The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

This week I taught a Sunday School class on Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  It contains the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  I must admit I have never really understood the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  Actually, from the passage in D&C 84: 33-39 it is pretty clear what the covenant of the priesthood is. This passage clearly outlines what each part of the covenant agrees to do: 

Priesthood Holder: 

v. 33: is faithful in obtaining the two priesthoods, and magnifies their calling
v. 35: receive the Lord, his servants, and the Father

The Lord
v. 33: sanctifies them to the renewing of their bodies
v. 34: they become the sons of Moses and Aaron, and the elect of God
v. 38: They receive the Father's Kingdom and all he has. 

So this is the covenant, and it is a wonderful one with close ties to the temple ordinances (which won't be revealed for several years after this revelation). My question is, what is the "Oath" part of the Oath and the Covenant. 

In the 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, an Oath is "A solemn affirmation , made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. It implies a call for God's vengeance if the declaration is false, or the promise broken." The word calls to mind the Oath of Office taken by the president at the inauguration or a new doctor making the Hippocratic Oath. 

 When does this oath happen and who is the one that makes it? There are two parties in the covenant, and either one could make the oath.  The people can swear to follow Jesus and Jesus can swear to bless them. I think most people assume that it is the priesthood holder that makes the oath. This makes sense since one part of an oath is that there is divine retribution if the oath is broken and verse 42 does outline consequences of breaking the covenant. However, in in the same verse, the Lord seems to be making a kind of oath of blessing, "which I now confirm upon you who are present this day." It is the most ceremonial sounding sentence. If an oath is happening on that day, this is the most likely candidate for the record of the oath. If it is the Lord who swears an oath to bless us if we are obedient to the covenant, that is a comforting thought indeed. 

If it is the priesthood holder who is making the oath, when does that happen?  It is not very satisfying to say it is merely implied (as does the church's Guide to Scriptures "Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood", but satisfying or not, that might be the case).  If it is an actual oath, sworn at a specific time in a specific place, the only time I can think where that happens is in the endowment ceremony in the temple.  At the time of this revelation, the endowment ceremony hasn't yet been revealed, but perhaps this is a foreshadowing.  It is possible that the endowment is synonymous to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  If so, then both women and men take part in that Oath and Covenant.  There are a few more things that suggest this might be the case. The ceremony mentions of both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood, and there used to be consequences mentioned. Even though this is a very satisfying thought, especially for the women in the church, I did not find any church resource that explicitly supports that idea. 

In some ways the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood is straightforward. There are required actions and promised blessing to those who live up the the covenant and curses associated with breaking it. Still, I don't feel like I yet totally understand it. I feel there is more insight to be gained by further study.

Section 77: Three Priests of the Temple

Last week we studied Doctrine and Covenants section 77.  It is a question and answer session with the Lord about the meaning of certain symbols in the book of Revelations. Most of it is pretty difficult to understand. 

There was one thing I heard in one of my podcasts that I wanted to record because I thought it was interesting.  It was in Talking Scripture and it was made by Bryce Dunford (Episode 329, I am quoting from the transcript).  Bryce's big thing is that he sees temple symbolism in everything.  In this context he was talking about the identity of Elias (v. 9)  He pointed out that Elias is the Greek form of Elijah (because in Greek if you end a name with an "A" sound it sounds like a girl's name).  I wanted to record it here so I could have it for future reference. He said, 

"I think Elias is a priestly figure.  Now I'm going to take you liturgically to the temple, and there's three priests.  There's the one who's standing outside, calling everybody to leave Egypt."

"And that typically is personified as Moses.  Then once they leave and they enter into the call or the holy place, there's a priest there that is inviting them to live a higher law.  And that is the Elias figure/"

"And so that's John.  John in the wilderness is an Elias. He is actually called that because he's speaking to people with ears to hear, and he's asking them to live a higher law."

... "And then finally, the third priestly figure is Melchizedek or Jesus.  And that figure is the one that invites us to cross the veil into the father's presence.  And so if you read it that way, John is standing as Elias, and he writing this work, and no one's going to get it except those who have ears to hear." 

I don't know where Bryce got the information about the three priests representing Moses, Elias, and Melchizedek, but I thought it was very interesting.  It helps explain all the different people who are called Elias in the scriptures. 

