What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as I know, there is little training in the religious beliefs of others for missionaries.  Since missionary work is primarily about presenting the gospel (simplified form usually, as understood by our faith...iirc, you have access to Preach My Gospel so you know what investigators are usually taught at least at the beginning) and then allowing the person to seek the Spirit for understanding, comprehending nuances of people's beliefs prior to engaging with them probably isn't seen as necessary.  Plus a lot of people vary on their interpretation of their faith's doctrine, so it may be more efficient just to allow them to explain if it matters to them.

And being educated in a set of beliefs prior to meeting someone and then assuming they believe those beliefs in a certain way may actually confuse the picture if there are nuances or major differences to the individual's actual belief, while the missionary is assuming he knows enough.

Fair enough! My last comment on this kind of "off-topic" topic will be  - I would understand your thinking better if it weren't that so many LDS Christians seem to be quite confident in their knowledge of Protestants, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists based on their own and their friends' experiences with the same. It isn't that they don't think it is important to know and understand. They seem to think they know and understand, when in reality their understanding is rather limited. Just like many of you would say about me and my understanding of your Church. The difference is I am making a concentrated, concerted effort to understand. If people on this forum mock me or call me a "follower of Canaan" or a "Son of Baal," I get upset with that person, not the entire forum.This forum is a complex place. It requires complex understanding. Think of the millions and millions of evangelicals and fundamentalists, a group far larger than this forum, and more than twice as large as the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Imagine how complex it is and what a complex understanding is needed to figure it out. Take care.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/4/2018 at 3:36 PM, bluebell said:

Yes, I think it’s time to agree to disagree. I see nothing in the verses in question that plainly says that we have to use an ordained intermediary between the priest and the congregation.  😊

It gives the younger boys role models, an deacons have keys that we're actually useful in previous times, when there were adult deacons.

But I see no reason other than tradition to not allow women to pass the sacrament.

On the other hand would it make women feel as if they were subservient to teenage boys, often their sons, if we did that?

It's hard for me to understand how that would be empowering, just the opposite.

 

[ERMD]

I got to page 5 of the thread and didn't see this referenced.  If it showed up after page 5, my apologies.  Then-Elder Oaks explained this in the context of priesthood keys and the ministering of angels.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/the-aaronic-priesthood-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand would it make women feel as if they were subservient to teenage boys, often their sons, if we did that?

It's hard for me to understand how that would be empowering, just the opposite.

 

Does it make men feel subservient when they do it?

Possibly a few, but not most from what I have heard. Probably the same for women. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does it make men feel subservient when they do it?

Possibly a few, but not most from what I have heard. Probably the same for women. 

Maybe the difference in mfbukowski's mind is that a man knows that he could be up there blessing the sacrament the next Sunday, while a woman would never be in that position. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Maybe the difference in mfbukowski's mind is that a man knows that he could be up there blessing the sacrament the next Sunday, while a woman would never be in that position. 

Perhaps, it is not something that would bug me any more than holding callings presided over by much younger, less experienced men or working with baby faced missionaries. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps, it is not something that would bug me any more than holding callings presided over by much younger, less experienced men or working with baby faced missionaries. 

It wouldn't bug me either.  Especially since I don't think women would be the one's passing. I think it would either be men, YM, or YW.

[BlueDreams]

On 11/4/2018 at 12:11 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I refer you to my reply to Bluebell above for my line of reasoning.

The evidence is the repeated explicit command to the 12 give to the people, their subsequent obedience, His commendatiomfor their obedience, and his commandment to always do it that way. Giving opus clearly a part of the ordinsnce he he gave them power to give, It is nothing like extrapolating things from the WoW.

We decide on the validity of evidence all the time. What is evidence to 7/jurors nut not to 6 can be a serious matter. The pattern I am referring to in the temple is giving the sacred things to each individual by command of God and giving the sacrament to each individual by command of God. This was in response to the “hole” that the sacrament is passed along rows by non-priesthood holders. The Handbook of Instructions verifies that this is done for convenience. It is not done that way in the temple. Clearly it is intended to be a personal thing, and that is what i was pointing out.

