MiserereNobis Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 35 minutes ago, rongo said: Do you, bluebell, think that people who (for whatever reason) are not present for the prayers and can't say Amen to them, should take the sacrament? Don't little children take the sacrament, too? They haven't been baptized so there is no renewal of baptism going on, and if they are young enough they probably don't know what the prayer even means. It would seem that your argument against late-comers taking it should also apply to children. As a side note, I find the verb use intriguing. LDS have "take sacrament" and Catholics have "receive communion." It's also interesting that for us a sacrament is a religious rite (communion is one of the 7 sacraments). What do you call your religious rites, since sacrament only refers to one of them? Why is LDS sacrament only on Sundays? We have Mass and communion every day. I often go to morning Mass on my way to work. Are there any special occasions where there would be sacrament on a day that is not Sunday? In Catholicism, there are Holy Days of Obligation, which are days when one must attend Mass. All Sundays fall into this category, but other days, too, such as Christmas, Easter, All Saints Day, Ascension Thursday, and others. Prior to the second Vatican council, most priests would say that if you arrive to Mass after the offertory you should not receive Communion. Currently, though, most priests are lax on that rule. I attend a traditional parish that tends to enforce that rule. Finally, Catholics also take communion to those who are homebound.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Don't little children take the sacrament, too? They haven't been baptized so there is no renewal of baptism going on, and if they are young enough they probably don't know what the prayer even means. It would seem that your argument against late-comers taking it should also apply to children. As a side note, I find the verb use intriguing. LDS have "take sacrament" and Catholics have "receive communion." It's also interesting that for us a sacrament is a religious rite (communion is one of the 7 sacraments). What do you call your religious rites, since sacrament only refers to one of them? Why is LDS sacrament only on Sundays? We have Mass and communion every day. I often go to morning Mass on my way to work. Are there any special occasions where there would be sacrament on a day that is not Sunday? In Catholicism, there are Holy Days of Obligation, which are days when one must attend Mass. All Sundays fall into this category, but other days, too, such as Christmas, Easter, All Saints Day, Ascension Thursday, and others. Prior to the second Vatican council, most priests would say that if you arrive to Mass after the offertory you should not receive Communion. Currently, though, most priests are lax on that rule. I attend a traditional parish that tends to enforce that rule. Finally, Catholics also take communion to those who are homebound. Yes, little children are encouraged to take the sacrament before baptism. I've known at least one family that would not allow their kids to take it until baptism, and the one bishop that I discussed it with said that that wasn't appropriate. Sacrament is an ordinance in the LDS religion; that's usually what we call our religious rites. Sacrament is only on Sundays because we believe there is no reason to take it more than once a week and Sunday is a holy day. Also, the main purpose of going to church is to take the sacrament, and church happens on Sunday, so.... And LDS also take the sacrament to those who are homebound.
Rain Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm simply asking what you think, personally. It seems to me that you are fine with people just taking the sacrament, even if they aren't there for the prayers, but it's hard to tell, because you won't say. If you don't want to answer that, then that's fine. I don't know why you wouldn't want to answer it, though. Not BB, just working out what I think, because I am not sure. One side of me says you should only take it if you were there for the prayer. The other side asks, "why?" The sacrament is not a saving ordinance so that could make a difference. It is not done by proxy so that could make a difference. If someone were baptized and never got the chance to take the sacrament, but was fully repentant then it would be ok. So I'm trying to figure out why it would matter, covenant wise, you would need to be there for the prayer. I'm not trying to be difficult. Not disagreeing. Just trying to understand if it is true or not. Edited November 3, 2017 by Rain
mnn727 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 On 11/1/2017 at 6:21 PM, clarkgoble said: It's worth noting this is usually a FDA and fire regulation requirement. As soon as you allow cooking you have to abide all the regulations for food. And owning a food company let me tell you they are extensive. So unless you want to install a grease trap, ensure regular cleaning, have someone on sight for water testing an inspection of the trap, have regular FDA inspections, etc. then you won't have cooking in the kitchen. If people have a problem with this their ire should be with the government not the Church. Every Protestant or Catholic Church I've ever been inside has a kitchen and uses it regularly. As long as they are not selling food, there is no licensing requirement in many states. (and yes, I taught food service sanitation in 3 states in my earlier career)
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 minute ago, mnn727 said: Every Protestant or Catholic Church I've ever been inside has a kitchen and uses it regularly. As long as they are not selling food, there is no licensing requirement in many states. (and yes, I taught food service sanitation in 3 states in my earlier career) From what I remember, the church used to use their kitchens to cook food in as well. It seems like the change from kitchen to 'warming room' has happened in the last few decades. Does anyone else remember that?
