Administering the sacrament

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

3 Nephi 18 is probably the best argument that "administer" means to bless, pass, and prepare the sacrament.  I'm not saying that you are wrong per se, but D&C 20:58 makes that argument rather convoluted without specifying that there are different types of administration (passing and preparing) that deacons and teachers do have authority to perform.  It also doesn't explain why a deacon cannot prepare the sacrament. 

In 3 Nephi 18, the Disciples carry out all three aspects of administration (prepare, bless, pass) as Christ commanded; in Moroni 4 and 5 elders and priests do likewise ("they administered it according to the commandments of Christ" and after that "manner" -- the footnote ties to 3 Ne. 18), but D&C 20 only refers to the blessing aspect. Preparing and passing are not mentioned as they are in 3Nephi, but 3 Nephi and Moroni 4, 5 do indicate these are priesthood functions. So I'm thinking this suggests that deacons and teachers have a priesthood office role "as occasion requires" (D&C 20: 52, 56, 57).

So I'm thinking that the Book or Mormon lays out the priesthood responsibilities to prepare, bless and pass while D&C 20 only addressees the blessing part explicitly, yet allowing assistance from the lesser offices.

I'm also thinking that if preparing and passing were not intended to be priesthood functions, the Lord would have called upon others to help in 3 Nephi 18. It was a large crowd so I'm sure there was some additional involvement to prepare and pass, but He seems to have set it up under the priesthood power structure for "when I am again ascended into heaven" (3 Nephi 11:21 and 26:13-21).

Edited December 6, 2017 by CV75

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In D&C 20, the lesser priesthood offices can assist higher offices in their duties "if occasion requires."

Thanks, can you share the exact verses you are referring to?  

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

I don't believe anywhere in the Bible is passing the sacrament considered a priesthood duty. The priestly duties were limited to Levites of a certain age and all their work was centered around the temple (25 years old per Numbers 8:24). 

I'm not sure if there is anything about this in the BOM. 

The bible is silent on how the sacrament was prepared, blessed, or passed to Christ's followers after Christ's death and resurrection.

The Book of Mormon doesn't specify exactly how the sacrament is to be administered, though it does teach how the bread and wine/water should be blessed and who should partake of it.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks, can you share the exact verses you are referring to?  

I don't think CV75 has the context correct of D&C 20:52

 

46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are correct here.

I am not sure if "administering the sacrament" should be defined more broadly.

CHI 20.4.3 establishes that "{d}eacons, teachers, priests, and Melchizedek Priesthood holders may pass the sacrament."

I wonder if this policy is founded, at least in part, on D&C 20:27, which provides that a bishop "is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires."

One of the duties of of the bishop is to prepare, conduct and preside in Sacrament Meeting (unless another presiding officer is present).  The Bishop can delegate some portions of conducting Sacrament Meeting, such that counselors can arrange for speakers, individuals can be called to arrange and conduct and play music, individuals can be invited to give talks, and so on.  But it appears that deacons are "first in line" in terms of "assisting in all {the bishop's} duties in the Church."  I suspect this is one of the reasons why preparing and passing the Sacrament are delegated to teachers and deacons.

So there is an unequivocal policy in the CHI, and a plausible scriptural basis for that policy in D&C 20:27.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that it shouldn't be defined more broadly, but that means that while the scriptures direct who can bless the sacrament, they don't teach who should prepare or pass the sacrament.  I agree that it's a policy; it would be interesting to understand more how it was implemented.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by bluebell

[Duncan]

When I was 14 I had to take down the sacrament and nobody was helping me ( I don't recall even noticing) and so my older sister started to help, well then a flutter of activity occurred and my sister got in huck over that but she said something like, "good for nothing priesthood holders"! like if you aren't going to help then I will!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In 3 Nephi 18, the Disciples carry out all three aspects of administration (prepare, bless, pass) as Christ commanded; in Moroni 4 and 5 elders and priests do likewise ("they administered it according to the commandments of Christ" and after that "manner" -- the footnote ties to 3 Ne. 18), but D&C 20 only refers to the blessing aspect. Preparing and passing are not mentioned as they are in 3Nephi, but 3 Nephi and Moroni 4, 5 do indicate these are priesthood functions. So I'm thinking this suggests that deacons and teachers have a priesthood office role "as occasion requires" (D&C 20: 52, 56, 57).

