Bread and Water in the LDS Sacrament

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 11:02 AM, MiserereNobis said:

In the traditional Latin Mass, only the priest drinks the wine.  People receiving communion only receive the bread, which is in a ciborium and put on the tongue of the recipient by the priest.  There is a paten underneath to catch any crumbs that may fall.  Here's a picture:

 

Unless you have held a paten you have no idea about the variations in the human tongue.

I saw thousands of tongues as a kid.  No wonder I am a little weird about languages.  

Edited June 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How many hands does a temple worker shake?

Good point! Germs from the mouth are probably no different than the hands, especially when most people still seem to cough into their hands from my observations. 

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good point! Germs from the mouth are probably no different than the hands, especially when most people still seem to cough into their hands from my observations. 

It has been shown that hands are one of the germiest parts of the body. Hopefully our priests wash their hands well before breaking the bread. They should probably avoid doing it if they are sick.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, holy water is not required.   In fact in case of an emergency or the imminent death of the child, anyone may baptize 

Why would you not take his word for it?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi

I did not dispute that holy water is not required. Just that it was introduced. To me it seems a definite change. That was my thinking.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed.

I think you will find that Constantine probably commissioned the first known Bible. Although, I will agree that it was not the "canonical" Catholic Bible. I guess one can argue that Constantine was Catholic, but there is no record of his baptism except on his deathbed. I consider him to largely be the founder of the first "state" church, but I'm sure Roman Catholics would disagree with that. He didn't seem to give any deference to the bishop of Rome, and made some decisions himself. Later emperors made reading creeds mandatory.

From the "all-knowing" wikipedia:  "The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.^[1]"

I believe the first "canonical" Catholic Bible was based upon the work of Jerome, but am open to contrary facts about that. So any earlier Bible would have been quite rare, and probably compiled the Greek Septuagint and Greek NT translations available. However, it is possible that the vulgate Latin got compiled. I think the general idea of the Roman bishop was to commission Jerome to translate a new version into Latin for use by the Roman Catholic Church. It formed the basis for the "canonical" Catholic Bible. But, I personally reject that version for many reasons, and the description of it as preserving the scriptures for man. The eastern Church already had a Bible, and would not have lost the scriptures. So, I do not agree.

[Calm]

"Just that it was introduced. To me it seems a definite change. That was my thinking."

Would you see this as different or the same as the change of LDS to water instead of wine?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Just that it was introduced. To me it seems a definite change. That was my thinking."

Would you see this as different or the same as the change of LDS to water instead of wine?

I wouldn't. AFAIK Doctrinally the Catholics are required to use wine, the LDS are more flexible.

Edited June 4, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Alan]

I once attended an RLDS (Community of Christ) meeting and they used red grape juice. I asked about this and was informed that this was a relatively modern practice, and that prior to that they used to make their own sacrament "wine" by soaking raisins.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We actually had a case where someone forgot to bring bread for a scout camp out and the bishop ok'd using a chocolate bar

Man cannot live on bread alone... he needs chocolate.

Typical of scouts to forget the bread, but not the chocolate bars of course!

[SeekerB]

On 6/2/2017 at 11:16 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting.  Has anyone had the LDS sacrament with something other than water or bread?  Is there some sort of rule that you have to use water and bread on Sunday despite this scripture?

For awhile we had a member with a wheat allergy. Every tray had a couple of tortilla chips for her.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

"Just that it was introduced. To me it seems a definite change. That was my thinking."

Would you see this as different or the same as the change of LDS to water instead of wine?

Yes. That is a change - it is just expressly allowed.

I will add that wine has a couple of advantages. It is a antibacterial agent, so would tend not to spread disease. In the early church, I think the practice was to bless a cup or two, and then pass it or let the congregation come to it. The alcohol in wine is enough to kill most any germ. Therefore, it didn't grow rancid or grow bad agents, and could be kept at a church from week to week. In modern times our tap water has enough chlorine to perform this task, and of course we can use fresh tap water every week. In days gone by, the prevention of disease was a major concern, and they knew water could go bad, but didn't really know why. Wine was a safe medium, and a tiny bit is not going to hurt anyone. The problem of course is that "weak" people may become addicted to it.

Edited June 4, 2017 by RevTestament

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The problem of course is that "weak" people may become addicted to it.

I think there are two problems with this.  First of all, having a sip of wine during a religious service once a week would hardly be cause for alcoholism.  Secondly, alcoholism is not an issue of will or "weakness."  It is a disease.  Alcoholics are no more weak than are cancer patients.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think there are two problems with this.  First of all, having a sip of wine during a religious service once a week would hardly be cause for alcoholism.  Secondly, alcoholism is not an issue of will or "weakness."  It is a disease.  Alcoholics are no more weak than are cancer patients.

