Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[longview]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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? 

D&C 45:17 For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the scattered Israel.
D&C 138:50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

I suppose there are provisions for disembodied spirits to make preparations and progressions before being resurrected.  But the most meaningful experience is obtained during mortality subjecting body and spirit together to ongoing testings and refinements.  As they strive to be obedient and continue to repent they can incrementally obtain the Power of the Atonement to make them stronger and more enlightened.  I think the Sacrament plays a major role with the Holy Ghost applying the Atonement in the process:

D&C 24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

 

Edited June 1, 2020 by longview

[Ahab]

On 5/31/2020 at 8:16 AM, 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".

I understand you to be saying that the sacrament is an ordinance involving eating and drinking while remembering and recommitting to a covenant that has already been made.  Such as when I participate in the sacrament ordinance I am remembering and recommitting to a covenant I have already made.  The question at hand, though, as I see it, is whether or not the eating and drinking and remembering and recommitting to the covenant I have already made is, in and of itself,  something I do that saves me?  And to that question I would say No, that isn't something that saves me, although it helps me to remember and reconnect with what actually does.

Just as wearing a wedding ring isn't something that makes me a married man, even though when I wear mine it is a sign that I am married.

I will also say that being baptized with valid priesthood authority isn't something that saves someone either, although it is a sign that someone accepts the covenant with our Lord who because of that covenant saves them.

Consider what would happen if someone accepted that saving covenant with our Lord but died before being baptized with valid priesthood authority, or before participating in a sacrament ordinance.

I'm aware of how we can be vicariously baptized for others who were not properly baptized in mortal life, but I have heard nothing about vicariously partaking of the sacrament for others.  Did I just not get that memo?

[bluebell]

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

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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

 

That's actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of before.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

concern myself with interpreting the scriptures correctly, and living them,

Why do you see Church manuals as substantially different from the scriptures when they are often our modern example of what was done in the past....scribes putting together the narratives and teachings of the leaders/prophets of their faith community?

Why not give the manuals the same sort of treatment?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I understand you to be saying that the sacrament is an ordinance involving eating and drinking while remembering and recommitting to a covenant that has already been made.  Such as when I participate in the sacrament ordinance I am remembering and recommitting to a covenant I have already made.  The question at hand, though, as I see it, is whether or not the eating and drinking and remembering and recommitting to the covenant I have already made is, in and of itself,  something I do that saves me?  And to that question I would say No, that isn't something that saves me, although it helps me to remember and reconnect with what actually does.

Just as wearing a wedding ring isn't something that makes me a married man, even though when I wear mine it is a sign that I am married.

I will also say that being baptized with valid priesthood authority isn't something that saves someone either, although it is a sign that someone accepts the covenant with our Lord who because of that covenant saves them.

Consider what would happen if someone accepted that saving covenant with our Lord but died before being baptized with valid priesthood authority, or before participating in a sacrament ordinance.

I'm aware of how we can be vicariously baptized for others who were not properly baptized in mortal life, but I have heard nothing about vicariously partaking of the sacrament for others.  Did I just not get that memo?

RE: bold, the Lord saves you if you abide by any ordinance, including eating and drinking the His emblems with real intent, which everyone will have at least one opportunity to do (and never by proxy), whether in this life or in the D&C 27 context. This is why I say that the saving ordinances means they are Christ's ordinances, and we are saved in submitting to all of them. And why I also understand other applications of the term in their various contexts as well.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Why do you see Church manuals as substantially different from the scriptures when they are often our modern example of what was done in the past....scribes putting together the narratives and teachings of the leaders/prophets of their faith community?

Why not give the manuals the same sort of treatment?

Scribes have often been wrong... just ask Yeshua. There are many Jewish scribal works that I do not give equal treatment to the scriptures. They are full of  Jewish interpretations and teachings of the scriptures - including traditions that Yeshua denounced. 

