The trick to successfully pulling off an apostasy is to distract people into thinking there hasn't been one and that all is well in Zion. When apostasy is noticed, acknowledged and exposed, then it is possible to repent and return. Until then, we remain blind and most likely will continue to discard and reject the things of the Lord.
Elder Jeffery R Holland declared in February of this year that the Church is immune to error and will not fall into apostasy.
“Ours is that fail-safe, inexorable, indestructible dispensation of the fulness of the gospel… Unlike every other era before us, this dispensation will not experience an institutional apostasy; it will not see a loss of priesthood keys; it will not suffer a cessation of revelation from the voice of Almighty God. Individuals will apostatize, they may turn a deaf ear to heaven, but never again will this dispensation collectively do so. What a secure thought that is! What a day in which to live! What a way to cut through fear or faintheartedness”
However, Christ’s own words in the Book of Mormon predicted that at some point the latter-day gentiles would reject the fullness. (3 Nephi 16:10) We also read that we also fall into apostasy when we change or alter the ordinances that the Lord has given us.
The adversary succeeds when he manages to get us to not reject ordinances, but to change them. As soon as they are changed, they are broken. (D&C 1: 15.) "For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant." That is an important step towards apostasy, because then religious people can continue to claim they follow a true religion, while practicing one that has been broken. These practitioners become like the ancient Jews, who mocked Lehi because they knew they were still righteous. They knew Lehi was foolish, even fraudulent. They thought it was humorous when Lehi preached the idea. Because they were so very religious, so devout, so unassailably active in following God, the idea was absolutely laughable that they were apostate. They still had the truth, the ordinances, the temple, and the priesthood. (excerpts from a blog post entitled The Trick to Apostasy)
Here is just one example of an ordinance that we have changed: The sacrament. Not only have we changed the words, the symbols, but also in the manner in which the sacrament is administered. In my opinion, it has lost its sacred qualities. That is a perfect example of changing an ordinance. While it maintains the appearance, it is hollow without the sacred symbols. (It should be noted that these changes are minor compared the changes made to the Temple Ordinances after I took out my endowments prior to 1990's)
LDS Sacrament Emblems:
The Emblems of the Sacrament in Scriptures:
CONGREGATIONAL KNEELING:
Everyone should knee out of respect to the Lord and the sacred nature of the ordinance. We read that the elder or priest knelt down along with the congregation to bless the sacrament.
- "And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ." Moroni 4:2
- "And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer." D&C 20:76
SACRAMENT EMBLEMS:
Wine should be used (alcoholic or not). Scriptures mandate that. The purpose of the wine is to not only symbolized the blood with the color red, but also to reflect the bitterness of the shedding of the blood of the Savior. It is designed to be unpleasant and not necessarily “taste good”.
- "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus." D&C 20:75-
- "And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."D&C 89: 5-6
SACRAMENT PRAYERS:
Exact wording of the Sacrament Prayer either from the chapters 4 and 5 in Moroni or section 20 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Unfortunately we have changed the word wine and we say water instead. (interesting to note: there is a word difference between the two scriptural versions. In the Book of Mormon, Moroni uses the word “hath” and in the D&C it uses the word “has” in the blessing of the bread. See below).
Moroni 4
- O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
D&C 20: 77
- O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen
TAKING UPON US AN OATH/SACRED COVENANT:
The Sacrament is a sacred ordinance. Quite literally, the sacrament is like taking an oath. Under oath we promise to “always remember Him.”
In the legal system, you would not be allowed to testify in a courtroom under oath unless you raise your arm to the square. It is a signal that you are being square about this, you are being truthful about this, you are being honest about this. You are holding yourself up to the sharp corners of truth and squareness.
The Lord not only wants us to recite in the Sacrament Prayers our obligations that we are giving, but also recite the Lords' obligation to us... to have his Spirit to be with us. The language of the ordinance is not merely us reciting what we commit to do, but the Lord’s commitment to us.. That is the thing about covenants. He is saying in this ordinance that if we commit to our obligation, He will commit to deliver to us His Spirit.
