typical church service (I'm not sure what you call it, but you know what I mean)? I'm curious to see how it compares to the Catholic Mass. I'm sure it's quite different, but I'd be interested to know.

EDIT: In more detail than given here, if you can:

http://www.mormon.org/faq/church-welcome-visitors

I'm specifically interested in the sacrament meeting. Does it have a specific structure, or is what is given on that webpage about everything that they all have in common?

Catholic Masses have a very specific structure and set readings, liturgical seasons, etc., which I personally enjoy quite a bit. It allows a person to get into the Mass a bit better if they're able to almost memorize it over time.

What's the Mormon take on Coffee cake and Beer Bread?

RicOlie_2 said:

Do Mormons have any kind of liturgical year like Catholics? What about feast days, etc. besides Christmas and Easter?

 No, no feast days or liturgical calendar.  I think it's a really neat practice, personally, but we don't practice it as a religion.  However, there's nothing wrong with adopting customs and such for personal enrichment.  We celebrated St. Nicholas and St. Basil Days this past holiday season, partly to get a little more fun out of Christmas really, but I tried to teach my kids about the good character of these men as well.  And I was just mentioning the other day to my kids that it would be fun to celebrate a Jewish Passover some time.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church forbids, or at least heavily discourages, celebrating the Passover meal as such, but my family does have a tradition of having a meal similar to it, on Holy Thursday. What we eat is a reminder of the Passover meal, but we don't actually have roasted lamb, bitter herbs, or wine, and we don't eat standing up.

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.

RicOlie_2 said:

Also, could you outline a typical church service (I'm not sure what you call it, but you know what I mean)? I'm curious to see how it compares to the Catholic Mass. I'm sure it's quite different, but I'd be interested to know.

EDIT: In more detail than given here, if you can:

http://www.mormon.org/faq/church-welcome-visitors

I'm specifically interested in the sacrament meeting. Does it have a specific structure, or is what is given on that webpage about everything that they all have in common?

Catholic Masses have a very specific structure and set readings, liturgical seasons, etc., which I personally enjoy quite a bit. It allows a person to get into the Mass a bit better if they're able to almost memorize it over time.

 The link pretty well sums it up.  But to try to give more of a play by play, I'll walk through it in more detail.  For instance, I will be conducting the services on Easter Sunday.  I will welcome everyone to church and make any important announcements that the whole congregation would benefit from hearing, such as any events coming up.  Then we have an opening hymn (selected to be in line with the monthly theme) and an opening prayer by a lay member.  Then I will announce any administrative items and we will take care of certain ordinances, such as if a baby is blessed or someone is given the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Also, every position in my church is unpaid, and so people take turns filling certain positions, and we announce such at this point and give the congregation an opportunity to offer their consent or dissent.  Then we have a hymn, followed by the sacrament.  I know this is usually a general term for all ordinances, but we use it in reference to the Lord's Supper most of the time.  After that, I announce much of the rest of the meeting, usually two or three talks.  The talks are prepared by the lay members as well, and they strive to keep with the theme of the month.  we only have two talks this Easter Sunday, one of them from me.  We will also have our choir perform a few numbers, so it will be a little different than the usual format.  In the end, we sing a closing hymn and have a closing prayer, again offered by a lay member.

We have church services for three hours.  The above is just the first hour.  The second is Sunday School, with several classes for children and adolescents of various ages, as well as a couple for adults.  The primary adult class is Gospel Doctrine, focused on a little deeper stuff, while Gospel Essentials is more basic, core doctrine, designed mostly for those investigating our faith or those wanting to refamiliarize themselves, particularly when they have not attended for a while, but all are welcome to this as well.  There are often short-term classes focused on more narrow topics, like family relations or genealogy.

The third hour splits the males and females, where we focus on our roles in the home and at church and learn from the words of past presidents of our church.

Hope that helps. :)

Bingowings said:

What's the Mormon take on Coffee cake and Beer Bread?

 Same as always, if the coffee cake doesn't contain coffee, it's all good.  Beer bread's alcohol has baked out, so it's fine, but in keeping with the spirit of the law, I'd probably not do it myself.

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.

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."

I'm just pushing for a more satisfactory answer, but I don't intend to sound critical of your beliefs.

I intend to answer this more er, so you'll have to thoroughly, but I probably can't till later.  So you will have to wait till Monday.  Sorry.  Have a happy Easter.  Take care and be safe in your travels!  Keep your thoughts focused on Jesus Christ. :)

Oh, and "gnaw" is spelled with a silent g, not a silent k. ;)

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 :)

darth_ender said:

Oh, and "gnaw" is spelled with a silent g, not a silent k. ;)

 'Twas just a typo. It's fixed now. :P

You've clarified my position somewhat, but not convinced me. Jesus lost all his disciples besides the Twelve Apostles because of something he said and he didn't clarify that he was speaking metaphorically? I'm not buying it, but thanks for elaborating. I can understand your point of view, it just doesn't convince me... However, a lot of people are equally skeptical about my beliefs, so I don't think this discredits your beliefs whatsoever.