Here is a specific example of an item from older manuals I disagree with. It was taught that sacrifice was done away.  Primarily the BoM was relied upon. The Church largely accepts this, but it is not so. The meaning of the Book of Mormon is that animal sacrifice of the Mosaic law is done away. Milk before meat. Every future resurrection will involve sacrifice. See Rev 11. Resurrection is an ordinance of sacrifice as shown by our Savior. The Mosaic law will only be completely fulfilled at the end, and the different types of sacrifice will be understood. If I just blindly follow what the manual said, the truth of all this is lost upon me...

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

I understand you to be saying that the sacrament is an ordinance involving eating and drinking while remembering and recommitting to a covenant that has already been made.  Such as when I participate in the sacrament ordinance I am remembering and recommitting to a covenant I have already made.  The question at hand, though, as I see it, is whether or not the eating and drinking and remembering and recommitting to the covenant I have already made is, in and of itself,  something I do that saves me?  And to that question I would say No, that isn't something that saves me, although it helps me to remember and reconnect with what actually does.

Just as wearing a wedding ring isn't something that makes me a married man, even though when I wear mine it is a sign that I am married.

I will also say that being baptized with valid priesthood authority isn't something that saves someone either, although it is a sign that someone accepts the covenant with our Lord who because of that covenant saves them.

Consider what would happen if someone accepted that saving covenant with our Lord but died before being baptized with valid priesthood authority, or before participating in a sacrament ordinance.

I'm aware of how we can be vicariously baptized for others who were not properly baptized in mortal life, but I have heard nothing about vicariously partaking of the sacrament for others.  Did I just not get that memo?

Asked and answered several times already. The OP stipulates that the sacrament (nor any ordinance for that matter) does not in and of itself save. 

A just, merciful, loving God would not hold such a person to account for something over which they had no control. 

There is no memo. We have no knowledge of what happens in the Spirit World when people accept proxy ordinances other than it is as if they had done them here during mortality. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Scribes have often been wrong... just ask Yeshua

I agree. Scribes wrote the scriptures, Bible at least though Skousen and the JSPP found scribal errorsfor the modern scriptures as well, I believe.
 

So why are they different?

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of before.

Not necessarily, since it has no covenant meaning for non-members, so far as renewing them and retaining remission of sins gained at baptism like it does for baptized members, for whom it is essential and necessary. A member taking it unworthily, however that is done, disregards the covenant. A non-member apparently does not because they have made no covenants. If they join the Church, that all changes.  
 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree. Scribes wrote the scriptures, Bible at least though Skousen and the JSPP found scribal errorsfor the modern scriptures as well, I believe.
 

So why are they different?

Usually scribes wrote the scriptures at the behest of prophets. There are scribal errors such as miscopied words, or even whole verses left out as the scriptures got recopied over the centuries. An example of that is an acrostic in Psalm 145 that is in our KJV, which was translated from the surviving Masoretic Text. It is missing one of the letters of the alphabet(the whole verse between 13 and 14 for the letter nun) to complete the acrostic, but the verse is in the Greek Septuagint. That is plainly different from interpreting the scriptures incorrectly and teaching that as the will of the Lord. Surely, you can see the difference? Scribes have definitely done that too. Putting them on modern Church committees doesn't change that fact. Do you disagree with my above example about  resurrection and sacrifice? If so, that is a plain example of the difference, and the importance of that difference.

Edited June 2, 2020 by RevTestament

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Usually scribes wrote the scriptures at the behest of prophets

Which is what is happening today, correct?

It seems you are saying the same sort of errors occur anciently and modern. If so, I strongly agree. 
 

I see in addition to recorded revelations, manuals and conference talks as the modern equivalent of ancient scripture....same sort of benefits, same sorts of limitations. 
 

Thus I don’t understand why you dispense with one and dedicate yourself to the other.  And what you have explained seems to support my understand of your view, but it might be lack of sleep. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not necessarily, since it has no covenant meaning for non-members, so far as renewing them and retaining remission of sins gained at baptism like it does for baptized members, for whom it is essential and necessary. A member taking it unworthily, however that is done, disregards the covenant. A non-member apparently does not because they have made no covenants. If they join the Church, that all changes.  
 

