Change sacrament prayer when not using bread/water

[Igor]

Hi, I know that in cases of unavailbility of bread and/or water you can use other food/drink on sacrament. Assuming that you have cookies instead of bread, should the priest say cookies instead of bread in the prayer, just like we started to say water since it changed from wine to water?
Thanks

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, Igor said:

Hi, I know that in cases of unavailbility of bread and/or water you can use other food/drink on sacrament. Assuming that you have cookies instead of bread, should the priest say cookies instead of bread in the prayer, just like we started to say water since it changed from wine to water?
Thanks

As the prayer is given by revelation I would leave it as is.

[Igor]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As the prayer is given by revelation I would leave it as is.

Thank you for your response, but then why didn't it keep wine instead of water?

[thesometimesaint]

Cookies the staff of life.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Igor said:

Thank you for your response, but then why didn't it keep wine instead of water?

The change was made by the First Presidency which holds the necessary priesthood keys and authority to make that change.

Edited October 30, 2017 by ksfisher

[Kenngo1969]

In answer to your OP, nope.  (See Doctrine & Covenants 20:77, 79).  Those are the prayers. The substances used are secondary to the spirit and authority with which the ordinances are conducted. (See Doctrine & Covenants 27:1-2).  This is before your time, very likely, but I remember President Benson becoming emotional when he talked about German Saints using potato peels for the Sacrament when he toured the area to assess needs and to coordinate relief after WWII.  The ordinance is symbolic anyway: Symbolically speaking, we're eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, not eating bread (or cookies or potato peels) and drinking water (or wine or anything else).

Your bishop likely would correct you gently if you tried to deviate from Doctrine & Covenants 20:77 and 79.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

I don't know the official church position but I would change it.  It's pure nonsense not to.

When it was wine we said wine.  When it was water we said water.

Looks like God revealed a pattern here.

[Igor]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your bishop likely would correct you gently if you tried to deviate from Doctrine & Covenants 20:77 and 79.

 

I know, but it actually happened recently in my ward and I first said the prayer as it is (saying bread), afterwards I looked at the bishop making a doubt face "There is no bread here, should I have said cookies??" He understood my face and said to to it again saying cookies instead of bread.
I honestly hope it never happens again, but we are looking for an official position about this matter, since some of the brethen think the bishop was wrong, and it took away the spirit of the sacrament by saying all over again with cookies instead of bread. 

My opinion is the same as JLHPROF
 

Quote

When it was wine we said wine.  When it was water we said water.

However does anyone knows where I can find an official position?

[Kenngo1969]

Igor:

I was looking to see where I could find something in the Handbook.  (I don't have access to Handbook 1.)  I haven't found anything yet.  I'll let you know.  Out of curiosity, where do you live?  And no disrespect to JLHProf, but opinions are like rear-ends: Everybody has one, but some of them are ...  Well, never mind!

Metaphorically, it's all Bread and Water, but I don't think the metaphor is the only reason the prayer shouldn't be changed regardless of the substance used.  If we start deviating from the prayers as written, where does it end?  "Shoot!  I said 'Oreos™' , but they're 'Double Stuf™'!"  Christ doesn't say He's the "Cookies of life" or the "Living Hawaiian Punch."  See John 6:47-52 and John 4:13-14.  For that matter, He doesn't say He's the "living wine," so if someone wants to use the fact that we said "wine" when we used wine as an argument that the prayer should be changed based on the substance used, I think I have an equally good argument (at least, if not a better one) to the contrary.

But, in my opinion, Scriptures and Handbooks matter much more than anyone's opinion.  But, that's just my opinion.  I'll keep looking, and I'll let you know what I find. 

-Ken

Edited October 31, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Igor]

Hi Ken, I live in Brazil, thanks for your help

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Igor said:

... I honestly hope it never happens again, but we are looking for an official position about this matter, since some of the brethren think the bishop was wrong, and it took away the spirit of the sacrament by saying all over again with cookies instead of bread. ... [Italics added by Kenngo1969.] 

Call your Stake President's or your District President's Executive Secretary and set up a meeting with the President.  Or, if one of the brethren who believes the prayer should not have been changed is in authority (e.g., is a Bishop's or a Branch President's counselor), talk to him about the possibility of going to the President.  It's not important enough to lose the Spirit by contending over it in the meeting, but it's important enough to get right, going forward.

P.S.: Deviating from the prayers as written (and using other substances) is a great way to start a revolt among the very young people in your unit: "... to bless and sanctify these delicious Double Stuf Oreos™ ..."  "But Mommy, I don't want just a little piece of an Oreo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Edited October 31, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Igor said:

I know, but it actually happened recently in my ward and I first said the prayer as it is (saying bread), afterwards I looked at the bishop making a doubt face "There is no bread here, should I have said cookies??" He understood my face and said to to it again saying cookies instead of bread.
I honestly hope it never happens again, but we are looking for an official position about this matter, since some of the brethen think the bishop was wrong, and it took away the spirit of the sacrament by saying all over again with cookies instead of bread. 

