Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, echelon said:

I'm not sure I understand this statement, do you mean that Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the Passover and not the same as the sacrament we have today? or that the Passover and our sacrament today is the same?  Either way this interested me and reflected on how different the ordinance is now compared to the Passover, and I have no idea if they had anything like in the days prior to the Passover.

From the Church website:

"Passover - The Feast of the Passover was instituted to help the children of Israel remember when the destroying angel passed over their houses and delivered them from the Egyptians

Sacrament - When worthy Church members take the sacrament, they promise to take upon them the name of Christ, to always remember Him, and to keep His commandments. Through this ordinance, Church members renew their baptismal covenants."

If they are the same ordinance, how did this ordinance to remember what the Lord has done to deliver Israel evolve into an ordinance to renew our baptismal covenants? And if it is not the same ordinance, why institute it among the Nephites and latter days only?

The Israelite Passover (Pesach) began as a saving ordinance in which a paschal lamb was sacrificed and the blood placed on each door of the Israelite families in Egypt so that the Destroying Angel would pass by them and not kill their First Born males (thereafter wholly owned  by God).  Each family ate their last meal in Egypt standing, fully clothed, ready to depart.  No time for the bread to rise, so they ate it unleavened.  God then had Moses implement the Passover as an annual rite of remembrance, including unleavened bread and wine, etc., along with eating a sacrificial paschal lamb (always formally sacrificed in a holy temple or shrine by the Aaronic priests).  Additionally, the mere act of crossing the Reed Sea dryshod was the baptism of all Israel during their Exodus escape.  The NT is explicit on all these points.

The symbolic nature of that Jewish Passover meal is well understood by scholars and by members of the Jewish community.  It is a commandment of God and is required of the Jews to this very day.  Jesus himself was the Paschal Lamb of God, so that his own Last Supper was the Jewish Passover meal (seder) par excellence, saving all humankind when he offered himself -- and the Jewish High Priest met him and declared that one man must be sacrificed to save the whole nation, thus formally offering Jesus as the Paschal Lamb, even though the Romans carried out the actual execution.  The HP and Pilate had no idea of the extent or full meaning of their actions, but the NT makes it abundantly clear, but the Jews are basically unaware of that great atoning sacrifice by one of their own fellow Jews.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (which Mormons call "the sacrament") was instituted by Jesus as a direct continuation of the Passover meal, but on a weekly basis, in order to remember his actualization of the ordinance by his own personal sacrifice (antetype leading to type).  The Aaronic Priest in each case prepares and blesses the bread and wine (now water) at the altar (table) as emblems of the body and blood of Jesus the Paschal Lamb of God.  The Levites (deacons and teachers) serve those emblems to the congregation.  The NT and the LDS Brethren have repeatedly made this historical point, but most Mormons are nearly completely unaware of it.  So far as they know, they are merely renewing their baptismal covenants and promising to remember what Jesus did, so that the Holy Spirit might constantly be present in their lives, so that they will be able to keep his commandments.  Indeed, it is not necessary that the LDS faith community be burdened by all this historical stuff.  life is difficult enough without all these additional burdens.

Well, at least until we get to the temple.  😎

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The saying goes that hard cases make for bad law. So you’ve got me wondering if it might be equally true to say that exceedingly rare exceptions also make for bad gospel law. The Saviour taught the following famous “hard saying.” 

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

At least to me, the above words of the Master make it abundantly clear that partaking of his flesh and blood is essential to obtaining salvation. So while it may be true that in some narrow technical sense it might be correctly said that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is not a saving ordinance, nevertheless, at least for those of us who have regular access to the Sacrament table, it may as well be called a saving ordinance because consciously neglecting to regularly partake of those sacred emblems amounts to nothing less that a repudiation of the faith, or, at very least, the outward manifestation a cavalier attitude toward a sacred ordinance that God repeatedly warns us needs to be approached most seriously, solemnly and conscientiously.

