Quote:
[nrajeffreturns;147045]I was aware that a relative FEW churches offer the OPTION of grape juice for recovering alcoholics who don't want to EVER touch a drop of alcohol. But in all likelihood it's far fewer that use ONLY grape juice because they have BANNED the "evil leaven wine" from their regular communion.
The way I know that probably no church in 1820 used grape juice, is because I know that the process of pasteurizing grape juice so it wouldn't ferment wasn't invented until 1869.
Pastor Welch was a Wesleyan. Wesleyans thought like you--that only nonalcoholic grape juice should be used for communion. But they didn't exist in 1820. The Wesleyan movement was created in 1843.
To further your education, see the Wikipedia articles on Welch's and on Thomas Bramwell Welch.
In 1820, virtually none of the Christian churches on earth used unfermented grape juice. The Catholic Church REQUIRES that the communion wine be wine, or mustum--grape juice that has at least started to ferment. (Mustum is wine that started to "leaven" and then had the fermentation process stopped)
AFAIK, ZERO Protestant churches had switched to grape juice until AFTER 1820. Even today, the only ones that have such a policy are the United Methodist church, most Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, and some Reformed/Presbyterian churches offer it as an option.
(According to the wiki article on Eucharist, "The bread and "fruit of the vine" indicated in Matthew, Mark and Luke as the elements of the Lord's Supper[38] are interpreted by many Baptists as unleavened bread (although leavened bread is often used) and, in line with the historical stance of some Baptist groups (since the mid-19th century) against partaking of alcoholic beverages, grape juice, which they commonly refer to simply as "the Cup."
So in the case of the Baptists, switching to grape juice was not because they believed that leaven means sin. It's because many Baptists were part of the Temperance movement that was against recreational alcohol consumption to the point of total abstinence....like the LDS had already done.
So you are saying that the majority of Christian churches of the world "lieth in sin" every time they perform the Eucharist.
Can you imagine what anti-LDS people would say about JOSEPH SMITH if HE had said that the churches of 1820 had changed the biblical way of doing things, and had replaced them with sinful doctrines and ordinances?
Why, they'd say that Joseph Smith was....teaching hatred of Christians!!!
I have attended man Christian Church services and have shared with them at the Lord's table. At each one ONLY unfermented wine was offered. I have been to a few other that have offered both. It is far more common to fine unfermented wine used rather that alcoholic wine.. You make some rather HUGE ***umption in your post. Statements you neither supported with any reference nor could you have any personal knowledge of the facts in question.. I asked how you knew the information about the use of wine was the real truth and you gave me more "I know that probably". That is your ***umption AGAIN. The fact is you DON'T KNOW.. Since you were there and there is no record from ALL the churches that explain what wine they used for communion you are guessing making ***umptions, you have no facts to support those beliefs.. Even in your ***umption that then use of non alcoholic wine had more to do with the Temperance movement than with the requirements of the P***over is your ***umption. How many Baptist churches existed before 1820? I don't know, you don't either. Neither do you know how they celebrated at the Lord's table. Your argument is mote. What is clear is that mormonism used leaven bread and water to symbolize the body and blood of the Lord.. He has access to both water and leaven bread and yet He didn't use them. why do do you.. Let me make an ***umption. You do so because you put little stock is the Body and Blood of Jesus offered as a sacrifice for our sin.. You therefore hate my Lord and by extension His children.. IHS jim