Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[JAHS]

I think people have their own definition of what defines a "saving ordinance". This is what the Church handbook says in a couple of places:

"An ordinance is a sacred act, such as baptism,
that is performed by the authority of the priesthood. The ordinances of baptism, confirmation,
Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men),
the temple endowment, and temple sealing are
required for exaltation for all accountable persons. These are called the saving ordinances.
As part of each saving ordinance, the recipient makes covenants with God.

Some ordinances are required for exaltation
in the celestial kingdom for all accountable persons. These ordinances include baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination
(for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing."

The Sacrament is not included in any official Church list as a "saving ordinance" required for exaltation.
However, all the other ordinances are very important and aid in our salvation.

 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

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

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

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

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

The Sacrament is clearly many things and all that has been said by the prophets and apostles certainly align, when taken in context.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think people have their own definition of what defines a "saving ordinance". This is what the Church handbook says in a couple of places:

"An ordinance is a sacred act, such as baptism,
that is performed by the authority of the priesthood. The ordinances of baptism, confirmation,
Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men),
the temple endowment, and temple sealing are
required for exaltation for all accountable persons. These are called the saving ordinances.
As part of each saving ordinance, the recipient makes covenants with God.

Some ordinances are required for exaltation
in the celestial kingdom for all accountable persons. These ordinances include baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination
(for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing."

The Sacrament is not included in any official Church list as a "saving ordinance" required for exaltation.
However, all the other ordinances are very important and aid in our salvation.

Yet it can be properly stated that the Sacrament is a saving ordinance, and it is very important and aids in our salvation.

Edited May 27, 2020 by CV75

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yet it can be properly stated that the Sacrament is a saving ordinance.

Looks to me like the sacrament is among those other ordinances that are very important and aid in our salvation, and yet not what we should regard as a saving ordinance.

Even though our Lord said this: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:53–55)

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yet it can be properly stated that the Sacrament is a saving ordinance, and it is very important and aids in our salvation.

It can also properly be stated that the Sacrament is an enabling ordinance which aids in our salvation. 
I think a more strict definition however is that a "saving ordinance" is one that must be performed in the temple for those who have passed on. 

[JamesBYoung]

Thank you, CV75, for your response.  I understand you completely.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

It can also properly be stated that the Sacrament is an enabling ordinance which aids in our salvation. 
I think a more strict definition however is that a "saving ordinance" is one that must be performed in the temple for those who have passed on. 

We are free to interpret things as strictly as we wish, which unfortunately tends to limit the full breadth, depth and interconnectedness of true principles.

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Looks to me like the sacrament is among those other ordinances that are very important and aid in our salvation, and yet not what we should regard as a saving ordinance.

Even though our Lord said this: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:53–55)

Can you describe how one can strictly disregard the sacrament as a saving ordinance and still enjoy the primary and full intent of its institution? Or, share how people have found salvation without partaking of it, or not desiring to partake with the Lord per D&C 27?

[Calm]

Saving ordinances appear to be one time, landmark events which are required to move beyond significant limitations in progress as opposed to limitations due to sin, not as developed spiritually, etc.  Think of them as permanent solid anchors marking movement down the path to exaltation. Other ordinances appear to be supportive of these anchors rather than anchors themselves. Baptism makes sense without the Sacrament, the Sacrament does not make sense without baptism.  Priesthood makes sense without priesthood healings, such healings don’t make sense without Priesthood. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Calm

[let’s roll]

13 hours ago, Islander said:

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

Thank you for you thoughtful reply.  My experience in discussing the scriptures with others has led me to believe that I am more conversant in the scriptures than most, but I’ve never found much efficacy in arguing doctrinal points.  Sincere, heartfelt invitations are, I believe, more conducive to spiritual growth...by both the one giving and receiving the invitation.

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yet it can be properly stated that the Sacrament is a saving ordinance, and it is very important and aids in our salvation.

