Denied the Sacrament: Do Mormons Misunderstand Grace?

[_Yoda]

You will, so long as to continue on this course Harmony, be a spiritual and intellectual victim of your own self enclosed membrane formed of pride and self pity.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[_Scottie]

The other thing that gets my goat about this is the artificial timelines placed on the repentance process.

Who in the hell has a right to tell me that I won't be fully forgiven until a certain number of weeks/months pass?!? If I feel like I have resolved the sin with God, I should be able to resume the sacrament. I shouldn't have to bide my time and count the weeks until the imperfect Bishop's decree runs out.

[_KimberlyAnn]

First of all, "repentant sinners" are not denied the sacrament as a class. Disfellowshipped or otherwise disciplined members who have lapsed in a more serious manner, yes, but not repentant sinners per se. We are all repentant sinnsers, most of the time, or should be. There have been many times when I've refused the sacrament because I did not feel worthy to accept it. He, after all, who accepts it unworthily, "drinks damnation to his own soul".

In the Church, we have to be sensitive to when not to take the sacrament, as much as to when to take it.

I'm afraid, Kimberly, that your fundamental misunderstanding of Church doctrine strikes again.

Well, perhaps a poorly written, unclear posts strikes again, but I've not a fundamental misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine, Coggs, insofar as Mormon doctrine can even be identified.

I was referring to individuals who confess sin to a bishop and are subsequently denied the Sacrament. Why is it necessary to deny them the sacrament? Haven't they already shown sorrow for their sin?

And who is in the position to know when a sinner is sorry enough? I submit that's between a man or woman and God, and not to be arbitrarily decided by a third party. Only God and the communicant know if communion is being taken unworthily.

Why does the Mormon church begrudge grace to it's members? Why are they so stingy with it? Can it be because they don't understand it? Or is it because their God is a former man who still has the man-like attribute of stingyness and is petty enough to want people to suffer a while before He forgives them? That's how people are, after all, so perhaps Mormon God has a little more "progressing" to do?

KA

[_MishMagnet]

As winterfootsteps said, I also feel it is an act of public humiliation.

At BYU there was a girl on my floor, she had recently come back to the church. For her previous drug use and sexual sin she was off the sacrament for a year I believe (now that I think of it I can't believe she'd been accepted to BYU but that was before the competition got really stiff to be there.) I only remember this because she was dating someone in the ward and she was frantic knowing he was going to pass the sacrament to her that day and would see she had to refuse it.

There are only two Christian churches that I know of who refuse communion to other Christians - that would be the Catholic church and the Mormon church. (I think it's probably likely JW follow this as well but I don't know for sure.)

[_truth dancer]

I'm with you KA.

If there is anyone who would need the HG and the blessings of the sacrament, it is those who are struggling. Why deny them the very thing that would help them?

I think the policy is about shame and power... nothing more.

~dancer~

There's nothing to try Harmony, as you are far too wrapped around your own navel to be reachable through the means of rational discourse.

Really, you are a poster child for Boomer era narcissism gone berserk; almost, one might think to the point of self parody of the very idea.

No one so solipsistically enveloped in their own self importance can possibly be anything then a prey for those interested parties who specialize in preaching to such itching ears. You will, so long as to continue on this course Harmony, be a spiritual and intellectual victim of your own self enclosed membrane formed of pride and self pity.

Spoken like a true disciple of Christ... I'm thinking someone may be damned if they take the sacrament next Sunday. ;-)

[_charity]

What those who complain don't undestand is that repentance isn't just a passing, gosh I'm sorry, now back to life as usual, type of process. Christ suffered real pain for us, to an extant we cannot even begin to comprehend. To take the atonement lightly, is to mock and disrespect the Savior. He suffered such horrible pain in the atonement that it caused him to bleed from every pore, and then the torture and agony of the subsequent beatings and crucifixion for the sins we committ.

Everuone ought to understand that our sins are serious and have serious consequences. Some sins are more serious than others. A person has to demonstrate they really are repentant before they can return to full standing.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

But how do the church decide which punishment to give. Only God should give punishment. How can man judge another man. It should be taught to respect sacrement and if one chooses to disrespect it then that is apon God to later judge that person on disrespect. But really it is all relative.

Pirate.

[Guest]

Well, to play the Mormon believer here, I'd imagine that'd claim that the church leaders speak for God in that regard.

...as in Bishops, Prophets etc. (Not a 'pretend' Prophet - a 'real' Prophet. A 'pretend' one would be silly...)

[cacheman]

What those who complain don't undestand is that repentance isn't just a passing, gosh I'm sorry, now back to life as usual, type of process. Christ suffered real pain for us, to an extant we cannot even begin to comprehend. To take the atonement lightly, is to mock and disrespect the Savior. He suffered such horrible pain in the atonement that it caused him to bleed from every pore, and then the torture and agony of the subsequent beatings and crucifixion for the sins we committ.

Hmmm. My yoke is easy and my burden is light, as long as you're willing to suffer shame, humiliation, and great deal of pain before you pick it up. I'm not complaining (and I don't think anyone else is). Rather, I'm agreeing with KA that there seems to be a disconnect between grace and practice in Mormonism.

Everuone ought to understand that our sins are serious and have serious consequences. Some sins are more serious than others. A person has to demonstrate they really are repentant before they can return to full standing.

To whom do they have to demonstrate repentance, the bishop or the Lord? Have you ever pleaded for forgiveness in prayer and felt that sweet peace of knowing your sins are forgiven? Only God can forgive, and there are no strings attached, other than a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

[_Scottie]

What those who complain don't undestand is that repentance isn't just a passing, gosh I'm sorry, now back to life as usual, type of process. Christ suffered real pain for us, to an extant we cannot even begin to comprehend. To take the atonement lightly, is to mock and disrespect the Savior. He suffered such horrible pain in the atonement that it caused him to bleed from every pore, and then the torture and agony of the subsequent beatings and crucifixion for the sins we committ.

Everuone ought to understand that our sins are serious and have serious consequences. Some sins are more serious than others. A person has to demonstrate they really are repentant before they can return to full standing.

Fine.

But did Jesus put restrictions on who could and could not partake of his flesh and blood? NO!

Who are these men to decide what Jesus would want?

The Jesus I know would welcome the sinner, ever the very bad sinner, to partake of his flesh and blood. Since when does Jesus limit his love to only the righteous?

This is the whole point of the thread. Other religions understand Christ and his message and his will. The LDS faith does not. This is one reason many claim that LDS are not Christians. The LDS simply do not understand Christ.