there are some who actually believe in transubstantiation. If I had to guess, based on my experience, I would say that the most commonly held position is that of a spiritual presence, with the position of transubstantiation probably being the least commonly held position.
More detail from the Book of Discipline:
Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline: "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. **"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. **"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”
If I understand some of you correctly, the Methodist church does not state that a Methodist must believe one way or the other. However, after reading this, it seems to me to be saying that you dont have to believe one way or the other necessarily, but that it is dangerous to believe in transubstantiation. Am I completely misinterpreting this?