ToPotC – Chapter 15 (The Sacrament)

[Anonymous]

Chapter 15: The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

From the Life of Howard W. Hunter

This section has the potential to cause a few issues. The short version is that Hunter’s father (a supportive non-member at the time) didn’t allow Howard to be baptized until he was 8 because his father felt he was not old enough. Hunter began to feel excluded once he reached 12 because his peers could pass the sacrament and as a non-member he could not. This prompted Hunter to revisit the issue with his father. His father gave consent, Howard was baptized, received the AP, and started passing the sacrament.

Many have used this story to point out how the November ’15 policy (I believe we sided on calling it the Full Nelson?) has the potential to exclude many children that wish to participate as a full member of the church. When Howard’s father made the decision to make his son wait to be baptized he may have felt it was the right decision at the time but he may not have foreseen how the decision would eventually contribute towards making his son feel excluded. The lesson text says that Howard “persuaded” his father to be baptized, the video linked in the lesson says “Howard repeatedly begged his father for permission.”

I don’t want to make this another thread about the Full Nelson. There is more discussion on that in hawkgrrrl’s recent thread, but I did want to bring it up as thoughts and feelings related to the policy can surface during this lesson.

The policy was made, nothing will change that. Going forward what can we focus on? How can we try to be more inclusive irrespective of any policy? Rather than looking at Howard’s father as the church, revisit the story as being Howard’s father. Here we have a son that’s coming to us wanting to join a religion that’s foreign to us. Maybe use insights gained during that exercise to better understand the position of the church with its various policies.

As a side note, I think there’s value in frequently reevaluating past decisions. We don’t have to wait until things reach the point where children (and we’re all children) feel excluded and have to beg for change. Is there a time and place to ask for change, especially in scenarios where one side has all the authority (parent/child)? If so, how might that be done?

[Anonymous]

1) The Passover declares that death has no permanent power on us.

2) During a feast commemorating the Passover, the Savior instituted the ordinance of the sacrament.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/DE3tnUo.png[/img]

“Going to the bathroom, BRB.” – Judas (probably)

3) Our participation in the sacrament is an opportunity to review our lives and renew our covenants.

Quote:

The deacons dispersed throughout the chapel to serve the broken bread. One of them came to our row and held the silver tray while I partook. Then I held the tray so Sister Hunter could partake, and she held it for the person next to her. Thus the tray went down the row, each serving and being served.

I like the imagery of serving and being served and it came from witnessing the simple act of people passing the sacrament tray down the row. It wasn’t some world changing act of service but very few acts of service are.

If I were teaching the lesson I’d probably talk about how we often focus on sacrament symbols that remind us of Jesus’ death. I might challenge the class to come up with sacrament symbols that focus on the living, resurrected Jesus. Make every Sunday Easter Sunday. I’ve got my own answers but I’d be more interested in hearing the classes answers. This lesson does have the potential to be more focused on Jesus than other lessons so I’d take advantage of that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

I love the point about how Howard felt excluded. That happens in our church. This story had a meaning on it being resolved with a faithful expression and desire. Great. They don’t all end that way.

I like the service of passing the sacrament. This past week my older son blessed the bread (had to repeat it) and my younger son passed it. It was nice. They were not excluded.

I have had discussions with some people about how important it is to have the sacrament. Some have told me that is why when I say I go hike in the mountains it is wrong, because I didn’t take the sacrament. And that is really really really crucial, the most important thing we do.

If so, why do we skip it on General Conference Sunday and Stake Conference Sunday? Why are we told NOT to do it in our homes when we are snowed in on sundays and church is canceled?

Is it the most important thing to do when it is convenient to say so? And a tool for shaming when others think you don’t have good reason to not be in church?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

And a tool for shaming when others think you don’t have good reason to not be in church?

There’s never a good reason not to be in church.

Maybe there’s a “if I have to do this you have to do it too” factor to your experiences. You hiking in the mountains on Sunday isn’t “fair.”

[Anonymous]

By accident, the LDS sacrament is symbolically a bit different and in some ways, more powerful. We drink water instead of wine. IMO, this is because water was in plenteous supply, but wine was either expensive or time-consuming to make for the fledgling and impoverished Church. Wine is a great and old symbol of the Spirit of God, and of course, of the blood of Jesus. In the traditional Lord’s Supper, we take into ourselves the death and suffering of Christ and receive his spirit. In Paul’s words, our old selves are crucified with him so that we can be raised in a glorious resurrection like his to walk in a new life.