So I'm thinking that the Book or Mormon lays out the priesthood responsibilities to prepare, bless and pass while D&C 20 only addressees the blessing part explicitly, yet allowing assistance from the lesser offices.

I'm also thinking that if preparing and passing were not intended to be priesthood functions, the Lord would have called upon others to help in 3 Nephi 18. It was a large crowd so I'm sure there was some additional involvement to prepare and pass, but He seems to have set it up under the priesthood power structure for "when I am again ascended into heaven" (3 Nephi 11:21 and 26:13-21).

Moroni 4 and 5 says nothing specifically about preparing or passing the sacrament.  It specifically states, "The manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:..."  It does not include instructions for the priests or Elders (or deacons and teachers for that matter) to prepare or pass the sacrament.  That is exactly how it reads in D&C 20 as well, where it only speaks of administration of the sacrament as the blessing of it only and strictly forbids the deacons and teachers from administering the sacrament. 

Here is the interesting thing about the 3 Nephi passage that I just noticed.  Christ broke and blessed the bread and wine and gave it to the disciples to eat first, who then gave it unto the multitude.  This was before any of them had been ordained to administer the sacrament.  This didn't happen until verse 5 apparently.  This is further evidence that the passing of the sacrament throughout the congregation is indeed a separate duty from the administering of the "sacrament" and requires no ordination to do so.  

Verse 5: "And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name."  The mode of giving the sacrament unto the church does not necessarily matter so long as the blessed sacrament leaves the hands of the ordained priest or elder unto the church. This is evidenced by the sacrament being passed from mother to child, and from child to father (since the parents typically have to sit between kids ), etc.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Thanks, can you share the exact verses you are referring to?  

D&C 20: 52, 56, 57 indicate that deacons and teachers have other, assisting priesthood office roles "as occasion requires." 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think CV75 has the context correct of D&C 20:52

 

46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

D&C 20: 52, 56, 57 indicate that deacons and teachers have other, assisting priesthood office roles "as occasion requires." In the case of the verses you cited, 46-52:

46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament... [etc., etc.]

52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion require

 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

Moroni 4 and 5 says nothing specifically about preparing or passing the sacrament.  It specifically states, "The manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:..."  It does not include instructions for the priests or Elders (or deacons and teachers for that matter) to prepare or pass the sacrament.  That is exactly how it reads in D&C 20 as well, where it only speaks of administration of the sacrament as the blessing of it only and strictly forbids the deacons and teachers from administering the sacrament. 

Here is the interesting thing about the 3 Nephi passage that I just noticed.  Christ broke and blessed the bread and wine and gave it to the disciples to eat first, who then gave it unto the multitude.  This was before any of them had been ordained to administer the sacrament.  This didn't happen until verse 5 apparently.  This is further evidence that the passing of the sacrament throughout the congregation is indeed a separate duty from the administering of the "sacrament" and requires no ordination to do so.  

Verse 5: "And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name."  The mode of giving the sacrament unto the church does not necessarily matter so long as the blessed sacrament leaves the hands of the ordained priest or elder unto the church. This is evidenced by the sacrament being passed from mother to child, and from child to father (since the parents typically have to sit between kids ), etc.  

 

In Moroni 4 and 5, preparing and passing the sacrament are covered under its administration "according to the commandments of Christ" and after that "manner" as given in 3 Nephi 18, when Jesus instituted the sacrament for the Disciples to continue after His departure. D&C 20 focuses on the actual blessing aspect of administration (which priests and elders do, and not deacons and teachers; Moroni 4 and 5 mentions only elders and priests also), but in general expands to other aspect of participation to the offices of teachers and deacons if occasion requires.

It is interesting from verse 5 that no Disciple was authorized to bless the sacrament until one was ordained to do so, but they prepared as passed in their role as Disciples that had been chosen and given power and authority to minister, which seems to be the same as ordaining them (3 Nephi 11:21, 22, 41; 12:1; note the tie-in with 4 Nephi 1:14). So they had been ordained to minister in chapter 11, and thus followed Hs instructions to prepare and pass in 18:1, 4, 8.

At some point the emblems leave the hands of the priesthood holders to be consumed by the congregation after they are prepared, blessed and passed to them. Partakers are going to assist each other once the emblems are extended to them. I’m sure this happened in 3 Nephi 18 as well.

