Eating and Drinking condemnation~

[Leah]

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

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?

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.'?

Way to convolute!

[Dravin]

Way to convolute!

Way to not answer the question, until you do I'm assuming you just pulled it out of the ether because it sounded good.

[Leah]

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.

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.

Lots of convoluting going on here today! I didn't use the word "worthily".

I guess I screwed up big time by following the advice I was given that taking the sacrament was renewing the baptismal covenant and that it was best to wait until I had actually entered the covenant, huh?

And whoever said that children cannot be saved without baptism? Sheesh!

[Dravin]

Lots of convoluting going on here today! I didn't use the word "worthily".

Where did he say you did?

And whoever said that children cannot be saved without baptism? Sheesh!

You do realize he's referring to the writings of Mormon (more specifically what he proposes are the incorrect assertions that Mormon was correcting) and not attributing that position to anyone in the thread right?

[john doe]

Let's try to tone down the rhetoric here people. If you need to step away and count to ten before hitting the 'reply' button, then I urge you to do so.

[Magen_Avot]

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

Yep, and so it should be. Before the block system was in place the sacrement was specifically passed in jr. sunday school to all the younsters.

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

Yes, they are mortal men making rules and regulations, but not only is it their business to do so, they have the Priesthood keys and the responsibility to do so. I don't say this to argue, there must simply be a system in place for the kingdom to be administered by. Not always easy to swallow I admit, but it this is what we have until the time we don't.

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.

We do all have our opinions and some seem more appreciated than others, I agree, but I do see this forum as a place where we all can have a say including you and I. I don't know what you mean by "being judged from the very beginning" though. Some comments can be harsh sounding, but other comments can just be misunderstood and it sometimes takes some contemplation to get a better idea about what was said. I think your comments are important because I get to consider another point of view. It doesn't matter if I or anyone else agree. I also understand your frustration cuz I felt the same way a couple of times, but for me taking a step back to collect my thoughts helped a lot.

I for one would prefer you stay as I enjoy hearing other points of view,... (well, mostly ). Your voice may be just one of many, but not less valued by me at least.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Magen_Avot

[kayne]

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

so? stuff appearing in a handbook doesnt = divine revelation nor does always mean accurate teachings or scripture interuptations.

and way to ignore my other points

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.

actually....

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)

note the bolded part...and is baptized. children cannot be baptized. they cannot even repent. therefore sacrament is lost on them. for investigators....they havent been baptized thus not fulfilling one of the two requirements. so again sacrament is lost on them. those two groups of people sacrament is lost on.

then again maybe nephi is lieing or we are all just horribly confused its one of the two at this point.

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.

however the sacrament is tied to baptism as pointed out by nephi. children cannot participate in baptism or repentance the two things sacrament is tied too.

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?*

what does this have to do anything. child baptism is mockery. baby blessings are not. furthermore you say A church not the LDS church. A church can do anything it pleases. furthermore this would require massive redefining of what getting baptized even means.

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.

actually....once again that silly nephi quote gets in the way of this as well as the entire book of mormon really. clearly stating if you repent and get baptized in The Lords name then you are his and get the sacrament. in fact a very common theme is get baptized and be counted amongst The Lords sheep. getting baptized and becoming a member go hand and hand which according to nephi is when you get the sacrament.

[LittleWyvern]

The way I've always read both the scripture in the OP and the Handbook section regarding non-members and the sacrament is to let the non-member make that decision. This is what I tried to do during my mission: I'll explain to the investigator the purpose of the sacrament, what it is for, and the covenants we make by taking it, and then let the investigator make that decision by their own choice. Sometime they chose to take the sacrament, sometimes they didn't, and I didn't think too much about it.

Might I add, though, that the Handbook is produced, reviewed, and accepted by the First Presidency. So, while it isn't canon, it is official church policy as stated by the First Presidency. So, I think we can be fairly certain of its accuracy in its teaching and revelations.

[Dravin]

so? stuff appearing in a handbook doesnt = divine revelation nor does always mean accurate teachings or scripture interuptations.

and way to ignore my other points

Yes it was, wasn't it? Your post boiled down to how the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were doing everything all wrong in their issuance of policy. I'm inclined to consider them to have a greater grasp of the doctrinal realities and the direction the Lord wants the Church to go than you do. Does this make them infallible? No, but I trust them a lot more than some guy on the internet.