Agreed. We have other reasons not to imbibe.

[Storm Rider]

On 6/2/2017 at 11:15 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I saw this quote before, I guess for whatever reason I just didn't take it literally as to mean you can eat anything.  Thanks for clarifying!

Miserere Nobis, in extreme circumstances anything will do, but that is the extreme situation.  The objective today is to have bread and water.  

One thing I have always admired is the Eucharistic Adoration within Catholicism; we just don't have anything similar.  Whereas within Catholicism the Eucharist is used to assist followers to focus on Jesus and his sacrifice for them. Within LDS liturgy the Sacrament is only symbolic.  We reverence the Sacrament; it is a time of deep contemplation and quiet (though babies will cry when they choose to cry; but parents will often leave the chapel area during Sacrament).  

It is one area where we can learn from one another.  

I enjoy an open communion.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yes. That is a change - it is just expressly allowed.

I will add that wine has a couple of advantages. It is a antibacterial agent, so would tend not to spread disease. In the early church, I think the practice was to bless a cup or two, and then pass it or let the congregation come to it. The alcohol in wine is enough to kill most any germ. Therefore, it didn't grow rancid or grow bad agents, and could be kept at a church from week to week. In modern times our tap water has enough chlorine to perform this task, and of course we can use fresh tap water every week. In days gone by, the prevention of disease was a major concern, and they knew water could go bad, but didn't really know why. Wine was a safe medium, and a tiny bit is not going to hurt anyone. The problem of course is that "weak" people may become addicted to it.

Not from a thimble of wine.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think there are two problems with this.  First of all, having a sip of wine during a religious service once a week would hardly be cause for alcoholism.  Secondly, alcoholism is not an issue of will or "weakness."  It is a disease.  Alcoholics are no more weak than are cancer patients.

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not from a thimble of wine.

Sorry, I didn't see a notice of your post - probably because I entered the thread. Anyway, of course not from a thimble of wine. I believe a tiny bit is not going to hurt anybody. However, I disagree as an issue that it is not a matter of weakness. If you don't drink it, you won't become an alcoholic. By the time some people realize they are past the point of "moderation" it is too late. They got the "disease." Saying it is not a matter of weakness or determination is really just belaboring the point. Anyone can become an alcoholic. It is not a disease of just a few. Who becomes an alcoholic and who doesn't is probably an issue of many factors, but it is in a large-sense a non-discriminatory disease, and will hit people in their most vulnerable times of weakness and trial. So pretending that it is not a matter of weakness, just is fooling ourselves I think. Everyone has times of weakness in their lives. If they turn to alcohol to escape their problems, they are prime candidates for "the disease" of alcoholism. So denying the weakness in us is there, is not going to help address the issue, and I believe there will continue to be alcoholics in that instance, which the scriptures clearly speak against - those who become drunkards, who do not labor, who do not do their part to contribute to society. This is what the word of wisdom seeks to prevent.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Miserere Nobis, in extreme circumstances anything will do, but that is the extreme situation.  The objective today is to have bread and water.  One thing I have always admired is the Eucharistic Adoration within Catholicism; we just don't have anything similar.  Whereas within Catholicism the Eucharist is used to assist followers to focus on Jesus and his sacrifice for them within LDS liturgy the Sacrament is only symbolic.  We reverence the Sacrament; it is a time of deep contemplation and quiet (though babies will cry when they choose to cry parents will often leave the chapel area during Sacrament).  

It is one area where we can learn from one another.  

I enjoy an open communion.

There is nothing wrong with it being purely symbolic. I think most scripture and Christian rites/ordinances are that way. I see a problem with adoring "things." And the time will come for the Gentiles when God will destroy their images, and false things of worship. This is something we should not want to learn...

[Calm]

"Anyone can become an alcoholic."

Probably not.

First, not everyone will be placed in a situation they could become an alcoholic because they won't make those choices because of who they are.  Second, there really is a physical characteristic required to become an alcoholic.  Many won't  get there no matter drinking too much too often though others will have physical changes due to heavy drinking long term:

http://lakesidemilam.com/alcohol-drug-addiction/under-the-influence/a-guide-to-the-myths-and-realities-of-alcoholism/

"Alcohol is selectively addictive drug; it is addictive for only a minority of its users, namely, alcoholics. Most people can drink occasionally, daily, even heavily, without becoming addicted to alcohol. Others (alcoholics) will become addicted no matter how much they drink....

Myth: Addiction to alcohol is often psychological.

Reality: Addiction to alcohol is primarily physiological. Alcoholics become addicted because their bodies are physiologically incapable of processing alcohol normally.

