Why Do Certain Sins Make One Unworthy To Partake Of The Sacrament?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Good intent or not, we were taught that it is inappropriate for unbaptized people to partake. When I've been sitting with non-members, I have always tactfully explained that non-members do not partake.

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

[JAHS]

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

Right. A person has to know that they are unworthy to be able to take the sacrament unworthily. A non-member has not made any baptismal covenants or promises and are therefore would be considered exempt from the "unworthy" label. All they would be doing is eating some bread and drinking some water. We can still tactfully explain to them that since they are not members the sacrament doesn't really apply to them so they don't need to take it.

On my mission I saw a man who was passing the sacrament to members, very rudely and deliberately marched pass some investigators, producing some sad and embarrassed looks on their faces.

[Silhouette]

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

Little children are a different matter. We allow our own children who are not yet baptized to take the Sacrament as training and teaching what it's all about when they are baptized. Non-member children below the age of accountability can also partake for the same reason. But non-member children who are 8 or above should not partake, according to what I was taught.

As for causing harm if we tell a non-member that they don't usually partake, I think that especially in the case of investigators, they are there to learn about our teachings and our ways. So let them learn. If part of the doctrine is that non-members don't take the Sacrament, they should be aware of that. If they take offense to it after having the reason explained to them, then I submit that they might not be ready for the Gospel yet.

For visitors who are present for reasons other than investigating (such as watching a relative child in a Primary presentation, for example), I would just tactfully explain that non-members do not usually partake of the Sacrament and why, then leave it up to the individual to decide.

I'm not advocating that we come out and say, "Sorry, but you CANNOT take the Sacrament." I just think we ought to say that it's not usually done and why. Then it's up to them. I know that if I were in an unfamiliar environment, and the natives advised me that such-and-such is not usually done, I sure wouldn't go ahead and do the thing anyway, nor would I take offense at being told their ways. I'd be grateful for the advice that kept me from making a faux pas or doing something that was outright wrong.

Edited to add: I also submit that investigators who take the Sacrament before baptism would tend to view it in a more casual manner than is good after they ARE baptized. The whole point of it is to renew baptismal covenants. If they take it before any covenants are made, they don't get the sacredness and importance of the baptismal covenants and what the intent of renewing them is all about.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Silhouette

[JLHPROF]

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

 

Just like refusing non-members to participate in priesthood blessings?  Baptisms for the Dead?  Work for the Dead?  Baby namings?

 

Ordinances are for members.

[Silhouette]

Right. A person has to know that they are unworthy to be able to take the sacrament unworthily. A non-member has not made any baptismal covenants or promises and are therefore would be considered exempt from the "unworthy" label. All they would be doing is eating some bread and drinking some water. We can still tactfully explain to them that since they are not members the sacrament doesn't really apply to them so they don't need to take it.

On my mission I saw a man who was passing the sacrament to members, very rudely and deliberately marched pass some investigators, producing some sad and embarrassed looks on their faces.

Then I feel that was the fault of whoever was with the investigators for not explaining beforehand.

And in the case of non-members not being held accountable for taking the Sacrament "unworthily", it's not about that. It's about renewing something that hasn't taken place yet...baptismal covenants. It's a sacred ordinance that should not be treated as something so casual. See my post about people who partake before baptism would not understand fully the whole point of taking the Sacrament in the first place.

[Thinking]

 

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

 

Just like refusing non-members to participate in priesthood blessings?  Baptisms for the Dead?  Work for the Dead?  Baby namings?

 

Ordinances are for members.

 

The difference with the sacrament is the bread and water are delivered to the non-member, then the non-member is supposed to know not to take them?

[Silhouette]

The difference with the sacrament is the bread and water are delivered to the non-member, then the non-member is supposed to know not to take them?

It is to be hoped that the non-member(s) would be accompanied by missionaries or member friends who would have explained beforehand what would be happening, and coached the visitors about what to do when the Sacrament trays come their way.

