Eating and Drinking condemnation~

[Martain]

3 Nephi 18

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

So I was reading through this scripture recently and was pondering it and it's meaning. I discussed it with my parents who expressed significantly different understandings as to it's meaning.

Alright, so it's clear to me that those who partake of the sacrament unworthily are damning themselves in the process. It's also clear to me that individuals past the age of accountability who are not yet baptized are among those who are unworthy to partake the sacrament.

The question I asked was how this commandment applied to me. And... this is where the differences arose.

One point of view is that this commandment was spoken to the 12 Apostles who had the keys of stewardship and that this means it only applies to the Bishop of a ward now a days.

One point of view is that this commandment was given to those who had priesthood authority to administer the sacrament and that this means it would also apply to the priesthood members administering and passing the sacrament.

One point of view is that this applies to every member.

The reason why I desire to understand and know how this commandment is applicable in my life is due to the following verse which reads:

33 Therefore, keep these sayings which I have commanded you that ye come not under condemnation; for wo unto him whom the Father condemneth.

At least for myself I can say that I very much want to make sure that I'm not living in condemnation. It doesn't seem to be an issue one can simply ignore or live blindly but rather one I need to know that I am living it correctly.

So as part of seeking out and studying it out in my own mind preparatory to personal revelation, I'd like to query those here as well.

What is your understanding regarding the application of forbidding someone to partake and how far does it go?

Personally the way I see it is this:

I feel that if I bring anyone who have not been baptized then it is my duty to inform (verbally forbid) them that they should not partake of the sacrament since they have not made those covenants. I believe that should I do less than this I myself would come under condemnation.

If feel that if I know a member is unworthy to take the sacrament, so long as I report it to the Bishop, I have fulfilled my duty but that otherwise I myself would come under condemnation.

I feel that in regards to forbidding someone to partake, that it should be verbal yet tactful command but that it should not be physically enforced. By this I mean that a priesthood holder shouldn't intentionally pass someone by and members sitting in a row shouldn't intentionally bypass someone sitting next to them.

I feel that if it's a member and they've been told by the Bishop not to partake of the Sacrament, then it's up to him to notice if they disobey and then discipline them. If however I know that they've been forbidden by the Bishop and they take, I feel it's still my responsibility to notify the Bishop in case he didn't notice.

Other's I've spoken with feel that this commandment is no longer in force and non-members who partake are not eating and drinking damnation to their souls. They feel that they should not tell such individuals not to partake because they might offend or drive them away by doing so.

What exactly is my duty in regards to this commandment? Does anyone have anything that would shed further light?

[Dove]

Hello, Martain;

I think this is an important doctrine to understand and follow. That is, the seriousness of the covenants we make at baptism and to respect God in how we treat the holy ordinances.

I do agree with what you have written...... However, I remember as a missionary at a ward sacrament meeting, for some reason there were many non-members there. The bishop got up and told them that it was their decision to partake of the sacrament or not. I remember being upset at that counsel. But, as it was from the bishop of the ward, I really couldn't say much in way of correcting him.....There was nothing really I could do. It was out of my hands.

For those times that I do have a hand in it, i.e., bringing a friend to sacrament meeting with me, I do not hesitate to kindly ask them to respect the ordinance and to explain that it is meant only for baptised members of the church....

There have been many years that I have not been worthy of taking the sacrament, due to WofW issues. Interestingly enough, in some wards under some bishops they were okay with me taking it and in other wards I was told not to. Regardless, I always followed the counsel of my bishop~

Dove

[slamjet]

It seems you're reading too much into it. It's unworthily, not unworthy and/or non-member. I've met so many people who are not members who are a whole lot more worthy than me. Besides, one time my grandma came to church with us. She's was Catholic. So when she saw the sacrament, she naturally partook of it. There was a prayer, and the passing of the emblems. Nothing out of the ordinary about that with her and I suspect others not of the LDS faith.

Worthiness is a personal thing. I wouldn't tell anyone to not take the sacrament. I figure that job ultimately belongs to the Bishop, who is their Judge in Israel.