filovirus Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 3 hours ago, bluebell said: If food prepared in the kitchen is sold to the public, then private kitchens need to be licensed and inspected in the U.S. as well. I'm sure you know that but I'm just putting that out there for general information. Where I live, there are two options for this type of scenario. A regular health license. The kitchen will then be inspected at least twice a year and be considered a restaurant. Or, they can apply for a Temporary Restaurant License. This is basically a one time only event. I would go out the day of the event to do an inspection for every instance that they get a Temporary License. Many churches do it like this instead of acquiring a full license. Because of their benevolent status, it is cheaper. They can apply for as many temp licenses as they want.
filovirus Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 57 minutes ago, mnn727 said: Have you ever looked at a soda head or an ice machine that is not cleaned/sanitized on a regular basis? I pop them off during every single inspection I do and make sure they are clean. I have stories about dirty ice machines. You wouldn't believe how dirty restaurants let them get. Globs of slime mold dripping into ice... Trust me, I've been doing this for quite a while. I can find all the disgusting places in a restaurant.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, filovirus said: Where I live, there are two options for this type of scenario. A regular health license. The kitchen will then be inspected at least twice a year and be considered a restaurant. Or, they can apply for a Temporary Restaurant License. This is basically a one time only event. I would go out the day of the event to do an inspection for every instance that they get a Temporary License. Many churches do it like this instead of acquiring a full license. Because of their benevolent status, it is cheaper. They can apply for as many temp licenses as they want. There are a lot of SAHM mom baker business owners in my ward and they are always talking about everything they had to do to get licensed. It's interesting to learn about.
clarkgoble Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, mnn727 said: Every Protestant or Catholic Church I've ever been inside has a kitchen and uses it regularly. As long as they are not selling food, there is no licensing requirement in many states. (and yes, I taught food service sanitation in 3 states in my earlier career) We should note that regulations have been changing pretty rapidly the past few years. Every few months I do a show in California and literally every show where I give out samples the regulations have become more complex and tighter. (To an almost ridiculous degree) Pretty stringent new requirements have come into place the last year for large facilities and will be required come September next year for small ones. I'm not sure they apply to restaurant class locations. But even if they don't, there's little guarantee they won't in a few years. There's a ton of headaches to deal with and the fact some states are lenient makes things worse not better. After all you typically have people moving around and assuming regulations are the same everywhere. So you get someone from Florida or Texas with lenient regulations moving to Utah or worse yet California and suddenly the ward has a several thousand dollar bill. Also again there are county restrictions and regulations that vary within the state - particularly with regards to waste water from a food service location. That's quite separate from FDA, State Department of Agriculture (who usually check for the FDA), and so forth. Here in Orem a grease trap and testing is required for all sinks where dishes are washed. Further the fines if they aren't cleaned are huge. We just fired an employee who was lying about cleaning the grease trap. The cost from City of Orem due to not cleaning the grease trap for two weeks was over $2000.00. Further you have to have someone there when they come to do the inspections during the day. An extra hassle for the Bishops. And anyone who has never cleaned a grease trap probably doesn't know the joy of a box that collects all solids to ensure they don't go into the sewer system. It's not pleasant - and we don't do anything but chocolate in ours plus put baking soda in it several times a day. I'd hate to imagine what it'd be like a week after the ward thanksgiving dinner. All of this is much more involved than people think. Further this also ignores again liability and insurance issues. Edited November 3, 2017 by clarkgoble
pogi Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Yes, little children are encouraged to take the sacrament before baptism. I've known at least one family that would not allow their kids to take it until baptism, and the one bishop that I discussed it with said that that wasn't appropriate. I personally wish that it was encouraged for children to wait until baptism to receive the sacrament. I think it would be more meaningful to them...something to look forward to and prepare for; a right of passage. Instead, it is just something they do every Sunday that doesn't really apply to them...more of a snack! What other ordinance do we allow people to participate in who are unprepared? It just seems strange to me that they are participating in the renewal of a covenant that they have not yet made. Maybe I should start a "no bread for babies" movement like the "wear pants to church" movement Children receiving the sacrament is a cultural thing only. There is no good reason for it.