Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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".

My thought, though not elaborated, is that the Sacrament is an extension of baptism both by water AND the Spirit, viewing both ordinances as interdependent and equally essential. The Spirit of God cannot dwell in an unclean tabernacle stained by sin, hence the need for our sins to be washed away by the blood of Christ; and one cannot effectively retain a remission of his sins without the enlightenment, empowerment and purifying spiritual fire of the Holy Ghost.

Edited May 29, 2020 by teddyaware

[Vanguard]

On 5/26/2020 at 8:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

No one has said that anyone who did not partake during mortality will be denied salvation. How are we to interpret Jesus' commandment always to partake of it and Elder Bednar's comment that it is one of the three necessary ordinances that assure we maintain forgiveness of sins?

Then what do you say of what must be countless folks who pass while having sinned yet before they've had a chance to renew their baptismal covenants by taking the Sacrament? Or what of those - though decidedly less in number - who are baptized but yet never get a chance to take the Sacrament even once? Why don't we have a temple endowment that would include vicarious talking of the Sacrament for that population? Could it be because the Godhead does not deem 'vicarious Sacrament'  as being necessary for exaltation like he does so many of the other saving ordinances?

And who knows what to make of Bednar's comment that seems to contradict the Church Handbook?

[The Nehor]

Pedants gotta pedant.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Then what do you say of what must be countless folks who pass while having sinned yet before they've had a chance to renew their baptismal covenants by taking the Sacrament? Or what of those - though decidedly less in number - who are baptized but yet never get a chance to take the Sacrament even once? Why don't we have a temple endowment that would include vicarious talking of the Sacrament for that population? Could it be because the Godhead does not deem 'vicarious Sacrament'  as being necessary for exaltation like he does so many of the other saving ordinances? 
 

And who knows what to make of Bednar's comment that seems to contradict the Church Handbook?

All asked and answered. A just and merciful God would not condemn anyone in the scenario you describe.

I’m still researching and studying. In the meantime, I have come to a tentative conclusion that the sacrament may not accurately be included as one of the “other” ordinances such as blessing babies and administering to the sick. It is much more than that.  I think that is born out in the quotes I have provided. 

I have copies of the 1943, 44, and 45 Handbooks.  They are not exactly the same as the current one. I don’t write the handbook nor do I think I am in a position to dictate what is in it. 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Top of the page post is from the handbook:

Also here:

 

Thank you. Please note that I have said several times that it is an ordinance for the living. Indeed, it is a commandment to all members for all time. We expend much time, effort, and resources to facilitate keeping it.  Furthermore, we have no idea what provisions are made in the spirit world for repentance and renewal of covenants, or even if that is necessary. Can we definitively say there is no comparable remedy in the spirit world for those who have been baptized by proxy and accept the ordinance there? No, I believe we cannot.

I feel I have provided enough material to show that it is an ordinance that is essential and necessary for living baptized members of the Church. Nephi made it abundantly clear that after baptism by water and the Holy Spirit we are not home free. We must endure to the end of our lives. 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.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/27/2020 at 12:10 PM, 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.

 

Couple of questions...

1. after baptism can we endure to the end without participating in the ordinance of the sacrament? My answer: no

2. what is the ordinance that facilitates enduring to the end? My answer: the sacrament

3. can we be saved without enduring to the end and retaining a remission of sin? My answer: no

4. is it a commandment to take the sacrament frequently? My answer: yes

5. can salvation come to the unrepentant or to those who do not keep the commandments? My answer: no

6. is the sacrament as necessary and essential as any other ordinance of salvation? My answer: yes

7. how can a commanded ordinance that is essential and necessary to retain a remission of sins not be a saving ordinance? My answer: I don’t know. It seems to me that if it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, it cannot be anything but a duck. I don’t know what else it could be called. I don’t think it adequately belongs in the separate category of “other” ordinances such as baby blessings, Priesthood ordinations, grave dedications, consecrating oil, and administering to the sick. I think it fits better with the “saving” ordinances.

Your comments are welcomed and respected.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours 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. 

I think I have amply provided evidence for that. The question then, if it has a major impact on salvation, then how can it not be a saving ordinance?

....

