- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a sensitive issue….so I understand if no one wants to approach it. I am questioning lately the reasons why those being disciplined aren’t allowed to take the sacrament for such long periods of time? Perhaps someone here can help me with some scriptural references or provide a greater understanding around this issue? I can understand why someone who is on probation or is disfellowshipped can’t function in certain aspects of the church organization and can definitely understand why temple attendance is out of the question…but the sacrament? To me, it seems like partaking of the sacrament on a weekly basis would serve to strengthen a person’s desire to keep coming back, to stay course-corrected and to get back and stay on the straight and narrow. Just something that crossed my mind yesterday since our gospel doctrine lesson was on the sacrament.
Thanks!
I would say it mostly seems like a symbolic form of penance. I think some people view it as a punishment? Everything in religion is symbolic, so what people make of it is largely up to them. That doesn’t really make sense to me either, but some people feel a need to suffer and be punished before they can accept themselves. Another aspect I can see is the covenant. This is my personal view. If I believed I was actively and purposely going against my understanding of “keeping His commandments, which He has given them,” then I probably should not partake of the symbol (the sacrament). The metaphor of the sacrament is assimilation and digestion — you are what you eat. It is a ritual act where we assimilate Christ into our being. We consume his body, that our body becomes sanctified and divine (and all kinds of metaphors attached to that). We consume his blood, which is a long-standing symbol of the spirit and life-essence of a living being. We assimilate His spirit into ours, and become one. If it isn’t our desire in the moment to become Christ, then it is probably better not to enact the ritual. I see it as an issue of respect, both for my self-respect and out of respect for the community that believes in it. That is why for example, I would not take communion in another church. I respect that it is sacred to them, and I am not a believer (not antagonistic, but I am simply a not part of their faith community).
I agree with Valoel about the proper justification for asking some people to not partake – and why, for example, I would not take communion if I attended a Catholic service. I don’t believe in transubstantiation, so I would feel like I was disrespecting the ritual by just “going through the motions”. The difference in the LDS Church, I believe, is that the sacrament represents a willingness to try – and that is a MUCH more expansive, interpretive standard, since it encompasses all of us as sinners in some way who still are willing to “endure to the end”. It’s one of my favorite aspects of Mormon theology, so I am hesitant restrict access to the sacrament for anything but the most serious situations.
On a practical level within the LDS Church, I think the feeling is that there are certain things that rise to the level of requiring active discipline – and that comes in the form of removal of some kind of covenant or form of worship. I understand and have no problem with that in theory, but, personally, I believe the sacrament should not be a part of that unless it is an issue of “objective and extraordinary (uncommon) unworthiness” – the violation of some commandment that is serious enough to warrant removal of someone from the community of believers symbolically. I don’t believe it should be for “passive acts” (like not paying tithing or not doing your best in a calling or not . . .) but rather for serious acts of commission (adultery/fornication, criminal offense, particularly nasty gossiping and bearing false witness, etc.) – and it should last as short a time as possible to show contrition and renewed desire.
I understand the practice, and I don’t reject it out of hand, but I don’t like it as any kind of “default” reaction.
The scriptural justification for this is in the BOM:
Quote:3 Ne. 18: 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to apartake of my flesh and blood bunworthily, when ye shall minister it
In general, I have heard it said that if you question whether you are worthy, it’s best not to partake. Personally, I think there’s something to be said for having a break from partaking before going back to partaking. That space allows one to build commitment and desire. It’s similar in some ways to attending another church as a comparison point. That distance can create a pull and a deconstruction and reconstruction of commitment and purpose.OTOH, I also think that this can be taken too far by some, either by being too harsh a judge of their own or someone else’s worthiness. I’ve seen this taken to some extremes that made me uncomfortable, without knowing all the facts of course.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I feel the same way about partaking of communion or the sacrament at other churches and choose to abstain as I don’t feel it is appropriate. I attended a different church yesterday and observed how they presented the sacrament (as more of a “all are welcome to partake of the Savior’s grace and forgiveness) and then contrasted that with our own sacrament meeting (and the attendant lesson that we had in Gospel Doctrine). It made me reflect on a time in my life when I didn’t take the sacrament and how I perceived that time period. Fortunately, it was only a brief time period (like 6 weeks or so) but the pain of that experience made me think about someone who is facing down a year without the sacrament (like in disfellowshipment) and how hard that would be! I would imagine it takes a lot of humility to come back week after week and feel the sting of not being able to make that commitment with the Lord, to have the promise of “having the Spirit to be with you” and to be washed clean (since the sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal covenant and provides the same cleansing experience). But I suppose that is part of the pain required of the repentance process??? Disclaimer: from a spiritual perspective I agree with all that has been said. It is the symbolism and self-respect that is important. In light of the fact that many feel it’s a punishment, from a logical perspective, it just doesn’t matter that much. There will be no magic if you do or do not partake. There won’t be some decrease in external blessings, and in fact, there will be no external consequences at all (aside from any that the church or members make). This was one of the most important things I learned in this process. That is, if you have a beer, you know what, nothing will happen. You won’t get disciplined, you won’t all of a sudden not be able to reason about things (contrary to what George A. Smith says), you won’t get struck down, etc. The effect is all internal. Any of the perceived blessings or consequences are internal, and may, as a result, make an external effect, but not directly.
I believe this is what separates many of us from the TBMs (and I was one of them). In fact, through my process I went through a bit of a “rebellious” stage (minor stuff of course). I did this because, in spite of what my rational mind told me, I had to prove it to myself that none of these perceived external consequences would happen if I sinned. And you know what? Nothing happened. It was all so anticlimactic I wondered why I was taught all my life that it was such a big deal. Of course, I now understand that it is a big deal, just not in the way I was led to believe. Not because of some external forces, but because of the internal self. We are trying to give birth to the spiritual self, and this requires self-respect and honesty within our limited understanding.
Quote:We are trying to give birth to the spiritual self, and this requires self-respect and honesty within our limited understanding.
Beautifully said.Good quote from Hawkgrrrl, which is probably what is the scripture being put into practice. But it does seem weird to me that in most cases, unless excommunicated, leaders would say to continue to wear the temple garment as a way to remember convenants and rededicate oneself to them on the path to repentance, yet the outward ordinance of the sacrament visible to all would be withheld. Seems like it would be the other way around.
Especially since the sacrament is all about receiving forgiveness of sins and remembering the Atonement, and the garments are all about remembering the covenants we made and keeping them. One who has sought the bishop’s help should be one that is trying to repent, and that would be more worthy to take it than one who may be hiding sins and taking it unworthily.
Maybe its about the withdrawal of something so it can be appreciated, but I do think of the things they could take away for that penance process, the sacrament is the one that is needed most, not least.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.