Does Taking The Sacrament Renew Temple Covenants?

[Robert F. Smith]

It is important to note that when King Benjamin was giving his people a new name, the name of Christ, they were already members of the church. It is also important to note that they were gathered around the temple when this was occurring.

This was a typical Israelite covenant renewal ceremony which took place at the Fall Festival of Ingathering (New Year - Tabernacles) in which the members of the congregation were born again (Mosiah 5:7) in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah over a century later. There was not as yet a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, except that the annual Passover Festival was held 6 months after the Festival of Ingathering, and as pointed out above by Elder Cook, the Passover meal was the precursor to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church, and we need to resist the temptation to minimize its importance through discussion of esoteric temple rites.

[cinepro]

Tonight at a stake conference meeting, one of the speakers claimed when we take the sacrament

we renew all our covenants, including temple covenants. My understanding is that renew our baptismal

covenants. In the temple, there is no renewal part of the ceremony. There is no mention of the temple

or of "all the covenants" in the sacramental prayer. Any comments?

Bernard

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"? I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago. It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants. That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized. The prayer says "all souls who partake of it". It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

Edited May 21, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"? I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago. It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants. That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized. The prayer says "all souls who partake of it". It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

That pretty much agrees with my post above.

[David T]

It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

[Freedom]

This was a typical Israelite covenant renewal ceremony which took place at the Fall Festival of Ingathering (New Year - Tabernacles) in which the members of the congregation were born again (Mosiah 5:7) in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah over a century later. There was not as yet a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, except that the annual Passover Festival was held 6 months after the Festival of Ingathering, and as pointed out above by Elder Cook, the Passover meal was the precursor to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church, and we need to resist the temptation to minimize its importance through discussion of esoteric temple rites.

I will advise Bednar and Oaks of their error.

[Freedom]

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

[Log]

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

Or on the Church's website?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[The Nehor]

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"? I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago. It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants. That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized. The prayer says "all souls who partake of it". It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

Covenants need to be renewed because we break them regularly. If a contract is made and one party defaults then both can agree to renew the contract.

If you aren't breaking your covenants through sin then there is no need for the sacrament.

[David T]

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

Or on the Church's website?

FWIW, I'm not someone defending that perspective.

However, it is the only explanation I've heard as to why we don't publish or consider it 'proper' to have talks or homilies in Conference or Sacrament Meeting on the phrases, language, and promises found in the initiatories, Endowment, or Sealing. Nothing in the ordinances themselves instruct one not to speak of them as a whole - the fact is, there are only an extremely select and limited things we specifically and clearly are instructed and commited to 'never reveal' as part of the experience.

While I'm glad this has the effect of not being told 'this is what it means', I think it also doesn't make sense as an explanation.

Edited May 21, 2012 by David T

[Freedom]

Or on the Church's website?

Watch it or I will report that you are posting temple content.

We do have to be careful, but not as careful as many believe. Virtually the entire endowment is found in the bible and D&C.

[Freedom]

FWIW, I'm not someone defending that perspective.

However, it is the only explanation I've heard as to why we don't publish or consider it 'proper' to have talks or homilies in Conference or Sacrament Meeting on the phrases, language, and promises found in the initiatories, Endowment, or Sealing. Nothing in the ordinances themselves instruct one not to speak of them as a whole - the fact is, there are only an extremely select and limited things we specifically and clearly are instructed and commited to 'never reveal' as part of the experience.

While I'm glad this has the effect of not being told 'this is what it means', I think it also doesn't make sense as an explanation.

I would generally agree, but concepts like the prayer circle and the washing and anointing ceremony are well documented and openly discussed. We should not list out the covenants (although I read an article in the ensign that did just that without identifying where the specific list came from) or describe the ceremony and wording specifically, but this tends to happen because much of it is generic and found in the scriptures.

[David T]

We should not list out the covenants (although I read an article in the ensign that did just that without identifying where the specific list came from)

Tell that to Elder Hales, who published the covenants in an illustration in his latest book RETURN, showing their connection with the Temple, and under which Order of the Priesthood they were associated with.

Edited May 21, 2012 by David T

[Calm]

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

However, choosing to only talk about a certain topic in a limited time and place can set it apart and creates a sacred space by intent around it. So in a sense one can honestly say "it is too sacred for me to talk about because I have chosen to mark this sacred ritual by not talking about it even if I have chosen to mark as sacred other rituals and aspects in other ways."

The usual argument attached to "it is too sacred to talk about" actually reverses the cause with the effect...it makes the lack of talk the effect of sacredness rather then the sacredness the effect of not talking about it, among other things that set the temple apart.

[Bernard Gui]

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"? I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago. It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants. That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized. The prayer says "all souls who partake of it". It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

From the Gospel Doctrine Manual (emphasis added):

The Covenants We Renew during the Sacrament•

• What covenants do we renew during the sacrament? What blessings does the Lord promise us as we keep those covenants?
  

Each time we partake of the sacrament, we renew covenants with the Lord. A covenant is a sacred promise between the Lord and His children. The covenants we make are clearly stated in the sacramental prayers. It is important to know what those covenants are and what they mean.