In fact, raising your arm to the square (either one or both) was used in the Church up until the 1930’s. Like the baptismal prayer, you don’t see an ordinance performed without an arm raised to the square. After World War II it was brought to an end. The priest blessing the sacrament and the congregation are testifying of the same thing. All of them are testifying of this sacred obligation to always remember Him. (Anciently, another reason for extending your hands in the air was to show that your hands were clean.)
 |
| The picture above was taken about 1894. It shows that the Melchizedek Priesthood holder is raising both hands as he offers the Sacrament Prayer. Many living LDS members recall that when a Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood offered the prayer, he raised his right hand only. The practice was discontinued in the LDS Church in the 1930s. |
SIDENOTE:
I wrote this blog post because I just returned from visiting the new Church History Museum. I was stunned to see in the art exhibit showing the Sacrament representing the Lord's Supper with the 12 apostles. The chair at the head of the table on the right is suppose to represent Christ seat where the large picture of water is. On the table, there are 12 glasses for each of the disciples. The glasses are only filled with water. To compensate for the lack of tthe symbolic red color, they have used a red tablecloth and seat covering.. Personally when I saw the clear glasses with water it felt empty and lacked the Spirit of what the Lord intended.
This is what the Sacrament table display would look like if you didn't have the red tablecloth and only had the water to symbolize the blood of Christ.
So the question to ask yourself: Have we changed this sacred ordinance? If so, lets repent and return back to what the Lord intended.
35 comments:
Don't the scriptures also allow anything to be used in the sacrament so long as one has their eye single to the glory of God?
D&C 27:2 -
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
Or, am I reading this incorrectly?
We know the D&C has passed thru many hands and has suffered many additions, changes, and deletions. When there is a discrepancy between D&C and Book of Mormon, which has only been translated once and we can still refer to the original translation, which version do you trust? Can two or more versions of a sacred ordinance be given by the Lord who is the same yesterday, today and forever? We know that His Gospel is the same whenever it is on the earth. Did the ancients use water in partaking of the Sacrament? And what about the charge given by Moroni that the elder or priest is to "kneel down with the church"? And what about these words in Moroni 4:1, given just prior to the Sacramental prayer on the bread, "and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true"? How likely is it that such an ordinance would later be changed by Him? Do such things really matter? Does the Lord expect His people to perform His ordinances with exactness and fidelity? Does even an apparent minor change to an ordinance given by Him invalidate the ordinance? What of a church that corrupts His ordinances? Does that church continue to have His blessing, His sanction, His recognition? What constitutes apostasy if not changing the words of the ordinances delivered by the Lord to His people; if not changing the manner of performing ordinances? How permissive is our Lord with sin, which is defined as missing the mark? Are we in serious need of repentance? Should a new prophet come among us preaching repentance, teaching us to understand and respect the ordinances as given by the Lord Himself, how will we receive him? Will we listen or will we shun him and cast him out and stone him? Do we need to awaken from our self-assured, self-congratulatory slumber and realize that all is definitely not well in Zion?
James Russell Uhl
There surely is a difference between two LDS servicemen in the middle of the desert who have no wine (or bread) available and a fully established congregation that has institutionally modified the ordinance for no other reason than that leaders in the early 1900s were impressed by the prohibition movement.
Your argument only holds if an Elder's Quorum President COULD use wine, if he chose, as prescribed by the scriptures and obviously allowed by D&C 27:2. Undoubtedly, such a priesthood holder would be prevented from doing so, and if he persisted, he would be released and/or excommunicated. What does that say?
Another point: Suppose you were a bishop, thus having keys to authorize the sacrament within the bounds of your ward. Suppose that your wife was ill at home and you decided to bless and provide the sacrament for her in your home. Suppose you used wine. Would your wife be able to keep her temple recommend? No. Would you be in trouble with your stake president? Yes. What does it say when practicing the ordinance as provided by the Lord makes you "unworthy" to enter the temple?
The table photography is startling indeed. And that was quite the illumination when comparing the two.
And still we have said nothing particular, but only obliquely, about the changes made to the highest of our public ordinances administered in the temple. "BareRecord" has only just begun to speak, if he will.
