consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 The Book of Mormon includes a detail regarding the institution of the sacrament among the Nephites by the resurrected Jesus; being that only one should be ordained with the power to break the bread and bless it and give it to the people; a detail which is interesting largely because of its absence in the restored Church:3 Nephi 18:3 And when the Disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat. 4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude. 5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. This dichotomy between a Book of Mormon sacramental practice and the practice in the restored Church raises some interesting questions:1. Was there a time at the inception of the Church of Christ in 1830 when only one person had the authority to break the bread, bless it and pass it? If not, why not?2. If the Book of Mormon served as the doctrinal and idealogical basis for the restoration of the gospel, why not follow the same sacramental practice as described in its pages?I think that the answers to these questions may depend on whether one looks at the Book of Mormon as a product of the 19th century or of ancient times, but they are interesting questions nonetheless, I think.To get the discussion going, may I suggest that, inasmuch as the Nephites were just converting over from the law of Moses at this time, the restriction of the power to only one individual to break, bless and pass the bread would have invoked the office of the Mosaic High Priest, who was the only one imbued with authority to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and make sacrifice on behalf of the sins of the people? It would seem that the equating of the two practices in this manner would help people see the connection between the rites, that Jesus is the new propitiation for sins, and also aid in the fulfillment of the scriptural declarations that all the prophets and the law testified of Christ.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Buckeye Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I do not read this verse to say there is only one who can actually bless the sacrament. Rather, there is only one who is authorized, but he can delegate to others. Those others cannot act independently of the authorization from the one.This principle is very much alive today. For instance, the sealing keys are only possessed by the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood (President Monson). Though he can and does delegate his authority to many others (ie, temple sealers), they cannot act independently of his authorization. Thus, there is only one authorized.Similarly, in each ward, the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood (by which the Sacrament is administered) are only possessed by the President of the Aaronic Priesthood (the Bishop). Though he can and does delegate his authority to many others (ie, Priests), they cannot act independently of his authorization. Thus, there is only one authorized. This is why the Bishop must be consulted whenever the sacrament is to be administered outside the chapel.
Lightbearer Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 The Book of Mormon includes a detail regarding the institution of the sacrament among the Nephites by the resurrected Jesus; being that only one should be ordained with the power to break the bread and bless it and give it to the people; a detail which is interesting largely because of its absence in the restored Church:This dichotomy between a Book of Mormon sacramental practice and the practice in the restored Church raises some interesting questions:1. Was there a time at the inception of the Church of Christ in 1830 when only one person had the authority to break the bread, bless it and pass it? If not, why not?2. If the Book of Mormon served as the doctrinal and idealogical basis for the restoration of the gospel, why not follow the same sacramental practice as described in its pages?I think that the answers to these questions may depend on whether one looks at the Book of Mormon as a product of the 19th century or of ancient times, but they are interesting questions nonetheless, I think.To get the discussion going, may I suggest that, inasmuch as the Nephites were just converting over from the law of Moses at this time, the restriction of the power to only one individual to break, bless and pass the bread would have invoked the office of the Mosaic High Priest, who was the only one imbued with authority to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and make sacrifice on behalf of the sins of the people? It would seem that the equating of the two practices in this manner would help people see the connection between the rites, that Jesus is the new propitiation for sins, and also aid in the fulfillment of the scriptural declarations that all the prophets and the law testified of Christ.All the Best!--ConsiglieriAn interesting question and I think perhaps culture had something to do with it. Also I had another thought, perhaps he was speaking more in general terms. For example the Bishop is the President of the Priest's Quorum and as such it is his direct stewardship to administer the sacrament, in fact he holds the keys of administering this ordinance. So the ones who actually do this ordinance every week do so by delegated authority. Perhaps that explains the expression in the Book of Mormon. As for there ever being a time when only one administered that ordinance in the early days of the church, I don't think so because the practice is spelled out in Section 20 as well as the priest's duty. This revelation was given in April 1830. The thing to remember is that although the Book of Mormon is true and is a standard work that teaches us the true doctrines of Christ and His Gospel, it does not give specific instructions on how to organize the Church in this dispensation, that is why the D&C was revealed.As an aside, I do not think the Lord holds us to strict interpretation of words, I mean if it is required He usually "spells it out" or clarifies it with modern revelation (those policies and procedures that many tend to ignore thinking that they are not really revelation only men's opinion) Another case in point would be here:(D&C 20:76) "And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer itâ??he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:"Does this mean the entire Church should kneel? Or is it a manner of expression?
emeliza Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I assumed it meant those with the right authorization as well. Women, children and younger men can not bless the Sacrament. Those at the actual Sacrament table are those who also start the passing by sort of handing out the trays.
katherine the great Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 A minor detail Consiglieri! More importantly, they ate AND WERE FILLED! I propose that we allow two slices of bread per adult and one per child!