Myth: People become alcoholics because they have psychological or emotional problems which they try to relieve by drinking.

Reality: Alcoholics have the same psychological and emotional problems as everyone else before they start drinking. These problems are aggravated, however, by their addiction to alcohol. Alcoholism undermines and weakens the alcoholic’s ability to cope with the normal problems of living. Furthermore, the alcoholic’s emotions become inflamed both when he drinks excessively and when he stops drinking. Thus, when he is drinking, and when he is abstinent, he will feel angry, fearful, and depressed in exaggerated degrees."

----

Alcohol abuse is not the same thing as alcoholism.  The latter is defined as a physical dependence, not an emotional one.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/alcohol-disorders.aspx

"

• Alcohol abuse is a drinking pattern that results in significant and recurrent adverse consequences. Alcohol abusers may fail to fulfill major school, work, or family obligations. They may have drinking-related legal problems, such as repeated arrests for driving while intoxicated. They may have relationship problems related to their drinking.

• People with alcoholism — technically known as alcohol dependence — have lost reliable control of their alcohol use. It doesn't matter what kind of alcohol someone drinks or even how much: Alcohol-dependent people are often unable to stop drinking once they start. Alcohol dependence is characterized by tolerance (the need to drink more to achieve the same "high") and withdrawal symptoms if drinking is suddenly stopped. Withdrawal symptoms may include nausea, sweating, restlessness, irritability, tremors, hallucinations and convulsions."

Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is nothing wrong with it being purely symbolic. I think most scripture and Christian rites/ordinances are that way. I see a problem with adoring "things." And the time will come for the Gentiles when God will destroy their images, and false things of worship. This is something we should not want to learn...

Can you elaborate what you mean here?  I just want to make sure I understand you before I respond.  What do you mean that adoring "things" is a problem?  And what do you mean about God destroying images?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

Sorry, I didn't see a notice of your post - probably because I entered the thread. Anyway, of course not from a thimble of wine. I believe a tiny bit is not going to hurt anybody. However, I disagree as an issue that it is not a matter of weakness. If you don't drink it, you won't become an alcoholic. By the time some people realize they are past the point of "moderation" it is too late. They got the "disease." Saying it is not a matter of weakness or determination is really just belaboring the point. Anyone can become an alcoholic. It is not a disease of just a few. Who becomes an alcoholic and who doesn't is probably an issue of many factors, but it is in a large-sense a non-discriminatory disease, and will hit people in their most vulnerable times of weakness and trial. So pretending that it is not a matter of weakness, just is fooling ourselves I think. Everyone has times of weakness in their lives. If they turn to alcohol to escape their problems, they are prime candidates for "the disease" of alcoholism. So denying the weakness in us is there, is not going to help address the issue, and I believe there will continue to be alcoholics in that instance, which the scriptures clearly speak against - those who become drunkards, who do not labor, who do not do their part to contribute to society. This is what the word of wisdom seeks to prevent.

There's no issue here to argue about.

Of course if you are never tempted you will never sin.  Of course if you never taste alcohol you will not be an alcoholic.

I knew a man in my ward who had type 2 diabetes and had his leg amputated up to the knee, due to his disease, and became wheel-chair bound.  Soon after the amputation, we had a ward dinner.  Noticing he was eating a huge piece of chocolate cake, and being his bishop, I stopped to have a chat with him.  We talked several minutes about his family and how he was doing. In the course of the conversation I asked him how his diabetes was doing. He answered "Oh- I don't have a problem with my diabetes" 

He died within a year from complications to his diabetes.

Yes we have weaknesses.  There are many temptations in life. They are unavoidable. Even in church.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you elaborate what you mean here?  I just want to make sure I understand you before I respond.  What do you mean that adoring "things" is a problem?  And what do you mean about God destroying images?

I am thinking of a specific scripture from the Book of Mormon - so I don't expect you to be familiar with it:

12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

13 Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off.

14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

 

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am thinking of a specific scripture from the Book of Mormon - so I don't expect you to be familiar with it:

12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

13 Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off.

14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

 

Ok, I'm with you

All idols and false worship will be ended, along with all the other nastiness (lyings, deceiving, etc) listed in those verses.

 

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There's no issue here to argue about.

Of course if you are never tempted you will never sin.  Of course if you never taste alcohol you will not be an alcoholic.

I knew a man in my ward who had type 2 diabetes and had his leg amputated up to the knee, due to his disease, and became wheel-chair bound.  Soon after the amputation, we had a ward dinner.  Noticing he was eating a huge piece of chocolate cake, and being his bishop, I stopped to have a chat with him.  We talked several minutes about his family and how he was doing. In the course of the conversation I asked him how his diabetes was doing. He answered "Oh- I don't have a problem with my diabetes" 

He died within a year from complications to his diabetes.

