A Strange Detail In Bom Sacrament Practice . . .

[Buckeye]

Consig,

I think the fairest reading of the passage you cite is that the Lord authorized one, but with the understanding that that authority would be delegated down to others (if not in the same manner, at least in a pattern to the modern day practice where the Prophet is the only one on earth who possesses and is authorizeds to use all priesthood keys but many others perform ordiances under his direction).

Do you really think that as the church population grew over the next 200 years they ALL met together each week so that "the one" could bless the sacrament for them all? That seems at odds with the people spreading out across the land and increasing in great numbers (millions by the time of Cumorah).

[Cold Steel]

This is the same as the bishop shall be the husband of "one wife." In this case it simply means a bishop shall be married. The term "one" is tantamount to saying "a" as I understand it. Needless to say, many are ordained today, whereas in the past, it was not always so.

Moses attempted to make the children of Israel a "royal priesthood," by freely disseminating the high priesthood much as it is today. But the people didn't want to see God. They didn't want to experience visions and have the rich blessings that God was willing to offer them.

Even in this dispensation, the high priesthood was given carefully at first. Now, where every adult male that's worthy may hold it can hold it, and this will be part of the power that solidifies and protects Zion in the last days.

What I think the Lord was saying is that one will be ordained for the purpose of breaking and blessing the bread. Not one numerically, but an individual. The Doctrine & Covenants explains which priesthood administers the blessings on the emblems, and as long as one is ordained for that purpose, it's not a problem.

[CMZ]

Elder Oaks has said that there's no place for playing devil's advocate in Gospel instruction.

[Obiwan]

A Strange Detail In Bom Sacrament Practice . . ., . . . not followed in the LDS Church

My question to you is "what" makes you assume that ALL of these "Disciples" or even some had the "Priesthood" at some level. Even more so, the authority to break and bless the bread and wine? That is after all a newer ordainance, not one that has alway's existed. If you actually read the rest of that chapter you will see that the Lord THEN lay's his hand upon them, so clearly they didn't have priesthood authority at the time.

Clearly your making another anti/liberal false assumption when the evidence tells a different story.

[BCSpace]

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!

There are some breads that are so jam-packed with stuff that one piece might fill your daily caloric intake requirement. Well, maybe not quite.......

[consiglieri]

Well, this is an interesting state of affairs.

My intent in bringing this up was to see if maybe we could learn something from the manner in which Jesus instituted the power to administer the sacrament in the Book of Mormon; not to say that this somehow showed the LDS Church was in error for not doing it the same way. Often it is the anamolies in the Book of Mormon that can give us insight into what it is teaching us.

I just received a PM from my personal editor, who appears to have thought I was saying that the Book of Mormon teaches that only one person at a time may have the authority to administer the sacrament and that the modern Church must be amiss.

That is not my intent, and never was. I thought I had made that clear, but obviously I failed. I am going to review the thread and see where I tried to state my intent.

Ah, yes, here it is from my second post at 10:04 a.m.:

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.

I am surprised that I seem to have inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Buckeye]

Consig,

I apologize if I've "stung" you. Never my intention. I rather like your posts.

But I still don't see how you can hold your reading outside of those few verses. Yes, they say that "one" is authorized. But if that means only one, then how are all those thousands of church members spread out over hundreds of miles meeting together "oft" to partake of the sacrament?

[emeliza]

I just received a PM from my personal editor, who appears to have thought I was saying that the Book of Mormon teaches that only one person at a time may have the authority to administer the sacrament and that the modern Church must be amiss.

Personal editor?

So basically you believe that Christ wasn't necessarily stating that only one could have the authority, but rather was showing how sacred the rite would be?

It could also be that Christ is talking of Himself somehow and how He is the only one authorized to be our Savior. (Yeah a bit far fetched in my interpretation, but just a thought)

[LDSMusic483]

Well, this is an interesting state of affairs.

My intent in bringing this up was to see if maybe we could learn something from the manner in which Jesus instituted the power to administer the sacrament in the Book of Mormon; not to say that this somehow showed the LDS Church was in error for not doing it the same way. Often it is the anamolies in the Book of Mormon that can give us insight into what it is teaching us.

