The LORD'S Supper Part 1

Uh You're entering. Outer brightness How can you look upon this end there with such love? Grace overflows my cove. All of my soul and my heart have been revived. In you, I'm satisfied.

The fourth LDS article of faith states: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second, repentance, third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. In our previous episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast, we each discussed our past. Experiences as Latter-day Saints related to the necessity of baptism and the sacrament, what most Christians refer to as the Lord's Supper, communion, etc., whether differences in viewpoints on the sacraments or ordinances disrupt the unity of the Christian church, and how we now prepare and receive the Lord's Supper and baptism as born-again Christians. In this episode, we would like to take a closer look at the subject.

As full-time missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, every during every weekly meeting, at least, for those of us who are young enough to use preach my gospel, sorry, Paul, we recited the following. Our purpose is to invite others to come into Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. We were taught and we taught others that, without question, except for those who pass away before the age of eight, the age of accountability, water, baptism, and confirmation were absolutely necessary ordinances that everyone must receive from a Latter-day Saint priesthood holder to be eligible to enter the celestial kingdom, the highest of the three degrees of heaven. There were no ifs, ands, or buts. If someone did not receive the restored gospel, which included faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, he or she must receive these ordinances by proxy in the LDS temple.

There was just no getting around it. In previous episodes, we have described our personal journeys out of the LDS church and toward biblical Christianity. In continuing our faith journeys, one topic that was of particular concern to me was what water baptism is, what it signifies, who must receive it. and whether it is still an absolute requirement for eternal life. The same was true for the sacrament.

Why do Christians do it? Do they believe the same things that I did about it? Does God do anything in the sacrament or is it a memorial only? During this episode, we hope to address some of these questions and describe how we have grown in our understanding of scripture concerning water baptism and the Lord's Supper. We will also dive into passages that we often used as LDS missionaries to demonstrate that we must receive baptism in order to be saved and reconsider whether this is still the case.

While we three may have differing views on these topics, we recognize that there is room for disagreement based on the teachings of the Word of God. We all recognize this to be an important topic and that baptism and communion are commanded to be observed in Christ's church by the Lord Himself. While we may not understand them in the same way, we acknowledge that we are brothers in Christ's church and that we each are seeking to follow him, to be conformed to his image, and that we must be willing to be teachable. A Christian's journey never ends, and we hope that this discussion will be enlightening and help you along our continuing faith journey. Throughout this episode, the words ordinance Ordinances and sacraments may be used interchangeably depending on our own personal beliefs, while recognizing that these terms are not always synonymous.

We also recognize that some traditions view a differing number of total sacraments or ordinances, but following the previous episodes titled What About Sacraments or Ordinances, we will be limiting our discussion to the historic Protestant view that the sacraments or ordinances comprise baptism by water and the Lord's Supper. For an extended discussion on this, we recommend listening to these previous episodes. Thanks for joining us, Fireflies. Before we jump in here, I want to just acknowledge the fact that. This uh This topic, right, where we're talking about the sacraments, has been the longest that we've spent on any one topic so far.

At the end of it, it's probably going to end up being a six-part episode where each part is about an hour long. Which I think is interesting. And I just wanted to get your thoughts, guys, before we jump back in tonight on why you think that is. Is it tied to the fact that for Latter-day Saints, these topics will be very important as they make a transition? Or is it that we just should never let Matthew write an episode guide again?

Which is it?

Well, I mean, we already tried to take him off the list for writing episodes. And I think it was subconscious, but now that you mention it. Uh yeah. No, I'm being serious though. I think that I had to get that joke in there, guys.

Um, but being serious, though, I think I think you've done a great job in prep here, Matthew. And I think it, I think these topics are important, right? When we have conversations with Latter-day Saints, um, One of the first things they go to is, you know, is baptism necessary? Right. Right.

So I think it's good that we've kind of dug into these topics really in depth.

So I just wanted to make that point as part of the episode. Yeah. Oh, no. Go ahead. Go ahead, Michael.

Yeah. I mean, just in light of what you were saying there, Paul, I think it is really important to talk about these subjects because for one thing, Latter-day Saints need to see that they're not the only ones that take baptism and communion seriously. That there is a lot of thought that people take into account with that. But also, not saying that if they were to leave Mormonism and become Protestant, that that necessarily means that they have to throw out everything. There's definitely still a value in those.

And they can step right into that. And I think that's why that's important for us to talk about. Yeah, yeah, that's good. Matthew? Yeah, I was going to say that the reason why I wanted to talk about these passages is partially what you touched on, Paul, is that I think Latter-day Saints, or when, okay, I should say, when I was Latter-day Saint, I didn't know that Christians really.

Dug into the Bible so deeply as they do in regards to church life, in regards to officers of the church, the sacraments, like all, you know, basically the whole religious walk of the Christian life is based on scripture. And, you know, I kind of thought of it as like, well, you know, they have a lot of really good intentions and they probably read the Bible and really like it, but they probably follow these things just because it's kind of like tradition. You know, it's passed down from their church leaders and their church leaders before them. They're like, this is just the way we do it. You know, so I thought it was kind of just like a passing down of tradition.

But then when you really study the Bible and they say, well, this is why we believe this. This is why we. You know, we only do it this way. And you know, there's still differences of opinion on certain passages, but. They're all diving into the text and they're trying to honor the Lord by doing it the way He wants us to do it.

And so that really surprised me. And also, just due to the fact that one of the last things that I held on to as a Latter-day Saint was like, okay, the reason why our church is true and theirs is not is we have the only correct ordinances, the only efficacious ordinances. And that's what's going to get me into the kingdom of heaven. You know, like, that's what's going to get me through the gate: my baptism, my confirmation, my endowment, my priesthood, all that.

So then when I realized that we can't have a personal and direct connection with God. Like, I think Michael had similar feelings in the past where he's explained. It's like, okay, well, if I can go directly to God and I don't need these ordinances and this priesthood is not what I thought it was, then it's like, well, then what purpose do they serve? You know, why am I in the LDS church? You know, it's kind of like really confusing.

Like, that was probably one of the last threads that held me into the church.

So. The idea of leaving it is scary to Latter-day Saints because they're like, Well, baptism is so important to me. My baptism is important. You know, I enjoy taking the sacrament every week, it's an important part of my life, and I can't give that up. And then, if we can show them, okay, well, you don't have to give it up, you just have to have a Yeah.

and faithful view of these things, and you can partake of them. Maybe not every week, but you can partake of them in a church setting. And it is part of a Christian life.

So, you know, it's like it's not just leading Latter-day Saints out of their church, it's what we lead them into. And we're trying to create that bridge. If all we do is say, if all we do is burn down the village, you know, then they'll come out running and screaming, but they won't have anywhere else to go.

So it's more about Building a bridge from point A to point B to where they can feel comfortable and safe, taking that plunge and leaving the church and finding a good church to worship.