[kayne]

ive wondered this myself. it seems rather clear unbaptised members shouldnt partake. unworthy members shouldnt partake(bishops orders). or those that dont think they are worthy.

if you cant pass all three of those it seems plain as day dont take sacrament. and i see little harm and explaining that too people especially say a visitor.

sadly i dont see this changing. kids take sacrament all the time.

[Colirio]

3 Nephi 18:28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

What does it mean to know something in gospel terms?

For those who are members, what does it take to become worthy?

This passage has direct relation to the repentance process and how the church leadership would deal with those who are in such stages for grievous sins.

26 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen, and said unto them:

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

Mosiah 26 was in similar fashion a revelation to Alma on how to deal with those who have serious sins.

Mosiah 26:32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

[Colirio]

One of the times this hit close to home for my family was when my grandmother started investigating the church. Some of the members took it upon themselves to explain how someone who wasn't "worthy" should not be allowed to partake of the sacrament when she reached for the bread. They forbade her when all she wanted was to participate.

Don't worry though. We were able to do her temple work for her, even though she never set foot in one of our churches again for the next two decades of her mortal life on the earth.

I would urge us all to not "cast out" someone because we misunderstand the context of a few verses of scripture...

Edited February 9, 2012 by Colirio

[kayne]

One of the times this hit close to home for my family was when my grandmother started investigating the church. Some of the members took it upon themselves to explain how someone who wasn't "worthy" should not be allowed to partake of the sacrament when she reached for the bread. They forbade her when all she wanted was to participate.

Don't worry though. We were able to do her temple work for her, even though she never set foot in one of our churches again for the next two decades of her mortal life on the earth.

I would urge us all to not "cast out" someone because we misunderstand the context of a few verses of scripture...

sad but i would urge polite explanations. if a person cant tolerate that then oh well. when in rome do as the romans. i wouldnt say an investigator is unworthy id probably try and phrase it more like well unless youve been baptised here then we dont let you take the sacrament. its part of the covenants we make at baptism. a much more polite way of saying it.

furthermore these arent just a FEW verses of scriptures....if we take that tone we can use that logic everywhere and personally id prefer if it we all aimed to stick as close to Gods commandments as possible.

for whatever reason The Lord seems to think we shouldnt take sacrament unworthily....usually defined as committing violates of the law of chasity and word of wisdom or at the bishops discretion.

Edited February 9, 2012 by kayne

[Dravin]

Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it.

While I can appreciate an explanation that the purpose of the sacrament is to renew covenants (I've done so myself) those who are called to Shepard the flock (which includes non-members) are counseled not to prevent non-members from partaking, nor to tell them it's for members only.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Dravin

[james12]

Two comments....

Nonmembers partaking of the sacrament:

Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it. (Handbook II: Administering the Church, Section 20.4.1)

Please note the words, "nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking". When I was a missionary we had an investigator who began to partake of the sacrament. A member slapped his hand while he was in the process. It was a terrible experience.

Children partaking of the sacrament:

All little children virtually belong to the Church until they are eight years of age. Should they die before that age, they would enter the celestial kingdom. The Savior said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then why should they be deprived of the sacrament? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.350)

Children who are capable of repentance should be baptized when they reach the proper age, according to the revelations. Up to that age they are entitled to the sacrament." (Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.2, p.289)

I would never presume to exclude children from partaking of the sacrament for such is the kingdom of heaven.

[Connie]

I am personally very surprised to see such attitudes displayed by some posters who have, time after time, commented that we should not judge other people.

Thanks to those who have clarified the church's position on this.

[Guest]

Worthiness is not for us to decide for other people. It's between them, God, and the bishop - including non-members.

[Jezebel2011]

When I started attending an LDS Church I had been investigating the Church, reading LDS books, etc for some 10 months.

The day I first attended a Sacrament Meeting I was in total adherence to the WoW and the principles of the Church. The only thing I had not had was the baptism.

If someone had said to me that first day that I could not take Sacrament I would not have gone back.