You record the time and place of changes but no mention of the logic or necessity of the change. If an alcoholic cannot partake of wine, does that make him an offense to God? If the heart is corrupt, I do not see where a color/quality of drink or action invokes the spirit. Perhaps not all is well in Zion, but this ridicule of procedure does more to defile the sacred action than those who open their heart under the belief that they are doing what is right. God looks on the heart. There is the letter and the spirit of the law. Perhaps God is looking to see if we obey or complain. Moroni speaks of an apostasy within the church. I can see this happening today. Social media is doing wonders to divide the members. This does not indicate to me that the church has apostatized. It tells me that someone will be held accountable if they are leading us in paths not intended. Then again, I believe that God in his own timing and wisdom allows these things to see what we will do or not do. To a person that is blind or color blind, this picture has no meaning. A person without legs must also be an offence to God since kneeling is mentioned. While that sounds like I am being extreme, this content is indicating that the original is mandatory. We are always in serious need of repentance. Not a day goes by that we are not found guilty. I believe that Joseph Smith was instrumental in restoring the gospel. I have been a member of many churches prior to my baptism in 1962. I have yet to find one that offers me instruction and direction superior to this gospel. So if there is an apostasy within the church or a prediction of a new restoration, you better have a more perfect and more complete doctrine supported by scriptures other than complaining that a word, action, or color was changed. The Saints will be tried in these last days. It may come down to just seeing how many hold onto the rod instead of noticing if the rod is coated in chrome or paint. Yes, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. We have an abundance of Sunday Saints that trip over their own feet while their eye balls pop out when an Apostle enters the room. We also have an abundance of Sunday Saints that find fault with those Saints. Are we now in a position to tell the Prophet what the Lord expects? Have we raised ourselves to that level of self-congratulatory and self perfection, as previously mentioned? I have had my share of Bishops, teachers, and well meaning Saints that disagree with me. I follow the counsel of Christ when he says agree with thine adversary.... I take that literally. lol. If they disagree with me, I let them think they might be right. The rest I leave to God. In Lehi's dream, only those that held onto the rod of iron and did not adhere to the complaints and enticings forged forward. (What were these complaints?) There will continue to be issues and grave concerns. I have only one job and that is to hold on to the iron rod. The iron rod is basic and true. Everything else is mortal. If all these issues are an offense to God, then I expect he will take care of them in his own way and time. If we stay true to God and the basic principles we will survive the end times including the internal strife.
What does "stay true to God" mean? Christ himself instituted the sacrament among his apostles in Jeruselum and in the Americas. He taught us exactly how to administer the ordinance-- the details He provided are the ones that matter to Him (emblems, prayers). Those He did not provide do not matter (color of table cloth, what kind of table, bread basket or platter, etc). Staying "true to God" means we do His ordinances His way. We follow HIM and no man, no matter that man's earthly position. If someone is going to be held accountable for leading another astray in this life, both people will be damned-- the leader and the follower-- because both have missed the mark. We are to follow only Christ. In the end, the only people who will be saved are those who rise up to actually know the Lord and be sealed as His in His church. Our membership in an earthly institution is not the "church" the Lord is referring to and holds no baring on our salvation. His church are all those who become part of His family, who rose up to know Him. We should not assume we are saved unless we have the Lord's personal promise to us individually that we have attained to that blessing. We must therefore seek Him and no one else. Until then, we are all damned.
D&C 27 allows for changes to the emblem used if necessary. But when not necessary, why would we use anything other than what Christ asked us to use? Is He not the Bread of Life? Is He not the True Vine? Are symbols not meant to symbolize? But D&C 27 does not contain an allowance for the wording of the ordinance or the manner of the ordinance to be altered in any way. We have done all of these as LDSs.
It is interesting to note that there have been other changes to the sacrament ordinance, too. For example, D&C 20 states that deacons should not be involved with it. Only elders and priests. And priests were to do so only when elders were not present. In fact, since elders and apostles are treated as the same in D&C 20, it should be apostles administering the sacrament anytime they are present. (just as Christ had them do in 3 Nephi 18) When was the last time you saw an LDS apostle administer the sacrament? Also, as your black and white photo implies, the LDS tradition used to be that the eldest of elders would normally bless the emblems. These weren't teenagers.
