Mormons use WATER for Communion instead of wine or grape juice??

[Catholic_Dude]

This has got to be one of the most bizarre teachings I’ve come across recently, though I’m sure others have mentioned this before.

There is a sleek, newly designed official webpage for the Mormons at mormon.org/worship/ and it talks about the Sunday worship service Mormons hold. When it comes to Communion time, it says this:
What happens during sacrament meeting?
We sing hymns (hymn books are provided). Church members say opening and closing prayers. We partake of the sacrament (communion), which consists of prepared bread and water, blessed and passed to members of the congregation by priesthood holders.
This is not a typo: they really use water instead of wine or grape juice.

My question to you is this: WHY?

It just seems so unnecessary, and I don’t see how you could squeeze this out of any text of Scripture or any place else. I can sort of understand how some Protestants who (unbiblically) oppose alcohol and use grape juice instead, but water?

I don’t get it, but this seems to me to be a very good apologetics tool, because I doubt such a move is capable of being defended.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t get it, but this seems to me to be a very good apologetics tool, because I doubt such a move is capable of being defended.

I think you would be surprised at how well a capable Mormon could defend it.

This policy rises from the Mormon teaching to avoid all alcohol. This teaching was not in place in the early days of the LDS church, and they used fermented wine.

If you are a Mormon and accept the idea of continuing revelation then you would conclude that you were forced to switch to water when God revealed the restriction about alcohol.

Catholics are very particular about the elements used in Communion - it must use unfortified fermented grape wine (no cherry wine or anything else). Other faiths wonder what the big deal is. Sure, Jesus used wine - we use water. So what? It’s just a symbolic ceremony anyway. How can a symbolic ceremony be “invalidated” by one or the other. That’s like saying a birthday party is “invalid” if you use the wrong kind of cake.

Then they will pull out all the water verses in the Bible (Baptism, “I am the living water,” blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side, etc, etc). They could mount a pretty good defense that would convince anyone who didn’t believe it really MATTERS what we use.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think you would be surprised at how well a capable Mormon could defend it.

This policy rises from the Mormon teaching to avoid all alcohol. This teaching was not in place in the early days of the LDS church, and they used fermented wine.

If you are a Mormon and accept the idea of continuing revelation then you would conclude that you were forced to switch to water when God revealed the restriction about alcohol.

Catholics are very particular about the elements used in Communion - it must use unfortified fermented grape wine (no cherry wine or anything else). Other faiths wonder what the big deal is. Sure, Jesus used wine - we use water. So what? It’s just a symbolic ceremony anyway. How can a symbolic ceremony be “invalidated” by one or the other. That’s like saying a birthday party is “invalid” if you use the wrong kind of cake.

Then they will pull out all the water verses in the Bible (Baptism, “I am the living water,” blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side, etc, etc). They could mount a pretty good defense that would convince anyone who didn’t believe it really MATTERS what we use.

You are absolutely right. I looked into this more after reading your post, and they do “defend” it pretty well.

It turns out in part of their Mormon Scriptures, during that time period Smith got a “new revelation” saying not only to avoid alcohol, but that God was not concerned about the elements because what really mattered was that they were remembering His Son.

So the anti-alcohol ‘revelation’ combined with the ‘use any elements’ revelation, combined with the ultra symbolic view of Communion really ends up making water an acceptable alternative.

 

[SteveVH]

You are absolutely right. I looked into this more after reading your post, and they do “defend” it pretty well.

It turns out in part of their Mormon Scriptures, during that time period Smith got a “new revelation” saying not only to avoid alcohol, but that God was not concerned about the elements because what really mattered was that they were remembering His Son.

So the anti-alcohol ‘revelation’ combined with the ‘use any elements’ revelation, combined with the ultra symbolic view of Communion really ends up making water an acceptable alternative.

They defend it “pretty well” only if one assumes the Mormon postion concerning communion. I find it strange that they refer to it as the “sacrament” and at the same time treat it as nothing more than a symbol. By the way, it does not even have to be water that is used. On this forum, many months ago, I was told by a Mormon poster of a man who received their “sacrament” in the hosptial and they used juice and crackers and felt that it was perfectly valid. Obviously the word “sacrament” has been borrowed and they have no understanding of the meaning of the word.

 

[hosemonkey]

It’s all just a drill anyway. No “communion” takes place, due to the absence of a consecrated, sacrificing priest and lack of valid elements. Both mormons and other protestants share this lack. Might as well be a Moon Pie and an RC Cola.