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/27/2020 at 12:19 PM, 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)

See my response to JAHS just above, please.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/27/2020 at 12:25 PM, 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 do not know if there is a comparable ordinance that those who have accepted baptism in the spirit world participate in, but it is not unreasonable to think there may be something akin to it there, if not the same.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

after baptism can we endure to the end without participating in the ordinance of the sacrament? My answer: no

So the old woman that I remember being refer (I think it was General Conference, but might have been Stake) to in my youth or young adulthood as an example of a faithful Saint in Germany or Russia (or similar place) who saved her tithing in a jar for decades to give to a church leader, who never got the Sacrament because of no Priesthood holder was available...she did not endure to the end?  Seems like she was being used as the ideal example for what was meant to endure to the end as someone who grasped the Gospel when she first learned it and held onto it tightly, living it the best way she knew how.

I don't see how that is not enduring to the end. It facilitates, it enriches, and when available and we reject it there is a cost, but endurance and remission of sins can exist in its absence.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

I can't believe I found it.  Not the original talk, but the story:

Quote

Some members remained faithful despite years of isolation. Gunter Schulze, now bishop of the Dresden Ward, spent much of his time during that period finding and caring for isolated members—some in Poland, some in outlying areas of the German Democratic Republic. One of these was an elderly sister in Upper Silesia.

“We visited with her a long time. Finally she went behind the stove and brought out a knotted stocking and began untying the knots, several knots. Then she held out her two hands like a scale and weighed money from the knotted stocking. She said, ‘This is my tithing. I have been saving it for over twenty-five years now. I knew the priesthood would come into my home again someday!’” (Oral interview with Gunter Schulze, 6 June 1990.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1991/04/behind-the-wall-the-church-in-eastern-germany-part-1-saints-in-isolation-1945-1989?lang=eng

The article is wonderful for other reasons, good to be reminded that many, many Saints have had much more difficult decisions to make about attending church meetings besides 'do I have to wear a mask?'.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Amulek 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. 

Are the dead not accountable?

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.

 

We tell children and converts after their baptism that they are clean forgiven of their sins, and are washed free from sin, which is true. Just about every talk I have ever read on the doctrine of the sacrament is that one of its prime purposes is to help us retain that remission of our sins. In your extreme hypothetical situation, a person who dies immediately after baptism without sinning has no need for the sacrament for that purpose. The rest of us...I venture to say all of us because your scenario must be as exceedingly rare as to approach zero....the sacrament is essential and necessary for members to retain forgiveness.
 

Yes, the sacrament is a unique ordinance, but as Elder JF Smith said, just as necessary as all the rest. It seems to me that none of the “saving” ordinances can be validated without the sacrament’s role in enduring to the end.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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?

Thank you. This has been my point since the OP. If it is an essential to our salvation, then it is an..............

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours 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.
 

But it does more than that....it assures that we retain the remission of our sins.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

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".

The covenants in the prayers concern both baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. I think it is an extension of both. One is not valid without the others.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Pedants gotta pedant.

Gee, Nehor. I’m trying to discuss and better understand something in good faith that I thing is interesting and important. What did I do to deserve this? 😕

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So the old woman that I remember being refer (I think it was General Conference, but might have been Stake) to in my youth or young adulthood as an example of a faithful Saint in Germany or Russia (or similar place) who saved her tithing in a jar for decades to give to a church leader, who never got the Sacrament because of no Priesthood holder was available...she did not endure to the end?  Seems like she was being used as the ideal example for what was meant to endure to the end as someone who grasped the Gospel when she first learned it and held onto it tightly, living it the best way she knew how.

I don't see how that is not enduring to the end. It facilitates, it enriches, and when available and we reject it there is a cost, but endurance and remission of sins can exist in its absence.

No, that is not a correct reading of my statements. I imagine she, more than most of us, would hunger for the sacrament and do just about anything she could if there were any hope of partaking. I wish I had that hunger. Perhaps some repentance is in order.

I have repeatedly said that a just, merciful, and loving a God would not condemn anyone who is unable to keep a commandment because of circumstances beyond their control. That would certainly apply in this rare case. For the rest of us, we have the commandment to keep. The Church goes to great effort expense to be sure we have the opportunity. How else are we to remain unspotted from the world?

