Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

While we might bring elements of social and cultural conversion to the table (enjoyment and appreciation), and real intent (remembering and covenanting) is also essential, an ordinance is a physically prescribed means of connecting spiritually with heaven. So in the sacrament, we eat and drink something as a rite or ordinance while remembering and recommitting to the covenants, thus bringing the physical and spiritual -- both of which are "real" per Alma 32 --  into one. All the ordinances are physical. We can always remember and commit outside of an ordinance, and participate in a rite on an emotional and social level, but this is not how they are designed.

I don't think "saving ordinance" coveys that some ordinances are optional or not required, essential, etc. for salvation. I think the term is used to convey that they are Christ's ordinances, or that "saving" means "Christ's".

To use your words - when I participate in an LDS sacrament, is it possible for me to be "connecting spiritually with heaven?" Am I limited to, again using your words, participation "on an emotional and social level?" My intent in asking is not to debate what I think and believe with what you think and believe. I am really trying to understand what my LDS friends really believe (although it probably varies I guess) about the non-members' ability to touch and be touched by; to interact and enjoy fellowship with the divine, for example since this is the thread, in the sacrament service in or outside of the LDS chapel.

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Navidad,

Covenants can be made with God on an individual basis, preferably inspired to be acceptable to God (there are some covenants that may be wrong, thinking Jephthah's daughter was an emotional oath poorly conceived...I am thinking that was more promise of Jephthah than covenant though as we believe God is a part of our spiritual covenants) or through community with their own ritualized covenants, again hopefully inspired/revealed.  Covenants may come from the individual soul's desire or may be God directed (inspired/revealed).

The covenants Saints make through the Church are specific ones that he has revealed Saints are to partake in through authorized servants of the Priesthood.  Covenants with God are not limited solely to these ordinances, but these ordinances are required to progress in certain ways in discipleship.  The Sacrament for Saints is meant as a renewal of these covenants, a strengthening of the spiritual bond the covenants created.

How you---someone who has not chosen the authorized baptism of our faith, but who has, I believe from what you have said, other covenants you view in similar ways---choose to define the covenant you are engaging in or renewing when receiving the blessed embelms from the Priesthood holder is up to you.  In many ways this is parallel to the Saints besides you on the pew as we each have our own views on what the Sacrament means to us and it may reflect that week for one a greater desire to commit to paying tithing out of gratitude for a blessing remembered during the service, for another a greater desire to be at one with God.  

In addition to our personal constructions, the Sacrament entails all the covenants we made at baptism as instructed through church teachings and doctrine.  These are the covenants we have in common with all fellow Saints who underwent baptism and continue to honor that ordinance in their lives.  These will not be the same you have chosen to participate in, whether as an individual or through your faith community at the time of the covenants you tie to your communion/sacrament participation even if identical in wording and general intent because ours also includes the intent our baptism is done through God's authorized representatives for our faith community.

This is not to automatically exclude others as all may join in baptism with us if they accept the covenants that are tied to it and understand it as our faith community means it to be, which conditions and teachings we believe are revealed doctrine.

The deity being active in us....is language we don't usually use.  We see God acting on us as he chooses to do so, not sure I feel comfortable therefore defining that in terms of specific actions.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean with examples of how you see deity acting on you at times.

The difference between a service with Latter-day Saints and other Christian services is the presiding and operating of his authorized for us Priesthood bearers and other officers under their direction.  It serves a certain purpose of the Lord's as he has revealed he desires us to act in this way, to perform his instructions this way, form a faith community in this way.

I am open to God inspiring and revealing other instructions to other Christians, either as individuals or a faith community, including making covenants.  But even if their covenants serve much the same purpose, they are not identical because they are not meant to be by God.  He could have instructed us to accept all baptisms or sacraments/Eucharists as authorized by him, but he has not.  He has in our view revealed our ordinances are not the same and shouldn't be confused with others, thus those who want to fully join our faith community and accept our doctrine as authorized by God need to be baptized as done in our community.

Thanks Calm. I so appreciate your thoughtful and non-judgmental replies. I fully understand that each church (denomination, group, sect, etc) has its own authorized leaders (priesthood holders to use your term) who lead in the ordinances of that particular church. Those folks are approved both by the specific church group and by God to do that work. The "church" part of the approval means they have no authority to administer the sacraments of any other group, and no one else, absent that authority can administer the sacraments in their group. Their administrative priesthood is limited to their particular church group. That makes perfect sense. In suggesting that I participate spiritually in the sacrament in our ward in no way implies that I should be allowed to administer the sacraments. Indeed, I am not authorized to do that. Administratively the priesthood is unique to an individual group or groups. The spiritual priesthood - the royal priesthood is universal to those in the fold of God. Because of that, there is no need of an intermediary between God and man - Christ's sacrifice ended that type of priesthood forever. I don't need my ward bishop or the ministering priesthood holder who is assigned to my wife and me to intercede with God on my behalf. I can go directly to God myself with as much expectation of a hearing as could any Levitical priest of the Old Testament.