While it's easy to feel entitled to have people address each and every point we make, and I fall prey to it myself, I don't owe you a debate nor do you me. So take my disinterest how you will. My primary purpose of entering the thread was to point out the policy of the Church as coming from SLC, not debate it.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

actually....

note the bolded part...and is baptized. children cannot be baptized. they cannot even repent. therefore sacrament is lost on them. for investigators....they havent been baptized thus not fulfilling one of the two requirements. so again sacrament is lost on them. those two groups of people sacrament is lost on.

I hadn't missed the bolded part. In fact, I quoted it. All your points would have been well received except that you are interpreting verse 30 out of its context. Try reading my post again, and you might even try reading on to verse 32. You might notice that the people Christ seems to be concerned with are those who have been accepted into the church.

what does this have to do anything. child baptism is mockery. baby blessings are not. furthermore you say A church not the LDS church. A church can do anything it pleases. furthermore this would require massive redefining of what getting baptized even means.

If you look into why child baptism is mockery, this actually makes for a very interesting intellectual exercise. If you don't grasp why child baptism is so wrong, then I'm not surprised that the significance of the question is lost.

actually....once again that silly nephi quote gets in the way of this as well as the entire book of mormon really. clearly stating if you repent and get baptized in The Lords name then you are his and get the sacrament. in fact a very common theme is get baptized and be counted amongst The Lords sheep. getting baptized and becoming a member go hand and hand which according to nephi is when you get the sacrament.

and once again, reading the verse in it's full context shoes that the verse does not mean what you think it means.

[Leah]

Way to not answer the question, until you do I'm assuming you just pulled it out of the ether because it sounded good.

Well, you know what they say about people who assume.

What question do you want answered? I'd be delighted to oblige.

What it is exactly that I made up/lied about? Where do you get the right to make such an accusation? Your position on the board or is this coming from just how you are in general? If anyone else on this board were to accuse someone of making something up, they would get their hand slapped for it? I am very curious as to what it is that you think I lied about. I take that accusation rather seriously, as I am someone who does not lie. It was my personal creed before I joined the Church and I am a member who takes the commandments seriously, as well as all of the teachings of the Church. The wonderful brother who first stepped forward to share the Gospel with me is someone who can be counted on never to lie, is a daily inspiration in maintaining that standard in my own life. For you to accuse me of lying is offensive. And wrong. And rather sad.

It is interesting how my opinion that someone walking away from the Church just because she doesn't get her own way is something I don't approve of, turned into a firestorm and a personal attack.

[MarginOfError]

Lots of convoluting going on here today! I didn't use the word "worthily".

My post is in response to themes and claims made by multiple posters and not a single individual.

I guess I screwed up big time by following the advice I was given that taking the sacrament was renewing the baptismal covenant and that it was best to wait until I had actually entered the covenant, huh?

No, you didn't screw up. The people who told you something that wasn't true screwed up. I don't hold it against them, though, There seems to be a widespread and pervasive misunderstanding on this issue.

And whoever said that children cannot be saved without baptism? Sheesh!

Someone else brought child baptism into the discussion to justify not giving the sacrament to children. I was responding to the fallacy of that argument.

[Dove]

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.

Connie,

Why don't you just honestly address those people who have offended you in a kind and respectful way instead of making a general statement towards, who knows?

As you've probably guessed, I believe I am one you are talking about. I defended the woman in your other thread by saying not to judge; who felt she had received revelation to not work and instead, take care of her children. It was only later that you clarified there were actually two women, and one wanted to have children and then not work.

There is a difference in being under the wrong impression to let people know that the sacrament is only for members and judging others as unworthy. It is the church's policy to allow only "worthy" members of the church to enter the temple. What would you do if you knew a person was entering the temple "unworthily" or under false pretences? Look the other way? Maybe you feel that it's none of your business to say anything. I don't know....I was construing the sacredness of the sacrament as on the level of going to the temple, as something to respect and defend.

However, I will always defer to what the prophet and quorum of the twelve counsel concerning sacred ordinances. Other than that, it is not my problem or business to judge how the ordinances should be administered or adhered too. It's not my place but too support and uphold the prophet and the quorum's counsel. I'm rather relieved to take this stance.