Unfortunately, this is either a miscommunication based on the language you are using or it is false. I am grateful for the holiness that you place on the Sacrament and wish that more members of the Church felt that way. 

There is a lot of great reading on the topic. There are ordinances and then saving ordinances - I appreciate Calm's comment just above. 

Have a great day.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Saving ordinances appear to be one time, landmark events which are required to move beyond significant limitations in progress as opposed to limitations due to sin, not as developed spiritually, etc.  Think of them as permanent solid anchors marking movement down the path to exaltation. Other ordinances appear to be supportive of these anchors rather than anchors themselves. Baptism makes sense without the Sacrament, the Sacrament does not make sense without baptism.  Priesthood makes sense without priesthood healings, such healings don’t make sense without Priesthood. 

This is a nice explanation, and also allows the expansion of the tent of saving ordinances ... 😊... Both hypothetically (in the instance someone takes it but once before they die) and as a future event in D&C 27, the sacrament can also appear to be a one-time, landmark event.

Taking this a step further, priesthood makes no sense if it does not heal ("heal" in all its meanings), and baptism makes no sense if it is our only, bound-to-be-stymied shot at understanding, making and keeping the covenant.

cc: @Storm Rider

Edited May 28, 2020 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Rain said:

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

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

Thanks. There is no need to turn gospel discussions into ugly debates. That is not the Way.

I agree that it may be a matter of definition. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. There is no need to turn gospel discussions into ugly debates. That is not the Way.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

[Bernard Gui]

Pertinent commentary by Joseph F. Smith for those who are interested...

Quote

Here is an ordinance which we are now administering, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; it is a principle of the Gospel, one as necessary to be observed by all believers, as any other ordinance of the Gospel. What is the object of it? It is that we may keep in mind continually the Son of God who has redeemed us, from eternal death, and brought us to life again through the power of the Gospel. Before the coming of Christ to the earth, this was borne in mind by the inhabitants of the earth to whom the Gospel was preached, by another ordinance, which involved the sacrifice of animal life, an ordinance which was a type of the great sacrifice that should take place in the meridian of time. Hence, Adam, after he was cast out of the Garden, was commanded to offer sacrifices to God; by this act he, and all who participated in the offering of sacrifices, were reminded of the Savior who should come to redeem them from death which, were it not for the atonement wrought out by him, would forever exclude them from dwelling in the presence of God again. But in his coming and death, this commandment was fulfilled; and he instituted the Supper and commanded his followers to partake of this in all time to come, in order that they may remember him, bearing in mind that he had redeemed them, also that they had covenanted to keep his commandments and to walk with him in the regeneration. Hence it is necessary to partake of the sacrament, as a witness to him that we do remember him, are willing to keep the commandments he has given us, that we may have his spirit to be with us always—even to the end, and also that we may continue in the forgiveness of our sins.

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. There is no need to turn gospel discussions into ugly debates. That is not the Way.

I agree that it may be a matter of definition. 

Please define matter... 💣😁

[Bernard Gui]

Doesn’t matter because there is no such thing as immaterial matter. 🎻

Edited May 28, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Pertinent commentary by Joseph F. Smith for those who are interested...

 

This is why I said it’s likely only in some in narrow technical sense that the Sacrament  is not considered to be among the saving ordinances of the gospel, because, sure as shooting, if any saint of this day disregards the essential nature of the Sacrament it’s going to impact his salvation in a very major way. 

[Amulek]

On 5/27/2020 at 10:15 AM, Bernard Gui said:

And easy to counter, as I said.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. 

Let's say you get baptized and confirmed on your honeymoon (Grats!). Only regrettably, you subsequently get eaten by a shark the following morning (EEK!). 

Your counter argument, if I understand correctly, is essentially that you are still 'perfect' from your baptism (assuming you didn't curse or anything while being devoured), so it isn't necessary that you partake of the sacrament to renew those covenants because they were still initially in effect. 

Only that's not how any other saving ordinance works. You would still need to be ordained to the priesthood, endowed, and sealed to your spouse in order to achieve salvation. Why would sacrament-taking be any different if it is really an essential ordinance?

Being perfect doesn't absolve you of having to participate in saving ordinances. I mean, Christ was perfect, yet he still had to be baptized. 

 

Quote

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

Are the dead not accountable?

 

Quote

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

Well, we know that the spirit which possesses our bodies now persists into the next world. Agency, repentance, and whatnot all must persist as well - which is why people are able to accept baptism. So, it seems logically implicit that sin must be possible in the spirit world as well. And if sin persists, just like our current spirits do, then there would be a need for the sacrament if it truly was a necessary, saving ordinance.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

This is why I said it’s likely only in some in narrow technical sense that the Sacrament  is not considered to be among the saving ordinances of the gospel, because, sure as shooting, if any saint of this day disregards the essential nature of the Sacrament it’s going to impact his salvation in a very major way. 

And I would say that this is more the result of convenience in teaching something else, or emphasizing another point, entirely.

Edited May 28, 2020 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Doesn’t matter because there is no such thing as immaterial matter. 🎻

This reminds me of how transubstantiation must play into this thread.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And I would say that this is more the result of convenience in teaching something else, or emphasizing another point, entirely.

I haven’t read the entire thread. Has someone posted the official Church explanation of what constitutes a saving ordinance and what does not? In consideration of the fact that one can lose his salvation if he chooses to deliberately disobey the commandment  to worthily partake of the emblems of the Lord’s flesh and blood, might it not rightly be said the that Sacrament is, at very least, an essential ordinance of salvation to those who live in a time and place when they are commanded to obey it?

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Has someone posted the official Church explanation of what constitutes a saving ordinance and what does not?

Top of the page post is from the handbook:

Also here:

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Calm

[teddyaware]

On 5/25/2020 at 6:27 PM, 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. 

 

 

Many thanks for the information.

In a previous post on this thread, I pointed out something I find most interesting. The Church teaches that the ordinance of the Sacrament is going to be observed AFTER the resurrection by all believers. For this reason, there would be no need for proxies to vicariously partake of the Sacrament in behalf of the dead because all who are worthy, who didn’t partake of the sacred emblems while in the fallen state, will eventually be able to do so after they are raised to immortality. If find it very interesting that there will be at least one gospel ordinance that will be performed by immortal beings after the resurrection.

Anyway, I think I solved the mystery as to why the Sacrament seems in every way to be like a saving ordinance, yet it is not. The reason why is that in partaking of the Sacrament we RENEW sacred covenants that were ALREADY MADE AT BAPTISM. In other words, the ordinance of the Sacrament is strongly connected to the saving ordinance of baptism and is, in fact, an extension of it.
 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by teddyaware

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Many thanks for the information.

In a previous post on this thread, I pointed out something I find most interesting. The Church teaches that the ordinance of the Sacrament is going to be observed AFTER the resurrection by all believers. For this reason, there would be no need for proxies to vicariously partake of the Sacrament in behalf of the dead because all who are worthy, who didn’t partake of the sacred emblems while in the fallen state, will eventually be able to do so after they are raised to immortality. If find it very interesting that there will be at least one gospel ordinance that will be performed by immortal beings after the resurrection.

Anyway, I think I solved the mystery as to why the Sacrament seems in every way to be like a saving ordinance, yet it is not. The reason why is that in partaking of the Sacrament we RENEW sacred covenants that were ALREADY MADE AT BAPTISM. In other words, the ordinance of the Sacrament is strongly connected to the saving ordinance of baptism and is, in fact, an extension of it.
 

 

 

Yes, though reading Elder Bednar's talk I think it is probably more of an "extension" of the gift of the Holy Ghost than baptism.

Obviously from everything we know and from the talk they all 3 have a very close relationship so I'm not going to argue and say it is not an extension of baptism.  It just seems that if it is an extension of just one, given the information in the talk, then it lines up better being an extension of the gift of the Holy Ghost since the sacrament is the invitation of "ongoing cleansing".