Yes, you sound like you were a very boring teenager.
I grew up in an inactive LDS home but my parent sent me to Church along with my brothers. My older brother was very active and took me even when I did not want to go. As a teen I had my ups and downs and periods of inactivity and riotous living but I never was disrespectful of things that I felt were sacred and that I knew others felt that way about. That never was nor is in my nature.
I don't mean the following to be "disrespectful": But, i have often wondered about the whole communion/sacrament officiousness... It seems to me that (too) much has been made over this ritual that might not have ever been intended by Jesus.
The story, as we have it, is of a man who knew his life was ending, and was meeting with his friends one-last-time to break-bread. In this case it was in celebration of the "Pass Over". It is not in the least bit difficult for me to see Jesus saying something to the affect, "...friends, remember this meal, it will be our last one together. Remember me and our good times... Peace be with you..." Or sentiments that such an occasion arouses.
I don't find in the story--which i think has been stamped into our minds more by Leonardo's painting than anything else--where Jesus said anything about iconizing his last meal, as a ritual, for 2,000 +/- years. As i profile Jesus this is inconsistant with his attitude towards habitual practices. ie "...Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath..." as are many other of his maverick tendencies: Speaking to a Samaritan woman, eating without washing, eating with "sinners'...
As i listen closely to the LDS Sacrament prayer i sense a possible lack of faith that blood-atonement is really, absolutely efficatious. It appears to be not assumed, but in need of pleeding... "...ask you..." not, '...THANK YOU!' Which i think would be more appropriate???
While i respect what ritualism means to many "Christians" in all sects, and the comfort it provides them, i personally think it is an appendix added by man to the gut of Jesusism... Thanks for your question Mok... Warm regards, Roger
Gaz wrote:For Christ to send his disciples to a Samaritan town to get meat was shocking. These people were seen as unclean, to say nothing of their food. But Jesus saw meet for his Fathers kingdom here.
John 4:6-14 6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. 7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
What does the water in the sacrament represent?
Bread = Immortality
Water = Everlasting Life
This is a beautiful analogy, Gaz. Thanks for sharing that here.
On a side note, I have always been curious as to why they didn't just use wine in the sacrament.
Many churches use a sacramental wine. The original prayer states "bless this wine" symbolizing the blood of Christ.
Even with the Word of Wisdom intact, I don't see how this would be contradictory. Anyone have any input on exactly why it was changed to water?
Was it because of the symbolism that Gaz pointed out, or was there some other reason...beyond the obvious Word of Wisdom "no alcohol" ban?
liz3564 wrote:On a side note, I have always been curious as to why they didn't just use wine in the sacrament.
Many churches use a sacramental wine. The original prayer states "bless this wine" symbolizing the blood of Christ.
Even with the Word of Wisdom intact, I don't see how this would be contradictory. Anyone have any input on exactly why it was changed to water?
Was it because of the symbolism that Gaz pointed out, or was there some other reason...beyond the obvious Word of Wisdom "no alcohol" ban?
I think prohibition dealt the final blow to using wine in the LDS Eucharist. Here is another thought however: If you take the analogy of wine being the blood of Jesus Christ, you have an intermediate stage of serous-sanguineous fluid and then finally the purified plasma. Water could represent the plasma of Christ.
Hi Barell.... nice to find agreement! As for your question: "Although what is religion if it is not tradition?" Here's a Wicki for you:
Definition of religion
Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.
Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."
The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[5]
In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[6] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine
[/quote]
"Traditions" are not always 'good-things-to-follow'. IMSCO, the 'religious-tradition' has out-lived any positives that it MAY have at one time had. I think it essential that Religion be seen as alluded to in much of the verbage above. More important religion must be seen for what it is today, in a state of 'revision'.
I respectfully suggest it is a free-market enterprise competing for clients with needs that can be attended to in a social setting that satisfies specific psyche wants. A Community of folks wanting to associate with like minded good people. A safe--by their standards--place to greet-meet-&-eat (the sacrament/communion/eucharist) together. The setting for this activity is generally considered a Church: A building facilitating services to its clients in the hands of variously trained/qualified 'associates' applying their products and services to their customers' needs.
In such activity "Church" may be filling personal needs that might otherwise be left wanting. As such they are a societal assett that has evolved from their fear and guilt origin to, in form and practice, be more representative of The Two New Commandments.
Unfortunately, as with all advancements, whether social or techie, while there are leading initiative takers there are pockets of resistance that attempt to keep things as they were. (Even, restoration of all things) Jesus was victim of such folks.
When churches extricate themselves from religious-tradition we just might see the "Whole True Church"??? Warm regards, Roger
moksha wrote: Water could represent the plasma of Christ.
Moksha, you know the LDS do not claim that the water represents the Plasma of Christ. Instead, they view the bread and water as symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. This idea comes from the verse that says "This do in memory of me" and the attendant interpretation is that the Lord's Supper's chief purpose is to help the participants remember Jesus.
Actually the grape has a great deal of symbolism as far as using wine or grape juice for the sacrament.
The Brethren have stated that it really does not matter what you use in the sacrament for the emblems, so long as you concentrate on and respect the symbolism and the words of the prayer.
I'll have to look up on when the water started to be the standard for the sacrament.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato