Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

Well, if you sinned in that brief interim, then you will burn in Hell forever.

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Can they be saved without a remission of their sins?

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

We do not know whether or not there is an equivalent ordinance to the sacrament in the spirit world. It is reasonable to believe there is.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, Islander said:

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 .

Nevertheless, there is no salvation without the requisite ordinances.

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I asked, "Can one be baptized but never renew the covenants by taking the sacrament and still be forgiven for sins?"

I don't know if this is the right question to be asking though.

If you are trying to determine whether or not the sacrament is a saving ordinance, then the question you ought to be asking is, "Can one be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God without ever having participated in the ordinance of the sacrament?"

And I think the answer to that question is obviously "yes."

Say, for example, you die in an automobile accident immediately following your baptism / confirmation. Once your remaining essential ordinances have been performed (i.e., priesthood, endowment, and sealing) you are all set - even though you never had a chance to partake of the sacrament. 

There is no need for us to engage in vicarious sacrament meetings for the dead because that ordinance simply isn't a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God to begin with.

 

 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, if you sinned in that brief interim, then you will burn in Hell forever.

No, just for a thousand years or so as is just and proper.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, just for a thousand years or so as is just and proper.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't know if this is the right question to be asking though.

If you are trying to determine whether or not the sacrament is a saving ordinance, then the question you ought to be asking is, "Can one be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God without ever having participated in the ordinance of the sacrament?"

And I think the answer to that question is obviously "yes."

Say, for example, you die in an automobile accident immediately following your baptism / confirmation. Once your remaining essential ordinances have been performed (i.e., priesthood, endowment, and sealing) you are all set - even though you never had a chance to partake of the sacrament. 

There is no need for us to engage in vicarious sacrament meetings for the dead because that ordinance simply isn't a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God to begin with.

 

 

This seems to be the go-to argument against it being an ordinance of salvation. The obvious answer is that a person who is baptized is sinless and would have no need for the ordinance of the sacrament. Perhaps we could dispatch folks right after baptism. That would save a lot of grief later.  

I suppose during that fraction of a minute between baptism and death there is opportunity to get in a quicky, but I don't believe a just and merciful God would hold that against him/her.

IMO, the sacrament is an ordinance for the living....those who make covenants and then want to retain the remission of their sins granted at baptism as they wend their way.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

Those presented with the proxy ordinances done for them after death, can accept or reject those salvific ordinances.  That alone constitutes acceptance or rejection of baptism, etc., which enables them to obtain or reject the full benefit of the Atonement.  I imagine that repentance is available to them when they are preached to in spirit prison, the Gospel being the same there as here in this life.  Their lives, according to Paul, are judged according to their own cultural values in this life -- They who have not the Gospel or the Law of Moses are a law unto themselves.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

i'd imagine so, remember an ordinance is outward but covenants are inward and you can have an ordinance without a covenant but no covenant without an ordinance-so priesthood is a covenant and inward but laying on of hands to give someone the priesthood is the outward but ordinance part. So, long story short I think under weird circumstances in today's world you can retain a remission of sins without taking it, remember Mosiah 5 , they didn't take the sacrament when having their sins remitted. In today's world, though for practical purposes yes but the opportunity to take it is greater than in the past

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those presented with the proxy ordinances done for them after death, can accept or reject those salvific ordinances.  That alone constitutes acceptance or rejection of baptism, etc., which enables them to obtain or reject the full benefit of the Atonement.  I imagine that repentance is available to them when they are preached to in spirit prison, the Gospel being the same there as here in this life.  Their lives, according to Paul, are judged according to their own cultural values in this life -- They who have not the Gospel or the Law of Moses are a law unto themselves.

Do you believe it is possible for those in the spirit world to sin after accepting proxy ordinances?

[CV75]

2 hours 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.

If a person is killed before he has the opportunity to partake of the sacrament, and assuming he is confirmed in life or by proxy, he will have the opportunity to partake per D&C 27:5-14. If he is found worthy to partake and partakes, it is a saving ordinance. If he refuses the ordinance at that point, it is a damning ordinance.

Because it is administered post-resurrection, it could be called an "embalming" ordinance.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd imagine so, remember an ordinance is outward but covenants are inward and you can have an ordinance without a covenant but no covenant without an ordinance-so priesthood is a covenant and inward but laying on of hands to give someone the priesthood is the outward but ordinance part. So, long story short I think under weird circumstances in today's world you can retain a remission of sins without taking it, remember Mosiah 5 , they didn't take the sacrament when having their sins remitted. In today's world, though for practical purposes yes but the opportunity to take it is greater than in the past

They didn't take the sacrament in Mosiah because it had not yet been instituted nor made a commandment. Their forgiveness was in anticipation of the Atonement which at that time had not yet been completed.  

