...and then we have a separate chapter for the blessing on the wine. I realize this is not a chapter break that was included in the original 1830 Book of Mormon, so it isn't a criticism of the book's legitimacy. But it sure is a weird editing decision from somewhere down the line.
The slight differences between the two sacrament prayers are curious. It's odd that we're making sure that we remember Christ and that we keep the Spirit with us in both but that we promise to keep the commandments and take his name upon us only when partaking of the bread. What I think is even stranger is that the reason for the symbolism is explained immediately in the blessing on the wine. It represents the blood of Christ, which was shed for us. But in the previous prayer, we mention that the bread represents the body of Christ and we roll right into what we're doing by partaking of it.
Why is Christ's body important? Why is it important to attach a symbolic significance to the wine but leave us guessing about the bread?
It also used to bother me, just slightly, that the wording of these two prayers is a little inconsistent. In the blessing on the bread, it says, "that they may eat in remembrance of," and in the blessing on the wine, it's, "that they may do it in remembrance of." Seems like it should be drink instead of do it. For such an important pair of prayers, I always felt that there should be a solemner, holier symmetry to them.