Yes we have weaknesses.  There are many temptations in life. They are unavoidable. Even in church.

I suppose what you are saying is some people are more predisposed to certain diseases than others, and I certainly cannot argue with that. My father-in-law was much the same as the man in your ward. He had Type 2 diabetes as did his father. His sister also had her leg amputated due to the disease. They both have passed away largely due to this disease - its complications. I believe sugar is the main weakness for type 2 diabetics. I realize a significant portion of the medical community disagrees with that. However, populations which had no type 2 diabetes to speak of will begin seeing type 2 diabetes once they adopt the SAD of high sugar and simple carbs(it used to be blamed on fat). The high amounts of sugar can increase insulin resistance and eventually wear out the pancreas resulting in diabetes and the need to supplement insulin. So yes, I realize some people are more susceptible, but I believe just about anyone can become diabetic as well. Those who exercise control and limit sugar intake are certainly less likely to get the disease. Most people with type 2 have eaten a high sugar diet all their lives starting with sugar cereals for breakfast. My wife has not been diagnosed with diabetes, but I have always stressed the family limiting its sugar. Nevertheless, my wife seemingly loves to eat or give the kids a sugary snack before dinner instead of waiting for desert, which is so contrary to way I was brought up. We had to eat our dinner and vegetables to get desert. I try not to harp on my wife, and try to prepare dinners with very limited simple carbs and sugars. Although I do use potatoes as they are rich in potassium which is needed to make glycogen. I am grateful that so far my wife has avoided the disease, and have seen it starting to rear its head in her siblings. 

Similarly, some people are more susceptible to alcohol. But, yes, I believe just about anyone can become an alcoholic. To point to the numbers and say well some don't is not proof. Some people make better choices than others. Some people realize the dangers of alcohol and limit intake.

[Calm]

We are not pointing to the numbers, but the science behind it.  They have been able to study the brain and other parts of the body to see what's different. It is similar to confusing the different types of diabetes and thinking they are all treated the same just because they share one or more symptoms.  I have been told numerous times that all we had to do was have some particular diet and then my daughter would not need insulin as her own would once more be sufficient.  Some are even very skeptical when I tell them it won't work because my daughter's body now completely lacks insulin producers because type 1 is an autoimmune disease.

Alcohol abuse is different than alcohol dependence, which produces a set of symptoms/physical reactions not present in most abusers.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Sorry, I didn't see a notice of your post - probably because I entered the thread. Anyway, of course not from a thimble of wine. I believe a tiny bit is not going to hurt anybody. However, I disagree as an issue that it is not a matter of weakness. If you don't drink it, you won't become an alcoholic. By the time some people realize they are past the point of "moderation" it is too late. They got the "disease." Saying it is not a matter of weakness or determination is really just belaboring the point. Anyone can become an alcoholic. It is not a disease of just a few. Who becomes an alcoholic and who doesn't is probably an issue of many factors, but it is in a large-sense a non-discriminatory disease, and will hit people in their most vulnerable times of weakness and trial. So pretending that it is not a matter of weakness, just is fooling ourselves I think. Everyone has times of weakness in their lives. If they turn to alcohol to escape their problems, they are prime candidates for "the disease" of alcoholism. So denying the weakness in us is there, is not going to help address the issue, and I believe there will continue to be alcoholics in that instance, which the scriptures clearly speak against - those who become drunkards, who do not labor, who do not do their part to contribute to society. This is what the word of wisdom seeks to prevent.

Most people drink alcohol responsibly, a few go onto to become alcoholics. Children of alcoholics are much more prone to become alcoholics themselves So there is a genetic component.

[snowflake]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 11:45 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Hi friends,

I wanted to start a discussion of the LDS sacrament.  Why is water used instead of wine?  Is this connected to the Word of Wisdom?  If so, was wine used prior to the Word of Wisdom?  Have other liquids been used?  Is there some sort of requirement about what can or cannot be used?  In Catholicism, there are specific rules on the wine (it has to be from grapes, it can't have anything added to it, it must have alcohol, etc).  The reasoning in Catholicism is that we must do what Christ did in the Last Supper.

I think you are misunderstanding what the term "restored gospel" means. When Joseph restored the gospel he brought the church and it's ordinances back to the way the Apostles were performing them in the 1st century.  So basically sacrament is done just like the Apostles did, water, coke, fruit juice, whatever liquid is available can be used for wine and the same with the bread..., chocolate, crackers, tortilla chips....doesn't matter, it's the restored gospel OK?