Doctrine and Covenants 2

Doctrine and Covenants 2 is a variation on Malachi 4: 4-5 that the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith during his visit in 1823.  The D&C version expands the Bible passage quite a bit, focusing on priesthood, promises, and the importance of family ties. On Talking Scriptures with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford they suggested that while the Book of Mormon revealed the Doctrine of Christ, the Doctrine and Covenants restores the importance of temples and temple work.  In every major settlement of the saints, they are commanded to build a temple.  It has always seemed a little crazy to me that they were asked to build temples when they were in the most dire of circumstances, but now I think that, even though God knew they wouldn't be able to build most of the temples he commanded them to build at that time, the fact that he asked them to build them was a way to underscore their importance.  

Of course, the building of temples is related to this chapter.  Joseph didn't know in 1823 anything about temples and the sealing power. He was just a teenage boy, wondering about his standing with God. Yet, even then, God was planting a seed of an idea in his mind that would grow and develop into an understanding of the importance of the temple ordinance culminating in temple marriage. Since Joseph's Smith's time that understanding has continued to develop so that now almost every talk at conference emphases the importance of temple worship. 

Just one more side thought. 

In that episode of Talking Scriptures, Bryce geeks out a little on Malachi 4:2.  It says, (JKV) "But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings."  What Bryce noted is that in Hebrew the "Sun (שֶׁמֶשׁ)of Righteousness" is not masculine, but feminine.  So it should be translated, "Sun of Righteousness" with healing in "her" wings. Bryce didn't mention this, but I am pretty sure the gender switch came because of the Septuagint.  When the King James scholars translated the Old Testament, they primarily used the Greek Septuagint version of it, instead of the original Hebrew, and in Greek, the word sun, ἥλιος, or Helios, is masculine. Anyway, Bryce was wondering who this feminine "sun of righteousness" represented.  Could it be an example of the divine feminine that the Hebrews worshiped before the reforms during the reign of Josiah?  Or could it represent the church, which is often portrayed as a woman, dressed in glorious robes, as in the book of  Revelation (19: 7-8). The idea of having "healing in her wings" makes me think of the image of the hen gathering her chicks under her wings (Luke 13: 34-35).  Or it could just be that the word, "sun" is feminine in Hebrew and masculine in Greek, and the gender isn't really relevant to the scripture.  Who knows?

Sermon at the Temple

 In this week's chapters, Jesus teaches the people of Bountiful a version of the Sermon on the Mount.  Two of the podcasters I listened to talked about how this sermon can be seen as a temple ordinance.  In modern temple ordinances the participant beholds the creation of the world, the fall, and then progresses through the Telestial and Terrestrial to the Celestial glory where they are admitted into the presence of the Lord. I believe they have convinced me that that is what is happening here. 

The destructions that occur at the time of Jesus' death represent a kind of anti-creation.  Earth is returning to the unordered state it was in in the beginning of the creation. It is becoming "tohu va-vohu" without shape and void (Gen 1:2)  Cities are burned, buried, or drown.  Smooth ground is broken up, and darkness hangs over everything.  Then after the destruction, they hear the voice of the Lord through the darkness, just as in Gen 1:3.  

The time before the destructions represent the Telestial existence.  People, lead by the Gadianton Robbers, were breaking all of the 10 commandments; lying, murdering, steeling, etc. Even government had broken down (3 Nephi 7) and people willfully rebelled against God.  The destructions purify the people of the more wicked elements, and what we have left are the terrestrial people. They were spared because "ye were more righteous than they" (3 Nephi 9:13) but they still have a way to go, since Jesus completes the verse, "will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?"

How are they to do it?  What do they need to do to repent?  The answer comes in the Sermon at the Temple, 3 Nephi 12-15.  They are given the Beatitudes, and then a section of  "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time... but I say unto you..." and other sayings that are intended to move them from the Terrestrial to a Celestial frame of thought. 

After the sermon, Jesus is about to let them go home and rest, but they beg him to stay, so he goes around healing people. He also gives the 12 Disciples the Melchizedek priesthood.  All of these have modern temple analogs. 

