269 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

Sheesh folks.  Here's what the Church Handbook of Instructions Says:

Quote

Following the hymn, the person who blesses the bread kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the bread. The sacrament prayers were revealed by the Lord (see D&C 20:77, 79; Moroni 4–5). The bishop makes sure they are spoken clearly, accurately, and with dignity. If the person who blesses the sacrament makes an error in the wording but corrects it himself, no further correction is required. If the person does not correct an error, the bishop indicates that he should repeat the prayer correctly. In doing so, the bishop should be careful to avoid causing embarrassment or distracting from the sacred nature of the ordinance.

After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first.

Even a very fertile bishop wouldn't need to pass the sacrament under these circumstances more than a few times in his life.  I mean, how often does a Bishop have a son turn 12?  I have a relative who has been a Bishop twice, and has seven sons, but even then he was only Bishop for two of his sons when they turned 12.  So out of the 260 weeks that a guy's usually a Bishop, maybe once or twice he sits with the deacons and passes the Sacrament.  Seriously.  

Luckily, I live in an unusually perceptive and intelligent ward, and so we would probably be able to figure out that if we saw the Bishop stand with the Deacons and commence passing the Sacrament, he is probably satisfied that the prayer was said properly and everyone is worthy.  He may have even delegated the prayer-monitoring duty to a counselor for that week, since he's allowed to do that.  But I can understand that there might be Wards out there that couldn't figure this out and it might get a little confusing.

We even had a Sacrament Meeting once where the whole Bishopric was gone and the High Priest Group leader presided.  I was worried about what might happen to the Ward members that couldn't figure out what was going on, and that there might even be some outbursts or trauma.  Things went pretty smoothly, but like I said, we're a pretty smart ward, and we're quick to understand things like that.

Edited by cinepro, 14 March 2012 - 03:55 PM.

[cinepro]

LeSellers, on 14 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

And another thing. This theory also ignores reality because it doesn't even work.

And why doesn't it work?  Because there isn't a Bishop on this planet that is going to sit there quietly after the prayer has been said wrong, wait for the deacons to get their bread or water trays and walk to their positions, until the first deacon gets to him at which point he does....what?  Just sits there?  Whispers to the deacon that the prayer was said wrong, so all the deacons have to walk their trays back for the prayer to be said again?

No, if the priests miss the "Do it again" signal, then by the time the deacons are picking up their trays, the Bishop is going to be waving frantically or walking across the rostrum to tell them to do it again.  The Bishop's signal for "Everything is ok" isn't taking the Sacrament first.  It's him sitting quietly after the prayer while the deacons pick up the trays.

That's why LeSeller's theory is "subtle" and "unwritten".  Because it isn't true.

And if there is a "mistake" in the Sacrament to the point that the ordinance is invalid, then there is no punishment or responsibility to be meted out.  If it was just done wrong, then God gets to decide if He's going to accept it or not.  If He does accept it, then no harm-no foul.  If He doesn't, then a Ward has missed out on whatever benefits the Sacrament would have given them this week and they'll do it right the next week.  In that case, it was just a ceremonial distribution of small pieces of bread and little cups of water.  There is no sin and no "punishment" for a well-intentioned but accidentally mis-performed ordinance.

Edited by cinepro, 14 March 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Cobalt-70, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

What I get concerned about is when the various things that have become the "unwritten order of things" gradually get codified in the CHI, for no particular reason. When I was in college, I had a bishop that specifically directed those that are passing the sacrament not to pass to the bishop first. He believed, and I agreed with him, that the bishop is the servant of the ward, and that granting him that "honor" was unbecoming of the nature of his office. Now, that practice is written in the CHI, so that no bishop can apparently do otherwise. Is this just "instruction creep"? Why does this have to be codified? If it isn't required by scripture or by solidly-established theological principles, why not just let each bishop do what he thinks is appropriate?

When I first joined the church I thought that was weird too.   I thought the bishop should be last.

[mfbukowski]

LeSellers, on 14 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

When I was bishop I just gave whoever was blessing the sacrament a nod or a shake of the head.   That seemed to work fine, but I see your point.