[Magen_Avot]

Thanks for pointing to the handbook Dravin, I was getting ready to take a look when I read your response.

I don't say anything now, but back in the day, I'd just explain to the non-member that the sacrement was to re-new ones baptismal covenant and let them make the decision.

In the case of my children, my wife and I discussed their future baptimal dates and decided that at age 7 we'd sit down to discuss the importance of the sacrement, that we preferred they not take it until they were baptised but it was their choice. They all chose (at 7 yo) to wait until baptised and it seemed to make a difference to them. Some people seem to really get bent out of shape about it but it was our family decision to make and our kids plan to carry on the tradition.

Either way, it's all about the internal process of turning to Christ, some days we do better and others,... not so well. Of course; we are (in our natural state) an enemy to God. Even if we feel we are righteously judging or being a "lion of the Lord" we can dramatically erode good feelings and subsequently the spirit of the whole ward. I love the direction the prophet has taken in the handbook of instruction. But it's not always easy to be accepting, loving and forgiving where our passions come into play,... at least I know this about myself.

Good OP

[Leah]

When I started attending an LDS Church I had been investigating the Church, reading LDS books, etc for some 10 months.

The day I first attended a Sacrament Meeting I was in total adherence to the WoW and the principles of the Church. The only thing I had not had was the baptism.

If someone had said to me that first day that I could not take Sacrament I would not have gone back.

If I had had such a harsh, judgmental attitude, I would have missed out on the best thing that has ever happened to me.

I was living church standards before the first time I attended sacrament meeting. However, it had been graciously and caringly explained to me that taking the sacrament was a renewal of baptismal covenants. Having not yet been baptized, there were no covenants to renew. Seems pretty straightforward and logical. It seemd entirely appropriate to me that I NOT take the sacrament. Out of respect for those teachings, and that covenant which I did not yet share, I didn't take the sacrament until after my baptism, when I actually had a covenent to renew. I felt very blessed.

I do not understand the disrespect of going to a church (or synagogue or mosque) for the first time and having the attitude of "If you don't let me do it my way, I am not coming back!". Had I taken that attitude, I would have missed out on the very covenant that the sacrament is meant to renew!

[kayne]

If I had had such a harsh, judgmental attitude, I would have missed out on the best thing that has ever happened to me.

I was living church standards before the first time I attended sacrament meeting. However, it had been graciously and caringly explained to me that taking the sacrament was a renewal of baptismal covenants. Having not yet been baptized, there were no covenants to renew. Seems pretty straightforward and logical. It seemd entirely appropriate to me that I NOT take the sacrament. Out of respect for those teachings, and that covenant which I did not yet share, I didn't take the sacrament until after my baptism, when I actually had a covenent to renew. I felt very blessed.

I do not understand the disrespect of going to a church (or synagogue or mosque) for the first time and having the attitude of "If you don't let me do it my way, I am not coming back!". Had I taken that attitude, I would have missed out on the very covenant that the sacrament is meant to renew!

that is good im glad someone explained it kindly and not harshly.

but im glad someone understands the point here because if we dont obey this rule....well as far as i know the sacrament prayer only appears in one place why we dont just ignore it. i mean really where does ignoring of scripture end exactly? shall we start cherry picking what we want to obey....i seem to recall this is the chief reason the bible is inaccurate and the book of mormon is even neccessary.

if members attitudes are pure rudeness on the matter to investigators or just outright ignoring scripture all together....its no wonder we are still under condemnation. with the exception being kind hearted explanations....sad day indeed.

[Jezebel2011]

If I had had such a harsh, judgmental attitude, I would have missed out on the best thing that has ever happened to me.

I was living church standards before the first time I attended sacrament meeting. However, it had been graciously and caringly explained to me that taking the sacrament was a renewal of baptismal covenants. Having not yet been baptized, there were no covenants to renew. Seems pretty straightforward and logical. It seemd entirely appropriate to me that I NOT take the sacrament. Out of respect for those teachings, and that covenant which I did not yet share, I didn't take the sacrament until after my baptism, when I actually had a covenent to renew. I felt very blessed.

