The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[KevinG]

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).

I just explained that my error was referring to the total bulk of instructions and instructional material as the CHI.

The total bulk of instructions and instructional materials has been reduced. There have been additions to the instructions for Bishops.

There are reasons that the instructions have to be more explicit sometimes and it has nothing to do with control. It has everything to do with clarity and uniformity of doctrines and practices - and sometimes our unwillingness to be ruled by the Spirit.

There is even an additional Temple recommend question that had to be added because knuckleheaded youth from BYU were using quickie marraiges and divorce in Vegas to "legally" fornicate for a weekend.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's the province of the president of the Church, not individual bishops, to establish the order and procedure of ordinances and other forms of liturgy.

And yes, there is a great deal of uniformity in the administration of the Church. A lot of people see that as a strength and a comfort. At any rate, it's how the Lord has ordained things, and it's one of the most visible ways in which we are different from the Protestant sects you keep comparing us to.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

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.

I can understand this, but on the other hand it is the bishop's responsibility to teach correct principles and we know how difficult that can be with children.

On one hand you want to give them everything they want, but on the other one must ask oneself as a parent if that is actually good for them. Perhaps one needs to learn to be in church on time and accept the consequences if one is not.

Of course the spirit should rule, but I think there are certain limits beyond which one should not bend. Is this one? I suppose "it depends". Probably in the case of the young woman if she really wanted the sacrament- ie: a piece of blessed bread, in an empty chapel, the best course would have been to give it to her and then include a lesson on what the sacrament really is, and why it is not necessary to regard the piece of bread as "magic" divorced from the context of the sacrament itself.

That is probably the best way to handle such a situation imo.

[David T]

FWIW, Deacons passing the sacrament is also one of those things that is not a scriptural mandate. Seeing as additionally in practice, ward members pass the sacrament down the row (even non-members!), technically, there's nothing scripturally against a change in current practice in assigning young men and women the role of administering the symbols of the Savior to the congregation.

For What It's Worth

[Cobalt-70]

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.

If something isn't mentioned in the CHI (such as the direction your chair is facing), it isn't unauthorized.

Also, part of the issue I'm raising is the seemingly arbitrary fluff that is contained in the CHI itself. For example, why does the CHI specify the exact words that church officer must to say when performing a civil wedding? It is not an ordinance, so why can't the church officer vary the ceremony based on the needs or preferences of the happy couple, or the local custom? Why not do it the way the CHI provides language that may be used when proposing a priesthood candidate for a sustaining vote? Some church officers might find it helpful to have a script they can use, but unless it is an ordinance, why specify a mandatory script from which they cannot deviate?

[LeSellers]

why does the CHI specify the exact words that church officer must to say when performing a civil wedding? It is not an ordinance, so why can't the church officer vary the ceremony based on the needs or preferences of the happy couple, or the local custom?

I can think of several reasons, of which this one seems the most important (to me);

There is, in the official, prescribed wording no indication that the marriage is an eternal one, and every indication that it is not. Further, by declaring that he is "an Elder", rather than "a Bishop" in the Church etc., he is implicitly rejecting the idea that this is a "Church" wedding (which may be confused, by those inclined to do so, with a "Temple" wedding).

As I said, I thought of others, too. You might, were you to spend a moment or two reflecting on the matter.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

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

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

The Church itself is pretty absolute regarding doctrine and policy. However, there are some members who see a spirit in it that does not exist.

[BCSpace]

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

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

There isn't anything specific on it (like throw it away or feel free to eat it) which is why the Bishop had to rule on the matter (because the question came up and some were offended. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out. I have book 1 and 2.

It seems this whole thread is highlighting pharsiacal LDS tendencies

Yep. Because the CHI is general enough to allow flexibility, one can also get caught up in unwarranted inflexibility. Opposition in all things....

[mercyngrace]

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?

Another question: Is believing that a piece of bread is magical any different than believing the Lord only accepts an ordinance if the bishop eats the magical bread first?

The whole point of a ritual is the reality of which it reminds us. For each of us, that reality may be a little different depending on where we are along the journey and what we believe about what we know.

If, after hearing "The sacrament is the most important reason for coming to church on Sunday" preached all your life, you feel the need to participate in the ordinance in an empty chapel, and doing so has meaning to you, then that's okay by me.

As for me, and this may be a topic for another discussion, I don't find meaning in the sacrament, I give meaning to the sacrament. So if I miss the ordinance for whatever reason, I don't feel the need to create a new opportunity to partake. I simply embrace the reality behind the ritual with renewed vigor just as I would have had I been present in the chapel during the ordinance.