Certainly those who bless the bread and water can prepare and deliver them into the congregations themselves, but Jesus did not see fit to do this in 3 Nephi 18. He used His ordained Disciples, setting the pattern for using ordained servants (in our day, teachers and deacons) if occasion requires, which the logistics call for in our day as well as the Nephites’.

Edited December 6, 2017 by CV75

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Certainly those who bless the bread and water can prepare and deliver them into the congregations themselves, but Jesus did not see fit to do this in 3 Nephi 18. He used His ordained Disciples, setting the pattern for using ordained servants (in our day, teachers and deacons) if occasion requires, which the logistics call for in our day as well as the Nephites’.

I think the bold and underlined part is where you are reading too far into it.  The essential elements of the pattern of administration had already been taught before he asked the disciples to give to the congregation.  The essential elements are repeated in Moroni 4 and 5, D&C 20, and verse 6 of 3 Nephi 18.  Everything that happened beyond that is nonessential to the administration.

The manner of administration of the sacrament that I see happening in 3 Nephi 18 as exemplified by Christ is this: Christ blessed and gave the sacrament to the disciples as an example of how they were to bless and give to the congregation.  There was no intermediary in the "manner" or example set by Christ in giving the sacrament to the disciples.  This to me signifies that once the sacrament is passed from the priest or Elder who blessed it, it doesn't really matter how it is passed within the congregation so long as it originally comes from the hands of the priest/elder who blessed it.  I think you already recognize that the unordained congregation of 3 Nephi probably passed the sacrament to each other.  This is further evidence that the intermediary is insignificant and unessential. 

Christ only asked the disciples to give the sacrament to the congregation only after he showed them the proper manner of administration.  In other words, using the disciples was not taught as part of the essential manner of administration, rather, I suspect it was a matter of convenience.  They already had the sacrament in their hands and were simply next in line to pass it on to the congregation so that they too could partake.  The congregation then likely passed to whoever was next in line.  What is essential is that it came from the hands of Christ (the priest/elder who blesses it).

Edited December 6, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

He used His ordained Disciples, setting the pattern for using ordained servants (in our day, teachers and deacons) if occasion requires, which the logistics call for in our day as well as the Nephites’.

In no passage of scripture does it state that deacons and teachers are ordained to pass and prepare the sacrament.  It is a matter of policy and not a matter of ordination and authority.  The deacons and teachers have no special keys to bless and pass the sacrament.  It is always the deacons who pass the sacrament, and the priests (which do have the proper ordination and authority to administer the sacrament) only help out if the logistics require it... 

The only reason that a deacon can't prepare the sacrament is a matter or policy and not because they don't hold the proper authority or keys.  In my ward where we only have 1 teacher, the YM presidency usually helps prepare the sacrament because the deacons are not allowed to help out.  That to me seems silly.  It is entirely arbitrary that the teachers are assigned to prepare and the deacons to pass.  There is no distinction in authority, ordination, or keys in these responsibilities.  The deacons, or beehives for that matter, should be given the responsibility before the YM presidency.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by pogi

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

The bible is silent on how the sacrament was prepared, blessed, or passed to Christ's followers after Christ's death and resurrection.

The Book of Mormon doesn't specify exactly how the sacrament is to be administered, though it does teach how the bread and wine/water should be blessed and who should partake of it.

I do find it interesting that the LDS and their (restored gospel)  have moved away from how both the church in the BOM and Bible used wine the way Christ taught.... and now they also claim that it  has something to do with the Aaronic priesthood.... these teachings are found nowhere in the BOM or Bible as well. Certainly not a restoration but a perversion IMO.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I think the bold and underlined part is where you are reading too far into it.  The essential elements of the pattern of administration had already been taught before he asked the disciples to give to the congregation.  The essential elements are repeated in Moroni 4 and 5, D&C 20, and verse 6 of 3 Nephi 18.  Everything that happened beyond that is nonessential to the administration.

The manner of administration of the sacrament that I see happening in 3 Nephi 18 as exemplified by Christ is this: Christ blessed and gave the sacrament to the disciples as an example of how they were to bless and give to the congregation.  There was no intermediary in the "manner" or example set by Christ in giving the sacrament to the disciples.  This to me signifies that once the sacrament is passed from the priest or Elder who blessed it, it doesn't really matter how it is passed within the congregation so long as it originally comes from the hands of the priest/elder who blessed it.  I think you already recognize that the unordained congregation of 3 Nephi probably passed the sacrament to each other.  This is further evidence that the intermediary is insignificant and unessential. 