I do not understand the disrespect of going to a church (or synagogue or mosque) for the first time and having the attitude of "If you don't let me do it my way, I am not coming back!". Had I taken that attitude, I would have missed out on the very covenant that the sacrament is meant to renew!

That's just it. Nobody said that I could/could not take the Sacrament.

Babies as young as 18 months old take Sacrament in our Ward.

Children are innocent in the eyes of God and if they pass before they are 8 years of age they go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. Therefore there is no reason for them not to take Sacrament before they are baptised into the LDS Church.

It is mortal man making rules and regulations that they have no business making.

Until such time as the First Presidency declare that all non-members cannot take Sacrament then it should be left as it is.

What is the point about all this pontificating about stuff that has nothing to do with us ??

A lot of folks on this Forum judge others when they have no place to do so, whether they are Priesthood holders or not. I was judged from the very beginning - by bigotted individuals who chose to label me.

I am leaving the Forum, it is a total waste of space.

[kayne]

Until such time as the First Presidency declare that all non-members cannot take Sacrament then it should be left as it is.

why is this neccessary? scripture clearly states the procedure. not my fault we are all ignorant on the matter. heck its not my fault i just learned this a year ago.

[Dravin]

why is this neccessary?

Because as quoted twice in this thread the procedure has been established through the Church Handbook of Instructions that non-members are not to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Preventing non-members from partaking of the sacrament is in direct opposition to that policy, ergo until the policy changes they shouldn't be prevented.

[Leah]

That's just it. Nobody said that I could/could not take the Sacrament.

Babies as young as 18 months old take Sacrament in our Ward.

Children are innocent in the eyes of God and if they pass before they are 8 years of age they go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. Therefore there is no reason for them not to take Sacrament before they are baptised into the LDS Church.

It is mortal man making rules and regulations that they have no business making.

Until such time as the First Presidency declare that all non-members cannot take Sacrament then it should be left as it is.

What is the point about all this pontificating about stuff that has nothing to do with us ??

A lot of folks on this Forum judge others when they have no place to do so, whether they are Priesthood holders or not. I was judged from the very beginning - by bigotted individuals who chose to label me.

I am leaving the Forum, it is a total waste of space.

So, your reaction to anyone disagreeing with you or not letting you have your way is to walk off in a huff? You would have have walked away from the Church if you hadn't been able to do things exactly the way you wanted to the first time you went, and now because others have different opinions here, you want to walk to storm away here? You rant about others judging, but weren't you judging when you decided that YOUR way was more 'right' than the teaching of the Church or the advice of others?

Children growing up in the Church eating the bread and drinking the water at sacrament meeting is a very different situation than an adult participating in the sacrament.

Just because the Church has advised the bishopric (and others) not to embarass anyone by physically preventing them from taking the sacrament does not necessarily extend an invitation to anyone and everyone who wants to take it (regardless the reason) to do so.

I did not find it the least bit offensive..judgmental...however you want to label it.....when I was advised to not take the sacrament until after baptism. It made perfect sense to me...how could I renew a covenant I had not yet made? (and even if I didn't understand it, I would be respectful and do as I was advised). I don't see anything difficult, offensive or "bigoted" about that.

I was always taught to respect the "rules of the home (or place)". This included participating in religous services. If I were to go to an Orthodox synagogue where men and women sit separately, it would be disrespectful (not to mention arrogant) for me to insist that I sit with the men. Just as it would be in the Temple. If I were to go to a Catholic Mass, it would be disrespectful of me to insist on taking communion. Their house, their rules.

I am completely baffled that someone would threaten to walk away from the church just because it is not the norm for non-members to participate in this sacred practice. It is not about YOU, it is about the sacrament and the meaning behind it.

