10THAmendment Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 One of the things that I always struggled with and asked frequently when I was a TBM was why certain sins made one unworthy to partake of the sacrament (and essentially repent) while other sinners could freely partake and repent. What is the basis for prohibiting someone from repenting and renewing their covenants? The Savior made things simple in the scriptures when he would even forgive adulterers on the spot. I don’t recall Him telling a truly repentant person “you do not have access to my atonement for 6-12 months because this sin is too big. You are not allowed to take the sacrament until after your bishop says you are worthy to.” The whole concept just seems to be so contrary to what the sacrament itself represents.
Popular Post InCognitus Posted May 21, 2020 Popular Post Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) Quote 1 Corinthians 11:23–29: 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. You seem to be mistaking partaking of the sacrament with the act of repenting. The difference has to do with whether or not one has repented in their heart and truly has the desire to renew the covenant before taking the sacrament. If a person partakes of the sacrament and he or she hasn't fully repented or has no desire to repent and has it in their heart to go on repeating their sin the moment they get home from church, then they are making a mockery of the covenant and causing damnation upon their own soul (as the verse above explains). But if a person prepares for the sacrament and has a broken heart and a contrite spirit, with a repentant heart, then it brings life and forgiveness. Edited May 21, 2020 by InCognitus 5
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted May 21, 2020 Popular Post Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) With due respect, I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings with respect to the Sacrament. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that being prevented from taking the Sacrament for a time prevents one from repenting, or that it prevents one from having access to the Atonement, any more than being excommunicated prevents one from repenting or from having access to the Atonement. Of late, and to one degree or another, all of us have had at least somewhat limited access to the Sacrament as a result of currently-prevailing circumstances. Such circumstances, as with other circumstances that might prevent us from taking the Sacrament for a time, however, do not prevent us from repenting or from accessing the Atonement. And as much as you might think that your disagreement is with a particular Bishop or Stake President, again, with all due respect, that's simply not the case. In the Book of Mormon, we are commanded, Moroni writes, to "See that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily," (Mormon 9:29). Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that when one partakes of the Sacrament unworthily, he eats and drinks "damnation to his soul" (1 Corinthians 11:29, 3 Nephi 18:29). As a Judge in Israel, ultimately, it is a Bishop's responsibility to determine if a member of his ward falls into that category. If a Bishop counsels someone to not partake of the Sacrament for a time, it's not a matter of punishing that individual as much as it is a matter of releasing the individual for a time from covenants that, temporarily, because of sin that is being resolved in his life, he is not prepared to keep. As much as I might rue not being able to partake of the Sacrament for a time (indeed, I do rue it, because my ability to partake regularly has been disrupted by current circumstances), it's a much bigger deal to eat or drink "damnation to [my] soul." While I don't know, and don't want to know, details, I've had relatively close family members who have had action taken with respect to their membership that precluded them from taking the Sacrament for a time. While I was fairly young when the circumstances that led to that chain of events occurred, I've been aware enough of the circumstances to know that their appreciation for repentance, for the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and for the Sacrament have increased by orders of magnitude compared to what they were before that chain of events occurred. And I should add that, as paradoxical as this sounds, current circumstances have increased my appreciation for the ordinance of the Sacrament precisely because it has not been as readily available of late, even though sin has had nothing to do with those circumstances. I wish you well. Edited May 21, 2020 by Kenngo1969 9
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2020 Popular Post Posted May 21, 2020 51 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said: One of the things that I always struggled with and asked frequently when I was a TBM was why certain sins made one unworthy to partake of the sacrament (and essentially repent) while other sinners could freely partake and repent. What is the basis for prohibiting someone from repenting and renewing their covenants? The Savior made things simple in the scriptures when he would even forgive adulterers on the spot. I don’t recall Him telling a truly repentant person “you do not have access to my atonement for 6-12 months because this sin is too big. You are not allowed to take the sacrament until after your bishop says you are worthy to.” The whole concept just seems to be so contrary to what the sacrament itself represents. Disfellowshipment or excommunication are two means by which a member of the LDS faith community is removed from those who may partake of the emblems of the body and blood of the Savior. Those measures are not taken lightly and normally involve major violations of religious covenants. One must demonstrate true repentance under the supervision of a bishop or branch president, before being readmitted to the faith in full fellowship -- thus once again participating in the exoteric Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. From what you say here, it is not clear to me that you know what that Sacrament is all about, aside from all the other sacraments of the LDS faith. Anyhow, outside such measures, it is completely a matter of conscience whether one partakes of those emblems. It is then fully a matter of faith, not imposed by anyone else. It is no one else's concern, and no one has a right to comment or take note of one's failure to partake. If there truly is a "big sin" (as you put it), then that is time to take the matter to the confessional. The bishop has the authority to decide whether further action is necessary, and may simply advise the "guilty" party on what manner of personal action might be taken -- repentance may include returning stolen items, confessing to one who has been wronged, etc. Or it may include a religious court proceeding. The Lord has never expected perfection from any of us. Your concept of being prohibited "from repenting and renewing their covenants" is odd to say the least. No one is ever prohibited from repenting. As Hugh Nibley pointed out, repentance is free. One can do it every day. Who told you that you are ever prohibited from repenting? 5
