Administering the sacrament

[snowflake]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

The restoration is a restoration in the sense of restoring priesthood keys and authority.  We do not follow all the same customs or laws of Moses.  The Levitical priesthood was responsible for animal sacrifices.  These sacrifices are symbolized in the emblems of the sacrament today and the same priesthood keys are required to perform the related ordinances (both pointing to the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ).

I understand and agree with you on the symbolism of the sacrament as explained by Christ. He is the passover lamb and I think the LDS are spot on in their understanding of the animal sacrifice and the blood symbolized in the OT temple, fulfilled by Christ's crucifixion. 

What I get confused about, is this authority and Aaronic priesthood continuation into the new testament. I believe only one of the NT apostles would have been from the line of Levi (Matthew), and Christ was from the line of Judah so he would not have the authority according to the Torah by birth to have the Aaronic priesthood as well.  The LDS have non-Levite (or Jewish at all for that matter) teenagers claiming to have a restored Aaronic priesthood. For the LDS to claim this was restored, why don't we see this in the NT or the BOM for that matter? 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

If you read through the gospels there is no clear answer to most of the questions you ask here. Our pastor or church assistant pastor blesses the sacrament and they prepare the bread and wine as well. Not sure as to why we partake once a month. During the blessing we are encouraged to meditate on Jesus and our commitment to him.

I agree, the bible is silent about a lot of stuff.  How does your pastor/assistant pastor know they are doing it the way God wants them to? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm just interested in understanding the process better).

Quote

I thought that only an Aaronic priesthood holder could bless and administer the sacrament, this is fundamentally erroneous, no biblical or BOM scripture supports this idea. The Levitical priesthood was strictly reserved for 25 year old Levite unblemished males, pertaining to temple work.

Either priesthood can administer the sacrament.  But, how do you know this is erroneous?  Like you said, the bible is silent on the subject.  Using only the bible, you have no idea who should be blessing the sacrament or how it should be done, right?

Quote

If God was to "restore" something, wouldn't he make it like the original? That is what the word restore means.

Again, we're talking about restoring the authority to act in the name of God and perform His ordinances.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I understand and agree with you on the symbolism of the sacrament as explained by Christ. He is the passover lamb and I think the LDS are spot on in their understanding of the animal sacrifice and the blood symbolized in the OT temple, fulfilled by Christ's crucifixion. 

What I get confused about, is this authority and Aaronic priesthood continuation into the new testament. I believe only one of the NT apostles would have been from the line of Levi (Matthew), and Christ was from the line of Judah so he would not have the authority according to the Torah by birth to have the Aaronic priesthood as well.  The LDS have non-Levite (or Jewish at all for that matter) teenagers claiming to have a restored Aaronic priesthood. For the LDS to claim this was restored, why don't we see this in the NT or the BOM for that matter? 

This may help you understand our position:

Quote

 

The Aaronic (or Levitical) Priesthood thus functioned only within the tribe of Levi, and the right to have it conferred upon one was determined by lineage and worthiness. As part of his rationale that the law of Moses was fulfilled, Paul makes a point of the contrast between the lineal requirement of the lesser priesthood and the nonlineal Melchizedek Priesthood, which was not confined to those of one tribe (see Heb. 7:1–3, 11–14; JST Heb. 7:3 [Appendix]). The lineal restrictions of that Aaronic (Levitical) Priesthood were lifted when the law of Moses was fulfilled, and thereafter the offices of the priesthood were conferred upon worthy men without limitation to the tribe of Levi. This appears to be the case in the Church as recorded in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon (where there were no Levites) and is presently operative in the Church as it has been restored in the latter days.

The Aaronic Priesthood continued “with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel” from Aaron until John the Baptist, who was a priest in the Aaronic order (D&C 84:26–27), and by this authority he prepared the way for and baptized Jesus. Nineteen centuries later this same John was sent from heaven as a resurrected being to confer the Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. This was done on May 15, 1829, near Harmony, Pennsylvania. At that time John outlined some of the duties, privileges, and limitations of the priesthood, specifying that the Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministry of angels and can perform baptisms by water but has not the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Aaronic Priesthood functions under the direction of the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 13; JS—H 1:68–72).

Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17).
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/aaronic-priesthood

 

 

 

[cinepro]

On 12/5/2017 at 5:10 PM, Duncan said:

I don't know if this has been asked before but does anyone know when or why only the boys/men can administer the sacrament? I was looking through the scriptures and, unless i'm mistaken, the only reference is that Priests administer the sacrament, but they say nothing about deacons or teachers. I read that women used to set up the sacrament and take it down but when they switched to plastic cups they weren't really needed. Any hot leads?

I think this thread illustrates the answer pretty clearly. 

It's because that's how we've always done it (but not really), and how the scriptures direct that it be done (but not really), and because modern revelation directs it (but not really).

 

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The priesthood is the same, responsibilities are different.  The same differentiation of responsibilities exist between the office of elder and high priest.  Same priesthood, different responsibilities. 

 

thank you...I knew some of this but you clarified the area of responsibilities and the reason for blessings for each office of the Aaronic Priesthood  I smile though that some Deacons would be so willing to do the blessing of the Sacrament,...and yet 16 year olds just don't want to do that...a teenager thing..