Well, thank you. That has been my thesis from the start.

I ran out of day the last few days but agree with BB has mentioned. I don't know if it would be productive to go in circles with this. I don't view your evidence as solid evidence and the verses in and of themselves in note sufficient to back your main theory. 
But on this point I would like to say a few things:

Quote

Interesting. This would require radical changes to the order of the priesthood as defined in the Doctrine and Covenants and Handbook of Instructions and would most probably require ordination of women to the priesthood. Anything is possible. Time well tell.

 

I strongly disagree that it would take radical changes to the order of the priesthood. It would take changes in current policies, but it wouldn't be a shift to our doctrine. The only way one can assume that is if you assume your theory in the OP as absolute and correct. I don't. To keep this fairly brief, to have YW passing with the YM would be no more shocking than having women performing temple rites. They would be given authority to assist in priesthood ordinances without having to be ordained themselves. And as mentioned, it is less "radical" than what happens in the temple to me, because I do not believe the young men passing the sacrament are any different than those passing from person to person in the pews. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It gives the younger boys role models, an deacons have keys that we're actually useful in previous times, when there were adult deacons.

But I see no reason other than tradition to not allow women to pass the sacrament.

On the other hand would it make women feel as if they were subservient to teenage boys, often their sons, if we did that?

It's hard for me to understand how that would be empowering, just the opposite.

I don't see how it is considered more subservient than when at times adult men are assisting in passing the sacrament. But like BB and Calm, I assumed that the passing would still largely happen with the youth, not the adults.

One of the reasons I could see it as empowering is in part from my own childhood. I did not have any sense of connection to the priesthood or that I held any form of priesthood power or authority until I had gone through the temple and was knee deep in my mission. So much of the priesthood had been gendered and was often presented to me as gendered that it seemed something that didn't really have much to do with me. I look back at that and can see just how limiting that was in my own spiritual preparation and development. I had never learned how to actively seek and use the priesthood in my journey. Heck many women joked (and still do) about holding the priesthood or using the priesthood in reference to their husband. This also caused unnecessary dissonance with my PB and our overarching culture....so much of what my blessing described of me seemed overtly traditional "male roles."

I think that is actively being worked on through our leadership nowadays by trying to shift language to emphasize the priesthood is neither male or female. Just recently, Elder Bednar was in our stake overtly stating as much....that the men were not the priesthood. But I think the more that we can see that visibly from a young age and feel active participation in priesthood power...the greater the lesson and cultural shifts. There could be lessons teaching young women that as the serve in their YW's callings and participate in passing that they too were preparing for their temple covenant by learning to honor the priesthood power given to all of those that have made covenants with God. It may open discussions more explicitly in YW's about the difference between being ordained and having access to priesthood power. And it could give more avenues for YW to actively practice honoring their covenants and participating in the priesthood at a younger age. Again, some of this is happening now....but I think opening this up would actively expand  YW's understanding in particular of the power and capacities they hold in the priesthood to be representatives of Jesus Christ. Personally, as I've come to better understand and actively seek the priesthood in my daily life/calling, I've felt more strength and greater capacities than when I was more blind to the gifts bestowed through the covenants I'd made. There is very few things that embody spiritual empowerment than literally participating in the work and power of God. And I want my sisters to see and access that more from a younger age.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 8, 2018 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe the difference in mfbukowski's mind is that a man knows that he could be up there blessing the sacrament the next Sunday, while a woman would never be in that position. 

Yes that's it- it seems I can never get this right- supposedly Patriarchy makes women feel subservient to men and as so is not correct so I was just thinking that this would be a case where men do the blessing and women do the passing and never the blessing.  It's not "equal".

Deacons are subservient to priests knowing that someday they will get to bless the sacrament while women would not have that

And serving food is a traditional "women's job" so I thought certain women would find that a sexist role - only getting to pass

I should just never post on feminist issues- I totally do not understand them.  My wife knows that she shares the priesthood - that it is shared in our complimentary roles and so I do not get the resentment some women feel.  She has known discrimination at work and sexual harassment and I  get that as the abomination that is- but in priesthood matters we are perfectly comfortable with our individual roles and see so no reason for a change.  She is a theological genius and has never studied philosophy but I can say one sentence on a topic from a philosopher and she can deduce from that the philosopher's position on other topics.  She is one of the most amazing people I have ever met and between us we have discussions that just soar into realms I never thought possible to even discuss.  She is totally comfortable in her skin so there is no need for "feminism" between us

She understands the blessings given in the initiatories and how that shapes our relationship.

 I am sure this post is still not politically correct on this stuff and I should just avoid posting on these issues I suppose.  Even why I try to get it right- I get it "wrong".

We just don't have these issues, thank God

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps, it is not something that would bug me any more than holding callings presided over by much younger, less experienced men or working with baby faced missionaries. 

"Any more than" indicates that it does bug you but at an acceptable level.  Yet the presumption in women wanting to do that it would be an honor for them to do so- indicating a change toward feminism in the priesthood

So what WOULD but you about it then?   Even a little.?

And now the baby faced missionaries would be handing you the tray and you "serving the food" for them while they did the "important" work.

THAT is exactly what I was talking about

So would it be an honor as it is for the deacons or make you "just a little" bugged as in "holding callings presided over by much younger, less experienced men or working with baby faced missionaries."? 

Edited November 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Any more than" indicates that it does bug you but at an acceptable level.  Yet the presumption in women wanting to do that it would be an honor for them to do so- indicating a change toward feminism in the priesthood

So what WOULD but you about it then?   Even a little.?

And now the baby faced missionaries would be handing you the tray and you "serving the food" for them while they did the "important" work.

THAT is exactly what I was talking about

So would it be an honor as it is for the deacons or make you "just a little" bugged as in "holding callings presided over by much younger, less experienced men or working with baby faced missionaries."? 

No, it means it wouldn't  bug me any more than the other things that occur now that bug me not at all.

[Navidad]

Quick question. If any of the faithful Mormons here visited a non-LDS Christian church and they passed their sacrament to you, would you take it, pray, and do it in "remembrance of me" as Christ said, and in remembrance of your own personal baptismal covenants? Or, would you decline to participate, and if so, why? Thanks.

[Navidad]

A few months ago I attended a large gathering of Saints for a panel discussion of womens' issues in the church. Probably 500 people there. The most widely discussed issue that irritated the panelists was Latter-day Saint men using their "priesthood voice" to intimidate women. Many were quite irate about that. What I found very interesting was that there were a few tables of LDS women there from somewhere in Africa. They were quite irate and vocal about the panel and other women being so irate and vocal about the subject. I saw a real divide in the culture between western and non-western LDS women. I found that fascinating. There was a buzz about the rather vocal discussion all the rest of that day. I keep listening for that condescending "priesthood voice" and sometimes I think I hear it, even occasionally in this forum! 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question. If any of the faithful Mormons here visited a non-LDS Christian church and they passed their sacrament to you, would you take it, pray, and do it in "remembrance of me" as Christ said, and in remembrance of your own personal baptismal covenants? Or, would you decline to participate, and if so, why? Thanks.

I think it is generally acknowledged that we do not accept/acknowledge other priesthood's and others do not accept/acknowledge ours.  Unless I was encouraged to partake, I would respectfully decline.  Many religions do not acknowledge/accept the baptism performed by Latter-day Saints and may take offense at my partaking as an unbaptized person. I don't know the different attitudes about this so I would error on the side of caution.