It is not the most obvious correlation, and might be a bit of a stretch, but if we think of the temple ceremony as a symbolic progression from the Telestial to the Celestial, I think we can make an interesting case. Thanks to Jack Welsh and Bryce Dunford for talking about this idea on their podcasts this week.

King Benjamin Ends his Speech

 This week we read Mosiah 4-6. In this section King Benjamin continues his instruction about how to show love to God by being obedient and serving others (Mosiah 4). He urges them to humble themselves, repent, and call upon God  (4:9-10). King Benjamin then proclaims that they have taken upon themselves the name of "Children of Christ" (5:8), and he urges them to retain in their memory the name of Christ (5:12). 

In the past when I have read these chapters, it didn't feel like a story of something that really happened.  Two things made it seem like a folk retelling, or an exaggeration of what must have actually happened: 1. That they all fell to the earth when they heard his words (4:1) and that they all quoted, in unison, a long speech about their acceptance of the words of King Benjamin (5:2-5). Do people really fall down to the ground when they hear a moving speech?  Do they all spontaneously say the same thing when moved by the spirit? Sure, maybe they did, but it seemed really unlikely. I figured that some significant confirmation of faith had happened at the temple in Zarahemla, but that over the years the story of it had been rewritten in a stylized way. \

This time as I was reading through it, I had a different perspective.  Up until three months ago I had been serving as an ordinance worker at the Provo temple.  In the temple ordinance patrons do stand up, sit down and quote things in unison. Because of that perspective, it began to seem likely to me that Mosiah 1-6 recounts a set ceremony, not a chance occurrence.  People have come to the temple to have a specific experience/ordinance that have prepared for.  They have memorized their parts and their lines ahead of time and come ready to participate in the believe-affirming ceremony with their families. Whether this was an annual ceremony or whether this was a special ceremony, ordained by King Benjamin, to reunify his people after a long period of warfare, I don't know, but it seems obvious to me that what happened at the temple that day was scripted. 

Some might think this point of view removes the sense of the miraculous from the event, and thus makes it less significant. I mean, it would seem pretty amazing if people just spontaneously started saying a long speech in unison because they were all moved upon by the Spirit at the same time. I think, however, it is more valuable for us in this day to see this as an equivalent to our modern Temple ceremonies.  The fact that ceremony was scripted instead of spontaneous does not mean that it was not meaningful and impactful on the people present. Their recommitment to believe, serve, and obey could be just as sincere even if it was preplanned and anticipated. On the contrary, if this was an annual event, the repetition of the ceremony would tend to make it more lasting and impactful than if it was a one-time spontaneous result of the outpouring of the spirit. 

The leaders of the church have been emphasizing the important of attending the temple lately. I would estimate that at least 3/4 of the talks last conference were about temple covenants. I think the story of King Benjamin's speech at the temple is a reminder and a encouragement for us to go to the temple prepared to recommit ourselves to keeping our temple covenants. If we are doing it right we should go to the temple prepared to receive a "mighty change" so that we have "no more disposition to do evil" (5:2). As I have recently experienced, the spiritual high we feel at the temple tends to fade with time.  Aren't we glad we can return and seek to feel that sense of the "infinite goodness of God" again and again. (5:3)

The Doctrine of Christ

 This week we finish the book of 2 Nephi, and in so doing say goodbye to the prophet Nephi, son of Lehi.  One of my goals this year in my scripture study was to pay attention to mentions of the Savior in the Book of Mormon.  If you have been following my blog, you will know that I have been tracking how much Nephi and Lehi knew about Jesus at different times in their lives and travels.  When Lehi first saw a vision of God, he saw the Messiah, but didn't know who he was. (1 Nephi 9-10). Gradually, over the next decades, Nephi gradually learned that Jesus would come, suffer for our sins, die, and be resurrected (2 Nephi 11).  By the end of his life, Nephi understands the whole "doctrine of Christ".  Moreover, he has seen a vision of the future of not only his descendants, but also of the gentiles. 

It is interesting that Nephi seems to get this very vital information primarily after his people have separated from the Lamanites. I think we can guess that, by Nephi's death, the Lamanites are still trying, in some way or other, to live the Law of Moses.  We know that Nephi took that brass plates with him when he fled from his brothers, so it is possible that by this time they have already strayed from the worship they had experienced in Jerusalem and are now fully integrated in the culture and belief of the  native peoples of the promised land. In either case, they probably know very little if anything about Jesus and the atonement. As evidence of this, later when Ammon preaches to the king of the Lamanites, he doesn't have a clue about Christian worship. 