Baptismal covenants also make perfect sense. It seems that my LDS friends, however graciously insist that their baptismal covenants are specifically different than mine. That is one of the things I don't understand. The basis of a covenantal relationship is an "if-then" relationship between God and humans. I think you agree with that. If I do certain things then God will do certain things. It is a pledge on both parties' part. "If my people who are called by my name will . . . . . . then I will heal their land" - one of the greatest covenants of all time. Here is my understanding of LDS baptismal covenants (they aren't secret) between God and humans with both parties' responsibilities clearly outlined:

This list concisely indicates that baptized believers make a covenant to do the following. Is there something missing or incorrect in this list of both our and God's part in the LDS baptismal covenant?

• Come into the fold of God
• Be called his people
• Bear one another’s burdens
• Mourn with those who mourn
• Comfort those who need comfort
• Stand as a witness of God at all times and places
• Serve God and
• Keep his commandments

At the same time, God promises to:

• Redeem them
• Number them with those of the first resurrection
• Give eternal life
• Pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon them.

If this list is complete, it says nothing different from what I was taught prior to my baptism. Nothing. This is why I don't quite understand why my LDS friends insist their baptismal covenants are different than mine! There is nothing in this list than I don't believe and that I have not covenanted (top part) or that I believe God withholds from me (bottom part) as one who has accepted the completeness of his atonement and who has faith in his saving grace.

The only thing I can think of might be that there is a difference in our definition of the "fold of God." The fold of God in my understanding is the place of safety and refuge for all who have accepted the completeness of his atonement and who have faith in his saving grace. It is a metaphor for all of those who one by one repents and accepts his wonderful gift of grace and healing. His fold is a wonderful place where there are no denominations, sects, or groups. I have always been taught, since a boy that when the Father looks at us, He sees us covered by the shed blood of his son. No race, no ability or disability, no gender distinction, and certainly no denominational affiliation. Catholic, Mennonite, Anglican, LDS -- the fold of God is for the family of God. In this dispensation it is still an imperfect place. In eternity it will a perfect place where God will dwell with his family with no class or denominational distinctions.

Again, the fact that church's leaders preside is not a difference. I accept totally that the bishop of our ward has the right to preside in our ward. He can forbid me the sacrament and I would not take it. He forbids me the temple. I don't try and get in anyway. The temple is a place unique to the LDS church. I accept and honor that. However, I don't think our wonderful bishop could go into the local Pentecostal church and refuse anyone therein the right to administer or take the sacrament, could he?  Do you think he is authorized by God to go into that same Pentecostal church and tell them that based on his beliefs and doctrine, their spiritual labors are pretending, that they have no efficacy with God? He certainly is authorized, but not beyond the boundary of the LDS chapel. So it is with every other group. I don't understand how that makes a difference; it is a commonality not a difference. Interestingly, what caused me to leave this forum several months ago was the insistence on the part of some here that I am pretending, play-acting when I partake (as opposed to serve) of the sacrament in a LDS church. What a terrible thing to say to another Christian! Those are the kind of comments that I think make God cry.

I appreciate your reply, but try as hard as I might, I still don't understand. I must be missing something. That isn't your fault. I live in a small village in Mexico. Sometimes I don't understand all that a particular person is saying to me in Spanish. That isn't their fault. Best wishes to you.

 

[RevTestament]

On 5/30/2020 at 11:28 AM, Navidad said:

I hesitate to the point of fear to ask a question. A thread about the sacrament was the last one I ever participated in on this thread some months ago. I was assured that when I take part in the sacrament I am "pretending" and playing "make believe." That was deeply offensive to someone who is just trying to live a life that honors the Savior.

Hi again Navidad, and welcome back. IIRC that was the opinion of one poster Navidad. It certainly was not my opinion, and I questioned the position of that poster.  

Quote

The sacrament is when I remember, whether in an LDS ward, a Mennonite church, or whenever I have observed it outside, by a river, or in the woods. What do I remember? I remember Christ's sacrifice and love for me. I remember the covenants I made when I was baptized. I also confess when I partake. Enough of that.

In all soberness what are the covenants you made? I am not familiar enough with the Mennonite church to know what it teaches in this regard. 

Quote

Here is my question . . . Why, no kidding does the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints allow and encourage someone like me, a faithful non-member to participate in the sacrament, especially if it is considered a saving ordinance? Why isn't LDS communion closed, like some other churches have? The LDS church is so very exclusive in so many ways, I often have wondered why the sacrament is not exclusive? I have assumed it must be that it is something similar to a grave dedication where LDS priesthood holders pray a dedicatory prayer at non-LDS graves. The answer to that question from our local leaders was that a grave dedication is not a saving ordinance. So my question that I hesitantly bring  forward, and that hasn't been discussed in any of the nine previous pages in this thread is why does the LDS church officially by its policies, practices, and procedure allow and encourage (in my experience) the taking of the sacrament by non-LDS-baptized non-members? The other part of that question is why did some of you, the same ones who are on this thread, assure me I was playing pretend and play-acting when I take it? Would you say the same about any non-member who partakes? Thanks for your consideration of my question.