 

[Esdra]

This has got to be one of the most bizarre teachings I’ve come across recently, though I’m sure others have mentioned this before.

There is a sleek, newly designed official webpage for the Mormons at mormon.org/worship/ and it talks about the Sunday worship service Mormons hold. When it comes to Communion time, it says this:
What happens during sacrament meeting?
We sing hymns (hymn books are provided). Church members say opening and closing prayers. We partake of the sacrament (communion), which consists of prepared bread and water, blessed and passed to members of the congregation by priesthood holders.
This is not a typo: they really use water instead of wine or grape juice.

My question to you is this: WHY?

It just seems so unnecessary, and I don’t see how you could squeeze this out of any text of Scripture or any place else. I can sort of understand how some Protestants who (unbiblically) oppose alcohol and use grape juice instead, but water?

I don’t get it, but this seems to me to be a very good apologetics tool, because I doubt such a move is capable of being defended.

No, I agree, no where in scripture it says that water should be used for the Lord’ Supper instead of wine. (Neither does it say that grape juice should be used, but that’s another story! )

But Mormons don’t only have the Holy Bible as their Sacred Scripture, but also
The Book of Mormon (BoM)
The Pearl of Great Price as well as (PG)
The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C)

And in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations of their prophet Joseph Smith Junior are written down (besides 4 of other prophets/leaders of the LDS Church after Joseph Smith Jr.'s death)

And there it says:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the fremission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth. …]
D&C 27:1-4

If you click on the link above, you will be redirected to the Online Scripture Database of the LDS and above this section of the D&C you can read why Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. got this “relevation”.

Side note, I’ve read somewhere that JS was an alcoholic…

in Christ,

 

[BartBurk]

It’s all just a drill anyway. No “communion” takes place, due to the absence of a consecrated, sacrificing priest and lack of valid elements. Both mormons and other protestants share this lack. Might as well be a Moon Pie and an RC Cola.

Matthew 18:20:

For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Communion refers to the people gathering together in Christ’s name in his presence as much as it does eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. I think the Mormon practice has validity when you look at it that way. At least that is how a Mormon might look at it.

 

[Esdra]

{…}

On this forum, many months ago, I was told by a Mormon poster of a man who received their “sacrament” in the hosptial and they used juice and crackers and felt that it was perfectly valid. Obviously the word “sacrament” has been borrowed and they have no understanding of the meaning of the word.

I think Mormons aren’t asking about validity at least not like Catholics or Orthodox might do.

They think they are the only true religion of Christ Jesus…

Anyway, I once was in a youth camp, and there for the Lord’s Supper grapes (!) and normal brown bread were used.
I found it a bit odd to use grapes, instead of grape juice (or wine), but I thought then, “Why not?”.
With the bread - that’s nothing unusual, normally at every Lord’s Supper with Baptists (and similar groups) “normal” bread is used instead of wafers like Anglicans, Catholics Lutherans and certainly also Presbyterians (please correct me if I am wrong, I know hardly nothing about Presbyterians!).
Btw, did you know that the Orthodox (at least the Russian Orthodox where I visited a divine mass once) also use “normal” bread?

 

[Publisher]

I think that the LDS use to use bread of their own making as well as wine of their own making…I’m not sure but something in the back of my mind seems to recall that one of the reasons for water being used in sacrament meetings had to do with the fear that if wine was purchased it could be poisoned…so to insure no tainted elements were used in sacrament…they opted for water. I seem to recall one Mormon friend mentioning the “historical” connection with the water being used.

Of course it may be as simple as adherance to the Word of Wisdom.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Matthew 18:20:

Communion refers to the people gathering together in Christ’s name in his presence as much as it does eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. I think the Mormon practice has validity when you look at it that way. At least that is how a Mormon might look at it.

The two are not separate. We are in Communion together in and through the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

If all people need to do is get together and say they are doing so in Christ’s name, there is no reason for the Sacrament at all.

 

[BartBurk]

The two are not separate. We are in Communion together in and through the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

If all people need to do is get together and say they are doing so in Christ’s name, there is no reason for the Sacrament at all.