The reverse may also be true.  It may be perceived as offensive to them if I partake without acknowledging it as an authoritative ordinance for me.  If I was encouraged to partake, I would partake as a token of respect for their beliefs/practices, and I would do it in "remembrance of me", but it would not replace the need for me to renew my covenants via partaking of the blessed sacrament in my own church. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

A few months ago I attended a large gathering of Saints for a panel discussion of womens' issues in the church. Probably 500 people there. The most widely discussed issue that irritated the panelists was Latter-day Saint men using their "priesthood voice" to intimidate women. Many were quite irate about that. What I found very interesting was that there were a few tables of LDS women there from somewhere in Africa. They were quite irate and vocal about the panel and other women being so irate and vocal about the subject. I saw a real divide in the culture between western and non-western LDS women. I found that fascinating. There was a buzz about the rather vocal discussion all the rest of that day. I keep listening for that condescending "priesthood voice" and sometimes I think I hear it, even occasionally in this forum! 

I have never heard of anything like an international gathering of Saints for a panel discussion on anything.  Was this in Mexico? That would have been a fascinating meeting to attend. 

Just curious, do you notice a condescending priesthood voice in our church any more than you notice a condescending man's voice anywhere else?  There are some chauvinistic men who hide behind the priesthood and try to justify their condescension because of the priesthood.  That is called unrighteous dominion. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that's it- it seems I can never get this right- supposedly Patriarchy makes women feel subservient to men and as so is not correct so I was just thinking that this would be a case where men do the blessing and women do the passing and never the blessing.  It's not "equal".

Deacons are subservient to priests knowing that someday they will get to bless the sacrament while women would not have that

And serving food is a traditional "women's job" so I thought certain women would find that a sexist role - only getting to pass

I should just never post on feminist issues- I totally do not understand them.  My wife knows that she shares the priesthood - that it is shared in our complimentary roles and so I do not get the resentment some women feel.  She has known discrimination at work and sexual harassment and I  get that as the abomination that is- but in priesthood matters we are perfectly comfortable with our individual roles and see so no reason for a change.  She is a theological genius and has never studied philosophy but I can say one sentence on a topic from a philosopher and she can deduce from that the philosopher's position on other topics.  She is one of the most amazing people I have ever met and between us we have discussions that just soar into realms I never thought possible to even discuss.  She is totally comfortable in her skin so there is no need for "feminism" between us

She understands the blessings given in the initiatories and how that shapes our relationship.

 I am sure this post is still not politically correct on this stuff and I should just avoid posting on these issues I suppose.  Even why I try to get it right- I get it "wrong".

We just don't have these issues, thank God

I'm sorry, I'm not sure where the angst is coming from or what it's in reference too.  You posted why you felt a woman might not appreciate passing the sacrament and a couple of women responded by posting their own feelings about it.  The exchange was nothing more or less than that.    

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think it is generally acknowledged that we do not accept/acknowledge other priesthood's and others do not accept/acknowledge ours.  Unless I was encouraged to partake, I would respectfully decline.  Many religions do not acknowledge/accept the baptism performed by Latter-day Saints and may take offense at my partaking as an unbaptized person. I don't know the different attitudes about this so I would error on the side of caution.

The reverse may also be true.  It may be perceived as offensive to them if I partake without acknowledging it as an authoritative ordinance for me.  If I was encouraged to partake, I would partake as a token of respect for their beliefs/practices, and I would do it in "remembrance of me", but it would not replace the need for me to renew my covenants via partaking of the blessed sacrament in my own church. 

In my experience different church's administer communion differently and have different expectations about who is or is not invited/welcome to participate. In some church's it is reserved for members and is seen as a covenant event between the individual and the church. In others, like the Methodist, they practice an "open table" which is welcome to anyone willing to participate, whether or not they are a member of the church, any church, or have ever been baptized. In some ways I think they view it in the Belong-behave-believe paradigm that was being discussed here as opposed to the Believe-Behave-Belong paradigm that may be more common in our church.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quick question. If any of the faithful Mormons here visited a non-LDS Christian church and they passed their sacrament to you, would you take it, pray, and do it in "remembrance of me" as Christ said, and in remembrance of your own personal baptismal covenants? Or, would you decline to participate, and if so, why? Thanks.

