The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[Scott Lloyd]

As a brand-new missionary in Stettler, Alberta, we baptized a family of four. The member who did the confirmations was very nervous and when he closed each confirmation he just said, AMEN. No priesthood authority was stated in the ordinance. I didn't speak up after any of the ordinances (fear and trembling) and it bugged me for months. When I had one of my interviews with the Pres. I asked him if the confirmations were valid. His statement was -- The Lord knew what was meant and He will accept it even if it was done wrong.

Since then I have had times when I'm sure the Lord has overlooked the weakness of what I or others have done in His name. Not to say we should use that as a reason to be sloppy but just a comfort when we aren't perfect,. MW

My returned-missionary wife served for a time on a stake Primary board. In that capacity she helped out with the stake baptismal services and was constantly having to point out the need for witnesses to be selected and in place for the baptism. These were generally under the direction of bishopric members who ought to have been well-acquainted with the routine.

I'm sure the Lord is merciful and longsuffering of our imperfections, but at the same time He expects us to try our best to get it right. With such a simple thing being overlooked repeatedly, I don't think there was due diligence.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mercyngrace]

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

I've seen this handled numerous ways. I've seen the sacrament reverently given to late-comers after the meeting ends and the rest of the congregations vacates the chapel. I've also seen it withheld from people sitting in the foyer because 'the bishop is supposed to oversee the ordinance and he can't see into the foyer'.

The outward ordinance is supposed to reflect the inward covenant. If you keep those covenants and live so as to enjoy the companionship of the Spirit, God isn't going to withdraw it simply because you were late for church or sat in the foyer. By the same token, if you are sitting on the front row in a crisp white shirt, looking every bit the picture of a latter-day Saint, after breaking your covenants, no amount of bread or water is going to bring the Spirit until you repent.

IMO, it's significantly more profane to withhold the sacrament from one who is worthy and desirous to receive it based on this unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation than to offer it outside the normal bounds.

[ksfisher]

Not according to CHI, which says that it is always the bishop's responsibility to ensure that the Sacrament ordinance is acceptable. If so, and if your theory were correct that taking the Sacrament first symbolizes that the ordinance is acceptable, then the bishop should always be the one getting the Sacrament first, even if the Stake President is there.

The bishop receives his keys from the stake president. The stake president presides over the bishops in his stake. That is why it is appropriate for a member of the stake presidency to receive the sacrament first.

[ksfisher]

I've seen this handled numerous ways. I've seen the sacrament reverently given to late-comers after the meeting ends and the rest of the congregations vacates the chapel. I've also seen it withheld from people sitting in the foyer because 'the bishop is supposed to oversee the ordinance and he can't see into the foyer'. The outward ordinance is supposed to reflect the inward covenant. If you keep those covenants and live so as to enjoy the companionship of the Spirit, God isn't going to withdraw it simply because you were late for church or sat in the foyer. By the same token, if you are sitting on the front row in a crisp white shirt, looking every bit the picture of a latter-day Saint, after breaking your covenants, no amount of bread or water is going to bring the Spirit until you repent. IMO, it's significantly more profane to withhold the sacrament from one who is worthy and desirous to receive it based on this unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation than to offer it outside the normal bounds.

But, to me, the sacrament is something we partake of together. It's a communal ordinance. In partaking of the sacrament as a congregation we out signifying our desire to mourn with those who mourn, and to bear each others burdens etc. We do it together because we desire to become part of a community of saints.

[Bikeemikey]

Either bishops are inspired or they are not. If a bishop is not inspired, then you have a much bigger problem that is not going to be solved by codifying and mandating every last detail of everything they do.

A bishop can be inspired, but not inspired all of the time. Hence the issue.

[Flyonthewall]

In my ward, the sacrament is prepared and passed by 4 Preists and 8 Deacons, and if there is not enough Priests or Deacons, Elders will fill in.

Growing up, I remember we could accomplish it with 2 or 3 Priests and 6 Deacons.

Both wards up are of similar size.

Is there a standard number of Priests and Deacons required for the Sacrament?

I think it is like cutting the ends off the ham before putting it in the oven...