I am happy to elaborate, and I wish to point out that this thread is for stating my beliefs, not convincing you that I'm right.  As long as you know what and why I believe what I believe, you may or may not accept it.  Nothing you said has even come close to offending me.  It's true, many are skeptical of transubstantiation and other Catholic doctrines.  I personally find it hard to believe that is at all what Jesus intended.  But if you want to believe it, I'm cool with that.  I like a lot about Catholicism, and don't have to agree with its teachings to do so :)

I should have mentioned this a whiel ago, because you probably won't have the chance to watch it before it disappears from theatres.  Anyway, you all should see Meet the Mormons.  It's a Church produced film about six different Mormon families and how we are real people.  It is not about controversial doctrines, about establishing what makes us different or weird.  It is simply about six Mormon families, that's it.  It's a sort of documentary approach, and I found it quite enjoyable.  I suspect a big reason many won't see it is the price of a ticket for something that could have been a reality TV episode (or six), but just bear in mind that none of the proceeds go to my church.  Rather they are all donated to the Red Cross.  Rotten Tomatoes' eight critics who bothered to rate it were obviously looking for stuff about polygamy or Joseph Smith drinking alcohol or something, because apparently a simple PR piece (let's see, it's called Meet the Mormons) was simply too straightforward for our critics who like to see more negativity.  There is plenty of that to be had.  This was intended as merely an introduction to ordinary people.  If you can dig that and are okay with contributing whatever a ticket costs to the Red Cross, check it out before it disappears (quite possibly on Thursday).

http://meetthemormons.com/#/filter-all/page-1

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meet_the_mormons/

(Note how well audiences enjoyed it; even if it is largely a Mormon audience that saw it, it couldn't have gotten that high a rating from Mormons alone, especially since you can rate a movie without even seeing it, just to be a jerk)

Magic Underwear.  Yes, that's what people call it.  Let's laugh at the Mormon in his magic undiepants!  In an effort to educate people on the significance of our temple garments, the Church has released an explanatory video.  Too bad the one who has mocked me most about it doesn't come to Off Topic anymore (supposedly), and likely won't comment. 

For your education:

http://news.yahoo.com/mormons-address-mystery-surrounding-undergarments-195328671.html

I never knew about this sacred undergarment that the Mormons have.  Interesting.

I'm reading Exodus.  I'm on Chapter 31 right now.   Exodus does refer to sacred garments that Aaron and his sons are supposed to wear. 

I agree the person that supposedly left the off topic section should see that video.   

All three of us could PM him a link. ;)

Now I know what the magic underwear thing is really about. It's something I can easily relate to, since I wear a scapular myself, and have worn an alb over my clothes literally hundreds of times when altar serving.

RicOlie_2 said:

All three of us could PM him a link. ;)

 If you and Ender wish to, fine.  But I will not.

AntcuFaalb said:

What's your opinion on this, d_e? http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I came across it on Reddit recently.

Weak sauce, my friend.  That is my opinion.

If this is a genuine letter, it was written by someone who has been somewhat dishonest with himself, as he claims he has devoured everything he could on the topic of Mormon history.  If that were true, most of his questions would have at least some explanation, even if he ultimately found them unsatisfactory.  These are topics that have been tread so many times from both critics and Mormon apologists that there is no shortage of resources to find answers.  Yet he presents his "issues" as if they are without any answer at all.  So again, if it's legitimate, he did not do any balanced research, but literally read only from critical sources, not neutral, not friendly.

If this is actually a piece of anti-Mormon literature designed to appear as the words of a faithful member who had lost his faith (which is honestly a suspicion of mine--I don't know how faithful this guy ever was or how recently he had lost his fait), then again, this is old ground.  Many of those arguments don't even need an apologist's eye to see right through.  For instance, the comparison of local names to names in the Book of Mormon that "clearly" were an inspiration for Joseph's names, such is quite weak.  One could move anywhere and open the Bhagavad Gita and claim the author used names inspired by the locale.  Just look at that list and see the weak comparisons.

In the end, I literally see nothing new.  I've done plenty of reading and research and have maintained my faith.

...Okay, so now that I've spent a little more time looking at it, I should confess that I've not yet read 78 pages.  That's a little much for me for now.  Like I said, thus far I haven't seen anything new.  This stuff has been addressed so many times.  However, it does appear this guy is a genuine formerly faithful member.  He clearly has read from friendly sources, but seems to disregard some pretty strong arguments as if they did not exist.  If you wish for a thorough analysis, you can look at FAIR's responses, which are pretty in-depth.  They are a primary resource for me when I have questions.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director