I would find it difficult to believe that non-members would just randomly walk into a Mormon Church and sit alone. The missionaries would be all over them, as well as members noticing a stranger sitting by himself. There would be SOMEbody there to explain the proceedings.

I feel confident in saying that most visitors would have connections of some sort in the ward they are attending, and would be found sitting with those connections.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Silhouette

[lds-convert-sw]

It's not an issue of right or wrong.  It's an issue of taking the sacrament to renew a covenant that doesn't exist yet...

It's a bit like going to a high school reunion at a school you never attended...

Actually when I referred to "Right or Wrong", what I was referring to is the boastful, prideful attitude that 'some' people have when referring to our (true) doctrine vs other Christians. It is true that we have the restored gospel in it's fullness, with the proper authority, but that doesn't mean we need to be self righteous and hurtful when we refer to other Christians' beliefs.

 

I was present once when our Ward Missionary Leader told an investigator, in a very boastful/authoritarian tone "Your old Baptism is worthless, only We have the True baptism". That person was baptised, but has since become completely inactive because.. well, that's a whole different topic "Am I my brothers' keeper". I would venture to say, yes, I am. We must help new members, reach out to them, love them, and teach them. Or they will fall away. When I was baptised, after the missionary lessons, I received no help, no further instruction, no 'love the neighbor' helpfulness at all, in understanding the church or the scriptures. Some would say it's completely up to the individual, (disagree).

[Silhouette]

Actually when I referred to "Right or Wrong", what I was referring to is the boastful, prideful attitude that 'some' people have when referring to our (true) doctrine vs other Christians. It is true that we have the restored gospel in it's fullness, with the proper authority, but that doesn't mean we need to be self righteous and hurtful when we refer to other Christians' beliefs.

I was present once when our Ward Missionary Leader told an investigator, in a very boastful/authoritarian tone "Your old Baptism is worthless, only We have the True baptism". That person was baptised, but has since become completely inactive because.. well, that's a whole different topic "Am I my brothers' keeper". I would venture to say, yes, I am. We must help new members, reach out to them, love them, and teach them. Or they will fall away. When I was baptised, after the missionary lessons, I received no help, no further instruction, no 'love the neighbor' helpfulness at all, in understanding the church or the scriptures. Some would say it's completely up to the individual, (disagree).

Agree with this entire post.

[JAHS]

Then I feel that was the fault of whoever was with the investigators for not explaining beforehand.

And in the case of non-members not being held accountable for taking the Sacrament "unworthily", it's not about that. It's about renewing something that hasn't taken place yet...baptismal covenants. It's a sacred ordinance that should not be treated as something so casual. See my post about people who partake before baptism would not understand fully the whole point of taking the Sacrament in the first place.

I don't think I disagree with you, I said the same thing in my post, but I do agree with the counsel to not announce in sacrament meeting that nonmembers are not to take the sacrament. If someone should take it by accident I don't think we need to hold the bishop or anyone else accountable for them doing it

.

[Silhouette]

I don't think I disagree with you, I said the same thing in my post, but I do agree with the counsel to not announce in sacrament meeting that nonmembers are not to take the sacrament. If someone should take it by accident I don't think we need to hold the bishop or anyone else accountable for them doing it

.

Agreed.

[LinuxGal]

There is no need to withhold the sacrament from non-members, including little children. It's good to explain and teach but it's not going to hurt anything if a non-member partakes. Refusing to give it to them could cause harm.

 

In the very beginning the ceremony wasn't grape juice and salad croutons, it was wine and bread, full up, and some people were showing up for the Eucharistic meal just to eat.  Paul had a problem with that.

[Guest]

To the OP...