Buckeye Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 A minor detail Consiglieri! More importantly, they ate AND WERE FILLED! I propose that we allow two slices of bread per adult and one per child!John 4: 13-14Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.John 6: 31-35Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 consiglieri:I think you are overplaying the "one" aspect. Every Priesthood holder is just "one" representative of Christ, and technically has the authority to serve in it.
consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 I appreciate the response so far, in many of which I believe I see a tendency to color Book of Mormon interpretation by LDS praxis.While there may be merit in the comments, it seems to me that if somebody were just reading the passage in question from the Book of Mormon, they would have little doubt that only one individual was ordained to bless, break and pass the emblems of Jesus' body.Nothing is mentioned in 3 Nephi about bishops or about delegating the power.My goal is not to challenge the LDS way of doing it today, but to see that these things may be different vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon, and that there may be things we can learn from the manner in which Jesus set things up (as in the final paragraph of the OP), and not least of which would be the sacredness of the rite.All the Best!--Consiglieri
emeliza Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I appreciate the response so far, in many of which I believe I see a tendency to color Book of Mormon interpretation by LDS praxis.We sort of have one doing it. One for the breaking of bread and blessing it and then one for the water and blessing it. However I believe when they are getting ready they both do both. Not quite sure on that as I don't usually watch.Do you think in the Nephi time then they meant that only one would ever do it or only one would be there at a time?
Garden Girl Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Hello consig... but doesn't the D&C set forth the procedures and words for the preparing and blessing of the sacrament today... as revealed to a latter-day prophet vs a practice anciently...GG
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 consiglieri:I think there are differences in praxis for the ancient and modern Church. I just don't believe that the specific administration of the sacrament is one of them.
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 While there may be merit in the comments, it seems to me that if somebody were just reading the passage in question from the Book of Mormon, they would have little doubt that only one individual was ordained to bless, break and pass the emblems of Jesus' body.I fail to see the word 'only' in the Book of Mormon passage mentioned. Nice try though. Buckeye gave the best answer. The bishop of each ward IS the 'one' for that ward. He presides over the whole process of the administration of the sacrament. He is ordained and set apart to be the 'one' in his ward with that responsibility. Sorry, no dichotomy here.
consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 Do you think in the Nephi time then they meant that only one would ever do it or only one would be there at a time?If we look at Jesus' words, it seems the straightforward meaning is only one is ordained to have the power to break the bread, to bless it and to pass it out to the church members.The text tell us Jesus is speaking directly to his disciples and says:Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.I am not sure how to get "more than one" out of "one," or "them" out of "him."Maybe I need more praxis.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Black Moclips Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I also think there is symbolism in the eating of the sacrament and being filled, versus today's practice of a morsel of bread and a thimble of water.
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Read my earlier comment. No 'only' is mentioned and perhaps Jesus was talking about very small congregations. I have been in situations where there was one person who broke the bread, blessed it, and passed it.
consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 I fail to see the word 'only' in the Book of Mormon passage mentioned. Nice try though. Buckeye gave the best answer. The bishop of each ward IS the 'one' for that ward. He presides over the whole process of the administration of the sacrament. He is ordained and set apart to be the 'one' in his ward with that responsibility. Sorry, no dichotomy here.The word "one" does not need the word "only" in front of it to make it constitute "one."And Jesus speaks not of "responsibility" but of "power."I am interested why so many seem so compelled to force the Book of Mormon in this instance to reflect modern LDS practice.Any thoughts?All the Best!--Consiglieri
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I also think there is symbolism in the eating of the sacrament and being filled, versus today's practice of a morsel of bread and a thimble of water.Yes, the practice where you eat a little bread and drink a little water and you are filled with the Spirit. Not that I'm saying you couldn't ingest more actual food substance, just that it's not necessary to being filled with the Spirit.