For the record, I would have never supported telling others with rudeness not to take the sacrament. More so, when my friends saw me not partake, they respected that and did the same without me saying anything. I had not had the opportunity or had not remembered to do so in that instance. It was not offensive to them and it was not a big deal.

Dove

Edited February 10, 2012 by Dove

[Dravin]

Well, you know what they say about people who assume.

You do realize that little ditty applies to both parties right? It talks about making something out of you (from your perspective myself) and me (from your perspective yourself).

What question do you want answered? I'd be delighted to oblige.

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.'?

What it is exactly that I made up/lied about?

A straw-man. You see I asserted the following things prior to your post:

1) I can appreciate explaining to someone the purpose of the sacrament, but Bishops (though I referred to them euphemistically) are counseled not to prevent non-members from partaking of the sacrament nor tell them that it is for members only.

2) The current policy is that non-members are not to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. If you want the policy to be that non-members are to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament (quite obviously) that policy would have to change.

Neither of these are:

The people who taught Leah about the sacrament were acting against Church policy.

Where do you get the right to make such an accusation?

When you make something up (in this case a straw-man) I get to call you out on it.

It is interesting how my opinion that someone walking away from the Church just because she doesn't get her own way is something I don't approve of, turned into a firestorm and a personal attack.

Simple, you attributed a straw-man to me. Of course if objecting to a straw-man is a personal attack then I daresay you have a non-standard idea of what a personal attack is.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Dravin

[LittleWyvern]

Neither of these are:

The people who taught Leah about the sacrament were acting against Church policy.

We may also want to note that the Handbook we're quoting was published in 2010. Does anybody know whether the policy existed in the ~2005 or previous editions of the handbook? It could be that the people that told Leah about the sacrament were correctly stating the policy at that time.

[Magen_Avot]

Tried to inject a humorous pic but it didn't work. Oh well.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Magen_Avot

[Martain]

Wow... I wasn't expecting so many responses in such little time. I didn't even have a chance to be included in on the conversation at all! Before I continue I want to thank everyone for their participation. Thanks =).

One issue I see here is in regards to forbidding/informing.

James12 shared the following quote:

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)

I would state that this applies not only to the Bishopric but to members as well. We are not to prevent nonmembers from taking the sacrament. That being said, we're not inviting or encouraging them to do so either.

Still, It's not counter to this counsel to advise them politely and respectfully not to though. Right? Or would it be wrong for a Bishop to stand up and say, "We take the Sacrament to renew sacred covenants we've made with the Lord through Baptism. We don't forbid you, but do ask kindly that if you are over the age of 8 and have not made these covenants by becoming a baptized member of this church, that you don't take the sacrament."

Would that be doing something to prevent nonmembers from taking the sacrament?One could say that counseling someone is not the same as preventing someone. You didn't prevent them or force them not to. They could still choose to accept if they choose to do so. Another could say that if you counsel someone and they follow that counsel, you've done something that prevents them from partaking and that since we are to do nothing which would prevent them then counseling is contrary to the guidance given. It seems it depends on how you view it. Thoughts?

Another issue I see discussed here is presentation.

We definitely don't want to offend someone who is investigating and have them never come back yet at the same time we don't want to have them eat or drink damnation to their souls for consuming prior to entering into those covenants. Nor do we want to be placed under condemnation if it was our task to warn them and we didn't.

I can see how being told, "Don't take the sacrament because you're unworthy to do so" would offend someone. It's harder for me to see how someone could be offended if we say "We take the sacrament to renew our baptismal covenants. Since you haven't made these covenants we politely ask that you don't partake" and then leaving it at that.

Tact should indeed be used. If we are indeed accountable to warn our nonmember friend before hand, would be not also be accountable if we drove someone away on account of being rude?

Another issue is children taking the sacrament.

To be honest I didn't realize it was an issue. I'd read that which answered this question for me long ago. I tried to find it and found something that will clarify the issue.

