Jump to content

Why Water?


inquiringmind

Recommended Posts

In both the Bible, and The BOM, Jesus used wine when administering the sacrament.

Why do Mormons use water (and is Christ's turning water into wine at all relevant here)?

and in the bible the lord admonishs everybody to "not" become drunk... also their is a differance between "new" wine and "old" wine in the bible "old" wine has fermented and become alcohol... "new" wine has no alcohol...{cause for ponderance}..:P

Link to comment

In both the Bible, and The BOM, Jesus used wine when administering the sacrament.

Why do Mormons use water (and is Christ's turning water into wine at all relevant here)?

I believe the first time Joseph Smith used water in a partaking of the sacrament was when a Mormon couple (was it the Whitmers?) dropped by his home and wanted to share the Lord's Supper. Joseph was out of wine and decided to go and purchase some at a nearby town. He harnessed his horse and buggy to leave and after being gone a short while returned and delared that he had received a revelation from an angel declaring the scripture already mentioned earlier. (D&C 27: 1-4)

Unfortunately as you have pointed out the revelation is not in keeping with any of the previous doctrine given by the Savior nor in the LDS scriptures either. According to Bruce R. McKonkie, when a revelation is received or new doctrine taught that is out of sinc with the rest of the standard works (which this is) The church always will believe the precedents rather than the new which is out of order. Speaking of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God theory Mckonkie said:

"What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works."

If this approach had been used or were to be used in the case of changing the doctrine of the sacrament it becomes obvious that the sacrament never would have been changed.

Thus, instead of the fruit of the vine, which symbolizes Jesus' purchase of his own, there is water - bread and water. Bread and water are stereo-typically the diet of one who is condemned or a prisoner. For him there is no hope. Bread and wine are the symbols taken by those whose hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ and his precious blood and body that were offered for us.

Link to comment

Thus, instead of the fruit of the vine, which symbolizes Jesus' purchase of his own, there is water - bread and water. Bread and water are stereo-typically the diet of one who is condemned or a prisoner. For him there is no hope. Bread and wine are the symbols taken by those whose hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ and his precious blood and body that were offered for us.

The choice of which symbol is used to represent a doctrine is not the doctrine itself. The use of wine is not a "doctrine", it is a symbolic practice. The symbolic practice of using water represents the same doctrine as the use of wine. People who get too attached to the symbols at the expense of what they are designed to represent follow the pharisaic tradition, and are missing the point.

Likewise, you can use cookies, muffins of bagels instead of bread, it will still represent the same thing when used in the sacrament. The problem with these alternatives is that they are a bit distracting, just as using iron-rich bore water in the sacrament is distracting (because of its foul taste).

Link to comment

The choice of which symbol is used to represent a doctrine is not the doctrine itself. The use of wine is not a "doctrine", it is a symbolic practice. The symbolic practice of using water represents the same doctrine as the use of wine. People who get too attached to the symbols at the expense of what they are designed to represent follow the pharisaic tradition, and are missing the point.

Likewise, you can use cookies, muffins of bagels instead of bread, it will still represent the same thing when used in the sacrament. The problem with these alternatives is that they are a bit distracting, just as using iron-rich bore water in the sacrament is distracting (because of its foul taste).

I believe the Savior made the choice of which symbols to use and it is not up to our discretion to change those symbols. The sacrament is every bit as important as the ordinance of baptizm. Would you use the same logic in connection with that ordinance? Would it be alright to sprinkle rather than submerge? Would you be baptized in some fluid other than water?

Link to comment
I believe the first time Joseph Smith used water in a partaking of the sacrament was when a Mormon couple (was it the Whitmers?) dropped by his home and wanted to share the Lord's Supper. Joseph was out of wine and decided to go and purchase some at a nearby town. He harnessed his horse and buggy to leave and after being gone a short while returned and delared that he had received a revelation from an angel declaring the scripture already mentioned earlier. (D&C 27: 1-4)

So far, so good. But you just couldn't help editorialising, could you?

Unfortunately as you have pointed out the revelation is not in keeping with any of the previous doctrine given by the Savior nor in the LDS scriptures either.

CFR that the revelation changes any doctrine at all.

According to Bruce R. McKonkie, when a revelation is received or new doctrine taught that is out of sinc with the rest of the standard works (which this is) The church always will believe the precedents rather than the new which is out of order.

Again: what "new doctrine" does the revelation contain? The only thing I can see that approaches "new doctrine" is the directive that sacramental wine should not be purchased from others. How is this not "in sinc"[sic] with pre-existing doctrine?

Since it's an off-topic derail, I'm snipping your attempt to make this into an Adam-God thread.

If this approach had been used or were to be used in the case of changing the doctrine of the sacrament it becomes obvious that the sacrament never would have been changed.