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, pogi said: I personally wish that it was encouraged for children to wait until baptism to receive the sacrament. I think it would be more meaningful to them...something to look forward to and prepare for; a right of passage. Instead, it is just something they do every Sunday that doesn't really apply to them...more of a snack! What other ordinance do we allow people to participate in who are unprepared? It just seems strange to me that they are participating in the renewal of a covenant that they have not yet made. Maybe I should start a "no bread for babies" movement like the "wear pants to church" movement Children receiving the sacrament is a cultural thing only. There is no good reason for it. I like how this Ensign article explains it. "Have you ever wondered why we allow unbaptized children to partake of the sacrament? Is it just to avoid the inevitable squawks and struggles when they want a piece of bread? Is it just to make the ordinance easier to administer, just to keep the peace? I don’t think so. I believe there are deeper reasons. I believe this because I believe that when Jesus Christ says “all,” He means all. And when He speaks to a multitude, He doesn’t exclude anyone. When the resurrected Savior introduced the sacrament to His people in the Americas, He emphasized that the ordinance had special meaning for those who had been baptized.1 Even so, He commanded His disciples to “give [the sacrament] unto the multitude.”2 That multitude included “little ones.”3 When priesthood holders today pronounce the sacrament prayers, they ask Heavenly Father to bless and sanctify the bread and the water “to the souls of all those” who partake.4 All. Each person who partakes—including each little child. If in partaking the bread and water, children receive these emblems as a blessing to their pure souls, there must be a way to help them find meaning in the ordinance." I also like what M. Russel Nelson has said about it- "Parents are sometimes concerned about which hand their children use to partake of the sacrament. As a means of education, preparation, and training, unbaptized children in the Church are offered the sacrament “to prefigure the covenant they will take upon themselves when they arrive at the years of accountability.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 660.) Therefore, it is very important that they develop a good feeling and a sacred mental attitude about the symbolism and significance of the sacrament. Parents who wish to teach the importance of this sacred experience might make the topic a part of family home evening instruction. Then, if a reminder becomes necessary in a meeting, it may be given quietly, in patience and love." 1
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Rain said: The sacrament is not a saving ordinance so that could make a difference. It is not done by proxy so that could make a difference. If someone were baptized and never got the chance to take the sacrament, but was fully repentant then it would be ok. I believe that it is a saving ordinance. We need the sacrament to repent. It isn't just our own repentance through prayer, but the taking of the sacrament that enables us to retain remission of our sins. Because it is a saving ordinance, akin to baptism or temple ordinances, the ordinance is word-perfect and must be done in a certain manner. There are only a handful of ordinances in the Church whose wording is regulated, and the sacrament is one of them. Yes, hypothetically, if one gets baptized and then gets hit by a bus after and never gets the chance to take the sacrament, their never having taken the sacrament won't "count against them." But, for people who live live week to week, we need the sacrament to retain remission of sins. The Church even has things in place for parts of the world where there aren't enough members to even have a branch. We once had a group of five members on my mission, without a branch president. We were authorized to hold sacrament meeting in the apartment next door. So I'm trying to figure out why it would matter, covenant wise, you would need to be there for the prayer. Can you think of any other covenant you don't have to be physically present for while the covenant is being made? 1
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Don't little children take the sacrament, too? They haven't been baptized so there is no renewal of baptism going on, and if they are young enough they probably don't know what the prayer even means. It would seem that your argument against late-comers taking it should also apply to children. It isn't salvific for little children, and it would be no problem whatsoever if little children didn't take the sacrament at all. What we're talking about is people who have made the covenant of baptism, taking the emblems without being present to make the covenant. As a side note, I find the verb use intriguing. LDS have "take sacrament" and Catholics have "receive communion." It is very interesting. We also have an in-house disagreement over talking about "receiving the endowment" and "taking out your endowments" (I always say "receive," and it bothers me when people say "take out"). I love linguistics, and the psychology of language. Honestly, I think the reason we universally speak of "taking" the sacrament is because of Jesus saying, "Take, eat, this is my body." We are to take and partake of it. It's also interesting that for us a sacrament is a religious rite (communion is one of the 7 sacraments). What do you call your religious rites, since sacrament only refers to one of them? We call them ordinances. Baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordinations, temple ordinances, the sacrament, and important but non-essential ordinances: various forms of blessings, including the patriarchal blessing, a prophetic declaration of Israelite lineage and guidance for life. Why is LDS sacrament only on Sundays? We have Mass and communion every day. D&C 59: 8 Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. 9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspottedfrom the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; 10 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; 11 Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; 12 But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. Finally, Catholics also take communion to those who are homebound. We do that, too. My son and some of the other priests primarily do that, under my direction, in my ward. 1
mnn727 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: And anyone who has never cleaned a grease trap probably doesn't know the joy of a box that collects all solids to ensure they don't go into the sewer system. It's not pleasant - and we don't do anything but chocolate in ours plus put baking soda in it several times a day. I'd hate to imagine what it'd be like a week after the ward thanksgiving dinner. Yeah, I've cleaned them in regular restaurants. luckily only one of my locations were required to have it, but one was enough.
mnn727 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 Quote As a side note, I find the verb use intriguing. LDS have "take sacrament" and Catholics have "receive communion." That's easy, in the RCC Church, you line up and the Priest places the host on your tongue -- thus you "receive it" In the LDS Church, the bread is broken onto a tray which is passed to the members who take a piece and pass the tray to the next person, thus we "take it" 1
pogi Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, rongo said: It is very interesting. We also have an in-house disagreement over talking about "receiving the endowment" and "taking out your endowments" (I always say "receive," and it bothers me when people say "take out"). I love linguistics, and the psychology of language. Honestly, I think the reason we universally speak of "taking" the sacrament is because of Jesus saying, "Take, eat, this is my body." We are to take and partake of it. Yes, it can also have ties to "taking" his name upon us, which is a covenant we renew at baptism. 1
ksfisher Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, it can also have ties to "taking" his name upon us, which is a covenant we renew at baptism. I think it has more to do with the fact that we take a piece of bread or cup from a tray. We are taking it.
pogi Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: I like how this Ensign article explains it. "Have you ever wondered why we allow unbaptized children to partake of the sacrament? Is it just to avoid the inevitable squawks and struggles when they want a piece of bread? Is it just to make the ordinance easier to administer, just to keep the peace? I don’t think so. I believe there are deeper reasons. I believe this because I believe that when Jesus Christ says “all,” He means all. And when He speaks to a multitude, He doesn’t exclude anyone. When the resurrected Savior introduced the sacrament to His people in the Americas, He emphasized that the ordinance had special meaning for those who had been baptized.1 Even so, He commanded His disciples to “give [the sacrament] unto the multitude.”2 That multitude included “little ones.”3 When priesthood holders today pronounce the sacrament prayers, they ask Heavenly Father to bless and sanctify the bread and the water “to the souls of all those” who partake.4 All. Each person who partakes—including each little child. If in partaking the bread and water, children receive these emblems as a blessing to their pure souls, there must be a way to help them find meaning in the ordinance." I also like what M. Russel Nelson has said about it- "Parents are sometimes concerned about which hand their children use to partake of the sacrament. As a means of education, preparation, and training, unbaptized children in the Church are offered the sacrament “to prefigure the covenant they will take upon themselves when they arrive at the years of accountability.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 660.) Therefore, it is very important that they develop a good feeling and a sacred mental attitude about the symbolism and significance of the sacrament. Parents who wish to teach the importance of this sacred experience might make the topic a part of family home evening instruction. Then, if a reminder becomes necessary in a meeting, it may be given quietly, in patience and love." Thanks for the references! I appreciate their opinions but still feel to disagree. The multitude in the passage he is referencing is in 3 Nephi 18. If you read on just a little it clarifies who should receive the sacrament specifically: Quote 11. And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. Do we really think they gave wine to 2 year old's? I don't mean to make too big a deal about this. I certainly don't look down on anyone for giving the sacrament to their children, and I certainly would not force my own children to not partake of it. I don't feel it is wrong necessarily or sinful, but I feel that it would be more meaningful to wait, contrary to Nelson's opinion that it is more helpful to make it habitual from childhood to "prefigure" the covenant. I just don't see that we do that with any other ordinance, so "prefiguring" the sacrament seems different and unusual to me. 2
pogi Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think it has more to do with the fact that we take a piece of bread or cup from a tray. We are taking it. Sure, if you want to make it prosaic and ordinary If that works for you great, It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I like the linguistic/poetic liberty to create meaning for me. Sometimes words can have double meanings (layers), if we let them. I find that to be true in the temple. Edited November 3, 2017 by pogi
ksfisher Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Sure, if you want to make it prosaic and ordinary If that works for you great, It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I like the linguistic/poetic liberty to create meaning for me. Sometimes words can have double meanings (layers), if we let them. I find that to be true in the temple. I realize that we can find all sorts of symbolic meaning, and that's good, but I really think that we say "take the sacrament" because we are literally taking something from the tray. It is prosaic and ordinary, but most things are.
kiwi57 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Not sure, but their outfits are way cooler than any of the security hanging out around the church office building... Well, they were designed by Michelangelo, after all.
MiserereNobis Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I also like what M. Russel Nelson has said about it- "Parents are sometimes concerned about which hand their children use to partake of the sacrament. Is there a rule about this?
MiserereNobis Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Well, they were designed by Michelangelo, after all. Just for those who aren't sure what we are talking about: Super cool. And yes, you have to be Swiss citizen to be part of the Pontifical Swiss Guard (and a Roman Catholic, too, obviously).
kiwi57 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said: Is there a rule about this? Not quite a rule; more like a guideline. (Trying not so imagine Captain Barbossa saying that.) It's generally done with the right hand, but it's not worth making a fuss over while the Sacrament is being passed.
kiwi57 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Just for those who aren't sure what we are talking about: Super cool. And yes, you have to be Swiss citizen to be part of the Pontifical Swiss Guard (and a Roman Catholic, too, obviously). Yes. But then again, there was the night of September 28-29 1978, when the officer of the watch complained that he couldn't sleep.
Recommended Posts