Here I have a confession. I also didn't really understand the Doctrine of Christ until recently.  Oh sure, I knew that 4th Article of Faith and the first four principles of the Gospel, but when I went to the temple made covenants during the Endowment, I wasn't sure what I was covenanting to when I promised to obey the Law of the Gospel.  I cast my mind for a meaning and decided that the Law of the Gospel probably referred to the "higher law" preached in the sermon on the mount. This was not a bad assumption.  Jesus did, after all, preach that sermon to both the old and new world saints, so it must have been important.  It wasn't until they changed the wording of the Endowment in February 2023 that I found out that the "Law of the Gospel" is the same as the "Doctrine of Christ" explained in the last 3 chapters of 2 Nephi.  I admit that it was a bit of a relief.  I understand that the Sermon on the Mount was given as much to comfort suffering saints as to encourage them to live a higher standard, but it still sets a pretty high bar for behavior that I knew I was daily falling short of. When I heard the new changes to the Endowment, I thought, "Is that really all it is: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to covenants and enduring to the end?  I can do that." Of course, those are no small things, but they seem more attainable then never getting angry, or being a light to the world, or plucking out my right eye if it offends me. (Matthew 5: 22-30)  So yay for the new changes to the temple ceremony and yay for the last three chapters of 2 Nephi.

The Baptism of Jesus

 This week for Come Follow Me we read three accounts of the ministry of John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3, Mark 1, and Luke 3.  I think one of my main themes this year will be how New Testament writers purposely referenced the Old Testament in their writings.  This is never more evident than in the story of John the Baptist.  There are so many references, (and it is already 9:00 pm) that I won't go into a lot of details about each one.  I will just mention some I found or heard of this week. 

John is like Elijah: John's mode of clothing, in camel hair and leather, reminds ancient readers of Elijah in the Old Testament.  (Kings 1:8).  Elijah also had a connection with the Jordan River, where John was baptizing, because he parted the river by smiting it with his mantle.  They both lived in the wilderness and ate wild food. Elijah, like John, was a great prophet who cried repentance, and both men were followed by an even greater prophet who did more miracles.(Elijah-Elisha, John-Jesus)

The River Jordan: When the children of Israel fled Egypt, the wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and then entered into the promised land by crossing the river Jordan. After they crossed the river they entered the Promised Land and became a great nation. Egypt is often the symbol for both captivity and sinfulness. I think the gospel writers here are using the location of the story to show that forsaking sin and entering the waters of the Jordan (in baptism) marked the beginning of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, just as the house of Israel's escaping Egypt and crossing the Jordan signaled the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel.

Baptism in the Old Testament: Jews didn't have to be baptized to be considered part of the house of Israel.  They were part of the house of Israel because they were descendants of Abraham.  The reason people would have been baptized in ancient Israel was because they were Gentiles converting to Judaism, or if they had committed a serious sin and needed to go through ritualistic cleansing. (e.g. Lev 15:16-18 or 16:15) John knew that Jesus was already Jewish, so he didn't need to be baptized as a convert, and John knew Jesus was free from any serious sin.  That is why John asked Jesus why he had come to be baptized.  By being baptized Jesus was establishing a new law.  According to the new law,  someone could come into the Kingdom of heaven by being obedient and making a covenant to keep the commandments, whether or not they were a descendant of Abraham. 

The Sign of the Dove: A Dove first appears in the story of Noah.  Noah sent a dove to see if the waters of the flood had withdrawn. Later, doves were mentioned as acceptable offerings when a petitioner couldn't afford to offer a larger animal as a sacrifice.  In the first story, the Dove represented the hope of salvation after a long time of destruction and being "adrift".  Jesus was the hope of salvation after Israel had been adrift after the Babylonian captivity.  Doves were considered clean and were sacrificed (e.g. Lev 12:6) as sin offerings to make people clean.  Jesus was like a sinless dove that would be sacrificed as a sin offering. 