The two Sacrament prayers, are no individual ones that we offer up unto God for repentance sake. They are prayers, made by Priests, Elders or HP, over the sacrifice lain upon the altar. Therefore it is a public communion for the entire Church (well all who hear the prayers uttered) and as such no one but the repentant should partake. Since some sins are by their nature an offense against God and His Church, one much receive instruction from Church officers as to when certain sins apply. The prayer of repentance has no set format and my be spoken (given) by anyone. God forgives as he pleases, the Church has it's own guidelines.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 If part of the doctrine is that non-members don't take the Sacrament, they should be aware of that. If they take offense to it after having the reason explained to them, then I submit that they might not be ready for the Gospel yet.

 

IF that were the case you would be right but it is not part of the doctrine. I'd also challenge you to find a churchwide policy or statement that would prohibit non-members from partaking of the sacrament. If there is one I'll reconsider.

 

 

Little children are a different matter. We allow our own children who are not yet baptized to take the Sacrament as training and teaching what it's all about when they are baptized.

I understand your reasoning behind this statement but I'd challenge you to provide a reference so we can see a teaching that makes a differentiation.

 

 

Just like refusing non-members to participate in priesthood blessings?  Baptisms for the Dead?  Work for the Dead?  Baby namings?

 

Ordinances are for members.

 

I agree that ordinances are intended for members but denying the sacrament to certain people in an open meeting is different than denying them the ability to perform an ordinance in a building they are not even permitted to enter. Inviting someone to our meeting and then overtly denying them the sacrament would be extremely rude and would do more harm than good. Is there a reference to a policy that says we should deny non-members (and I would include children in this)?

[Maestrophil]

I am glad for this thread, as I was going to start one to ask the following:

 

Some of you might recall a thread a while back about struggles I was having with a teenage son.  Well, things have improved a bit, and we are able to get him to attend church with us.

 

The problem is, that when I took him to task for blessing the sacrament while having violated the WOW, I also asked him why, if he absolutely did not have a testimony and had negative feelings about the church, would he be OK presenting himself as if he did. He responded by saying that he agreed that he felt it was not honest, but he was doing it because it was scary to let everyone see him not passing/partaking.  So now he refuses to bless or partake every week.  :-(

 

Now part of me regrets having approached it the way I did.  Not quite sure what to do, as I feel he could really benefit from the strength of the sacrament - but is it really a strength to him if he is taking it as someone who says he doesn't even really believe in Christ?

 

Do you think there is a way someone in his position could see a reasoning behind taking the sacrament?  How would you explain this to him or encourage him to do so IF it is the right thing for him to do (not sure if it is)?

Edited November 24, 2014 by Maestrophil

[HappyJackWagon]

•  

  Do you think there is a way someone in his position could see a reasoning behind taking the sacrament?  How would you explain this to him or encourage him to do so IF it is the right thing for him to do (not sure if it is)?

   

  You could always approach it from the perspective of having hope that it is true as opposed to feeling like he "knows" it's true. Faithfulness isn't necessarily dependent on belief but rather on action. So he can be faithful while having hope that it is true, even if he doesn't have a "testimony" of knowledge.

[Ahab]

I am glad for this thread, as I was going to start one to ask the following:

Some of you might recall a thread a while back about struggles I was having with a teenage son. Well, things have improved a bit, and we are able to get him to attend church with us.

The problem is, that when I took him to task for blessing the sacrament while having violated the WOW, I also asked him why, if he absolutely did not have a testimony and had negative feelings about the church, would he be OK presenting himself as if he did. He responded by saying that he agreed that he felt it was not honest, but he was doing it because it was scary to let everyone see him not passing/partaking. So now he refuses to bless or partake every week. :-(

Now part of me regrets having approached it the way I did. Not quite sure what to do, as I feel he could really benefit from the strength of the sacrament - but is it really a strength to him if he is taking it as someone who says he doesn't even really believe in Christ?

Do you think there is a way someone in his position could see a reasoning behind taking the sacrament? How would you explain this to him or encourage him to do so IF it is the right thing for him to do (not sure if it is)?