I brought up this scripture last time you brought up the subject.

3 Nephi 18:29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

Out of an abundance of caution, I have customarily advised visitors not to partake of the sacrament unless they gain a testimony of this Church, ie priesthood, etc. These persons have included my mom. However, the only criterion is "unworthily." Are you worthy if you are repentant, and humble? Probably yes. So, I have apparently erred on the side of caution. The Church's official position is that non-members such as yourself can partake of the sacrament. I believe someone quoted that from a manual or something. Did you have some other question about the official Church position?

 

 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

3 Nephi 18:29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

I think an important phrase in that scripture is "if ye know". We can't judge a person's unworthiness by just looking at them. Only the Bishop can determine that as he counsels with a member about sins committed. I don't think there are any scriptures that say a non-baptised person is not allowed to take the sacrament. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

To use your words - when I participate in an LDS sacrament, is it possible for me to be "connecting spiritually with heaven?" Am I limited to, again using your words, participation "on an emotional and social level?" My intent in asking is not to debate what I think and believe with what you think and believe. I am really trying to understand what my LDS friends really believe (although it probably varies I guess) about the non-members' ability to touch and be touched by; to interact and enjoy fellowship with the divine, for example since this is the thread, in the sacrament service in or outside of the LDS chapel.

I believe the "non-members' ability to touch and be touched by; to interact and enjoy fellowship with the divine... in the sacrament service" is up to the understanding, expectations and capacity of the individual non-member, just as it is with the individual member. The sacrament ordinance is associated with the baptism and other ordinances, so the only difference I can see is that the member is presumably renewing the attendant covenants while the non-member has yet to make them (that is, the covenants as we define them to be inextricably connected to the ordinances).

Edited May 31, 2020 by CV75

[Navidad]

41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think an important phrase in that scripture is "if ye know". We can't judge a person's unworthiness by just looking at them. Only the Bishop can determine that as he counsels with a member about sins committed. I don't think there are any scriptures that say a non-baptised person is not allowed to take the sacrament. 

I think your reply indicates that being a member of the LDS church is not sufficient to make one worthy to participate. Is that correct? I also take from your reply that being a non-member of the church does not make one unworthy to participate. Is that correct? Thanks.

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I believe the "non-members' ability to touch and be touched by; to interact and enjoy fellowship with the divine... in the sacrament service" is up to the understanding, expectations and capacity of the individual non-member, just as it is with the individual member. The sacrament ordinance is associated with the baptism and other ordinances, so the only difference I can see is that the member is presumably renewing the attendant covenants while the non-member has yet to make them (that is, the covenants as define them, as inextricably connected to the ordinances).

Thanks for your reply. I value and have made each and every point of the covenants as listed above  without the benefit of LDS baptism. I am wondering if you could explain how these particular covenants are "inextricably connected to the ordinances?" Cannot any believer in Christ who desires and makes the commitment, make each and every one of these covenant statements? It seems that they are related to commitment to Christ and living the Christian life. There is nothing inherently LDS -specific in either aspect of these covenants (ours or God's), is there? These are very broad generalized Christian commitments without which I would not have baptized anyone either.

[JAHS]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think your reply indicates that being a member of the LDS church is not sufficient to make one worthy to participate. Is that correct?

That's correct. The member may be under direction from the Bishop to not partake as part of discipline; to prevent the member from coming under the condemnation of God. (3 Nephi 19: 29)

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I also take from your reply that being a non-member of the church does not make one unworthy to participate. Is that correct? Thanks.

That's basically correct, but the sacrament is really meant for members to renew their baptism covenants. So there is no reason doctrinally for a non-member to partake. 
If a non-member wants to use it for their own recommitment to God then there's no reason to refuse them. A non-member can not come under the same condemnation of God for partaking unworthily because they have not made the promises to God that members make at baptism.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Out of an abundance of caution, I have customarily advised visitors not to partake of the sacrament unless they gain a testimony of this Church, ie priesthood, etc. These persons have included my mom. However, the only criterion is "unworthily." Are you worthy if you are repentant, and humble? Probably yes. So, I have apparently erred on the side of caution. The Church's official position is that non-members such as yourself can partake of the sacrament. I believe someone quoted that from a manual or something. Did you have some other question about the official Church position?