So, sorry, that was a really long-winded answer that I wasn't planning on being that long-winded, but do you see what I mean? It just seems like that's a really key point of what my old testimony, my former testimony was: the ordinances of the LDS church. And so explaining it like, okay, in the Bible, this is how they are from a biblical perspective, then, you know, maybe that'll help some Latter-day Saints realize where there may be some issues there or maybe some differences. Yeah, I think that's a good response for sure. I really do think it's important that we've spent the time here on this topic.

And that's why I brought it up. You know, when I was editing the other day and kind of looking at how many hours of this topic we were going to have, I thought, wow, that's really... telling about how important this is in the transition.

So I think it's good. And just going through the passages of scripture too, especially on baptism, because how many times do they point out Acts 2, 38, 39 and John 3, 5? It's like, well, you can't get to heaven without baptism. And what's really interesting too is Mormons. They hammer in the baptism so heavily.

They act like if they can prove that one thing, that somehow it's going to prove that their entire church is true. You know, it's like saying if I just get to home base and playing baseball, then I've gotten a home run. And that's simply not true. You know, there just isn't enough evidence for the rest of. everything that they You know, teach that there are temple ordinances that you have to go through and an endowment, and that you have to be married and sealed.

And so just Just going off of that one thing, baptism, which they focus so heavily on, it really isn't accomplishing what they think it is. Yeah, yeah, it's great. All right, let's jump into this week. All right.

So, having discussed water baptism, let's move on to the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Table, or Communion. As a Latter-day Saint, what did the sacrament in the bread and water mean to you? What purpose did it serve, and why was it done every single week? And how has your view changed and why?

So maybe we can wait.

Well, I don't know. I maybe we can talk about our views now, um, and how it's changed. It's however you guys want to do it. It's an open discussion.

So, uh, whoever wants to go first. Um, I'll I'll go ahead and and tackle this one.

So, as a Latter day Saint, I viewed it as being a hundred percent. Symbolic of the shed blood and flesh of Christ on our behalf. I mean, the sacrament prayers even say that we are taking, you know, the bread and water, that we may always remember him, that we may have his spirit to be with us.

So it's just. A symbol to help us remember Jesus. And we took it every week. Because we needed to renew our covenants. That is what was hammered into us the whole time I was growing up.

And it's interesting now because I'll see Latter-day Saints will have kind of one of two theologies for what that actually means to renew their covenants. And so one of those is kind of like how you renew your car insurance. You know, when you sin, it actually breaks. Actually, it goes away, so you're not covered anymore. And so you've got to renew it so that you will be covered again.

And then the other thought is kind of more like a wedding vowel renewal. It's like, you know, the wedding or the marriage never stopped. But you can renew those vows, and it's just something that you can do. The problem with thinking about it in terms of like, A wedding vow renewal. Yeah.

That basically, you are starting to believe in eternal security at that point. And I'm seeing a lot of Latter-day Saints these days kind of taking that kind of a position. But for me, You know, I believed that by the time I was taking the sacrament every week, I was in sin and I was no longer in Christ. And I think my biggest fear every week was that Christ would come back on Saturday. before I had the chance to take the sacrament.

And then Sunday would come, and I would take the sacrament, and I'd believe that it cleansed me. And I thought, okay, now would be a really good time for Christ to come back. And so I constantly was just living in fear, you know, Wednesday through Saturday. Of the second coming happening because I just never felt like I was like I was worthy and I needed that sacrament to cleanse me again.

So that's how I viewed it at the time. Of course, now I believe that I've been justified, I've been forgiven of all sins, past, present, and future. And so I don't have that same fear on Saturdays. I actually enjoy my Saturdays a lot more now than I did as a Latter-day Saint. And so to me, the sacrament is really, it's a.

It shows me the gift of God's love and his grace, you know, in that he died for me while I was still a sinner, while I was still rebellious, and that gift was still offered to me. And that's how I view it now: that it is something that I can take to not only remember Christ, but. But to partake. In that gift, you know, in the divine gift that I've been given. Yeah, I was thinking about how you talked about how it's like a renewal of a marriage covenant.

It's interesting if you think about it like that, because it's not really the same, at least as how I saw it as a Latter-day Saint, because when you renew a marriage covenant, it's not like you need to renew the marriage covenant or else it lapses. Do you know what I mean? Whereas when you're taking the sacrament, you need to constantly renew that, or else your baptism basically becomes. Ineffective because the baptism was meant to cleanse your sins.

Well, if you keep racking up these sins and don't take the sacrament, then it's almost as if like being baptized did nothing for you. You know what I mean?

So it's interesting just to think about that because I think I've thought about that too. I thought about it as like a marriage covenant, you know, with God and it's like renewing it every week, you know, to remember Him. But when you really think about it and break it down, it doesn't quite fit, I don't think. No, I don't think so either, especially when you know the bishops, you know, if you confess certain sins to a bishop, they'll tell you not to take the sacrament, you know, and it's like, okay, like you have to have a certain amount of worthiness to even take it, and yet it's not supposed to be taken unworthily. And so it kind of ends up putting you into this conundrum sometimes.

But I don't think you can view it in the LDS church as just being like a wedding vow renewal. Because there's actually, you know, this sense all the time that it's been broken. You know, you've broken your covenants. That is the worst thing that you can possibly do in the church. You know what?

I didn't think of this until now, and I should have, but it would have actually been really nice to really break down the. The prayer that they use in the sacrament and talk about that because it seems to me at least that the bread and the water kind of contradict each other. It seemed like the bread talks about, you know, are you living the commandments? Are you doing this? Are you doing that?

And then the water says, Do you desire to keep the commandments? You know, and so that's what I held to as a Latter-day Saint. It's like, well, I have the desire. I'm not doing it perfectly, but at least I have the desire.

So that means I can take it.

So I don't know. Did you guys want to talk more about that? Or is that kind of going off on a tangent? I don't know. It might be an interesting point to talk about.

I think it'd be super cool to talk about it. I mean, I kind of didn't think about it either until I was quoting kind of quoting that prayer, but I totally forgot about the prayers. And I think it'd be cool to kind of look over them. What do you think, Paul? Is that going too far?

I mean, we have a lot of questions already kind of formulated, but since Mormons talk about it every week, you know, it's bludgeoning their brain. It'd be cool to talk about it. Yeah, let's do it. But let me get my thoughts in here before. We go there.

So, Michael and Matthew, you both touched on a couple of things that were common to my experience as well.

So, like, as a latter, when I was a Latter-day Saint, I viewed the the sacrament or or Lord's Supper as Um An ordinance done in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice, right? That that Remembrance is what you talked about, Michael, coming from the rote sacrament prayers. The bread was just a symbol of Christ's body, and the water was just a symbol of His blood. There was no transubstantiation or anything like that taking place, fully symbolic. And Michael, as you noted, the purpose was as a renewal of the baptismal covenant.

