Is the Sacrament a Saving Ordinance?

[Bernard Gui]

Several have stated that my thoughts contradict what we have been taught about the sacrament for 200 years. So far I have reviewed the Conference talks from 1850-1890 to determine what we have been taught. Not many contain detailed doctrinal information, but for those who are interested....

Quote

Brigham Young 

We are in the habit of partaking of the contents of the cup each Sabbath when we meet together, and I do pray you my brethren and sisters to contemplate this ordinance thoroughly, and seek unto the Lord with all your hearts that you may obtain the promised blessings by obedience to it. Teach its observance to your children; impress upon them its necessity. Its observance is as necessary to our salvation as any other of the ordinances and commandments that have been instituted in order that the people may be sanctified, that Jesus may bless them and give unto them his spirit, and guide and direct them that they may secure unto themselves life eternal. Impress the sacredness of this important ordinance upon the minds of your children.

 

Heber C. Kimball

Our religion is a practical religion. We administer the sacrament, for instance, in remembrance of Jesus Christ, which ordinance he has established to imitate the things he has suffered. We break bread as an imitation of his body, which has been broken; and we pour out wine (which should be of our own make) and drink of it in imitation of his blood, which was poured out that our sins might be remitted. Our sins are forgiven, on condition that we observe these ordinances before all people, before the Father, before the Son, before the Holy Ghost and before all the holy angels that God sends to take charge of us. 

Francis Lyman gave an important talk in 1889, but I haven’t been able to find the full text.

Quote

...and water with them, in memory of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, thereby witnessing that we fellowship one another, that we remember the Lord, and that we are willing to take upon us His name and keep the commandments which He has given. I presume the storm today, and perhaps the funeral that was held this morning, have prevented quite a number from being present here. In so great a city of the Saints as this, there ought to be Latter-day Saints enough come together to fill this house, to partake of the sacrament, on the Sabbath day. There is no more sacred ordinance in the Gospel, although it is before us each Sabbath day; and no doubt many of the Latter-day Saints may look upon it as common. But it should be looked upon as uncommon and very important; and if you had been deprived of the privilege of meeting with the Saints and of partaking of the sacrament as I and many others have been, you would perhaps prize the privilege. The Lord has commanded that we should meet...

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There is no more sacred ordinance in the Gospel

Do you agree with Francis Lyman on this point? I don't.  It is a very sacred ordinance, but not more than any others.
As far as what Brigham Young said it is necessary for our salvation for those of us who continue to live on this earth and for those who actually have the opportunity to take it.
When we perform baptisms for the dead in our temples do you believe that the spirits are somehow partaking the sacrament in the spirit world? I don't think you can commit sin in the spirit world so there would be no need to take the sacrament.

It seems that you are advocating for a redefinition of the phrase "saving ordinance", but I quite certain that our latter-day prophets are all aware of what has been said in the past and so far have not included the Sacrament in the definition.

Edited May 29, 2020 by JAHS

[HappyJackWagon]

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Do you agree with Francis Lyman on this point? I don't.  It is a very sacred ordinance, but not more than any others.
As far as what Brigham Young said it is necessary for our salvation for those of us who continue to live on this earth and for those who actually have the opportunity to take it.
When we perform baptisms for the dead in our temples do you believe that the spirits are somehow partaking the sacrament in the spirit world? I don't think you can commit sin in the spirit world so there would be no need to take the sacrament.

It seems that you are advocating for a redefinition of the phrase "saving ordinance", but I quite certain that our latter-day prophets are all aware of what has been said in the past and so far have not included the Sacrament in the definition.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you think it's possible to sin in the spirit world? Maybe this is a derail, but an interesting one methinks.

The church teaches that the same spirit with us in this life goes to the next. So if I'm rebellious, or gossipy, or a host of other sins that are easily committed without a physical body, that same attitude and spirit will be with me in the next life so I would expect I would still be rebellious etc. And if I am, I'm committing sin. This is why there must be repentance without the sacrament. Until we are perfected (who knows how long that will take) we will be imperfect sinners. Since there is no ordinance of Sacrament for the dead, every spirit sinner would be in big trouble with no hope of repenting or forgiveness. That just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Edited May 29, 2020 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ummmmm....

Seriously, everyone is arguing about what constitutes "saving ordinance".

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just out of curiosity, why don't you think it's possible to sin in the spirit world? Maybe this is a derail, but an interesting one methinks.

