D&C 27:2 and 3rd Nephi 11: 23 - 26


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall aeat 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 bgloryc

 

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your awords, and bdesireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and cstand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having aauthority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the bFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye aimmerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

Is there a contrast between the precision with how Christ sets out the mode of baptism in 3rd Nephi 11: 23 - 26 and the imprecision with which He sets out how we should remember the covenants we make at baptism, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 27: 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 

 

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall aeat 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 bgloryc

 

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your awords, and bdesireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and cstand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having aauthority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the bFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye aimmerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

Is there a contrast between the precision with how Christ sets out the mode of baptism in 3rd Nephi 11: 23 - 26 and the imprecision with which He sets out how we should remember the covenants we make at baptism, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 27: 2?

I think gluten-free bread should be precisely ruled out. 😃!!!

Other than that, the differences in the wording of the baptismal ordinance in the Book of Mormon and D&C are consistent with allowances for how we remember them (and Him). They both follow authorized protocol. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Is there a contrast between the precision with how Christ sets out the mode of baptism in 3rd Nephi 11: 23 - 26 and the imprecision with which He sets out how we should remember the covenants we make at baptism, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 27: 2?

I don't think so. The wording of the covenant in each case is laid out precisely. Comparing the "imprecision" of what to use in place of bread and wine with the "precision" of the baptismal prayer is, I think, apples and oranges. The baptismal prayer and the sacramental prayers are all given with word-to-word accuracy. The bread/wine "imprecision" is perhaps better compared with the "living waters" of baptism, which in most cases today consists of a baptismal font—certainly not "living water" in the traditional sense. I suppose the Lord might well have revealed something like, "It mattereth not whether ye baptize in a river or a water-filled hole in the ground, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory..." Or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't think so. The wording of the covenant in each case is laid out precisely. Comparing the "imprecision" of what to use in place of bread and wine with the "precision" of the baptismal prayer is, I think, apples and oranges. The baptismal prayer and the sacramental prayers are all given with word-to-word accuracy. The bread/wine "imprecision" is perhaps better compared with the "living waters" of baptism, which in most cases today consists of a baptismal font—certainly not "living water" in the traditional sense. I suppose the Lord might well have revealed something like, "It mattereth not whether ye baptize in a river or a water-filled hole in the ground, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory..." Or something like that.

Along those same lines, there are still limits to both.  We aren't baptized in wine, for example.  And the sacrament is still overseen by the bishop.  When bread is not immediately available, the first option is to try to find bread somehow/somewhere.  But bishops have, on occasion allowed for a substitute (like tortillas - in Texas, yes).  But even with tortillas readily available, bread is preferred.  And it is always considered the first option, even in Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spend any time around a military base, and you'll eventually hear members who are serving in the military talking about the circumstances under which they may have had to do the sacrament while deployed, such as using the crackers from their rations in lieu of bread or something similar. 

It's situations like this where the lack of a fixed requirement for the tokens comes into the fore, where people just don't have bread or anything else nice handy and having to make do with what's there or else they wouldn't be able to have sacrament at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some have the idea that the specific words are some magic language that brings blessings when properly spoken…think Gandalf opening the secret door.I used to think that way—that the words unlocked some kind of power.  Now, I realize we do what Christ asks, the way He asks us to do things, and then He blesses us, usually through the Holy Ghost.

When I became a lawyer I found all kinds of ways to say the same thing.  And antiquated language from prior leases is often modernized to become more understandable in today’s parlance. What matters is not the words spoken, but what both parties intend, and living up with what is agreed upon.  If Christ wanted you to hop on one leg while you took the sacrament, well, He sets the terms of the covenants, so that would be His right.  Luckily, He seems to provide language for the parties most appropriate in their time. I’m thinking about the changes to the temple endowment session as welcome changes that He, as the setter of the terms of the covenant, has a right to make.

Edited by RAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RAB said:

I’m thinking about the changes to the temple endowment session as welcome changes that He, as the setter of the terms of the covenant, has a right to make.