Of course. But are there any saving ordinances that the church allows nonmembers to partake of or participate in without first vetting their worthiness to do so?

Saving ordinances are treated differently than non saving ordinances in the church. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Of course. But are there any saving ordinances that the church allows nonmembers to partake of or participate in without first vetting their worthiness to do so?

Saving ordinances are treated differently than non saving ordinances in the church. 

Thank you. Offering an ordinance in a public venue that anyone can attend does not make it non-saving, IMO, because it serves its purpose only for members, but not for those who have not made covenants. 

Here’s my train of thoughts. I hope I can express them properly. I’m sure I am not saying something you do not already know, but we seem to draw different conclusions.

When children reach the age of accountability for their actions, they become capable of committing sin. Those who are accountable are baptized and confirmed  with a covenant that promises the remission of future sins. Adults who are accountable are baptized and confirmed for remission of past and future sins. They become as children. In our fallen world, it is impossible to maintain that pristine state. All of us sin.

To provide ongoing remission of our sins, the Savior personally established the ordinance of the sacrament, and he commanded all who are baptized to observe it regularly under the direction of ordained priesthood holders. Those who faithfully participate in the process of repentance as he has instructed retain the remission of their sins as promised at baptism. Thus they are saved. Those who willingly do not avail themselves of this ordinance do not retain remission of their sins. The Lord said there is no other way.

To me this makes the sacrament, for lack of a better word, a saving ordinance. Apostles and prophets from the beginning of the Restoration have consistently  urged members to observe it worthily and weekly. Some have said it is equal among our most sacred ordinances. It is observed in our most sacred meeting. We build chapels for the express purpose of coming together weekly to partake and witness communally.

As far as I can tell, none has ever suggested it is optional, casual, unneeded, or just a good thing to do, but rather that it is holy, solemn, serious, essential, and necessary. Scriptures and some modern prophets have even given very grave warnings about desecrating it.

In my understanding, all of this elevates the sacrament above other ordinances such as ordinations, consecrating oil, blessings, etc., into the realm of baptism by water and the Holy Ghost and the exalting ordinances of the temple. I see no reason to create a separate category for it. This appears to be where we part ways. 

These are my own thoughts and opinions. I don’t claim any authority to impose them on others. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is what is happening today, correct?

It seems you are saying the same sort of errors occur anciently and modern. If so, I strongly agree. 
 

I see in addition to recorded revelations, manuals and conference talks as the modern equivalent of ancient scripture....same sort of benefits, same sorts of limitations. 
 

Thus I don’t understand why you dispense with one and dedicate yourself to the other.  And what you have explained seems to support my understand of your view, but it might be lack of sleep. 

I see a difference between prophets writing scripture and people who are not prophets writing lesson manuals.

When scribes write for prophets they are generally understood to be taking dictation, rather than writing their own ideas.

[RevTestament]

On 6/2/2020 at 7:54 AM, Calm said:

Which is what is happening today, correct?

It seems you are saying the same sort of errors occur anciently and modern. If so, I strongly agree. 
 

I see in addition to recorded revelations, manuals and conference talks as the modern equivalent of ancient scripture....same sort of benefits, same sorts of limitations. 
 

