Tag: sacrament

3 Nephi 18: 8

3 Nephi 18: 8:

“And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.”

In this description we do not have mention of the blessing pronounced upon the wine. Moroni will later clarify that it was blessed and provide us the words of His blessing: “The manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said: O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” (Moroni 5: 1-2.)

Once again it is a “command” to partake. The Lord, knowing how critical this act is for salvation and a testimony before the Father, makes it a command that the disciples drink of it.

Wine was generally either purple or red. Our blood is purple when deprived of oxygen in our veins, and red when filled with oxygen in our arteries. These two colors of blood inside our bodies are akin to the predominate colors of wine.

Once again it is the disciples who partake first. Then, after having partaken, they pass it to the multitude. This illustrates the practice of receiving it before being able to pass it to others. It is not possible to pass along what has not first been received. This is true of all the Lord’s ordinances. It is one of the reasons Alma rebaptized himself the instant he first began to baptize others. (Mosiah 18: 14.) Those who bless are to be sanctified by partaking, then they pass the sacrament as sanctified ministers. Those who are passing are not more important, but rather they are first purified. Then those to whom they minister may receive the ordinance from those who are already clean. 

 
Our modern practice is to pass the sacrament first to the “presiding authority” who is present. The presiding authority (who is always mentioned at the beginning of the meeting) is identified, and then the priests who pass the sacrament bring it to that person first. After he partakes, the sacrament is passed to others. We show great deference to authority in our system. In the Third Nephi events presided over by the Lord, He shows great deference to purity.
The Lord’s commandment to the disciples is followed by the instruction to provide the wine to the multitude “that they might drink.” The ones officiating are “commanded,” whereas the multitude is provided the opportunity to follow by example. Instead of a “commandment” to the multitude, there is an invitation. Clearly the Lord understands the importance of example and respects free will. Those who want to follow Him closest will be told what they must do. Then others are invited to follow of their own free will, and not by compulsion.
 
This systematic progression begins with knowledge of the Lord. They met Him.  They felt the prints in His side, hands and feet. They had no veil separating them from Him. Yet, despite this knowledge, He walks them through ordinances where they qualify to return permanently to His presence. The ordinances are important enough for the Risen Lord to personally conduct and instruct on how to perform them. It is not merely what we believe, nor what we understand, but it is also what we do that matters. We must follow Him and His Divinely ordained ordinances. But to do so we need to perform them as He has instructed.
 
We require a priest to repeat the entire sacrament prayer if he gets a word wrong or adds a word while pronouncing the blessing. In this we show how exact we believe the ordinance is to be followed. That is a proposition with which I wholly agree. We should perform it in every particular as the Lord has instructed. When we do, then the promise of having His Spirit to always be with us is realized.

3 Nephi 18: 3-4

 
“And when the Disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat.  And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.”
 
It is interesting these 12 are consistently referred to as “disciples” and not as “Apostles.” There isn’t a single “Apostle” in the Book of Mormon record. Only “disciples.” There are 12 of them, and they are treated exactly as were the Apostles in Jerusalem. This was a distinction David Whitmer believed to be significant. He disliked the claim to restore Apostles.
 
Well, the disciples are described as “twelve” or “the twelve” in the first references. Then they are called “disciples.” In the printing we have the “D” capitalized. This is an attempt by typesetting to distinguish and make more important these “big-D” disciples from other run-of-the-mill “small-d” disciples. But printers should not trick your mind into accepting the distinction. The Lord leveled these twelve. He made them merely disciples, which is a term applied with equal meaning to any of those who were present on that day.
 
The twelve are taught, then asked to teach. The twelve overhear the Lord break and then bless the bread. The record at this point does not include the words Christ used to bless the bread. Moroni corrects that by adding it in at a later time in the account. Here is what Christ taught when He blessed the bread: “The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it— And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying: O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” (Moroni 4: 1-3.)
 
Notice in the narrative the Lord “commanded that they should eat.” This is an interesting phrasing. It is more than an invitation. It is more than an offering. It is a commandment. Why? What is it about partaking of His sacrament, eating in remembrance of the body of Christ, that must be done? Why is it a commandment?
 
