Calm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 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.Since the wine was passed around in a communal cup, there would likely not have been enough for men used to drinking alcohol to have that kind of problem with, basically just a mouthful at most. OTOH, I could see being concerned with the children partaking and whether it was proper. I don't know if other churches at that time included children extensively or even if ours did, but if the children were not separated out as they are not today and I was a woman concerned about wine's effects, I might wonder about the appropriateness of wine for children....plus be a little frustrated with the stains.
Calm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 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.Baptism in wine would kind of add a whole new dimension to the service.
nicolasconnault Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Since the wine was passed around in a communal cup, there would likely not have been enough for men used to drinking alcohol to have that kind of problem with, basically just a mouthful at most. OTOH, I could see being concerned with the children partaking and whether it was proper. I don't know if other churches at that time included children extensively or even if ours did, but if the children were not separated out as they are not today and I was a woman concerned about wine's effects, I might wonder about the appropriateness of wine for children....plus be a little frustrated with the stains.What about red cordial/koolaid?
MorningStar Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 What about red cordial/koolaid?With the men's white shirts + toddlers?
BCSpace Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I take it none of you has put Sprite in the cups before? We merely wanted to test the verse but our teacher's quorum got quite the talking to on reverence.
nicolasconnault Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 With the men's white shirts + toddlers? Well at least it would make sense to hold your left hand as a cup under your chin while you sip your cup, as I see some sisters do
Calm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 My grandmother used to talk about how those concerned with hygiene would take their sips from the communal cup by the handle. She said that it probably ended up with more people touching that spot with their lips than any other place on the rim since everyone had the same idea.Since they switched from common to individual ones in 1911, she would have been pretty young, born in 03 IIRC.
Calm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 The other day I was trying to remember when the change in the policy of only passing the sacrament to members to having it more open occurred (I vaguely remember an announcement from the pulpit about either specifying it was for members or requesting nonmembers not to partake). I know that this memory isn't imagined because it was confirmed by some older members awhile back on another board, but I don't know if this was a church wide policy or a local decision. Anyone have any more info on the subject?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 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)?Revelation...but we can use "wine of our own make".
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 What about red cordial/koolaid?Right on!
Ticketyboo Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I am reliably informed of at least one instance where flat Coca Cola & crackers were pressed into service in Papua New Guinea, and blessed as such.Of myself, I can recall recently requisitioning a 2 year olds snack because we'd forgotten the bread for the sacrament & didn't realise until the cloth was pulled back during the Sacrament hymn
nicolasconnault Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I am reliably informed of at least one instance where flat Coca Cola & crackers were pressed into service in Papua New Guinea, and blessed as such.Of myself, I can recall recently requisitioning a 2 year olds snack because we'd forgotten the bread for the sacrament & didn't realise until the cloth was pulled back during the Sacrament hymn Wow, did you get that awful feeling like you were in some sort of bad dream? This is the kind of stuff I used to have nightmares about when I was on the bishopric (that and realising I'm sitting on the stand without any pants on!).
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 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?I'm confussed here.Are there LDS that use wine (or grape juice)?Are there places in the world where water isn't used?
nicolasconnault Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I'm confussed here.Are there LDS that use wine (or grape juice)?Are there places in the world where water isn't used?There are places where safe drinking water is not easily obtainable, yes. In those places, it may be safer to drink an alcoholic beverage in which harmful bacteria cannot grow.
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 The Lord has said that it doesn't matter what we use, but for convenient purposes, and for a time to protect the church from its enemies, we use water. Otherwise we would have to make our own as the Lord commands in D&C. That kinda makes sense, because He did change water into wine.Thank you.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 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:If you want us to take you seriously, why don't you come up with a real critisim instead of these contrived arguments? 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. This is absoulutly ridiculous. We are not bound to your vivid discription here. The sad thing is that you claim to represent Jesus and you make up things out of whole cloth and foist it on to others.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 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}..Your pondering contradicts D&C 89 which reads...D&C 89:5That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.The Lord makes clear in the Word of Wisdom that fermented (old) wine during the Sacrament is acceptable.
Thunderfire Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Would the sacrament be as meaningful for you if it used water instead of wine? What a great question to consider. On the surface I would say no, using water would not be as meaningful. This is probably more due to traditon than anything else. But the Lord has "expanded" that box for me where traditon is not as important as proclaiming the meaning and message of the communion prayers.I remember serving communion at one of our World Conferences. When I was handed the tray of "wine" I noticed that half the cups were filled with grape juice and the other half were filled with either coconut milk or water! It was then explained that many of the delegates were from the South Pacific and it was their custom to use coconut milk. Others in attendance from foreign countries use water. People use what they have available to them. We are taught that the "form of the sacrament" is not more important than the spirit which the sacrament is entered in. Meaning, the physical emblems used do not bring grace, rather it is the spirit of God which brings the grace upon the individual who is seeking to draw near in a sacramental experience. On a side note, I have had two Native American "elders" teach me the value of praying with water. While I was not shown or given the rights to a "ceremony" with water, I was taught a "water song" to sing and a distinct way of praying with water. Needless to say, I have had some deeply profound experiences with God and water.But having said all that, I still prefer using grape juice. Jesus offered his communion right after they ate the Passover Meal. We know that wine is an important aspect of Passover. For me, while using wine (or grape juice) is more "biblical", it also ties in with the Passover Meal and our heritage in the House of Israel. Yet I would never tell anyone they must give up their tradition in order to please God.
