Mormon view of the Eucarist.

What is the mormon view of the Eucarist. Do they believe it is a symbol, or that is the real Body and Blood of Christ like the Bible says? Or do they go against the Bible there too?

The LDS believe that the bread and water used for the administration of the Sacrament are symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ and are taken in remembrance of Our Lord’s Sacrifice and are a covenant to live uprightly before Him (BOM, Moroni chapters 4 & 5).

In particular the Sacrament is seen as renewing the sacrament (ordinance) of baptism, so the LDS do believe that a special grace comes from Holy Communion. We Catholics could do well to appreciate the “covenant” nature of the Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments. The LDS have served as a good model of that. :slight_smile:

~

And, of course the invitation to all LDS is open to come into the Catholic Church and experience the fullness of a covenant relationship with the Savior through having the Atonement continually re-presented before us in the Holy Mass. For just as no covenant can be present without the shedding of blood and a sacred meal, the covenant of Holy Communion and to righteous living must take place within the context of a true, yet, mystical shedding of Christ’s blood in the Mass (via the one Sacrifice being re-presented to us) and the reception of the Divine Victim, Jesus.

In Christ,

Adam

[quote=alterserver_07]What is the mormon view of the Eucarist. Do they believe it is a symbol, or that is the real Body and Blood of Christ like the Bible says? Or do they go against the Bible there too?
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with ForeverAdam’s comments on the OFFICIAL stance of the LDS Church BUT:

I have heard Latter-Day Saints from the pulpit, in Sunday School, and in Priesthood Meetings use extremely ‘Catholic’ language about the blessing of the elements of the LDS communion service. In Priesthood Meeting, the teacher even referenced the word ‘transubstantiation’–he spoke laudably of the idea though he said that it was a human effort to explain how Christ becomes specially-present in the elements of communion. (He did NOT use the very Catholic term 'elements–he spoke of the ‘bread and water’).

Yes, I did just say bread and WATER. WonderBread and ordinary tap water to be quite specific. The LDS never use wine, and while they once substituted grape juice for wine, it has been a long-standing teaching that the actual elements used in communion are irrelevant to the service. Ordianry table bread and tap water are the norm. So far as the LDS Church is concerned, they could consecrate validly Hershey’s Bars and Coca-Cola if they so chose to do.

I always thought this cavalier attitude toward the elements of communion was very odd, since they basically consider Baptism invalid if it is not performed by one of their own priests, using the proper spoken forumula, with the person being baptised dressed entirely in white clothing, and FULLY immersed–not ONE FINGER nor TOE can come out of the water or the rite must be done over.

I assume that the LDS Church would also invalidate a baptism which was performed in some other liquid than water–say, maple syrup for example. They are also very persnickety about their other religious ceremonies. But I have repeatedly heard it said that the elements of communion can be whatever the LDS Church decides to use. Two unrelated persons, in different countries, have used the chocolate-bar-and-soda-pop example of elements which could hypothetically substitute for bread and water–I didn’t just pull it out of my hat.

I’m not trying to be flip nor do I want to hijack this thread but could some of the active LDS comment on this, briefly and without too much distraction from the main purpose of the thread?

In my mind the conveniential nature, as ForeverAdam mentions is a big deal.

I would also agree with Flameburn623 that LDS can and do speak of the “sacrament” (we us this term for the Eucharist) in very worshipful terms. It is interesting to observe the practice of “veiling” and “unveiling” before, during, and after the sacrament service. I view some components of consubstantiation as possibilities in LDS worship.

However unfortunately (in my opinion) the lasting “real presence” is not something that LDS embrace. B.H. Roberts (who was somewhat anti-Catholic in general if I understand correctly) spoke against Transubstantiation. We also do not treat blessed but non-consumed elements in any special way.

About 2.5 years ago I spent an hour in a Perpetual Adoration Chapel. I enjoyed the quiet prayer, but I was not convinced that the real presence was there. I need to do this again.

About 1.5 years ago I went to a mass for my grandmother’s funeral. The very liberal priest offered the Eucharist to my wife and me. We did not partake. Part of me regrets this, but I think it would have been disrespectful (in other words, I disagree with the priest offering us the Eucharist. He is way too liberal in my opinion).

As I understand LDS practice, the elements of the sacrament are not critical. I have never heard of any substitute for the bread, but have heard someone I respect suggest that they did use a different liquid when water was unavailable.

I am pretty sure that in the early CoJCoLDS actual fermented grape juice (WINE) was used. If I recall correctly Joseph Smith was directed to not use wine bought from enemies of the church, but to instead use wine prepared by the saints. There likely was a time when grape juice was used.

LDS do not mix the water and wine as Catholics do.

I have never thought too much about the significance of the LDS somewhat uncharacteristic lack of concern for the elements in the sacrament. This may be an intentional distancing from our Catholic brothers. I believe our desire to be different has led to emphasis errors that we are correcting. I do not suggest this is an error (or rather that it has any divine significance), and I actually doubt we will alter this practice, but I agree it is a little uncharacteristic.

Charity, TOm

I would love to see the LDS Church embrace the complete Eucharistic teaching of Catholicism, including the Sacrifice of the Mass. I think it would make the “covenant” emphasis in Mormonism more complete, and, of course, make the Atonement much more alive. Besides, the Book of Mormon speaks of the administration of the Sacrament as “the flesh” and “the blood” in 3 Nephi 18. :slight_smile:

Also, the Jewish prophecies concerning the “Todah” Sacrifice being left by Messiah when he would come and the exegesis of Malachi 1:11 make the Eucharistic teaching of Catholicism seem correct (not to mention the exegesis of various passages of the NT).

I remember hearing a message by LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley from 2002 where he invited all people to bring whatever truth they had to the LDS Church. I think the truth of the Holy Eucharist ought to be brought. :wink:

In Christ,

Adam

[quote=ForeverAdam]I would love to see the LDS Church embrace the complete Eucharistic teaching of Catholicism, including the Sacrifice of the Mass. I think it would make the “covenant” emphasis in Mormonism more complete, and, of course, make the Atonement much more alive. Besides, the Book of Mormon speaks of the administration of the Sacrament as “the flesh” and “the blood” in 3 Nephi 18. :slight_smile:

Also, the Jewish prophecies concerning the “Todah” Sacrifice being left by Messiah when he would come and the exegesis of Malachi 1:11 make the Eucharistic teaching of Catholicism seem correct (not to mention the exegesis of various passages of the NT).

I remember hearing a message by LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley from 2002 where he invited all people to bring whatever truth they had to the LDS Church. I think the truth of the Holy Eucharist ought to be brought. :wink:

In Christ,

Adam
[/quote]

The Eucharist only becomes the body and blood of our Lord under the administration of one having proper authority. The LDS Church could embrace the notion of the Real Presence but it would be meaningless without the Real Priesthood.

but it would be meaningless without the Real Priesthood.

:smiley: and that necessitates the recognition of the leadership of the Papacy.

“The Eucharist only becomes the body and blood of our Lord under the administration of one having proper authority. The LDS Church could embrace the notion of the Real Presence but it would be meaningless without the Real Priesthood.”

Of course. :slight_smile: What better way to show that the “Great Apostacy” didn’t happen by showing that our beliefs are true, one-by-one? :smiley:

In Christ,

Adam

"The world religions are all aware of the profound idea that the universe exists for the sake of worship, but this idea is frequently misinterpreted to mean that in worship the human being gives something to the gods that they themselves stand in need of. It is thought that the divinity demands this attention on the part of human beings and that this worship has for its purpose the preservation of the world. Here, however, the possiblity lies open for manipulation. The human being can now say: The gods need me and so I can put pressure on them and, if I must, force them. Out of the pure relationship of love, which is what worship is supposed to be, there develops the manipulative attempt to sieze control of the world, and thus worship can lead to a debasing of the world and the human person.“
This truly is what Joseph Smith has done. God needed him, He needed him to fix the “apostate Church”. Smith then manipulated the relationship between God and man to fit the new purpse. In so doing, LDS practices were created that lead to the debasing of human persons, for instance polygamy.
“But the Sabbath is in its turn the summing up of the Torah, the law of Israel. This means that worship has a moral aspect to it. God’s whole moral order has been taken up into it; only thus is it truly worship. To this must be added the fact that Torah, the law, is an expression of Israel’s history with God. It is an expression of God’s love, of his yes to the human being that he created, so that he could both love and receive love.
Now we grasp this notion better. We can say that God created the universe in order to enter into a history of love with humankind. He created it so that love could exist. Behind this lie words of Israel that lead directly to the New Testament. In Jewish literature it is said of Torah, which embodies the mystery of the covenant and of the history of God’s love for humankind, that it was in the beginning, that it was with God, that by it was made all that was made, and that it was the light and the life of humankind. John only needed to take these formulas and to apply them to him who is the living Word of God, saying that all things were made through him (cf. John 1:3). And even before him Paul had said:All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16:cf Colossians 1:15-23). God created the universe in order to be able to become a human being and pour out his love upon us and to invite us to love him in return.” From In the Beginning- A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
This passage, written by Joseph Ratzinger, gives us much info to use when addressing the validity of 1. LDS miracles, 2. LDS Eucharistic Sacrifice.
The LDS have re-written the Creation story, not in their NT, but other documents. To do so, it has re-written or re-interpreted God’s purpose in creating. This would distort, from its inception, the love/worship relationship.
The re-interpretation by the LDS has also distorted the meaning of the marital convenant. It has a different intention than that which exists within the Catholic view of the love/worship relationship. For example, this is one of the reasons why Catholics object to polygamy. Now I know that LDS on this site get defensive when polygamy is mentioned, but regardless one needs to state truth and in the beginning of LDS, polygamy was not only encouraged but profoundly publicly exercised. It could only happen so because of the profound error in Smith’s theology. Why would the error be so profound? Because in order to properly manipulate the love/worship relationship, Smith found he had to reject the Catholic teachings, say on marriage, completely.
The two above examples alone, polygamy and the reinterpretation
are two prime examples of why LDS offer us a false God. If the God is false, then, of course, the Eucharist is false. The LDS love/worship relationship is awry in the first place due to an attempted mainpulation of God and if this is actually true, then the LDS Eucharist itself is simply a reinforcing action of the manipulation.