I would ask him to think about what he means by saying he "doesn't really believe in" Christ, prefacing that with you teaching him the need for all of us to have a Christ, or Savior, to save us from ourselves and how we would be without him.

And it may help to explain that Jews commonly believe in Christ even without knowing who he is, because they at least accept the idea that they need a Christ to save them.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ has a whole lot of soul searching and pondering that they need to do for themselves.

[toon]

On the surface, the scripture from the NT seems identical to the verse from the BoM. Read the preceding verse in each book. The BoM verse requires us to judge others, while the NT verse has the member judging himself.

 

3 Nephi 18:28

 

1 Corinthians 11:28

 

Seems like the word "knowinglhy" in the BOM is key, with the word applying to the state of mind of the person taking the sacrament, and not what I or anyone else might think or "know" about them. 

 

In other words, it applies to the situations where someone knows he or she is unworthy and nevertheless takes the sacrament.  Since it's often difficult for anyone to judge what someone does or does not know about their worthiness, seems like this applies to the most of unusual circumstances.

[toon]

It's not an issue of right or wrong.  It's an issue of taking the sacrament to renew a covenant that doesn't exist yet.  It serves no purpose and has no effect (doctrinally).  However, I am sure it could be a reaching out tool, but I don't see that as the purpose of the sacrament according to scripture.

 

It's a bit like going to a high school reunion at a school you never attended...

 

Except that children under 8 are invited to partake, even though not yet baptised.  So it serves some purpose there.

 

The best high school reunion I ever attended was my wife's 20th.

[JLHPROF]

Except that children under 8 are invited to partake, even though not yet baptised.  So it serves some purpose there.

 

The best high school reunion I ever attended was my wife's 20th.

 

Another more recent trend.  I never partook of the sacrament before my baptism at 8.  My parents would never have let me.  And oddly enough, it didn't make me feel left out, because they explained to me why.

 

Additionally, if a child was born to sealed parent in the church they are said to be born in the New and Everlasting covenant.  They are already under a covenant, as opposed to a non-member.

[Maestrophil]

 

• You could always approach it from the perspective of having hope that it is true as opposed to feeling like he "knows" it's true. Faithfulness isn't necessarily dependent on belief but rather on action. So he can be faithful while having hope that it is true, even if he doesn't have a "testimony" of knowledge.

 

 

 

I would ask him to think about what he means by saying he "doesn't really believe in" Christ, prefacing that with you teaching him the need for all of us to have a Christ, or Savior, to save us from ourselves and how we would be without him.

And it may help to explain that Jews commonly believe in Christ even without knowing who he is, because they at least accept the idea that they need a Christ to save them.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ has a whole lot of soul searching and pondering that they need to do for themselves.

 

The problem is, and the reason I questioned his integrity, is that he said he didn't "want" to believe.  He also does not like to read or study and finds discussion and academics boring., so any appeal to have him 'study it out in his mind" is fruitless.  He simply is not interested and literally said "If God really loves me, I feel, even if I have to pay a big price in the eternities, that He will forgive me and everything will be fine."  He also said he does not want restrictions on his life such as the WOW.

 

He is a great kid with a kind heart, and at this point, has not gotten into too much destructive behavior, but I know that he has no clue how fast that can change without the gospel as a compass as he heads out into the world soon.  (he graduates in 2015).

 

So, in a way, I admire him for deciding to sit out the sacrament, because he is respecting what it means to me and others, but as a father, I yearn for him to want to and to have the strength that can come from it.  Ughhh.

[HappyJackWagon]

If he isn't ready and has no desire then there's no real reason to push it on him. You can be there as a support, ready if he changes his mind.

[Maestrophil]

If he isn't ready and has no desire then there's no real reason to push it on him. You can be there as a support, ready if he changes his mind.

 

I agree. And I have backed way off.  I still ask him every week how he feels and if he is willing to give it a shot that week (blessing).  When he says no, I tell him that's ok and remind him I love him and leave it at that.