Greetings - My question came to mind after reading the debate about the sacrament being a saving ordinance. As happens, when you all disagree on such an important issue, it confuses me and causes me to be unsettled in what I thought I understood. I am, as David Brooks once wrote, "On the edge of inside" when it comes to the church. That gives me, in some ways insights into the organization that the faithful might not see. It also keeps me from fully understanding. Those were two of Brook's points in his blog on the subject. The LDS faith is a very deep faith. I honor and respect that. It seems also to me to be a faith with a very narrow orthodoxy (speaking in LDS terms). There is great latitude for different interpretations. I have always been struck when our ministering priesthood holders sit in our home and reply to a question with "Well, I don't believe that!" Well, ok then. Let's move on.

On this forum, you all have fun with these debates. Many of you enjoy them. Some of you probably take sides that you really don't even hold just to keep it all going. I don't know. It is my opinion, and I have to own the consequences of saying this that to some here this whole forum is a game, a diversion, an entertainment. It is a version of insider LDS Jeopardy, except every revealed  (pun intended) answer gets to be debated before points are awarded.

It is very very very different for me. This is my only source (besides my books) of understanding LDS doctrine, wisdom, faith, knowledge, and the people who are LDS. I interact with a lot of other LDS folks in my writing, speaking,  and work; but that is subject specific, mostly church history-centered. Most of them don't seem to want to talk to me about doctrine. They refer me to my local leaders and missionaries. It is like it is verboten for them (professors and historians) to jump into the doctrinal waters with an "investigator," the only term they know for me. We love the folks in our ward, but they clearly don't want me asking questions. So I mostly keep quiet - yeh I know that is hard to believe!

This forum is my source. I form my opinions about your faith from you all, your interactions, dialogues and how you treat those who are "the other" who come here (some deserve to be treated poorly) and how members of the church stereotype non-LDS Christians, including me. It is deeply serious for me. I am not a contestant in a game. I am a non-member who is driven to understand the LDS faith, sometimes to no avail.  Sometimes I think many members parrot what they are taught, without truly understanding the ins and outs of it themselves. I know that sounds harsh, but it is my lived experience. You are all my mentors in the LDS faith. My Yodas! I don't think you understand that.

So that is why I keep asking questions like I have today. Sacrament is a saving ordinance......it isn't.......the church  leaders say........ but let's debate the point some more! This is fun! Hmmmm not for me it isn't. Then some of the more cynical of you will say to me, "If you don't like it here, don't come back. No one is making you come here to OUR forum." That is true and sometimes I stay away for a while, while I am in recovery. 

My friend on this forum a former bishop from California assures me there is no LDS doctrine. Oh my, what am I supposed to believe about what you believe? And yet, you are all so sure about the certainty, onliness, and truth of your beliefs. I think most of you are also pretty certain about your frustration with me! Oh well, my little numbers by my photo says I have an excellent reputation in the forum! Ha! How can that be? I think I irritate most of you because I keep on asking questions, and occasionally model your testiness! Sorry!

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

A non-member can not come under the same condemnation of God for partaking unworthily because they have not made the promises to God that members make at baptism.

Wow, I for sure don't understand this. I am completely as capable of being unworthy before Christ by my actions, thoughts, and passions as is any LDS Christian! It was Paul in the book of I Corinthians who brought up eating and drinking unworthily. That was long before there were any LDS baptismal covenants. There are certainly differing interpretations of the Last Supper discourse by Paul, but limiting unworthy to just LDS Christians is one I have never heard before. Let me assure that as a non-LDS Christian I have made many promises to God before, at, and after my baptism. There have been a number of times in my life I either refused to administer the sacraments or to receive them because of my personal situation before God. I have the same capacity to disappoint and hurt heavenly father as any LDS Christian!

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply. I value and have made each and every point of the covenants as listed above  without the benefit of LDS baptism. I am wondering if you could explain how these particular covenants are "inextricably connected to the ordinances?" Cannot any believer in Christ who desires and makes the commitment, make each and every one of these covenant statements? It seems that they are related to commitment to Christ and living the Christian life. There is nothing inherently LDS -specific in either aspect of these covenants (ours or God's), is there? These are very broad generalized Christian commitments without which I would not have baptized anyone either.

In pre-literate times, there had to be a physical remembrance of a contract, or no one would that it even existed, especially in multi-generational situations. Rings would be given, pillars erected etc as a "token" of a contract made, and announced to the community.  Today if we sell property the buyer gets a "deed" and it is "recorded" in remembrance of the contract, that shows that Sam now owns this property and not Bob.

Same with the baptismal covenants we make at baptism.

If you are not baptized believing what we believe, there is no contract to commemorate!

Why would one NOT want to be baptized IF he ACTUALLY makes" each and every one of these covenant statements?

It's like taking out a mortgage and not being willing to sign the documents that show that, but sincerely promising you will pay back the money.

It's the difference between living with a woman and never marrying, because after all, it's just a piece of paper.

There is no token of the promise, no record, no event to be remembered, no pbysicality.

Jesus himself was baptized.