I just received a PM from my personal editor, who appears to have thought I was saying that the Book of Mormon teaches that only one person at a time may have the authority to administer the sacrament and that the modern Church must be amiss.

That is not my intent, and never was. I thought I had made that clear, but obviously I failed. I am going to review the thread and see where I tried to state my intent.

Ah, yes, here it is from my second post at 10:04 a.m.:

I am surprised that I seem to have inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I like how it's described in Moro. 4, and I think it gives credence to the "one had authority to authorize those who could administer the sacrament" idea. Kind of like how you need to get your bishops permission to hold sacrament meeting outside of the ward.

Moro. 4:1

1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister itâ??

The thing I notice hear is that it's a plurality of individuals. Granted, one could say...well yes...over the years there would be multiple individuals. But it's not just multiplicity of individuals, but also it seems, priesthood offices. So it wasn't just an elder who could do it, but a priest as well. So while it seems as though there were various people who could do the ordinance, there was only an individual at a time who did it (see the end of the verse). I do think that whoever would have been the presiding authority/disciple as you may call it would have been the one to give the okay to administer the ordinance. Just like any other ordinance, it needs the approval of the presiding authority. My 2 cents anyway.

[cinepro]

Thank you, Cinepro, for at least tacitly seeing the issue, if only to give it your usual cynical and pointed spin.

Why is it considered "cynical" to point out that there are characteristics of the ancient Church described in the scriptures that aren't manifest in the modern LDS Church?

I always get a kick out of the story of the "17 Points of the True Church" because "17" is such an arbitrary number, and there are a lot more than 17 "points" in the New Testament describing the Church Jesus set up.

Heck, there are 5 points in Mark 16:17-18 alone, and the modern LDS Church only claims 3 of them (and that's with the stretched definition of the gift of tongues). Or is it too cynical of me to point that out?

[The Nehor]

Even if the Book of Mormon does mean what you suggest it does wouldn't instruction to the Nephites be superseded by the D&C instructions on the Sacrament.

[Buckeye]

Even if the Book of Mormon does mean what you suggest it does wouldn't instruction to the Nephites be superseded by the D&C instructions on the Sacrament.

I don't think consig is saying we're wrong; rather that we may differ from the nephites and that is ok.

[LDSMusic483]

The other thing that seems pertinent is that it seems that the church was much more centrally located at this time. They wouldn't have needed multiple individuals to to break the bread while the church was thus congregated. They could have done it just as Christ did. One individual break the bread, then give it to the 12 and then have the rest of the twelve distribute it to the rest of the multitude. Was their church not a church of ongoing revelation as well? Once the church grew, and individuals began to reside in different locations, it's probable that more individuals were ordained to carry out the priesthood responsibilities. Hence the description given by Moroni of multiple individuals having the authority to do so.

[Garden Girl]

Hello consiglieri...

I'm usually pretty astute in reading OPs, and yours on this topic, including the title/subtitle were misleading and sounded as if you indeed were questioning our practices today as not being in keeping with the way Christ set things up... ignoring of course that today we have instructions in the D&C for our day vs BoM times...

Smiles from the old woman at the beach... Garden Girl

[cinepro]

Even if the Book of Mormon does mean what you suggest it does wouldn't instruction to the Nephites be superseded by the D&C instructions on the Sacrament.

Not to mention the D&C sacrament prayer with the one different word?

[mfbukowski]

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

The most interesting thing to me about this thread is that since Joseph set up the modern practice, I would wonder how the "conflict" arose.

As I see it, that leaves three possibilities:

1-he did it the "new way" because the difference was immaterial

2-it had been revealed to him to do it the "new way" instead (as evidenced by D&C),

3- he was unaware of the "conflict".

Number 3 is the most interesting because to me, it can be seen as indicating that the BOM was truly translated as opposed to being carefully crafted by Joseph.

Not that any of these are particulary earth shattering any way you look at it!

I am always interested in the peculiarites of Mormon culture. I was raised to say "grace" to thank God for the food he has provided.