[mfbukowski]

calmoriah, on 14 March 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the Handbook (handing it first to the bishop or a stake leader who is presiding is mentioned, just not the reason so Cobalt' bishop was violating the Written Order of Things).  This was the instruction I was told way back when of why it was done.  Do you know of any reference that states this?

I think it might be in book 1, but I don't remember.   I had to give mine up.  

[BCSpace]

There is no such thing as an "unwritten order of things".  Once you've been told (or asked), it's essentially been "written".  A lot of things are left up to discretion.  For example, the Handbook does not specify if the Aaronic Priesthood can eat the uneaten bread from the trays after Sacrament Meeting.  The HB does say to treat it all as sacred, but it was a question that came up once in our Ward and the Bishop decided they must throw it away and not eat it unless one of them was about to die or faint of hunger.  It's such a trivial thing, but once people ask the question or take offense a rule, possibly pharsiacal, must be made.

[rongo]

cinepro, on 14 March 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

And if there is a "mistake" in the Sacrament to the point that the ordinance is invalid, then there is no punishment or responsibility to be meted out.  If it was just done wrong, then God gets to decide if He's going to accept it or not.  If He does accept it, then no harm-no foul.  If He doesn't, then a Ward has missed out on whatever benefits the Sacrament would have given them this week and they'll do it right the next week.  In that case, it was just a ceremonial distribution of small pieces of bread and little cups of water.  There is no sin and no "punishment" for a well-intentioned but accidentally mis-performed ordinance.

In our married ward at BYU, the water prayer was read for the blessing of the bread. The bishop didn't catch it and approved it, and several stunned married students were visibly struggling with whether to partake or not. My wife and I did, and I explained to people afterwards (it was a hot topic of conversation) that if the bishop authorizes it, then the ordinance is valid. Even if he wasn't paying attention, or was wrong. It isn't the congregation's place to second-guess the bishop's role, and his keys validated the ordinance. I believe that the same applies for people who actually didn't go fully under the water, even if the witnesses approved it, or if the wrong wording is used in an ordinance but it is not corrected by a presiding authority.

Can you imagine the chaos that would reign if it were otherwise? Nobody could be sure of anything, and one (unknown to anyone) "invalid" ordinance 100 years ago somewhere would throw everything into uncertainty.

[rongo]

BCSpace, on 14 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

For example, the Handbook does not specify if the Aaronic Priesthood can eat the uneaten bread from the trays after Sacrament Meeting.  The HB does say to treat it all as sacred, but it was a question that came up once in our Ward and the Bishop decided they must throw it away and not eat it unless one of them was about to die or faint of hunger.  It's such a trivial thing, but once people ask the question or take offense a rule, possibly pharsiacal, must be made.

LOL. I make the bread in my ward every week, and the sisters demanded that I put the recipe in the cookbook our ward put out (yes, it's that good). About a year ago, a sister with celiac disease asked if she could just bring a rice cake in her purse to eat for the sacrament. I told her that it would need to be on the table to be blessed and broken, and she vigorously disagreed. She didn't want it to be a spectacle (the deacons would have to ensure that that tray went to her, and that nobody else ate her item), which made sense. She mentioned a bishop in another ward in the stake who allows "rice cake in a purse," since it's in the room when the prayer is said (so are all the Cheerios, right?)    and provided me with a Deseret News article that talked about the "rice cake in the purse" approach. I told her that that was that bishop's call, but in our ward, the tokens needed to be blessed on the table.I tried a variety of gluten-free breads (garbanzo bean, rice, etc.) so that nobody was singled out ---- everybody would eat the same bread. All were worse than terrible ---- really, really bad. The sister told me to just go ahead and go back to normal bread again and she would just "take the smallest corner off of the smalles piece," but I needed to dispel the reputation that I make terrible bread, so I started bringing fresh french bread (I bake bread 3-5 times a week in my home, anyway, so it's not a big deal at all). Now, it's habit and routine.

The left-over bread is a favorite in the priest's quorum during the third hour . . .

