- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just read 3 Nephi 18 and found myself pondering over it quite a bit. In the beginning of this chapter Jesus is teaching his disciples how to administer the Sacrament. It’s not quite how we do it. (We’ll skip over the fact that they used wine.)
What caught my attention was that the Sacrament sounds like a meal, not just a token tidbit of bread and water. It says the partakers had “eaten and were filled,” with both bread and wine. That phrase comes up 4 times.
I wonder if we are missing out on some of the meaning and power of the Sacrament, conducting it the way we do in the LDS church.I think there may be an intended metaphor in the Sacrament that we are missing out on. The idea of coming to church literally hungry, and being filled literally with bread and wine seems like it could be a spiritually powerful reminder/affirmation each Sunday. When you consider the symbolism and meaning of the Sacrament, a meal seems more appropriate anyhow. (3 Nephi 20:8, for example.) I also like the idea of eating a meal together in remembrance of Christ. The time to remember Christ would be drawn out. We might have 45 minutes instead of the 10 or so we are used to.
Also, there is something significant about the act of sharing food with others. I think it affects people and relationships in a deep way. In a good way.
A lot of this is just my thoughts. Yet I still think it’s fair to ask, Why don’t we do it the way Christ taught?
There are literal roots to your idea in early Christianity. The believers would gather every Sunday for the love feast. I imagine it was an incredibly delightful experience, this raising a feast to a spiritual level. This is reminding me of Babette’s Feast. So, no, I don’t guess we do the Sacrament “right” in the truly innovative, spiritual, creative sense of its potential. Your observations, Allquieton, were actually played out in the early Mormon Church. “The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship” describes what you are talking about happening at the Kirtland temple from historical records (journal entries from participants, etc.). Joseph Smith began working on prototype initiatory and endowment experiences in Kirtland. Part of this was fasting for a period of a day or two. They would then break their fast in the temple with a sacramental meal of fresh baked bread and wine, and I am not talking about a crumb of crust and a thimble-full of wine. They would eat a full meal until full. I believe they did this also in homes for the sacrament (maybe without the fasting). I can’t recall a specific citation on that at the moment. But they did not have formal sacrament meetings so much like we do today. Yes, you will find that in Joseph Smith’s journals, too. He talks about feasts and everyone being filled. He also talks about having enough wine to “be merry.” 😆 Somehow, I don’t think that would fly today.In early Christianity, as the congregations got bigger the ability to have a meal together diminished. It seems common among churches today only have a sip of wine and a wafer or bite of bread. I could be mistaken, though.
Hmmm. Maybe that is why the Jews would have their special meals at home with family. It would be prohibitive to do that as a congregation.
There are other things we do not do exactly according to scripture. This is problematic if you are a literalist. Actually, it can be problematic for non-literalists, too. The symbolism of not being filled is kinda sad.
I think it really boils down to logistics, time and money.
Oh, the tithes of the Old Testament were also eaten in a feast unto God. I think that is so super neat. I do like the concept of feasting before God and blessing his name. Also, inviting all the poor and lame, etc.
The great thing is that nothing is stopping us from doing these things on our own. We can!
just me wrote:The great thing is that nothing is stopping us from doing these things on our own. We can!
Just me – you mentioned JS having a journal. DH and I were talking the other day about something “churchy” and he made a comment about people believing JS actually had a journal – iow he doesn’t believe it, he doesn’t trust that he had one. I honestly want to know … did he have one, or more, and are they pretty much the real deal? Just wondering b/c DH seemed pretty against it.
💡 Sorry about not answering the OP. I think it’s safe to say now that we “fill” up through personal humility and the feeling of love etc. from our savior … Don’t mean to be funny but I couldn’t handle a full 45 minute meal with all the people from Church every Sunday .. The table talk might just kill me. Save it for the families.I think Joseph tried to keep a personal journal for a short period of time (not very successful at it). Most of the time, he had a secretary or assistant write records for him. I imagine he reviewed those journals, even if they were not written by him directly. So is that his or not? I get the impression he wasn’t a great writer really. I could be wrong, but he usually reallyneeded someone else as a scribe or secretary with more formal education to make anything look decent and coherent. He was fairly well read though. I think Michael Quinn provides a lot of evidence or possibility for that.
LaLaLove wrote:Just me – you mentioned JS having a journal.
DH and I were talking the other day about something “churchy” and he made a comment about people believing JS actually had a journal – iow he doesn’t believe it, he doesn’t trust that he had one. I honestly want to know … did he have one, or more, and are they pretty much the real deal? Just wondering b/c DH seemed pretty against it.
💡 Sorry about not answering the OP. I think it’s safe to say now that we “fill” up through personal humility and the feeling of love etc. from our savior … Don’t mean to be funny but I couldn’t handle a full 45 minute meal with all the people from Church every Sunday .. The table talk might just kill me. Save it for the families.Brian is correct, it was mostly dictated or written by his scribes. But they are called the diaries and journals of Joseph Smith. But he did some of his own writing. He was involved in what was written in them.
If you are able to afford it, you can get the new Papers project books that the church is putting out of Joseph’s writings.
I personally can’t so I got
An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smithedited by Scott H. Faulring (a member of the church). Oh, you can also get the History of the Church, but a lot of that was added after JS died-there were also some alterations made. There is some overlap, though. Maybe even a lot of overlap. But, the History of the Church is several volumes and has more stuff in it. What a cool observation. I think that’s an example of something we apply metaphorically rather than taking it literally. It’s kind of interesting – I wonder what church would be like if we switched which things we took literally and which things we take metaphorically. Washings & anointings would be more intense as well (as they used to be). allquieton wrote:I just read 3 Nephi 18 and found myself pondering over it quite a bit. In the beginning of this chapter Jesus is teaching his disciples how to administer the Sacrament. It’s not quite how we do it. … Why don’t we do it the way Christ taught?
This is a great question, and really makes logical sense to ask because so many things in the church are presented as the original church of Christ restored in the latter days, with the implication that we do it exactly how Christ did it and how Adam did it and everyone else that knew “truth” did it throughout history.I think there is a lesson in this, that “how” we do it matters less than “why” we do it or what it means to us. It can be done different ways. It was a “supper” when Christ instituted it…it is now bread and water.
I think things like this can be changed, and it is not apostasy to change how we do it, because sometimes the church has to accommodate how to do these things for a world-wide church.
Sacraments, scriptures, temple ceremonies…they can all make changes to accommodate – as long as the meaning doesn’t change and the purpose is achieved. As long as we get “filled”, spiritually more so than anything else.
Now that is a concept could really get behind. Eating in church would really get me motivated. 1) If circumcision can be replaced by baptism, just about any change is fine, imo – as long as there is understood symbolism involved. 2) I’d love to feast each Sunday, but I know way too many members who would feel obligated to bring wonderfully prepared food on a budget that wouldn’t support it – and others who would use that chance to be lavish and stand out from everyone else. Until we get to a practical Zion, I’m fine with the sacrament the way it is now.
3) Just as in the other discussions about changed practices, I just don’t care about form much. It’s all about meaning for me. I’d be fine with a ceremonial dance (or a good board game) replacing baptism – as long as the core symbolism somehow was maintained.
I almost forgot to throw this comment out there. Yes, I think the Church is administering the sacrament correctly. That was the question in the title of the post. They are doing it right for most of the people who are there to receive it. What *WE* individually do with the ceremony and ritual is key. I think most people are getting out of it exactly the right experience. Many don’t think about it though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.