We live in a world of matter, even if it is spiritual matter, more refined.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply. I value and have made each and every point of the covenants as listed above  without the benefit of LDS baptism. I am wondering if you could explain how these particular covenants are "inextricably connected to the ordinances?" Cannot any believer in Christ who desires and makes the commitment, make each and every one of these covenant statements? It seems that they are related to commitment to Christ and living the Christian life. There is nothing inherently LDS -specific in either aspect of these covenants (ours or God's), is there? These are very broad generalized Christian commitments without which I would not have baptized anyone either.

I made a covenant with the benefit of "LDS baptism" and so to me it is inextricably connected with the ordnance and "LDS-specific." Otherwise I would not be a member of the Church and be content with a very broad generalized Christian commitment (with or without baptism, whether or not recognizing another ecclesiastical authority, whether or not joining or attending another church).

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I for sure don't understand this. I am completely as capable of being unworthy before Christ by my actions, thoughts, and passions as is any LDS Christian! It was Paul in the book of I Corinthians who brought up eating and drinking unworthily. That was long before there were any LDS baptismal covenants. There are certainly differing interpretations of the Last Supper discourse by Paul, but limiting unworthy to just LDS Christians is one I have never heard before. Let me assure that as a non-LDS Christian I have made many promises to God before, at, and after my baptism. There have been a number of times in my life I either refused to administer the sacraments or to receive them because of my personal situation before God. I have the same capacity to disappoint and hurt heavenly father as any LDS Christian!

Then if you feel you are unworthy based on your own personal reasons and commitments,  you can defer from taking the sacrament. Some members do this on their own as well, although if they are sincerely trying to repent, taking the sacrament can be included as part of their repentance process.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In pre-literate times, there had to be a physical remembrance of a contract, or no one would that it even existed, especially in multi-generational situations. Rings would be given, pillars erected etc as a "token" of a contract made, and announced to the community.  Today if we sell property the buyer gets a "deed" and it is "recorded" in remembrance of the contract, that shows that Sam now owns this property and not Bob.

Same with the baptismal covenants we make at baptism.

If you are not baptized believing what we believe, there is no contract to commemorate!

Why would one NOT want to be baptized IF he ACTUALLY makes" each and every one of these covenant statements?

It's like taking out a mortgage and not being willing to sign the documents that show that, but sincerely promising you will pay back the money.

It's the difference between living with a woman and never marrying, because after all, it's just a piece of paper.

There is no token of the promise, no record, no event to be remembered, no pbysicality.

Jesus himself was baptized.

We live in a world of matter, even if it is spiritual matter, more refined.

 

I always enjoy your illustrations! Let me give you one of my own . . . here in Mexico if I pay property taxes on a property for five straight years, I am deemed to own it! I have no escritura, but by law I own the property. The flaw in your argument is you forget I have indeed been baptized by one with the authority to do so in my Christian group. He had the same administrative authority as any of you have in your group. My commitments at that time were virtually identical to those you make. They are not LDS specific commitments, are they? They are broad generalizations about committing to living the Christian life. Oh, and I have for 65 years lived that Christian life, paying on my commitments. I have done my very best to:

• Come into the fold of God
• Be called his people
• Bear one another’s burdens
• Mourn with those who mourn
• Comfort those who need comfort
• Stand as a witness of God at all times and places
• Serve God and
• Keep his commandments

My contract is my commitment and my lived life. I also have many lived faults, but none of them conscious or deliberate violations of these eight tenets of the Christian faith or covenants as you call them. Even so I consciously remember them and confess where I have come short during the sacrament. Would I do that any more if were baptized again? No. Would my commitment to Christ be any different if I were baptized again? No! I have thought long and hard about this. How would that baptism make me any different? I guess to stick with the thread, no I don't believe the sacrament is a saving ordinance. I don't believe salvation is connected to any ordinance. Ordinances are testimonies - remembrances - "For as much as you do this in remembrance of me . . . " Now, my understanding of ordinances is a real difference between us and there is no reason to dwell on it. Please don't make the difference that I don't value, strive for, commit to, and covenant with God regarding the above eight callings of the Christian life. Once again, these are not LDS virtues. They are the lived gospel of Jesus Christ, lived via commitment to and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Navidad

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Interesting use of words. I probably have participated fully in somewhere between 130 and 150 LDS sacrament services. Do you believe I am truly renewing my own covenants when I take the sacrament at a LDS meeting? Do you believe I even have any covenants with Christ to renew? Can a non-LDS church member truly have any covenants with Christ? How is the deity active in a Presbyterian communion service? Are they pretending too within the walls of their own chapels? Is it possible that I, just as you am remembering the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ and sitting there in awe at his atonement for me week after week? Can I genuinely confess and repent anew of my sins just as you do during a sacrament service? How is the deity active differently in you than in me during an LDS sacrament service? How is the deity active differently in a LDS sacrament than in a Christian and Missionary Alliance communion service? You haven't used the word "pretend" this  time, but your response feels very much the same. You all for nine pages have been debating and discussing the question of whether or not the sacrament is a "saving ordinance." Fair enough. I hope you won't take my questions as any less genuine than yours.