[mercyngrace]

But, to me, the sacrament is something we partake of together. It's a communal ordinance. In partaking of the sacrament as a congregation we out signifying our desire to mourn with those who mourn, and to bear each others burdens etc. We do it together because we desire to become part of a community of saints.

Because you and I see the ordinance as largely communal, we may not seek to take it if we arrive late to church. That is a matter of personal discretion.

mtomm's example, however, was of someone who did want to take the sacrament individually after the meeting. In the case of that individual, the question isn't whether the sacrament was made for man or man for the sacrament but whether our response to the individual's feelings about the "shewbread" in question will cause offense.

[Cobalt-70]

The bishop receives his keys from the stake president. The stake president presides over the bishops in his stake. That is why it is appropriate for a member of the stake presidency to receive the sacrament first.

Only if the presiding-officer-first practice is designed as an honor to the presiding officer. If, as LeSellers proposes, the presiding officer takes the Sacrament first as merely a symbolic act that the ordinance is acceptable, then it could only be such a symbolic act if the bishop takes the Sacrament first, because it is the bishop whose job it is to pay attention and ensure that the Sacrament is acceptable. Even if the Stake President has the keys, he is required by the CHI to delegate them to the bishop in this instance.

[KevinG]

--silence during the Sacrament.

That would entail removing children and babies from the room. We are asked for reverence not silence.

[KevinG]

I once tried to baptise using the words "having been commissioned by Jesus Christ" at which point the Bishop held up his hand, smiled at me and said - unless you are a lot older than you look you have been commissioned of Jesus Christ". Grinning at his gentle correction I re-started the ordinance and did it correctly.

[Cobalt-70]

A bishop can be inspired, but not inspired all of the time. Hence the issue.

But providing a list of rules and regulations which the bishop must follow does not prevent a bishop from making uninspired decisions. In fact, having to follow a long list of regulations, circumstances and situations be damned, leaves little room for inspiration.

[KevinG]

But providing a list of rules and regulations which the bishop must follow does not prevent a bishop from making uninspired decisions. In fact, having to follow a long list of regulations, circumstances and situations be damned, leaves little room for inspiration.

You do know the Church handbook of instructions has gotten quite a bit smaller through the correlation process? Look to the Missionary materials in the last decade to see how we are consolidating our instructions and depending on teaching with the Spirit more. The Temple recommend list of questions is much shorter and less intrusive than it was 100 years ago.

The long list of rules and regulations you keep talking about is shrinking not growing.

[ksfisher]

Because you and I see the ordinance as largely communal, we may not seek to take it if we arrive late to church. That is a matter of personal discretion.

mtomm's example, however, was of someone who did want to take the sacrament individually after the meeting. In the case of that individual, the question isn't whether the sacrament was made for man or man for the sacrament but whether our response to the individual's feelings about the "shewbread" in question will cause offense.

So where is the line drawn between what is right and proper, and our desire not to offend? Of course a bishop desires that no one in his ward becomes offended. But he also has a responsibility to see that the ordinances of the gospel are performed in the proper manner. Times when an improper request is made can be viewed as teaching opportunities.

[mercyngrace]

So where is the line drawn between what is right and proper, and our desire not to offend? Of course a bishop desires that no one in his ward becomes offended. But he also has a responsibility to see that the ordinances of the gospel are performed in the proper manner. Times when an improper request is made can be viewed as teaching opportunities.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, ksfisher. I'm saying I've seen this handled different ways which indicates to me that there is some latitude.

I've seen people take the water after missing the bread. I've seen people refuse the water because they missed the bread. I've known bishops who refused to allow the sacrament to be passed in the foyer and others who passed it there without hesitation. When I first learned that some members were taking the sacrament after the meeting because they had arrived late, it caught me off guard. That was a new one. And when my family arrived late one Sunday and someone asked if I wanted to take the sacrament late, I declined. I did not see the need. But some people apparently do, and if their bishops are so inclined, who am I to discourage that?

As for "right and proper", I'd say that right and proper is what brings people to Christ. If that's healing on the Sabbath once in a while, then so be it.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Cobalt-70]

You do know the Church handbook of instructions has gotten quite a bit smaller through the correlation process? Look to the Missionary materials in the last decade to see how we are consolidating our instructions and depending on teaching with the Spirit more. The Temple recommend list of questions is much shorter and less intrusive than it was 100 years ago.