Zakuska Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 It is not new doctrine to use water as a symbol of the Christ.Amen!John 19:34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.140-230 AD TERTULLIAN"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith... The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our ikhthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!" (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 669.)Hmmm... Christ did say the only sign given would be Jonah and the Fish! Brings new depth to that whole scenario!This was intresting. (Please excuse the WIKI reference).Roman Catholic interpretationThe Roman Catholic Church believes that the matter for the Eucharist must be wheaten bread and fermented wine from grapes: it holds that, if the gluten has been entirely removed, the result is not true wheaten bread,[51] and that grape juice that has not begun even minimally to ferment cannot be accepted as wine. It allows in certain circumstances low-gluten bread and mustum (grape juice in which fermentation has begun but has been suspended without altering the nature of the juice), and it permits Holy Communion to be received under the form of either bread or wine alone, except by a priest who is celebrating Mass without other priests or as principal celebrant.[52]Additionally, the wine is ritually diluted with water during the service, and no set proportions are given. Consequently, the mustum or wine can be heavily diluted to reduce the amount of alcohol to a miniscule level.Other traditionsMany Protestant churches allow clergy and communicants to take mustum instead of wine. In addition to, or in replacement of wine, some churches offer grape juice which has been pasteurized to stop the fermentation process the juice naturally undergoes; de-alcoholized wine from which most of the alcohol has been removed (between 0.5% and 2% remains); or water.[53] Exclusive use of unfermented grape juice is common in the Churches of Christ, Baptist churches, and other independent Protestant churches.Alternatives to wheaten breadMany mainline Protestant churches offer communicants gluten-free alternatives to wheaten bread, usually in the form of a rice-based cracker or gluten-free bread.[54]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist So even some Protestanst do use water.
Palerider Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 No. Why on earth should we recognize ordinances not preformed with authority?If as Bro. McKonkie points out by his own words and logic, the validity of the revelation is in question, then one must assume that the claimed authority is questionable as well. If the symbols used for the sacrament are so easily manipulated and of little concern to the Lord, as some here indicate, then why would the Lord think it a worthy subject to give Joseph revelation on in the first place?
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 The required part of the sacrament is mainly the singing of the sacrament hymn (integral part of the ordinance), ...Sorry, it's not "an integral part of the ordinance". There are too many examples of it's not being reasonable to sing a hymn to conclude that the ordinance is invalid without it. The purpose of the hymn is to help the Saints focus our thoughts on the Atonement and Christ during a fairly longish period while the Priests break the bread. (I typically use the Sacrament hymn as a crutch to keep my mind so focused during the rest of the ordinance.)For example, while I and two other Saints were in the corner of a tent on an Army training ground in the late 70s, it took about three seconds to break the C-Ration crackers into three parts. And because there were others in the tent, singing would have been out of place, subjecting us (and it, too) to ridicule.... perfect recitation of the prayers, and the passing of bread and water (or appropriate substitutes when required) to the congregation. It is a simple ordinance, and I don't see how you can possibly proclaim that "all that matters is intent".Intent is a critical element, but it is far from the only piece. The form of the Sacrament (bread, water, ingesting both), the ordinance prayers, the divine Priesthood
Thunderfire Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Having been involved in a goodly number of LDS baptisms I know how critical the church considers the correct performance of that ordinance. If even a toe or lock of hair breaks the surface at the wrong time the ordinance has to be redone.I have what I think is a good story to share regarding how for some the "form" of the sacrament is more important than the intent. One day I was baptizing a young woman in a lake. A man came running up to me saying, "You can't do that! Christ won't accept her baptism." He went on to explain that for a baptism to be accepted it MUST be done in a river. For him, only a river baptism would truly wash away her sins and no other form of water baptism is acceptable to God. It is true that we find what is perceived as inconsistancies in how the ordinances are done or seen as being done in an acceptable way. I have also found that many believe the sacrament is acceptable simply by someone going through the right motions and how the "preforming the rite correctly" is more important than the intent of those seeking a sacramental experience with God. In my opinion, "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart..." 1st Samuel 16:7 If the heart of the individual is not set on the sacramental experience, it doesn't matter how correctly it is preformed. For that matter, if the individuals heart is not right it would be better that they never preformed the sacrament in the first place...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.