The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[rongo]

Do you recall if it was in the print edition or was it an on-line printout?

Definitely an online print-out. I want to say that it was more of a blog or commentary, along the lines of "Utah living and issues," etc. It was emailed to her by a member of the other ward whose bishop allows "rice cake in a purse." Again, I have no quarrel with other bishops making executive decisions for their wards, it's just "as for me and my house, we will bless the emblems on the table."

[rongo]

It's the bring-your-own-and-pull-it-out-of-your-purse thing that strikes me as odd.

Me, too. I also found the dogged insistence on the part of partisans of this idea to be very odd, as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Definitely an online print-out. I want to say that it was more of a blog or commentary, along the lines of "Utah living and issues," etc. It was emailed to her by a member of the other ward whose bishop allows "rice cake in a purse." Again, I have no quarrel with other bishops making executive decisions for their wards, it's just "as for me and my house, we will bless the emblems on the table."

That's the problem when such things get written down -- either in print or online. They get passed around and shortly become pseudo-law. That's why we need handbooks and priesthood correlation, I suppose.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

That's the problem when such things get written down -- either in print or online. They get passed around and shortly become pseudo-law.

That's how it was used, too. As a "see ---- this is what wards in Utah are doing!" lever. The sister was very unhappy with my insistence that whatever we use be blessed and broken on the table, and brought to her. I tried to bake gluten-free loaves, but they were really, really bad. I feel for people who really can't use wheat products.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's how it was used, too. As a "see ---- this is what wards in Utah are doing!" lever.

"Wards in Utah" was it? Well you can tell her for me, as a charter member of [Darned] Utah Mormons, that we intend to retain exclusive claim on our quirky behavior, thank-you-very-much!

[DH]

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.

I agree. I think Rongo is adding his own additional layer of meaning to the ordinance. That's fine, if it's for his own benefit, but it's going too far to claim that that is "what it actually means" to the Church or anybody else.

[Gohan]

I think that's Lehi adding his interpretation, not Rongo.

[mfbukowski]

So do two Rongos make a right-o?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

There is a large hole in that argument. It is not necessarily the Bishop that gets the sacrament first. When a member of the Stake Presidency or some other presiding officer is present, they get it first. Yet, according to CHI, it is always the Bishop's responsibility to ensure that the ordinance and prayer are performed correctly. Thus, if the Stake President is visiting, the Bishop signs off on the Sacrament prayer, yet the Stake President is honored by getting the Sacrament first.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[DH]

I think that's Lehi adding his interpretation, not Rongo.

You're right, it was LeSellers. Apologies to Rongo!

[Cobalt-70]

Its my understanding that this wasn't always so and has only existed from about 1920 to the present, correct me if I wrong but. Also Why have a presiding authority other then the bishop if he holds the keys for the sacrament? If a counselor in the stake pres.is present with the bishop also there then the bishop according to this view holds the keys but isn't presiding, shouldn't it be the stake pres. member?

The Sacrament experience in the 19th century was quite different from that of today. For one thing, they used to give sermons while the Sacrament was being passed. (See http://books.google.com/books?id=7K4dAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA327 and http://books.google.com/books?id=pVYoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA60) That's another "unwritten order of things" that has apparently developed in the 20th century and subsequently been codified--silence during the Sacrament.

[LeSellers]

There is a large holes in that argument. It is not necessarily the Bishop that gets the sacrament first. When a member of the Stake Presidency or some other presiding officer is present, they get it first. Yet, according to CHI, it is always the Bishop's responsibility to ensure that the ordinance and prayer are performed correctly. Thus, if the Stake President is visiting, the Bishop signs off on the Sacrament prayer, yet the Stake President is honored by getting the Sacrament first.

Yet, as I mentioned, the High Priest is the one who's responsible for the Sacrifice that represented the Sacrament in Mosaic Law. The Stake President is the Presiding High Priest when he's there (the Bishop when he's not), so it is he who assumes the symbolic role of officiator.

Delegating responsibility and power is inherent to the concept of keys. The bishop still has the responsibility of assuring correct forms, but the ratification of the ordinance falls on the (Presiding) High Priest. Please don't forget that the Bishop is the President of the Aaronic Priesthood and the Priests' quorum in his ward, not the Stake President (even though, by virtue of his position, the bishop "works for" him).

It remains a matter of keys and symbolism.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

The Sacrament experience in the 19th century was quite different from that of today. For one thing, they used to give sermons while the Sacrament was being passed.

I think that was largely a matter of practicality. In pioneer days, the sacrament was passed during huge gatherings in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. If silence had prevailed during the passing of the sacrament on such occasions, it would have been an inordinately long meeting. Perhaps a growing prevalence of smaller congregations made it practical to have a respectful silence during the sacrament and to discontinue it during larger gatherings such as stake and general conferences.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Ultimately, God is going to accept a Sacrament regardless of whether or not there is a mistake in the prayer. At the original Eucharist, Jesus didn't use the wording from D&C 20:77, 79. Therefore, it is not like a magical incantation. If an error slips past both the priests and the bishop, it will still be a valid Sacrament.