The long list of rules and regulations you keep talking about is shrinking not growing.

If the page counts on Wikipedia are correct, the Church Handbook of Instructions has never been larger than it is now. The current version is 403 pages total, including both books 1 and 2. By contrast, as recently as 1989 it was only 79 pages. Going back to the first edition in 1899, it was only 14 pages.

To put the CHI in perspective, it has almost half the number of pages in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, although the dense, two-column CHI has significantly more text per page than does the ACA.

[Nofear]

A bishop can be inspired, but not inspired all of the time. Hence the issue.

Pres. Monson concurs. From his introducing comments to the worldwide leadership training in 2010 introducing the new church handbook of instructions:

I’m reminded of an experience I had many years ago when I served as a bishop. During the opening exercises of our priesthood meeting one Sunday morning, we were preparing to ordain a young man to the office of priest. Visiting our ward that day was a high councilor who also served as a temple worker. As I prepared to have the young man sit down to face the congregation so that we could proceed with the ordination, the high councilor stopped me and said, “Bishop, I always have those being ordained turned to face the temple.” He repositioned the chair so that the young man would be facing in the direction of the temple. I immediately recognized an unauthorized practice.

I could see the potential for it to become more widespread in practice. Although much younger than the high councilor, I knew what needed to be done. I turned the chair back so that it was again facing the congregation and said to him, “In our ward, we face the congregation.”

Over the years, we’ve had to correct many attempts by well-meaning leaders to change some of the programs of the Church. We’ve dealt with lighted candles on sacrament tables, with locally determined changes in the length of Church meetings, with elimination of Sunday School from the Sunday block meetings. We’ve created methods for providing visiting teaching to women gathered in large groups. The list goes on and is fairly long. I would not try to mention all the many changes, errors, and problems which can occur.

The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.

Of potential significance to this particular thread are the comments on Uniformity and Adaption in the follow-up 2011 worldwide leadership training.

[KevinG]

If the page counts on Wikipedia are correct, the Church Handbook of Instructions has never been larger than it is now. The current version is 403 pages total, including both books 1 and 2. By contrast, as recently as 1989 it was only 79 pages. Going back to the first edition in 1899, it was only 14 pages.

To put the CHI in perspective, it has almost half the number of pages in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, although the dense, two-column CHI has significantly more text per page than does the ACA.

That includes all of the auxilliary handbooks and correlates all other manuals that were not part of the original Bishops handbook. The wiki article is mixing apples and oranges. The total stack of church teaching and administration materials has shrunk considerably due to correlation.

Please excuse my misnomer by calling them all the CHI.

[Cobalt-70]

Pres. Monson concurs. From his introducing comments to the worldwide leadership training in 2010 introducing the new church handbook of instructions:

Quote

I’m reminded of an experience I had many years ago when I served as a bishop. During the opening exercises of our priesthood meeting one Sunday morning, we were preparing to ordain a young man to the office of priest. Visiting our ward that day was a high councilor who also served as a temple worker. As I prepared to have the young man sit down to face the congregation so that we could proceed with the ordination, the high councilor stopped me and said, “Bishop, I always have those being ordained turned to face the temple.” He repositioned the chair so that the young man would be facing in the direction of the temple. I immediately recognized an unauthorized practice.

I could see the potential for it to become more widespread in practice. Although much younger than the high councilor, I knew what needed to be done. I turned the chair back so that it was again facing the congregation and said to him, “In our ward, we face the congregation.”

Over the years, we’ve had to correct many attempts by well-meaning leaders to change some of the programs of the Church. We’ve dealt with lighted candles on sacrament tables, with locally determined changes in the length of Church meetings, with elimination of Sunday School from the Sunday block meetings. We’ve created methods for providing visiting teaching to women gathered in large groups. The list goes on and is fairly long. I would not try to mention all the many changes, errors, and problems which can occur.

The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.

I can't find where in the manuals it say that a person should not face the temple during his ordination. I also can't find where it says that you can't have candles at the sacrament table. Are these things in there? Even if they are, what difference does it make? Why should anyone care? Maybe a particular ward has lots of Catholic converts and candles happen to enhance their experience of the Holy Spirit.