Quote

How can we have the Spirit of the Lord to guide our choices so that we will remain ‘unspotted from the world’ (D&C 59:9) and on the safe path through mortality? We need to qualify for the cleansing power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We do this by keeping His commandment to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and in that wonderful weekly meeting partake of the emblems of the sacrament and make the covenants that qualify us for the precious promise that we will always have His Spirit to be with us (see D&C 20:77)” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament,” Ensign, Nov. 2008, 17, 20).

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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?

Even official explanations have a context, and the meaning is often influenced by the delivery format (talk, handbook, article, journal, book, lesson, lesson manual, etc.).

Edited May 29, 2020 by CV75

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Couple of questions...

1. after baptism can we endure to the end without participating in the ordinance of the sacrament? My answer: no

2. what is the ordinance that facilitates enduring to the end? My answer: the sacrament

3. can we be saved without enduring to the end and retaining a remission of sin? My answer: no

4. is it a commandment to take the sacrament frequently? My answer: yes

5. can salvation come to the unrepentant or to those who do not keep the commandments? My answer: no

6. is the sacrament as necessary and essential as any other ordinance of salvation? My answer: yes

7. how can a commanded ordinance that is essential and necessary to retain a remission of sins not be a saving ordinance? My answer: I don’t know. It seems to me that if it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, it cannot be anything but a duck. I don’t know what else it could be called. I don’t think it adequately belongs in the separate category of “other” ordinances such as baby blessings, Priesthood ordinations, grave dedications, consecrating oil, and administering to the sick. I think it fits better with the “saving” ordinances.

Your comments are welcomed and respected.

My answers

1. Yes. A person could endure to the end without the Sacrament. If the sacrament is not available for some reason they can renew their covenants without it which is what some of us have been doing now.
2. The sacrament is one of them
3. No
4. Yes if it is possible to do so.
5. No, but there's always repentance which does not require the Sacrament
6. Important but not as much as the saving ordinances as they have been defined for us over that past 200 years
7. It fits better but our prophets have not defined it as one of the saving ordinances. That's your opinion.

 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just about every talk I have ever read on the doctrine of the sacrament is that one of its prime purposes is to help us retain that remission of our sins. In your extreme hypothetical situation, a person who dies immediately after baptism without sinning has no need for the sacrament for that purpose.

But that isn't the only purpose for partaking the sacrament. That is what I was getting at with respect to Christ and baptism.

One of the prime purposes of baptism is to obtain a remission of sin, but that isn't the only purpose for baptism - it also involves entering into a covenant with God, demonstrating our obedience to his commandments, admittance into membership in his church, etc. 

Christ had no need for the (from our perspective) primary purpose of baptism, yet he had to be baptized. 

Similarly, if the sacrament were really a mandatory ordinance for salvation, there wouldn't be exceptions for it. It would function like every other saving ordinance, being required of every accountable person either in this life or in the life to come. 

It seems to me, then, that the touchstone for something being an authentic saving ordinance is if the ordinance involves entering into a covenant. 

Baptism/confirmation, priesthood ordination, temple endowments, and marriage all involve entering into covenants. 

The sacrament, however, involves no new covenant.

True, it acts as a mechanism for us to renew previously entered covenants (not merely those pertaining to baptism, by the way), and it is something we have been commanded to participate in, but since it involves no new covenant one must enter into on the journey down the covenant path, it isn't considered an essential ordinance. Which is why we don't need to perform vicarious sacrament meetings for our kindred dead.

I think you are simply using the terms "saving" and "essential" in a slightly more broad sense that I am personally. When you say that the sacrament is a 'saving ordinance,' it seems that you really mean that, since it is something one ought to be participating in order to maintain his relationship with God, then it is necessary or essential in that sense - hence, it is a necessary or essential ordinance. 

But, taken in that light, I don't know that the sacrament is all that different from any other commandment we are expected to follow, which - should would fail to do so - would put our relationship with God in jeopardy.

I mean, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves (that's a pretty big one, in fact). Can one obtain salvation without loving one's neighbor? According to the scriptures, the answer to that questions is decidedly 'no.'