The church teaches that the same spirit with us in this life goes to the next. So if I'm rebellious, or gossipy, or a host of other sins that are easily committed without a physical body, that same attitude and spirit will be with me in the next life so I would expect I would still be rebellious etc. And if I am, I'm committing sin. This is why there must be repentance without the sacrament. Until we are perfected (who knows how long that will take) we will be imperfect sinners. Since there is no ordinance of Sacrament for the dead, every spirit sinner would be in big trouble with no hope of repenting or forgiveness. That just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

I suppose there could be some things that might be called sin in the spirit world. But you are right, and I guess that's my point, that we would be in big trouble if the sacrament was required for repentance of those sins.  Baptisms are not performed there so it is logical to assume that the sacrament is also probably not performed there. 
If one can commit sin in the spirit world is it limited only to those in spirit prison or to those in Paradise as well?  I found a statement by Brigham Young:
“If we are faithful to our religion, when we go into the spirit world, the fallen spirits—Lucifer and the third part of the heavenly hosts that came with him, and the spirits of wicked men who have dwelt upon this earth, the whole of them combined will have no influence over our spirits. Is not that an advantage? Yes. All the rest of the children of men are more or less subject to them, and they are subject to them as they were while here in the flesh” (DBY, 379)."
So it appears only those in Spirit Prison can continue to sin. If those in Paradise no longer sin then there is no reason to have the sacrament there.  Would the spirits in prison use the sacrament for any reason? Only the ones that were once baptized? I don't know. 

[Ahab]

On 5/27/2020 at 3:29 PM, CV75 said:

2e are free to interpret things as strictly as we wish, which unfortunately tends to limit the full breadth, depth and interconnectedness of true principles.

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?

1. By not regarding it as a "saving ordinance" and yet still enjoying/appreciating and remembering what it represents.

2a. Accepting the gospel through faith and being baptized while repenting as much as possible whenever discovering it is necessary to repent and yet not having any opportunity to partake of the sacramental emblems.

2b. I never said anything about someone not desiring to partake with the Lord per D&C 27.  I was simply showing how someone could be saved without partaking of the sacrament, and accept the covenant without that ordinance.

But then again, maybe it is simply a matter of understanding what the sacrament is. 

Do you think someone can partake of the sacrament, or what the sacrament represents, our Lord's flesh and blood, without partaking of any bread or water or wine?

Or to put it more simply, is the sacrament about eating and drinking, whatever we eat or drink, or is it about remembering what our Lord gave us/did for us so that we could be united again with our Father in heaven?

I'm aware that our Lord said it doesn't matter what we eat or drink when we meet together to remember him, and now I'm thinking that it doesn't really matter if we eat or drink anything, either.  As long we we remember and think about him.

 

[Ahab]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Seriously, everyone is arguing about what constitutes "saving ordinance".

Yeah we should probably also argue about what constitutes the sacrament, too.  For a more well-rounded arguing experience on this issue.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

don't think you can commit sin in the spirit world

Satan certainly did. And spirits can continue to reject God and favor evil in Spirit Prison. Plus the whole when you die the attitude/spirit you were living with is the one you continue to carry, so it can take time to change a sinful nature into one accepting of God (my paraphrase of the concept).

I don’t see why spirits couldn’t be unrighteously angry, jealous, hating others, lazy, etc. 

Perhaps you are limiting it to spirits that accept Christ as those would be the ones taking the sacrament if it was performed there and not those who were rejecting Christ’s work still.

In Paradise, possibly they are tied into God’s Spirit enough to not sin; but in what we call Spirit Prison for those who are learning and desiring to repent...does baptism kick them up immediately to no sin status or is it closer to mortality where it is a time consuming process of change?  If the later, maybe they need a renewal of some sort as well.

added:  Hah!  Should have at least scrolled to the next post. Sorry for the repeat. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

it appears only those in Spirit Prison can continue to sin

What of the Sons of Perdition?  Can this rejection of Christ in full knowledge and power as described by modern prophets only happen in mortality?  Seems more likely to me to happen to those who qualify at first for Paradise. 
 

First, we have the example of Satan as the ultimate perdition. One of the highest premortality was able to lose his footing and plunge. Pride is a sin that has no inherent need for a body.  And pride is what appears to be the fundamental sin of perditions. 
 

Second, I am not sure how we can truly come to such a full knowledge and certainty of Christ’s power and glory so that our rejection of him in mortality can be equivalent to a denial of the sun’s existence when it is shining above us in our sky.   Perhaps God’s foreknowledge or depth of awareness of our eternal character plays here so that any potential Perditions get the opportunity to experience that level so as to have the choice to be able turn on God before they die.  But it seems to me even if Satan cannot influence us in the Spirit World, that doesn’t stop us from choosing sin without his influence.  And what of our past acceptance of his influence?  Are those choices forgotten or can we recall why we chose wickedness at times when mortal and decide to make the same choice without the peer pressures of Satan’s groupies still being present?
 

OTOH, my perspective is that since everyone gets the same opportunities for blessings eventually, those that miss out in mortality getting them postmortality if they choose righteousness, why would it not be the same for ‘cursings’? I am thinking one can’t really become a true perdition until one fully understands what one is rejecting and if it takes a goodly amount of time to fully understand the principles of exaltation after death as Joseph stated (paraphrasing), becoming a Son of Perdition may be something that occurs at judgment time and not before. 
 

OTOOH, did Satan then understand the principles of exaltation as it appears additional learning must take place postmortality, it is not just the veil being lifted?  And if he didn’t, then it seems not a qualification.  And then there is Cain, was he the exception to the rule because God was still so present to humanity so soon after the Garden?  Is his condemnation as Perdition based on a foreknowledge of his choices postmortality or does he demonstrate that for a chosen few, pure knowledge is available in mortality and among those few, some will then choose to turn from it. 
 