This reminds me of something that happened when my wife and I were first married. In our student ward, the man blessing the bread read the water prayer instead. The bishop didn't notice, and approved the ordinance. Several people were concerned, and wondered whether they should take it or not. I encouraged those sitting near us to take it, because the bishop had approved it. His keys encompass the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, and when he approves it, it is valid even if he missed wording that the congregation noticed. 

When priests bless the sacrament in a home, they need to remember to replace wine with water, because they are using their scriptures. If they don't, though, the ordinance is still valid, in my book, because they have the authority to administer it and self-approve it. 

I don't think there is a policy on this, and I believe that whatever the presiding authority decides at that time and location is appropriate for that circumstance (i.e., whether being literal with "cookies" or deeming "cookies" to be "bread" for purposes of the sacrament). 

That's why keys are important. It's not necessary to have a handbook with every possible scenario or outcome. 

[Igor]

Quote

 It's not important enough to lose the Spirit by contending over it in the meeting, but it's important enough to get right, going forward.

actually it was not in the meeting, but it was brought up in the Priesthood Executive Committee, and opinions were divided

[Igor]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

This reminds me of something that happened when my wife and I were first married. In our student ward, the man blessing the bread read the water prayer instead. The bishop didn't notice, and approved the ordinance. Several people were concerned, and wondered whether they should take it or not. I encouraged those sitting near us to take it, because the bishop had approved it. His keys encompass the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, and when he approves it, it is valid even if he missed wording that the congregation noticed. 

When priests bless the sacrament in a home, they need to remember to replace wine with water, because they are using their scriptures. If they don't, though, the ordinance is still valid, in my book, because they have the authority to administer it and self-approve it. 

I don't think there is a policy on this, and I believe that whatever the presiding authority decides at that time and location is appropriate for that circumstance (i.e., whether being literal with "cookies" or deeming "cookies" to be "bread" for purposes of the sacrament). 

That's why keys are important. It's not necessary to have a handbook with every possible scenario or outcome. 

Thank you, I think you are right. 

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Igor said:

 

However does anyone knows where I can find an official position?

“Before the meeting, those who prepare the sacrament ensure that bread trays with unbroken bread, water trays with cups filled with fresh water, and tablecloths are in place”  [emphasis mine]

Handbook 2 20.4.2

The church’s official position is that bread and water should be used, thus obviating the need to change a prayer.

 

 

edited to add

There is also this to consider from Handbook 2 17.1.9

“Instructions for performing priesthood ordinances are outlined in chapter 20. These instructions should not be altered.”

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by ksfisher

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

“Before the meeting, those who prepare the sacrament ensure that bread trays with unbroken bread, water trays with cups filled with fresh water, and tablecloths are in place”  [emphasis mine]

Handbook 2 20.4.2

The church’s official position is that bread and water should be used, thus obviating the need to change a prayer.

Yeah, but the D&C applies in cases where bread is not available. We've come close before (but it hasn't actually happened) where we might have had to use something else on hand.

A bishop I was a counselor to said that he had once filled every 5th cup with 7-up to watch reactions when he was a priest. I would never do it (it's sacreligious), but it would be fun to observe who got the 7-up . . .  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Yeah, but the D&C applies in cases where bread is not available.

How so?  I don't see it.

[rongo]

D&C 27:2 --- "For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory "

This is well-known and discussed, and was referenced in Igor's PEC. If our motives are righteous, and bread and water are not available, "it mattereth not" what we use for the sacrament. It's not something to get Pharasaical about and insist that only bread and water can be used, or it cannot be administered. 

The handbook section you quoted deals with the norm and the rule. D&C 27:2 deals with the exception. But in either case, interpretation and determiniation would be subject to the keys of the bishop.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

D&C 27:2 --- "For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory "

This is well-known and discussed, and was referenced in Igor's PEC. If our motives are righteous, and bread and water are not available, "it mattereth not" what we use for the sacrament. It's not something to get Pharasaical about and insist that only bread and water can be used, or it cannot be administered. 

The handbook section you quoted deals with the norm and the rule. D&C 27:2 deals with the exception. But in either case, interpretation and determiniation would be subject to the keys of the bishop.

D&C 27:2 talks about what we are using as part of the sacrament, but makes not mention of how prayers should be altered or even if they should be altered.

As to insisting that bread and water be used (which you choose to using the pejorative term pharasaical in describing), it would seem to be fairly extreme circumstances when a congregation would not have bread and water available.  I can see a situation after a natural disaster where food and clean water are in short supply improvisations would need to be made.  However, in the normal course of events bread and water should always be available. 