Interestingly, the people in the 1894 photograph are sitting in the pews. You can see their backs against the backrests as the priest blesses with upraised hands.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1
You will have to do a search for this "In obedience to the above commandment"
Section 27 is given on page 106. On page 108 immediately after the text of D&C 27 is this statement:
"In obedience to the above commandment, we prepared some wine of our own making, and held our meeting, consisting only of five, viz., Newel Knight and his wife, myself and my wife, and John Whitmer. We partook together of the Sacrament, after which we confirmed these two sisters into the Church, and spent the evening in a glorious manner. The Spirit of the Lord was poured out upon us, we praised the Lord God, and rejoiced exceedingly."
Joseph Smith the Prophet received section 27 and immediately after being told: "For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." he prepared wine of his own making. Who better to interpret the scriptures than the one to whom it had been given. Who are we to determine that it should be water instead of wine? Jesus Christ turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Who are we to think we can, should, or are allowed to change it back? A thousand shames to us for participating in such a bastardization of this Sacrament by changing the emblems and the words. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/33133_eng.pdf?lang=eng End of rant.
The timing of this revelation is fascinating to me that it was early August (see above links) and that is when grapes are in plentiful supply. Imagine crushing the grapes used for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The symbolism of a grape being pressed, It's blood being squeezed out of itself. If you don't drink it immediately it takes about 3 days for the natural yeasts on the skin to noticeably ferment the juice into wine endowing it with new life. So much sacrifice and resurrection symbolism. A large hunk of warm filling bread to go with the wine. That all connects one to the Savior and what he actually did for us in a way that will never be with water and the pathetic prison scrap that is being pushed forth as what we should be filled with. So much to think about. So much to be sad about. How sad is it when the emblems and the ordinances are changed? Isaiah 24 had somewhat to say on that.
D&C 27 - 1830
D&C 89 - 1833
I loved the picture of the last supper in the church history museum! That's super funny, and I am going to have to check that out for myself. I agree wholeheartedly with most of your points. I am also saddened by the changes that have been made to the restored pattern of all the ordinances (yes, every single one).
I will say however that kneeling of the congregation is absolutely not a scriptural requirement, despite Denver Snuffer (and/or others) saying so. In fact I have heard some people preach that having the congregation kneel was what Jesus did with the Nephites as recorded in 3 Nephi. People, please read your scriptures (3 Nephi 18 and 3 Nephi 20 - in one they sit and in one they stand - Jesus never tells them to kneel) and stop taking Denver Snuffer's words as infallible, or as wholly inspired! He teaches plenty of false thigs (just like any other mortal teacher). Any one that tells me to do something that Christ would not tell me to do is anti-Christ.
Neither of the scriptures in the "Congregational Kneeling" above came from anyone living today. How are these words from the Book of Mormon false or uninspired? Do you not consider them the word of God? If so, how could they be "anti-Christ"?
One other comment. I hear the proposition often repeated both by LDS Mormons and by other Christians opposed to the use of wine that somehow at the time of Christ "wine" merely meant grape juice and not fermented grape juice. Obviously the Greek doesn't contain that flexibility in definition, but neither does the English of the Book of Mormon. It does use the word "wine" again and again. In 1828, the definition of wine was very clear: "the fermented juice of grapes". There is no question that alcohol was part of it.
"Perhaps God is looking to see if we obey or complain." Obey whom? If this is the test, the answer is some man or men who thought the prohibition movement was a worthy cause. It was not about obeying God, who never suggested to remove wine from the sacrament.
The change was not made for the sake of alcoholics. Again, if this were the case, one would not be disciplined for obeying what the revelations actually say.
April 1902 Improvement Era featured this item:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
On Administering the Sacrament.
Is it proper, according to Church laws, in administering the sacrament when two or more are officiating, for two to kneel together; or should only one kneel at a time?
The reader is referred to the Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 20:75-79 and to the Book of Mormon, Moroni 4:1, 3; 5:1, 2. It is customary and proper for the two who officiate in the administration of the sacrament to kneel together while the prayer is being said. In the early part of the history of the Church, when the congregrations were not so large as they are now, it was not unusual for the congregation also to kneel, but it is now both customary and proper for those two who administer the holy sacrament to kneel with the congregation; and it is also in conformity with what would seem to have been the custom of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, as declared in Moroni 4:2: “And they did kneel down with the Church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ saying,” etc. This matter, however, may be regulated by the presiding anthority, according to local surroundings, circumstances, and conditions, though a uniform method conformable to the above is desirable.