The story of Cain as told in Genesis is not one of a knowledgeable prophet who got the implications of the Atonement and then rejected them while understanding fully what he was losing and just not caring...or maybe even delighting in that loss. Cain of Genesis is a sulky teenager, immature in his rebellion, wanting protection and help from God post rejection, not turning his back fully on Him.  Cain of Genesis keeps looking over his shoulder to be sure God is still there, imo. It is impossible imo to reconcile that character with the description of the sons of perdition given by Joseph Smith, imo. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yeah we should probably also argue about what constitutes the sacrament, too.  For a more well-rounded arguing experience on this issue.

There is a difference between discussion and arguing.

This came from a statement in the thread where the discussion was about what constitutes the sacrament. I have found that if I am not interested in a discussion, I don’t bother with it.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:Do you agree with Francis Lyman on this point? I don't.  It is a very sacred ordinance, but not more than any others.

As far as what Brigham Young said it is necessary for our salvation for those of us who continue to live on this earth and for those who actually have the opportunity to take it.
When we perform baptisms for the dead in our temples do you believe that the spirits are somehow partaking the sacrament in the spirit world? I don't think you can commit sin in the spirit world so there would be no need to take the sacrament.

It seems that you are advocating for a redefinition of the phrase "saving ordinance", but I quite certain that our latter-day prophets are all aware of what has been said in the past and so far have not included the Sacrament in the definition.

 

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Seriously, everyone is arguing about what constitutes "saving ordinance".

No one is forcing you to participate.

From my point of view, I am exploring a thought that I find compelling. I enjoy and appreciate bouncing it off others. It is my nature to dig deep into things that capture my attention. I have done my best to avoid a spirit of contention or engage in personal insults,  but  rather engage in honest and friendly dialogue. If anyone thinks I am being disrespectful, I would appreciate being made aware of it. 

In the meantime, I have learned a great deal about how the sacrament has been observed and honored from the beginning of the Restoration. I have gained a new appreciation on how important it is and how crucial our leaders have considered it from the beginning. Through reviewing decades of Conference talks, I have noticed that it is being referenced much more in the past 30 years than in previous decades. If you find that pedantic or questionable, please don’t follow the thread.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

Do you agree with Francis Lyman on this point? I don't.  It is a very sacred ordinance, but not more than any others.
As far as what Brigham Young said it is necessary for our salvation for those of us who continue to live on this earth and for those who actually have the opportunity to take it.
When we perform baptisms for the dead in our temples do you believe that the spirits are somehow partaking the sacrament in the spirit world? I don't think you can commit sin in the spirit world so there would be no need to take the sacrament.

It seems that you are advocating for a redefinition of the phrase "saving ordinance", but I quite certain that our latter-day prophets are all aware of what has been said in the past and so far have not included the Sacrament in the definition.

I would agree that the sacrament is as sacred as any other ordinance, which is what he said. He did not say it was more sacred than others. He is not the only one to express similar sentiments in the talks I have been reading. In fact, there was a considerable number of brethren who were very adamant about not allowing unworthy members to take it. Some taught that thorough repentance should be done before taking the sacrament this is being recognized. Many admonish the Saints to partake frequently and castigate those who neglect it  

Regarding sacrament for the dead, I have responded to that question many times here. As far as I can tell, there has been nothing revealed about that one way or another, so I will say I don’t know. I think it is not unreasonable to believe there is some sort of mechanism provided those who are in the spirit world to witness, remember, renew, and maintain. I think it is possible to sin before the final judgement. Agency endures, work is done, ordinances are accepted or rejected, repentance must continue. For this reason, I don’t believe it is a serious objection, but  the truth is we simply don’t know. 

I’m not advocating for anything. I wouldn’t presume. I like your words “so far.” I do wonder about the sacrament being included in the “other” ordinances, when it clearly is not, but rather necessary and essential. It is referenced far, far more than any of those “others.”

Recently, greater emphasis has been placed on sabbath observation, and in particular the sacred nature of sacrament meeting and the ordinance. What do you make of this from Elder Holland? Does this jibe with Elder Lyman’s observation?

Quote

It comes in what has been called “the most sacred, the most holy, of all the meetings of the Church” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,) Perhaps we do not always attach that kind of meaning to our weekly sacramental service. How “sacred” and how “holy” is it? Do we see it as our passover, remembrance of our safety and deliverance and redemption?
With so very much at stake, this ordinance commemorating our escape from the angel of darkness should be taken more seriously than it sometimes is....

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

No one is forcing you to participate.

From my point of view, I am exploring a thought that I find compelling. I enjoy and appreciate bouncing it off others. It is my nature to dig deep into things that capture my attention. I have done my best to avoid a spirit of contention or engage in personal insults,  but  rather engage in honest and friendly dialogue. If anyone thinks I am being disrespectful, I would appreciate being made aware of it. 