While this all still holds just fine with the LDS sacrament, we also can add the symbolism of the bread of life (John 6) and living water (John 4). In other words, the LDS sacrament is very easily adapted into an added symbol of spiritual renewal and nourishment. Of course, this is generally true of the Lord’s Supper, but simple to map the the bread of life and living water for us.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

By accident, the LDS sacrament is symbolically a bit different and in some ways, more powerful. We drink water instead of wine.

I do like how you mention the “living water” symbolism. That does make me think of those scriptures, so that is a good call there. For a long time, I wished we left it at wine to focus on Christ. Members pay for bringing break, wine could be provided probably without it being too difficult, although I do see your point on poor areas might have more difficulty, but when it is something that is supposed to be “so important” like the sacrament, the church doesn’t have a problem asking for sacrifice to make it happen.

That is kind of my point, I guess. There is rhetoric and hyperbole about the sacrament at times. It is talked about as so important, the “most important thing we do”…yet we want to make it easy with tap water, or make it easy for youth to take care of it instead of adults, or we should never miss church because of it but skip it on Gen Conference.

Personally, if it is so important…we should still drink wine like the scriptures say Christ taught it to us.

But…for practical reasons we change it. And that makes me think it really isn’t so important.

It’s a mixed message, kind of.

I’m jsut thinking out loud…it isn’t like I can’t find meaning in the water and make it good for me. Just pointing out the mixed message I hear, even I’m find with it and make it meaningful my way.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Hunter began to feel excluded once he reached 12 because his peers could pass the sacrament and as a non-member he could not.

I find it interesting that the exclusion that HWH felt was because of a church policy. There is nothing doctrinally that says that a non-member cannot pass the sacrament in the same sense that everyone “passes” the sacrament to the person sitting next to them.

nibbler wrote:

Then I held the tray so Sister Hunter could partake, and she held it for the person next to her. Thus the tray went down the row, each serving and being served.

However, doctrinal or no, it is a church policy (found in the CHI) that only priesthood holders will pass the Sacrament.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

That is kind of my point, I guess. There is rhetoric and hyperbole about the sacrament at times. It is talked about as so important, the “most important thing we do”. ..yet we want to make it easy with tap water, or make it easy for youth to take care of it instead of adults, or we should never miss church because of it but skip it on Gen Conference.

Personally, if it is so important…we should still drink wine like the scriptures say Christ taught it to us.

But…for practical reasons we change it. And that makes me think it really isn’t so important.

It’s a mixed message, kind of.

I’m jsut thinking out loud…it isn’t like I can’t find meaning in the water and make it good for me. Just pointing out the mixed message I hear, even I’m find with it and make it meaningful my way.

I love my version of the meaning, the hymn, the prayers, the quiet, the tiny acts of service going on all over the chapel.

I think it would be nice in a lesson like this, though, to throw some of these questions out there, even if the teacher doesn’t intend to discuss them at length. Just to open minds a little. And (I’m reading around a little on the question of whether the Last Supper is even accepted by scholars as an actual Passover meal), maybe it would be good to point out that all of this is in constant flux. The Seder as presently constituted apparently has its beginnings after 70 A.D.

Just anything to mix it up a little.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

By accident, the LDS sacrament is symbolically a bit different and in some ways, more powerful. We drink water instead of wine. IMO, this is because water was in plenteous supply, but wine was either expensive or time-consuming to make for the fledgling and impoverished Church. Wine is a great and old symbol of the Spirit of God, and of course, of the blood of Jesus. In the traditional Lord’s Supper, we take into ourselves the death and suffering of Christ and receive his spirit. In Paul’s words, our old selves are crucified with him so that we can be raised in a glorious resurrection like his to walk in a new life.

While this all still holds just fine with the LDS sacrament, we also can add the symbolism of the bread of life (John 6) and living water (John 4). In other words, the LDS sacrament is very easily adapted into an added symbol of spiritual renewal and nourishment. Of course, this is generally true of the Lord’s Supper, but simple to map the the bread of life and living water for us.

I do like the symbolism you presented here with the bread of life and living water. I often think about the wine as a representation of the blood of Christ and have wondered in the past why we never returned to wine. I realize the scripture says it doesn’t matter what we use but that scripture also appears to be talking about that one particular issue at that one particular time (and unfortunately don’t get why people have trouble applying that idea to other things as well since the sacrament is considered very sacred). So if it doesn’t matter, why not use wine? Or why not use wine on at least some occasions? I had not considered the water as the living water before.