When I was new in the church, we went to a big family gathering and I was late for lunch. My wife told me that the food "had already been blessed, so just go ahead and eat"

But I had not thanked God for my lunch! One of those Mormon foibles!

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the post, mfbukowski.

I am glad to see someone agrees with me that there are things to be gained from looking at the Book of Mormon text with a fresh eye.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[CMZ]

I am glad to see someone agrees with me that there are things to be gained from looking at the Book of Mormon text with a fresh eye.

We all agree with that but creating false dichotomies helps nothing.

[consiglieri]

Why is it considered "cynical" to point out that there are characteristics of the ancient Church described in the scriptures that aren't manifest in the modern LDS Church?

Or is it too cynical of me to point that out?

Geez! Now I've got Cinepro mad at me, too!

I can't win for losing on this thread. I didn't mean to be insulting to you, Cinepro.

I will tell you a secret.

What I originally wrote in response to your comment was "Thank God for Cinepro."

Did you see the part where I stood up for you and said I thought you were "active"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

Thanks for the post, mfbukowski.

I am glad to see someone agrees with me that there are things to be gained from looking at the Book of Mormon text with a fresh eye.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What is your perspective as it applies to my comments on Moroni 4?

[consiglieri]

We all agree with that but creating false dichotomies helps nothing.

Just because there is a dichotomy does not mean it is false.

Could you point out for me where I created a "false" dichotomy?

That is unless you are still talking about your view that the word "one" actually means "more than one."

On that issue, I think you have the losing side of the dichotomy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

Just because there is a dichotomy does not mean it is false.

Could you point out for me where I created a "false" dichotomy?

That is unless you are still talking about your view that the word "one" actually means "more than one."

On that issue, I think you have the losing side of the dichotomy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You'd probably do great arguing for the trinity...

[consiglieri]

What is your perspective as it applies to my comments on Moroni 4?

You make an interesting observation there. It would seem that these comments in Moroni 4 relate to a point in time removed from the Savior's appearance to the Nephites and the practice he instituted of having "one" ordained to have the power to bless, break and pass the bread.

Additional support for that position would be that Moroni 4 refers to elders and priests as opposed to the "Disciples" referenced in 3 Nephi, only one of whom was ordained to this power by Jesus.

It would of course only make sense that as the Nephites spread out after the 3 Nephi 8 destruction, that more people would need to be ordained to that power instead of the practice set up by the Savior of having only one.

That was behind my question in the OP as to whether anybody knew of a time at the LDS Church's inception in 1830 of a similar practice being followed, when they were still a small group and could all meet together at the same time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Even if the Book of Mormon does mean what you suggest it does wouldn't instruction to the Nephites be superseded by the D&C instructions on the Sacrament.

Cointenlly!

On this we are in agreement.

There is evidence, as LDSMusic pointed out, that later in Nephite history this power was held by more than one person at the same time, being Moroni 4's reference to "elders and priests."

The issue I had thought of interest was the fact that Jesus gave the power to only one of the twelve Disciples, and to perhaps ask some questions regarding why that might have been.

Mfbukowski has pointed out something that had also occurred to me; namely that if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, wouldn't we expect the same practice in this regard to have been followed in the early LDS Church?

The fact that it was not is of interest. Here the dichotomy would tend to support Joseph's claim to have not authored the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Not to mention the D&C sacrament prayer with the one different word?

Don't forget the baptismal prayer!

Cynically yours,

--Consiglieri

[CMZ]

That is unless you are still talking about your view that the word "one" actually means "more than one."

Wow, I actually argued that 'one' in the instance mentioned doesn't mean there can't be more than one, not that it can only mean 'more than one.' Thanks for twisting what I said.

Could you point out for me where I created a "false" dichotomy?

Read the original post in this thread. If it's not a "false" dichotomy you created you're certainly making too big of a deal out of an "apparent" or "possible" dichotomy.

You make an interesting observation there. It would seem that these comments in Moroni 4 relate to a point in time removed from the Savior's appearance to the Nephites.

Now you're talking. Sounds a lot like buckeye's original response and the comments of others in this thread.