I liked what you said about, you know, the two different ways to view that as like an insurance renewal versus like a wedding vow renewal. But my understanding was that it was intended to be a time of reflection on whether or not I had lived worthily of Jesus' sacrifice in the prior week or whether I had sinned. And if I'm going to be honest, Um For me, in my experience as a Latter-day Saint, it was a time of mental self-flagellation. Because I knew every week that had passed that I had not been perfect, right? And that's kind of what you're presented as needing to be.

right if you've if you've sinned in some way then then you have to renew that covenant as as michael was saying and and and if you sinned in some way then that covenant made that baptism is broken um and so it was a time that i i would beat myself up over every little way that that i'd sinned the week before and fallen short and and i would repent and i would covenant to try to be better in the coming week but but honestly it was a time of self-condemnation for me it wasn't it wasn't an enjoyable experience and so to contrast that with with kind of how i view it now um i view the lord's supper now as an act of worship it's a time of praise to To my Lord for what he's done in taking away my sin and canceling the record of debt that stood against me and nailing it to the cross. And I think it's fascinating to throw in a note of contrast here.

So I just paraphrased. Colossians 2:14, and I don't remember ever hearing that passage quoted during my time in the LDS church. Maybe my memory is bad, but. I did a search on the LDS Gospel Library app on my phone for Colossians 2:14. And the results are that if you search the abbreviation of call 214.

COL 214, you get a total of four hits, which are all references to the LDS Bible Dictionary that reference other passages in Colossians that have either the number two or the number 14 associated with them. Man. When I search for Colossians 2.14 with Colossians spelled out, zero results, nothing in general conference addresses. Nothing in LDS Church magazines. When I go on the LDS Church website on my laptop, so not the mobile app, and I search for Colossians 2.14 in quotes for direct hits, I only get three results.

One is a link to Colossians chapter 2 in the Bible. You'd expect the passage to be there. One is explicitly, is inexplicably a link to Colossians chapter 1. I couldn't figure out why it's linking you to Colossians chapter 1 when you're looking for 2.14. The third, Is a link to chapter 45 of the current New Testament manual for LBS College students.

And that manual does discuss the passage in some detail, though it focuses on the forgiveness of the Colossian saints' past sins against the law of Moses and talks about how, you know, through the atonement, our sins may be forgiven. And so my memory served me well that that passage had never been quoted, at least in my hearing in general conference. Because if it has, it's not indexed in the search results on either the LDS Church mobile app or their website. But seeing that it is covered in the New Testament manual for college students. And knowing that I had studied through the New Testament Institute manual when I was on my.

My LDS mission, I got my old manual out. It's called The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. And in that manual, which is now outdated, chapter 42 covers Colossians but skips over chapter 2, verse 14 in its commentary. And the scripture index in the back of the manual also confirms that it contains no references to Colossians 2:14.

Now, that's a lot for me to go through to demonstrate that this one passage of scripture has not been an emphasis. In official LDS teaching materials or sermons. And so, why did I do it? And I did it because this passage of scripture. Changed my view of what Christ had done and how I partake of the Lord's Supper.

And so, LDS might critique my reference to my experience of taking the sacrament in the LDS church as self-flagellation. But my point is that there are key Bible passages that highlight what it means to be in Christ that are never spoken by LDS leaders from the pulpit, at least not by my memory or by a search of their electronic records. Colossians 2:14 is one. Romans 8:1, there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Zero general conference addresses.

According to the LDS search index, have referenced Romans 8:1. And so, if a Latter-day Saint were to criticize me for coming to a view of taking the sacrament as one of self-flagellation, as one of never feeling worthy, never feeling like I add up, I would simply say that there's a reason. And The LBS leaders are not. Preaching the same gospel, and they're certainly not preaching the full gospel. That's great.

I mean, it really hit the nail on the head what you said about not feeling worthy when you were taking the sacrament. I don't think I ever felt. Totally at peace taking the sacrament for 32 years that I was LDS. There are times where I felt like I had momentary kind of peace. Like I I remember one of my last Sundays in my mission, I really felt like, man, I wish I could just stay here forever.

But there was also always that creeping fear in my mind, like, what if I'm not worthy next week or the week after that? Or, you know, what if I do something that makes me lose my salvation? That kind of thing.

Well, I didn't use that kind of terminology, but that's basically what I thought, you know, what if I never get it to the celestial kingdom? Or what if I'm not worthy enough? Even after all all the hard work I did on my mission, you know, what if I still n never get to the Exaltation.

So, yeah, I can really connect with that too. Or wondering if a particular thing you did that week was grievous enough to talk to the bishop about it or something. You know what I mean?

Always wondering if what you'd done was, you know, if you could repent of that directly to God, or if you had to talk to your bishop about it. Yeah, that was always on the back of my mind. Yeah, no, that's great. Yeah. I will commend them for having a discussion of Colossians 2:14 in their Institute manual for college students, but it's completely absent from any other teaching materials.

And I think that's a travesty that the peace that Latter-day Saints could experience from understanding what Paul says at Colossians 2:14, you know, is missing. It's just not given to them.

Well, yeah, because yeah, the leaders of the church lose their control over you at that point. because you don't need them. You don't need their keys or their priesthood or any of that the moment that you understand, you know, that there's there's no more condemnation. Yeah. And and I wonder, you know We as former Latter-day Saints Have kind of mused a little bit in our conversations, both recorded for the podcast and not, about how.

Different younger Latter-day Saints than us view things. And I sometimes wonder if it's because of the newer manuals that are being used for Institute actually give them a different view than they're getting Uh or former. You know, earlier generations of Latter-day Saints have gotten from General Conference. Yeah, I mean, it could be. Did you guys want to just kind of look over these verses from the Doctrine and Covenants real quick?

Yeah. The uh sacrament prayers, because I got them up right now. Sure.

Okay, I'm just going to read them. Uh so this is Doctrine Covenants. Yeah. Starting in verse 77, says, Oh God, this is the sacrament prayers. 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 has given them, that they may always have his spirit to be with them.

Amen.

So that's the bread. And what kind of sticks out to me there is: you know, if we always remember him and keep his commandments, we may have his spirit to be with us. But it kind of has the willing in there before that.

So it's a little unclear. 79 is the water, but it's wine here. 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.

Um so just On first glance, I don't see a big contradiction, but the bread actually has more attributed to it than the Than the wine does, because the bread says we're willing to keep his commandments. And it doesn't say anything about that with the wine. Yeah, I saw it as kind of a contradiction in the sense of like verse, or you know, with the water, it says that we witness that we remember Christ always, that we have his Spirit to be with us.

So it seems that that's saying if we remember Christ always, we'll have his spirit to be with us. But when you're talking about the bread, it has more requirements. You know what I mean?