I believe those scriptures. But They do not say what you think they say. Do you believe 3 Nephi 18 and 20? Did you even look? If you believe both Moroni 4:2 and 3 Nephi 20:2, like I do, then the consistent interpretation is that "he shall kneel" means the priest, and "with the congregation" means in their presence. Meaning the priest must kneel in the presence of the congregation - not that the congregation must kneel also - just see what Jesus did with the congregation. In other words the congregation are to be witnesses. They should see the bread being torn and the wine poured out - just like ancient Israel was to have the Passover lambs slain before the congregation.
There is to be no pre-blessed wine or pre-formed wafers (as the catholics do). No, it is in memory of his death so we watch as the bread is torn and the wine poured out.
As was mentioned by another comment above, the picture of the sacrament meeting clearly shows the uplifted hands of the priesthood holder, and also clearly shows the congregation sitting - why accept one and not the other? The fact is, the historic photograph, Moroni 4, D&C 20, and 3 Nephi 18 & 20 are ALL in harmony with each other if you understand that the scriptures say that the priesthood holder is to kneel in the presence ("with") of the congregation, and not that Moroni is proscribing the position the congregation must assume.
Understanding it this way, has the support of all the witnesses. Understanding it the other way, there is conflict between the witnesses - with Jesus being the principal witness against - for in one recorded instance he has them sit and in another he has them stand. Never does he have them kneel.
Now, I am not opposed to kneeling at all. I quite often kneel myself. I just don't think anyone ought to tell others that they should be kneeling, or that the scriptures say they should be kneeling, when the scriptures clearly do not support that position.
I also cannot stand anyone telling others that they cannot kneel. I know people who have been disciplined by their bishops for kneeling during the sacrament prayers in church. What a silly thing for the bishops to do. The scriptures neither prohibit nor proscribe the position of the congregation, only the position of the priesthood holder. Any more or less than this cometh of evil.
I am perfectly fine with the statement "it mattereth not" in the D&C. I personally don't care if they serve water, wine, or Pepsi. I don't care if they serve Wonder Bread, Twinkies, or Corn Chex. Really.
Frankly, at this stage of my life, I don't believe the LDS Church is any more "The Lord's True Church" than any other organization. My real issues with the Church center on its, I believe, misuse of funds in the form of building billion-dollar malls and multi-million dollar condos in order to do whatever the hell they claim to be doing.
I attend church to keep my wife happy and to set an example for my children (whatever that means). I hardly consider myself a "faithful latter-day saint" in the meaning used by many so-called "TBMs". I'm more than willing to question and think much of LDS culture is just flat-out stupid, dumb, and irrational, but I'm not willing to debate what is used in the sacrament just to debate it. I don't care. Pass out cups of wine and tater tots for all I care.
(end of rant)
You probably don't want my opinion of how I think the Lord wants his ordinances handled.
As for the LDS Church, as I said above, I don't believe it is in any way, "The Lords' True Church (tm)". Then again, I don't believe any other church fits that bill either, including those who seem to want to refer to themselves at "the remnant" that I see cropping up.
All I was doing was pointing out that there is a scripture that would seem to suggest, quite overtly, that water is just fine for the sacrament.
If you don't believe or agree with that, serve the sacrament at home with wine, and don't tell your bishop. It's none of his business anyway. Frankly, things may come down to just that - if you (and anyone else here) doesn't believe the organization is doing things the way you believe they should be done, you might just have to do your own thing.
Only you are responsible for your relationship with God. I don't believe the LDS Church (or any other church) has any real influence in that.
(end of second rant)
@Michael,
i'm totally with you on this. i feel the exact same way... thank you, i feel a little better about my Sundays. and BareRecord, this is your best post yet.... thank you
That display in the Church "History" museum is repulsive. They seriously displayed glasses of water for the last supper? Words fail me.
It's one (very bad) thing to change the ordinances within the church, but it's a whole new level of dishonest to intentionally misrepresent the Savior's actions in order to push a certain agenda. This is blasphemy.
Why want what is not understood? How can we judge the Gospel taught directly by God to Adam and renewed by God with Enoch face-to-face when it has not been shown unto us? It is as if the only motivation of men is ambition and envy, without stopping to consider how great a price is demanded by God as a sacrifice before anything can be gained. Lectures on Faith really is an accurate description of the burden required for our development to become faithful.