And as far as the idea that the Sacrament isn’t essential to salvation because it doesn’t need to be performed vicariously in behalf of the dead, need I remind anyone here that the Lord himself has promised us that he and all those who believe in him will again partake of the Sacrament‘s sacred emblems after the resurrection. So it appears the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is at least one holy ordinance that will continue to be performed AFTER the resurrection, and it’s likely that it’s for this very reason that it isn’t necessary for proxies to partake of the Sacrament in behalf of the dead. If anyone doubts me, read the the chapter heading to D&C 27 and the entire section.

Yes, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a saving ordinance, as I have said, but the exceptions merely prove the rule.  Thus, those vast numbers of humans who must have all their ordinances performed for them, will not have the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by proxy.  Nor will any of those who die before age 8.  And even those who have been baptized and confirmed, but who never got a chance to partake of the emblems due to untimely death, need not have taken the emblems.  That is the vast majority of humankind that will not have taken the emblems.  That leaves us with the curious case of a saving ordinance which is not essential to salvation.

The Jews (who by the way can substitute whatever necessary for bread and wine of the annual Passover meal) are likewise required to perform their annual Passover rites, even though there is no temple available to perform the full rite (the sacrifice of the paschal lamb).  We all do the best we can under the circumstances, including the Jews.

[JamesBYoung]

9 hours ago, longview said:

I explained it in the second paragraph.  Do you disagree with that statement?

If the Sacrament were salvational, it would be done for our dead.

Edited May 26, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In another thread, there was some mention that the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.

I'm trying to understand what that means. Certainly one must repent of sins in order to be saved. Can one be baptized but never renew the covenants by taking the sacrament and still be forgiven for sins?

Consider this from the Joseph Smith Translation...

From True to the Faith....

And this from Elder Bednar...https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/always-retain-a-remission-of-your-sins?lang=eng

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

D&C 27:5-14 seems to make it a saving ordinance (at least that particular meeting).

It also something we are commanded to do, and the commandments are designed for our salvation along with the ordinances.

Edited May 26, 2020 by CV75

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, longview said:

I explained it in the second paragraph.  Do you disagree with that statement?

Absolutely disagree. Especially since it goes against the teachings of the church. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is quite possible the dead have an equivalent ordinance they can perform without physical proxy work being required.

What are the references for that being quite possible?

[JAHS]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

As has already been noted it is not a saving ordinance. If it was we would be doing it for the dead in our temples. What if a person who was baptized is killed in an accident before he has a chance to take the sacrament?
I have heard it be called an "enabling" ordinance. It enables us to renew our covenants with God and rededicate ourselves to repent of sins and promise to obey His commandments.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

If the Sacrament were salvational, it would be done for our dead.

The commandments are salivational but we do not keep them for the dead. Partaking of the sacrament is a commandment administered by an ordinance.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I'm not so sure.

We do not take the sacrament for the dead.  Wouldn't the dead need the same saving ordinances that we require? Of course, you may say that the dead cannot sin in the spirit world so what need is there for receiving the sacrament? I would argue that while remission of sins is one part of taking the sacrament, the renewing of covenants is just as vital.

Given this, I do not believe the sacrament is a saving ordinance.

I would say it is a saving ordinance for the living. As Elder Bednar pointed out, it is the ordinance by which we retain a remission of our sins after baptism by water and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. He called it the third ordinance to obtain the powers of godliness. What happens in the spirit world has not been revealed, but we are assured that agency still exists there and that the spirit which possesses our body here will be the same spirit there. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Rain said:

Covenants and ordinances

Priesthood Ordinances

 

No, it's not a saving ordinance.

Note: All the saving ordinances have a proxy for the dead option. 

 

 

This seems to contradict Elder Bednar’s remarks. 

