Appropriateness Of Taking Communion In Other Denominations

[volgadon]

However, did you eat matza and drink the wine? And, if non-LDS non-Jews, would any other part of the meal be off-limits?

The matza, yes, and tirosh, like the kids and elderly. I was just pointing out that even some aspects of the Seder don't allow for full ecumenism, if participation is intended by that term.

[SamIam]

The opinions of Elders Smith & McConkie notwithstanding, non-members are permitted to take the LDS Sacrament of the Lord's Supper regularly, and it is not an issue which members worry about. If they are too young, they will eventually get old enough to become members, and if they are adults in an investigator class, they will soon learn the importance of covenantal observance of that rite.

I think we miss the point to a degree when we wave off the council of those who are called to guide our footsteps. The OP's inquiry was one of seeking out credible council in order to help him make his own personal conclusion on correct standards. To that ends I supplied the credible recommendations provided and or sustained by these two brethren. They in no way intimate that we should go on the offensive when we observe non-members doing as you indicate, however, they as all general authorities usually do, state the standard of best practice. Naturally we recognizes that the best standard is what we teach, in order that we can use that as a guide for making our own decisions.

Your council of caution to those who may observe non-members partaking the sacrament is prudent. Your characterization of "opinions" of these brethren as dismissable and not to be 'worried about' by members perhaps illustrates a more cavalier attitude than you might have intended.

As far as the intent of the OP, I will contend that it is always valuable to consider the council of Church leaders even when our ultimate decision may not be in perfect agreement for circumstance which we deem significant and warranted. It is not that we have to "obey" per se, but very much that our hearts, to be sincere, must at least consider upon their wisdom.

Edited November 9, 2012 by SamIam

[Bikeemikey]

By partaking of the wine, no matter how well-intentioned that BYU professor may have been, he would be violating one of the standards which is specifically required in order to obtain and renew an LDS temple recommend.

This would be tantamount to an observant Jew partaking of pork (or other non-kosher food) just to be ecumenical.

The temple recommend questions asks if we keep the word of wisdom.

I would have no crisis of conscience responding, "yes I do", if I had taken a sip of wine from a communion cup earlier that year.

The question is not, has alcohol passed your lips.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

NON-MEMBERS AND THE SACRAMENT. Non-members cannot comply with the covenants embodied in the blessings of the sacrament and, therefore, should not partake of it. ((Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R.McConkie.)

This is one definition of how we view the rights of non-members to partake of LDS sacrament. Reverse it and I think it might apply to us when we participate with them. I would think that in addition that any act that sustains false authority to administer the sacred ordinance of the sacrament is making a mockery of your own beliefs.

Also, a similar principle is contained in Corinthians 8. If you can extrapolate from the principle there to your situation, it may provide room for consideration.

Samlan, in the past when i was quite young (and this was confirmed for me by others) I remember that an announcement to refrain was given from the pulpit. It is no longer given, so I don't believe the same restriction is applied.

[SamIam]

Samlan, in the past when i was quite young (and this was confirmed for me by others) I remember that an announcement to refrain was given from the pulpit. It is no longer given, so I don't believe the same restriction is applied.

The most recent material I have seen on it does not remove the standard of nonmembers are not intended to partake of the sacrament. That is the standard and as I read current material it is still considered such. However, we do emphasize the aspect of not making nonmembers feel uncomfortable should they be inclined to partake. For my part, when I read material such as the quote following this section, the emphasis has simply shifted from where common sense would dictate in an earlier era that we should be prudent and not attack our non-member friends, but now in modern times we have to err on explaining common sense for its to oft absence. Consider this from the March 2012 Liahona:

It’s good to invite nonmember friends and family to church, and we want them to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. It would be helpful to prepare them for sacrament meeting by explaining the purpose of the sacrament and what will happen during the meeting. If they ask whether they should take the sacrament, simply tell them that they may choose to do so but that it is intended for Church members, who are renewing their baptismal covenants.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “The ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church” (“Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2008, 17). We should help nonmembers understand this important ordinance, ensuring that they also feel comfortable at our meetings. (

http://www.lds.org/l...mbers sacrament

)

My earlier point was simply that there was no implication that we should forbid them though the language of the day was more direct than we have become accustomed to in current times...so why poison the well as if they intended such. However, to the greater point I sorrow when I note generally wise individuals who will go out of their way to characterize the inspired efforts of apostles and prophets as mere "opinion" not to be worried about by the membership. I would like to think that was not what was intended, however, the disdain for the directness of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie has been generally noted often enough that I wanted to sustain them for clarification that I consider their "opinions" of eminent value for addressing issues such as the OP sought to consider.