So it seemed like there was different requirements for having the Spirit to be with us. And yeah, I think there's a lot more talk today about that phrase that you mentioned, Michael, where it says that they are willing to take upon them the name of the Son.

So. They really focus on, like, well, they're not saying, you know, we have to be perfect or that we have to have perfect obedience and keep the commandments, just that we have to be willing to take upon the name of the Son and be willing to always remember him and be willing to keep his commandments. But I think that's more of a more recent focus on that passage because it always seemed to me that you actually had to be like really keeping the major commandments. And you can fail in a few of the quote-unquote minor commandments. You can say a bad word, you know, maybe.

But if you're breaking the word of wisdom, if you're breaking any of the baptismal questions, then you're not worthy of the sacrament.

So it seems to me that it's not just being willing to take upon us these things. To me, at least in my experience, it seems like that willingness is only in the first part where it says we are willing to take upon us the name of the Son. And then the rest is what we're actually doing, that we're remembering him and keeping his commandments.

So I wanted to bring that up and see if that's how you felt it, or did you feel as a Latter-day Saint that it meant that all of those things following Whether we were willing or not, or whether we also had to perform them.

So, what did you guys think on that? Yeah, so I felt just like you did, Matthew. I didn't think that just being willing was good enough. And I think maybe Latter-day Saints nowadays are. kind of going that route.

that route because they're They're more aware that They can't be perfect. You know, I thought that I could be. Perfect if I just tried hard enough. And now I see how fruitless that is. But I think what I would have a problem with, you know, just being willing, you know, oh, well, I'm willing to keep the commandments, but I'm not doing it.

I think that breaks down at some point, because if you really truly were 100% willing, you would be keeping the commandments. But the fact is that we are also willing not to keep the commandments. And so I do think it breaks down. How about you, Paul? Yeah, that's interesting because I always kind of noted the difference in length between the bread and the water and always thought that that was kind of like an act of mercy on the 16 and 17 year old priests.

Because if you were the one who was doing the water prayer, You had to sit through the sacrament hymn and then the other priests doing their bread recitation. And then you had to do your recitation. And by that point, your palms were sweating and all of the moisture out of your throat was gone and you were choking on your own back of your throat to try to get the words out.

So I always viewed that kind of as an act of mercy, that it was shorter. And so. I mean, I'm assuming that's partly like half serious, half joking, or are you all serious? It's all joking.

Okay, I couldn't tell. Yeah, I was like, I was thinking, okay, he's making a joke, but then he's not laughing.

So I was waiting for you all to laugh. Maybe he's serious. No, but yeah, that's a oh shoot. I almost said it. I almost said it.

So. But did you see in terms of the length being a difference in requirements, or you know how I kind of said that it seemed weird? Like, I kind of clung to the mercy and the water prayer versus. The stringent requirements in the bread prayer. You know, I was like, maybe I don't fit the bread, but at least I can cling on to the water.

You know, at least I remember Jesus. It is kind of weird, though, that they kind of make it. Or imply here that the flesh of Christ grants us more mercy than the blood of Christ.

So I never noticed that before.

So thanks for bringing that up. Isn't Matthew saying the opposite?

Well, the bread one is the one that says that we're willing to keep his commandments, and the water one says that we always remember him and his spirit will be with us.

So it seems like the water is actually, and I know I'm switching between water and wine. For anyone who's curious about that, that's just because, yes, the Doctrine of Covenant says wine, but the actual prayers say water when they say them. They don't use wine in their sacraments. But yet it does seem like the water has less requirements. Than the bread does.

Okay. Because it sounded like you said the opposite earlier, because I was confused, like Paul was. I did. I said the opposite. Yeah, that's my bad.

Sorry. No, you're good. You're good.

So, so, Matthew, if I'm understanding you correctly, where it says that they're willing to take upon them the name of thy son, you kind of clung to that, right? As like, I'm willing, I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to take Christ's name upon me. On that part, but also more so on the water prayer, where it says that they do always remember him.

So, like, maybe I'll sin. Or maybe I'll screw up during the week, but there's never a point where I'm just like completely forget about Jesus, you know?

So I'm like, well, at least as long as I at least remember Jesus, even though I screw up, you know, maybe I have some hope of having the spirit. But what was your experience of like, how did that play out practically? Right. So if were you, was it like I'm unconscious of messing up, but I remember Jesus? Or was it I'm facing this temptation and I mess up while I'm remembering Jesus almost almost, you know what I mean?

That's almost like contrary to what Paul says we should be doing. Yeah, it almost sounds like a license to sin. Yeah, it was kind of more like I, I don't know, it was more like I was holding, I was trying to think of something to have hope in, you know, because when I read all man, I don't keep the commandments all the time.

So I fail that requirement.

So I was like, well, with the bread, I'm shot on that part. But at least if I try, you know, at least if I'm willing, if I have the desire, and at least if I remember Jesus, maybe there's some hope that I can still have the spirit with me all the time. And, you know, it's kind of like. Like, even if you sin, it's not like I'm using it, I was trying to use it as a license to sin. It was more like, you know, sometimes you'll have temptation and you're still weak and you'll still give into it.

You know, even like if you're praying for strength to overcome it or something like that.

So it sounds like you sounds like you hungered for a deeper level of mercy than sometimes LDS teachings allow for. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I was thinking too, because even though the sacrament prayers make it seem like just remembering Christ will keep the Spirit with you, or just being willing.

You know, it was definitely taught in Sunday school that if we sinned, it would offend the spirit and he would leave. You know, I think that was taught to me quite a bit. I mean, is that what you guys experienced as well? Yeah, I think it depends on the severity of the sin, and it also depends on kind of your intent, I guess. You know, not just in the objective, the objectivity of the sin itself, but also the intent behind the sin.

And You know, if it was a minor sin, you could, you know, pray and ask for forgiveness and invite the spirit back. If it was something serious, you had to talk to the bishop or the stake president or whatever and continue to pray and ask God for the spirit back. But yeah, I felt like if this, if the sin was severe enough, then yeah, the spirit would leave and you'd have to invite him back through repentance. Yeah, that was that was my experience as well, and my understanding as well, Michael, that the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. you know, the the admonition in that.

In that rote blessing or prayer, right, is receive the Holy Ghost, right? It's almost like it's not like the Holy Ghost falling upon you, it's almost like it's your responsibility to allow the Holy Ghost in, right? And allow him to remain with you.

So that was definitely my experience. And, you know, they used the Bible passage that says, you know, my spirit will not always strive with man to. To kind of say, like, you know, you have this right to have the Spirit with you because you've had hands laid on you, but it's just a right, it's not a guarantee because of this passage that they're pulling out of context to refer to the whole, you know, the Holy Spirit as in the New Testament and saying, you know, my spirit will not always strive with man.