[kayne]

Because as quoted twice in this thread the procedure has been established through the Church Handbook of Instructions that non-members are not to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Preventing non-members from partaking of the sacrament is in direct opposition to that policy, ergo until the policy changes they shouldn't be prevented.

was this some divine revelation from a prophet? if so why is it such a glaring contradiction to scripture? it seems this revelation is suspect at best. furthermore The Lord goes on a pretty long tangent about baptism for people under the age of 8 being an abomonation. ergo kids under 8 cannot take the baptism covenant shall we just toss that scripture out too? seems if He doesnt want children not getting baptised i'd wonder why He would want them partaking of the renewal of covenants of baptism??? seems if children getting baptised was worthy of such a long tangent then i do wonder what His reaction would be to them taking part of the renewal of a covenant He clearly said No too. why would these people then be different from investigators?

this handbook and the revelation i question. it sounds suspect and faulty at best.

seems God laid out rules. seems the church doesnt want to offend people. but God is no respecter of persons.

[Leah]

Because as quoted twice in this thread the procedure has been established through the Church Handbook of Instructions that non-members are not to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Preventing non-members from partaking of the sacrament is in direct opposition to that policy, ergo until the policy changes they shouldn't be prevented.

But that doesn't necessarily extend an open invitation to non-members to participate. It simply means that if someone - non-member, excommunicated member, whoever - chooses to participate, no one is going to actually stop them.

Of course, everyone has the agency to make their own choices. But the way some people talk here, there is no connection here between the sacrament and covenants.

Everyone who taught me about the sacrament...the bishop, the missionaries, etc. - also told me that no one would stop me if I did choose to take the bread and water prior to baptism. But according to you, they were actually going against church policy in LOVINGLY explaining to me why participating in the sacrament would not be appropriate? Does actually entering the baptismal covenant have no connection to the sacrament?

I am glad that I had the instruction that I did. When I first took the sacrament, it had great meaning to me, because I HAD MADE that covenant. Taking the sacrament prior to that would have just been eating a little bread and drinking a little water, as there was not yet a covenant to renew.

So we're not to "judge" (have an opinion) about taking the sacrament before entering into the covenant it represents, but there is sure a lot of judging going on of those who waited until they actually entered the covenant.

[Dravin]

was this some divine revelation from a prophet?

The Church Handbook of Instructions is prepared by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

But that doesn't necessarily extend an open invitation to non-members to participate.

No it doesn't, and? There is a distinction between not preventing someone from doing something and inviting them to do so. Did I somewhere suggest we should be inviting non-members to partake of the sacrament?

But according to you, they were actually going against church policy in LOVINGLY explaining to me why participating in the sacrament would not be appropriate?

I stated the policy, and then stated a policy that is the opposite the current policy would require a policy change. How did that turn into, 'People who told you things that I don't even know the details of are operating against Church policy.'?

Edited February 9, 2012 by Dravin

[slamjet]

was this some divine revelation from a prophet? if so why is it such a glaring contradiction to scripture? it seems this revelation is suspect at best. furthermore The Lord goes on a pretty long tangent about baptism for people under the age of 8 being an abomonation. ergo kids under 8 cannot take the baptism covenant shall we just toss that scripture out too? seems if He doesnt want children not getting baptised i'd wonder why He would want them partaking of the renewal of covenants of baptism??? seems if children getting baptised was worthy of such a long tangent then i do wonder what His reaction would be to them taking part of the renewal of a covenant He clearly said No too. why would these people then be different from investigators?

this handbook and the revelation i question. it sounds suspect and faulty at best.

seems God laid out rules. seems the church doesnt want to offend people. but God is no respecter of persons.

I think the key is the word "unworthily." I cannot take the sacrament because I have had my membership taken away because I did things that grieved the Spirit. Others, like children, have not. While it may seem to fly in the face of the letter of the law, I think the spirit of the law allows for a certain leniency when it comes to training, preparation and looking forward to when it becomes connected to baptism and it's covenants.

What is of the #1 importance to our Father in Heaven is people. There is a danger when a strict interpretation of, and adherence to the law becomes more important than the individual person. If that were the case, then I wouldn't be able to sit on the Temple grounds to meditate.