In the meantime, I have learned a great deal about how the sacrament has been observed and honored from the beginning of the Restoration. I have gained a new appreciation on how important it is and how crucial our leaders have considered it from the beginning. Through reviewing decades of Conference talks, I have noticed that it is being referenced much more in the past 30 years than in previous decades. If you find that pedantic or questionable, please don’t follow the thread.

I neither contended nor insulted.

[teddyaware]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Several have stated that my thoughts contradict what we have been taught about the sacrament for 200 years. So far I have reviewed the Conference talks from 1850-1890 to determine what we have been taught. Not many contain detailed doctrinal information, but for those who are interested....

Francis Lyman gave an important talk in 1889, but I haven’t been able to find the full text.

 

In a previous post, I stated I now believe the reason why the sacrament isn’t included in the Church’s official list of ‘saving ordinances’ is because it’s function is to RENEW the sacred covenants we legally made at baptism (note when I say baptism I’m referring to both baptism by water and the gift of the Holy Ghost). So the official ‘covenantal moment‘ takes place at baptism and confirmation, and by partaking of the sacrament we are affirming we are still willing to be under the solemnized covenants.we previously made.

But this brings up an interesting point: If one consciously and deliberately decides, as an overt act of rebellion, to not renew his baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament, does that deliberate failure to renew constitute a negation or outright cancelation of the original covenants made at baptism? In most cases I would say probably not right away. But if one persists in such headstrong, rebellious behavior, and if such a course of apostasy is followed through to its inevitable conclusion - excommunication - then the intentional failure to partake of the sacrament will end with the excommunicated individual having to be rebaptized if he has an eventual change of heart. 

Excommunicated individuals are strictly prohibited from partaking of the sacrament, but if they choose to make a scene and partake of of it anyway the scriptures most seriously warn that they will be doing nothing less than eating and drinking damnation to their souls. Serious stuff indeed!  Might we then say that in this instance the sacrament is a ‘damning ordinance.’ 

One thing we know for sure is even though the sacrament may not be a saving ordinance in a technical sense (because we made and entered into the officially recorded covenants of salvation at baptism) the deliberate failure to witness we are still willing to remain under those previously made and recorded covenants, by worthily partaking of the sacrament, places one on a path that will most definitely lead to the loss of salvation if persisted therein.

Partaking of the sacrament distills down to this: It’s as if the Lord is saying, “Do you still want to remain under and honor the covenants of salvation you made at your baptism? If so, bear witness to this desire to remain under those saving covenants by partaking of the emblems of my flesh and blood that were sacrificed for you.” The blessings of baptism for the remission of sins and sanctification through the enlightenment and empowerment of the Spirit are of such critical importance to our salvation that the Lord has devised a dramatic and powerful way, the Lord’s Supper, to regularly keep the the sacred covenants that make forgiveness and sanctification possible foremost In our minds.

At least in our dispensation, failure to worthily partake of the sacrament, except in those rare cases where administration isn’t possible, will jeopardize salvation as much as the failure to be baptized and confirmed. So saying the sacrament isn’t a saving ordinance is like saving Alaska isn’t one of the 48 contiguous states.
 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by teddyaware

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In a previous post, I stated I now believe the reason why the sacrament isn’t included in the Church’s official list of ‘saving ordinances’ is because it’s function is to RENEW the sacred covenants we legally made at baptism (note when I say baptism I’m referring to both baptism by water and the gift of the Holy Ghost). So the official ‘covenantal moment‘ takes place at baptism and confirmation, and by partaking of the sacrament we are affirming we are still willing to be under the solemnized covenants.we previously made.

But this brings up an interesting point: If one consciously and deliberately decides, as an overt act of rebellion, to not renew his baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament, does that deliberate failure to renew constitute a negation or outright cancelation of the original covenants made at baptism? In most cases I would say probably not right away. But if one persists in such headstrong, rebellious behavior, and if such a course of apostasy is followed through to its inevitable conclusion - excommunication - then the intentional failure to partake of the sacrament will end with the excommunicated individual having to be rebaptized if he has an eventual change of heart. 

Excommunicated individuals are strictly prohibited from partaking of the sacrament, but if they choose to make a scene and partake of of it anyway the scriptures most seriously warn that they will be doing nothing less than eating and drinking damnation to their souls. Serious stuff indeed!  Might we then say that in this instance the sacrament is a ‘damning ordinance.’ 

One thing we know for sure is even though the sacrament may not be a saving ordinance in a technical sense (because we made and entered into the officially recorded covenants of salvation at baptism) the deliberate failure to witness we are still willing to remain under those previously made and recorded covenants, by worthily partaking of the sacrament, places one on a path that will most definitely lead to the loss of salvation if persisted therein.

Partaking of the sacrament distills down to this: It’s as if the Lord is saying, “Do you still want to remain under and honor the covenants of salvation you made at your baptism? If so, bear witness to this desire to remain under those saving covenants by partaking of the emblems of my flesh and blood that were sacrificed for you.” The blessings of baptism for the remission of sins and sanctification through the enlightenment and empowerment of the Spirit are of such critical importance to our salvation that the Lord has devised a dramatic and powerful way, the Lord’s Supper, to regularly keep the the sacred covenants that make forgiveness and sanctification possible foremost In our minds.

At least in our dispensation, failure to worthily partake of the sacrament, except in those rare cases where administration isn’t possible, will jeopardize salvation as much as the failure to be baptized and confirmed. So saying the sacrament isn’t a saving ordinance is like saving Alaska isn’t one of the 48 contiguous states.

Well, you have articulated it far better than I. Thank you!

 Some speakers allude to it as kind of a blanket ordinance (my words) that covers the covenants in all the other ordinances, thus making it not superior but equal in importance. I get that sense in Elder Bednar’s talk (and others) when he calls it an essential and necessary ordinance in retaining a remission of sins....... but not really. It’s still difficult for me to understand excluding it from the “saving” ordinances when deliberately ignoring it weakens them and may have a serious impact on forgiveness of sins.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

I hesitate to the point of fear to ask a question. A thread about the sacrament was the last one I ever participated in on this thread some months ago. I was assured that when I take part in the sacrament I am "pretending" and playing "make believe." That was deeply offensive to someone who is just trying to live a life that honors the Savior. The sacrament is when I remember, whether in an LDS ward, a Mennonite church, or whenever I have observed it outside, by a river, or in the woods. What do I remember? I remember Christ's sacrifice and love for me. I remember the covenants I made when I was baptized. I also confess when I partake. Enough of that.

Here is my question . . . Why, no kidding does the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints allow and encourage someone like me, a faithful non-member to participate in the sacrament, especially if it is considered a saving ordinance? Why isn't LDS communion closed, like some other churches have? The LDS church is so very exclusive in so many ways, I often have wondered why the sacrament is not exclusive? I have assumed it must be that it is something similar to a grave dedication where LDS priesthood holders pray a dedicatory prayer at non-LDS graves. The answer to that question from our local leaders was that a grave dedication is not a saving ordinance. So my question that I hesitantly bring  forward, and that hasn't been discussed in any of the nine previous pages in this thread is why does the LDS church officially by its policies, practices, and procedure allow and encourage (in my experience) the taking of the sacrament by non-LDS-baptized non-members? The other part of that question is why did some of you, the same ones who are on this thread, assure me I was playing pretend and play-acting when I take it? Would you say the same about any non-member who partakes? Thanks for your consideration of my question.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Navidad

[Islander]

I fear that many have become like the pharisees of old; attempting to "codify", dissect and box every concept, doctrine and ordinance while missing the WHOLE point of it. This is what the Jews did with a very simple, symbolic and beautiful commandment like the Sabbath Day. They sat down and created a "prescription" that increased the commandment to rest to thousands of "mini" commandments and prohibitions like:

1. Carrying
2. Burning
3. Extinguishing
4. Finishing
5. Writing
6. Erasing
7. Cooking
8. Washing
9. Sewing
10. Tearing
11. Knotting
12. Untying
13. Shaping
14. Plowing
15. Planting
16. Reaping
17. Harvesting
18. Threshing
19. Winnowing
20. Selecting
21. Sifting
22. Grinding
23. Kneading
24. Combing
25. Spinning
26. Dyeing
27. Chain-stitching
28. Warping
29. Weaving
30. Unraveling
31. Building
32. Demolishing
33. Trapping
34. Shearing
35. Slaughtering
36. Skinning
37. Tanning
38. Smoothing
39. Marking

Don't let me forget mentioning that one was allowed to eat an egg that was laid on the Sabbath, but the chicken had to be killed the next day for violating the day of rest. Probably my favorite.

Jesus Christ Himself dispelled the notion that the ritual itself had any meaning. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” He explained to some who completely misunderstood its intent and purpose (Mark 2:27).  If we are driven by custom, tradition or the mere ritual, we'll fail to see and fully comprehend the meaning and beauty of it. The Sacrament is no different. We can hypothesize a myriad of situation where a person can be deprived of a particular ordinance (“His blood atoneth for the sins of those . . . who have ignorantly sinned.”Mosiah 3:11). Ordinances are a symbol, a sign and the evidence of our love and devotion to the Lord. They are the outward demonstration of our faith if, in fact, we have been truly converted (not just ritually baptized at age 8). 

         “And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” Mos. 5:2

“And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them” — Hel 15:7

But by themselves, the ordinances mean nothing if they are not the byproduct of true faith, devotion, humility and repentance. There is no salvation in ritual. The Lord says that in scripture again and again. The true covenant must be rooted in our hearts and thus we will desire to partake of the emblems of the Lord in obedience and gratitude. It is by grace thru faith that we are saved. The blood of Christ is sufficient to save those that have faith and believe in His name.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hesitate to the point of fear to ask a question. A thread about the sacrament was the last one I ever participated in on this thread some months ago. I was assured that when I take part in the sacrament I am "pretending" and playing "make believe." That was deeply offensive to someone who is just trying to live a life that honors the Savior. The sacrament is when I remember, whether in an LDS ward, a Mennonite church, or whenever I have observed it outside, by a river, or in the woods. What do I remember? I remember Christ's sacrifice and love for me. I remember the covenants I made when I was baptized. I also confess when I partake. Enough of that.

