DiscussMormonism.com

There is a practice in the Mormon church which to me exemplifies why many people do not consider Mormonism to be Christian, and that practice is denying communion to repentant sinners. In my opinion, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of grace and the Atonement.

Denying the very symbols of forgiveness to people who are sorry enough for sin to go to a Bishop and confess it seems utterly unnecessary and cruel. Does Mormon God not forgive easily? Isn't sorrow and repentance enough for Him, or does He need his pound of flesh, too? From what I understand by studying Christianity in various mainline Christian denominations, most Christians believe God did indeed require a sacrifice for sin, and that sacrifice was Jesus. The idea that there needs to be individual "punishment" for repentant sinners in order for them to receive forgiveness is utterly foreign to the Christians I know.

How can denying the symbols of forgiveness--the flesh and blood of Christ-- to repentant sinners be of any benefit to them at all? Is it necessary in Mormonism to add to the atonement some kind of personal payment for sin in order to be forgiven?

KA

There is a practice in the Mormon church which to me exemplifies why many people do not consider Mormonism to be Christian, and that practice is denying communion to repentant sinners. In my opinion, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of grace and the Atonement.

Tell us all about it Kimberly.

Denying the very symbols of forgiveness to people who are sorry enough for sin to go to a Bishop and confess it seems utterly unnecessary and cruel. Does Mormon God not forgive easily? Isn't sorrow and repentance enough for Him, or does He need his pound of flesh, too? From what I understand by studying Christianity in various mainline Christian denominations, most Christians believe God did indeed require a sacrifice for sin, and that sacrifice was Jesus. The idea that there needs to be individual "punishment" for repentant sinners in order for them to receive forgiveness is utterly foreign to the Christians I know.

How can denying the symbols of forgiveness--the flesh and blood of Christ-- to repentant sinners be of any benefit to them at all? Is it necessary in Mormonism to add to the atonement some kind of personal payment for sin in order to be forgiven?

KA


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.

Coggins7 wrote:

There is a practice in the Mormon church which to me exemplifies why many people do not consider Mormonism to be Christian, and that practice is denying communion to repentant sinners. In my opinion, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of grace and the Atonement.

Tell us all about it Kimberly.

Denying the very symbols of forgiveness to people who are sorry enough for sin to go to a Bishop and confess it seems utterly unnecessary and cruel. Does Mormon God not forgive easily? Isn't sorrow and repentance enough for Him, or does He need his pound of flesh, too? From what I understand by studying Christianity in various mainline Christian denominations, most Christians believe God did indeed require a sacrifice for sin, and that sacrifice was Jesus. The idea that there needs to be individual "punishment" for repentant sinners in order for them to receive forgiveness is utterly foreign to the Christians I know.

How can denying the symbols of forgiveness--the flesh and blood of Christ-- to repentant sinners be of any benefit to them at all? Is it necessary in Mormonism to add to the atonement some kind of personal payment for sin in order to be forgiven?

KA


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 worth 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.

My cousin was elder quorum president and an RM. He has sex with his LDS girlfriend. He was released from his calling and told not to take the sacrament for six months.

My cousin was elder quorum president and an RM. He has sex with his LDS girlfriend. He was released from his calling and told not to take the sacrament for six months.

Yes, and your point is precisely what?

Coggins7 wrote:

My cousin was elder quorum president and an RM. He has sex with his LDS girlfriend. He was released from his calling and told not to take the sacrament for six months.

Yes, and your point is precisely what?

He was a repentant sinner who was denied the sacrament. I think he would understand the term love and grace more if it was shown in practice andthere was not a judgement call on his current life choices, since we are all sick and in need of a physician, mediator and savior. This judgement can also scare others into not confessing which hurts the church in the long run.

He was a repentant sinner who was denied the sacrament. I think he would understand the term love and grace more if it was shown in practice andthere was not a judgement call on his current life choices, since we are all sick and in need of a physician, mediator and savior. This judgement can also scare others into not confessing which hurts the church in the long run.

See above, this has already been explained. The rest of your argument is nothing but special pleading cooked up, like many critic's arguments, just for the occasion.

Taking the sacrament, as well as other Gospel activities, not the least of which is Temple worship, are not rights, they are privileges predicated upon faithfulness. The Lord restricts those privileges when we disdain, ignore, or mock them. When we openly turn against them, he may remove them from us for some time. Allowing someone who violated the law of Chastity in that manner, especially while in the position he was in, to simply continue in his normal Church privileges, in his sacred spiritual privileges with others who have remained faithful while suffering the same temptations and infirmities would make a mockery of the entire purpose of the Church, as well as send the message that sin, and even serious sin, really isn't that big a deal. No matter what you do, your standing and participation in the Church will not change.


I'm sorry, but that's the Church of Harmony, not of Jesus Christ.

In my humble opinion, denying someone of the sacrament is a way of showing their friends/family/community that they have strayed. It causes undo shame on the person as everyone in the row looks down at them wondering why they didn't take the sacrament. They have followed the repentance process by going to the bishop and focusing on getting back on track... a piece of symbolic bread and water isn't going to change that. Let them have the sacrament, what would that hurt?

Again, just my opinion.

Coggins7 wrote:

He was a repentant sinner who was denied the sacrament. I think he would understand the term love and grace more if it was shown in practice andthere was not a judgement call on his current life choices, since we are all sick and in need of a physician, mediator and savior. This judgement can also scare others into not confessing which hurts the church in the long run.

See above, this has already been explained. The rest of your argument is nothing but special pleading cooked up, like many critic's arguments, just for the occasion.

Taking the sacrament, as well as other Gospel activities, not the least of which is Temple worship, are not rights, they are privileges predicated upon faithfulness. The Lord restricts those privileges when we disdain, ignore, or mock them. When we openly turn against them, he may remove them from us for some time. Allowing someone who violated the law of Chastity in that manner, especially while in the position he was in, to simply continue in his normal Church privileges, in his sacred spiritual privileges with others who have remained faithful while suffering the same temptations and infirmities would make a mockery of the entire purpose of the Church, as well as send the message that sin, and even serious sin, really isn't that big a deal. No matter what you do, your standing and participation in the Church will not change.


I'm sorry, but that's the Church of Harmony, not of Jesus Christ.

The problem is with early Church history and those who openly broke the law of chastity and took the sacrament too. Why is there a double standard?

Coggins7 wrote:I'm sorry, but that's the Church of Harmony, not of Jesus Christ.

I'm not so sure about that, Loran. Where in the Bible does it mention a church of Jesus Christ?

KA, I have always had a problem with the LDS policy of denying sinners a chance to renew their covenants with God.

Who needs to renew their covenants more? The perfect church going member, or the struggling sinner?

Not to mention the public display of shame.

Yeah, yeah, nobody is supposed to look. But guess what...everybody does.