Yet again: you keep confidently announcing that we are discussing "the case of changing the doctrine of the sacrament." Do you imagine that merely repeating this assertion will pre-empt any questioning thereof? I hate to labour the obvious, but if there is anything that can meaningfully be called "the doctrine of the sacrament," then the chemical composition of the emblems forms no part of it.

Sorry.

Thus, instead of the fruit of the vine, which symbolizes Jesus' purchase of his own, there is water - bread and water. Bread and water are stereo-typically the diet of one who is condemned or a prisoner. For him there is no hope. Bread and wine are the symbols taken by those whose hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ and his precious blood and body that were offered for us.

I get it; you don't like the symbology of water. And you imagine that you can impose your own interpretation upon us, despite the fact that your interpretation was a priori determined to be as negative as possible.

Well I hate to be the one to break it to you, but tough luck. We don't accept it.

Sorry.

Since we know that the water is merely a substitute, and that the wine is the real symbol, the actual symbology is unchanged. And you don't get to foist your contrived symbology on us.

Now, I suggest you get started on those CFR's.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I believe the Savior made the choice of which symbols to use and it is not up to our discretion to change those symbols. The sacrament is every bit as important as the ordinance of baptizm. Would you use the same logic in connection with that ordinance? Would it be alright to sprinkle rather than submerge? Would you be baptized in some fluid other than water?

It is also the Saviour's discretion to change those symbols, and He does so through his authorised servants. There is no more contradiction in that particular change than there was in the abolition of circumcision, because of the source of the change.

Secondly, your analogy with baptism doesn't work, because you are comparing the mode of baptism with the substance of the symbols of the sacrament. Yes, I wouldn't mind getting baptised in a liquid other than water, because the water itself has nothing to do with the symbolism of baptism.

Link to comment

Originally LDS used wine in sacrament.

But in my opinion the reason for the change, and I am an EV btw, so take it for whatever its worth to you. Well, I think the reason was... women.

I think when wine was in boundaries option, perhaps it was taken a bit liberally on the part of LDS men.

My view has been more along the lines of someone who is outside looking in, but I think the sacrament change from wine to water had a great deal to do with men having a bit of a license to drink wine and womens opinion of such.

In respect to sacramental changes, the parts of the WoW that regarded the physical elements of "good" living. I imagine there was a bit of a war amongst the sexes going on and heavily involved in all of it.

I don't want to pick on the issue to much. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church and we drink grape juice for the Lord's Supper/Sacrament. The reason for grape juice, has a bit to do with the admonishments on being drunk and the faulty premise that Jesus only drank juice instead of wine....

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Originally LDS used wine in sacrament.

But in my opinion the reason for the change, and I am an EV btw, so take it for whatever its worth to you. Well, I think the reason was... women.

I think when wine was in boundaries option, perhaps it was taken a bit liberally on the part of LDS men.

My view has been more along the lines of someone who is outside looking in, but I think the sacrament change from wine to water had a great deal to do with men having a bit of a license to drink wine and womens opinion of such.

In respect to sacramental changes, the parts of the WoW that regarded the physical elements of "good" living. I imagine there was a bit of a war amongst the sexes going on and heavily involved in all of it.

I don't want to pick on the issue to much. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church and we drink grape juice for the Lord's Supper/Sacrament. The reason for grape juice, has a bit to do with the admonishments on being drunk and the faulty premise that Jesus only drank juice instead of wine....

Mudcat, do you attach much doctrinal significance to which beverage is used as a sacramental emblem? Would the sacrament be as meaningful for you if it used water instead of wine? Not trying to trick you, I'm genuinely interested.

Link to comment

In both the Bible, and The BOM, Jesus used wine when administering the sacrament.

Why do Mormons use water (and is Christ's turning water into wine at all relevant here)?

Here is the chapter about the Sacrament from the current Gospel Principles manual that should help shed some light on the matter.

Jesus gave His disciples wine when He introduced the sacrament. However, in a latter-day revelation He has said that it doesn
Link to comment

I believe the Savior made the choice of which symbols to use and it is not up to our discretion to change those symbols. The sacrament is every bit as important as the ordinance of baptizm. Would you use the same logic in connection with that ordinance? Would it be alright to sprinkle rather than submerge? Would you be baptized in some fluid other than water?

The LDS do not believe that the changing of the symbols was due to "discretion", but rather, that it was the product of revelation. Like nicolasconnault above, I think that the sacredness of the ordinance is the ultimate goal, and that the symbols are just a vehicle to achieve that state of mind.

However, I do find it peculiar that there are LDS who argue that symbols do not matter.