I’m not sure why you think I would think I wouldn’t  take your questions seriously. Perhaps you could open a new topic and ask everyone to chime in. [edit]After reading the above exchanges, looks like that is already happening, so feel free to carry on. I don’t have anything new to add to the OP discussion  

 

 

Edited June 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[longview]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t have anything new to add to the OP discussion  

Unless you want to delve a little bit more on the refining/exalting increments that occur with regular participation of the Sacrament?  This is something that can only be done with a mortal body enduring to the end.  Applying the Power of the Atonement a little at a time continually.  Even Jesus had to go from grace to grace.

[Amulek]

On 5/30/2020 at 12:28 PM, Navidad said:

Here is my question . . . Why, no kidding does the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints allow and encourage someone like me, a faithful non-member to participate in the sacrament, especially if it is considered a saving ordinance?

First, I don't believe the Church actually "encourage(s)" non-members to partake of the sacrament. We don't go out of our way to stop them from participating, but we don't actively "encourage" them either.

I think the word you are looking for here is 'tolerate.' 

 

Quote

Why isn't LDS communion closed, like some other churches have?

Because we want people to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. As such, we don't do anything to prevent nonmembers from partaking the sacrament. 

 

Quote

The LDS church is so very exclusive in so many ways, I often have wondered why the sacrament is not exclusive? I have assumed it must be that it is something similar to a grave dedication where LDS priesthood holders pray a dedicatory prayer at non-LDS graves. The answer to that question from our local leaders was that a grave dedication is not a saving ordinance. So my question that I hesitantly bring  forward, and that hasn't been discussed in any of the nine previous pages in this thread is why does the LDS church officially by its policies, practices, and procedure allow and encourage (in my experience) the taking of the sacrament by non-LDS-baptized non-members?

You may have just been skimming over the pages, but a number of us - myself included - do not believe the sacrament is a saving ordinance. 

Thank you for bringing up the fact that we do not withhold its administration to nonmembers as yet another argument in support of that position. 

 

Quote

The other part of that question is why did some of you, the same ones who are on this thread, assure me I was playing pretend and play-acting when I take it? Would you say the same about any non-member who partakes? Thanks for your consideration of my question.

Sounds like you had a bad experience previously when you began to personalize the discussion. Probably best to avoid going down that road again. 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure why you think I would think I wouldn’t  take your questions seriously. Perhaps you could open a new topic and ask everyone to chime in. [edit]After reading the above exchanges, looks like that is already happening, so feel free to carry on. I don’t have anything new to add to the OP discussion  

 

 

Thanks. I don't really  have anything more to say either. I appreciate your kindness.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

He had the same administrative authority as any of you have in your group

No, he had adminstrative authority for your group, not ours.  While the commitments are broad, they are done under the flag so to speak of a particular group.

Analogy...years ago the US refused to allow its citizens to have multiple citizenships.  By its rules you could be American or not.  Canada, otoh, allowed for dual citizenship, so in its eyes you could claim to be both Canadian and American citizens.  A person who saw themselves as a dual citizen could claim all they want to be both, but legally if they chose to identify as Canadian, America would not recognize them as American.   It has been too long since we moved up there and it changed shortly there after or before so I only heard of the issues secondhand, but iirc there were tax benefits to claiming to be Canadian and other benefits for being American.  Insisting on one ensured America did not get shorted by what was seen as double dipping I am guessing.

Someone who had moved to the States could be fully committed to living all the laws of America, but without going through the authorized process of citizenship and without being officially recognized by an appointed representative of the State, they could claim to be American and in many definitions correctly would be, but still legally defined would not be American.

Our Church has the rule one cannot be a member of it and another faith community; one cannot also claim the benefits of membership based on membership in another faith that defines its membership as more global or inclusive of all.  In order to claim membership as a Saint, one must go through the defined process supervised by appointed representatives, usually bishops, missionaries, mission presidents, on occasion First Presidency where there might be concerning issues (iirc, having been found guilty of murder, having previously been baptized and lost a membership twice, I think one or two other conditions need to be cleared by them).

There is membership in being a disciple of Christ that our Church sees as open to all who are Christian.  We do not deny others the right to call themselves Christian.  

However, there are in our revealed doctrine specific rights and blessings that come from full membership in our faith community, which can only be received through acceptance and baptism by those we believe God has authorized based on our understanding of revealed doctrine.  Some of these rights are the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Temple attendance, paying tithing, for males Priesthood as defined in our faith ordination, and the Sacrament as a renewal of our unique as well as more universal covenants.

Quote

Now, my understanding of ordinances is a real difference between us....

I agree.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

He had the same administrative authority as any of you have in your group.