Notice, also, the disciples ate until they were “filled?” Does this mean their stomachs were sated? Does it mean their souls were affected? Does it mean both? How were they “filled” by partaking of the bread?
 
Did they need to be “filled” themselves before they would be permitted to minister to others? Was that why the Lord required them to first partake then be filled before they were commanded to minister to the others?
 
When they ministered to the multitude, what was it they “gave” to the multitude? Was it the bread alone? Was it also something that had “filled” them? What was going on in this ceremony?
 
Why would people who had seen, touched, knelt at the feet of the risen Lord, need to partake of the bread as a “witness” and “remembrance” of Him? How can this add to what they had already received? Why is the sacrament sacred enough to be celebrated by the Lord with people who are in His very presence?
 
Does this change in any respect how you view the sacrament? If so, how?

3 Nephi 18: 1-2

 
“And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his Disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.  And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.”
 
The Lord requires His disciples to bring some bread and wine to Him. It suggests that all 12 of these disciples were asked to retrieve the items.  “While they were gone for bread and wine” suggests that all 12 were involved.  Perhaps there were others, as well. What is to take place next would likely require the effort of more than 12, for it will involve all 2,500 of those present.  (3 Nephi 17: 25.)
 
We know what is coming. But taking this from the perspective of the Nephite audience, what would gathering “bread” foreshadow? Would they associate it with the Table of Shewbread? Would they expect a wave offering? What might their anticipation be as they awaited the arrival of the bread? How might their expectations have prepared them to receive a new ordinance? Would what follows have reaffirmed Christ fulfilled the law of Moses?

Why did the Lord ask for “wine?” What is there in the symbol of “wine” that testifies of Him? We know that in exigencies we can substitute water for wine.  (D&C 27: 2.) But the Lord requested “wine” to be brought for the ordinance He was about to introduce.

 
Section 27:2 was given because the Prophet Joseph was on his way to procure wine from an enemy who wished him harm. The possibility of the wine being adulterated was significant. Since an angel met Joseph on his way and revealed that a substitute could be used, it is likely if wine had been procured it would have been poisoned. The revelation gives precautions to be taken in preparing wine for the sacrament. (D&C 27: 3-4.) The Saints were to prepare their own wine, and know it is safe for use in the sacrament.
 
To conform to this revelation, when the Saints moved west there was a “Wine Mission” established in Southern Utah. The Mormon Wine Mission did not have a formal separate existence, but was within the boundaries of the Cotton Mission of 1861.The Saints made their own wine because of D&C 27: 3-4. If the Saints did not make the wine themselves, they were to use water.  Therefore, to conform to the pattern of the Lord, and the revelation to guard against the mischief of enemies, the wine mission was established to produce wine for the sacrament.
 
Master vintner John C. Naegle was called by Brigham Young to establish and operate a winery in Toquerville and to instruct people in the wine making process. The operation that Naegle presided over built a rock house for production which included a wine cellar underneath large enough to accommodate a wagon and a team of horses and allow them to turn around. In the production house were located the vats, presses, and other production equipment to produce and ferment the wine. They produced 500-gallon casks.  The wine was shipped in smaller 40-gallon casks. It was distributed through ZCMI. Wine making became an important Southern Utah industry. 
 
As President Grant elevated the Word of Wisdom from wise advice to a strict commandment, the practice of using wine in the sacrament came to an end.  Since that time Latter-day Saints have taken a dim view of using wine in the sacrament.
 
Ask yourself, however, which is a more appropriate symbol of the Lord’s supper: water or wine? If water were more so, then why did the Lord not institute use of water among the Nephites in the ceremony He is about to introduce in the verses which follow? Why is the sacrament prayer in both Moroni 5 and D&C 20: 78-79 spoken for “wine” rather than water?
 
Are we morally superior because we use water instead of wine? Have we replaced a powerful symbol with a fanatical rule? Is there such a risk of adulterated or poisoned wine by anti-Mormon suppliers that we are justified in not using wine in the sacrament?
 