The sacrament is in this same vein. It's an integral component in our ability to continue to grow and progress here in mortality, but - strictly speaking - it isn't something one must experience in order to be saved, so it isn't officially listed as a saving ordinance.

That doesn't devalue it or take away from it's meaning or importance in our lives. In fact, I think a proper understanding helps enhance our appreciation for what it is we have the opportunity to do whenever we participate in this sacred ordinance. 

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Gee, Nehor. I’m trying to discuss and better understand something in good faith that I thing is interesting and important. What did I do to deserve this? 😕

It was not aimed at anyone in particular.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

My answers

1. Yes. A person could endure to the end without the Sacrament. If the sacrament is not available for some reason they can renew their covenants without it which is what some of us have been doing now.
2. The sacrament is one of them
3. No
4. Yes if it is possible to do so.
5. No, but there's always repentance which does not require the Sacrament
6. Important but not as much as the saving ordinances as they have been defined for us over that past 200 years
7. It fits better but our prophets have not defined it as one of the saving ordinances.
 

Thank you for your response. I have responded to each of these in previous posts. Those responses have been based on my understanding of scriptures and statements I have provided in context from apostles and prophets. I have been making extensive searches of the word sacrament through the corpus of General Conference talks. So far they appear to support what I am asserting. Some seem to contradict some of your points, but I will leave it at that. Interesting that we come to different conclusions.

Quote

That's your opinion.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was not aimed at anyone in particular.

Ummmmm....

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But that isn't the only purpose for partaking the sacrament. That is what I was getting at with respect to Christ and baptism.

One of the prime purposes of baptism is to obtain a remission of sin, but that isn't the only purpose for baptism - it also involves entering into a covenant with God, demonstrating our obedience to his commandments, admittance into membership in his church, etc. 

Christ had no need for the (from our perspective) primary purpose of baptism, yet he had to be baptized. 

Similarly, if the sacrament were really a mandatory ordinance for salvation, there wouldn't be exceptions for it. It would function like every other saving ordinance, being required of every accountable person either in this life or in the life to come. 

It seems to me, then, that the touchstone for something being an authentic saving ordinance is if the ordinance involves entering into a covenant. 

Baptism/confirmation, priesthood ordination, temple endowments, and marriage all involve entering into covenants. 

The sacrament, however, involves no new covenant.

True, it acts as a mechanism for us to renew previously entered covenants (not merely those pertaining to baptism, by the way), and it is something we have been commanded to participate in, but since it involves no new covenant one must enter into on the journey down the covenant path, it isn't considered an essential ordinance. Which is why we don't need to perform vicarious sacrament meetings for our kindred dead.

I think you are simply using the terms "saving" and "essential" in a slightly more broad sense that I am personally. When you say that the sacrament is a 'saving ordinance,' it seems that you really mean that, since it is something one ought to be participating in order to maintain his relationship with God, then it is necessary or essential in that sense - hence, it is a necessary or essential ordinance. 

But, taken in that light, I don't know that the sacrament is all that different from any other commandment we are expected to follow, which - should would fail to do so - would put our relationship with God in jeopardy.

I mean, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves (that's a pretty big one, in fact). Can one obtain salvation without loving one's neighbor? According to the scriptures, the answer to that questions is decidedly 'no.'

The sacrament is in this same vein. It's an integral component in our ability to continue to grow and progress here in mortality, but - strictly speaking - it isn't something one must experience in order to be saved, so it isn't officially listed as a saving ordinance.

That doesn't devalue it or take away from it's meaning or importance in our lives. In fact, I think a proper understanding helps enhance our appreciation for what it is we have the opportunity to do whenever we participate in this sacred ordinance. 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful  comments, but I had to pause after the first sentence. I have never said it is the only purpose. Only that it is necessary and essential to retain a remission of our sins. I thing we agree on that.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

13 hours 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.
 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Rain said:

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".

 

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The covenants in the prayers concern both baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. I think it is an extension of both. One is not valid without the others.

Teddy mentioned only baptism as an extension in his quote, not the Holy Ghost. That is why I said "if" it is an extension of "just one" then it made more sense to me as the extension of the gift.  

I wasn't meaning to say anything about what kind of extension it was.