Christ only asked the disciples to give the sacrament to the congregation only after he showed them the proper manner of administration.  In other words, using the disciples was not taught as part of the essential manner of administration, rather, I suspect it was a matter of convenience.  They already had the sacrament in their hands and were simply next in line to pass it on to the congregation so that they too could partake.  The congregation then likely passed to whoever was next in line.  What is essential is that it came from the hands of Christ (the priest/elder who blesses it).

15 hours ago, pogi said:

In no passage of scripture does it state that deacons and teachers are ordained to pass and prepare the sacrament.  It is a matter of policy and not a matter of ordination and authority.  The deacons and teachers have no special keys to bless and pass the sacrament.  It is always the deacons who pass the sacrament, and the priests (which do have the proper ordination and authority to administer the sacrament) only help out if the logistics require it... 

The only reason that a deacon can't prepare the sacrament is a matter or policy and not because they don't hold the proper authority or keys.  In my ward where we only have 1 teacher, the YM presidency usually helps prepare the sacrament because the deacons are not allowed to help out.  That to me seems silly.  It is entirely arbitrary that the teachers are assigned to prepare and the deacons to pass.  There is no distinction in authority, ordination, or keys in these responsibilities.  The deacons, or beehives for that matter, should be given the responsibility before the YM presidency.  

I think preparation and passing are essential aspects of administration. Otherwise there would be no emblems to bless, the prayer would not be said, or, if no one receives the emblems, the consecration would have no practical purpose. In 3 Nephi 18, Jesus could have had people come up to Him and receive the sacrament directly (just as we can go directly to the table and receive it from the priests), just as He had them come forth to Him directly to touch Him earlier (11:14-15). But instead He used and still does use intermediaries to bring His consecrated emblems among them, just as ordained messengers carry His Gospel to others. That seems to be the pattern.

I thought the question was whether it is scripturally consistent that people who are not ordained or hold a priesthood office may prepare and pass the sacrament to the congregation, apart from passing it to each other once the consecrated emblems are extended to them for partaking. Irrespective of policy, deacons and teachers in the modern Church have been chosen and given power and authority to minister (some of which is defined in D&C), just as the first Nephite Disciples in the Book of Mormon.

The pattern I’m referring to is that Jesus called upon the Disciples, who had been called and given power and authority (or ordained, Moroni 3), to minister. He had them prepare and pass the sacrament, and not anyone without ordination.

I understand that the teacher and deacon role in preparing and passing is spelled out only in the policy and not specifically in scripture (though their general role of assisting is), but I also see that the policy is based on an established pattern. The sacrament policy says that ordained officers perform the various functions, and I think this is because we have scriptures that show this pattern, and we simply haven’t a passage that shows the preparing and passing of the sacrament by saints who have no ordination.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I do find it interesting that the LDS and their (restored gospel)  have moved away from how both the church in the BOM and Bible used wine the way Christ taught.... and now they also claim that it  has something to do with the Aaronic priesthood.... these teachings are found nowhere in the BOM or Bible as well. Certainly not a restoration but a perversion IMO.

Hold everything guys!  Snowflake has just declared mormonism a perversion.  Guess we should pack it in, Snowflake has spoken!

Sorry, i couldn't resist teasing you a bit.  

It explains in the D&C why we use water but I can understand why that would seem weird to some.  Can you tell us how your church does the sacrament/communion?  How often do you guys take it, how is it prepared and who does it and why?  Do you use unlevened bread like Christ taught?   

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hold everything guys!  Snowflake has just declared mormonism a perversion.  Guess we should pack it in, Snowflake has spoken!

Sorry, i couldn't resist teasing you a bit.  

It explains in the D&C why we use water but I can understand why that would seem weird to some.  Can you tell us how your church does the sacrament/communion?  How often do you guys take it, how is it prepared and who does it and why?  Do you use unlevened bread like Christ taught?   

Unleavened bread and wine is what we use, and about once a month we perform sacrament/communion.