Of course there would be. Christ commanded us to remember him in the sacramental meal. Mormons are supposed to contemplate the suffering of Christ on their behalf during that meal every week. So that would be a good reason for it. Trivializing their actions is unbecoming of us as Catholics.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course there would be. Christ commanded us to remember him in the sacramental meal. Mormons are supposed to contemplate the suffering of Christ on their behalf during that meal every week. So that would be a good reason for it. Trivializing their actions is unbecoming of us as Catholics.

Yes, and communion is with Jesus Christ, not a memory.

It is unbecoming of a Catholic to trivialize the Blood and Body of Christ.

 

[BartBurk]

Yes, and communion is with Jesus Christ, not a memory.

It is unbecoming of a Catholic to trivialize the Blood and Body of Christ.

But I can understand how a non-Catholic would simply believe that Christ was spiritually present in the sacramental meal without changing the elements into His Body and Blood. I respect the fact that Mormons are trying to remember Christ in the sacramental meal to the best of their understanding. I don’t have much anger any more towards them – they are doing the best they can with the understanding they have.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Might as well be a Moon Pie and an RC Cola.

Hey! Never diss Moon Pies and RC Colas. I know people who know people.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hey! Never diss Moon Pies and RC Colas. I know people who know people.

As much as this Tenneseean loves an RC and a Moon Pie, it ain’t no sacrament.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But I can understand how a non-Catholic would simply believe that Christ was spiritually present in the sacramental meal without changing the elements into His Body and Blood. I respect the fact that Mormons are trying to remember Christ in the sacramental meal to the best of their understanding. I don’t have much anger any more towards them – they are doing the best they can with the understanding they have.

Yes, I agree we can respect that they are remembering Christ. I disagree that one can communion with a memory.

I don’t have any anger towards Mormonism. I’m not supportive of a relativistic view, and I don’t see any reason to reduce Jesus’ teaching in order that the Person of Jesus Christ can be substituted with a fond memory of Him. That is not what He taught.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

They defend it “pretty well” only if one assumes the Mormon postion concerning communion. I find it strange that they refer to it as the “sacrament” and at the same time treat it as nothing more than a symbol. By the way, it does not even have to be water that is used. On this forum, many months ago, I was told by a Mormon poster of a man who received their “sacrament” in the hosptial and they used juice and crackers and felt that it was perfectly valid. Obviously the word “sacrament” has been borrowed and they have no understanding of the meaning of the word.

When I said they “defend it well,” I was getting at the fact that with the elimination of any foundation (i.e. use whatever and keep it a non-symbolic memorial), they can reconstruct anything they like.

I also think you made a good point in mentioning how they “borrowed” the Christian term “Sacrament” and redefined it, just as they’ve done other terms.

Yes, I agree we can respect that they are remembering Christ. I disagree that one can communion with a memory.

I don’t have any anger towards Mormonism. I’m not supportive of a relativistic view, and I don’t see any reason to reduce Jesus’ teaching in order that the Person of Jesus Christ can be substituted with a fond memory of Him. That is not what He taught.

I think this is well put: it’s not about showing anger or hostility. It’s about pointing out they’ve made nothing of the Sacrament. You could technically swap their elements and say “water remembers His body” and “bread remembers His blood,” just as any elements could be used, no matter how strange.

And on top of that, I learned they consider the Communion time strictly a memorial with no symbolic emphasis on the elements; thus there is nothing even sacred about the elements after they are ‘consecrated’, so they can be tossed in the garbage afterwards. But since when is something that’s consecrated then suitable for the garbage?

The real thing I take away from this is that the LDS approach is really the epitome of Protestant extremism, because without the Real Presence the “Sacrament” then became simply wine, then grape juice, then water - all of which can ‘safely’ be thrown in the garbage at the end of the ceremony.

 

[alwayswondering]

Yep. I attended an LDS church for 8 months, and it was water instead of wine. The LDS are very strict against wine and alcohol in general, no matter what the purpose. It’s part of their “Words of Wisdom”, which is no alcohol/coffee/tobacco/tea. They don’t do this because Joseph Smith, the first prophet in their church and the person that “restored” the “true church” on this earth, said they were all bad for you and to not drink them. So, because of that, there’s water used in church instead of wine.

 

[Telstar]

I think it’s a bit ironic that Mormons use bread & water for communion. Many years ago, that’s what they used to give to prisoners in jail, as a means of punishment for them causing trouble. It was known as a ‘starvation diet’, only in this instance, it’s the soul that’s starving instead of the body.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Maybe they believe the water is turned into wine then into the Eucharist