Thus I don’t understand why you dispense with one and dedicate yourself to the other.  And what you have explained seems to support my understand of your view, but it might be lack of sleep. 

usual scribal errors are like those of Joseph Smith's scribes - misspelled words, etc. That is different than interpreting the scriptures, which ancient scribes also often did. I have taken to a habit of interpreting the scriptures myself. Often I find the words of others, general authorities, etc to be useful, but sometimes I disagree. If all we have is the scribal interpretations then we have lost the chance to interpret for ourselves. That is a huge distinction between misspelled words or other common scribal errors.  Compare the Mishnah and Talmud to the Masoretic text. There is a huge difference. The first interpret the latter. We interpret the latter much differently to include our Savior as YHWH. The Jewish Rabbis certainly do not. What if we didn't have the Masoretic Text, and only the Talmud? There may not be any Christianity... The distinction is a huge and important one. If you still don't understand my position, I can probably give you more examples... But I do not dispense with the teaching and interpretations of others, scribes, etc. I typically learn from them. Sometimes they raise issues I have not seen... many sharp minds are usually better than one....  The nature of man is to learn based on the work of others. I am no different. I value what the Church has taught me about the restored gospel. I just don't always agree with various interpretations. That is about as plainly as I can put it. I need the scriptures so I can study them and pray about them for myself rather than solely relying on the opinions of others. You don't use a similar process?

[bluebell]

On 6/2/2020 at 10:59 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. Offering an ordinance in a public venue that anyone can attend does not make it non-saving, IMO, because it serves its purpose only for members, but not for those who have not made covenants. 

Here’s my train of thoughts. I hope I can express them properly. I’m sure I am not saying something you do not already know, but we seem to draw different conclusions.

When children reach the age of accountability for their actions, they become capable of committing sin. Those who are accountable are baptized and confirmed  with a covenant that promises the remission of future sins. Adults who are accountable are baptized and confirmed for remission of past and future sins. They become as children. In our fallen world, it is impossible to maintain that pristine state. All of us sin.

To provide ongoing remission of our sins, the Savior personally established the ordinance of the sacrament, and he commanded all who are baptized to observe it regularly under the direction of ordained priesthood holders. Those who faithfully participate in the process of repentance as he has instructed retain the remission of their sins as promised at baptism. Thus they are saved. Those who willingly do not avail themselves of this ordinance do not retain remission of their sins. The Lord said there is no other way.

To me this makes the sacrament, for lack of a better word, a saving ordinance. Apostles and prophets from the beginning of the Restoration have consistently  urged members to observe it worthily and weekly. Some have said it is equal among our most sacred ordinances. It is observed in our most sacred meeting. We build chapels for the express purpose of coming together weekly to partake and witness communally.

As far as I can tell, none has ever suggested it is optional, casual, unneeded, or just a good thing to do, but rather that it is holy, solemn, serious, essential, and necessary. Scriptures and some modern prophets have even given very grave warnings about desecrating it.

In my understanding, all of this elevates the sacrament above other ordinances such as ordinations, consecrating oil, blessings, etc., into the realm of baptism by water and the Holy Ghost and the exalting ordinances of the temple. I see no reason to create a separate category for it. This appears to be where we part ways. 

These are my own thoughts and opinions. I don’t claim any authority to impose them on others. 

I agree that offering the ordinance to the unbaptized doesn't make it un-saving, but I think it is evidence to support the church's teachings on the subject.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.   

[Bernard Gui]

3 Nephi 27:19 “And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.”

We cannot enter into the rest of the Lord unless we wash our garments in his blood, exercise faith, repent of all our sins, and endure to the end. 

How do we accomplish that? Through faith, being baptized, and incremental repentance and the perfection that comes from worthily and frequently partaking of the sacrament. The sacrament was established for this purpose.

 

 

[longview]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

3 Nephi 27:19 “And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.”

We cannot enter into the rest of the Lord unless we wash our garments in his blood, exercise faith, repent of all our sins, and endure to the end. 

How do we accomplish that? Through faith, being baptized, and incremental repentance and the perfection that comes from worthily and frequently partaking of the sacrament. The sacrament was established for this purpose.

“The Touch of the Master’s Hand”

President Boyd K. Packer   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/05/the-touch-of-the-masters-hand.p22?lang=eng

Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

We all make mistakes. … It is then in our nature to feel guilt and humiliation and suffering, which we alone cannot cure. That is when the healing power of the Atonement will help.

The third article of faith teaches, “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” The Atonement offers redemption from spiritual death and from suffering caused by sin.