From Elder Haight's April 1988 Ensign article "Remembering the Savior's Atonement":

Inviting Children to Participate. On 11 July 1877, the First Presidency issued one of the most important documents in our Church history to set in order the priesthood. This letter was the culmination of President Brigham Young’s administration, for he died a little over a month later. In this historic letter, the First Presidency said that children should be given the sacrament during Sunday School so they could “be taught the value and importance of that ordinance.” The First Presidency noted that “the proper observance of the Lord’s day would be greatly increased among the rising generation if this were to become a custom in all our settlements.” (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 2:289.) The sacrament did become a part of Sunday School opening exercises and continues to be given to children during weekly sacrament meetings. Many have been blessed because of that practice."

Little children are innocent and therefore there is no harm in them partaking of the sacraments.

Another good point brought up was the difference between how it is written as:

that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

and an alternate wording of

that ye shall not knowingly suffer any one to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

Also of interest is the next verse which says:

therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

The way I read this is that the first part is telling us that we are not to advise someone to take the sacrament who shouldn't be doing so. If a Bishop know's someone is unworthy to partake of the sacrament he is not to suffer it to be done or advice them to do so.

It is in the last part that I see the instruction that while we are to tell these same individuals, tactfully and politely, that they should not partake, we are not to prevent them from doing so.

Our job is to explain and warn but not to force or prevent.

Right? Wrong?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Martain

[dahlia]

What? I was encouraged to take the sacrament before baptism. Personally, having the sacrament was important to me. And didn't we just tell a Catholic investigator that she could take the sacrament if she felt comfortable doing so?

Damned? For taking the sacrament? I don't think so. **** me when I kill someone or abuse a child.

[Leah]

You do realize that little ditty applies to both parties right? It talks about making something out of you (from your perspective myself) and me (from your perspective yourself).

A straw-man. You see I asserted the following things prior to your post:

1) I can appreciate explaining to someone the purpose of the sacrament, but Bishops (though I referred to them euphemistically) are counseled not to prevent non-members from partaking of the sacrament nor tell them that it is for members only.

2) The current policy is that non-members are not to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. If you want the policy to be that non-members are to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament (quite obviously) that policy would have to change.

Neither of these are:

The people who taught Leah about the sacrament were acting against Church policy.

When you make something up (in this case a straw-man) I get to call you out on it.

Simple, you attributed a straw-man to me. Of course if objecting to a straw-man is a personal attack then I daresay you have a non-standard idea of what a personal attack is.

I NEVER said that I want the policy to be that non-members are to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Don't attribute words to me that I NEVER said, in order to maintain your holier-than-thou attitude.

I also simply asked you what question it was that you asked me that you want answered, as I did not remember you specifically answering a question. Sheesh. Are you that harsh and rigid with people in real life? It's nothing more than saying "What was the question? I missed it". Instead of being a decent guy and repeating the question (that I apparently missed), you launch into your "straw-man" nonsense. Instead of letting me know what your question was, you continue your idiotic attack.

The people who taught me did NOT act against Church policy. The people who taught me would NEVER do that. You are deliberately mis-reading what I said because you apparently suffer from I'm-always-right-syndrome.

You know, I was wondering the other day why - when there are millions of Mormons in the U.S., a great many of whom are active online - only a small handful of people post here on a regular basis. The actions and attacks of several people on this thread are an excellent example of why the membership here is so tiny. If this were the kind of people I encountered in my ward or when I was investigating the church, I doubt I would have felt too kindly towards the church.

I was taught that the sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants and that generally people who have not made that covenant do not participate in the sacrament. I was NEVER told that I couldn't partake. I was told that was my own choice, but here is what the sacrament is about and what is usually practiced. You call me a liar. You attack me. I ask what question you want answered, so that I answer it, you attack me.

And that wasn't even the point of my original post. I was expressing astonishment at someone who would walk away from the church simply over not getting their own way. If - as you seem to believe, but which isn't true - I HAD been told "Don't take the sacrament", there was no way I would have gone storming out of sacrament meeting with my knickers in a knot, walking away from the church forever. How strong a testimony is that? Whether or not it is the actual practice wasn't the point. The point was someone having a hissy fit and walking away if they don't get their way. But you are too busy being "right" to understand that.

I find it interesting that other members of this site have posted outright falsehoods and they are treated with welcoming posts, I post an opinion and I am called a liar and you also attack a bishop, missionaries and others you don't even know or have the facts straight about.