The Nehor Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 15 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: One of the things that I always struggled with and asked frequently when I was a TBM was why certain sins made one unworthy to partake of the sacrament (and essentially repent) while other sinners could freely partake and repent. What is the basis for prohibiting someone from repenting and renewing their covenants? The Savior made things simple in the scriptures when he would even forgive adulterers on the spot. I don’t recall Him telling a truly repentant person “you do not have access to my atonement for 6-12 months because this sin is too big. You are not allowed to take the sacrament until after your bishop says you are worthy to.” The whole concept just seems to be so contrary to what the sacrament itself represents. When did the Savior forgive an adulterer on the spot? If you are thinking of the woman they brought to him to try to force him to impose stoning the Savior only told her He did not condemn her and told her not to sin again. Then again she did not ask for forgiveness and if she had He might have granted it. Who knows? The goal in denying oneself the sacrament is to avoid partaking when you are burdened by unrepented sin. 1
JAHS Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 I know a lot of members who have decided for themselves as to whether or not they should take the sacrament for small sins or moments of unrighteousness behavior. From what I understand a member does not need to refuse taking the sacrament unless specifically told to do so by their Bishop. Such a thing requires the direction of our Judge in Israel to obtain inspiration on. 2
Ahab Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 15 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: One of the things that I always struggled with and asked frequently when I was a TBM was why certain sins made one unworthy to partake of the sacrament (and essentially repent) while other sinners could freely partake and repent. What is the basis for prohibiting someone from repenting and renewing their covenants? The Savior made things simple in the scriptures when he would even forgive adulterers on the spot. I don’t recall Him telling a truly repentant person “you do not have access to my atonement for 6-12 months because this sin is too big. You are not allowed to take the sacrament until after your bishop says you are worthy to.” The whole concept just seems to be so contrary to what the sacrament itself represents. I think it has to do with what is considered acceptable behavior for a disciple of Christ, someone who has made a covenant to be a representative of Christ and live as Christ lives. People who are not disciples of Christ, and have not made a covenant to follow him and live as he does, are not held to the same higher standards as a disciple of Christ who has made that covenant, and they also do not have the same privileges. People who are not worthy of partaking of the sacrament are judged and deemed to have broken that covenant, and technically disfellowshipped by members who are still abiding by that covenant. Not shunned, but not having the same standing as faithful members. So it's just a matter of time to see if that person will choose to be faithful, again. In civil courts civil judges give someone either jail time or probation before allowing someone to resume normal citizenship status. Our Lord tells his judges to do the same kind of thing.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 24, 2020 Posted May 24, 2020 On 5/21/2020 at 1:03 AM, 10THAmendment said: One of the things that I always struggled with and asked frequently when I was a TBM was why certain sins made one unworthy to partake of the sacrament (and essentially repent) while other sinners could freely partake and repent. What is the basis for prohibiting someone from repenting and renewing their covenants? The Savior made things simple in the scriptures when he would even forgive adulterers on the spot. I don’t recall Him telling a truly repentant person “you do not have access to my atonement for 6-12 months because this sin is too big. You are not allowed to take the sacrament until after your bishop says you are worthy to.” The whole concept just seems to be so contrary to what the sacrament itself represents. Not partaking of the Sacrament, when one is not worthy, is to protect the member from “drinking damnation to one’s soul”. The Sacrament is always there for the benefit of one’s soul, to both forgive, and to never bring about harm. When “we” or anyone partakes unworthily, they are adding more sin, upon an already unrepentant soul. In some cases the Bishop is there to help direct our efforts (which I would hope he always is) in the right direction. If he is wrong, and if someone has truly repented, then God has still, or already has forgiven that person, and if so, then the Bishop is in error. Or so I would think.
Duncan Posted May 24, 2020 Posted May 24, 2020 From Elder Groberg's April 1989 General Conference, "If we desire to improve (which is to repent) and are not under priesthood restriction, then, in my opinion, we are worthy." Mind you we could be doing stuff and just not telling anyone or the Bishop at least and still partaking of the Sacrament.... 2
bsjkki Posted May 24, 2020 Posted May 24, 2020 If someone is no longer sinning and confesses a serious transgression as part of the steps of repentance, I don’t really understand what good it does to deny them the Sacrament. If they’ve been tortured by their conscious, forsaken their sin and then been brave enough to confess to their Bishop...how does it then help to deny them the Sacrament? I’ve never liked the concept of having to ‘prove’ to a Bishop you have repented. IMO, by the time one confesses, they’re are usually toward the end of the process. If a person is unrepentant or still sinning, that is another thing entirely. 1
Calm Posted May 24, 2020 Posted May 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: or still sinning, I think this might depend on age. Youth may be more helped than hurt by taking the sacrament if trying to repent even if not in full control of what ever they are doing. I think how the bishop approaches it (healing versus guilt trip) can make a big difference. 2
bsjkki Posted May 24, 2020 Posted May 24, 2020 26 minutes ago, Calm said: I think this might depend on age. Youth may be more helped than hurt by taking the sacrament if trying to repent even if not in full control of what ever they are doing. I think how the bishop approaches it (healing versus guilt trip) can make a big difference. Yes, thank you. I agree with this completely.
Recommended Posts