[snowflake]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

agree, the bible is silent about a lot of stuff.  How does your pastor/assistant pastor know they are doing it the way God wants them to? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm just interested in understanding the process better).

I think that the examples given in the Gospels are sufficient for performing such prayers, remember that all believers are in the new covenant, written on our hearts. The old covenant has passed away including the Aaronic priesthood per Hebrews 8.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

¹² For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

¹³ In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Either priesthood can administer the sacrament.  But, how do you know this is erroneous?  Like you said, the bible is silent on the subject.  Using only the bible, you have no idea who should be blessing the sacrament or how it should be done, right?

Because the bible is silent on the issue, I don't think it matters who says the prayer. The LDS make a big deal about "authority" when in the new covenant all believers are saved and have direct access to God through Jesus. Why is the NT silent on "priesthood authority"?, because it is done away with, Christ is our High priest.  The obsession with authority is just a barrier put up by the LDS church, any believer in Christ has as much "authority" as the LDS "Prophet".

²⁵ Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

²⁶ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

²⁷ Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

²⁸ For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think this thread illustrates the answer pretty clearly. 

It's because that's how we've always done it (but not really), and how the scriptures direct that it be done (but not really), and because modern revelation directs it (but not really).

This is true of many things. Like the Word of Wisdom.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

I think that the examples given in the Gospels are sufficient for performing such prayers, remember that all believers are in the new covenant, written on our hearts. The old covenant has passed away including the Aaronic priesthood per Hebrews 8.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

¹² For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

¹³ In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So why don't all the churches believe in the same 'laws' if this verse means that every church will just automatically know what they should do and how they should do it?

These verses, written specifically about the House of Israel, lead me to an interesting question though that I had never thought about before.  Do you consider yourself to be a member of the House of Israel?

Quote

Because the bible is silent on the issue, I don't think it matters who says the prayer.

I can see why you would think that, given your belief system and what it would mean for you if it actually did matter.

Edited December 8, 2017 by bluebell

[pogi]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

I think that the examples given in the Gospels are sufficient for performing such prayers, remember that all believers are in the new covenant, written on our hearts. The old covenant has passed away including the Aaronic priesthood per Hebrews 8.

The old covenant mentioned in Hebrews 8 is not the same thing as the authority and keys of the Aaronic priesthood.  The old covenant is in reference to the agreement between God and the children of Israel...all of the children of Israel and not just the Levites...the "old covenant" is clearly distinct from the authority of the priesthood.  In the old covenant, however, the priesthood was reserved to just the Levites, in the new covenant, that restriction was lifted as referenced in the link I posted above.  The old covenant and new covenants are more about law and agreements than authority and priesthood keys.  This is evidenced by comparing the old covenant to the law written on tablets of stone, and the new covenant to the laws written on the tablets of our fleshy hearts. 

The examples in the gospels are all of men of the priesthood.  You don't see unordained women or men offering such prayers or baptizing.  

10 hours ago, snowflake said:

Because the bible is silent on the issue, I don't think it matters who says the prayer. The LDS make a big deal about "authority" when in the new covenant all believers are saved and have direct access to God through Jesus. Why is the NT silent on "priesthood authority"?, because it is done away with, Christ is our High priest.  The obsession with authority is just a barrier put up by the LDS church, any believer in Christ has as much "authority" as the LDS "Prophet".

The Bible is not silent on the matter of prayers.  It clearly restricts women (non-priesthood holders) from saying such prayers.  The NT is also not silent on priesthood authority either.  By what authority did John baptize, by God or man?  The sacrament being a renewal of baptismal covenants, the same authority that John held to baptize is required to bless the emblems of the sacrament.  A few more examples:

...I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19.

...he ordained twelve, Mark 3:14.

...By what authority doest thou these things, Mark 11:28.

...gave them power and authority over all devils, Luke 9:1.

...Lord appointed other seventy, Luke 10:1.

...I have chosen you, and ordained you, John 15:16.

...apostles … laid their hands on them, Acts 6:6 (8:18; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14).

...testify that it is he which was ordained of God, Acts 10:42.

...Paul, an apostle … by Jesus Christ, Gal. 1:1.

...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed, Titus 1:5.

...he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Heb. 5:4.

 

[Raymond Ellis]

The idea men only may pass the sacrament is okay with me. But we should ponder on what the sacrament really means. We are like the Old Testament people who offered sacrifices for sin without them making the connection to the future sacrifice of the savior -- we just offer the sacrament every week without really knowing what it truly represents, we think were doing it to remember the savior and renew our covenants, but it has a deeper meaning than that. As a clue I can say that the bread represents the "body of Christ" and the wine represents the "life" of the body -- if you expand on that then you will get the full meaning of the sacrament. A further clue: meditate on the meaning of Genesis 29:20 combine your meditation on the meaning of Genesis 41and ask God to reveal the meaning of it.

D&C 9:8 teaches us to study an idea out in our mind and then ask God if the idea is correct or not, and if the idea is true God will cause your bosom to burn with the Holy Ghost so you will know that it is true. And if it is false you will feel a stupor of thought that will cause you to forget the idea.