Well, the stage is being set by the Lord for the Nephites in this verse. He is gathering attention for an ordinance to be instituted. For His purposes, our Lord asks for bread and wine. We should not impose a false cultural assessment on these words. We should not rewrite them because of our prejudice and bigotry into something other than what they say.

From the symbol of the crushed grape, its blood spilled and then allowed to ferment, comes a symbol of the great work of the Lord. The grape juice changes through fermentation from something which affects the senses. As the Psalmist puts it wine gladdens the heart. (Psalms 104: 15.) His blood was spilled and then grew into a new power intended to gladden the heart of all those who will receive it.
 
The Prophet was overshadowed with foreboding on the day of his death. The reason Stephen Markham was not with them in the jail at the time the final assault took place was because he had been sent to purchase wine by the Prophet. The jailer allowed the wine to return to Joseph, Hyrum, John and Willard, but Steven Markham was excluded. There were only four in the jail when the killings occurred. The reason they sent for wine was to gladden their hearts and lift their spirits from the oppression which hung over them. It was a day of triumph for evil and the spirit of that day was heavy. The wine and John Taylor’s singing were to console them in the terrible moments preceding the attack by 200 conspirators intent on killing Joseph and his brother.

We have become so fanatical about being teetotalers that the story of Joseph’s use of wine on the day of his martyrdom is largely unknown today.  Instead the tale of him refusing to drink whiskey as a sedative for the bone operation in his youth is retold. This is used to reinforce President Grant’s harsh view of the Word of Wisdom.
 
Now, I am advocating nothing. I abstain from all forms of alcohol, possess a temple recommend, and accept the current view of absolute abstinence from any form of alcoholic consumption. But I do not believe it is a virtue. Nor do I believe substitution of water for wine increases the sanctity of the sacrament.  It may do just the opposite. 
 
It is often the case that when men attempt to “improve” on the Lord’s teachings they go backward.

2 Nephi 31: 15

“And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”

The dialogue continues. It is clear the conversation being reported by Nephi is one where both the Son and the Father spoke to Nephi, and contributed to the dialogue. A question was posed about whether Nephi heard this in connection with his vision of Christ’s mortal baptism by John the Baptist. He certainly beheld that event. (1 Nephi 11: 27.) However, the testimony and teaching of both the Father and Son regarding baptism, as reported by Nephi in this final sermon, are separate from that event. They are an independent revelation and explanation to Nephi, where both the Father and Son taught the importance of baptism.

We also have the important condition set out of “enduring to the end” as a requisite for salvation. A while ago there was a question about the concept of “enduring to the end” and the Second Comforter. They are directly linked. You cannot have a great season of concentrated effort, followed by abandonment of purpose. If it is in you to abandon the journey, then you will never qualify to receive these blessings. The Lord knows the intent of the heart. The preceding verses describe how the Lord measures the heart. You cannot deceive Him.

The Lord also knows whether it is in you to “endure to the end.” Whether the end has come is irrelevant to Him. He beholds all things, past, present and future. (D&C 130: 7.)  Therefore, He knows if you are willing to “endure to the end” before your life has been lived.

Enduring to the end, or the fixed purpose to always serve God so that you may always have His spirit to be with you, is essential to salvation. You claim this is your determination every time you take the sacrament. (D&C 20: 76-79.) Whether you take this commitment seriously or not determines whether you are destined for salvation or not. It also determines if you are qualified to receive His personal ministry and comfort.
The Father declares: “Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful.” The reason Christ is the Father’s “Beloved” is directly related to His words being “true and faithful.” That is, Christ only does and says what He knows represents the Father’s will. He has done this “from the beginning.” (3 Nephi 11: 11.) He represents the “Word” of the Father because you can find in Christ’s words and deeds the very word of the Father. (D&C 93: 8.)

It is this that qualified Christ to be the Redeemer. His words are faithful and true. So are Nephi’s. The words are the Lord’s though they were delivered by a man.

Nephi, having been true and faithful in all things, was able to converse with the Father and the Son through the veil and receive from them further instruction, counsel, warning, and comfort because of the things he learned. This is the pattern for all of us.  This is the culminating message of the Gospel of Christ.