 I just find it funny the LDS claim of "restoration" when clearly it isn't. At the last supper there is no talk of Aaronic priesthood, same as in 3 Nephi 18, no Aaronic priesthood authority mandated.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think preparation and passing are essential aspects of administration. Otherwise there would be no emblems to bless, the prayer would not be said, or, if no one receives the emblems, the consecration would have no practical purpose. In 3 Nephi 18, Jesus could have had people come up to Him and receive the sacrament directly (just as we can go directly to the table and receive it from the priests), just as He had them come forth to Him directly to touch Him earlier (11:14-15). But instead He used and still does use intermediaries to bring His consecrated emblems among them, just as ordained messengers carry His Gospel to others. That seems to be the pattern.

I thought the question was whether it is scripturally consistent that people who are not ordained or hold a priesthood office may prepare and pass the sacrament to the congregation, apart from passing it to each other once the consecrated emblems are extended to them for partaking. Irrespective of policy, deacons and teachers in the modern Church have been chosen and given power and authority to minister (some of which is defined in D&C), just as the first Nephite Disciples in the Book of Mormon.

The pattern I’m referring to is that Jesus called upon the Disciples, who had been called and given power and authority (or ordained, Moroni 3), to minister. He had them prepare and pass the sacrament, and not anyone without ordination.

I understand that the teacher and deacon role in preparing and passing is spelled out only in the policy and not specifically in scripture (though their general role of assisting is), but I also see that the policy is based on an established pattern. The sacrament policy says that ordained officers perform the various functions, and I think this is because we have scriptures that show this pattern, and we simply haven’t a passage that shows the preparing and passing of the sacrament by saints who have no ordination.

I respect you and your understanding of scripture, but in this particular instance I interpret it differently.  I agree that preparing and passing the sacrament is essential in a very temporal/logistical sense, but I don't see it as an essential priesthood duty as I interpret scripture.  It is essential in the same way that it is essential to have water in the baptismal font, but it is not essential that a priesthood holder fill the font with water.  The fact that a beehive can pass the sacrament to her father or mother is proof that it is not essential.  Getting all caught up in how the blessed emblems gets from the hands of the ordained priest from the sacrament table to the first row in the congregation seems rather pharisaical to me. 

For example, if the priest was to give the sacrament to the first person in the congregation and the congregation then passed it to each other (as they do), it would still be proper administration.  If the first person in the congregation was a girl, why would it make a difference if the priest gave the sacrament to her while seated in her pew, or if she walked to the sacrament table to receive the sacrament from the priest and then passed it down the line to the rest of the congregation.  It is such an insignificant technicality.  The important part is that the ordained priest blesses it and hands it, or "gives" it, to the congregation to be passed. 

 

 

[Jeanne]

On 12/6/2017 at 8:55 AM, bluebell said:

But D&C 20 specifically says that deacons and teachers cannot administer the sacrament, which means that administering has a very narrow definition as it's used in the scriptures.  It means blessing the sacrament specifically.  

If administering the sacrament is defined more broadly (to include passing it and preparing it), we would be contradicting our own scriptures by allowing the teachers and deacons to participate.  Is there a scripture that teaches that preparing and passing the sacrament is a priesthood duty?

Gosh...I know this is a dumb question for many here...but.if all of the Aaronic Priesthood holders have the same priesthood..(do they)?  Why can't deacons/teachers bless the sacrament? 

Why not Beehives???  Laurels???   Imagine young people working together to do something special each week.  It is like pieces of a puzzle scattered and when put together make a beautiful picture.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like the substance is something I might say but the whimsy and humor are missing. Bad attempt at conveying the Nehor.

D- See me after class.

I'll take the D- and leave it at that, moving on.  

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I respect you and your understanding of scripture, but in this particular instance I interpret it differently.  I agree that preparing and passing the sacrament is essential in a very temporal/logistical sense, but I don't see it as an essential priesthood duty as I interpret scripture.  It is essential in the same way that it is essential to have water in the baptismal font, but it is not essential that a priesthood holder fill the font with water.  The fact that a beehive can pass the sacrament to her father or mother is proof that it is not essential.  Getting all caught up in how the blessed emblems gets from the hands of the ordained priest from the sacrament table to the first row in the congregation seems rather pharisaical to me. 

For example, if the priest was to give the sacrament to the first person in the congregation and the congregation then passed it to each other (as they do), it would still be proper administration.  If the first person in the congregation was a girl, why would it make a difference if the priest gave the sacrament to her while seated in her pew, or if she walked to the sacrament table to receive the sacrament from the priest and then passed it down the line to the rest of the congregation.  It is such an insignificant technicality.  The important part is that the ordained priest blesses it and hands it, or "gives" it, to the congregation to be passed.