Link to comment

Mudcat, do you attach much doctrinal significance to which beverage is used as a sacramental emblem? Would the sacrament be as meaningful for you if it used water instead of wine? Not trying to trick you, I'm genuinely interested.

Nicolas, I would never suspect you of trying to trick me. You are a good fellow all the way round.

But, in regards to doctrinal significance... I am a bit at odds on the issue. Christ used wine and unleavened bread in the elements of the sacrament. Denominations/sects who have diverged from such usage have their reasons.

IMO, such divergence is a bit of short cut of sorts. Surely God sees past our failings and looks to our hearts instead, but I see no good reason to offer him a short cut in the first place. I have never been at a sacrament where the elements were wine and unleavened bread. However, I have never found any persuasive reasoning to diverge from such elements for sacramental purpose.

Regards,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Interesting discussion. Personally, Ive always wondered why Christ used wine to begin with. I mean the scriptures are clear that Christ is the Bread of Life and the Living Waters. It seems natural to me that those would be the choices for the sacrament. However, the Lord commands as He commands. He can do as He pleases. If He wants us to use kool aid this sunday, I don't have a problem with it.

It's what the symbol means which is important.

Link to comment

Nicolas, I would never suspect you of trying to trick me. You are a good fellow all the way round.

But, in regards to doctrinal significance... I am a bit at odds on the issue. Christ used wine and unleavened bread in the elements of the sacrament. Denominations/sects who have diverged from such usage have their reasons.

IMO, such divergence is a bit of short cut of sorts. Surely God sees past our failings and looks to our hearts instead, but I see no good reason to offer him a short cut in the first place. I have never been at a sacrament where the elements were wine and unleavened bread. However, I have never found any persuasive reasoning to diverge from such elements for sacramental purpose.

IMO, just as "the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath", so I believe that the sacrament was instituted for the benefit of man. In the sacrament we are not offering God the bread and wine/water. He is offering it to us as a symbol of the offering of the life of His Son. What we offer is our hearts, our will, our sins. This is why I am not overly concerned with the substance of the symbols.

Link to comment

IMO, just as "the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath", so I believe that the sacrament was instituted for the benefit of man. In the sacrament we are not offering God the bread and wine/water. He is offering it to us as a symbol of the offering of the life of His Son. What we offer is our hearts, our will, our sins. This is why I am not overly concerned with the substance of the symbols.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

To toss a bit of hyperbole into it, your view could be extrapolated that a McDonaldsBig Mac and a Coke would be just as sufficient.

Link to comment
(and is Christ's turning water into wine at all relevant here)?

Even though water not a direct symbol of his blood in John 4, I'd say John 4:10-14 would be more relevant than that example as Christ and his teachings do include the Atonement. Of course the Word of Wisdom prohibition against alcohol and the modern revelation that it does not matter what we use to represent the flesh and blood of Christ is the more direct reason why water is just fine to use.

Link to comment

I wonder for those who dismiss the use of water as a viable symbol for the blood of Christ, do you also insist that it is the exact type of wine and bread that were used in the first sacrament or is any form of bread and wine allowed? If there is leniency here, why not allow water by itself rather than being mixed with the wine as likely occurred (use of mixed wine is report among the early Church and if I read correctly, mixed wine is still used in celebrating the Eucharist).

Link to comment

I wonder for those who dismiss the use of water as a viable symbol for the blood of Christ, do you also insist that it is the exact type of wine and bread that were used in the first sacrament or is any form of bread and wine allowed? If there is leniency here, why not allow water by itself rather than being mixed with the wine as likely occurred (use of mixed wine is report among the early Church and if I read correctly, mixed wine is still used in celebrating the Eucharist).

Not to mention unleavened wholemeal bread, a far cry from the modern yeasty white bread or communion wafer.

Link to comment

Interesting discussion. Personally, Ive always wondered why Christ used wine to begin with. I mean the scriptures are clear that Christ is the Bread of Life and the Living Waters. It seems natural to me that those would be the choices for the sacrament.

"In remembrance of the blood that was shed"

-------------------------------------

It would have been more congruent symbolically speaking if some form of meat (most properly lamb) was the symbol connected with the body, lamb was at use in the Passover already and Christ was understood to be the Lamb of God. It could be seen as new doctrine to use bread instead of meat or a confusion of doctrine since bread had been used in the Passover but rather as a symbol not of the coming Messiah, but as a remembrance of the urgency with which they fled the land of their slavery (since there was not enough time for the bread to rise...a matter of an hour or two), the travel to come and/or the slavery which they were rescued from by the hand of the Lord. The Paschal Lamb--unblemished, roasted whole with no broken bones--was the symbol of Christ since its blood protected and saved as would Christ's.

1 Peter 1:18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:t
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...