Would you say that it is optional, then?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

For our Catholic friends, what is the connection between taking Communion and salvation?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They didn't take the sacrament in Mosiah because it had not yet been instituted nor made a commandment. Their forgiveness was in anticipation of the Atonement which at that time had not yet been completed.  

Would you say that it is optional, then?

that's true! i'd say its' optional for practical purposes, like today what percentage of the member every week don't take the sacrament? I think the 1st Presidency said take it once a month, not that it isn't important but for practical purposes

[Bernard Gui]

A very interesting comment from our old fried USU78....

Quote

Be ye one is the injunction. That they may be one is the prayer. People are forgetting that salvation is a communal phenomenon. We become one with Him and with one another by participating in the communal sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is integral to if not sine qua non of our salvation.

 

[Rain]

20 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.

 

From the beginning of that same article:

Quote

All saving ordinances and the ordinance of the sacrament must be authorized by one who holds the requisite priesthood keys.

If Elder Bednar thought it was a saving ordinance I don't know why he would separate it out.  

As I read through the article I was surprised to find a shift, but I haven't placed my finger on it yet.  I wasn't looking for it.  Perhaps I am wrong about that shift.

The shift take place in between these two paragraphs:

Quote

Consider how a farmer depends upon the unchanging pattern of planting and harvesting. Understanding the connection between sowing and reaping is a constant source of purpose and influences all of the decisions and actions a farmer undertakes in all seasons of the year. In like manner, the inseparable connection between the ordinances of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost should impact every aspect of our discipleship in all seasons of our lives.

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.²⁷ 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.”²⁸ 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.”²⁹

And just for the record I am fine with the priesthood handbook being corrected if it needs to be.  I just haven't seen any good evidence to need to have that done for that so far. It would certainly make a difference in my questions from the other thread.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that's true! i'd say its' optional for practical purposes, like today what percentage of the member every week don't take the sacrament? I think the 1st Presidency said take it once a month, not that it isn't important but for practical purposes

Indeed! Thanks for the comment. As Elder Bednar said, it is a necessary ordinance, one of the three that empower us to gain access to the power of godliness. What makes it necessary?  Frequency is not defined.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

From the beginning of that same article:

If Elder Bednar thought it was a saving ordinance I don't know why he would separate it out.  

As I read through the article I was surprised to find a shift, but I haven't placed my finger on it yet.  I wasn't looking for it.  Perhaps I am wrong about that shift.

The shift take place in between these two paragraphs:

And just for the record I am fine with the priesthood handbook being corrected if it needs to be.  I just haven't seen any good evidence to need to have that done for that so far. It would certainly make a difference in my questions from the other thread.

I think we need to understand what is meant by "necessary." That seems to be the sticking point. To me, necessary means required, not optional, essential, not replaceable. In order to be saved, we must retain a remission of our sins after baptism. Repentance is a process that continues as long as we live. If the sacrament is the necessary vehicle through which that is accomplished, then it must be required for salvation. 

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you believe it is possible for those in the spirit world to sin after accepting proxy ordinances?

Oh, yes.  Same as in the Great Council.  Agency is always with us.  However, it is always more severe a sin when it is done against light and knowledge.

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed! Thanks for the comment. As Elder Bednar said, it is a necessary ordinance, one of the three that empower us to gain access to the power of godliness. What makes it necessary?  Frequency is not defined.

I got you! is it necessary for salvation though? i'd say no, as stated before the five covenants and ordinances needed for salvation are baptism/confirmation.....

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nevertheless, there is no salvation without the requisite ordinances.

The prophet and apostles don't agree with you on that.  You are teaching something that contradicts what they have instructed to be taught.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I got you! is it necessary for salvation though? i'd say no, as stated before the five covenants and ordinances needed for salvation are baptism/confirmation.....

I don't understand how it is necessary to retain the remission of sins but not necessary for salvation. Could you comment on that?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We do not know whether or not there is an equivalent ordinance to the sacrament in the spirit world. It is reasonable to believe there is.

It is also reasonable to believe the prophet and apostles when they say that the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, bluebell said:

The prophet and apostles don't agree with you on that.  You are teaching something that contradicts what they have instructed to be taught.

Explain, please? 2 Nephi 31 makes it plain that baptism is required for salvation.....unless I misunderstand what you are saying.....

Quote

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.