One more thing I mentioned to my primary class.  It has always seemed strange to me that God would send a dove as the sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost. It just seemed random...a bird flying down and landing on Jesus. Then last Friday as I was doing ordinance work in the temple, I put my hands on someone's head to give the initiatory prayers, and I thought of how my hands were kind of in the shape of birds wings, landing on the head of the person receiving the ordinances.  If you have your eyes closed, hands landing on your head, and a bird landing gently on your head... it doesn't feel that different. As a priesthood holder gently lays their hands on someone's head to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost, is it reminiscent of the dove descending on Jesus as a sign that he had received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Psalms as Temple Litergy

One of the podcasts I listen to each week is Talking Scriptures. Their main take on the Psalms is that they are songs that were meant to accompany an annual temple ritual in ancient Israel.  This is an interesting idea to me because I have recently become an ordinance worker in the Provo Temple and have been working hard to try to memorize temple ceremonies. Of course, the ancient temple ceremonies are not the same as the modern ones, but there are some similarities. 

In the podcast , Bryce Dunford talks about the different stages of the ancient temple ritual.  He never lists them explicitly, but these are the ones I picked up on. 

1. approaching the temple in an attitude of repentance

2. being washed, anointed, and clothed in temple clothing

3. learning about God as the creator of the universe

4. the battle between God and the powers of darkness

5. people make covenants of loyalty and obedience to God

6. God promises that the people can become kings and priests.

7. the people are brought back into the presence of God.

8. they live with God forever. 

 

I decided to go through the Psalms and find passages I think might refer or be connected to each of these stages of the temple ceremony.

1. approaching the temple in an attitude of repentance

Psalm 32: 5 "I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and though forgavest the iniquity of my sin."

2. being washed, anointed and clothed in temple clothing. 

Psalm 26:6  "I will wash mine hands in innocency; so will I compass thine alter, Oh Lord."

also

Psalm 18:32 "It is God the girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect."

and

Psalm 23:5 "thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over."

3. learning about God as the creator of the universe.

Psalm 8: 3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of they fingers, the moon and stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" Also Psalm 29 and Psalm 33

4. the battle between God and the powers of darkness

Psalm 10:15-16 "Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man.; seek out his wickedness til thou find none. The Lord is King for ever and ever:"

5. people make covenants of loyalty and obedience to God.

Psalm 63:1-4 "O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is....Because thy loving kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.  Thus will I bless thee while I live; I will lift up my hands in thy name."

6. God promises that the people can become kings and priests

Psalm 2:6-11 "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion...Be wise no therefore, oh ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."

also

Psalm 110: 4 "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek."

8. the people are brought back into the presence of God

Psalm 27:4 "One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple."

9. they live with God forever.

 Psalm 61:4-5 "I will abide in they tabernacle for ever; I will trust in the covert of thy wings. For thou, O God, hast heard my vows; thou hast given me the heritage of those that fear him."

 

These are only suggestive. They don't prove that these were used as temple text, they only suggest that they may have been used.  Still, it was an interesting study to find them all.

Exodus 24

The passage I decided to read in Hebrew this week is Exodus 24.  It is an amazingly transcendant account of when the Elders of Israel were admitted into the presence of the Lord and saw him, with a human shaped body, standing on a pavement of sapphire (24:10).  Not only that, but they seem to have had some kind of meal with Him (24:11).  It is no wonder that the Lord had Joseph Smith do a careful reading of the Bible before revealing to him the modern temple ceremonies.  Even though the details have changed over time, the pattern is there. 

One pasage that all the podcasts I listened to this week kind of apologized for was Exodus 24:8.  "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning these words."".  All the podcasters mentioned that this seems really strange, and off-putting to modern readers and then gave reasons why it would have significance to ancient people.   They are right, of course.  Being sprinkled with blood would probably not make any modern person comfortable. We understand the symbolism of blood when we take the sacrament, and we have read lots of scriptures that say we are cleansed by the blood of Christ, but actually getting blood on us seems gross.  