[Cobalt-70]

Yet, as I mentioned, the High Priest is the one who's responsible for the Sacrifice that represented the Sacrament in Mosaic Law. The Stake President is the Presiding High Priest when he's there (the Bishop when he's not), so it is he who assumes the symbolic role of officiator.

Delegating responsibility and power is inherent to the concept of keys. The bishop still has the responsibility of assuring correct forms, but the ratification of the ordinance falls on the (Presiding) High Priest. Please don't forget that the Bishop is the President of the Aaronic Priesthood and the Priests' quorum in his ward, not the Stake President (even though, by virtue of his position, the bishop "works for" him).

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.

[mtomm]

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.

[KevinG]

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.

If the symbols of the sacrament were still there they could be used, but our local Bishop has asked us to restrain from taking the symbols if we are not there 9at least in the lobby) for the prayer. We have also been asked not to take the sacrament if we are only there for half of the ceremony.

I have no idea if this is doctrine, practice or local preference- but it is the Bishops call so I respect it.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that was largely a matter of practicality. In pioneer days, the sacrament was passed during huge gatherings in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. If silence had prevailed during the passing of the sacrament on such occasions, it would have been an inordinately long meeting. Perhaps a growing prevalence of smaller congregations made it practical to have a respectful silence during the sacrament and to discontinue it during larger gatherings such as stake and general conferences.

If things are instituted as a matter of practicality, that is an argument for not codifying them. Evidently, silence during the sacrament is appropriate in some circumstances, and not appropriate in other circumstances. If so, then why codify a one-size-fits-all rule? Why not leave most of this stuff up to the discretion of the Bishop? Do we really trust Bishops to preside over Sacrament meetings in the manner directed by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps the CHI could offer helpful suggestions, but why require every Bishop to follow a long list of rules and regulations? The LDS Church is not a franchise. It's not the McSacrament.

[KevinG]

Why not leave most of this stuff up to the discretion of the Bishop?

Unfortunately behind many losses of freedom and local control there are stories of abuse of the priveledge. On the bright side (in the words of Elder Packer during a regional priesthood meeting I attended) ..."we place our hands on the top of a 12 year olds head and give him some authority almost as soon as he can stand up straight".

The LDS Church is big on sharing authority and self governance. Much more so than most organizations of their size.

[Cobalt-70]

Unfortunately behind many losses of freedom and local control there are stories of abuse of the priveledge. On the bright side (in the words of Elder Packer during a regional priesthood meeting I attended) ..."we place our hands on the top of a 12 year olds head and give him some authority almost as soon as he can stand up straight".

The LDS Church is big on sharing authority and self governance. Much more so than most organizations of their size.

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.

[KevinG]

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.

Two reductio ad absurdum in as many sentences. Well done!

As we can tell from the previous discussion Bishops can often be inspired and incorrect in the same day. We can also tell that the LDS church has not codified and mandated every last detail of everything they do- otherwise there would be no questions or discussion about this would there?

This is in spite of the few members who feel they know every unwritten rule and are the presiding authority for declaring true practices to this discussion board.

Edited March 15, 2012 by KevinG

[mfbukowski]

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.

She gets to wait til next week. If you don't hear the sacrament prayer you don't partake. But the bishop could authorize another blessing if he wanted to- I wouldn't though.

If she was sick at home or in the hospital, obviously it's a whole different ball game

Edited March 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[selek1]

If the symbols of the sacrament were still there they could be used, but our local Bishop has asked us to restrain from taking the symbols if we are not there (at least in the lobby) for the prayer. We have also been asked not to take the sacrament if we are only there for half of the ceremony.

I have no idea if this is doctrine, practice or local preference- but it is the Bishops call so I respect it.

I believe this is local preference a/o practice.

I've seen quite a few late-comers partake of the water, but not the bread in various stakes.

As regards MTomm's situation, I suspect this would fall under the same heading as offering the Sacrament to shut-in's and others too sick or otherwise unable to attend.

Unless the young woman in question had a history of tardiness or other irresponsibility, I can't see any harm in sharing the Sacrament with her.

Further more- in buildings with multiple wards, I'd suggest she "sit-in" for the Sacrament meeting in the following ward.

Fortunately, that's not my stewardship- and I have trust in those who are actually bearing that burden to carry it.

Edited March 15, 2012 by selek1

[bluebell]

If the symbols of the sacrament were still there they could be used, but our local Bishop has asked us to restrain from taking the symbols if we are not there 9at least in the lobby) for the prayer. We have also been asked not to take the sacrament if we are only there for half of the ceremony.

I have no idea if this is doctrine, practice or local preference- but it is the Bishops call so I respect it.

We had a letter in one of our sacrament meetings saying the same thing. You don't take the sacrament if you don't hear the prayers and you don't take only the bread or only the water. I honestly can't remember if the letter was from the stake, relaying a church wide policy, or if it was from the 1st presidency. (this was in wyoming)

[Grundelwalken]

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.

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