[quote=Jerusha]:smiley: and that necessitates the recognition of the leadership of the Papacy.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. That means valid ordination. The Orthodox have a valid Eucharist and valid orders but do not recognize the Pope.

Thank you for that clarification.

eucharist? the lds eucharist?

what kind of statement is that?

The lds have no eucharist, they may have a wafer of bread or something of that nature, but no eucharisted bread.

[quote=papist1]eucharist? the lds eucharist?

what kind of statement is that?

The lds have no eucharist, they may have a wafer of bread or something of that nature, but no eucharisted bread.
[/quote]

Papist1:

As per my prior post–they do NOT use ‘wafers’ but regular table bread.

I think we’re quibbling over words if we get all worked-up over the term ‘Eucharist’ as a synonym for communion.

Thanks to TomNossor for responding to my question.

I was born and raised in mormonism. They do not believe bread and water becomes the body and blood of Christ. Nor do they treat it as such. The leftovers from after communion are either rolled into communion balls and eaten by the deacons, fed to birds or thrown in the garbage. The water is poured into the sink.

it is bread and wine, not water.

why would the mormons not use what Christ himself used? Did He tell your heirarchy to change it? lol

The Church uses unleavened bread, made from wheat, as Biblically shown and historically shown. They use wine and they use water, together. The remainder of which is consumed by the priest, or poured down a special sink going into the earth.
This bread and this wine are transformed mirculously into the the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we eat His flesh and drink His Blood(in glorified form) as commanded by Christ, in order to have eternal life. john 6:54

[quote=papist1]it is bread and wine, not water.

why would the mormons not use what Christ himself used? Did He tell your heirarchy to change it? lol

[/quote]

Actually yes, we have a revelation on it…

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 27:2)

I forgot to mention something. The symbols on the garment of the holy priesthood that mormons receive in the temple are not simply thrown in the trash when the garment is worn out. They are cut out and burned, so as not to profane them.

Casen: Don’t you find it a bit odd that symbols you hold in common with freemasonry are shown more reverence than the bread and water which in your theology is a symbol of the very body and blood of Jesus Christ?

[quote=Vidar]Casen: Don’t you find it a bit odd that symbols you hold in common with freemasonry are shown more reverence than the bread and water which in your theology is a symbol of the very body and blood of Jesus Christ?
[/quote]

The only reason for burning or cutting up the symbols on the garment is so they will not be mocked or ridiculed by someone who happens upon them. If we simply threw our religious garments into the trash there would surely be some bigot that would come along and finding them do something inappropriate with them or mock them. However, the sacrament symbols are unlikely to be denigrated by someone finding bread in the trash. This is just a mater of practicality and I don’t think it means that we put more importance on one than the other.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following about the sacrament:

“…every ordinance of the gospel focuses in one way or another on the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and surely that is why this particular ordinance with all its symbolism and imagery comes to us more readily and more repeatedly than any other in our life. It comes in what has been called ‘the most sacred, the most holy, of all the meetings of the Church".

Why did all the apostles teach that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ in flesh and blood?

Why did the early church continue this teaching?

Why did Jesus teach it this way?

At the begining how did we all get it wrong even with Jesus in flesh with us?

Did the orginal apposltes get it wrong?

Doesnt the Mormon Church teach that the Catholic Church lost its authority at a certain point in time, or is this another contradiction that we really in the eyes of the Mormon church ever had any authority?

And this new revelation by Jesus Christ in your book of Mormon, doesnt that message cancel out the original teaching of Jesus in the new testament?

Is your revelation from the same God, from the same Jesus? Or is it a fallen angel claiming things, and giving you a new bible, a new translation, a new and better message than Jesus or his 12 apostles could deliver?

Didn’t JS boast that he accomplished somnething that even Jesus could not do and that was to keep a Church together.

Today in our Catholic Church Jesus is present in the Eucharist and we have paintings and statues of angles, saints and Jesus himself, yet in your church all of that is taken away. Yes it is true your real faith is tested in the privacy of what you do alone, but what joy do we have as we go to mass in fellowship with all of us here on earth and the saints in heaven above.

Doesn’t the lack of explicit LDS Eucharistic teaching (Real Presence and the Mass) that was clearly present in the early Church, and the lack of devotion to the saints and iconography (the synagogues at the time of Christ had pictures, and of course the temple did), along with praying for the dead and doing good works for their merit, etc., all of which derive from Judaism and continue on into the early Church (hence refuting the “apostasy” charge) and are missing from the LDS faith say that the CoJCoLDS is more a product of its environment and not really a “restoration”?

It seems like just as whatever was “Catholic” was scorned by Smith’s environment, Smith ignored, no matter how old and venerable the traditions and practices were/are. This too speaks of Smith as a product of his culture, and his religion, too.

In Christ,

Adam

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.