By the way ---- the sister turns out not to have celiac disease after all, according to her. As I suspected all along, it was kind of a power struggle over her wanting to do "rice cake in a purse." There's no way we're going back to dollar loaves of bread now . . . I would have a riot on my hands . . .  

[mercyngrace]

rongo, on 14 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

In our married ward at BYU, the water prayer was read for the blessing of the bread. The bishop didn't catch it and approved it, and several stunned married students were visibly struggling with whether to partake or not. My wife and I did, and I explained to people afterwards (it was a hot topic of conversation) that if the bishop authorizes it, then the ordinance is valid. Even if he wasn't paying attention, or was wrong. It isn't the congregation's place to second-guess the bishop's role, and his keys validated the ordinance. I believe that the same applies for people who actually didn't go fully under the water, even if the witnesses approved it, or if the wrong wording is used in an ordinance but it is not corrected by a presiding authority.

Can you imagine the chaos that would reign if it were otherwise? Nobody could be sure of anything, and one (unknown to anyone) "invalid" ordinance 100 years ago somewhere would throw everything into uncertainty.

If God is going to let individuals into the Celestial Kingdom based on the mere fact that they would have accepted the gospel  (i.e. their intent), it's preposterous to think he would keep someone out based on a technicality regardless of their sincere and righteous intent.

The rigidity with which some members interpret the gospel, church policies, and practices makes me wonder how they must perceive God.

[KevinG]

mercyngrace, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

The rigidity with which some members interpret the gospel, church policies, and practices makes me wonder how they must perceive God.

It also makes me wonder how they were parented.  I know my share of apostates who could not conceive of a loving Father in Heaven who respects our agency, much less earthly church leaders who respect agency because of the way they were treated by parents.  In fact I think it is a more common cause of apostacy (or loss of faith) than individual sin.  Sad.

Edited by KevinG, 14 March 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[Que]

ksfisher, on 14 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

The handbook does say that a high councilor does not receive that sacrament first.  While a high councilor represents the stake presidency, he does not hold any of the keys that is held by that presidency.  A high councilor does not preside at a sacrament meeting.

Right - I noticed that, that in the link it seems to contradict itself by saying a High Councillor does not preside but then saying that he gets the sactrament first when on the stand on official business. But the handbook says

"After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first."
http://www.lds.org/h....4?lang=eng#204 20.4.3

Q

[DH]

LeSellers, on 14 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

There's a reason for this practice, and it's not a trivial thing.

The Sacrament prayers are a formal ordinance that must be done according to the form the Lord has required. The man who holds the keys of this ordinance is the bishop. His taking the Sacrament first indicates that he, in the role of officiator, is satisfied that the prayer (and the rest of the ordinance, including the worthiness of the Priests and Deacons) is acceptable to the Lord. If there was a mistake, the members of the ward/congregation are blameless and the bishop assumes that responsibility.

This kind of subtly often gets lost on people, including Saints, who don't grasp the power and burden of Priesthood keys.

Lehi

My bishop just nods at the person who said the sacrament prayer to indicate that it was done right. Wouldn't that suffice?

Edited by DH, 15 March 2012 - 12:25 AM.

[DH]

Call me cynical if you want, but to a large extent, I see the UOoT as merely a way of saying "Just do what you're told, darnit!" when leaders can't give a good reason for doing it other than they want things done a certain way, or don't want their requests "on the record." (Ducking to avoid the tomatoes you're going to throw at me! )

Sometimes I think that really is the case, but other times it's just a matter of not being able to address every possible question, and every possible situation, in the CHI. And really, do we want everything codified? But I would also say that even the UOoT should have good reasons, and should be amenable to change when necessary.

Edited by DH, 15 March 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[LeSellers]

mfbukowski, on 14 March 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

When I was bishop I just gave whoever was blessing the sacrament a nod or a shake of the head.   That seemed to work fine, but I see your point.

DH, on 15 March 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

My bishop just nods at the person who said the sacrament prayer to indicate that it was done right. Wouldn't that suffice?

This is common throughout the Church. But it misses the point.

The whole ordinance is symbolic. We are not eating the literal flesh of Christ, nor do we drink His actual blood. These things represent the two deaths of Christ, physical and spiritual, paid as a price for our sins and to redeem us from both deaths as they apply to us individually.

