Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

No, your opinion is not decision worthy, CV75.  An ordinance is an act signifying one is covenanting to do the Lord's Will.  One, we have no instruction from the Brethren on this; and common sense understanding of scripture instructs the worthy dead are taking their form of sacrament (communion) in their realm.  We will have to agree to disagree.

If your opinion were decision worthy, you would not impute of me things i never suggested, and instead engage in my actual points. Should you demonstrate you are able and willing to that, I would be happy to discuss.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's been the go-to in this discussion.

Well, as I said, it's a pretty easy counterexample. 

I also believe I stated that the stronger, clearer argument is that there is no temple analogue. In the holy temple we vicariously engage in all of the ordinances necessary for salvation, and the sacrament isn't one of those ordinances. Hence, it is not an essential (or saving) ordinance. 

If the sacrament is truly essential for salvation, then why do we withhold this saving ordinance from our ancestors? 

 

Quote

IMO, it does not demonstrate that the ordinance isn't always necessary because it is such an extremely rare occurrence.

But it does. If you concede (as you have) that there is at least one circumstance under which it is not "always necessary" then, by definition, it is not always necessary. 

 

[Doctrine 612]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

RULDS?

Not sure.

Finding it hard to believe all the options  that are being taught about the scriptures that are just opinions.

 

telling people that the sacrament is a saving ordinance is not correct, because if that were true, then all those bishops that keep people from partaking of it are condemning them to hell.

I find it hard to believe That we must put our trust and salvation in the hands of sinful men, when we are only to put our trust in the one who was sinless.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Not sure.

Finding it hard to believe all the options  that are being taught about the scriptures that are just opinions.

 

telling people that the sacrament is a saving ordinance is not correct, because if that were true, then all those bishops that keep people from partaking of it are condemning them to hell.

I find it hard to believe That we must put our trust and salvation in the hands of sinful men, when we are only to put our trust in the one who was sinless.

You are not sure you are LDS?

Opinions are just opinions. Even mine. 

Bishops are following the Savior’s own instructions regarding taking the sacrament unworthily.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Islander]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Thank you for clarifying that.

One of the greatest challenges for us, at least in the Church, is that there is no systematic theology set forth. Except for the efforts of H.B Roberts early in the 20th century, we have no clearly articulated compendium of theology to go to in order to sort out these questions. So we are left with the manuals and the discourse of the general authorities to dissect and the possibility of a multitude of interpretations, in and out of context. Just my thoughts. 

[let’s roll]

4 minutes ago, Islander said:

One of the greatest challenges for us, at least in the Church, is that there is no systematic theology set forth. Except for the efforts of H.B Roberts early in the 20th century, we have no clearly articulated compendium of theology to go to in order to sort out these questions. So we are left with the manuals and the discourse of the general authorities to dissect and the possibility of a multitude of interpretations, in and out of context. Just my thoughts. 

Or we can take the approach that any efforts to “sort out” and “dissect” might be better spent on singular focus on living the two great commandments and applying, and when appropriate sharing, the wisdom that flows from those efforts.

[CV75]

On 5/25/2020 at 5:14 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Seems to me that the sacrament is essential for salvation, thus it is a saving ordinance.

In this sense, it is a saving ordinance. If someone through no choice of their own never partakes of it in this life after being baptized and confirmed, or ordained, endowed and sealed to a spouse for that matter -- a ridiculous hypothetical -- will have an opportunity per D&C 27:5-14. To make the hypothetical even more ridiculous, if he refuses that opportunity afforded in D&C 27 it will be to his condemnation (to what extent, who knows?). So for practical purposes in both instances, it is a saving ordinance.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

In this sense, it is a saving ordinance. If someone through no choice of their own never partakes of it in this life after being baptized and confirmed, or ordained, endowed and sealed to a spouse for that matter -- a ridiculous hypothetical -- will have an opportunity per D&C 27:5-14. To make the hypothetical even more ridiculous, if he refuses that opportunity afforded in D&C 27 it will be to his condemnation (to what extent, who knows?). So for practical purposes in both instances, it is a saving ordinance.

Thank you for these thoughts.

[Islander]

4 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Or we can take the approach that any efforts to “sort out” and “dissect” might be better spent on singular focus on living the two great commandments and applying, and when appropriate sharing, the wisdom that flows from those efforts.

I am not necessarily disagreeing. But, it should be noted also, that we are called to defend the faith and to articulate coherently about our beliefs and doctrinal foundation. Having the appropriate tools and being prepared goes a long way. In  my experience as a convert, it takes a very long time and quite an effort to be informed sufficiently in order to do just that. There are many life long members of the Church that can not appropriately argue a doctrinal point when taken to task.  