So, therefore, you know, the implication was, yeah, that if you sin, The Spirit will recede from you. And there's even, I mean, there's even passages, you know, we could look them up in the Doctrine of Covenants about people being given over to the buffetings of Satan. And that was also used to give that impression that if you sinned, you did not have that promise of the Holy Spirit. Within you, so in regards to when we talked about how it being renewing the baptismal covenant, something I've always thought about is that was that was what was we were always taught that if you wanted to receive a remission of sins week by week by week, you had to continue to have the sacrament. But do you do either of you know of a passage that explicitly says that in any of the LDS standard works where it says something along the lines of you know that the you know that the sacrament is a renewal of your baptismal covenant?

Because nothing comes to my mind. That always just seemed like an additional teaching of the LDS church and their leaders that's kind of been repeated over and over again. Yeah, I feel like that's just a traditional teaching, something that came from the canon of you know some prophet. Back in the day, but not from the actual standard works. Yeah, that's kind of what I've thought.

Are you aware of any passage that talks about that, Paul? I'm not. I was just trying to search to see if I could find anything I couldn't, but I don't know. I can't think of any passage that was used to specifically give that impression. I think it probably is cultural.

It's interesting because I think the first time I talked about it in my story that I've kind of gone through in and out of activity. And so I think the first time I really remember learning about that doctrine or that teaching in the LDS Church was when there was this kind of documentary sort of video that they made around the year 2000 with all the prophets and apostles of the LDS Church at the time. I can't remember what it was called. It was something like it had something to do with their being apostles and each one of them stood in front of the camera and gave a different teaching. Do I ever remember that?

Wait, was that a temple video? Not a temple video. It was a video that they gave to. members. It was, it was, oh man.

But yeah, it was around the year 2000. It was kind of like it was, you know, it was supposed to show, you know, where there's apostles in Jesus' time and were the modern day apostles 2,000 years later. I think that's kind of what they were going for. Yeah, I feel like I do kind of vaguely remember watching that. And one, so one of them, it might have been Oaks, but I can't remember.

But one of them talked about that. They talked about how each week when we partake of the bread and water and the sacrament, then you know, that's renewing our baptismal covenant and we receive a remission of sins. And I remember learning that and like, oh, wow, I never knew that. You know, that was kind of early on coming back to the church and really studying LDS doctrine. And so that's where I remember.

It's going to drive me nuts, though. Special witnesses or something like that? Yeah. Special witnesses of Christ, I think. Probably.

Yeah, I mean, that does sound really familiar. I feel like were they. At least some of them. I think I remember. Oh, goodness.

What is his name? Like, Faust was in it. Yeah, yeah, Faust was in. And he said, I wonder how many drops of blood were shed for me. Yes.

Yes. Special Witnesses of Christ. I just Googled it, and that's what it is, yeah. I really like that one. And who's the really, who was the really awesome dude in there?

He was one of my favorite. Richard G. Scott. Oh, yeah. I liked Richard G.

Scott a lot back in the day. He seemed like, you know, a grandpa figure, like just a really chill guy. Like, I didn't get the judgmental feelings from him that I got from like, who was who was the dude that was like in the Twelve Apostles? Packer. I always felt like Packer was secretly judging me.

Like, he didn't know who I was, but I knew he was judging me.

Well, he always gave the fire and brimstone talks in the priesthood sessions of conference.

So it's like we got the most punishment from him. All right, guys, I'm going to step in here. 2 CV. 2 CV? Mm-hmm.

What? I don't even know what that means. All right.

Sorry about that diversion.

So, yeah.

So, yeah, that's where I remember learning about it first. That's why I brought that up. Is there anything else we want to talk about that? I thought that would be good to discuss that prayer because that's so, like, the sacrament is so pivotal in LDS theology. Last thought.

I think it's interesting, though, that the sacrament prayers do say that, you know, just remembering Christ and being willing to keep his commandments will keep the Holy Ghost with us. And yet, it is taught, you know, in other LDS teachings that sin does drive the Holy Ghost away. And so that does. Seemed like a pretty big contradiction at that point because it kind of negates the ability of the sacrament to really do anything. Right.

And so now we would see the Holy Spirit not being coming and going constantly based on sin, but at conversion, when we're justified and adopted as sons of God and we receive regeneration of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit comes and He indwells the believer and He stays with the believer and He doesn't come and go.

So when we take the Lord's Supper, it's not so that we can renew our baptismal covenant per se. It's primarily, as you said before, to remember Christ and to, and I, and as a reform, you know, as a Reformed Baptist, I do believe that in the sacrament, you do have communion not only with Christ, but with the body, but also with Christ. Spiritually, you are communing with his person.

So there's spiritual presence in the water, in the wine, and the bread. And in that spiritual communion, since you can't separate the spirit from the body of Christ in the person of Christ due to the hypostatic union, maybe I'm going. Way too over the heads of our audience, but basically, in Christ, He has the God nature, the man nature. In the man nature is His physical body.

So, when we're partaking of the Supper, His Spirit and His divinity is everywhere, it's omnipresent, it's everywhere.

So. In the supper, when we're partaking of it, we're sacramentally united to Christ. And because of that, we're united to the person of Christ, including his body and blood. But we don't believe that his body and blood are locally, that they're locally present in the sacrament.

So it's in the Lord's Supper.

So we're not physically eating Christ. We're eating it in remembrance of Him, and there's a spiritual, sacramental union. And because of that, we're united to Christ's spirit and His body in heaven.

So I just wanted to point that out because I don't think I really elucidated that earlier. That's consistent with my view as well. Curious, though, in. In either of the churches that you both attend, are there rote? Prayers related to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as their are in the LDS church?

Not in mine. I don't really think so. I think they do quote one of the gospels when he institutes the bread and wine. They'll usually give a short little sermon saying who's eligible to take of it. And then he says, and then he'll quote part of the gospel.

But I don't think it's set in stone every single time.

So about you, Paul? No, no, no real prayers in the church I attend.

Sometimes the worship leader will pray before communion.

Sometimes an elder will come up and give a communion message from scripture.

Sometimes it will just be a reading from scripture. Prior to communion being passed, but no rope prayers. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that because maybe in the more high church environments like Anglicans or Lutherans, they might have a specific set of prayers. I don't know exactly. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

It's just not how we do it. When instituting the sacrament or ordinance of the Lord's Supper at the Passover table, the night of his betrayal, the Lord said the following in the Gospel according to Luke chapter 22, verses 17 through 21: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. This is in remembrance of me, and likewise, the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

End quote.

So, what is Christ saying here when he says, This is my body, and this is the cup that is poured out for you, is the new covenant in my blood? Paul, do you want to go first?

So, I'm having a really tough time with this question. I'm just going to be honest because I feel like we've kind of covered this a lot. I don't really have any. That's true. Yeah, I think I struggle with this one because the so the conversation around it from a historical standpoint really kind of stems from the Reformation and a reaction to the doctrine of transubstantiation within the Roman Catholic Church, which post-states the Bible and you know doesn't have any support from the Bible.