I beg to differ.

Did he believe God has a body and that we can become AS GOD IS?  That He is a glorified being just like you and me?

Did he have authority to act in the name of one who taught that?    Perhaps you don't think it matters but we do.

The reason I am here has to do with the glorification of human nature.

We really DO worship a different God than you do because we believe His nature is radically different than your perception.

Sorry- just want to get to the bottom line.  You know me! 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Unless you want to delve a little bit more on the refining/exalting increments that occur with regular participation of the Sacrament?  This is something that can only be done with a mortal body enduring to the end.  Applying the Power of the Atonement a little at a time continually.  Even Jesus had to go from grace to grace.

Well, let's delve! Interesting thoughts. We have precious little knowledge of what goes on beyond the veil of death. Is it not reasonable to assume those who accept vicarious baptism also go through a line upon line process? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

First, I don't believe the Church actually "encourage(s)" non-members to partake of the sacrament. We don't go out of our way to stop them from participating, but we don't actively "encourage" them either.

I have been in wards where the person conducting sacrament meeting said something along the line of, "We will now sing the sacrament hymn #XX, XXXXX, after which the Aaronic priesthood will pass the sacrament to members of the church." IIRC, there was a letter from the Brethren asking us not to say that, and I haven't heard it for a long time.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sometimes I think many members parrot what they are taught, without truly understanding the ins and outs of it themselves.

Hmmm. I thought that was what this whole thread was about....trying to understand the ins and outs of the sacrament. But when we do, it seems to upset you.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings - My question came to mind after reading the debate about the sacrament being a saving ordinance. As happens, when you all disagree on such an important issue, it confuses me and causes me to be unsettled in what I thought I understood. I am, as David Brooks once wrote, "On the edge of inside" when it comes to the church. That gives me, in some ways insights into the organization that the faithful might not see. It also keeps me from fully understanding. Those were two of Brook's points in his blog on the subject. The LDS faith is a very deep faith. I honor and respect that. It seems also to me to be a faith with a very narrow orthodoxy (speaking in LDS terms). There is great latitude for different interpretations. I have always been struck when our ministering priesthood holders sit in our home and reply to a question with "Well, I don't believe that!" Well, ok then. Let's move on.

I know I have told you before that I don't really consider myself to be an "orthodox LDS" member. That is because I differ in my interpretation of various things than what has been in the correlated manuals of the Church. There has always been a debate on this forum as to what Church doctrine is. Some say it is whatever the Church leadership currently teaches or says. I am part of "the Church." The Church does not consist of the Church leadership. I've never really cared for the authoritarian bent the Church has taken at times - disciplining those who aired some different opinion than the presidency. I have a deep faith in the restored gospel, but in some ways I don't walk the walk or talk the talk... so take what I say with a grain of salt I guess. But you will find that I try to explain my position from a scriptural standpoint - just fyi. So whether I help you to understand the Church or not, I think will depend on whether you insist on seeing the Church as some monolithic institution or not. Those on this forum have some varying views, and that is one reason they are on this forum, so they have a forum in which to air them.

Quote

On this forum, you all have fun with these debates. Many of you enjoy them. Some of you probably take sides that you really don't even hold just to keep it all going. I don't know. It is my opinion, and I have to own the consequences of saying this that to some here this whole forum is a game, a diversion, an entertainment. It is a version of insider LDS Jeopardy, except every revealed  (pun intended) answer gets to be debated before points are awarded.

I have not entered this particular debate, because I see it as rather pointless. I differ from what Church leadership has said about "saving ordinances." I consider the ordinances of the temple to be exalting ordinances rather than "saving ordinances." Did the bandit up on the cross get saved by some ordinance I missed? Clearly, he was saved from the punishment of hell since he went to paradise with Yeshua. This was only because He believed and empathized with Yeshua. I use the term saved to refer to being saved from the punishment of hell. That's its most clear scriptural usage. Being saved by resurrection does not compute with me since the sons of perdition get resurrected, but clearly are not saved imho. I only seek to use a clear and concise language about these things rather than to muddy the waters with unscriptural usage of such terms. This is not a game for me. I am not particularly popular, I think you can see. I say what I say, because I perceive it as the truth, and I am quite serious about it. 

Quote

It is very very very different for me. This is my only source (besides my books) of understanding LDS doctrine, wisdom, faith, knowledge, and the people who are LDS. I interact with a lot of other LDS folks in my writing, speaking,  and work; but that is subject specific, mostly church history-centered. Most of them don't seem to want to talk to me about doctrine. They refer me to my local leaders and missionaries. It is like it is verboten for them (professors and historians) to jump into the doctrinal waters with an "investigator," the only term they know for me. We love the folks in our ward, but they clearly don't want me asking questions. So I mostly keep quiet - yeh I know that is hard to believe!

