Receiving the Sacrament in another church


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it's complicated at all. An active and faithful LDS member should not participate in any invalid form of the sacrament, last supper, communion, whatever-they-call-it.

Simple. Straightforward. Easy. All that fancy pneumatic talk don't much matter.

Probably worth noting that Larry is not LDS, but evangelical Christian. I know this thread is in the "Learn about the Mormon Church" forum, but I think that Larry was making a personal observation rather than trying to speak toward the doctrine or practice of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it's complicated at all. An active and faithful LDS member should not participate in any invalid form of the sacrament, last supper, communion, whatever-they-call-it.

Simple. Straightforward. Easy. All that fancy pneumatic talk don't much matter.

Are you saying some people are just blowing hot air?:D

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Probably worth noting that Larry is not LDS, but evangelical Christian. I know this thread is in the "Learn about the Mormon Church" forum, but I think that Larry was making a personal observation rather than trying to speak toward the doctrine or practice of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sure. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still think it's simple. Just...you know....don't. Unless there's a convincing argument to be made that not participating is going to cause some harm it's not even worth consideration, imo, from my LDS point of view. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • 1 month later...
On 6/22/2017 at 10:58 PM, Vort said:

I disagree with the common wisdom so far displayed. I think a Latter-day Saint has no business partaking of the sacred emblems of a false priesthood -- sacred to those who believe and follow that false priesthood, that is. It is the rough equivalent of offering a sacrifice on the altar of another religion.

This is one of the reasons I don't take sacrament at church.  I explain (rightfully or wrongfully) to my young boys who always want to know why they can't have bread that it isn't just eating bread, it means something special and it's disrespectful to do it without understanding the meaning or "agreeing to the rules".  I get "looks" from the members when I just pass the plate.  I hope they realize I'm trying to be respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 8/15/2017 at 10:53 AM, Grunt said:

This is one of the reasons I don't take sacrament at church.  I explain (rightfully or wrongfully) to my young boys who always want to know why they can't have bread that it isn't just eating bread, it means something special and it's disrespectful to do it without understanding the meaning or "agreeing to the rules".  I get "looks" from the members when I just pass the plate.  I hope they realize I'm trying to be respectful.

I'm not a member either (serious investigator) and I agree with your point of view, I was raised very active catholic and I guess I still hold that deep respect for the eucharist.  I don't partake in the sacrament at the LDS church for the same reason as you.  I'm not a member of the LDS church so I don't feel like its the right thing to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:30 AM, beefche said:

I agree that offensive terms are often used from ignorance rather than insult (in a lot of cases--obviously, they are used for insult very purposely by some). So, in order to help an ignorant person:

@fatima, I know that apologies have been made and explanations given, but I'm trying to understand the offense that Vort gave so that I can know how to avoid it when talking with my Catholic friends. I don't see that he ever called the communion "cracker" (honestly, did not know that term was offensive--so that explanation was very helpful), so I'm still a little lost on what was said that was offensive. I'm really not trying to get the mud to be slung around again, just really trying to understand so we can avoid the offense in the future. 

I believe it was Brigham Young that said something along the line - "Only a fool would be offended by someone that did not intended to offend them - but it takse a bigger fool to be offended by someone that intended to offend."

From both a scientific and religious point of view - It appears to me that someone that is offended by a different opinion - is problematic for any honest search of truth.  It is kind of like the freedom of speech – such freedom is not exercised when we agree – we only demonstrate our obligation towards such freedom when we allow those with which we disagree.

For some – free speech is not an avenue to truth but a perceived obstruction to their current understanding – thus any opposition opinion creates feelings of animosity and often needs to be made silent.  I believe the first step that Satan takes to divide people is to convince someone to dislike those that oppose their opinion.  Politics is a good example – When those of one party express their dislike for anyone of the other political mindset.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early in this thread @Vort indicated that as covenant LDS we should not be involved in accepting ordinances from a false priesthood.  I very much agree – but this kind of reminds me of when Hugh Nibley gave a prayer at a BYU graduation and said something along the lines – “Please forgive us for our vanity in the wearing of the robs of a false priesthood.”

We should be able to listen to the opinions of others and smart (inspired or enlightened) enough to identify any golden nuggets of truth despite however much mud they are buried in.

As we deal with our own religious opinion – we should be able to logically (step by step) espouse our opinion and how we thought we arrived at our opinion.  But most of us have opinions that are not well founded.  That does not necessarily mean they are wrong – but if we cannot logically explain how we have concluded our opinion – we are likely missing important pieces of truth.

Those that disagree without reason (reason being a logical understanding) – I assume it is because they lack the reason or they do not understand their own reason.  What I have not yet gotten over is why someone that lacks reason is upset at the prospect of discovering one.  It seems to me – especially with religion and politics - that very few individuals are happy to discover a truth that overturns a counterfeit truth they thought they knew correctly.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2017 at 12:23 PM, fatima said:

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'.  If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted.  This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

I realize this is a necrothread, but I never responded to this, and I think I want to now. Of course, I never said, suggested, or obliquely implied any such thing as that the Catholic eucharist is "sadistic and evil". That is a rank misinterpretation of my words, which in this case were quite clear.

But I also understand that people read things with previous preconceptions (read: baggage), and those preconceptions color their interpretation If @fatima is used to hearing people denigrate Catholic holy rites using such terms as "sadistic" and "evil" (probably with regards to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), then if I use the terms "sadistic" and "evil" when writing about Catholic holy rites -- even if I don't use those word about the rites themselves -- it's understandable that she would think I was trying to imply or associate the words with the rites.

So let me make it very clear: I was not.

If you care to know my feelings about Catholicism in general and the Catholic Church in particular, read this linked post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An intriguing read through and the multitude of opinions on this thread, so as with any good nature person I share my own thoughts and opinion. In my youth, we would attend the church (Methodist) my Pa attended on occasion, and one particular occasion our family was invited to partake of their communion. As a family we went up, partook, and then sat back down.

If my Pa was still alive, and I visited her church with my children and we were invited up to partake of their communion I would partake.  Let me be more frank, if I were attending a meeting with PC (I assume he blesses their communion) and he passed around bread and water (grape juice) I would have not problem partaking. I also would have no problem if when passing to me he skipped me. I, personally, do not see the act any different than if a friend of another faith came over to my house and asked if he could bless my house. I would say, sure, bless my house, because the Lord would still bless my house. I haven't yet heard, read, any sounding or convincing argument that would change my view otherwise. 

If a person believes they shouldn't, that is fine also.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zil said:

?

:) Yes, "Pa," her first grandchildren didn't distinguish between "Grandma" and "Grandpa". All grandparent were "Pa," and it was easier to say. So she just kept with "Pa," because it was easier for her small grandchildren to say.

As we got older, we would mention the gender discrepancy to our mother, and our mother and "Pa" would give that look, "I have been going by 'Pa" before you were born, don't you try to change it now young man." So, she was our "Pa" until the day she passed away. One of the greatest women to walk this earth -- yes -- I am biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share