darth_ender

If you are watching a Tim Burton movie, you are listening to a Danny Elfman soundtrack.  The two are inseparable.  Batman and Batman Returns, Edward Scissorhands, Alice in Wonderland, Beetlejuice, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks!  He also frequently collaborated with Sam Raimi, such as in the first two Spider-man movies, though they grew apart after the second.  His music often incorporates vocals in a very instrumental way, not with lyrics, but with oohs and aahs.  Beautiful stuff.

James Horner has some pretty tunes, often stirring feelings of yearning for me.  Think of Don Bluth cartoons like An American Tail, Land Before Time, etc.  Also movies like Willow, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Field of Dreams, The Legend of Zorro, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Most famously, he composed the soundtrack for Titanic, including the once enjoyable, but so over-played that I can't stand it anymore, My Heart Will Go on.

Vangelis is more of an electronic composer, writing soundtracks like 1492 or the very famous Chariots of Fire (think of all those movies where you see someone running in slow motion, hear the music playing, and laugh at the reference to those guys in short shorts running along a beach in the original film).

James Newton Howard has created some good stuff, often exciting in my mind.  He has worked a lot with M. Night Shyamalan, so think of The Sixth Sense, Signs, etc.  He also composed for The Fugitive.  But his best move was his collaboration with Hans Zimmer on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, focusing on the more dramatic parts of the movie and utilizing more electronic music while Zimmer used more orchestration and focused on action.

Bernard Herrmann (oops, two r's) became familiar to me through my love of Alfred Hitchcock movies, and he composed for films such as Psycho (the famous screeching during the stabbing), North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much (even directing the orchestra during the assassination attempt), and my personal favorite, Vertigo.  You also might have heard him on The Day the Earth Stood Still.  I believe I read that Danny Elfman took inspiration from him, and it is pretty apparent.  This man was great.

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 :)

SilverWook said:

 Awesome!

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. ;)

Sorry bud.  It's hard to keep track of new pieces, I know.  This is probably my last move for the day.

S*3e

d5

CNe3

Gx3f

Sx4d

Alright.  I figured you were smart enough, but I just wanted to avoid any confusion before.  e4

Sounds like a plan.  My pieces are in the right spot.

C-3c

f3

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.

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:

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. :)

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.

Gosh, now that's an embarrassing typo.  I think I must have hastily looked, and without glasses, the small numbers are hard to read.

G-1d

By the way, since Phoenix and Pheasant both start with Ph, I suggest we use a different abbreviation, such as Pt or something.

Oh, okay.  d4

S-4f+

It's not a very impressive promotion, I'm afraid.

Well, I won the last game, so I don't mind if you'd rather play white.  So why don't you go ahead and make the first move.

S-1e

I guess this is what I like in a slower game: trying to figure out how to break through the front lines.  It reminds me of the kind of standoffs present on the Western Front of WWI.  It's always been a fascinating war experience to me to try to break through front lines.

This thread deserves a bump.  I've been listening to a soundtrack compilation I made a few years ago, and man I love it.  I will name specific soundtracks later, but for now I just want to mention the big names I love (and yes, I know they're popular and it's maybe too all-inclusive):

Danny Elfman

John Williams

Bernard Hermann

James Horner

James Newton Howard

Vangelis

Hans Zimmer

All fantastic composers, but I think Danny Elfman shines above the rest.  The man can convey so much emotion through music.  I especially love Edward Scissorhands.  Practically brings me to sissy tears!

Reading the past few pages of this thread...

I kind of like the way the pawns are constantly at each other's throats in this game.  It reminds me of Goro Goro, where the front line is so hard to break through.  Allowing two pawns per file is interesting and allows for a little more freedom.

Thanks for catching the typos.  I thought I'd paid more attention, but I'm cleaning house between moves.  I had actually tried to post before, but you know how this site sometimes gives random errors.

In any case, I'm glad you had fun, and I did too.  I'm up for any armies you like.  You suggested an alphabetical rotation, so probably Nutty Knights vs. Colorbound Clobberers.  If you agree, you are welcome to whichever army you'd feel more comfortable with, and you may even choose white if you like.  Again, I suggest you choose the more familiar army (in this case, the Clobberers), but you are welcome to either one.