Here is my question . . . Why, no kidding does the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints allow and encourage someone like me, a faithful non-member to participate in the sacrament, especially if it is considered a saving ordinance? Why isn't LDS communion closed, like some other churches have? The LDS church is so very exclusive in so many ways, I often have wondered why the sacrament is not exclusive? I have assumed it must be that it is something similar to a grave dedication where LDS priesthood holders pray a dedicatory prayer at non-LDS graves. The answer to that question from our local leaders was that a grave dedication is not a saving ordinance. So my question that I hesitantly bring  forward, and that hasn't been discussed in any of the nine previous pages in this thread is why does the LDS church officially by its policies, practices, and procedure allow and encourage (in my experience) the taking of the sacrament by non-LDS-baptized non-members? The other part of that question is why did some of you, the same ones who are on this thread, assure me I was playing pretend and play-acting when I take it? Would you say the same about any non-member who partakes? Thanks for your consideration of my question.

I don’t recall saying you were pretending and play-acting. If I did, it was certainly out of line and I extend sincere apologies.

This is a good question about the sacrament being a saving ordinance. A couple of thoughts come to mind...not in any order of significance.

1) We try to be friendly. We do not exclude anyone from our meetings if they are respectful. Denying the sacrament to non-members would be most impolite. It would be nearly impossible to enforce if they were determined for some reason to take it during a meeting. Would a baptismal certificate or membership card be required of all participants? Would elders stand guard ready to expel the interlopers? That would be onerous and unworkable. 

2) As defined in our scriptures, the sacrament is an ordinance and covenant specific to LDS members...those who have been baptized and confirmed by LDS priesthood holders authorized by a bishop or other leader, so other than as an act of ecumenical, brotherly,  lor communal interest, IMO it would serve no purpose for a non-member. I do not take communion in Catholic services I attend.

Here’s the official answer...

Quote

As you know, the bread and water of the sacrament are meant for Church members so we can renew our baptismal covenants. However, we should not do anything during sacrament meeting to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.
It’s good to invite nonmember friends and family to church, and we want them to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. It would be helpful to prepare them for sacrament meeting by explaining the purpose of the sacrament and what will happen during the meeting. If they ask whether they should take the sacrament, simply tell them that they may choose to do so but that it is intended for Church members, who are renewing their baptismal covenants.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “The ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church” (“Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament,” Ensign, Nov. 2008, 17). We should help nonmembers understand this important ordinance, ensuring that they also feel comfortable at our meetings.

Apparently you feel you are renewing your own covenants when you take sacrament at a LDS meeting. If you are comfortable with that, so am I.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Islander said:

But by themselves, the ordinances mean nothing if they are not the byproduct of true faith, devotion, humility and repentance. There is no salvation in ritual. The Lord says that in scripture again and again. The true covenant must be rooted in our hearts and thus we will desire to partake of the emblems of the Lord in obedience and gratitude. It is by grace thru faith that we are saved. The blood of Christ is sufficient to save those that have faith and believe in His name.

Excellent thoughts.

Highlighted in the OP and reiterated several times....

Quote

The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins.

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hesitate to the point of fear to ask a question. A thread about the sacrament was the last one I ever participated in on this thread some months ago. I was assured that when I take part in the sacrament I am "pretending" and playing "make believe." That was deeply offensive to someone who is just trying to live a life that honors the Savior. The sacrament is when I remember, whether in an LDS ward, a Mennonite church, or whenever I have observed it outside, by a river, or in the woods. What do I remember? I remember Christ's sacrifice and love for me. I remember the covenants I made when I was baptized. I also confess when I partake. Enough of that.

Here is my question . . . Why, no kidding does the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints allow and encourage someone like me, a faithful non-member to participate in the sacrament, especially if it is considered a saving ordinance? Why isn't LDS communion closed, like some other churches have? The LDS church is so very exclusive in so many ways, I often have wondered why the sacrament is not exclusive? I have assumed it must be that it is something similar to a grave dedication where LDS priesthood holders pray a dedicatory prayer at non-LDS graves. The answer to that question from our local leaders was that a grave dedication is not a saving ordinance. So my question that I hesitantly bring  forward, and that hasn't been discussed in any of the nine previous pages in this thread is why does the LDS church officially by its policies, practices, and procedure allow and encourage (in my experience) the taking of the sacrament by non-LDS-baptized non-members? The other part of that question is why did some of you, the same ones who are on this thread, assure me I was playing pretend and play-acting when I take it? Would you say the same about any non-member who partakes? Thanks for your consideration of my question.