[LeSellers]

If, after hearing "The sacrament is the most important reason for coming to church on Sunday" preached all your life, you feel the need to participate in the ordinance in an empty chapel, and doing so has meaning to you, then that's okay by me.

But "the Sacrament" is more than "bread and water": it is a complete ordinance. This includes the prayers and communal portion: that we all partake of it, that we partake of it together, that we witness, by that partaking, that we will and do remember Him (each is a new covenant, renewed every week).

The Sacrament is not any fraction of the ordinance, it is the ordinance in its entirety.

There are exceptions, but they should be arranged for in advance. A bishop who authorizes (and assigns) two Priests to administer the Sacrament to a shut-in, or allows (and recommends that) a family to hold a "private" Sacrament Meeting because meeting in his ward will put them in danger of being stranded in the snow storm "covers the bases" for them. But anyone who asks for retroactive permission is playing with the ordinances of the Priesthood. It would be my inclination, were I to hold those keys, to disallow that permission. (You might well think, "That's why you've never been a bishop!" You just could be correct.)

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Another question: Is believing that a piece of bread is magical any different than believing the Lord only accepts an ordinance if the bishop eats the magical bread first?

Hey don't pin that one on me! I never said it!

The whole point of a ritual is the reality of which it reminds us. For each of us, that reality may be a little different depending on where we are along the journey and what we believe about what we know.

If, after hearing "The sacrament is the most important reason for coming to church on Sunday" preached all your life, you feel the need to participate in the ordinance in an empty chapel, and doing so has meaning to you, then that's okay by me.

As for me, and this may be a topic for another discussion, I don't find meaning in the sacrament, I give meaning to the sacrament. So if I miss the ordinance for whatever reason, I don't feel the need to create a new opportunity to partake. I simply embrace the reality behind the ritual with renewed vigor just as I would have had I been present in the chapel during the ordinance.

That's not fair! You know I can't disagree with that either!

No seriously as I think I implied- the best solution would probably be for the sister to have the bread if she wanted to, and later a follow-up discussion gently delivered with the utmost tact to better explain the sacrament.

Edit: And I agree that we give meaning-for us- to ordinances as we integrate them into our individual belief systems, otherwise they remain meaningless rituals done without rhyme or reason- they become magical incantations, as the critics believe them to be.

Indeed, this is precisely what happens to many apostates we see around here- they accuse us of "magical thinking" precisely because they have not learned personally how to move beyond the surface and create meanings for ordinances in their lives.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mercyngrace]

Hey don't pin that one on me! I never said it!

That's not fair! You know I can't disagree with that either!

No seriously as I think I implied- the best solution would probably be for the sister to have the bread if she wanted to, and later a follow-up discussion gently delivered with the utmost tact to better explain the sacrament.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, mfb, just clarifying.

Now where is mtomm to tell us how the situation was actually handled....?

[mfbukowski]

If something isn't mentioned in the CHI (such as the direction your chair is facing), it isn't unauthorized.

Also, part of the issue I'm raising is the seemingly arbitrary fluff that is contained in the CHI itself. For example, why does the CHI specify the exact words that church officer must to say when performing a civil wedding? It is not an ordinance, so why can't the church officer vary the ceremony based on the needs or preferences of the happy couple, or the local custom? Why not do it the way the CHI provides language that may be used when proposing a priesthood candidate for a sustaining vote? Some church officers might find it helpful to have a script they can use, but unless it is an ordinance, why specify a mandatory script from which they cannot deviate?

I would never change that wording. It is perfect.

It uses the words "for the period of your mortal lives" and does NOT say "til death do you part". If you say the latter you are actually covenanting to be "divorced" after death- your agreement was to part at death.

The correct wording doesn't imply that at all, and in fact it can be pointed out that it still leaves the possibility open that another ordinance- temple sealing- will continue blessing the marriage even AFTER the "period of your mortal lives"

Those few words give an opening for the bishop- if he wants to and finds it appropriate- to teach an entire homily looking to the future when the couple might be sealed in the temple.

The other wording also parallels subtly the sealing ordinance itself- those words in the marriage ceremony have been carefully crafted to give the entire event a distinctive LDS twist.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, mfb, just clarifying.

Now where is mtomm to tell us how the situation was actually handled....?

Maybe he is waiting at the chapel for the sacrament from last week?

