The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[BCSpace]

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.

I can certainly see someone swooping into a ward or stake talking about the unwritten order of things with regards to using the right hand if they get sloppy....

[Cobalt-70]

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.

But why specify the exact language. Why not just generally instruct church officers to use every opportunity to remind the couple that it's an inferior marriage, without being too overtly d1ckish about it?

Edited March 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Honestly, if I were to get married again, and this time not in the temple, I'd probably just go to Vegas and have an Elvis impersonator do it. If they can't go to the temple, I don't really understand why people would even want to have their Bishop marry them in the chapel of their church. The ceremony is designed to be so sad.

[Cobalt-70]

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

Was that ever actually codified? I generally raise my left hand on purpose, just to be different.

[Scott Lloyd]

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!

My hunch is that the right hand designation was quietly dropped years ago, just as was the requirement to use the right hand in taking the sacrament. It was years before I caught on to the fact that the requirement of the right hand for the sacrament had been discontinued. One day I asked about it and learned to my surprise that the change had been in effect for a long while. It was explained to me that some people don't have right hands, so it was thought best not to make an issue of it.

Of course, I could be wrong about the sustaining procedure. I just made the assumption when I looked it up today and read the script.

[mfbukowski]

It was explained to me that some people don't have right hands, so it was thought best not to make an issue of it.

You know, now that you mention it, I remember that because it seemed like a weird reason to me- the idea that they dropped it because some had no right hands. That had to be a specific incident that precipitated that one.

But yes, that was a LOOOONG time ago!

[Scott Lloyd]

You know, now that you mention it, I remember that because it seemed like a weird reason to me- the idea that they dropped it because some had no right hands. That had to be a specific incident that precipitated that one.

But yes, that was a LOOOONG time ago!

Apparently it has been since 1983, as shown by this Ensign article by none other than Russell M. Nelson who, at the time, was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve but a regional representative.

[mfbukowski]

Apparently it has been since 1983, as shown by this Ensign article by none other than Russell M. Nelson who, at the time, was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve but a regional representative.

Wow that's some good research!

It's specifically about the sacrament and not sustaining though, but it IS interesting because it brings up the point about not having a right hand, although it is not mentioned specifically

Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God.

It's kind of surprising that he brought it up that way, out of the blue!

[mtomm]

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

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

Well, needless to say this bishop was taken aback and wasn't sure what to do. The priests come up to ask him because they thought they needed to re-bless it. He kinda hemmed and hawed and the gal was getting pretty put out and saying that she had been allowed to in other wards (being new to our ward). The bishop didn't really see the need for her to take if she missed it during the meeting. But in order to not offend and not knowing if there was anything to prohibit it he just told her to take it. It did not get a new blessing.

I think that he'll be taking an opportunity to discuss it with this sister ahead of time and just encourage her to not worry about it if she is not there to hear the prayers. It seems that when you hear the prayer you engage yourself in covenant making. Without those prayers that part is lost. You've gone through the motions but not really partaken of the sacrament and ALL that it has to offer.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, needless to say this bishop was taken aback and wasn't sure what to do. The priests come up to ask him because they thought they needed to re-bless it. He kinda hemmed and hawed and the gal was getting pretty put out and saying that she had been allowed to in other wards (being new to our ward). The bishop didn't really see the need for her to take if she missed it during the meeting. But in order to not offend and not knowing if there was anything to prohibit it he just told her to take it. It did not get a new blessing.

I think that he'll be taking an opportunity to discuss it with this sister ahead of time and just encourage her to not worry about it if she is not there to hear the prayers. It seems that when you hear the prayer you engage yourself in covenant making. Without those prayers that part is lost. You've gone through the motions but not really partaken of the sacrament and ALL that it has to offer.

For the gal showing up late and being put out because she was not immediately allowed to take the sacrament on demand, I think the Eagles had some good advice a few years ago.