In God’s plan there are provisions made for everyone. Every soul in every state of development will be given what a loving and kind God has made possible. It is vast enough to accommodate the development of each person who has lived in this estate, regardless of the time, location or opportunities they had while here. It is far greater, and more thorough than what we can see.
Amen, amen, amen. thank you David.
Maybe you better search out church history as to the use of water. As to the temple ordinances, I would bet you have no idea what they are or what they mean. Again, we have a man talking in ignorance pandering to the more ignorant. Yet in your fine fashion of hyprocracy you continue to attend sacrament meeting every sunday and drink that water and eat that bread. Its time to put up or shut up.
On second thought. Maybe we should start to serve wine. Then we can get drunk on the sacramental wine like so many of the apostate groups have been doing. I see your motivation now. Justification.
1. Christ used wine and commanded it. What church history has done with His commandment is irrelevant. If it's good enough for the Lord, it's good enough for me.
2. You comment as "anonymous" and start slinging judgments and name calling upon the author and readers of this blog? Seriously? "Put up or shut up" must first be applied to those who lack the courage to even declare who they are while taking low shots at those who they accuse. Your anonymity, assumption that you know the extent of the author's temple knowledge, as well as the extent of the knowledge of the "ignorant" who read this blog, speaks volumes.
3. I happen to greatly dislike wine, as I know many others who do, too. I drink it only for the sacrament, and only because I love my Savior and am eternally grateful for His bitter-sweet sacrifice. Drinking the wine is a much more poignant symbol for me than drinking a thimble of water. Never in my life has taking the sacrament been such a spiritual experience, until I began participating in the ordinance the way the Lord commanded. There is a reason He commanded we use wine. We would do well to follow Him.
yes, i know it speaks volumes. that is the reason for my comments. sounds like its time for you, like many others, to give up on brother joseph and join with one of the many protestant churches. you won't be missed. for its people like you who destroy faith. claiming to be in, while criticizing behind the back of those you attend church with. if you don't like the way the church is running things, then get out.
I think we all could be missing the mark. There is scriptural evidence for what the emblems should be for the administration of the sacrament when they are available. I think the Savior is fairly clear about the emblems being bread and wine, but use something else if those cannot be had.
The wording is important for the prayers as well. Moroni was given this wording; it was carefully etched into the plates that would be preserved and brought forth, for us, by His gift and through His faithful servant. Now, though we have accounts of the Savior administering the sacrament, instructing those present to sit in one instance and to stand in another, Moroni was also given what to say to us as well: either the elder or priest administering was to kneel "with the church" and proceed to bless the emblems. Now, this was also important enough to etch these words into plates as what the Lord wanted to happen regarding this ordinance. It is about doing what He commands. This is what He left finally for US. We are to kneel. And "with" implies doing it together. i.e. I'm not laughing at you I'm laughing WITH you.
Let's not have disputations among us. Let's try to be of one heart and mind and perform this sacred ordinance with the Wedding Feast in mind. For surely we have been invited. Are we going to have on the wedding garment that Christ throws upon us for obeying His Voice and to cover a multitude of sins or will we be cast into outer darkness because we didn't harken and accept His gift? I want to be with all of you at that joyous occasion. Let's do as Christ commands.
Rich!
Awesome post. One of my favorites so far. Little by little a fuller understanding of things rolls forward and light is breaking forth. I continue to marvel at how patiently and carefully the Lord inserts Himself into the dialogue of many diffetent people in many diffetent ways. For us the great work left undone requires a soft heart to recognize His movements and respond to His call.
Hi friend, your blog is very nice and nice clicks.
san Diego bathroom remodeling
bathroom remodeling san Diego ca
I agree. Repulsive. I was at a loss for words when I saw the photo. Repulsive indeed.
Aren't you getting hung up on the symbol? If it's a "symbol" The water the wine or whatever what does it matter?
For me the more important point is what does the symbol do for me? Do I make a mighty change?
Isn't a symbol to remind us?
Is there "power" in a symbol?
The true power comes through thought, desire, and the Spirit and power of God.
When we partake of the sacrament do we go through the process? Or does the process of the sacrament go through us? If it goes through us then it can change if our heart is malleable.
Post a Comment