I remember when I was on my mission in Austria an investigator family came to sacrament meeting. There was an adult go-strictly-by-the-book type of member passing the sacrament and when he started to come up to them he very deliberately turned around and walked off in another direction. The hurt and offended look on their faces convinced me that we should never deny anyone the sacrament regardless of who they are or who we think they are.  The safe thing to do is give it to everyone and if somehow they have on purpose taken it, knowing that they are unworthily, then that is between them and God. The only people who should not take the sacrament are members who have been specifically told by the Bishop to not partake as part of a disciplinary action.  And like BG said how could we even know who should and should not take it? 
When I have non-member friends who I bring to Church I explain to them what it means for baptized members and since he is not baptized he would not have the same reason for taking it. But if he has a personal reason for taking it anyway then he is welcome to do it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

I have enjoyed much of this discussion.... but more importantly I have come to examine my own attitude toward the sacrament and found it to be in need of improvement.

To inform myself on how I am supposedly “opposing what we have been taught for the past 200 years”, I am looking at all conference talks that refer to the sacrament...seven decades so far. What started as fewer than 50 in the 1850s is now more than 500 in the 2010s. I scan the context quotes in the BYU Corpora and screen out most  of them because they refer to sacrament meeting or instructions to AP holders, so it is a doable project. A great way to pass some quarantine time, and what better chore for a pharisaical pedant?.

There have been some gems. The general attitude towards the ordinance has been remarkably consistent over the years....except for a few when speakers continued to talk during the service. I will post anything interesting I find for any who care to read. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Islander said:

I fear that many have become like the pharisees of old; attempting to "codify", dissect and box every concept, doctrine and ordinance while missing the WHOLE point of it. This is what the Jews did with a very simple, symbolic and beautiful commandment like the Sabbath Day. They sat down and created a "prescription" that increased the commandment to rest to thousands of "mini" commandments and prohibitions like:

1. Carrying
2. Burning
3. Extinguishing
4. Finishing
5. Writing
6. Erasing
7. Cooking
8. Washing
9. Sewing
10. Tearing
11. Knotting
12. Untying
13. Shaping
14. Plowing
15. Planting
16. Reaping
17. Harvesting
18. Threshing
19. Winnowing
20. Selecting
21. Sifting
22. Grinding
23. Kneading
24. Combing
25. Spinning
26. Dyeing
27. Chain-stitching
28. Warping
29. Weaving
30. Unraveling
31. Building
32. Demolishing
33. Trapping
34. Shearing
35. Slaughtering
36. Skinning
37. Tanning
38. Smoothing
39. Marking

Don't let me forget mentioning that one was allowed to eat an egg that was laid on the Sabbath, but the chicken had to be killed the next day for violating the day of rest. Probably my favorite.

Jesus Christ Himself dispelled the notion that the ritual itself had any meaning. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” He explained to some who completely misunderstood its intent and purpose (Mark 2:27).  If we are driven by custom, tradition or the mere ritual, we'll fail to see and fully comprehend the meaning and beauty of it. The Sacrament is no different. We can hypothesize a myriad of situation where a person can be deprived of a particular ordinance (“His blood atoneth for the sins of those . . . who have ignorantly sinned.”Mosiah 3:11). Ordinances are a symbol, a sign and the evidence of our love and devotion to the Lord. They are the outward demonstration of our faith if, in fact, we have been truly converted (not just ritually baptized at age 8). 

         “And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” Mos. 5:2

“And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them” — Hel 15:7

But by themselves, the ordinances mean nothing if they are not the byproduct of true faith, devotion, humility and repentance. There is no salvation in ritual. The Lord says that in scripture again and again. The true covenant must be rooted in our hearts and thus we will desire to partake of the emblems of the Lord in obedience and gratitude. It is by grace thru faith that we are saved. The blood of Christ is sufficient to save those that have faith and believe in His name.

I would add that the Law given to Moses is divine commandments. The Law was simple but the commandments they were given were binding on them. The Law was later revoked by the Savior. While most of the prohibitions the Jews in the Savior’s day practiced were extrapolations and interpretations with no divine backing the Law in its pure form was good and from God and the Savior obeyed it. Nephites who tried to abandon it for an impending higher law were chastened for their zeal that was not tied to knowledge or obedience.

While understanding the truths behind the rituals is vital obedience is as well. Where many fall is multiplying commandments or extrapolating from them without revelation (individual or institutional) to do so. The righteous are promised to be blessed with more commandments but not that they should reason out more.

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently you feel you are renewing your own covenants when you take sacrament at a LDS meeting. If you are comfortable with that, so am I.

