Mormon 95 thesis for our day

[Rain]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I believe that it is a saving ordinance. We need the sacrament to repent. It isn't just our own repentance through prayer, but the taking of the sacrament that enables us to retain remission of our sins. Because it is a saving ordinance, akin to baptism or temple ordinances, the ordinance is word-perfect and must be done in a certain manner. There are only a handful of ordinances in the Church whose wording is regulated, and the sacrament is one of them.

 

Quote

Yes, hypothetically, if one gets baptized and then gets hit by a bus after and never gets the chance to take the sacrament, their never having taken the sacrament won't "count against them." But, for people who live live week to week, we need the sacrament to retain remission of sins. 

The Church even has things in place for parts of the world where there aren't enough members to even have a branch. We once had a group of five members on my mission, without a branch president. We were authorized to hold sacrament meeting in the apartment next door. 

 

I get that it is important. There is a distinction between it and baptism etc because we don't do it by proxy for anyone who has died. I'm trying to figure out if that distincion matters here or not. 

Quote

Can you think of any other covenant you don't have to be physically present for while the covenant is being made?

 

See that's the thing.  If the distinction matters then whether you have to be physically present for other ordinances may not matter with the sacrament. So that question doesn' help me understand why one would need to be there for the prayers. 

Looking to see what I can find about ordinances...

Edited November 4, 2017 by Rain

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is there a rule about this?

No, no rule.  Some people think that the only way to correctly take the sacrament is by picking up the bread and cup of water with their right hand.  There is symbolism with using the right hand, but it's not required in order to do the ordinance correctly.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Do we really think they gave wine to 2 year old's?

I wouldn't be surprised.  Obviously I don't know what their traditions were but historically, it wasn't odd to give small amounts of weak wine to children.  It would have had no bad health affects.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I get that it is important. There is a distinction between it and baptism etc because we don't do it by proxy for anyone who has died. I'm trying to figure out if that distincion matters here or not. 

See that's the thing.  If the distinction matters then whether you have to be physically present for other ordinances may not matter with the sacrament. So that question doesn' help me understand why one would need to be there for the prayers. 

Looking to see what I can find about ordinances...

I think the fact that we don't partake the sacrament for those who have died means that it's not a saving ordinance.  It isn't necessary for salvation or we'd be making sure every person had the opportunity.

Edited November 4, 2017 by bluebell

[carbon dioxide]

Most of the 95 I have no problem with. The parts that basically declare sin not to be sin and allow wicked practices to be accepted by the Church I have a big problem with.  If gays get to keep their sins, I want to be able to keep my sins. 

[Calm]

23 hours ago, strappinglad said:

My Stake center and other buildings are designated as evacuation centers and the kitchens are formally inspected a couple of times a year by government authorities. At our last meeting it was impressed upon us that during an evacuation situation, NO food prepared OUTSIDE of the kitchen was to be allowed into the building to prevent accidental contamination. Not even grandmas finest brownies !!

Easily solved by eating the brownies outside right when you get there...have a little "whew, we made it to safety" party.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the fact that we don't partake the sacrament for those who have died means that it's not a saving ordinance.  It isn't necessary for salvation or we'd be making sure every person had the opportunity.

I would argue it is necessary for almost everyone to renew covenants. Maybe if you die right after baptism it is not needed? I suspect the reason we do not do it for the dead is that this ordinance or whatever its equivalent for the dead is does not require a physical body so they can take care of it themselves.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the fact that we don't partake the sacrament for those who have died means that it's not a saving ordinance.  It isn't necessary for salvation or we'd be making sure every person had the opportunity.

My bishops have never checked to ensure I get the Sacrament when I can't make it to Church or even suggested I do it.  The only reason I know about the option is because of my husband.  Even when I request it, it is often not delivered because of poor follow through with the YM. There are tons of homebounds in the Ward and yet I was told I was the only one getting the service as well.  I highly doubt that such a casual attitude toward Sacrament participation would be allowed if it was a saving ordinance.  Certainly I believe it helps move us upon the path of repentance, but imo we are not prevented from repenting or accessing the blessings of baptism by not receiving it weekly.

Having said that, I do wish there was a significant effort in our ward and all others to offer the Sacrament to all homebounds vigorously and then to follow through on it consistently.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My bishops have never checked to ensure I get the Sacrament when I can't make it to Church or even suggested I do it.  The only reason I know about the option is because of my husband.  Even when I request it, it is often not delivered because of poor follow through with the YM. There are tons of homebounds in the Ward and yet I was told I was the only one getting the service as well.  I highly doubt that such a casual attitude toward Sacrament participation would be allowed if it was a saving ordinance.  Certainly I believe it helps move us upon the path of repentance, but imo we are not prevented from repenting or accessing the blessings of baptism by not receiving it weekly.

I always liked it when my sons would take the Sacrament to the homebounds. They enjoyed it so much! The YM's leader is missing a big boat there.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I always liked it when my sons would take the Sacrament to the homebounds. They enjoyed it so much! The YM's leader is missing a big boat there.

Amen

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The YM's leader is missing a big boat there.

If you meant the Young Men president, then you're looking the wrong direction. The one who authorises the ministration of the sacrament in the bishop.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I always liked it when my sons would take the Sacrament to the homebounds. They enjoyed it so much! The YM's leader is missing a big boat there.