For some reason, we think the Atonement of Christ applies only at the end of mortal life to redemption from the Fall, from spiritual death. It is much more than that. It is an ever-present power to call upon in everyday life. When we are racked or harrowed up or tormented by guilt or burdened with grief, He can heal us. While we do not fully understand how the Atonement of Christ was made, we can experience “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.”¹³

^{footnote 13 - - -}
Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Edited June 7, 2020 by longview

[echelon]

On 5/29/2020 at 1:14 AM, Bernard Gui said:

The Lord provided this ordinance to help us to endure to the end, to repent of sin after baptism, to renew our covenants, to remember his sacrifice, and  to retain the remission of our sins In addition to remembering the Lord’s sacrifice for us. Without this, we are not saved. In addition to remembering the Lord’s sacrifice for us. That sounds like an ordinance that is essential to our salvation to me, but of course this is just one person’s observations. 

It is in this sense that I believe it is a saving ordinance.

By this definition it sounds like we can replace the word 'Ordinance' with other activities the Lord gave us and also call it saving in nature because they too help towards our salvation. (e.g. Actually keeping the Commandments, Scripture reading, Church Attendance, Repentance Process ect.).  Would that be correct?

[echelon]

This is what Jesus said: 

"And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. 

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. " (Luke 22: 19- 20)

This he did for our benefit, because if we remember Him, all our actions and thoughts will be directed for good.

Then, somewhere, someone made it about baptismal covenants which I don't get.  Maybe it's because Jesus said "give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name." (3 Nephi 18:5).  To me baptized means it is for all the members, not as part 3 of the baptismal ordinance.  Even the church leaders are inconsistent in this regard based on the quotes I read on this post, some say it is a renewal of baptismal covenants and others say it is a renewal of all our covenants.  I'm aware that the church officially makes the connection between the sacrament and baptism on their topical study guide, however it is without scriptural support explicitly making the connection.

I do like what Elder Bednar said in his talk that was shared in this post saying:

Quote

The blessings of obtaining and always retaining a remission of our sins through gospel ordinances help us understand that baptism is a point of departure in our mortal spiritual journey; it is not a destination we should yearn to revisit over and over again.

There are many ordinances that lead to a remission of sins, the sacrament being one of them.  Baptism however, is a point of departure not a destination and in that regard, the sacrament should not be an attempt to bring us back to it but rather to examine ourselves today.

Again, the simple doctrine supporting the sacrament as recorded in the scriptures: "this do in remembrance of me....But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." 1 Cor 11

For some, remembering him is renewing our commitments to covenants made in the past, to others it is to help repent, or simply feel his love and comfort.  What we do to remember him during sacrament is personal and cannot be dictated by what other people say the sacrament is to them.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, echelon said:

By this definition it sounds like we can replace the word 'Ordinance' with other activities the Lord gave us and also call it saving in nature because they too help towards our salvation. (e.g. Actually keeping the Commandments, Scripture reading, Church Attendance, Repentance Process ect.).  Would that be correct?

I'm not sure of your point. Could you explain?

Quote

The sacrament is the third ordinance necessary to obtain access to the power of godliness. That we might more fully keep ourselves unspotted from the world, we are commanded to go to the house of prayer and offer up our sacraments upon the Lord’s holy day. Please consider that the emblems of the Lord’s body and blood, the bread and the water, are both blessed and sanctified. “O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread [or this water] to the souls of all those who partake [or drink] of it.” To sanctify is to make pure and holy. The sacramental emblems are sanctified in remembrance of Christ’s purity, of our total dependence upon His Atonement, and of our responsibility to so honor our ordinances and covenants that we can “stand spotless before [Him] at the last day.”

The ordinance of the sacrament is a holy and repeated invitation to repent sincerely and to be renewed spiritually. The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins. But as we prepare conscientiously and participate in this holy ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then the promise is that we may always have the Spirit of the Lord to be with us. And by the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we can always retain a remission of our sins.