[KevinG]

I can't find where in the manuals it say that a person should not face the temple during his ordination. I also can't find where it says that you can't have candles at the sacrament table. Are these things in there? Even if they are, what difference does it make? Why should anyone care? Maybe a particular ward has lots of Catholic converts and candles happen to enhance their experience of the Holy Spirit.

This is how layers and layers of non-doctrinal and sometimes bad ideas turn into tradition. When the direction of the chair becomes a sistraction from the ordinance it is a problem.

In a way allowing folk practices and non-essential habit to overshadow the ordinance of the Spirit is the very danger you warn of in worrying about too many rules and regulations. It is incumbent upon the church to remind members not to add to or take away from the gospel in a meaningful way.

If a Bishop feels too constrained by the CHI I would argue there are other issues that are bigger than the number of pages in the manual.

[cinepro]

I can't find where in the manuals it say that a person should not face the temple during his ordination. I also can't find where it says that you can't have candles at the sacrament table. Are these things in there? Even if they are, what difference does it make? Why should anyone care? Maybe a particular ward has lots of Catholic converts and candles happen to enhance their experience of the Holy Spirit.

Here's the part about candles...

Open flames and lighted candles may not be used in Church buildings.

People should care about the candles because it's a safety and liability issue.

I think the point about the "facing the Temple" story is that we shouldn't make up our own rules. It just doesn't matter if the person is facing a Temple or not. There's certainly nothing wrong with it if someone just happens to be facing that way, but made up rules serve as a distraction, taking away the focus from real aspects (and symbolism) of the ordinance.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

As a brand-new missionary in Stettler, Alberta, we baptized a family of four. The member who did the confirmations was very nervous and when he closed each confirmation he just said, AMEN. No priesthood authority was stated in the ordinance. I didn't speak up after any of the ordinances (fear and trembling) and it bugged me for months. When I had one of my interviews with the Pres. I asked him if the confirmations were valid. His statement was -- The Lord knew what was meant and He will accept it even if it was done wrong. Since then I have had times when I'm sure the Lord has overlooked the weakness of what I or others have done in His name. Not to say we should use that as a reason to be sloppy but just a comfort when we aren't perfect,. MW

This unfortunately happens in the temple all the time, especially I think during initiatories, and at the veil when the poor brother or sister is struggling with a new language. I don't know how many times I have heard the word "patriotical" at the veil, and things like that cannot really be corrected without humiliating the patron and totally losing the spirit.

The workers do the best they can but human frailties sometimes get the best of all of us. And temple workers know this principle well and are comforted by the fact that God knows the desires of our hearts.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't find where in the manuals it say that a person should not face the temple during his ordination. I also can't find where it says that you can't have candles at the sacrament table. Are these things in there? Even if they are, what difference does it make? Why should anyone care? Maybe a particular ward has lots of Catholic converts and candles happen to enhance their experience of the Holy Spirit.

I think his point is that you shouldn't clutter up the ordinances of the gospel and the instructions from prophets and apostles with a lot of unauthorized and arbitrary fluff and accoutrement. Of course, he is absolutely right.

[KevinG]

Here it is...

That and Scout tents.

[Cobalt-70]

That includes all of the auxilliary handbooks and correlates all other manuals that were not part of the original Bishops handbook. The wiki article is mixing apples and oranges. The total stack of church teaching and administration materials has shrunk considerably due to correlation.

Please excuse my misnomer by calling them all the CHI.

Even if you just include the instructions for Bishops and Stake Presidents, yes there was a decrease in size of a few pages in the 2010 edition, but my understanding is that this was mainly because material was moved from book 1 to book 2. But that still leaves 186 pages, which is more than it was in 1998 (161 pages), and more than the "General Handbook of Instructions" of 1989 (79 pages).

[mfbukowski]

IMO, it's significantly more profane to withhold the sacrament from one who is worthy and desirous to receive it based on this unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation than to offer it outside the normal bounds.

But does one get to the point where "the sacrament" becomes magically blessed bread divorced from the covenants at all, if you just keep a tray or two to share with late comers? Can one be "one with the body of Christ" (the church) if you are in an empty chapel eating a piece of bread?