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think it links us to saving ordinances, which are baptism, confirmation, priesthood and the two Temple ordinances, but how often you take it isn't as important as your attitude when you do take it

Is it necessary to take it? Can you retain a remission of your sins without it? 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

A person could be baptized, confirmed, and endowed and they would have completed the ordinances required for salvation in Christ's kingdom.  While highly unlikely to do so without ever partaking of the sacrament if that happened I don't see an issue.

Only one person has been able to do that successfully. The rest of us continue to sin and therefore rely on him. Much of that reliance is bound up in the sacrament. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

What if there is no opportunity to take the sacrament, such as what happened to some Saints when Germany was divided by a wall?  We do not do proxy sacraments after death to make up for those missed.
 

My bishop does not contact me to ensure I get consistent sacraments when I am unable to attend. He doesn’t even ask about if I have taken it every two years for my temple recommend interviews. 

Then it must be unnecessary, which would contradict Elder Bednar.

It is a commandment that we partake of it. We are not accountable for obedience to a commandment we are prevented from keeping by outside forces.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I think so.  As I pointed out, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is actually the Passover, a rite which the Lord himself kept.  As Mike Sudworth points out, however, our esoteric temple rites do not require that Passover-Lord's Supper observance by proxy for salvation.  The rite itself was actualized by Jesus Christ, and we can renew our covenants by observing it, but if one died immediately after baptism, no proxy partaking of the emblems would be necessary for salvation.

Passover with a little extra kick, no?

We not only renew our covenants, but we also retain the remission of our sins granted through the two previous salvific ordinances. If we continue living after baptism, which is probably what 99.999% of all baptized people do, then it becomes necessary to use the ordinance to retain that remission. 

What folks do in the spirit world to retain a remission of their sins has not been revealed. I suppose we could assume they cannot sin and have no need for continuing repentance?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What are the references for that being quite possible?

Me saying so.

I suspect there are lots of ordinances on the other side. They would probably need equivalents to blessings of comfort or counsel, setting apart people to authorize them to preach the gospel and their other gospel labors, renewing covenants, and maybe even ordinances to pass into the mortal world to convey information to us. There may even be ordinances to make our ordinances for the dead efficacious. Otherwise what happens if I do great grandma's temple work and she has not accepted the gospel yet on the other side but later does? Does it not count because she did not show up at the temple that day to accept or reject it.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

As Rain referenced, the church teaches that it is not a saving ordinance. 

If it is necessary and a commandment to partake of the sacrament in order to retain a remission of our sins after baptism, then how is it not a saving ordinance? 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The saying goes that hard cases make for bad law. So you’ve got me wondering if it might be equally true to say that exceedingly rare exceptions also make for bad gospel law. The Saviour taught the following famous “hard saying.” 

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

At least to me, the above words of the Master make it abundantly clear that partaking of his flesh and blood is essential to obtaining salvation. So while it may be true that in some narrow technical sense it might be correctly said that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is not a saving ordinance, nevertheless, at least for those of us who have regular access to the Sacrament table, it may as well be called a saving ordinance because consciously neglecting to regularly partake of those sacred emblems amounts to nothing less that a repudiation of the faith, or, at very least, the outward manifestation a cavalier attitude toward a sacred ordinance that God repeatedly warns us needs to be approached most seriously, solemnly and conscientiously.

And as far as the idea that the Sacrament isn’t essential to salvation because it doesn’t need to be performed vicariously in behalf of the dead, need I remind anyone here that the Lord himself has promised us that he and all those who believe in him will again partake of the Sacrament‘s sacred emblems after the resurrection. So it appears the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is at least one holy ordinance that will continue to be performed AFTER the resurrection, and it’s likely that it’s for this very reason that it isn’t necessary for proxies to partake of the Sacrament in behalf of the dead. If anyone doubts me, read the the chapter heading to D&C 27 and the entire section.
 

Thank you for pointing these things out. It seems to me that calling it a non-saving ordinance makes it an optional ordinance such as blessing the sick. There is nothing in the Savior’s instructions about it being optional. He commands us to do it. It is bound up with forgiveness of sin. Since none of us is sinless, we must avail ourselves of it to retain forgiveness. Its addition to the recommend questions makes this plain.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If it is necessary and a commandment to partake of the sacrament in order to retain a remission of our sins after baptism, then how is it not a saving ordinance? 