Interesting use of words. I probably have participated fully in somewhere between 130 and 150 LDS sacrament services. Do you believe I am truly renewing my own covenants when I take the sacrament at a LDS meeting? Do you believe I even have any covenants with Christ to renew? Can a non-LDS church member truly have any covenants with Christ? How is the deity active in a Presbyterian communion service? Are they pretending too within the walls of their own chapels? Is it possible that I, just as you am remembering the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ and sitting there in awe at his atonement for me week after week? Can I genuinely confess and repent anew of my sins just as you do during a sacrament service? How is the deity active differently in you than in me during an LDS sacrament service? How is the deity active differently in a LDS sacrament than in a Christian and Missionary Alliance communion service? You haven't used the word "pretend" this  time, but your response feels very much the same. You all for nine pages have been debating and discussing the question of whether or not the sacrament is a "saving ordinance." Fair enough. I hope you won't take my questions as any less genuine than yours.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Navidad
clarification

[CV75]

On 5/29/2020 at 5:28 PM, Ahab said:

1. By not regarding it as a "saving ordinance" and yet still enjoying/appreciating and remembering what it represents.

2a. Accepting the gospel through faith and being baptized while repenting as much as possible whenever discovering it is necessary to repent and yet not having any opportunity to partake of the sacramental emblems.

2b. I never said anything about someone not desiring to partake with the Lord per D&C 27.  I was simply showing how someone could be saved without partaking of the sacrament, and accept the covenant without that ordinance.

But then again, maybe it is simply a matter of understanding what the sacrament is. 

Do you think someone can partake of the sacrament, or what the sacrament represents, our Lord's flesh and blood, without partaking of any bread or water or wine?

Or to put it more simply, is the sacrament about eating and drinking, whatever we eat or drink, or is it about remembering what our Lord gave us/did for us so that we could be united again with our Father in heaven?

I'm aware that our Lord said it doesn't matter what we eat or drink when we meet together to remember him, and now I'm thinking that it doesn't really matter if we eat or drink anything, either.  As long we we remember and think about him.

 

While we might bring elements of social and cultural conversion to the table (enjoyment and appreciation), and real intent (remembering and covenanting) is also essential, an ordinance is a physically prescribed means of connecting spiritually with heaven. So in the sacrament, we eat and drink something as a rite or ordinance while remembering and recommitting to the covenants, thus bringing the physical and spiritual -- both of which are "real" per Alma 32 --  into one. All the ordinances are physical. We can always remember and commit outside of an ordinance, and participate in a rite on an emotional and social level, but this is not how they are designed.

I don't think "saving ordinance" coveys that some ordinances are optional or not required, essential, etc. for salvation. I think the term is used to convey that they are Christ's ordinances, or that "saving" means "Christ's".

[Calm]

Navidad,

Covenants can be made with God on an individual basis, preferably inspired to be acceptable to God (there are some covenants that may be wrong, thinking Jephthah's daughter was an emotional oath poorly conceived...I am thinking that was more promise of Jephthah than covenant though as we believe God is a part of our spiritual covenants) or through community with their own ritualized covenants, again hopefully inspired/revealed.  Covenants may come from the individual soul's desire or may be God directed (inspired/revealed).

The covenants Saints make through the Church are specific ones that he has revealed Saints are to partake in through authorized servants of the Priesthood.  Covenants with God are not limited solely to these ordinances, but these ordinances are required to progress in certain ways in discipleship.  The Sacrament for Saints is meant as a renewal of these covenants, a strengthening of the spiritual bond the covenants created.

How you---someone who has not chosen the authorized baptism of our faith, but who has, I believe from what you have said, other covenants you view in similar ways---choose to define the covenant you are engaging in or renewing when receiving the blessed embelms from the Priesthood holder is up to you.  In many ways this is parallel to the Saints besides you on the pew as we each have our own views on what the Sacrament means to us and it may reflect that week for one a greater desire to commit to paying tithing out of gratitude for a blessing remembered during the service, for another a greater desire to be at one with God.  

In addition to our personal constructions, the Sacrament entails all the covenants we made at baptism as instructed through church teachings and doctrine.  These are the covenants we have in common with all fellow Saints who underwent baptism and continue to honor that ordinance in their lives.  These will not be the same you have chosen to participate in, whether as an individual or through your faith community at the time of the covenants you tie to your communion/sacrament participation even if identical in wording and general intent because ours also includes the intent our baptism is done through God's authorized representatives for our faith community.

This is not to automatically exclude others as all may join in baptism with us if they accept the covenants that are tied to it and understand it as our faith community means it to be, which conditions and teachings we believe are revealed doctrine.

The deity being active in us....is language we don't usually use.  We see God acting on us as he chooses to do so, not sure I feel comfortable therefore defining that in terms of specific actions.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean with examples of how you see deity acting on you at times.

The difference between a service with Latter-day Saints and other Christian services is the presiding and operating of his authorized for us Priesthood bearers and other officers under their direction.  It serves a certain purpose of the Lord's as he has revealed he desires us to act in this way, to perform his instructions this way, form a faith community in this way.

I am open to God inspiring and revealing other instructions to other Christians, either as individuals or a faith community, including making covenants.  But even if their covenants serve much the same purpose, they are not identical because they are not meant to be by God.  He could have instructed us to accept all baptisms or sacraments/Eucharists as authorized by him, but he has not.  He has in our view revealed our ordinances are not the same and shouldn't be confused with others, thus those who want to fully join our faith community and accept our doctrine as authorized by God need to be baptized as done in our community.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Calm