Edited November 10, 2012 by SamIam

[Cobalt-70]

By partaking of the wine, no matter how well-intentioned that BYU professor may have been, he would be violating one of the standards which is specifically required in order to obtain and renew an LDS temple recommend.

This would be tantamount to an observant Jew partaking of pork (or other non-kosher food) just to be ecumenical.

No it isn't, because the Word of Wisdom specifically sanctions use of wine "in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before [God]."

[Saints Alive]

I'm pretty sure the BOM specifically says we are not to keep non members from taking the sacrament

[harfad]

I'm pretty sure the BOM specifically says we are not to keep non members from taking the sacrament

I am not aware that it does actually.

[SamIam]

I'm pretty sure the BOM specifically says we are not to keep non members from taking the sacrament

You might add credibility to your observation by sharing the verse or verses that you have interpreted in this fashion.

[Saints Alive]

You might add credibility to your observation by sharing the verse or verses that you have interpreted in this fashion.

I'm looking for it... But in the mean time here is this

Can nonmembers take the sacrament?

As you know, the bread and water of the sacrament are meant for Church members so we can renew our baptismal covenants. However, we should not do anything during sacrament meeting to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.

It’s good to invite nonmember friends and family to church, and we want them to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. It would be helpful to prepare them for sacrament meeting by explaining the purpose of the sacrament and what will happen during the meeting. If they ask whether they should take the sacrament, simply tell them that they may choose to do so but that it is intended for Church members, who are renewing their baptismal covenants.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “The ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church” (“Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2008, 17). We should help nonmembers understand this important ordinance, ensuring that they also feel comfortable at our meetings.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/03/to-the-point?lang=eng

[Calm]

Samlam quoted the same above, well most of it.

[Saints Alive]

Ive searched but alas I am at a loss, I could have sworn there was a verse that said something to the effect that you shouldn't prohibit nonmembers from taking the sacrament (very loosely paraphrased). Does that ring a bell to anyone? Perhaps it will come to me tomorrow.

[Nathair/|\]

Ive searched but alas I am at a loss, I could have sworn there was a verse that said something to the effect that you shouldn't prohibit nonmembers from taking the sacrament (very loosely paraphrased). Does that ring a bell to anyone? Perhaps it will come to me tomorrow.

There is a passage in the D&C that says you shouldn't prohibit anyone who isn't disruptive from attending sacrament meeting. Could that be what you are referring to?

For what its worth, when I was a kid, at one meeting, the bishop said nonmembers shouldn't feel obligated to take the sacrament.

[Saints Alive]

Perhaps.

[mfbukowski]

It would be extremely inappropriate to take communion at a Catholic or Orthdox church. Both churches have a closed communion, open only to baptized and confirmed/chrismated members. No one (especially in large parishes) checks credentials at the door or at the cup, but taking communion in those churches is a public statement that you are one of them, when you're not. In my view, this is on par with a non-Mormon, however well-meaning, successfully walking into a temple and participating in the endowment ceremony.

Correct and plus 1

[harfad]

Also in 3 Nephi 18:30, 32.

[harfad]

Also in 3 Nephi 18:30, 32.

[Robert F. Smith]

No it isn't, because the Word of Wisdom specifically sanctions use of wine "in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before [God]."

Why then would that BYU professor be fired from his job if he attempted to promulgate your version of the Word of Wisdom? If he taught that in class, and had made the statements you claim he made, he would have been called in for a conference with his dean. You know very well that your non-standard interpretation (though it would have been acceptable at one time) would result in loss of temple recommend.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ive searched but alas I am at a loss, I could have sworn there was a verse that said something to the effect that you shouldn't prohibit nonmembers from taking the sacrament (very loosely paraphrased). Does that ring a bell to anyone? Perhaps it will come to me tomorrow.

Not necessarily a verse, but Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “‘Judge Not’ and Judging,” Ensign, Aug 1999, online at http://www.lds.org/l...a____&hideNav=1 , from a March 1, 1998, talk given at BYU,

“. . . to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, ‘What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?’ The bishop answered, ‘You do nothing. I may need to do something.’ That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.”

And “Can nonmembers take the sacrament?” Liahona, March 2012, online at http://www.lds.org/l...-point?lang=eng (emphasis added),

As you know, the bread and water of the sacrament are meant for Church members so we can renew our baptismal covenants. However, we should not do anything during sacrament meeting to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.

It’s good to invite nonmember friends and family to church, and we want them to feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. It would be helpful to prepare them for sacrament meeting by explaining the purpose of the sacrament and what will happen during the meeting. If they ask whether they should take the sacrament,

simply tell them that they may choose

to do so

but that it is intended for Church members, who are renewing their baptismal covenants.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I think we miss the point to a degree when we wave off the council of those who are called to guide our footsteps. The OP's inquiry was one of seeking out credible council in order to help him make his own personal conclusion on correct standards. To that ends I supplied the credible recommendations provided and or sustained by these two brethren. They in no way intimate that we should go on the offensive when we observe non-members doing as you indicate, however, they as all general authorities usually do, state the standard of best practice. Naturally we recognizes that the best standard is what we teach, in order that we can use that as a guide for making our own decisions.

Your council of caution to those who may observe non-members partaking the sacrament is prudent. Your characterization of "opinions" of these brethren as dismissable and not to be 'worried about' by members perhaps illustrates a more cavalier attitude than you might have intended.

As far as the intent of the OP, I will contend that it is always valuable to consider the council of Church leaders even when our ultimate decision may not be in perfect agreement for circumstance which we deem significant and warranted. It is not that we have to "obey" per se, but very much that our hearts, to be sincere, must at least consider upon their wisdom.

Thank you for your gracious opinions.

I always enjoy the counsel of the Brethren, even when they are expressing heartfelt opinions rather than speaking on behalf of the Church. However, I think it is usually wiser to follow the counsel of the Brethren when it is published in official Church magazines, carried on lds.org, or available in the Church Handbook of Instructions. See for example my reply at post #69, below.

[SamIam]

Thank you for your gracious opinions.

I always enjoy the counsel of the Brethren, even when they are expressing heartfelt opinions rather than speaking on behalf of the Church. However, I think it is usually wiser to follow the counsel of the Brethren when it is published in official Church magazines, carried on lds.org, or available in the Church Handbook of Instructions. See for example my reply at post #69, below.

Well since we are using some of the same material surely we are in partial agreement and indeed in your post 69 we are saying the exact same message albeit yours may be more graceful. I still stand by the fact that Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R, McConkie by association are saying the exact same thing in the common fashion of their upbringing as illustrated in the post that you appeared to find some dissatisfaction with.

Still my real question really has to do with a bit of a common observation I have observed over the years here. Why is it that some of the most gifted ones intellectually find it necessary to ever so slightly, or sometimes more directly, disparage certain statements by certain General authorities in such a way to be disrespectful to their high calling. It can serve no purpose but to confuse people who ask questions such as the OP was inquiring after by encouraging them to dismiss, in this case an apostle, and find greater guidance in someone never recognized by the Lord as a mouth piece to his people. For myself I think it is not advisable to only give head to the writings of general authorities to show up in "official" publications. It surprises me that that seems a reasonable approach to you but I am sure you have your reasons.

To have made your observations without the pinprick would have served the greater purpose of edifying both the OP's purpose by conveying reasonable council and leaving the author of the quote I provided respected. I am admittedly very protective of the image and stand strongly in the court of representing them with the highest respect and honor that I can accord them. Should I have some doubt of accuracy of a general authority, I feel required to not focus on it out of gratitude for their efforts in yours and I behalves.

It is not my intent to chastise, I just wonder why one so cautious and gracious and well informed as you generally are chose that tact when it can only demean and not edify. In this day and age, I see so much, and certainly far more egregious, but similar criticisms that perhaps I am hyper sensitive and reading more into yours than should be the case.

Edited November 11, 2012 by SamIam

[Damien the Leper]

It is perplexing to see how legalistic some of the responses on this matter have been. At the Last Supper, Jesus didn't institute some form of priesthood authority or principle of closed Communion. Nor did he say that anyone was never allowed to participate if they had committed any sin. Communion is about communing and not a means by which any religious institution gauges someone's worthiness. Nothing in the Last Supper narratives even remotely suggests such a mindset. This is probably why within several months of my resignation I stopped taking the sacrament...because it didn't resemble what I believed the scriptures was saying. I decided that if I was going to take any kind of Communion it would be based solely on my belief in 1) the Crucifixion, 2) the Resurrection, and 3) the Atonement. Communion isn't just about communing but is also about the freely given grace, mercy and love of God. It is symbolic of the ultimate sacrifice and the grace that ultimately follows with it.