Except perhaps this passage, right? Which which some reformers then Took and had to react to because of the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. But I don't think that, I don't know, I don't think that that was a controversy in the early church. It was a critique that was made of the early church, right, by those who would. Throw the charge of cannibalism upon Christians because.

Because they were taking the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But I don't know that whether or not this passage actually means that the bread is Christ's body and the And the cup is Christ's blood. I don't know that that was a controversy that really raged prior to the Reformation.

So for me, someone who goes Kind of directly to the Bible, all of that post-apostolic era stuff, especially when you get down to the Reformation, it's not really interesting to me because I don't see that in this passage. That's just my take on it. I think a lot of times we. And the Reformers, when they were looking through Scripture and they were trying to go back to understand scripture from the source and they had scripture as their highest authority, they still tried to. Consult earlier church fathers because they were they didn't want to go the route of coming up with something totally crazy off the wall that no one had ever thought of before because they thought that would be a bad idea because they still had a high view of the church in terms of God guiding the church, you know, throughout the ages.

And so, if they came up with something that was totally never taught before, that's probably not a good thing.

So, there are several quotes from early church fathers, though, that still seem to indicate that not everybody, there was this teaching of real presence, but it's not the same as transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church. And so, there are a lot of quotes from early church fathers that do seem to indicate that it's more symbolic and less literal transformation of the essence of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus.

So, maybe I'll just quote a couple here. Clement of Alexandria, he said, so this is from his instructor. I'm guessing this is book one. page six or chapter six.

So he says here, quote, Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols when he said, Ye my flesh and drink my blood, describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both, of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality, the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. Close quote. Augustine, he is really powerful. Popular theologian, so I'll just quote one from him also.

So, this is from Augustine on Christian Doctrine.

So, quote, if the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, says Christ, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And so, this is quoting scripture. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice.

It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Close quote. So it seems to indicate that there are some passages where they focus a lot on the symbology.

However, you could also take other quotes that say that they really focus on the fact that we are communing. They'll say such thing as we eat Christ's body and we drink his blood. But we tend to think back on those phrases as literal, you know, that, oh, well, they must have thought it literally. But I think, like you said, Paul. In the early church, I think they clearly understood they were not literally eating Jesus' body and blood, but that they were figurative of Jesus' body and blood.

And it's kind of become, it was over time where it was more enforced, this idea of transubstantiation. And it was definitely after the first millennium that it really started to come into play, especially with Aquinas. Yeah, I mean, the early church definitely reacted to the criticism of cannibalism and defended themselves against that.

So that to me makes it for me hard to believe that they held a view anything like transubstantiation. And, you know, I know there's the whole argument between Zwingli and Luther on this. Right. And the pounding of the fist. And this is my body.

And I know there's that whole argument in church history, but again, just going back to the biblical texts that you quoted here, I don't think that's there. And I wish I had got this up. Specifically, the quote, but there's someone from Ligonier who's talking about this. And if you remember, the Lord's Supper is in the context of the Passover. They're having the Passover supper together.

And a lot of times they would have different parts of the supper and they would represent certain things. Like, I think, don't they have a lamb and then they eat the lamb and that represents kind of like man, I wish I'd looked this up. But basically, basically, there are different elements of the Lord's Supper that are symbolic. And they say, This represents this, this represents that. You know, I think the lamb actually represents the blood that was on the doors that protected them from God's judgment.

And. Uh so so each so they would point to it and say this is this but of course it's symbolic.

So, then in that same kind of context, pointing to the bread and saying, This is my body, and pointing to the wine and saying, This is my blood. They would have understood that he's making a connection there, that he's not saying, This is literally transformed into my body and blood, just as when you're eating the unleavened bread and you're eating the. the meat, you know, they understood that these were symbols pointing to what had happened at the Pa the original Passover.

So yeah, like you said, I think I think we just read it in the wrong context in our modern way of Western kind of way of thinking. And excluded from the context of the early of the early church and of the apostles that that we get into this controversy of whether Jesus is literally there in the bread and wine wine or whether he's not literally there.

So sorry, I think I keep going around and around in circles around the same thing, but we keep saying it over and over again. But Yeah, I figured this was important to tackle because you know Latter Saints are very much symbolic. You know, he's not there at all, but I think he's there in spirit. There's a spirit, you know, there's a spiritual presence and a spiritual communion with Christ, not a physical one. And that's the way that Calvin felt.

He was kind of trying to unite Zwingli, the Zwinglian side and the Lutheran side, trying to say, hey, you know, there is a union here, there is a communion here, but it's not local physical presence. It's a spiritual presence. Right. Yeah. And I agree with that.

So yeah. And I don't mean to sound dismissive of the this is my body argument. It just doesn't land with me. And I know it's really super important to some people, but it just has never landed with me. But I don't go all the way to anymore to it's, you know, it's nothing.

There's no communion but a symbol. It's not just a remembrance. There is. There is a real communion with the Lord in the supper. And I brought this up too because I have friends that I've talked to that I'm able to joke with and be friends with on Facebook, but they've flat out said that because I don't have either a Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox view of the Lord's Supper, that my sacraments are not valid.

So. I don't know if that means they think that I'm not saved, probably not, you know, but they but they would say that my view of the sacraments means that they're invalid.

So that it is that important to some people that you have a local physical presence in the supper, that if you don't believe that, then it's invalid. Do you know what I mean? So to some traditions, it is very, very important.

Now, I wouldn't say all Lutherans or Anglicans, et cetera, would say that, but these, you know, some of my friends have said that. Wow, that's interesting.

So, okay, just to make sure I got this straight, because I was going to ask you this earlier, Matthew, but the difference between Lutheranism and Reformed theology on this point is that it's It sounds like Lutherans would say that there's a localized real presence of the Savior, but Reformed theology just says that it's it's a spiritual presence. Is that what it is? Right, yeah.

So Lutherans actually do believe that there is a physical locality of Christ's physical body and blood in the supper. Oh. But it's different because they don't believe like Catholics do.

So Catholics believe in trans meaning changing or evolving or whatever. Substantiation meaning substance, like what it's made of.

So they believe that the body...

So the bread actually, the entire substance or essence of the bread is removed and replaced with Christ's body. And the wine, the substance is completely removed and replaced with his blood. And so why does it still taste like bread and wine? It's because they make the distinction between substance and accidents. Accidents being the outward appearance, the taste, the smell.

So the accidents stay there.

So it still smells and tastes and looks like bread and wine. But the substance of it is completely removed and replaced with Christ's body and blood. That's the Roman Catholic view. And the Lutherans, they do not believe that. Believe in transubstantiation, but they do believe that Christ's physical body and blood are added to.

in around and through the elements of the the bread and wine.

So they They won't really go much further than that. They'll say it's more of a mysterious sacramental. Kind of union of Christ's body and blood in the sa in the Lord's Supper. They don't really know how it works, but and you know, it's not like you can pick out molecules of Christ's body and blood, it's it's in and through. The wine and the bread, but they do believe that they are literally taking Christ's body and blood.

So one of the one further point on the Roman Catholic view is that the actual transubstantiation Unless I'm wrong, it takes place at the blessing of the elements by the priests, right?

So, prior to that point, they're just bread and wine. And then there's this transformation that is said to take place once the priest blesses the elements. And so, with the Roman Catholic view, you're back to a similar thing like we were talking about with baptism, but only with regard to the world's, with the regard to the Lord's Supper, right? Where suddenly you're back to that, there's only this special authority that can. Make this real.

Yeah, correct. Is does Does Lutheran I don't think Lutheranism has the same view with regards to the authority, though, right, of the minister in terms of changing the elements? I think they do, actually, because I think they do still participate in. The the holy orders. They might not call it that, but uh let me Google that real quick.

We need to find a a fourth person, an an ex-Mormon Lutheran to uh That knows all this stuff.

Well, I know that Lutherans are very heavily they heavily believe in apostolic succession. Let's see.

So, okay, this is just from the Wikipedia page, so who knows how authoritative it is. But great. Although the Lutheran confessions do not deny that holy orders may be considered sacramental, okay, no, it's so they don't believe it to be a sacrament the same way that Roman Catholics do, but they do believe in the bishop-priest-deacon distinction.

So I do think they do believe in kind of a passing on of authority in the church. Because the Lutheran Church, the Lutherans and the Anglicans, especially, they do believe that they still have apostolic succession, even though they broke off from the church. You know what I mean?

Because they saw themselves as truly reforming the church and not restoring or breaking off or forming a new church. They felt that they were continuing on from what came before.

So, and maybe I'm wrong about the Lutherans. I'm pretty sure about the Anglicans that they really believe in this succession of authority in their church. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, I'll have to look into it. I guess my question was more specifically about: do they have the same view as Roman Catholics with regard to when?

When there's a change to the elements and that it's tied to the authority of the minister, or if it's or if it's like you were saying, it's more of a mysterious thing that takes place regardless of the minister. Yeah, I'm not quite sure about that. I've started to kind of dive into Lutheran theology, but there's a lot there that I'm trying to wade through.

So I don't know about that. I have to look that up. Is there anything else you want to talk about this question or move on? I mean, you could talk all day about this controversy of local physical presence. But I did want to also mention, too, this just came to mind.

So I don't think that. Lutherans believe, well, I'm not actually certain. I don't think that they believe like Catholics do that you're actually digesting or chewing on Christ. You know, I think it's more, I still think it's somewhat sacramental in its nature. Do you know what I mean?

To kind of avoid the accusations of cannibalism or eating little flesh.

So I think Lutherans do believe it's still sort of a mystical, sacramental union, even though they do believe that the physical body and blood of Jesus is actually in the supper. Do you know what I mean? It's a little bit complicated. And a lot of times Lutherans will just kind of tell you that it's a mystery and they just believe the scriptures and they don't really go further than that. Maybe just a sorry, it's a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's interesting to talk about.

So when we were LDS, right? I don't know if you ever had the experience as an LDS missionary having to talk about, talk to an investigator who was coming to church about, hey, Only baptized members take the sacrament. Did you ever have that conversation? Yeah, I definitely had that conversation, which was. Awkward because if they looked around, they would have seen parents letting their little kids take the sacrament all the time who weren't baptized.

Right. Right. And so the idea behind that was like: if you're not. Baptized and renewing your baptismal covenant, then you're partaking unworthily. Was that your understanding as well?

I didn't think it was taking unworthily. I just thought it didn't do anything.

So there was no point in taking the sacrament if you hadn't been baptized.

Okay. I was just going to quickly say: our mission president, we asked him that question specifically, and he said, you know, don't actively discourage them from taking the sacrament because, yeah, it was basically the same thing that Michael just said. It's not going to really do anything for. For them, in terms of, you know, they haven't made the baptismal covenant, so they can't renew it. But he felt it was kind of more of like a, it makes them feel part of the congregation kind of a thing.

So it wasn't against, there was nothing wrong with them taking it, especially if they don't really understand what's going on. You know, it's more of just like a communing with the fellowship of, you know, the fellow saints, I guess.

So, yeah, we were told not to actually discourage them from doing it.

Okay, interesting. I'm curious then, like. about the churches that you attend, is there any kind of similar approach to People who aren't baptized members of the congregation or members of the congregation on record? No, I haven't seen anything like that. Just, you know.

The only thing I've heard him say is that you need to have accepted Christ. I haven't seen anything so specific as what you're talking about. What about you, Matthew? For us. Our elders ask that everyone examine themselves, that they find themselves to be a true believer in Christ, you know, that they've placed their trust in Christ and repented, but that they also be a member of a church in good standing.

So they don't really make strict requirements in terms of what kind of church, they just say a faithful Bible preaching church, and you should be a member of that church in good standing. And so, by that requirement, even though we disagree with our Presbyterian brothers or other Pedo-Baptist brothers on terms of baptism, and if they were to become a member of our church, they would have to be baptized, you know, following a profession of faith.

So, like, their infant baptism wouldn't count. It wouldn't count in the sense of becoming a member. Do you know what I mean? But because they're a member of a Christian church in good standing, they can still commune with us at the Lord's table if they visit or something like that.

So, I think that kind of solves that issue of whether they can, yeah. Yeah, our church is similar. Um, and it what that was one of the things that was interesting to me to kind of study through as I came out of the LDS church and kind of started attending a Church that was That's part of the American Restoration Movement because that whole question of open or closed communion was a big, one of the big reasons why Alexander Campbell and his father kind of moved away from Presbyterianism and then later, even here in America, away from one of the Baptist associations. Because it was, you know, they were in Scotland, it was over closed communion and people being refused for communion who they knew personally to be committed believers because they didn't hold to certain doctrines. And then, you know, here in America, it was over disagreements over doctrines as well, where they broke with the Reading Baptist Association.

So it's just interesting that whole conversation to me about open or closed communion. But yeah, like our church, there's something similar. An elder may stand up. It doesn't happen every week, but an elder may stand up and make a statement, or it may be up on the screens that communion is for communion. committed believers in Christ and similar admonitions to examine yourself and that kind of thing.

So interesting. And I think that's probably the best way to do it. I know I understand why closed communion exists. And I think it's not only to protect the sanctity of what's going on at the Lord's table because it is an important thing that's happening, but it's also to protect the person.

So I can understand why there are other churches that have closed communion, but I think it's best to just explain. you know, that you should examine yourself and let the people be held responsible for their own actions. If they shouldn't be taking it and they do, that's on them, you know, rather than trying. Trying to Keep it closed and make sure, you know, you, because there are a lot of churches that do have close communion, maybe not so much anymore, but I know historically there were a lot of them. Yeah, and I know I've read about like in church history, and I don't, I don't know, I don't remember exactly, you know, how close it goes back to the apostolic era.

But, you know, I know in the early church, there was, you know, when they would reach the point in the service where they would. Be ready to take the Lord's Supper, then there was a call for quote unquote the doors and and people who were who were not baptized people who were uh what what what do they call them um the proselytes i'm sorry Proselytes? Yeah, proselytes is one word. Catechumens. Catechumens, yeah.

People who are catechumens investigators, quote unquote, would be asked to leave prior to. The Lord's Supper, and then the doors would be closed. And I've always, you know, I always wonder what that was about. You know, was it because They wouldn't be worthy, or was it because people who were In that process of not yet having Committed themselves to being a believer in Christ? Were they trying to avoid?

People misunderstanding what they were doing. I just always wonder what the motivation was behind that.

So, because it it's one of those things that I think plays into the whole later discussions of open or closed communion and and then people get into trying to justify closed communion from from like the the apostles in the upper room.

So it's it's just an interesting interesting uh rabbit hole of church history you can kind of go down. Yeah, that's something that's something that's really fast fascinating that I want to see. I found a synonym fascinating. That I really want to get into the church history of all, you know, the development over time, the historical theology, and the development of the sacraments. Yeah, I think that would be enthralling as well.

That's a good one, too. Yeah, so a lot of those points I think I was hoping to get into when we got into 1 Corinthians 11.

So, yeah, we might not have to talk as much when we get to that point. Yeah, just a quick book recommendation. based on what you both just expressed interest in. Assuming that you weren't joking. Um, but there's a a scholar uh named Yaroslav Pelikin.

I think he's passed now, but um, he was I believe he was Lutheran and converted to uh Eastern Orthodoxy throughout his scholarly career, but he wrote a series of books on the development of Christian doctrine. I think there's five books. I've got them on my shelf. Yeah, there's five. And they're really fascinating.

He covers like the early church, and then he covers like the things that led up to the split between East and West. And then there's, yeah, that goes into the Reformation in one of them. It's just a fascinating series of books. They're very, very dense and very, very well documented in terms of what he presents.

So it's really interesting. And he has an interesting way of footnoting them that's different than anything else I've ever seen, where he does it in the side margins aligned with where he's quoting something or alluding to something. And so you don't have to flip back and forth to find end notes to see what he's talking about. It's just right there. You can see, oh, here he's quoting from Justin Martyr, or here he's quoting from Tretullian, or here he's quoting from, you know, a New Testament passage.

So it's really well organized. But it's called The Christian Tradition, a History of the Development of Doctrine. By Yaroslav Pelikin, and there's five volumes.

So it's one of the things that I studied through. Pretty early on after my transition out, and I found it really fascinating. Fascinating is okay. Yeah. Yeah, actually, I have the, I think, the first three.

So the first one is early church. Second one is. I think it's Eastern Church, and then the third one is medieval doctrine or something like that. Yep. Yeah, I think I have those three.

I want to get the one leading up to the Reformation. Yeah, fourth is the one leading up to the Reformation, and the fifth is more modern, like Reformation until now.

Well, until at least he finished writing those. Really good set of books for understanding. The development of doctrine throughout history. I referenced a little bit about the sacraments there and also about the development of devotion to Mary. He talks a little bit about that.

Yeah, I agree. I really like the way he formats it and references everything in the side margin. Another one I would also recommend is the book that I thought was the name of his book, but it's actually a different book. It's called Early Christian Doctrine, I believe, by J.N.D. Kelly.

And that's kind of a standard text, too, that's really recommended amongst historians. I don't remember where he comes from. I think he was something like Lutheran or Anglican, but he does a really good job of documenting the different doctrines of the early church. And of course, if you want to get really in-depth in church history, Schaefer is a really solid resource. Yeah.

And for our listeners who don't want to dive into like five volumes of scholarly tomes, another resource that I used a lot when I. Was first coming out of the LDS church to understand these things. Was a series of lectures that were given by a guy named Maxie Birch. I'd have to look up exactly what his credentials are. He was a A professor at a Christian college, but he did a whole series of lectures on church history from the early church era all the way up through the Reformation and Radical Reformation.

And that whole series of lectures, I just devoured them listening to them while I would be mowing lawn. And I know they're still available out there. I don't know if they're still available on iTunes U. If that even exists anymore, that's where I listened to them. But I know you can find them on his website.

I think it's maxiebirch.net. But he does a really great series of really engaging lectures on church history.

So if you'd rather listen to something, that's one place to go. Yeah, if we're going to keep plugging historical stuff, I'll just plug two more. I love Ligonier's series on church history. What's his name? He's a really good teacher.

It's like the super fast. High view. Explanation. W. Robert Godfrey.

He has several sections too where he breaks it up by centuries. And it's like, you know, the first one is like, you know, like 10 different sections and he's covering 500 years.

So that's really high level. You know, he has to skip a lot of stuff, but it's really good to just get a bird's eye view of history. And another resource that's good that I've read a little bit myself. I haven't gone through it in detail, but I've referenced it several times and it's really easy to pick up on, really easy to read. It's Nick Needham's four-volume set, 2000 Years of Christ's Power.

And so he kind of divides it by era too. I think the first era is like the first 400 years or 500 years, and then leading all the way up to the Reformation and the modern church. And so it's very readable, not a lot of really high-level words. He just breaks it down for just the layman to understand church history.

So I think in terms of if you wanted to read or listen, I think that's also on audio tape. You could also listen to that. Anyways, yeah, there's lots of great resources for learning churches. history. We thank you for tuning into this episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast.

We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the Outer Brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page, and we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes, and suggestions for future episodes, etc. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com.

We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Cast, Podbean, Spotify, and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel, and if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael the X Mormon apologist at fromwatertowine.org.

where he blogs and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flornoy and by Adams Rode. Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at Adamsroad Ministry dot com. Stay bright, Fireflies Lord, to whom shall we go? You have The Words are eternal thine.

And we Be happy. They've come to know That you are. The whole Holy One of God, the world made fresh, the risen Son. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All of this world is in decay.

But the word of our God through ages remain, Lord, you promised that we as your church would remain upon this rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail. Against us, 'cause you have power to keep your word unspoiled in purity. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All of this world is in decay, but the word of our God through ages remain as the rain falls down from heaven and waters the earth bringing it light.

So the word that goes out from your mouth will not return empty, but those What you desire, Lord. We hear your word and believe in you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of our Lord endures forever. All this world is in decay. But the word of our God through ages remain of God remains.