I like it as well.  

[strappinglad]

I don't remember when it stopped, but we used to have the sacrament for the ' junior sunday school/primary every week. It never bothered me that it was a duplicate of the main meeting and that some of the children were under 8. Tradition,tradition !!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Amen

Also, what about taping Sacrament meeting for them? A ward I was in way back would do this for those that were homebound.

[Calm]

They did that with the previous bishop.  My mother's ward allows them to listen to SM on their cell phones.

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 11:40 AM, ksfisher said:

Because we are so busy that we don't have three hours a week available to devote to Sunday worship with our fellow saints? 

Yes!

But also because the three hour block is not edifying anyway. Three hours of mainly lackluster and underprepared talks and lessons doesn't move the spiritual needle much. I don't blame members for that - that's inevitable with the way we do callings

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue it is necessary for almost everyone to renew covenants. Maybe if you die right after baptism it is not needed? I suspect the reason we do not do it for the dead is that this ordinance or whatever its equivalent for the dead is does not require a physical body so they can take care of it themselves.

How could they take care of it themselves though?  The sacrament requires eating and drinking, something that is not possible with a spirit body.  The only way that the dead would be able to take care of it themselves would be if the ordinance is completely different once you're dead, but we have no precedent for that idea.

Has anyone ever taught that it's necessary to renew covenants, rather than just incredibly beneficial?  I've never checked but it would be interesting to know.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But also because the three hour block is not edifying anyway

You remember the story about a farmer/rancher with several sons whose neighbor came to him and expressed his concern that the boys were not doing things correctly with the cattle. The farmer remarked , " You don't understand . I am trying to raise sons more than cattle. "

Perhaps the Lord is trying to raise saints/souls more than orators and CEOs. Like the neighbor in the story, however, I agree that we could try harder to give better prepared talks and lessons.

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

You remember the story about a farmer/rancher with several sons whose neighbor came to him and expressed his concern that the boys were not doing things correctly with the cattle. The farmer remarked , " You don't understand . I am trying to raise sons more than cattle. "

Perhaps the Lord is trying to raise saints/souls more than orators and CEOs. Like the neighbor in the story, however, I agree that we could try harder to give better prepared talks and lessons.

I get it. There are pros and cons no matter what you do. I don't think the current set up is optimal though. 

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

How could they take care of it themselves though?  The sacrament requires eating and drinking, something that is not possible with a spirit body.  The only way that the dead would be able to take care of it themselves would be if the ordinance is completely different once you're dead, but we have no precedent for that idea.

Has anyone ever taught that it's necessary to renew covenants, rather than just incredibly beneficial?  I've never checked but it would be interesting to know.

Any covenant that we make, when we break it, would need to be renewed.  All sin and break the covenant that we make at baptism to be a follower of Christ.  As we honestly repent, ask for forgiveness, and renew our covenants through participation in the sacrament we become clean again.  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

How could they take care of it themselves though?  The sacrament requires eating and drinking, something that is not possible with a spirit body.  The only way that the dead would be able to take care of it themselves would be if the ordinance is completely different once you're dead, but we have no precedent for that idea.

Has anyone ever taught that it's necessary to renew covenants, rather than just incredibly beneficial?  I've never checked but it would be interesting to know.

I would suggest that for most it is necessary. How do they do it? Do not know. It does require eating and drinking here but under Mosaic Law a similar effect was achieved through the sacrifice of animals. I suspect there is a similar alternative for the dead. Just a hypothesis though.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Any covenant that we make, when we break it, would need to be renewed.  All sin and break the covenant that we make at baptism to be a follower of Christ.  As we honestly repent, ask for forgiveness, and renew our covenants through participation in the sacrament we become clean again.  

I agree, but is the sacrament the only way to completely repent?

I've been trying to find some information on it, and from what i've found so far, all of the saving ordinances in the LDS church are done in the temple.  If it's not an ordinance that is done for the dead, then it's not considered a saving ordinance.  This is on lds.org under ordinances-

"In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord.

Other ordinances, such as naming and blessing children, consecrating oil, and administering to the sick and afflicted, are also performed by priesthood authority. While they are not essential to our salvation, they are important for our comfort, guidance, and encouragement."

 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would suggest that for most it is necessary. How do they do it? Do not know. It does require eating and drinking here but under Mosaic Law a similar effect was achieved through the sacrifice of animals. I suspect there is a similar alternative for the dead. Just a hypothesis though.

The church doesn't list it as a saving ordinance on lds.org, but I agree that it's very important.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 05/11/2017 at 12:56 AM, Gray said:

But also because the three hour block is not edifying anyway. Three hours of mainly lackluster and underprepared talks and lessons doesn't move the spiritual needle much. I don't blame members for that - that's inevitable with the way we do callings

Please note that you are speaking for yourself. I was incredibly edified at church today. The diligent Saints that I'm privileged to associate with don't do lacklustre. I'm sorry that you have a different way of doing callings.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

On 11/5/2017 at 5:51 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please note that you are speaking for yourself. I was incredibly edified at church today. The diligent Saints that I'm privileged to associate with don't do lacklustre. I'm sorry that you have a different way of doing callings.

I'm glad you've had that experience!

Edited November 6, 2017 by Gray