If you feel spiritually inclined to participate in an open Communion celebration then do so. It is not mocking the Atonement nor is it mocking God. Celebrate with the other Saints of God with your hope and faith.

[Calm]

At the Last Supper, Jesus didn't institute some form of priesthood authority or principle of closed Communion.

However, the Last Supper was held in a closed meeting, not among the crowds that normally followed Christ. If it was to be fully open, then why did he choose instead to limit those he was sharing it with both then and when he visited them after his death?

[Robert F. Smith]

Well since we are using some of the same material surely we are in partial agreement and indeed in your post 69 we are saying the exact same message albeit yours may be more graceful. I still stand by the fact that Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R, McConkie by association are saying the exact same thing in the common fashion of their upbringing as illustrated in the post that you appeared to find some dissatisfaction with.

Still my real question really has to do with a bit of a common observation I have observed over the years here. Why is it that some of the most gifted ones intellectually find it necessary to ever so slightly, or sometimes more directly, disparage certain statements by certain General authorities in such a way to be disrespectful to their high calling. It can serve no purpose but to confuse people who ask questions such as the OP was inquiring after by encouraging them to dismiss, in this case an apostle, and find greater guidance in someone never recognized by the Lord as a mouth piece to his people. For myself I think it is not advisable to only give head to the writings of general authorities to show up in "official" publications. It surprises me that that seems a reasonable approach to you but I am sure you have your reasons.

To have made your observations without the pinprick would have served the greater purpose of edifying both the OP's purpose by conveying reasonable council and leaving the author of the quote I provided respected. I am admittedly very protective of the image and stand strongly in the court of representing them with the highest respect and honor that I can accord them. Should I have some doubt of accuracy of a general authority, I feel required to not focus on it out of gratitude for their efforts in yours and I behalves.

It is not my intent to chastise, I just wonder why one so cautious and gracious and well informed as you generally are chose that tact when it can only demean and not edify. In this day and age, I see so much, and certainly far more egregious, but similar criticisms that perhaps I am hyper sensitive and reading more into yours than should be the case.

I appreciate very much your kind and eloquent observations. Indeed, today in my High Priest Group meeting I used you as an example of the kindness which was the topic of chapter 21 or our George Albert Smith manual. Thank you.

My view of the General Authorities is always tempered by the realization that they are "earthen vessels" just like you and me. I hark back constantly to a day when we said "Brother Joseph" and "Brother Brigham." A day in which disagreements among the Brethren themselves were frequent and sometimes quite heated.

As with the notion that the cup is half full or half empty, I realize that there are plenty of people who emphasize the hierarchical and centralized nature of the Church, while I always tend to emphasize the local and decentralized nature of that same Church. I like to call attention to the official direction we get from the Church to put families first, Church activity second. Of course I realize that they go together, and that atomism is not our objective, but I also realize that we are not to be automatons. Like Hugh Nibley, who once asked the Brethren whether he should stop writing some of his more radical, socially critical essays (they said keep on keeping on), I think we need to be more willing to speak our minds. Judiciously, of course.

[Robert F. Smith]

However, the Last Supper was held in a closed meeting, not among the crowds that normally followed Christ. If it was to be fully open, then why did he choose instead to limit those he was sharing it with both then and when he visited them after his death?

Jesus arranged that Last Passover well ahead of time, and it was not to be a family affair -- but for him and his Apostles only. The reason had to to with the very serious ritual occasion which it represented. They drank the usual seder wine and ate the usual matza, along with the remainder of the seder meal (which included roast lamb from the temple sacrifice), and sang the liturgy (including the Great Hallel). However, this time he himself would become the Passover Lamb offered by his own Father, and the bread and wine would from that time forward commemorate that final offering and be emblematic of his body and blood.

Aramaic den bisri "this is my body"; den idmi "this is my blood" (these are likely the very words said by Jesus)

The original lamb's blood on each door of the Israelites in Egypt barred the angel of death from entry, and so does Jesus' blood save us now, as long as we keep our covenants. This did in no way suggest that the taking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper today should be exclusionary. People must use their own judgment in risking damnation of their souls in taking it unworthily.