[Anonymous]

Some passages related to the Bread of Life and Living Water:

Quote:

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” –John 6:49-51 (NIV)

Quote:

Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”–John 4:13-14 (NIV)

Quote:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” –John 6:35 (NIV)

Quote:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” –Matthew 5:6 (NRSV)

[Anonymous]

In a Gospel Principles lesson recently, I mentioned the Catholic idea of trans-substantiation, wherein the people literally ingest the body and blood of Christ. I said I know we view it symbolically but that the idea of “partaking of Christ” in a way that changes us is powerful and beautiful.

In that light, I love the idea of the sacrament table as Jesus’ self-sacrificial altar and the congregation as partakers in that sacrifice – even though that image is grossly archaic and barbaric to our modern society. It’s okay for me, specifically because I view the Garden and Golgatha suffering as representatively symbolic to begin with, so extending the literal or metaphorical to a simile doesn’t bother me.

I can honor the literal view while not adopting it myself.

[Anonymous]

I think most people will be taught from chapter 15 this Sunday. I’m sure my ward will employ some from of spatilomancy (likely a variant of cow pie bingo) to determine which lesson is taught. The only certainty is that it won’t be chapter 15. :angel:

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think most people will be taught from chapter 15 this Sunday. I’m sure my ward will employ some from of spatilomancy (likely a variant of cow pie bingo) to determine which lesson is taught. The only certainty is that it won’t be chapter 15. :angel:

We do them in order, we’re just a month and a half behind everyone else. I saw part of that happen when an assistant to the HPGL decided to do his own thing one week and they just moved the manual lesson to the next week, and another time when a member prepared the wrong lesson and we had the same lesson two weeks in a row. I don’t know what happened the third time. But you triggered a rant with this, apparently because I’m still not over it. Our HPGL is out of town, but both assistants are here. At the beginning of Sunday’s meeting one of them welcomed us all out and asked if anyone was assigned to give the lesson. The response was no, it’s the first Sunday and the presidency does it (normally the HPGL does it himself and it’s almost always in some form or another about home teaching). The assistant repeated, “so no one has a lesson?” No one did. The other assistant (the more on the ball of the two normally) just sat there silently. A member suggested we do the first presidency message for the month (we went around the table and read, did some speculating, I played on my tablet after my turn to read – the usual stuff). It just bugs me that our leadership was more clueless than all but one other guy in the room.

(Love that new word in my vocab – spatilomancy! :thumbup: )

[Anonymous]

OK, so now I’m curious. Since we jumped ahead a bit in my ward, we’ll get this lesson this coming Sunday. It’s going to be taught by a member of the presidency. How did the lesson go in your wards? What stood out? I’d appreciate some thoughts to perhaps direct the lesson a bit, and I’m especially fond of the symbolism of the bread of life and living water in the lesson (especially since I mentioned those very things in a talk).

[Anonymous]

I was asked to teach this lesson yesterday, since the person who was going to teach it couldn’t make it last minute.

I focused first on the historical setting of the Last Supper at Passover (a traditional paschal meal), which the lesson discusses – focusing on the symbolism we see in the original Passover story and how it matches much of our atonement theology.

I then mentioned how much I appreciate the Catholic view of trans-substantiation, even if we don’t take it literally like they do. The idea is to “partake of Christ” – to let him enter us and change us from within to become like him. Except for the literal vs. symbolic difference, that is exactly what we teach as the purpose of the sacrament ordinance.

We then read the following 2005 post from Times & Seasons, which is my favorite Sacrament post ever:

“Ninety-One Words” (http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/02/ninety-one-words/)

We used that as a launching pad for a discussion about who should be allowed to bless the sacrament – or, perhaps more precisely, if disabilities should keep someone from blessing it, and what accommodations would work to allow them to do so. We talked about someone who is mute signing it – and someone who can’t read or memorize having it whispered to them one word or phrase at a time, like we do for people in the temple who can’t remember what they are supposed to say – and how we ought to make sure it doesn’t have to be repeated multiple times if someone makes a mistake, by having someone else squeeze this shoulder, for example, if he makes a mistake again, so he can correct himself immediately and not have to start over. I also told them how much I appreciate our bishopric recently adding a glutton-free option for people who need it.

We ended by talking about the symbolism of a funeral celebration of someone’s life and death – how we all gather as family and friends to honor that person and, when s/he was a good person, vowing to be like him or her. I said how much I love the symbol of the funeral altar where the body and blood of the deceased rests symbolically – and reiterated how much I respect the Catholic view that we have made completely symbolic.

[Author]

Posts