We covenant that we are willing to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. By this we show we are willing to be identified with Him and His Church. We commit to serve Him and our fellowman. We promise that we will not bring shame or reproach upon that name.

We covenant to always remember Jesus Christ. All our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be influenced by Him and His mission.

We promise to keep His commandments.

We take these obligations upon ourselves when we are baptized (see D&C 20:37; Mosiah 18:6–10). Thus, when we partake of the sacrament, we renew the covenants we made when we were baptized. Jesus gave us the pattern for partaking of the sacrament (see 3 Nephi 18:1–12) and said that when we follow this pattern, repenting of our sins and believing on His name, we will gain a remission of our sins (see Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 26:24).

The Lord promises that if we keep our covenants, we will always have His Spirit to be with us. A person guided by the Spirit will have the knowledge, faith, power, and righteousness to gain eternal life.

D&C 20:37

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

This has always been my understanding of the renewing efficacy of partaking of the sacrament.

Up until last weekend I had never heard the sacrament associated with temple covenants, at least

in scripture or doctrinal sources.

But, this article seems to imply the sacrament involves all covenants:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

And this article limits it to baptism:

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-11-20-20.asp

Bernard

Edited May 22, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

From the Gospel Doctrine Manual (emphasis added):

D&C 20:37

This has always been my understanding of the renewing efficacy of partaking of the sacrament.

Up until last weekend I had never heard the sacrament associated with temple covenants, at least

in scripture or doctrinal sources.

But, this article seems to imply the sacrament involves all covenants:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

And this article limits it to baptism:

http://institute.lds...sp-11-20-20.asp

Bernard

Ultimately aren't we talking about a symbolic ordinance? Once we get beyond the fact that we're eating a small piece of bread and drinking a little cup of water and the actual wording of the prayer, who says it can't mean anything we want it to mean?

[Freedom]

Tell that to Elder Hales, who published the covenants in an illustration in his latest book RETURN, showing their connection with the Temple, and under which Order of the Priesthood they were associated with.

Fascinating. I will have to get this book.

[The Nehor]

Ultimately aren't we talking about a symbolic ordinance? Once we get beyond the fact that we're eating a small piece of bread and drinking a little cup of water and the actual wording of the prayer, who says it can't mean anything we want it to mean?

God.

[Log]

God.

Does God say it can't mean anything Cinepro wants it to mean, and, if so, where?

[The Nehor]

Does God say it can't mean anything Cinepro wants it to mean, and, if so, where?

Considering he created it and taught the meaning of it he can tell Cinepro what it does and does not mean. Cinepro might decide the whole thing is symbolic of cannibalistic orgies, Satanic blood-drinking, and Hermetic Sorcery. He would be wrong though no matter how much he wants it to mean that.

[Log]

Great, but that hardly answers the question, now, does it?

[The Nehor]

Great, but that hardly answers the question, now, does it?

Perhaps not. God does not feel the need to say some things explicitly that are self-evident. God has not explicitly said that breathing isn't sinful but I am going to assume it is not until he says otherwise. I am also going to assume that when Jesus taught in person and through revelation what the sacrament was he meant to exclude all other interpretations.

[Log]

I am also going to assume that when Jesus taught in person and through revelation what the sacrament was he meant to exclude all other interpretations.

Which is...? The closest I can see is this: "He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled."

For myself, I take the sacrament prayers at face value - so there is nothing in them, to me, that speaks of renewing covenants, whether "baptismal" or other. When I partake of the bread, I signify I am willing to be a saint in the full sense of the word, to receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost wherein I take upon me the name of Christ, that I am willing to keep the commandments, and that I am willing to always remember Christ, so that he may pour out his spirit upon me. When I drink the water, I signify that I do, in fact, always remember Christ, so that he may pour out his spirit upon me.

Am I allowed to have this view? Am I wrong to see it this way?

Edited May 22, 2012 by Log

[The Nehor]

Which is...? The closest I can see is this: "He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled."

For myself, I take the sacrament prayers at face value - so there is nothing in them, to me, that speaks of renewing covenants, whether "baptismal" or other. When I partake of the bread, I signify I am willing to be a saint in the full sense of the word, to receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost wherein I take upon me the name of Christ, that I am willing to keep the commandments, and that I am willing to always remember Christ, so that he may pour out his spirit upon me. When I drink the water, I signify that I do, in fact, always remember Christ, so that he may pour out his spirit upon me.

Am I allowed to have this view? Am I wrong to see it this way?

I also allow that the revealed teaching of modern prophets count as Jesus teaching on the subject.

Of course you are allowed to have that view. I don't know if you're wrong. That's between you and God. I think you're wrong but if that shakes your convictions you are either unsure of your beliefs or you take what I say far too seriously.

Edited May 22, 2012 by The Nehor

[Log]

I also allow that the revealed teaching of modern prophets count as Jesus teaching on the subject.

I'm not BCSpace; let's just leave it at that.

[The Nehor]

I'm not BCSpace; let's just leave it at that.

Neither am I. BCSpace and I don't always get along very well due to my wariness of what American conservatism has become.