Try not to take that personally. The Church has gotten more tentative about what is "doctrine" if you ask me. You are probably familiar with the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McKonkie. Well, the Church leadership has said that some of it is wrong, and is not Church doctrine. I have to agree with them there. It is more like a collection of teachings of various authorities on most every topic or scripture at issue - sometimes I believe with very wrong results - but someone spoke it at some time somewhere at some pulpit. 

Quote

This forum is my source. I form my opinions about your faith from you all, your interactions, dialogues and how you treat those who are "the other" who come here (some deserve to be treated poorly) and how members of the church stereotype non-LDS Christians, including me. It is deeply serious for me. I am not a contestant in a game. I am a non-member who is driven to understand the LDS faith, sometimes to no avail.  Sometimes I think many members parrot what they are taught, without truly understanding the ins and outs of it themselves. I know that sounds harsh, but it is my lived experience. You are all my mentors in the LDS faith. My Yodas! I don't think you understand that.

That is what one of my complaints about the old classes was - that it was like a memorization course with the "correct" answers being the parroted answers. At a certain point I just found it to be... too shallow shall I say. I yearned for learning new things. So if you want to understand the parroted version of the Church, it's in those manuals.... If you want to understand the living, restored gospel don't look there. It's more like just a primer. I sometimes found myself in plain disagreement with what was taught, and have said so on various occasions on this forum. So, if you want the TBM answer, I am probably not your source.... interpretations vary  

Quote

So that is why I keep asking questions like I have today. Sacrament is a saving ordinance......it isn't.......the church  leaders say........ but let's debate the point some more! This is fun! Hmmmm not for me it isn't. Then some of the more cynical of you will say to me, "If you don't like it here, don't come back. No one is making you come here to OUR forum." That is true and sometimes I stay away for a while, while I am in recovery. 

My friend on this forum a former bishop from California assures me there is no LDS doctrine. Oh my, what am I supposed to believe about what you believe? And yet, you are all so sure about the certainty, onliness, and truth of your beliefs. I think most of you are also pretty certain about your frustration with me! Oh well, my little numbers by my photo says I have an excellent reputation in the forum! Ha! How can that be? I think I irritate most of you because I keep on asking questions, and occasionally model your testiness! Sorry!

I am not frustrated with you at all. I would say I am probably more frustrated with my Church. I would also recommend if you want to understand the Church better, live it like you are doing. I think trying to learn some monolithic. ironclad source for Church doctrine will be an impossible task. IMHO there is no such Church doctrine. It is a flowing and changing thing. I do not concern myself with it. I strive to live the restored gospel. That is my concern with being a Church member, and it is enough. I assure you. I concern myself with interpreting the scriptures correctly, and living them, rather than trying to live every word that has come from Church leaders - no offense to them. I like the challenge of understanding the scriptures.  There is no way to learn but to ask. Don't be scared to ask Him what you seek. He will confirm the truths of His words for you.  

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I for sure don't understand this. I am completely as capable of being unworthy before Christ by my actions, thoughts, and passions as is any LDS Christian! It was Paul in the book of I Corinthians who brought up eating and drinking unworthily. That was long before there were any LDS baptismal covenants. There are certainly differing interpretations of the Last Supper discourse by Paul, but limiting unworthy to just LDS Christians is one I have never heard before. Let me assure that as a non-LDS Christian I have made many promises to God before, at, and after my baptism. There have been a number of times in my life I either refused to administer the sacraments or to receive them because of my personal situation before God. I have the same capacity to disappoint and hurt heavenly father as any LDS Christian!

I think I see the problem.  You don't believe our baptism is any different from yours. You think the baptisms performed by Christian churches are as valid to God as a baptism performed within the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But that isn't how we see it, which I suspect you are aware. 

 God is pleased when his children choose to be baptized out of a sincere desire to be numbered his, but according to our beliefs, scriptures,  prophets, only baptisms done in the proper manner, by one holding authority are binding in the hereafter. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on earth that has this power and authority.  I'm sure you are aware that church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never accepted other churches' baptisms,  we have always required the convert to acknowledge this so and be baptized again.

So yes, of course you are capable of being unworthy to take the sacrament, just as all church members are. But since you were not baptized by one having authority, we assume you aren't held to the same accountability. But, who knows? God looks at the heart,  he knows your intent so I personally believe that you comprehend this sincerely and therefore God will hold you accountable and you should consider that as you partake. The Sacrament is between you and the Lord, which is why we allow non  members  to take it. 

And Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe there have always been baptismal covenants since Adam and Eve, as is explained in the Pearl of Great Price; moses 6:48-68. Our church was formed in 1830 as a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,  which was first taught to Adam and Eve, our baptism was restored,  just as the authority to perform those baptisms was restored.  When we refer to priesthood,  we mean the ability and authority to exercise the power of God on earth.

We believe we are the only church which has this priesthood authority, so our ordinances are accepted by God and if the individual lives worthily, we expect those ordinances to be binding in the next world.