I understand. The Bishop has many temporal responsibilities associated with his priesthood office. Some of these he delegates by assignment to the Relief Society Presidency, even! But the “Pharisaical” aspect is also a matter of essential delegation, as I keep thinking back to how Jesus only assigned chosen, ordained ministers to prepare and pass the sacrament. So I agree with the technicalities and the logistics of getting the emblems from the pantry to the table and then to the people, and that the preparing and passing functions can be performed by an elder or priest without teachers and deacons, but in any case, only ordained ministers are to do it, and if occasion requires, the only ones left to do it are the teachers and deacons. Now the deacon not being able to prepare may be a non-essential, technical distinction for reasons related to learning their responsibility as has been noted in other posts.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Unleavened bread and wine is what we use, and about once a month we perform sacrament/communion.

 I just find it funny the LDS claim of "restoration" when clearly it isn't. At the last supper there is no talk of Aaronic priesthood, same as in 3 Nephi 18, no Aaronic priesthood authority mandated.

Why do you only do it once a month? How is the sacrament prepared?  Is it blessed or anything like that, and if it is, who does it and why?

When we take the sacrament, we don't talk about the priesthood either.  And we call it a 'restoration' because we believe the authority to act in the name of God was lost, and had to be restored, not because we believe we are doing everything exactly how it was done in the scriptures.   

[snowflake]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why do you only do it once a month? How is the sacrament prepared?  Is it blessed or anything like that, and if it is, who does it and why?

When we take the sacrament, we don't talk about the priesthood either.  And we call it a 'restoration' because we believe the authority to act in the name of God was lost, and had to be restored, not because we believe we are doing everything exactly how it was done in the scriptures.   

If you read through the gospels there is no clear answer to most of the questions you ask here. Our pastor or church assistant pastor blesses the sacrament and they prepare the bread and wine as well. Not sure as to why we partake once a month. During the blessing we are encouraged to meditate on Jesus and our commitment to him.

I thought that only an Aaronic priesthood holder could bless and administer the sacrament, this is fundamentally erroneous, no biblical or BOM scripture supports this idea. The Levitical priesthood was strictly reserved for 25 year old Levite unblemished males, pertaining to temple work.

If God was to "restore" something, wouldn't he make it like the original? That is what the word restore means.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, snowflake said:

If you read through the gospels there is no clear answer to most of the questions you ask here. Our pastor or church assistant pastor blesses the sacrament and they prepare the bread and wine as well. Not sure as to why we partake once a month. During the blessing we are encouraged to meditate on Jesus and our commitment to him.

I thought that only an Aaronic priesthood holder could bless and administer the sacrament, this is fundamentally erroneous, no biblical or BOM scripture supports this idea. The Levitical priesthood was strictly reserved for 25 year old Levite unblemished males, pertaining to temple work.

If God was to "restore" something, wouldn't he make it like the original? That is what the word restore means.

The restoration is a restoration in the sense of restoring priesthood keys and authority.  We do not follow all the same customs or laws of Moses.  The Levitical priesthood was responsible for animal sacrifices.  These sacrifices are symbolized in the emblems of the sacrament today and the same priesthood keys are required to perform the related ordinances (both pointing to the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ).

Edited December 7, 2017 by pogi

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

 

 I just find it funny the LDS claim of "restoration" when clearly it isn't. At the last supper there is no talk of Aaronic priesthood, same as in 3 Nephi 18, no Aaronic priesthood authority mandated.

At the last supper there was also no mention of if, when, and who should participate in the sacrament. 

Jesus broke bread at the last supper.  There is no mention of using anything but bread that is broken as part of the sacrament. 

An appeal to the bible clearly does not address all issues.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Gosh...I know this is a dumb question for many here...but.if all of the Aaronic Priesthood holders have the same priesthood..(do they)?  Why can't deacons/teachers bless the sacrament? 

Why not Beehives???  Laurels???   Imagine young people working together to do something special each week.  It is like pieces of a puzzle scattered and when put together make a beautiful picture.

The priesthood is the same, responsibilities are different.  The same differentiation of responsibilities exist between the office of elder and high priest.  Same priesthood, different responsibilities.