Add on:

Maybe next time, if she doesn't get what she wants, she could do what

did. Edited March 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

I think that he'll be taking an opportunity to discuss it with this sister ahead of time and just encourage her to not worry about it if she is not there to hear the prayers. It seems that when you hear the prayer you engage yourself in covenant making. Without those prayers that part is lost. You've gone through the motions but not really partaken of the sacrament and ALL that it has to offer.

At some point, such a "scrutiny" of the ordinance veers into the realm of superstition and hocus-pocus.

Why doesn't the priest's prayer also cover rice cakes in a purse elsewhere in the chapel? Why does the prayer only only cover baked food within a certain radius of the priest? If the rice cake were in a purse in the pew behind the deacons, would it be more likely to be blessed than if it were on the back row? Is it a specific line, or is there a gradation of "blessing" that weakens over distance? Does the white sheet have specific properties that protect the water from the blessing of the bread (and vice-versa)?

Ultimately, the covenant is between God and each individual, and the prayers and bread and water or just symbolic to help bring about that bond. If a ward member feels that her covenant is strengthened even if she wasn't there for the prayer, then it probably is.

[Scott Lloyd]

At some point, such a "scrutiny" of the ordinance veers into the realm of superstition and hocus-pocus.

Why doesn't the priest's prayer also cover rice cakes in a purse elsewhere in the chapel? Why does the prayer only only cover baked food within a certain radius of the priest? If the rice cake were in a purse in the pew behind the deacons, would it be more likely to be blessed than if it were on the back row? Is it a specific line, or is there a gradation of "blessing" that weakens over distance? Does the white sheet have specific properties that protect the water from the blessing of the bread (and vice-versa)?

Ultimately, the covenant is between God and each individual, and the prayers and bread and water or just symbolic to help bring about that bond. If a ward member feels that her covenant is strengthened even if she wasn't there for the prayer, then it probably is.

I suppose, once started, we could carry this thinking to logical extremes. Why bother showing up to the meeting at all? Just sleep in that day or do other more appealing things, trusting that the sacrament prayers will be said many times that day in thousands of locales. I'll just consider one or more of them as applying to the bread I have at home in my cupboard and the water that streams out of my faucet and take a bite and a drink whenever I get around to it. Much more convenient that way.

To be effective, ordinances must be seen as being authoritative, and if we allow the forms to decay according to personal whim, they soon cease to carry that authoritativeness. The simple thing, it seems to me, is to set some reasonable boundaries, such as the requirement to be in attendance while the sacrament prayers are being said and to participate in the ordinance along with the rest of the congregation.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

At some point, such a "scrutiny" of the ordinance veers into the realm of superstition and hocus-pocus.

Why doesn't the priest's prayer also cover rice cakes in a purse elsewhere in the chapel?

Maybe because -- I don't know -- the priests have just uncovered some trays of bread, broken said bread, and then one of them kneels and asks God to bless "this bread," instead of "any bread" or "whatever bread, rice cakes, VitaWeat crackers or other grain-derived baked goods, however constituted, might be within these walls?"

It seems to me, Cinepro, that even you ought to be able to make that connection. The bread they are blessing is the bread they've just uncovered and broken.

Ultimately, the covenant is between God and each individual, and the prayers and bread and water or just symbolic to help bring about that bond. If a ward member feels that her covenant is strengthened even if she wasn't there for the prayer, then it probably is.

It seems to me that if someone thinks her covenant with God is strengthened by doing things her way instead of His, then it may indeed be the case, if that represents an actual improvement on what she was doing before; as in, perhaps, not making any effort at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 20, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

That's at the bishop's discretion. But as I understand it, the ordinance of partaking of the sacrament includes listening to and assenting to the prayers. It is an act of "communion," with God and with the Saints.