Not being a baptized member of another church, I do not feel the need to participate. I don’t take the Host when I attend Mass, nor am I offended if a non-member does or does not take the emblems in my church. I don’t see this as some sort of ecumenical sharing thing.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quick question. If any of the faithful Mormons here visited a non-LDS Christian church and they passed their sacrament to you, would you take it, pray, and do it in "remembrance of me" as Christ said, and in remembrance of your own personal baptismal covenants? Or, would you decline to participate, and if so, why? Thanks.

I would decline unless I knew that it was acceptable by the rules of their Church.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Quick question. If any of the faithful Mormons here visited a non-LDS Christian church and they passed their sacrament to you, would you take it, pray, and do it in "remembrance of me" as Christ said, and in remembrance of your own personal baptismal covenants? Or, would you decline to participate, and if so, why? Thanks.

I would decline based on my belief that that sacrament was not being administered by the proper priesthood authority. 

[Navidad]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would decline unless I knew that it was acceptable by the rules of their Church.

Thanks to you all. Certainly different churches have different expectations regarding the sacrament. I was assuming in my question when I said they handed it to you, that it was ok with them for you to take it as a non-member of their church, which is quite often the case. I probably was asking to find out if it would have any spiritual significance to you to take it in a non-LDS setting? I go to many a mass in our local Catholic church, but I never take communion there. I doubt the priest would refuse me, but I simply have never done it. Every Sunday however, my wife and I in attendance at the LDS chapel partake. I find no difference to me from taking it in my home church in Pennsylvania. The methodology is almost identical and the Spiritual nature of it is individual. As I partake, I remember Christ's suffering, death, resurrection and atonement. That is a personal individual thing. Remembering my baptismal covenants is also a personal thing. Praying is also personal. Therefore there is nothing preventing me from complete enjoyment (in a spiritual sense) of the sacrament in an LDS chapel. I am surrounded by fellow Christians. The only thing different for me is the rote prayer. Being non-creedal, anything rote in a service is different for me. I am not criticizing it; it is simply different.

I wouldn't take it if I believed I was not in a good spiritual place, regardless of the setting. I guess I was wondering, and didn't say it well; for a LDS-Christian are there any limitations to the spiritual enjoyment of worshiping, or taking the sacrament in a non-LDS setting since I think of both as an intensely personal experience? I thought of it especially in the context of this discussion which is all about who, how, the details of taking the sacrament. In our Mennonite environment, the elements are passed around the church by elders of the church who, depending on the church might be male, female, or a mixture of the two.  Over my life I have spoken at or attended many different spiritual traditions, mostly within the Christian tradition. I have found personal spiritual blessings in many if not most of them. I have been told that my testimony, songs, and prayers have "blessed" and "ministered to" LDS Christians in several different contexts. Next Thursday I have been invited to speak in a Fireside in a different ward. I hope the folks will find spiritual enjoyment in it. I asked the question this morning because I have never really thought about or heard from LDS Christians about their ability to find spiritual renewal or refreshment in a non-LDS Christian settings. I think Jane on this forum has come the closest to sharing her spiritual enjoyment in the traditions of other Christian groups. Of course I am not speaking for her.

[Calm]

Quote

I probably was asking to find out if it would have any spiritual significance to you to take it in a non-LDS setting? I

If they shared their sacrament with the meaning it was meant to celebrate Christ as fellow Christians, it would have deep spiritual significance for me.  There are likely other doctrines I would find meaningful as well.

 I would not be assuming it meant the same for me as me partaking of the Sacrament in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Iow, It would not be a substitution for me, but a different sacrament), but there are many things in other faiths I find very inspiring and would desire to participate in if appropriate in their doctrine and participation would not contradict my own.  I would not want to participate if I felt the need to rewrite the experience in my head, I would want to participate as they defined the experience.  I would accept a blessing of healing through faith, for example.

I have very much enjoyed and been inspired in the few meetings I have attended in other faiths.  Mostly too shy just to crash them and my friends have rarely invited me...I think I may have finally reached the point I would feel comfortable in asking, but living in Utah Valley and having limited social contact outside my neighbourhood due to health, don't get opportunities.  Have attended a few Evangelical gatherings since the move here though, inspired by the devotion of others among other things.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Calm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I would decline based on my belief that that sacrament was not being administered by the proper priesthood authority. 