Disagree with me all you want, but you are completely out of line in calling me a liar. Say it all you want, but it won't make it true. Apparently you get some satisfaction out of it and I find that sad.

I still don't know what you think I lied about and you'd rather play "I'm always right" than answer a question. But it doesn't matter.

I have told no lies here. The only lie here is your statement that I "made something up". I did not.

[Leah]

This accurately reflects what I was taught. It comes straight from the Church's own website. Yet you are saying that the people who taught me - who taught me exactly this - taught me wrong and that I am lying in saying that this is what I was taught? Really? I was taught exactly what the Church says, yet I was taught wrong.

Wow.

■ “The sacrament is for the Saints, for those who have actually made covenants at the waters of baptism. . . .

“If a person, not a member of the Church, is in the congregation, we do not forbid him partaking of it, but would properly advise that the sacrament is for the renewing of covenants. And, since he has not made the true covenant of baptism or temple covenant, he is exempt. However, his partaking of the sacrament if he is clean and worthy and devout would not bring upon him any condemnation as it would for those who have made solemn covenants and then have ignored or defied them” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 226–27)

It's a darn good thing my testimony is so strong, otherwise being treated thusly would have me wanting to stay far away from the Church.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Leah

[jayanna]

actually....once again that silly nephi quote gets in the way of this as well as the entire book of mormon really. clearly stating if you repent and get baptized in The Lords name then you are his and get the sacrament. in fact a very common theme is get baptized and be counted amongst The Lords sheep. getting baptized and becoming a member go hand and hand which according to nephi is when you get the sacrament.

Ironically, in 3 Nephi, the Savior teaches the people the sacrament, and they partake of it (paticularly the disciples), and then they (including the disciples) get baptized later...and after that they have the sacrament again...in the next chapter I believe. Pretty sure the Savior didn't screw it up. Read in 3 Nephi Chapters 18, 19, 20 3 Nephi

But we are straying from the OP

Martian, if your bishopric is anything like mine :) they are watching as each person takes the sacrament. I asked my hubby once what he was looking so hard at during sacrament? He was so serious and watchful, what was he watching...he said he and the other two were watching to see that everyone who should have it, gets a chance to take it, and to see who is not taking it too see if they are doing okay. All things have two or three witnesses, including the ordinance of the sacrament. This did not occur to me until recently, but he is witnessing at that time. While being worthy to administer the sacrament, the men passing it are not judges in Israel and should not decide who is worthy or not, or who should be 'warned' of or not. Notice that while a baptism is performed, the one performing it is not the one who decides the worthiness of the one partaking, nor are they their own witnesses. It is the same for the sacrament.

Rest assured that the Bishop knows more than you might think.

[jayanna]

This accurately reflects what I was taught. It comes straight from the Church's own website. Yet you are saying that the people who taught me - who taught me exactly this - taught me wrong and that I am lying in saying that this is what I was taught? Really? I was taught exactly what the Church says, yet I was taught wrong.

Wow.

■ “The sacrament is for the Saints, for those who have actually made covenants at the waters of baptism. . . .

“If a person, not a member of the Church, is in the congregation, we do not forbid him partaking of it, but would properly advise that the sacrament is for the renewing of covenants. And, since he has not made the true covenant of baptism or temple covenant, he is exempt. However, his partaking of the sacrament if he is clean and worthy and devout would not bring upon him any condemnation as it would for those who have made solemn covenants and then have ignored or defied them” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 226–27)

It's a darn good thing my testimony is so strong, otherwise being treated thusly would have me wanting to stay far away from the Church.

This is exactly what I was taught too, and the Mission Pres. confirmed that it was correct for them to have told me so. By partaking of the sacrament when you don't know about it really does not defile you. It is good to be given instruction concerning the sacrament. You should know the purpose of it when you are ready to understand it. It is when you ignore sacred covenants that you have made and partake anyway that you are defiling yourself.

I think the best guide for it is to follow your conscience.

[Dove]

Wow,

the arguing on this thread is getting intense.

I myself had to edit my comment to Connie in order not to respond in rude acridness to what I felt was a comment that was not particularly nice. I've done this several times when I've been angry at how others have responded to my comments. I'm glad I do~

C'mon everybody who has gotten into arguing with each other. Please, let's think about what we're doing....After what we've each written individually, would we be comfortable taking the Sacrament with the Saviour present? Is it worth it? What would Jesus do?