I don't have any issues with the Lord's right to set the terms of the covenant, I'm just curious about why He is so specific and precise about the actions by which we enter into the covenant, and so specific about the words used to bless the emblems by which we remember the covenant, but so much less specific about the actual emblems of which we partake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I don't have any issues with the Lord's right to set the terms of the covenant, I'm just curious about why He is so specific and precise about the actions by which we enter into the covenant, and so specific about the words used to bless the emblems by which we remember the covenant, but so much less specific about the actual emblems of which we partake.

A thought.

When one has to focus on doing something in a particular way, they tend to remember it more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I don't have any issues with the Lord's right to set the terms of the covenant, I'm just curious about why He is so specific and precise about the actions by which we enter into the covenant, and so specific about the words used to bless the emblems by which we remember the covenant, but so much less specific about the actual emblems of which we partake.

As helpful as symbols can be the covenant is more important than the symbol pointing us to it. If bread and wine (fresh from the vine) were always available the Lord might well require them. As they are not he still wants us to renew our covenants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I don't have any issues with the Lord's right to set the terms of the covenant, I'm just curious about why He is so specific and precise about the actions by which we enter into the covenant, and so specific about the words used to bless the emblems by which we remember the covenant, but so much less specific about the actual emblems of which we partake.

Going back to your OP, I would say:  3 Ne 11:23-26 describes something that the people of God can almost always control.  D&C 27:2 describes something that, until very recently, might very well be outside of the control of church members in a particular area (see, e.g., Elder Benson’s account of using potato peelings for the sacrament in post-WW2 Europe).

The form/verbiage of the ordinances have pedagogical/symbolic value, of course; but otherwise I don’t think the forms have any kind of mystical power per se.  IMHO the power of the forms/ordinances lies in the covenants that those forms represent.  Once the Lord gives us a form we stick to it, not because that’s the way it HAS to be, but as a demonstration of our resolve to fulfill the terms of our covenants to the letter.  If we’re really taking the covenant seriously, then of course we want to do the ritual as perfectly as it’s within our power to do.

Me baptizing my daughter, and a part of her not quite going all the way under the water, and no one noticing, probably isn’t a problem.  But me baptizing my daughter, and a part of her not quite going all the way under the water, and neither me nor anyone else in the room cares enough to redo it in the right way—now, THAT’s a problem.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Going back to your OP, I would say:  3 Ne 11:23-26 describes something that the people of God can almost always control.  D&C 27:2 describes something that, until very recently, might very well be outside of the control of church members in a particular area (see, e.g., Elder Benson’s account of using potato peelings for the sacrament in post-WW2 Europe).

The form/verbiage of the ordinances have pedagogical/symbolic value, of course; but otherwise I don’t think the forms have any kind of mystical power per se.  IMHO the power of the forms/ordinances lies in the covenants that those forms represent.  Once the Lord gives us a form we stick to it, not because that’s the way it HAS to be, but as a demonstration of our resolve to fulfill the terms of our covenants to the letter.  If we’re really taking the covenant seriously, then of course we want to do the ritual as perfectly as it’s within our power to do.

Me baptizing my daughter, and a part of her not quite going all the way under the water, and no one noticing, probably isn’t a problem.  But me baptizing my daughter, and a part of her not quite going all the way under the water, and neither me nor anyone else in the room cares enough to redo it in the right way—now, THAT’s a problem.

Isaiah tells us that changing ordinances separates man from G-d (apostasy).  Some, especially critics, will point to adjustments of ordinances to societal evolution as changes.  What we learn from this scripture is more about what changes to the divine pedagogical/symbols of ordinances constitutes.   Which also goes along with what Christ taught – that the ordinances are sculpted for man and not man for the ordinances.

The other thing we learn from Isaiah is that divine law, ordinances and covenants are all tightly coupled and that they come from G-d as a set that is not complete (perfect) with out the other parts.  We most often relate an ordinance to a covenant but sometimes neglect or forget the associated law(s). 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share