Handbook 2 20.4.1 gives this advice to leaders (is is following the handbook that you feel is phrasaical?) "The sacred nature of this ordinance [the sacrament] justifies the greatest care and preparation to ensure order and reverence."  It would seem that with proper planning, except in extreme circumstances, bread and water should always be available and the question or altering prayers would not arise. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by ksfisher

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

D&C 27:2 talks about what we are using as part of the sacrament, but makes not mention of how prayers should be altered or even if they should be altered.

I agree, and would leave the wording as "bread" and "water," myself. It is an interesting question, though, and one on which people can disagree.

As to insisting that bread and water be used (which you choose to using the pejorative term pharasaical in describing), it would seem to be fairly extreme circumstances when a congregation would not have bread and water available.  I can see a situation after a natural disaster where food and clean water are in short supply and improvisations would need to be made.  However, in the normal course of events bread and water should always be available. 

Handbook 2 20.4.1 gives this advice to leaders (is is following the handbook that you feel is phrasaical?) "The sacred nature of this ordinance [the sacrament] justifies the greatest care and preparation to ensure order and reverence."  It would seem that with proper planning, except in extreme circumstances, bread and water should always be available and the question or altering prayers would not arise.

I agree. It would be exceptional circumstances where this would even be an issue. If there are exceptional circumstances, a priesthood leader can authorize it with non-bread and non-water items, though. D&C 27 makes that clear.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree, and would leave the wording as "bread" and "water," myself. It is an interesting question, though, and one on which people can disagree.

 

 

For the record, I was presented with this situation as a missionary in Sweden taking the sacrament to a family in a remote area.  The family had no bread in their home and we didn't bring any, so we ended up using corn flakes.  At the time I chose to use "flakes" in the prayer.  If I was to do it all over again today I would keep the wording as bread. 

I think the really important thing is to maintain reverence and and keep the sacrament a sacred experience.  We should avoid doing anything that could distract a member of the congregation, or ourselves, from focusing on Christ.  The handbook advises us to take the "greatest care and preparation" so that we can do this.  I believe this is excellent advice. 

In the April 2017 sabbath day training videos that the church has provided Elder Holland recommends that we as members begin preparation for partaking of the sacrament days before the sabbath.  Again, I believe this is excellent advice. Aside from participating in temple ordinances partaking of the sacrament is the spiritual high point of many members weeks.  As leaders we should do everything within our stewardship to provide a sacred, reverent atmosphere free from distractions for the members of our congregations.

I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here, I just feel rather strongly about the importance of the sacrament. 

[strappinglad]

While we are on the subject, I have noticed the actions of some deacons and teachers when they clear the sacrament table , will take the trays back to the prep room and dump the water and scarf the left over bread. That just seems improper to me . I realize that tossing the bread in the trash is also wasteful but ... If the Aaronic priesthood were to drink all the separate water cups that would be a bother to me also. Maybe we should let the bread dry and give it to the birds.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

While we are on the subject, I have noticed the actions of some deacons and teachers when they clear the sacrament table , will take the trays back to the prep room and dump the water and scarf the left over bread. That just seems improper to me . I realize that tossing the bread in the trash is also wasteful but ... If the Aaronic priesthood were to drink all the separate water cups that would be a bother to me also. Maybe we should let the bread dry and give it to the birds.

I believe the practice used to be to consume all the bread and water.  Not sure if I can find a reference for that though.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

“Before the meeting, those who prepare the sacrament ensure that bread trays with unbroken bread, water trays with cups filled with fresh water, and tablecloths are in place”  [emphasis mine]

Handbook 2 20.4.2

The church’s official position is that bread and water should be used, thus obviating the need to change a prayer.

edited to add

There is also this to consider from Handbook 2 17.1.9

“Instructions for performing priesthood ordinances are outlined in chapter 20. These instructions should not be altered.”

 

So no definitive then.
The first statement is that nothing other than bread and water should ever be used, which basically avoids addressing the question.

The second statement refers to section 20 - The person who blesses the water then kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the water (see D&C 20:79), substituting the word water for wine.

Seems to me that if we substitute water for wine when water is used instead of wine then if the first statement is ever ignored and something else is used then that wording should be substituted as well.

The Baptismal prayer is also set in scripture not to be altered, yet we have examples of variations on that ordinance as well when accuracy dictates.

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So no definitive then.
The first statement is that nothing other than bread and water should ever be used, which basically avoids addressing the question.

The second statement refers to section 20 - The person who blesses the water then kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the water (see D&C 20:79), substituting the word water for wine.

Seems to me that if we substitute water for wine when water is used instead of wine then if the first statement is ever ignored and something else is used then that wording should be substituted as well.

The Baptismal prayer is also set in scripture not to be altered, yet we have examples of variations on that ordinance as well when accuracy dictates.

So, Christ is the living Hawaiian Punch and the living Oreos, then, eh?  Who knew?