Jump to content
Bernard Gui

What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

Obviously there is one big thing on which we don't agree, the nature of the priesthood in the first sentence of your second paragraph and the first sentence of the third where I actually agree with the intent of your statement, but believe that all Christians hold the priesthood.

Even if I agreed with you about the priesthood belonging to all Christians, we would then be left with the impossible question, "what is a Christian?"  There is no universally agreed upon definition, nor is there a definition in any revelation that I am aware of, so the priesthood becomes just as ambiguous as the term "Christian".  So, the question remains, who has the authoritative seal of the priesthood and who does not?  Which ordinances are authorized, and which are not?  

I don't bring this up to argue, but these are just some questions that arise as I think about your definition of priesthood.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
11 hours ago, Rain said:


I'm surprised you would equate passing the sacrament to serving food. Are you thinking of a deep meaning to serving food? It never would occur to me that the two would be on the same level so I figure it must be much deeper than I have thought.

Yes that was the point 

I have no idea what an LDS feminist will find offensive anymore. Thanks for helping me understand a little bit better.

Symbols are always in the eye of the beholder.


Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that was the point 

I have no idea what an LDS feminist will find offensive anymore. Thanks for helping me understand a little bit better.

Symbols are always in the eye of the beholder.


Feasting has long and widely been associated with joyful religious and family customs and traditions. I should think if that were to change, the world would be the poorer for it. 

Share this post

Link to post
On 11/8/2018 at 4:46 PM, Navidad said:

The only big difference in our beliefs as far as I read is the concept of the priesthood, certainly not the concept of covenant. That is the big kahuna difference. That is why I believe that I, sitting in the pew on a Sunday morning as a priest after the order of Melchizedek so designated by Christ our high priest, can make, honor and renew a covenant the same way any Saint, priesthood holder or not, can.

How did you become a priest after the order of Melchizedek? What does that mean? How were you ordained and by whom?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Igor
      Hi, I know that in cases of unavailbility of bread and/or water you can use other food/drink on sacrament. Assuming that you have cookies instead of bread, should the priest say cookies instead of bread in the prayer, just like we started to say water since it changed from wine to water?
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've it taught many times that when we partake of the sacrament we are not only renewing our baptismal covenants but also our temple covenants. The sacrament prayers seem to specifically put us into covenant to renew baptismal promises, not temple covenants.
      Does anyone know where this teaching originated?
    • By Grudunza
      Hi folks.  Been lurking here a while and enjoying the various conversations, but figured I should chime in about something that I haven't seen discussed here before, according to the search function.

      I've been asked a couple of times to perform something in my ward's Sacrament meeting, and each time when I offer to play guitar as accompaniment the music leader (two different ones) says "oh, guitar isn't allowed in Sacrament."  This has happened in most of the wards I've been in, where for some reason there's that assumption.  But my understanding is that's definitely not the case...  Guitar is allowable as a Sacrament instrument, if its use is appropriate and the bishop or bishopric approves the content of the piece being performed.  The current leadership handbook makes no mention of guitar as being prohibited, only specifying that "less worshipful instruments such as most brass and percussion" should be avoided.  And I believe that the wording of that doesn't even necessarily preclude brass and percussion from being performed (note the word "most"), given the right context and use.   I once heard a very moving trumpet ensemble in a Sacrament meeting.  It was quietly and very capably performed, and quite beautiful.  Sure, you wouldn't want blaring trumpets or crashing cymbals, but there are times and ways in which brass or percussion could be fitting.
      I recall someone telling me a few years ago that the reason people think guitar can't be used in Sacrament is because an old church leadership handbook from 30+ years ago included "guitar" along with "brass and percussion," and "guitar" was removed from the subsequent edition.  If that's the case, then that would make some sense as far as why people might still think that.  So I'm wondering if anyone happens to have an older version of the leadership handbook and can check that reference for me.  I'd be interested to see that.  The current reference is in section 14.4.2, called "Guidelines for Choosing Appropriate Music for Church Worship Services."