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Show me scripture or teachings that taking the sacrament is a salvation ordinance.  You can't.

I can't because the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  I never said it was.  What I did do was ask you which scripture indicated or alludes to the dead participating in the sacrament (or an equivalent).

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, as I said, it's a pretty easy counterexample. 
 

And easy to counter, as I said.

Quote

Amulek said, I also believe I stated that the stronger, clearer argument is that there is no temple analogue. In the holy temple we vicariously engage in all of the ordinances necessary for salvation, and the sacrament isn't one of those ordinances. Hence, it is not an essential (or saving) ordinance. 
 

Quote

Elder Bednar said, “The Prophet Joseph Smith summarized succinctly the essential role of priesthood ordinances in the gospel of Jesus Christ: “Being born again, comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances.” This penetrating statement emphasizes the roles of both the Holy Ghost and sacred ordinances in the process of spiritual rebirth....Ordinances received and honored with integrity are essential to obtaining the power of godliness and all of the blessings made available through the Savior’s Atonement.“
 

Quote

If the sacrament is truly essential for salvation, then why do we withhold this saving ordinance from our ancestors? 

But it does. If you concede (as you have) that there is at least one circumstance under which it is not "always necessary" then, by definition, it is not always necessary. 

I understand that. There is no sin in those who are not accountable. I have indicated several times that it is an ordinance for the living. It is necessary for those who are accountable.

We have no idea what is done in the next world by those who accept proxy baptism. They are bona fide members of the Church, just as if they had been baptized during their mortal life. They continue to exercise agency and having yet to be perfected may still be capable of sinning, so the process of repentance may be ongoing. Whatever form that takes has not been revealed. How do we know we are withholding anything from them?

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[longview]

You quoted:

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

James Hamula Pacific Area Conference

“Once we are baptized and have received the Holy Ghost, however, we must press on and keep ourselves clean (2 Nephi 31). Yet, our Father knows that we will make mistakes and commit sins after baptism. What can we do then to be made clean again? We must repent again and participate in another ordinance, which promises us sanctification through renewal of the Holy Ghost. This ordinance is the sacrament....

“To the earnest, penitent participant in the sacrament ordinance, that priest promises the return of the Holy Ghost, which is the agent that sanctifies and makes one clean again. That priest makes available to all, who receive the sacrament in the proper spirit, the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. Week after week, this sacred ordinance is offered to us, and if we receive it in the spirit in which it is offered, we are sanctified, or made clean, little by little, grace for grace, until the perfect day. Only by enduring to the end in this manner will we qualify ourselves to stand in the presence of God in the day of resurrection.”

 

It appears that the ordinance of the sacrament is inextricably linked to retaining the remission of sins obtained from baptism by water and the Holy Ghost. I don’t see how one who does not retain forgiveness of sins nor has the Spirit of the Lord can be saved. 

Exactly!   It is by the Power of the Atonement that enables the ongoing process of sanctification.  "little by little, grace for grace"  It is a major part of the Plan of Salvation that all who accept the Gospel, obtain baptism have the opportunity to "walk with God" and acquire ever greater refinements as they live out the remainder of their lives.  The Sacrament is a major ordinance and a tremendous blessing.  No question a saving ordinance.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Islander said:

One of the greatest challenges for us, at least in the Church, is that there is no systematic theology set forth. Except for the efforts of H.B Roberts early in the 20th century, we have no clearly articulated compendium of theology to go to in order to sort out these questions. So we are left with the manuals and the discourse of the general authorities to dissect and the possibility of a multitude of interpretations, in and out of context. Just my thoughts. 

Hence the interesting discussions we have, such as this one. Well, interesting to me, at least. Context is important. 

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Or we can take the approach that any efforts to “sort out” and “dissect” might be better spent on singular focus on living the two great commandments and applying, and when appropriate sharing, the wisdom that flows from those efforts.

This discussion has caused me to reconsider the importance I place on the sacrament and its relationship to baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and retaining the remission of my sins. I have confessed that I have been somewhat cavalier in that regard. Well, maybe not cavalier, but certainly too casual. Elder Bednar’s words have opened up a new understanding for me. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

You quoted:

Exactly!   It is by the Power of the Atonement that enables the ongoing process of sanctification.  "little by little, grace for grace"  It is a major part of the Plan of Salvation that all who accept the Gospel, obtain baptism have the opportunity to "walk with God" and acquire ever greater refinements as they live out the remainder of their lives.  The Sacrament is a major ordinance and a tremendous blessing.  No question a saving ordinance.

I was also struck by these comments...