I'm sorry to sound preachy. Believe me, I am far from perfect and can have a hot head and quick tongue/temper. I get hurt easily and take things too personal and as attackative....

Please, in respect to the sacred ordinance of taking the sacrament, let's all refrain from the bitter debate and try to be more kind to each other.

[MarginOfError]

This accurately reflects what I was taught. It comes straight from the Church's own website. Yet you are saying that the people who taught me - who taught me exactly this - taught me wrong and that I am lying in saying that this is what I was taught? Really? I was taught exactly what the Church says, yet I was taught wrong.

Wow.

■ “The sacrament is for the Saints, for those who have actually made covenants at the waters of baptism. . . .

“If a person, not a member of the Church, is in the congregation, we do not forbid him partaking of it, but would properly advise that the sacrament is for the renewing of covenants. And, since he has not made the true covenant of baptism or temple covenant, he is exempt. However, his partaking of the sacrament if he is clean and worthy and devout would not bring upon him any condemnation as it would for those who have made solemn covenants and then have ignored or defied them” (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 226–27)

It's a darn good thing my testimony is so strong, otherwise being treated thusly would have me wanting to stay far away from the Church.

Wait, so you're telling me that a president of the Church said that people who haven't been baptized can take the sacrament too? I wish people had said something like that earlier in this thread! Perhaps someone should have said it here, or here, or here, or here.

The fact of the matter is that the statement by President Kimball is very different than some of the comments on this thread, such as

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.

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?

What President Kimball is conveying is very important. Strictly speaking, by our understanding of the doctrines, yes, it is true that taking the sacrament before one is baptized is unnecessary. But we do not forbid or discourage non-members who wish to take the sacrament when they are clean, worthy, and devout. We do not forbid them because whether or not their baptism is recorded in the eternities, their faith and commitment are very real to them; their relationship to their Savior is every bit as real to them as ours is to us.

We do not deny people because of what hasn't been written in stone, but accept people because of what is written in the fleshy tables of their hearts (See 2 Corinthians 3:3).

[Dravin]

I NEVER said that I want the policy to be that non-members are to be prevented from partaking of the sacrament. Don't attribute words to me that I NEVER said, in order to maintain your holier-than-thou attitude.

I didn't say you did. So this is another straw-man. I suspect you aren't understanding the following things:

1) That was a summary of the things I had said prior to directing anything at you, the you so used in the summary is a general you.

2) The post so summarized was clearly directed at Kayne to answer his question of why if the policy is A, it would need to change to become B (when A != B).

I post an opinion and I am called a liar and you also attack a bishop, missionaries and others you don't even know or have the facts straight about.

Oh look, the original straw-man is back, this time improved upon.

I was NEVER told that I couldn't partake.

I'm not sure if this is another straw-man or if you're just being informative. So to clarify, are you saying that I said you were told you couldn't partake?

Disagree with me all you want, but you are completely out of line in calling me a liar. Say it all you want, but it won't make it true. Apparently you get some satisfaction out of it and I find that sad.

Of course saying it doesn't make it true, the fact that you have straw-men under your belt concerning me is what makes it true.

I have told no lies here. The only lie here is your statement that I "made something up". I did not.

Except you did, two of them at this point (a possible third). Given your actions in this thread I expect at least another one to be forthcoming. I suggest you stop, take some deep breaths and read what I wrote. Out of all my posts in this thread none of them assume the position:

1) That those who taught you about the Sacrament were acting against Church policy.

2) That you want the policy to be that non-members be prevented from partaking of the sacrament.

3) That you were told that you couldn't partake of the sacrament.

You're so busy getting offended that I'm noticing your straw-men (the obvious solution is to stop using straw-men) that you are missing the fact that you are engaging in their use.

This accurately reflects what I was taught. It comes straight from the Church's own website. Yet you are saying that the people who taught me - who taught me exactly this - taught me wrong and that I am lying in saying that this is what I was taught? Really? I was taught exactly what the Church says, yet I was taught wrong.

I have not said:

1) The people who taught you were wrong.

2) That you are lying about what you were taught.

In all your thrashing about you're just compounding your original error.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Dravin