Help me out; and therefore that means what? What is the implication of priesthood authority or the lack thereof to your own personal experience, prayer, remembrance and commitment in the observation of the sacrament? Have you never experienced general or special revelation outside of priesthood authority? I know priesthood authority is important to LDS Christians, I am not questioning that. Do you however, expect to find no spiritual enrichment or enlightenment in the words, song, or actions of any non-LDS Christians? I know I will be criticized for asking such questions by some of you, because I have asked them before. I just find it so hard, so very hard to believe that a truly Godly LDS Christian believes there is no spiritual authority, accountability, practice, or presence in any other Christian group; and that is the only conclusion I can think of, from your answer.

If that is true why do the LDS Christians of our area keep asking me to sing, speak, share, testify in their midst when there are plenty of other LDS folks who could do the same? Am I just a novelty, a token interloper who they find fascinating? I know there are those of you who dislike it when I continue to be confused and not "understand." I just hope you can understand that such contradictions are indeed hard for me to understand. Your answer seems to indicate that there is a "magical" (there must be a better word) happening in the LDS sacrament like there is in the Catholic rite. The other day I walked into the men's room in our ward. The young man who was to say the sacrament prayer that morning had his phone up to his face and was saying it over and over and over again so he wouldn't mess it up (to use his words). I felt so bad for him. The pressure was intense. I gave him a hug and told him he would do fine. I am not sure I ever heard such a big sigh from a young man. He thanked me and walked out. Oh and he did fine! Please, it is not that I don't appreciate your answer. I simply can't comprehend it.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Help me out; and therefore that means what? What is the implication of priesthood authority or the lack thereof to your own personal experience, prayer, remembrance and commitment in the observation of the sacrament? Have you never experienced general or special revelation outside of priesthood authority? I know priesthood authority is important to LDS Christians, I am not questioning that. Do you however, expect to find no spiritual enrichment or enlightenment in the words, song, or actions of any non-LDS Christians? I know I will be criticized for asking such questions by some of you, because I have asked them before. I just find it so hard, so very hard to believe that a truly Godly LDS Christian believes there is no spiritual authority, accountability, practice, or presence in any other Christian group; and that is the only conclusion I can think of, from your answer.

If that is true why do the LDS Christians of our area keep asking me to sing, speak, share, testify in their midst when there are plenty of other LDS folks who could do the same? Am I just a novelty, a token interloper who they find fascinating? I know there are those of you who dislike it when I continue to be confused and not "understand." I just hope you can understand that such contradictions are indeed hard for me to understand. Your answer seems to indicate that there is a "magical" (there must be a better word) happening in the LDS sacrament like there is in the Catholic rite. The other day I walked into the men's room in our ward. The young man who was to say the sacrament prayer that morning had his phone up to his face and was saying it over and over and over again so he wouldn't mess it up (to use his words). I felt so bad for him. The pressure was intense. I gave him a hug and told him he would do fine. I am not sure I ever heard such a big sigh from a young man. He thanked me and walked out. Oh and he did fine! Please, it is not that I don't appreciate your answer. I simply can't comprehend it.

I'm not kfisher but I feel similar to how he does.

For me personally, I wouldn't see the purpose in partaking in the sacrament in a different church because I don't believe that it's been blessed by someone with the authority to do so. And if the bread and water aren't blessed, then there is no reason to partake of them.  They are no different spiritually than the bread I use for my sandwich or the water from my tap.

I wouldn't have a problem with anyone who felt similarly towards the sacrament in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and didn't believe that it was blessed appropriately so had no significance either.

To the bolded part above, kfisher said that he didn't believe that other Christian religions have the authority from God to perform the ordinance of the sacrament, and that's all he said.  Why would you conclude that he was saying that he didn't believe that other Christians have spiritual accountability, practice or presence?  That conclusion makes no sense to me.

Edited November 8, 2018 by bluebell