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 The word "one" does not need the word "only" in front of it to make it constitute "one."And Jesus speaks not of "responsibility" but of "power."I am interested why so many seem so compelled to force the Book of Mormon in this instance to reflect modern LDS practice.Any thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriYes, the bishop is the 'one' in the his ward who has the power to do all this. If his group was very small he could do it all on his own. As the group enlarges he can enlist help. No dichotomy here. And I have mentioned instances where I have seen 'one' doing all these things. Does the dichotomy go away for you then?I do give you credit, however, for creating a false dichotomy, one that does not allow modern revelation to dictate practices to meet current needs.
Garden Girl Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 The procedure for our day is covered in D&C 20:40,58.. as part of the listing of the duties of the various priesthood offices... i.e. the elders and priests are "to administer bread and wine -- the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ...but "neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands..."GG
cinepro Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I appreciate the response so far, in many of which I believe I see a tendency to color Book of Mormon interpretation by LDS praxis.While there may be merit in the comments, it seems to me that if somebody were just reading the passage in question from the Book of Mormon, they would have little doubt that only one individual was ordained to bless, break and pass the emblems of Jesus' body.Nothing is mentioned in 3 Nephi about bishops or about delegating the power.My goal is not to challenge the LDS way of doing it today, but to see that these things may be different vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon, and that there may be things we can learn from the manner in which Jesus set things up (as in the final paragraph of the OP), and not least of which would be the sacredness of the rite.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI've always wondered what would happen if someone made a "17 Points of the True Church" based on the Book of Mormon, and how many of those points would be manifest in the modern LDS Church.
consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 I've always wondered what would happen if someone made a "17 Points of the True Church" based on the Book of Mormon, and how many of those points would be manifest in the modern LDS Church.Thank you, Cinepro, for at least tacitly seeing the issue, if only to give it your usual cynical and pointed spin.
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I've always wondered what would happen if someone made a "17 Points of the True Church" based on the Book of Mormon, and how many of those points would be manifest in the modern LDS Church.Yes, because if the LDS Church followed the Book of Mormon exactly, instead of following the Book of Mormon and modern revelation, it would have ONLY one person administering the sacrament to each entire ward. Then the Church would be true and cinepro would give up his cynicism and be a faithful, active member.
consiglieri Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 Umm, where does 3 Nephi mention only one person in each ward?Just a point of order, of course.All the Best!--ConsiglieriP.S. I may be wrong, but I believe Cinepro is an active member.
CMZ Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 P.S. I may be wrong, but I believe Cinepro is an active member.Okay, that leaves cynical.
Lightbearer Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 The word "one" does not need the word "only" in front of it to make it constitute "one."And Jesus speaks not of "responsibility" but of "power."I am interested why so many seem so compelled to force the Book of Mormon in this instance to reflect modern LDS practice.Any thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriActually Consig, I believe I have been a really good boy in this thread and not "blasted you" as I usually do. But you tend to regard my "nice post" by simply ignoring it as if it has no merit or not worthy of comment. That is fine, for I suppose I have been rough on you in the past, but I thought I would try to dialogue with you in a civil manner instead of always battling with you like you are an enemy of the faith. However I do not think that is what you are really seeking, I have come to the conclusion that you try to "incite" people to anger and contention to try to stir up controversy and throw doubt on the divinity of the "modern Church" as you phrase it, I hope this is not the way you teach the Gospel Doctrine class, but I suspect it probably is... maybe it is just for effect or to get attention, perhaps you are not intentionally trying to undermine the leadership of the Church but it often looks that way. Why do you constantly try to denigrate "modern" LDS practice? Jesus Christ is the author of the words of the Doctrine and Covenants just as much as His words are quoted in the Book of Mormon, He is the author of the interpretations which the modern Prophet and Apostles give us in official publications and manuals of the Church. Why would true Latter-day Saints not interpret ancient scripture to reflect modern LDS practice? Are you implying that LDS should reject modern LDS practice and teachings? The following scripture comes to mind:(Matthew 23:24) "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."Sorry but I could not resist that one.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.