The bishop's (or other's) taking the sacrament first symbolizes his approval of the ordinance he presides over. The fact that he may (and nearly always does) let the officiators know "so far, so good" is not the symbol to the ward/congregation members know that he, based on his holding the presiding keys for that ordinance, assumes all responsibility for the form of the Sacrament.

It's very similar in the Temple. The "officiator" has control over the presentation and approves the conduct of the ordinance. Even though the narrator says that what just happened is sufficient, if it is not, the out-of-form piece is re-formed, and the officiator displaces the narrator and requires all to go through that part.

Symbolism must be, but cannot be fully, explained.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 15 March 2012 - 07:19 AM.

[rongo]

LeSellers, on 15 March 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

This is common throughout the Church. But it misses the point . . . The fact that he may (and nearly always does) let the officiators know "so far, so good" is not the symbol to the ward/congregation members know that he, based on his holding the presiding keys for that ordinance, assumes all responsibility for the form of the Sacrament.

This is just your interpretation, though, Lehi. Others, who similarly feel that the bishop nodding to the blesser constitutes approval of the ordinance, are on as solid of ground. While you are welcome to your view, I don't think you can say dogmatically that it is the act of taking the sacrament (and only then) that constitutes acceptance of the ordinance. At least, you can say it dogmatically, but others don't have to dogmatically accept it . . .

It never gets to the point of the bishop shaking his head to a deacon holding a tray out to him. The bishop makes them re-do the ordinance long before it reaches that point.

[Saints Alive]

BCSpace, on 14 March 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

There is no such thing as an "unwritten order of things".  Once you've been told (or asked), it's essentially been "written".  A lot of things are left up to discretion.  For example, the Handbook does not specify if the Aaronic Priesthood can eat the uneaten bread from the trays after Sacrament Meeting.  The HB does say to treat it all as sacred, but it was a question that came up once in our Ward and the Bishop decided they must throw it away and not eat it unless one of them was about to die or faint of hunger.  It's such a trivial thing, but once people ask the question or take offense a rule, possibly pharsiacal, must be made.

I am pretty sure the CHI allows Leftover sacrament bread to be used as normal food stuffs.

It seems this whole thread is highlighting pharsiacal LDS tendencies

[Nofear]

Every bishop and presiding authority should have (and dearly seek if they don't feel it present) the gift of the "differences of administration". It is this gift which entitles a bishop to know which unwritten mores and practices are appropriate and which are superfluous.

Quote

And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the ^adifferences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his ^bmercies according to the conditions of the children of men. (D&C 46:15)

[rongo]

Saints Alive, on 15 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

It seems this whole thread is highlighting pharsiacal LDS tendencies

That was my expressed point in the opening post. I think the Pharisees meant well and had the best of intentions initially (it took on pride after a while), but it got out of hand. We are no different.

Another example: the same counselor in the stake presidency I mentioned has insisted that the presiding authority close the meeting (that nobody speak after he speaks). This means that the person conducting needs to give all of the "end game" stuff (closing song, closing prayer, announcements, etc.) before turning the time over to the presiding authority to be the absolute last speaker. This isn't written anywhere, but it's serious stuff. This same counselor even brow-beat a Scouting guy from another stake at a fireside last year. Two stakes were camping together, and he gave a fireside around the campfire. After his fireside, the guy from the other stake gave some announcements and then announced the closing prayer. He was chewed up one side and down the other, and told that President Packer would have done the same thing to him. Unbelievable.

The funny thing is that we had a general authority preside over our stake conference in December, and he spoke and was followed by this counselor. He awkwardly turned to him after and asked him to close the meeting, and the GA simply shook his head and smiled. Then this counselor, who has insisted that this cannot ever happen, worlds without end, announced the closing song and prayer.

[Saints Alive]

Sounds like that counselor has some ego issues.

[rongo]

Saints Alive, on 15 March 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Sounds like that counselor has some ego issues.

He means well. He really does. He sees himself as preserving purity of the UOoT in the face of devastating shifting and changes.