We truly are blessed each week by the opportunity to evaluate our lives through the ordinance of the sacrament, to renew our covenants, and to receive this covenant promise.

The ordinances of baptism by immersion, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the sacrament are not isolated and discrete events; rather, they are elements in an interrelated and additive pattern of redemptive progress. Each successive ordinance elevates and enlarges our spiritual purpose, desire, and performance. The Father’s plan, the Savior’s Atonement, and the ordinances of the gospel provide the grace we need to press forward and progress line upon line and precept upon precept toward our eternal destiny.

 

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, echelon said:

This is what Jesus said: 

"And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. 

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. " (Luke 22: 19- 20)

This he did for our benefit, because if we remember Him, all our actions and thoughts will be directed for good.

Then, somewhere, someone made it about baptismal covenants which I don't get.  Maybe it's because Jesus said "give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name." (3 Nephi 18:5).  To me baptized means it is for all the members, not as part 3 of the baptismal ordinance.  Even the church leaders are inconsistent in this regard based on the quotes I read on this post, some say it is a renewal of baptismal covenants and others say it is a renewal of all our covenants.  I'm aware that the church officially makes the connection between the sacrament and baptism on their topical study guide, however it is without scriptural support explicitly making the connection.

I do like what Elder Bednar said in his talk that was shared in this post saying:

There are many ordinances that lead to a remission of sins, the sacrament being one of them.  Baptism however, is a point of departure not a destination and in that regard, the sacrament should not be an attempt to bring us back to it but rather to examine ourselves today.

Again, the simple doctrine supporting the sacrament as recorded in the scriptures: "this do in remembrance of me....But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." 1 Cor 11

For some, remembering him is renewing our commitments to covenants made in the past, to others it is to help repent, or simply feel his love and comfort.  What we do to remember him during sacrament is personal and cannot be dictated by what other people say the sacrament is to them.

It seems to me the "somewhere, someone made it about baptismal covenants" is in the prayer offered over the sacrament.

[echelon]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems to me the "somewhere, someone made it about baptismal covenants" is in the prayer offered over the sacrament.

Okay I see,.. Mosiah 18: 10

Quote

being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

and the prayer in Moroni 4

Quote

to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Thank you, sure would have been easier if Jesus just said "This do in remembrance of your baptismal covenant".

[echelon]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

4 hours ago, echelon said:

By this definition it sounds like we can replace the word 'Ordinance' with other activities the Lord gave us and also call it saving in nature because they too help towards our salvation. (e.g. Actually keeping the Commandments, Scripture reading, Church Attendance, Repentance Process ect.).  Would that be correct?

I'm not sure of your point. Could you explain?

It was more of a reflection than a point.  This post has made me reconsider the significance I attribute to all the things the Lord gave us to "help us to endure to the end, to repent of sin after baptism, to renew our covenants, to remember his sacrifice, and  to retain the remission of our sins" which, I treated too casually as a result of a lifetime in the church and some negative experiences.  Ordinances such as Priesthood blessings, ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood, and those that I do for the dead (non essential to me, but necessary for the dead).  I feel the same way towards prayer, scripture reading, and church attendance, while not ordinances also help me achieve the same saving purpose as the non essential ordinances.

 

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, echelon said:

It was more of a reflection than a point.  This post has made me reconsider the significance I attribute to all the things the Lord gave us to "help us to endure to the end, to repent of sin after baptism, to renew our covenants, to remember his sacrifice, and  to retain the remission of our sins" which, I treated too casually as a result of a lifetime in the church and some negative experiences.  Ordinances such as Priesthood blessings, ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood, and those that I do for the dead (non essential to me, but necessary for the dead).  I feel the same way towards prayer, scripture reading, and church attendance, while not ordinances also help me achieve the same saving purpose as the non essential ordinances.

 

Thank you for explaining. I have also reconsidered how I have taken too many things in the gospel for granted.