[mercyngrace]

But "the Sacrament" is more than "bread and water": it is a complete ordinance. This includes the prayers and communal portion: that we all partake of it, that we partake of it together, that we witness, by that partaking, that we will and do remember Him (each is a new covenant, renewed every week).

The Sacrament is not any fraction of the ordinance, it is the ordinance in its entirety.

There are exceptions, but they should be arranged for in advance. A bishop who authorizes (and assigns) two Priests to administer the Sacrament to a shut-in, or allows (and recommends that) a family to hold a "private" Sacrament Meeting because meeting in his ward will put them in danger of being stranded in the snow storm "covers the bases" for them. But anyone who asks for retroactive permission is playing with the ordinances of the Priesthood. It would be my inclination, were I to hold those keys, to disallow that permission. (You might well think, "That's why you've never been a bishop!" You just could be correct.)

Lehi

Covering the bases sounds a lot like checking the blocks. The purpose in participation is achieved when fully engaging the ordinance reorients us, reignites us, reminds us, or reengages us in the relationship with Christ and the church into which we entered at baptism.

If we take it with any reason less than that, aren't we taking it in vain?

And if someone earnestly desires to partake of the sacrament as a means of experiencing at-one-ment with Christ, would denying them that blessing based on a perceived breach of formality be in keeping with the spirit of the gospel?

I think these are valid questions and deserve consideration. I'm glad I get to explore them on a message board among friends rather than under the scrutiny of an entire ward that looks to me as a leader.

(PS Lehi, earlier I said that I consider this a matter of the bishop's discretion, so I wouldn't dare judge why anyone has or hasn't been a bishop

[Scott Lloyd]

If something isn't mentioned in the CHI (such as the direction your chair is facing), it isn't unauthorized.

It's not just a matter of the direction your chair is facing but mandating that it face a specific direction, as the misguided high councilor in President Monson's anecdote was doing.

And we could have some fun taking your thinking to its logical extreme and imagine up all manner of absurd, outrageous, crass or bizarre behavior that, absent specific direction from prophets and apostles, could be a part of priesthood ordinances merely because it isn't specifically mentioned or prohibited in the handbook.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

And we could have some fun taking your thinking to its logical extreme and imagine up all manner of absurd, outrageous, crass or bizarre behavior that, absent specific direction from prophets and apostles, could be a part of priesthood ordinances merely because it isn't specifically mentioned or prohibited in the handbook.

Like saying we have to take the sacrament with our right hands...

[Scott Lloyd]

Like saying we have to take the sacrament with our right hands...

That is no longer required.

[LeSellers]

Like saying we have to take the sacrament with our right hands...

That is no longer required.

It derives from the practice of using the righthand to make oaths and covenants. A practice that has, sadly, fallen out of favor.

Lehi, the left-handed

[Scott Lloyd]

It derives from the practice of using the righthand to make oaths and covenants. A practice that has, sadly, fallen out of favor.

Lehi, the left-handed

Apparently, neither is it any longer required that one raise the right hand to vote to sustain people in callings. See here.

[mfbukowski]

(PS Lehi, earlier I said that I consider this a matter of the bishop's discretion, so I wouldn't dare judge why anyone has or hasn't been a bishop

In fact thinking you will never be bishop, in my experience, seems to be highly correlated with getting called.

So look out Lehi!

[cinepro]

Apparently, neither is it any longer required that one raise the right hand to vote to sustain people in callings. See here.

Okay, that officially blows my mind. The next time someone is presented to the ward, I'm going CTL. Choose the left!

Edited March 16, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Apparently, neither is it any longer required that one raise the right hand to vote to sustain people in callings. See here.

Where does it say that, or were you joking?

[cinepro]

Where does it say that, or were you joking?

I think his point was that it doesn't specify the right hand, so that means either hand is suitable.

[mfbukowski]

I think his point was that it doesn't specify the right hand, so that means either hand is suitable.

Well I wonder the last time it did specify the right hand. We have been using that same script- straight out of the book- for at least 7- 10 years in our stake. In fact the bishopric has a little cheat sheet in a beat up old binder, also with the sacrament prayers, of which every ward in the stake has a copy, and which is used while conducting meetings, which has been used at least that long, including a copy of that section straight out of the manual for more than 7 years that I know of, and am absolutely sure that notebook and the copies are older than that.

I was personally taught that wording more than 5 years ago- mentioning nothing about the right hand- and that is the wording the previous bishop used- and he became the stake president at that time. He is kind of a stickler for the right wording, as he should be, so it has been something I have been aware of. Get it wrong, and you get a kind reminder of how to do it right!