[Leah]

I think the key is the word "unworthily." I cannot take the sacrament because I have had my membership taken away because I did things that grieved the Spirit. Others, like children, have not. While it may seem to fly in the face of the letter of the law, I think the spirit of the law allows for a certain leniency when it comes to training, preparation and looking forward to when it becomes connected to baptism and it's covenants.

What is of the #1 importance to our Father in Heaven is people. There is a danger when a strict interpretation of, and adherence to the law becomes more important than the individual person. If that were the case, then I wouldn't be able to sit on the Temple grounds to meditate.

What church law would prevent you from simply being on the Temple grounds? You don't have to have a recommend to be on the grounds. You don't even have to be LDS to be on the grounds, so there is something I am missing here.

[MarginOfError]

I'll throw my hat in the ring. And I'll start by saying point blank that those who claim that people without baptism cannot worthily take the sacrament are speaking heresy.

Let's start where we did at the beginning of the thread.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood. (3 Nephi 18)

From verse 28, we learn that we don't "suffer anyone knowingly to partake" of the sacrament.

From verse 29, we learn that we are to forbid those who we know are unworthy.

From verse 30, those who are unworthy, if they repent, may take the sacrament again.

The prohibition from taking the sacrament only comes when one is unworthy. So scripturally speaking, we have no reason to deny non-members (or children) the sacrament solely because they haven't been baptized. Really, that's true. Go find me a place in the scriptures where it says that only people who are baptized can take the sacrament.

It's also interesting to note that the handbooks state that non-members should not be forbidden to take the sacrament, but that disfellowshipped and excommunicated members should be forbidden. But once those members are returned to full fellowship, they may take the sacrament again. This patter is again consistent with the verses in 3 Nephi.

Another interesting note: the word "knowingly" is placed in verse 28 in a very ambiguous way. It could mean either

a) Do not knowingly suffer anyone to take the sacrament, or

b) Do not suffer anyone to knowingly take the sacrament.

In the former, the responsibility is put on the leadership to decide who should take the sacrament. In the latter, it is put on the individual. Which interpretation is correct? Probably a mixture of both. But either way, it isn't for the person sitting in the next pew to pontificate about.

Next, the interpretation that the sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants does not appear explicitly in the scriptures. It is an interpretation of scripture. It seems to be very commonly accepted, and is logically consistent. But it is nevertheless an interpretation of scripture.

So let's slow down and consider the three promises we make within sacrament prayers

a) Willing to take upon ourselves the name of the Son

b) always remember Him, and

c) keep His commandments.

There is nothing--absolutely nothing--that prevents a non-member or a child from making and living up to those promises. There is no magical quality of baptism that suddenly renders a person capable of these promises.

Someone has also tried to make the case that children shouldn't take the sacrament because we reject child baptism. This illustrates a clear misunderstanding of why we reject child baptism. In simple terms, we reject child baptism because it puts limits on the Atonement. We believe in an infinite Atonement, and when Mormon said, "Wherefore if little children cannot be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell," he was railing against those who said that Christ could not save those who could not sin.

Would it still be a mockery before God if a church baptized their children as a form of accepting the child into fellowship and without the notion that the child must be baptized or be damned? In other words, would it be mockery for a church to use baptism like we use baby blessings?*

Worthiness to take the sacrament has nothing to do with membership. It has no direct connection to whether one has been baptized. It is about if a person is trying to follow the commandments to the best of his or her knowledge, understanding, and capacity.

That is why the Church leadership teaches us not to deny it to non-members and children, but to deny it to active sinners (as judged by a judge in Israel or the person for themself). They understand the principles behind the ordinance and are more interested in people developing a relationship with the Savior.

To claim people who have not had baptism cannot worthily take the sacrament is to claim that those without baptism cannot access the Atonement. To claim that one cannot have access to the Atonement without baptism is every bit as heretical as to claim that children cannot be saved without baptism.

*You could make a case that it is, but you have to assume that said church has no other ordinance that would hold the equivalent of our baptism.