There are other churches where people, sometimes called "lectors," carry the blessed emblems to people in their homes. That's what they do; it reflects the idea that the emblems, once blessed, have undergone some kind of fumandental change. It's not what we do. If someone cannot attend for some legitimate reason, Priesthood holders will visit them and provide the entire sacrament experience: listening to the prayers, assenting to the prayers and partaking of the emblems.

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

This, while true, is essentially irrelevant. If you drink cyanide, it will kill you. Does that mean arsenic is all good because it's not cyanide?

In the same way, your example doesn't represent one righteous person and one rotten sinner; it represents two sinners committing different kinds of sin. One is a hypocrite, the other doesn't care enough about the Sacrament to accept it on the terms it is offered.

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

Well there you are, you see. IM(V)HO, it's significantly more profane to diminish the significance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to mere syrupy sentiment than it is to take it too seriously.

If it is possible to take it too seriously.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran,

If you go back and read through the thread, you will see that I clearly agreed it was the bishop's discretion how to handle the sacrament.

In the one ward I attended where the sacrament was offered to latecomers after the meeting, I believe prayers were offered again and the sacrament was conducted a second time.

Regarding my comparison of two sinners taking the sacrament, the point of that example was not to compare those two partakers but to suggest that the value of the ordinance is in what we bring to it not where we sit when we take it. This is precisely why some bishops allow it to be distributed in the halls and why we can take it to members homes.

Another point, taking the Lord's Supper outside the "unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation" does not inherently make it syrupy sentiment. That's a false dichotomy.

As for taking the sacrament too seriously, I refer you back to the post which mentioned lighted candles on the sacrament table. I doubt the "well-meaning leader" (those are Pres. Monson's words) intended to undermine the seriousness of the ordinance. On the contrary, he likely felt he was adding to the serious and sacred nature of it. Reminds me of another story I heard years ago about a bishop who would lower the screen in the chapel and project a huge image of the Savior onto it during the sacrament. That got nixed according to the story also, and you can bet that bishop felt he was respecting the seriousness of the ordinance - probably thought he was helping his ward take the ordinance more seriously also.

[cinepro]

I suppose, once started, we could carry this thinking to logical extremes. Why bother showing up to the meeting at all? Just sleep in that day or do other more appealing things, trusting that the sacrament prayers will be said many times that day in thousands of locales. I'll just consider one or more of them as applying to the bread I have at home in my cupboard and the water that streams out of my faucet and take a bite and a drink whenever I get around to it. Much more convenient that way.

To be effective, ordinances must be seen as being authoritative, and if we allow the forms to decay according to personal whim, they soon cease to carry that authoritativeness. The simple thing, it seems to me, is to set some reasonable boundaries, such as the requirement to be in attendance while the sacrament prayers are being said and to participate in the ordinance along with the rest of the congregation.

Of course, we would ultimately have to ask what the nature of the Sacrament promises are, and under what circumstances they would not be in effect.

In other words, if a baptized member of the Church missed Sacrament Meeting but still make the conscious commitment to always remember God and to keep his commandments, would they not be worthy of always having "his Spirit to be with them", in spite of their having missed the Sacrament?

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, we would ultimately have to ask what the nature of the Sacrament promises are, and under what circumstances they would not be in effect.

In other words, if a baptized member of the Church missed Sacrament Meeting but still make the conscious commitment to always remember God and to keep his commandments, would they not be worthy of always having "his Spirit to be with them", in spite of their having missed the Sacrament?

I can't judge the intents of someone's heart. But if it's deliberate, It occurs to me that they run the very real risk of missing the blessings -- and possibly incurring the consequences, whatever they might be -- of disobeying this commandment from God:

And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day.

(Doctrine and Covenants 59:9)

By the way, that "rep point" that you just got was from me. It was in error; I meant to hit the "Quote" button. But hey, enjoy it for what it's worth.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

If you go back and read through the thread, you will see that I clearly agreed it was the bishop's discretion how to handle the sacrament.

In the one ward I attended where the sacrament was offered to latecomers after the meeting, I believe prayers were offered again and the sacrament was conducted a second time.

Regarding my comparison of two sinners taking the sacrament, the point of that example was not to compare those two partakers but to suggest that the value of the ordinance is in what we bring to it not where we sit when we take it. This is precisely why some bishops allow it to be distributed in the halls and why we can take it to members homes.

Another point, taking the Lord's Supper outside the "unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation" does not inherently make it syrupy sentiment. That's a false dichotomy.

As for taking the sacrament too seriously, I refer you back to the post which mentioned lighted candles on the sacrament table. I doubt the "well-meaning leader" (those are Pres. Monson's words) intended to undermine the seriousness of the ordinance. On the contrary, he likely felt he was adding to the serious and sacred nature of it. Reminds me of another story I heard years ago about a bishop who would lower the screen in the chapel and project a huge image of the Savior onto it during the sacrament. That got nixed according to the story also, and you can bet that bishop felt he was respecting the seriousness of the ordinance - probably thought he was helping his ward take the ordinance more seriously also.

Which points out another aspect of this discussion.

The "unwritten order of things" usually refers to the traditional way in which things are done. But it could just as easily refer to the extent to which some people consider themselves permitted to introduce unauthorised innovations.

Those innovations can be like the candles and slideshow you mentioned, or they can be like those who want to eat the rice cakes they carry in instead of the sacrament bread, or those who turn up late and demand that they receive the Sacrament at their convenience. Perhaps those individuals might imagine they are taking the Sacrament seriously too, but they're not taking it as seriously as they take their own sense of entitlement.

It seems rather blindingly obvious to me that if the (apparently regular) latecomers at the ward you mentioned took the Sacrament seriously, they could be bothered getting there on time.

And I maintain and hold to the view that if showing respect for a sacred ordinance is less important to us than making people feel good about not showing such respect, then we have reduced the sacredness thereof to mere syrupy sentiment.

I like your screen name; really I do. But please note that mercy is meaningless unless justice is real, and grace is something no-one is ever entitled to. It is up to the Lord to dispense mercy and grace; for us to imagine we are being gracious and merciful by getting slack about sacred matters is at best like being generous with someone else's money.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If God is going to let individuals into the Celestial Kingdom based on the mere fact that they would have accepted the gospel (i.e. their intent), it's preposterous to think he would keep someone out based on a technicality regardless of their sincere and righteous intent.

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

Perhaps they perceive God as being uniquely qualified to dispense mercy and grace, and themselves as having no authority to change the rules at their whim.

Let us remember that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be our judge. I have great hope that He will judge more mercifully, wisely and even justly than we frequently do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Perhaps they perceive God as being uniquely qualified to dispense mercy and grace, and themselves as having no authority to change the rules at their whim.

What rules? We're talking about unwritten cultural norms, not commandments. What bearing does this excuse to insult have on the discussion?

Let us remember that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be our judge. I have great hope that He will judge more mercifully, wisely and even justly than we frequently do.

Regards,

Pahoran

I see justice and mercy as inherently linked rather than at odds.

[mercyngrace]

Which points out another aspect of this discussion.

The "unwritten order of things" usually refers to the traditional way in which things are done. But it could just as easily refer to the extent to which some people consider themselves permitted to introduce unauthorised innovations.

Those innovations can be like the candles and slideshow you mentioned, or they can be like those who want to eat the rice cakes they carry in instead of the sacrament bread, or those who turn up late and demand that they receive the Sacrament at their convenience. Perhaps those individuals might imagine they are taking the Sacrament seriously too, but they're not taking it as seriously as they take their own sense of entitlement.

It seems rather blindingly obvious to me that if the (apparently regular) latecomers at the ward you mentioned took the Sacrament seriously, they could be bothered getting there on time.

First, I never suggested that it was the same people showing up late week after week. Second, I never mentioned anything about being demanding. All I said was that the sacrament was offered a second time.