I was thinking about this as I read the passage in Hebrew.  Reading in Hebrew somehow helps me see the people I am reading about as real people, part of a real culture. I was thinking about all the Hebrew women, saying, "oh great! how am I going to get that stain out?"  In modern times, when I get a blood stain on cloth, I rub in some laundry detergent and then add a little bleach.  It takes effort, but the stain comes out.  In ancient times they weren't carrying around bleach. When the people got sprinkled with blood, it probably would have resulted in a permanent stain. Then I was thinking, how many changes of clothes did these people have? Maybe one?  Then the light went on.  When the people made the covenant with the Lord, Moses stained their clothes with blood, so that after that almost everytime they got dressed, they would see the marks on their clothes and remember the covenant that they had made.  Hummm... sound familiar?  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, people who have received their temple blessings commit to wear special underclothing which reminds them daily of their temple covenants.  What Moses/the Lord was doing here was making "instant" temple garments.

The Sacrament

The bishop (local congregational leader) has asked me to give a talk in church in October.  I am thinking I will use as my topic the Sacrament (like Catholic communion).  The Sacrament has incredibly rich symbolic meaning. Of course, the center of the Sacrament symbolism is the Savior.  Jesus established the ordinance during his last supper with his disciples. "Take, eat, this is my body..." (Matt 26: 26).  He clearly stated that the bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood that he was about to sacrifice for the sins of the world. 

So, what does it mean that we eat and drink emblems of Christ's body and blood?  

In one sense, by taking the bread and wine (or water in my church) we acknowlege that we are each a part of the need for an atonement.  "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) and cannot be justified without the atonement and grace of Jesus.  I am a sinner, the person sitting next to me is a sinner, the person on the stand is a sinner.  We are all equal in our need of the grace of God so we all partake of the Sacrament.

But, also, by taking of the emblems of the sacrament, we also accept the grace of the atonement that is offered us. Jesus said, "I am the bread of life.  He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thurst." Just as bread feeds our physical body, God's grace through the atonement can nourish our spirits. Each person who partakes the bread and water can be strengthened.  The Sacrament reminds us that we are all both condemned as sinners, and enabled to become saints. 

During Covid-19 restrictions members in my church were permitted to administer the sacrament in our homes.  For me and others I have talked to, this was a very special and sacred experience.  But this is not the ideal. I don't think the church will ever perminantly do away with coming together to take the sacrament. 

Meeting together to partake of the sacrament was a test of faith for early saints in the Holy Land.  Jews were raised to be very careful not to eat with Gentiles.  Their dietary laws prevented them from even using plates and utensils that might have touched foods that were considered "unclean".  That is one reason why the Lord had to give Peter the vision of the unclean animals (Acts 10: 9-16) before he was convinced it was OK to share the gospel and a meal with gentiles.  As the gospel spread to the Gentiles, the practice of meeting together to share the sacrament helped to unify the Jewish members and Gentile members

In the Book of Mormon the people who were witnesses to Christ's visit to the America "did meet together oft to partake of the bread and wine, in rememberance of the Lord Jesus." (Moroni 6:6)  It is a great unifying ordinance.  Each Sunday church members all over the world take the sacrament in the same way after hearing the same prayers.  The connection also goes back through time.  The Book of Mormon records that the sacrament prayers were the same then as they are now.  With one ordinance we have a shared experience with all the saints from the present and from the past. 

So why is it important that saints come together to partake of the sacrament?  By partaking of the sacrament which symbolizes the body of Christ, we acknowlege that we are part of the Body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:12-30.)  What does that mean?  Christians generally agree that it was important for Jesus to obtain a physical body so that he could accomplish his work on this earth.  What did he do with his physical body?  He reached out and touched the unclean (Matt 8:3)  He fed the hungry (John 8: 1-11).  He blessed the sick (Luke 4:40) He comforted those that were mourning (John 11 32-35) and he cleansed the temple (John 2:15).  Now that Jesus assended into heaven we are his physical body on earth.  We are supposed to do the same kind of things.  We are supposed to do what he would do with his physical body if he were here.  We are his body, the Body of Christ.

By taking the sacrament we acknowlege all that; that we are all sinners,  that we are all blessed with grace through the atonement, that we are all the Body of Christ, and that we all have the responsibility to do what he would do if he were here.  Acknowleging that together unifies us and equalizes us.  It also strengthens and enables us to keep the commandments and always remember him as we promise we will do.  And God promises that if we do, and as we do, his spirit will be with us and help us. 

So there are some thoughts about the Sacrament.  There are even more symbols, but this is starting to be a long post, and so I will stop there.