Quote

To the earnest, penitent participant in the sacrament ordinance, that priest promises the return of the Holy Ghost, which is the agent that sanctifies and makes one clean again. That priest makes available to all, who receive the sacrament in the proper spirit, the redeeming power of Jesus Christ.

This gives me new perspectives on the value of the Aaronic priesthood and the role of the priest, and how the sacrament is linked to the gift of the Holy Ghost. I wish I had had this perspective when I was a young priest climbing Fool’s Hill.

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This discussion has caused me to reconsider the importance I place on the sacrament and its relationship to baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and retaining the remission of my sins. I have confessed that I have been somewhat cavalier in that regard. Well, maybe not cavalier, but certainly too casual. Elder Bednar’s words have opened up a new understanding for me. 

This is interesting to me because I feel the same way, yet now, more than ever, I feel it is not a saving ordinance. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is interesting to me because I feel the same way, yet now, more than ever, I feel it is not a saving ordinance. 

I was actually just thinking about this yesterday.  I have more understanding, respect, and reverence now for the sacrament after these discussions than I ever have, but at the same time, I understand much better than I ever have why it's not a saving ordinance.

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is interesting to me because I feel the same way, yet now, more than ever, I feel it is not a saving ordinance. 

Interesting that we have come to opposite conclusions while gaining greater appreciation. C’est la vie.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was actually just thinking about this yesterday.  I have more understanding, respect, and reverence now for the sacrament after these discussions than I ever have, but at the same time, I understand much better than I ever have why it's not a saving ordinance.

Interesting that we have come to opposite conclusions while gaining greater appreciation. C’est la vie.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting that we have come to opposite conclusions while gaining greater appreciation. C’est la vie.

Perhaps. I'm not positive we have come to opposite conclusions.  I think it might be a definition problem, but I have not worked out how to explain it well.

And honestly, this has become such a tender thing in my heart that I don't want to destroy that through finding out it is not a definition problem, but actual opposite conclusions, and this turning into an ugly debate as has happened on this board too many times.  

[rpn]

Quote

Thank you. I asked, "Can one be baptized but never renew the covenants by taking the sacrament and still be forgiven for sins?" How would you answer that?

I'm late to the party, but if no one else has said it.

Yes, if you die before you commit another sin.   Since that is true of almost no one,  taking the Sacrament is important periodically to renew the baptismal covenants by completing the whole process.of repenting from sin and becoming a new person.  I cannot see that it has to be done weekly or monthly or some other time table to make it efficacious, but our leaders seem to agree that at least monthly is appropriate (because at least monthly to shutins has been the general timetable across the world  and even in the handbook, if I recall).   If a person doesn't get the sacrament but would have taken it if they had, then our leaders have say that reading the prayers and recommitting is enough to make the Atonement efficacious for them.   I'd bet that if a member didn't know that and didn't do that and also didn't get it periodically because they couldn't be in church, that that would also not impede the efficacy of the Atonement (because personal best and quick repentance is always enough for the Atonement to close the gap between that personal best and objective perfection.

[JamesBYoung]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

If your opinion were decision worthy, you would not impute of me things i never suggested, and instead engage in my actual points. Should you demonstrate you are able and willing to that, I would be happy to discuss.

And I agree to disagree with what you write above.  I have nothing that I need to prove to you, because you have not shown you are decision worthy.  You have your opinion, and good for you.

[JamesBYoung]

4 hours ago, longview said:

You quoted:

Exactly!   It is by the Power of the Atonement that enables the ongoing process of sanctification.  "little by little, grace for grace"  It is a major part of the Plan of Salvation that all who accept the Gospel, obtain baptism have the opportunity to "walk with God" and acquire ever greater refinements as they live out the remainder of their lives.  The Sacrament is a major ordinance and a tremendous blessing.  No question a saving ordinance.

Salvation comes as a merciful gift from the Savior after we do all we can.

Some here seem to think and align withJohn Taylor's understanding of The Atonement.

Edited May 27, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Storm Rider]

This has been a bit of a roll reading entries and hearing what is and what is a not a saving ordinance. 

I am not sure that I have ever been confused about what is an ordinance, such as baptism, and what is not, something like the Sacrament. There is One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism. 

The Sacrament, as holy as it is, renews an ordinance already received, but is not a new ordinance each time it is received. 

It has been great to hear different ideas and opinions on the topic here. It makes me all the more grateful for prophets and apostles in our day - they have taught repeatedly and long on the same topic.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

And I agree to disagree with what you write above.  I have nothing that I need to prove to you, because you have not shown you are decision worthy.  You have your opinion, and good for you.

I am not asking yo to prove anything to me, as you are clearly unable to not impute of me things I never suggested, and you seem unwilling to try to understand what I did suggest.