Administering the sacrament

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Deacons are specifically tasked with assisting the bishop.  Bishops are tasked with conducting Sacrament Meeting.  It therefore seems reasonable to enact a policy of having deacons (and teachers, who retain all the responsibilities of deacons) in assisting the bishop with conducting Sacrament Meeting.

The sacrament is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance --- performed and carried out by the authority of the Aaronic priesthood. It is supervised by the bishop (an Aaronic Priesthood office), who holds the keys over that office. While we don't have specific wording in the D&C that explicitly state that only Aaronic Priesthood holders can prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament to the congregation, only having Aaronic Priesthood holders prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament makes perfect sense. That is the authority under which the ordinance is performed. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At present, and in the absence of any light and knowledge to the contrary, ordination to the priesthood claimed by the LDS Church lies within the province of those in authority.  If they are wrong, then God will let them know.  Meanwhile, I do not think it is within the province of members of the Church to publicly criticize or speak against the Brethren on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get your position.  I disagree of course.  God likely wanted the leadership to know many things that they simply did not want to know.  This is likely, in my view, one of those things.  peeking through a glass darkly cuases these types of problems, no doubt.  

I also disagree with your last line.  If not members speaking out then who?  We have to, in good conscience.  That's our province.  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree. That is the church's position.  And I'd suggest it take nothing away to actually grant authority to women.  

I am open to that theoretical possibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I get your position.  I disagree of course. 

"Of course?"

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

God likely wanted the leadership to know many things that they simply did not want to know. 

Such as . . . women being ordained to the priesthood?

If so, not only are you usurping authority, you are also publicly accusing (albeit obliquely) the General Authorities of systemic sexism.  

Nice.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

This is likely, in my view, one of those things.  peeking through a glass darkly cuases these types of problems, no doubt.  

That door swings both ways, no doubt.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I also disagree with your last line.  If not members speaking out then who?  We have to, in good conscience.  That's our province.  

No, it's not.  Not publicly  Not adversarially.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Of course?"

Such as . . . women being ordained to the priesthood?

If so, not only are you usurping authority, you are also publicly accusing (albeit obliquely) the General Authorities of systemic sexism.  

Nice.

That door swings both ways, no doubt.

No, it's not.  Not publicly  Not adversarially.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see we disagree with all these points raised.  'nuff said on my end.  I didn't accuse the authorities of anything.  I pointed out, only that the leaders suffer from the same problem of us all, our understanding is limited and we see only that which we can see.  

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get your position.  I disagree of course.  God likely wanted the leadership to know many things that they simply did not want to know.  This is likely, in my view, one of those things.  peeking through a glass darkly cuases these types of problems, no doubt.  

I also disagree with your last line.  If not members speaking out then who?  We have to, in good conscience.  That's our province.  

Why do we have to?

I suspect that it is more likely that those who enjoy criticizing (one of the easiest jobs in the world and one of the most useless) want it to be a duty so we have to stop categorizing then as useless whiners.

Edited December 6, 2017 by The Nehor

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see we disagree with all these points raised.  'nuff said on my end.  I didn't accuse the authorities of anything.  I pointed out, only that the leaders suffer from the same problem of us all, our understanding is limited and we see only that which we can see.  

If women are supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, I think God will reveal that to His servants.  

If an individual things the Brethren are in error on an important issue, I think it is entirely appropriate to raise that issue through appropriate means.  Publicly criticizing or speaking against the Brethren (such as implying systemic sexism amongst them because - according to you - they "simply {do} not want to know" that God wants women to be ordained to the priesthood) is  . . . not that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why do we have to?

I suspect that it is more likely that those who enjoy criticizing (one of the easiest jobs in the world and one of the most useless) want it to be a duty so we have to stop categorizing then as useless whiners.

It does feel like we have to have someone out there for useless whiners to whine about.  What else is there to do after you get in line and follow without question?  "If you want in then you must obey and put a sock in it.  If you don't then we'll whine about you endlessly because it simply can't be that some low life holds a different opinion than our beloved leaders.  Get in line or get out."  ---The Nehor.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

I don't know if this has been asked before but does anyone know when or why only the boys/men can administer the sacrament? I was looking through the scriptures and, unless i'm mistaken, the only reference is that Priests administer the sacrament, but they say nothing about deacons or teachers. I read that women used to set up the sacrament and take it down but when they switched to plastic cups they weren't really needed. Any hot leads?

Not sure of the reason exactly, but the practice was followed in 3 Nephi 18 when the Lord commanded the Disciples "that they should give unto the multitude" (verses 4, 9). Verse 5 shows that administering it is an ordained priesthood function (and as clarified further in Moroni chapters 4 and 5).

Edited December 6, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If women are supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, I think God will reveal that to His servants.  

If an individual things the Brethren are in error on an important issue, I think it is entirely appropriate to raise that issue through appropriate means.  Publicly criticizing or speaking against the Brethren (such as implying systemic sexism amongst them because - according to you - they "simply {do} not want to know" that God wants women to be ordained to the priesthood) is  . . . not that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think you have understood my point all that well, and seeing as we've quibbled on this type of stuff before and the endless effort of trying to speak for myself only to be ignored in favor of being condemned, I'll leave it as it is.  

Peace, my good man.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think you have understood my point all that well, and seeing as we've quibbled on this type of stuff before and the endless effort of trying to speak for myself only to be ignored in favor of being condemned, I'll leave it as it is.  

Peace, my good man.

I should probably ratchet things back.  I take exception to unwarranted and unjustified public insults and slights against men whom I know to be good and decent.  Sometimes I misidentify such things, sometimes I am spot on and call out an awkward impropriety.

In the present case, I'll err on the side of caution and assume that you are correct and I am not.  I apologize and retract my criticisms on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not all doctrines or church policy are found in the scriptures. There's almost nothing about the temple ordinances in the scriptures. 

Conversely, not all writings in the scriptures should be considered doctrines.  The very Mormon principle of modern revelation should allow for changes to scripture and doctrine.  Unfortunately this principle is rarely invoked in recent years, but it is there and should be utilized more frequently in my opinion.  

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It does feel like we have to have someone out there for useless whiners to whine about.  What else is there to do after you get in line and follow without question?  "If you want in then you must obey and put a sock in it.  If you don't then we'll whine about you endlessly because it simply can't be that some low life holds a different opinion than our beloved leaders.  Get in line or get out."  ---The Nehor.

Sounds like the substance is something I might say but the whimsy and humor are missing. Bad attempt at conveying the Nehor.

D- See me after class.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But D&C 20 specifically says that deacons and teachers cannot administer the sacrament, which means that administering has a very narrow definition as it's used in the scriptures.  It means blessing the sacrament specifically.  

If administering the sacrament is defined more broadly (to include passing it and preparing it), we would be contradicting our own scriptures by allowing the teachers and deacons to participate.  Is there a scripture that teaches that preparing and passing the sacrament is a priesthood duty?

According to 3 Nephi 18, and Moroni 4 and 5, administering and ministering  seem to relate to bringing forth the bread and wine (v 1), blessing (v 5) and passing it (v4, 9). Moroni chapters 4 and 5 provide additional detail.

In D&C 20, the lesser priesthood offices can assist higher offices in their duties "if occasion requires."

Edited December 6, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's a boy thing because of tradition.

Did Jesus simply follow this tradition in choosing the Twelve (in mortality, in the New Testament) and in choosing the Disciples (post-resurrection, in the Book of Mormon, which more explicitly describes their role in the sacrament)?

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It does feel like we have to have someone out there for useless whiners to whine about.  What else is there to do after you get in line and follow without question? 

"Follow?"  Yes.  That's part of the gig.

"Without question?"  No.

Quote

"If you want in then you must obey and put a sock in it. 

No.  "If you want in you must make covenants, which include sustaining those God has called to preside in His Church?  Where differences of opinion arise, they can and should be addressed.  But "not before the world" (D&C 42:89).  I will, once again, encourage all of us to read Elder Oaks' excellent treatise on this subject.

The time, place and manner in which we voice disagreements or questions or concerns matter.  A lot.  A lot.

Quote

If you don't then we'll whine about you endlessly because it simply can't be that some low life holds a different opinion than our beloved leaders.  Get in line or get out."  ---The Nehor.

Certainly they can hold a different opinion.

But let's get real here.  If I have a disagreement with my employer's business decisions, am I at liberty to publicly speak against such things and remain in good standing with my employer?

If I have a disagreement with my wife about a family matter, am I at liberty to publicly criticize her?  Ridicule her?  Encourage others to speak or act against her?  And to do these things while remaining in good standing with her?

If I am serving in the military, and if I disagree about a command decision that is well within the authority of my commanding officer, am I at liberty to publicly speak against my CO?  To criticize his decision and encourage others to act against him?

There are all sorts of situations and circumstances in which Party A can and should constrain himself from publicly railing or faultfinding or ridiculing or speaking against Party B.  These constraints often arise where there is is a mutually important relationship between Parties A and B.  That does not mean - as is being falsely suggested here - that Party A is completely and permanently constrained from voicing his grievances or concerns, but rather than he voices them with the appropriate motive, and in the proper time, place and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2017 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think you are correct here.

I am not sure if "administering the sacrament" should be defined more broadly.

CHI 20.4.3 establishes that "{d}eacons, teachers, priests, and Melchizedek Priesthood holders may pass the sacrament."

I wonder if this policy is founded, at least in part, on D&C 20:27, which provides that a bishop "is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires."

One of the duties of of the bishop is to prepare, conduct and preside in Sacrament Meeting (unless another presiding officer is present).  The Bishop can delegate some portions of conducting Sacrament Meeting, such that counselors can arrange for speakers, individuals can be called to arrange and conduct and play music, individuals can be invited to give talks, and so on.  But it appears that deacons are "first in line" in terms of "assisting in all {the bishop's} duties in the Church."  I suspect this is one of the reasons why preparing and passing the Sacrament are delegated to teachers and deacons.

So there is an unequivocal policy in the CHI, and a plausible scriptural basis for that policy in D&C 20:27.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you mean D&C 20:57.  But that scripture isn't speaking about a deacon assisting a bishop in their duties, rather it is about a deacon assisting a teacher (who is not authorized to administer the sacrament) in their duties.  Here is the context:

Quote

 

53 The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

55 And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty.

56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—

57 And is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires.

58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;

 

I suspect that the only reason for the policy is that it gives deacons and teachers responsibilities which are viewed as preparatory to blessing the sacrament as priests.  That is the only thing that makes sense to me.  It is set up as a form of advancement from passing (deacons), preparing (teachers), blessing (priests).  Even if your theory was correct, it doesn't explain why a deacon cannot prepare the sacrament.  There is no scriptural or doctrinal basis for this distinction in responsibility.  I think it is mostly used as a tool to teach the boys that each office has different responsibilities and roles to play, and that with each advancement comes new responsibilities.  I am guessing that is the reason for the policy.  It is used as a teaching tool rather than a necessary policy based in doctrine.  I don't necessarily see a problem with the policy for that, but I don't necessarily see a valid reason to not reconsider it either.  Though there may be good reason for the policy, it is an unnecessary and expendable policy.  If women were to pass and prepare the sacrament, the church would still be true and no unbreakable rules would be violated. The administration of the sacrament would still be reserved for the priests as is required in scripture, and the duties of conducting sacrament meeting would still be delegated to both males and females in speaking, conducting the music, etc.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

But the current prophet and church leaders have been inspired to limit the taking of the sacrament trays from the table to the congregation to the priesthood. 

I think that is an assumption. This is an imperfect institution with imperfect leaders.  Not all policies are necessarily inspired by the spirit, but that is not to say that there is no reason for them; and some policies have simply been in error and have evolved over time.  I agree that we should sustain our modern leaders in their roles and responsibilities, but that does not mean that the policies are off-limits to exploration and discussion, nor subject to change with the evolving times and expressed desires of the women in the church to take more part in expanding roles.  

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  13 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not all doctrines or church policy are found in the scriptures. There's almost nothing about the temple ordinances in the scriptures. 

The OT is full of temple duties for Aaronic priesthood holders.

https://www.templeinstitute.org

[smac97]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not all doctrines or church policy are found in the scriptures. There's almost nothing about the temple ordinances in the scriptures. 

Hmm.  I had a friend on my mission who made a goal of going through the LDS scriptural canon and highlighting in purple portions which pertain to, or are probably the basis of, temple ordinances.

He had a lot of purple in his quad.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Conversely, not all writings in the scriptures should be considered doctrines. 

I agree with this.  

In the law, when an appellate court publishes an opinion, it is comprised of two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

"Ratio decidendi" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'the reason' or 'the rationale for the decision'. The ratio decidendi is 'the point in a case that determines the judgement' or 'the principle that the case establishes'."

"Obiter dicta" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'by the way', that is, a remark in a judgment that is 'said in passing.'"  "For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only."

If we analogize this to scriptures (as being comparable to a published opinion), the "doctrine" in the text would be equivalent to Ratio Decidendi, with the residual text being Obiter Dicta.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The very Mormon principle of modern revelation should allow for changes to scripture and doctrine.  Unfortunately this principle is rarely invoked in recent years, but it is there and should be utilized more frequently in my opinion.  

Hmm.  This "principle" has been deployed, such as in the November 2015 policy changes regarding same-sex couples and children in same-sex marriage households.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you mean D&C 20:57.  But that scripture isn't speaking about a deacon assisting a bishop in their duties, rather it is about a deacon assisting a teacher (who is not authorized to administer the sacrament) in their duties.  Here is the context:

I suspect that the only reason for the policy is that it gives deacons and teachers responsibilities which are viewed as preparatory to blessing the sacrament as priests.  That is the only thing that makes sense to me.  It is set up as a form of advancement from passing (deacons), preparing (teachers), blessing (priests).  Even if your theory was correct, it doesn't explain why a deacon cannot prepare the sacrament.  There is no scriptural or doctrinal basis for this distinction in responsibility.  I think it is mostly used as a tool to teach the boys that each office has different responsibilities and roles to play, and that with each advancement comes new responsibilities.  I am guessing that is the reason for the policy.  It is used as a teaching tool rather than a necessary policy based in doctrine.  I don't necessarily see a problem with the policy for that, but I don't necessarily see a valid reason to not reconsider it either.  Though there may be good reason for the policy, it is an unnecessary and expendable policy.  If women were to pass and prepare the sacrament, the church would still be true and no unbreakable rules would be violated. The administration of the sacrament would still be reserved for the priests as is required in scripture, and the duties of conducting sacrament meeting would still be delegated to both males and females in speaking, conducting the music, etc.  

It seem that administering goes beyond blessing the emblems. In Moroni 4, the elders and priests administered it, which from 3 Nephi 18 we learn involves preparing, blessing and passing.

D&C 20 mentions elders in verse 40, and priests in 46. The priest can assist the elder (verse 52) and the deacon assists the priest (verse 57), but neither can administer the sacrament in the sense of blessing it (verse 58, and where administering refers to blessing in verses 76 and 78). With regards to the sacrament, assisting would seem to entail the preparing and passing functions.

People not holding a priesthood office certainly pass the administered emblems to one another for convenience, but not to the “church” (or congregation) as someone holding an office.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I agree with this.  

In the law, when an appellate court publishes an opinion, it is comprised of two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

"Ratio decidendi" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'the reason' or 'the rationale for the decision'. The ratio decidendi is 'the point in a case that determines the judgement' or 'the principle that the case establishes'."

"Obiter dicta" is "a Latin phrase meaning 'by the way', that is, a remark in a judgment that is 'said in passing.'"  "For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only."

If we analogize this to scriptures (as being comparable to a published opinion), the "doctrine" in the text would be equivalent to Ratio Decidendi, with the residual text being Obiter Dicta.

Hmm.  This "principle" has been deployed, such as in the November 2015 policy changes regarding same-sex couples and children in same-sex marriage households.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good points about court opinions, interesting stuff.  

As for the infamous 2015 policy, I guess you got me there.  Thats an example of modern changes, which I typically want to see more of, unfortunately, I hate that 2015 policy so much.  I guess whenever you have modern change/revelation, there is opportunity for good and bad and we have to accept both sides.  

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seem that administering goes beyond blessing the emblems. In Moroni 4, the elders and priests administered it, which from 3 Nephi 18 we learn involves preparing, blessing and passing.

D&C 20 mentions elders in verse 40, and priests in 46. The priest can assist the elder (verse 52) and the deacon assists the priest (verse 57), but neither can administer the sacrament in the sense of blessing it (verse 58, and where administering refers to blessing in verses 76 and 78). With regards to the sacrament, assisting would seem to entail the preparing and passing functions.

People not holding a priesthood office certainly pass the administered emblems to one another for convenience, but not to the “church” (or congregation) as someone holding an office.

3 Nephi 18 is probably the best argument that "administer" means to bless, pass, and prepare the sacrament.  I'm not saying that you are wrong per se, but D&C 20:58 makes that argument rather convoluted without specifying that there are different types of administration (passing and preparing) that deacons and teachers do have authority to perform.  It also doesn't explain why a deacon cannot prepare the sacrament. 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points about court opinions, interesting stuff.  

As for the infamous 2015 policy, I guess you got me there.  Thats an example of modern changes, which I typically want to see more of, unfortunately, I hate that 2015 policy so much.  I guess whenever you have modern change/revelation, there is opportunity for good and bad and we have to accept both sides.  

I don't "hate" the 2015 policy.  It pertains to a very difficult and challenging circumstance.  I don't "like" or "enjoy" it.  But I do find it to be a necessary thing.

A topic for another day, I suppose...

Thanks,

-Smac