      Granted, I can appreciate the concern.  Many uses of guitar would not be appropriate in Sacrament, for example distorted electric guitar, or guitar playing meant to be flashy or strummed aggressively... but of course the same guideline applies for any instrument, including piano.  "Great Balls of Fire" style piano playing would not be appropriate.  What was frustrating to me in particular was that one of the times when I offered to perform with guitar was last Christmas season, to perform "Silent Night" using classical fingerstyle on a nylon string guitar.  If any song should be appropriate to accompany on guitar, it's that one.  I've meant to talk to the bishop about this, but I travel a lot and haven't really had a good chance to meet up with him for a while, and other personal things were far more pressing the last time or two we talked.  I don't want to seem like I have an axe to grind about this or whatever.  It's not that important, ultimately, and I'm happy to just sing along to piano.  But, well, guitar as a vehicle for music is something I have to offer up in worship, and I'd like to be able to do that.  And there's another guy in my ward who plays guitar and sings really well, and I'd love to be able to offer a duet with the two of us performing a hymn or "Silent Night" or something else that could be a special and unique way to share a spiritual musical number.   

      Anyway, if you have any comments or stories about that, or can cite the previous "guitar" reference in the leadership handbook (if it indeed was referenced), then I'd appreciate that.

    • By Nathair/|\
      While this essay is from a neopagan perspective, I wonder if the principles have any bearing on how to get the most out of LDS rites and ordinances. What do you think?
      Yours under the sacred oaks,
      Nathair /|\
    • By canard78
      Changes and edits have been made to the D&C. This has not been hidden by the church in both foundational and current times.
      In 1974, Elder Packer said in conference:
      I came across the change in what is now D&C 27 in another thread and decided to research further. The Josephsmithpapers.org website has been invaluable.
      The original revelation was received in 1830 (Aug or Sep) by "Joseph the Seer at a time that he went to purchase wine for Sacrament & he was stoped (sic) by an Angel & he spok (sic) to him" giving instruction on what wine to use.
      I've coped below the full D&C 27 as it is today. This matches the 1835 version (section 50). When we go back to the earliest version of the revelation it has no reference to the Priesthood restoration. Revelation Book 1 (started 1830 or 1831) has a handwritten copy of the revelation. In 1833 the Book of Commandments has an identical version put into print (still no Priesthood references).
      Here's the version we use today. I've underlined the parts that don't appear in the 1830 original and 1833 printed version and added two words in brackets that were in the original but omitted in the 1835 version.
      When you read the additions, would you say these still agree with Elder Packer that "nothing fundamental has been altered" and that the changes are "unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about."
      Why is this important?
      References to the details of the Priesthood restoration appear much later than the event itself and after the 1830 revelation/1833 publication.
      While looking for section 50 of the 1835 edition, I noticed section 6, revealed in Dec 1832, which says:
      If the priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers according to the flesh, why the need for a restoration?
      In Oct 1834, Oliver Cowdery gives a detailed description of the ordination of priesthood but doesn't mention Aaronic, nor that the Angel was John:
      Latter Day Saints' messenger and advocate, Vol. I, Oct 1834, p. 15-16.
      In September 1835 there's a statement by Oliver with more detail saying:
      By 1838, JSH has more detail (underlined differences to 1834 version)
      If we could say in 1830 that Joseph was already talking about his priesthood ordination then that would undermine the argument that the priesthood restoration was something that 'evolved.' Given the 1835 version of the 'sacrament wine' revelation seems to have been edited around the time that Oliver was starting to talk about an Angelic priesthood restoration, it continues to be a challenging 'interpolation.'
      Alternatively, maybe this gradual disclosure was in line with the instruction in JSH 74:
      Given the above statement was put in print nearly 10 years after the event it seems to be a circular argument and not entirely satisfactory.
      Is there something I've missed? Is there any evidence that the D&C 27 version was always the original full words of the angel and for reasons of secrecy were only added in 1835 (having been omitted when Joseph put the original in writing in 1830 and 1833). Is the changed acknowledged or commented on in the 1830s?
      What changed between 1833 and 1835 that meant it was now ok for it to no longer be a secret? Was there anything about the establishment of the church in Kirtland, Zion's camp in 1834 or something else that triggered the openness?
      And would you say the additions to the 'sacrament wine' revelation fit under the definition of not "fundamental" to the original revelation and "unimportant" to be "not worth talking about"?