You have characterized these individuals out of your own preconceptions. It was the bishop who offered the sacrament to latecomers, not latecomers who demanded it.

And I maintain and hold to the view that if showing respect for a sacred ordinance is less important to us than making people feel good about not showing such respect, then we have reduced the sacredness thereof to mere syrupy sentiment.

Again, you presume that respect wasn't being shown. Where did I say anything to indicate that?

I like your screen name; really I do.

It's just my opinions that drive you insane

But please note that mercy is meaningless unless justice is real, and grace is something no-one is ever entitled to. It is up to the Lord to dispense mercy and grace; for us to imagine we are being gracious and merciful by getting slack about sacred matters is at best like being generous with someone else's money.

Regards,

Pahoran

So noted. Please note that I never said anything about taking the sacrament lightly, in vain, or otherwise. I only said that refusing to offer it based solely on tradition was more profane than offering it to those who worthily desire it. And I further said that it was the bishop's discretion and I would sustain HIM.

Are you calling me to repentance for sustaining the bishop or for suggesting that God cares more about a broken heart and contrite spirit than the blood of bulls?

[Pahoran]

What rules? We're talking about unwritten cultural norms, not commandments.

Rules about the Sacrament being administered in Sacrament Meeting. (Guess why it's called that?)

What bearing does this excuse to insult have on the discussion?

What "excuse to insult" are you referring to?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Rules about the Sacrament being administered in Sacrament Meeting. (Guess why it's called that?)

Guess what they call the Lord's supper when offered at home during a snow storm, at the home of an invalid, or across a soldier's cot in combat? It's still called the Sacrament, lack of meeting notwithstanding.

[Pahoran]

First, I never suggested that it was the same people showing up late week after week. Second, I never mentioned anything about being demanding. All I said was that the sacrament was offered a second time.

You have characterized these individuals out of your own preconceptions. It was the bishop who offered the sacrament to latecomers, not latecomers who demanded it.

I was referring to the post that spun off this particular strand, namely mtomm's description of a lady who showed up late, asked for the Sacrament, and argued the point when she was told no, we don't do that.

I don't know what you call that if it isn't "demanding."

Again, you presume that respect wasn't being shown. Where did I say anything to indicate that?

If you had an invitation to dine with the President of the United States, do you think you'd just come dripping in whenever you felt like it, or would you make some sort of effort to get there on time?

We are invited to sup at the Lord's table. Last time I checked, the Lord was more important than the POTUS, the Prime Minister of New Zealand or even the Queen. Showing up late is profoundly disrespectful.

So noted. Please note that I never said anything about taking the sacrament lightly, in vain, or otherwise. I only said that refusing to offer it based solely on tradition was more profane than offering it to those who worthily desire it.

In which case we appear to be talking past each other. We must be different genders.

I never said there was anything wrong with offering the Sacrament to those who worthily desire it. I simply pointed out that the Sacrament isn't just chewing and swallowing, but involves participating in the entire ordinance.

Nor was I advocating "refusing to offer it based solely on tradition." You are beating up a straw man.

Are you calling me to repentance for sustaining the bishop or for suggesting that God cares more about a broken heart and contrite spirit than the blood of bulls?

Actually it's the fat of rams, not the blood of bulls. The blood of bulls was used to propitiate Artemis (Diana) the goddess of the hunt, worshipped especially at Ephesus.

My point is that someone whose heart is broken and whose spirit is contrite really should, except in unusual circumstances, be able to get to Sacrament Meeting on time.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Guess what they call the Lord's supper when offered at home during a snow storm, at the home of an invalid, or across a soldier's cot in combat? It's still called the Sacrament, lack of meeting notwithstanding.

Believe it or not, I've heard of that. I've even done it.

Being too unmotivated to get to Sacrament Meeting on time, or too happy socialising in the foyer to come into the meeting, is not quite the same as being in combat, snowed in or bedfast though, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran