It is my belief that Christ is everywhere in the creation and can be found anywhere we look. I believe that the creation in total is for us to look at and then look past it to the power of God. I feel the cup is no different. If we in our heart take the bread and accept that it represents Christ body then we have done what He asked us to do. We remember Him on the cross and we accept His sacrifice. That is what makes the bread special. It is our remembrance of His act. When I pray I don't go to some special place. When I break bread anywhere I remember Christ. To limit Christ to a cup once a week is an error. We do it as a formal rite but the act of remembrance can be done anytime and anywhere. When I thank God for a meal which I am about to eat then God is with me and in the meal. When I thank God for a view of nature then God is in the scene before me. When I remember Christ and bless bread and wine then Christ is there in the bread and wine. I am sorry if my words did not convey my true beliefs.
I agree with you that Christ is omnipresent. But that does not mean that Christ is literally, physically (i.e. in terms of self-nature) present in every bit of matter. The point of the Mystery of the Eucharist is that the body and the blood of the Lamb are literally present.
You are quite correct that God is with us at all times. This is why it is good to offer thanks and praise and blessings before every meal. But just as not every meal is the Last Supper, so all bread and wine is not the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Samantabhadra wrote:I agree with you that Christ is omnipresent. But that does not mean that Christ is literally, physically (i.e. in terms of self-nature) present in every bit of matter. The point of the Mystery of the Eucharist is that the body and the blood of the Lamb are literally present.
You are quite correct that God is with us at all times. This is why it is good to offer thanks and praise and blessings before every meal. But just as not every meal is the Last Supper, so all bread and wine is not the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
This does bring up an interesting question. Many things in the Bible describe a priest or someone holding authority to perform some rite. I don't see that in the last supper. If someone feels they are Christ and pass the bread I have problems with that person if it is not Christ. We have some on the earth today that call them self the vicar of Christ. Many follow and believe. I am not one of them. So I am left with no Christ to break the bread. So in a formal setting a priest in a church can bless the bread. But if that bread is handed to a non-believer I do not think the bread is the flesh of Christ. But on the other hand if a child with no authority blesses the bread and eats it in belief then I believe the bread is the flesh of Christ. It is the belief in the individual and the power of God. No third party is required. But a formal rite I have no problem with. I may have just muddied the water.
Albion wrote:So then you would reject Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) and any teaching about him in the New Testament?
Because some of the beliefs I have are different than those held by Christianity I choose not to define myself as a Christian. I accept the teachings which I feel conform to the earlier writings of Moses. I believe there is a verse somewqhere in the New Testament commending the members of a congregation for studying these early writings prior to accepting any new theology.
Albion wrote: I note that you use Book of Mormon illustrations in you post. From my perspective the Book of Mormon is irrelevant in any discussion of the Gospel...but then perhaps since your belief system is founded on the first books of the Bible you reject the whole idea of a Gospel...the good news of Christ's death and resurrection on behalf of sinners? If you are not claiming to be a Christian in any sense of the word then perhaps we are discussing at cross purposes.
The importance placed on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is in my view immature. The question should be does the book have a value. The same criteria can be used with regards to both the Old Testament and New Testament. With regards to the Gospel from some of your messages I believe it's quite likely that we have a different understanding of just what the gospel is.
Obviously, we are approaching things from completely different perspectives and have very little, in terms of the spiritual, in common. If I may put it this way, it seems to me that you have eaten your fill on the appetizer, skipped the salad and entry, and forgone the richness of the desert.
I cannot agree that the Book of Mormon has any value except as a piece of 19th century frontier fiction. A popular novel may have some value to someone but as regards salvation it has none.
I think the New Testament reference you made can be found in Acts 17:10 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message (Paul's message of the gospel) with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." NIV. They compared what Paul said with what was written in God's word to verify the truthfulness of what Paul said...apparently they found that what Paul said was confirmed in scripture.
Hello Albion, and others? Every "believer" is not a priest! It is true that the nation was full of priests, just as the church now is. However, the New Testament is very clear that NO ONE was to take the priesthood except he was called of God as Aaron was called! It is also clear that this priesthood was conferred (just as it was to Aaron and his sons) by the laying on of hands!!! you guys just have a dumb non scriptural belief that you can just walk down the isle and make a profession of faith and then you get everything you need from that, the priesthood and the whole works! You believe that you don't need baptism, the laying on of hands, the priesthood, or anything else! You believe that that calling by the mouth is all you need! Hogwash! That is flatly rejecting the doctrines and teachings of Christ and the entire New Testament! You might as well be Nehors!!!
Franktalk wrote:I may have just muddied the water.
LOL I believe you have!
Certainly I agree with this:
Franktalk wrote:Many things in the Bible describe a priest or someone holding authority to perform some rite. I don't see that in the last supper. If someone feels they are Christ and pass the bread I have problems with that person if it is not Christ.
And (more or less) with this:
Franktalk wrote:So in a formal setting a priest in a church can bless the bread. But if that bread is handed to a non-believer I do not think the bread is the flesh of Christ.
(The Catholics and Orthodox restrict access to the Eucharist to baptized members in good standing for just this reason, although in the event someone unworthy partakes of the Eucharist it's not exactly the case that the bread is no longer the flesh of Christ, but still, I think the point you are making here is well taken).
I suspect we agree more than our discussion up to this point has indicated. Since this thread is supposed to be about the pre-mortal existence, and I know very little about the Mormon version of the Eucharist (which I'm assuming you partake of), how would you feel about a separate thread on this topic? Would it necessarily involve restricted Temple content, or could we conduct the discussion here in Celestial?
Albion wrote:Obviously, we are approaching things from completely different perspectives and have very little, in terms of the spiritual, in common. If I may put it this way, it seems to me that you have eaten your fill on the appetizer, skipped the salad and entry, and forgone the richness of the desert.
However spiritual each of us are is dependent on our lifestyle and not on holding any particular belief. How do we treat others? Do we look to God for guidance? Your desert would be your belief that you will go to heaven, mine is to be reincarnated. I tried your desert for a while but I both like mine better and it makes more sense.
Albion wrote:I cannot agree that the Book of Mormon has any value except as a piece of 19th century frontier fiction. A popular novel may have some value to someone but as regards salvation it has none.
The value of the Book of Mormon is that it is about the world of religion. When I was 1st converted to LDS there was a tremendous push to find which church is right. The Book of Mormon was helpful in that area. Since I'm no longer involved in the world of religion the Book of Mormon loses some of its value.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
No, you are not being critical, you are being presumptuous. From my perspective our spiritual journeys are so divergent we have little if any common ground.
Albion wrote:No, you are not being critical, you are being presumptuous. From my perspective our spiritual journeys are so divergent we have little if any common ground.
I'm sorry albion, I came back to this post specifically to take the last portion out but I guess I was too late.
sleepyhead wrote: I'm sorry albion, I came back to this post specifically to take the last portion out but I guess I was too late.
If I know Albion he will edit his quoting of you to reflect your desired change and not hold it against you. Go ahead, make your edit and I'm sure Albion will follow suit.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator