Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doctrine 612

Sacrament prayer

Recommended Posts

We are taught to not say set prayers, but we have the sacrament that we say every time with exactness no room for error, why?

i know that the word sacrament means sacred oath, so is the prayer not a prayer but a oath?

kind of like the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the lord says the oath and we make the covenant.

Share this post


Link to post

It is the same reason we have to use a set script for the baptism of someone. Each are ordinances that need to be done with the proper authority, in the proper way prescribed by the Savior, so we can more fully reap the benefits of His atonement.

Share this post


Link to post

"It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered, and He therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." (TPJS, 308)

If we could adjust ordinances that were established before the foundation of the world then people would not be saved upon the same principles.
God would cease to be a God  if laws were not followed.
 

Share this post


Link to post

They are important ordinances helpful or necessary for our salvation and everyone needs to be bound by the same covenants as everyone else. If we started to let people say them the way they wanted, subtle changes might start creeping in to the point that the important meaning of what is said might change over time.

 

Share this post


Link to post

As everyone has said, the sacrament prayers are an ordinance.  It's a covenant and therefore the wording is a sacred and serious thing.  There is no room for adding or subtracting words of a sacred covenant given by God. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As everyone has said, the sacrament prayers are an ordinance.  It's a covenant and therefore the wording is a sacred and serious thing.  There is no room for adding or subtracting words of a sacred covenant given by God.

..cough...1990...cough

But I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

..cough...1990...cough

But I agree with you.

Perhaps I should add "without God saying so". :)

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

..cough...1990...cough

But I agree with you.

What happened in 1990 with the sacrament or are you talking about the temple?

Edited by Doctrine 612

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

We are taught to not say set prayers, but we have the sacrament that we say every time with exactness no room for error, why?

i know that the word sacrament means sacred oath, so is the prayer not a prayer but a oath?

kind of like the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the lord says the oath and we make the covenant.

The Sacrament prayers were received by revelation, they must be said exactly. The Baptismal prayer or ordinance, if you will has to be done exactly as it pertains too repentance as do the others. Because of the nature and importance of "remission of sins". 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

What happened in 1990 with the sacrament or are you talking about the temple?

Bluebell said "There is no room for adding or subtracting words of a sacred covenant given by God."
And I pointed out that is exactly what happened in 1990 referring to the temple.

But wording aside, many changes have been made to the sacrament too.  Just not the prayer.
8a56010b7d58a1757a469e83f35f00e9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Bluebell said "There is no room for adding or subtracting words of a sacred covenant given by God."
And I pointed out that is exactly what happened in 1990 referring to the temple.

But wording aside, many changes have been made to the sacrament too.  Just not the prayer.
8a56010b7d58a1757a469e83f35f00e9.jpg

Just as Christ instructed Peter to take the gospel to the Gentiles.  When you make the rules, you can re-make the rules.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Just as Christ instructed Peter to take the gospel to the Gentiles.  When you make the rules, you can re-make the rules.

True.
I love to know what he actually said.

Share this post


Link to post

As I've come to understand personally there are the doctrinal portions of an ordinance, and the policy portions. While a policy is in place, it is inappropriate and rebellious to go against it and the keys under which it was enacted, yet it is more subject to change.

The key components of the sacrament is that the bread must be broken (New Testament), the person performing it must kneel (BofM, D&C), must at least be a priest (D&C), and must say the prayers in accordance with scripture.

Other portions, such as Deacons or Teachers passing and preparing the sacrament, putting the arm to the square, etc, are or have been policies, but are subject to change at the direction of priesthood keys. Heck, even women could pass during the Interwar period.

I have thoughts on how that applies to the temple, but those are not really for this board. I guess all of this could be summarized as follow the scriptures, follow the Spirit, follow the priesthood keys of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and the guiding hand of doctrine + revelation will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post

Ordinances, I think, have set prayers for uniformity and 'quality control".

We want to make sure all the necessary elements are covered. If left up to chance or the vagaries of a person's memory in prayer, they may not be.

I think it's as simple as that.

The sacrament prayer is scripturally mandated and published, where the temple ordinances are not.

None of these are magic incantations, and the presentation of the endowment is not the endowment itself, and can be changed as the brethren and wisdom see fit.

The endowment consists of blessings and covenants, the presentation has varied throughout history 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered, and He therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." (TPJS, 308)

If we could adjust ordinances that were established before the foundation of the world then people would not be saved upon the same principles.
God would cease to be a God  if laws were not followed.
 

Like you noted in a later post, ordinances and wording are adjusted over time. 1990 is just one example. But when we treat the prayer/ordinance as the direct word from God's lips or written by his finger we would likely conclude that it is exact, perfect, and therefore changes would be inappropriate. In my mind the exactness of the prayers hearkens back to the magical world view of precise incantations that must be performed perfectly for the desired result to be achieved. But if God revealed precisely the incantation he wants said for the ordinance to be recognized, why would it change, like the temple ceremony has so many times.

And if we can get that kind of precision from God on something like words said in a prayer, why is there so much imprecision in other areas of doctrine, policy and practice? Why is there such an inconsistency in God's mode of operation?

The Development of LDS Temple Worship by Devery Anderson chronicles the processes of writing the temple scripts and the many changes that have transpired over time. I recommend it to anyone who feels that God has directly given us the temple ordinances and wording with great precision. We treat it like it's straight from God's lips but it's just not so. Temple worship has developed and good people have worked hard, and have sought inspiration to prepare temple rites in a way pleasing to God. But that doesn't mean it precisely represents God's words.

I believe the baptism prayer and Sacrament prayers are the same. We treat them as divine utterances required by God with precision, when I think they are more likely prayers developed by leaders and God approves of the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like you noted in a later post, ordinances and wording are adjusted over time. 1990 is just one example. But when we treat the prayer/ordinance as the direct word from God's lips or written by his finger we would likely conclude that it is exact, perfect, and therefore changes would be inappropriate. In my mind the exactness of the prayers hearkens back to the magical world view of precise incantations that must be performed perfectly for the desired result to be achieved. But if God revealed precisely the incantation he wants said for the ordinance to be recognized, why would it change, like the temple ceremony has so many times.

And if we can get that kind of precision from God on something like words said in a prayer, why is there so much imprecision in other areas of doctrine, policy and practice? Why is there such an inconsistency in God's mode of operation?

The Development of LDS Temple Worship by Devery Anderson chronicles the processes of writing the temple scripts and the many changes that have transpired over time. I recommend it to anyone who feels that God has directly given us the temple ordinances and wording with great precision. We treat it like it's straight from God's lips but it's just not so. Temple worship has developed and good people have worked hard, and have sought inspiration to prepare temple rites in a way pleasing to God. But that doesn't mean it precisely represents God's words.

I believe the baptism prayer and Sacrament prayers are the same. We treat them as divine utterances required by God with precision, when I think they are more likely prayers developed by leaders and God approves of the effort.

I have read Anderson's book a couple of times (and Buergers).
And I agree that certain things can change.   It is the things that can be changed I don't always agree with.  The Temple changes I don't believe to be correct and fully expect they will be restored to the original at some point in the future prior to the return of the Savior.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have read Anderson's book a couple of times (and Buergers).
And I agree that certain things can change.   It is the things that can be changed I don't always agree with.  The Temple changes I don't believe to be correct and fully expect they will be restored to the original at some point in the future prior to the return of the Savior.

Interesting. So do you believe the original temple ordinances/practices were directly from God and instituted with precision and the church fell away from that precision? Would you say there's been a temple apostasy?

If you view the original as precise, does it seem strange to you that there is so much imprecision in so many other areas of church theology and practice?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. So do you believe the original temple ordinances/practices were directly from God and instituted with precision and the church fell away from that precision? Would you say there's been a temple apostasy?

Yes.  There has definitely been an apostasy (defined as moving away from truth) in the temple ordinances.
It's not an issue of whether certain superfluous phrases were eliminated or theatrical choices in presentation were adjusted.

But doctrines have been removed so that certain principles are no longer established in the teaching.
And practices were eliminated that were considered the power of the endowment.
But I don't worry too much about it or try to set the Church in order because the scriptures predict God doing that at some point in the future.  Nor do I consider myself any more righteous because God still needs to set me in order too.

But those same books you reference (Anderson) clearly show that the changes were made by the will of the people, not the revelation of heaven.

Quote

If you view the original as precise, does it seem strange to you that there is so much imprecision in so many other areas of church theology and practice?

Honest opinion - there's not.  We have just changed our standard for what truth we will accept.  We have become experts at saying "we don't know that officially" or "I don't see it that way".
It's quite a big transformation from the early saints, not that they didn't have their own instances of this, but we simply don't accept teachings as easily any more.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  There has definitely been an apostasy (defined as moving away from truth) in the temple ordinances.
It's not an issue of whether certain superfluous phrases were eliminated or theatrical choices in presentation were adjusted.

But doctrines have been removed so that certain principles are no longer established in the teaching.
And practices were eliminated that were considered the power of the endowment.
But I don't worry too much about it or try to set the Church in order because the scriptures predict God doing that at some point in the future.  Nor do I consider myself any more righteous because God still needs to set me in order too.

But those same books you reference (Anderson) clearly show that the changes were made by the will of the people, not the revelation of heaven.

Honest opinion - there's not.  We have just changed our standard for what truth we will accept.  We have become experts at saying "we don't know that officially" or "I don't see it that way".
It's quite a big transformation from the early saints, not that they didn't have their own instances of this, but we simply don't accept teachings as easily any more.

Thanks for providing such direct answers and though I disagree I think I can appreciate where you're coming from.

The transformation of the church has been huge. I'm convinced that Joseph Smith wouldn't recognize the church today if he time traveled here. And I think the church would likely label him an apostate.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

The transformation of the church has been huge. I'm convinced that Joseph Smith wouldn't recognize the church today if he time traveled here. And I think the church would likely label him an apostate.

Agreed.
Joseph would be excommunicated today.  And Brigham, and John, and Wilford, and probably Lorenzo and Joseph F.
I think Heber J. Grant would be the first prophet who could accept the Church as it is today.

People will say that they would get in line because they believed in continuing revelation.  Given their teachings on the nature of revelation I don't believe that to be the case.  They would consider our "modern revelations" to be false because of the principles they violated.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They would consider our "modern revelations" to be false because of the principles they violated.

Of course they would first need to identify the "modern revelations". I'm not certain any exist. They're certainly not in any of our scriptures (I'm not sure that I would consider official proclamations to be revelations).

Prophets and apostles today don't speak of revelations. Instead, they imply revelations by saying something is inspired or "revelatory", but I don't think there's a whole lot of revealing going on :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they would first need to identify the "modern revelations". I'm not certain any exist. They're certainly not in any of our scriptures (I'm not sure that I would consider official proclamations to be revelations).

Prophets and apostles today don't speak of revelations. Instead, they imply revelations by saying something is inspired or "revelatory", but I don't think there's a whole lot of revealing going on :(

 

Sounds like we agree.
Which leads to the question - do you also believe the changes the Church has made to be "out of order"?
I think you don't because you seem to support the liberalizing of Church positions on doctrine and alteration of ordinances.
So the second question - if they aren't by revelation and you support them, what justification do you see for them and their correctness?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like we agree.
Which leads to the question - do you also believe the changes the Church has made to be "out of order"?
I think you don't because you seem to support the liberalizing of Church positions on doctrine and alteration of ordinances.
So the second question - if they aren't by revelation and you support them, what justification do you see for them and their correctness?

An interesting question which presumes that whoever purports to be "correct" is essentially taking on the role of prophet themselves.

Pass the popcorn!

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting question which presumes that whoever purports to be "correct" is essentially taking on the role of prophet themselves.

Pass the popcorn!

I purport to believe the gospel as restored by revelation through Joseph Smith and systematized but not changed under Brigham and John etc.
I purport to believe that later prophets changed this gospel without providing any corresponding revelations primarily by the will of the members.
I purport to believe that this occurrence was prophesied in scripture along with a course correction return to the restored principles and practices.

This has nothing to do with me claiming any prophetic knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like we agree.
Which leads to the question - 1- do you also believe the changes the Church has made to be "out of order"?
I think you don't because you seem to support the liberalizing of Church positions on doctrine and alteration of ordinances.
So the second question - 2- if they aren't by revelation and you support them, what justification do you see for them and their correctness?

1- No. I am at a very different place regarding literal belief in foundational truth claims of the church. I view the restoration as the attempt of men to restore God's original teachings and practice. But I don't believe they got it all correct. I don't believe God spoke to them with any precision in Joseph's day and I don't think He speaks with precision today. I think he inspires good people to do their best. Sometimes they will do good, sometimes they won't. I think God is patient and open to a high degree of error and inaccuracy in the church and among the leaders so long as their hearts are good and truly seeking to worship Him.

2- In my view God is distant and doesn't interact regularly. I think he gives us enough tools to try to seek him by being good to each other. I don't believe in the one true church narrative.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...