What if you are baptized and confirmed and die the next day. Is it still necessary for that individual?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If it is necessary and a commandment to partake of the sacrament in order to retain a remission of our sins after baptism, then how is it not a saving ordinance? 

It's not a saving ordinance because people don't have to partake of the sacrament to be saved.  

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why don’t we do it on behalf of the dead then?  

Since their proxy baptism is as legitimate as if it had been done here on earth while they were alive, they are full fledged members and thus responsible for their own actions. We have no idea what they are doing to retain remission of their sins (if they can sin in the spirit world), but that doesn’t mean there is no provision for that.

[Islander]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In another thread, there was some mention that the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.

I'm trying to understand what that means. Certainly one must repent of sins in order to be saved. Can one be baptized but never renew the covenants by taking the sacrament and still be forgiven for sins?

Consider this from the Joseph Smith Translation...

From True to the Faith....

And this from Elder Bednar...https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/always-retain-a-remission-of-your-sins?lang=eng

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

What we call ordinances are symbolic acts to signify to our hearts and minds the covenants we have taken upon ourselves. But in themselves, ritual can not and will not save anybody. It certainly did not save Israel, most of whom were lost because of disobedience. From the beginning the Lord wanted Israel (and thus us as well) to be "circumcised of heart"; to have a covenant "written in the inward parts". The Lord has always been more interested in what is in our hearts than what we do we our hands. The Lord in His infinite love and mercy towards us has poured upon His children further light an knowledge, in this dispensation, as to the inner workings of His economy and kingdom. But in themselves, no ritual will save anybody.

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." Isa 1:11-17

“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

“I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” Amos 5:21-24

 

“If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity. And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail— But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.” Mor 7:44-47

 The fulfillment of the law and the commandments is to exhibit and radiate the pure love of Christ thru us. No ordinance will or can be a substitute for that. It is in the cultivation of this love and the outpouring of such onto those around us that the world will know that we are true disciples of Christ. And thus we become pure as He is and be ready to meet our God. 

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, ‘The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it’ (Teachings of the Prophet .

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for pointing these things out. It seems to me that calling it a non-saving ordinance makes it an optional ordinance such as blessing the sick. There is nothing in the Savior’s instructions about it being optional. He commands us to do it. It is bound up with forgiveness of sin. Since none of us is sinless, we must avail ourselves of it to retain forgiveness. Its addition to the recommend questions makes this plain.

Are you saying that you believe our church leaders are wrong about it not being a saving ordinance? 

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Since their proxy baptism is as legitimate as if it had been done here on earth while they were alive, they are full fledged members and thus responsible for their own actions. We have no idea what they are doing to retain remission of their sins (if they can sin in the spirit world), but that doesn’t mean there is no provision for that.

Right, but we do know that whatever the provision is for those in the next life  (if there is one), it's not the sacrament as Christ instituted it here on earth.  This is why we do proxy baptism, but not proxy sacrament meetings.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

As has already been noted it is not a saving ordinance. If it was we would be doing it for the dead in our temples. What if a person who was baptized is killed in an accident before he has a chance to take the sacrament?
I have heard it be called an "enabling" ordinance. It enables us to renew our covenants with God and rededicate ourselves to repent of sins and promise to obey His commandments.

A person killed immediately after baptism is sinless. If during the interim between baptism and death perchance he should sin and not be able to repent,  I don’t believe a just and merciful God would deny him salvation. Is there any other ordinance that enables us to renew covenants and retain remission of sins? I can’t think of any. To me, that makes it necessary, or in other words, an ordinance of salvation.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that you believe our church leaders are wrong about it not being a saving ordinance? 

 

I’m not averse to saying that section could be revisited. I think it merits consideration.