And they came to pass...the sacrament?

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 4:49 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

There is new content in the “Gospel Library” app called “Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings “ I was reading some of it today and noticed this under the heading “Sacrament”:

 

“After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience.” 

Having someone receive a sacrament tray from a priesthood holder (such as a deacon) and take it into a mothers room for the benefit of those therein does not seem at all out of keeping with the above instruction, nor does it seem startling or strange or all that remarkable. 

Couldn't a priest hand a tray to any member, and for convenience have them take it to the pews? Or is there a limitation about how many times a person can/should touch a tray that would change the "convenience" to a level of "administering"?

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Couldn't a priest hand a tray to any member, and for convenience have them take it to the pews? Or is there a limitation about how many times a person can/should touch a tray that would change the "convenience" to a level of "administering"?

 

Yes, as far as doctrine goes, it doesn't seem like there is any difference between a priest handing the sacrament tray to a deacon while at the sacrament table or handing it to a nonpriesthood holder.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Couldn't a priest hand a tray to any member, and for convenience have them take it to the pews? Or is there a limitation about how many times a person can/should touch a tray that would change the "convenience" to a level of "administering"?

 

That hardly sounds convenient to me. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes, as far as doctrine goes, it doesn't seem like there is any difference between a priest handing the sacrament tray to a deacon while at the sacrament table or handing it to a nonpriesthood holder.

I think it's pretty plain what the First Presidency is expecting to have happen:

"After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner."

"After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.4.3

Anything other than this does not seem to follow the letter or spirit of this direction.

As to this being doctrine or policy, I don't think that distinction really matters.  It would seem to be enough that those who hold the keys to the priesthood are asking us to do it this way.  If they ask us to do it another way then we'll do it that other way.

Having a young women hand it to a person or two in the mothers lounge, while not explicitly mentioned, would seem to be "for convenience."  Having the priest hand the tray to someone other than a priesthood holder, who then takes it to the congregation, would seem to be something more than "for convenience."

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I think it's pretty plain what the First Presidency is expecting to have happen:

"After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner."

"After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.4.3

Anything other than this does not seem to follow the letter or spirit of this direction.

As to this being doctrine or policy, I don't think that distinction really matters.  It would seem to be enough that those who hold the keys to the priesthood are asking us to do it this way.  If they ask us to do it another way then we'll do it that other way.

Having a young women hand it to a person or two in the mothers lounge, while not explicitly mentioned, would seem to be "for convenience."  Having the priest hand the tray to someone other than a priesthood holder, who then takes it to the congregation, would seem to be something more than "for convenience."

So the key holders could ask us to do anything and it would be ok, right? Their word is God's law, even if it is just an administrative request, rather than a doctrinal one...correct?

I wonder if there are any limits to that? They could require...

All YM priesthood holders wear a "priesthood uniform"- white shirt, dark slacks, jacket, red tie, lapel pin ...whatever.

OR they could require that ONLY M. Priesthood men pass the sacrament

OR they could require that only priesthood holders who have paid over $xxx dollars in tithing for the year  pass

OR they could require only Single, M. Priesthood holders pass

OR only Single non-priesthood holders pass

Or only endowed sisters pass

Or ...

In your view is there anything a key holder could require that wouldn't be appropriate, or is anything they say good? Does the Priesthood holder need to follow scripture/doctrine or does the key holder replace the need to follow doctrine? Or would that constitute a reasonable exception to following the key holder? For example, could the key holder change the sacrament prayer? Could the key holder require that every member kneel, or lay prostrate on the ground prior to receiving the sacrament?

I'm just curious where your line is, if there is one, where you would consider a request from a key holder to be inappropriate.

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think it's pretty plain what the First Presidency is expecting to have happen:

"After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner."

"After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.4.3

Anything other than this does not seem to follow the letter or spirit of this direction.

As to this being doctrine or policy, I don't think that distinction really matters.  It would seem to be enough that those who hold the keys to the priesthood are asking us to do it this way.  If they ask us to do it another way then we'll do it that other way.

Having a young women hand it to a person or two in the mothers lounge, while not explicitly mentioned, would seem to be "for convenience."  Having the priest hand the tray to someone other than a priesthood holder, who then takes it to the congregation, would seem to be something more than "for convenience."

I agree that the bolded part is the policy, but it's not doctrine that it MUST be done that way and I think that that is an important distinction to make and remember, because when people forget the distinction, and then policies change, it causes unnecessary trials of faith and contention.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the key holders could ask us to do anything and it would be ok, right? Their word is God's law, even if it is just an administrative request, rather than a doctrinal one...correct?

I wonder if there are any limits to that? They could require...

All YM priesthood holders wear a "priesthood uniform"- white shirt, dark slacks, jacket, red tie, lapel pin ...whatever.

OR they could require that ONLY M. Priesthood men pass the sacrament

OR they could require that only priesthood holders who have paid over $xxx dollars in tithing for the year  pass

OR they could require only Single, M. Priesthood holders pass

OR only Single non-priesthood holders pass

Or only endowed sisters pass

Or ...

In your view is there anything a key holder could require that wouldn't be appropriate, or is anything they say good? Does the Priesthood holder need to follow scripture/doctrine or does the key holder replace the need to follow doctrine? Or would that constitute a reasonable exception to following the key holder? For example, could the key holder change the sacrament prayer? Could the key holder require that every member kneel, or lay prostrate on the ground prior to receiving the sacrament?

I'm just curious where your line is, if there is one, where you would consider a request from a key holder to be inappropriate.

 

Like I said, it's pretty easy to understand what is being asked.  You can make lots of arguments and justify just about anything I guess, if you try.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that the bolded part is the policy, but it's not doctrine that it MUST be done that way and I think that that is an important distinction to make and remember, because when people forget the distinction, and then policies change, it causes unnecessary trials of faith and contention.

I believe there is sometimes too much made of the distinction, if any, between “doctrine and policy” as though the prophets and apostles never seek and receive divine direction in the formulation and administration of policy. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe there is sometimes too much made of the distinction, if any, between “doctrine and policy” as though the prophets and apostles never seek and receive divine direction in the formulation and administration of policy. 

From my perspective, whether or not our leaders seek and receive divine direction on policy is irrelevant to the discussion.

God could certainly give direction or inspiration on a policy (and I believe that He does) but that doesn't make it more than a policy.  A policy serves a specific function at a certain time and changes when it stops being useful.  That's not how doctrine works.  That's a very important distinction in my view.  

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that the bolded part is the policy, but it's not doctrine that it MUST be done that way and I think that that is an important distinction to make and remember, because when people forget the distinction, and then policies change, it causes unnecessary trials of faith and contention.

The important thing is that we're doing what we're asked to do.  We believe in sustaining and following the prophet.  Whether what he asks us to do is doctrine or policy or whatever, what is important is that we follow the prophet.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, whether or not our leaders seek and receive divine direction on policy is irrelevant to the discussion.

God could certainly give direction or inspiration on a policy (and I believe that He does) but that doesn't make it more than a policy.  A policy serves a specific function at a certain time and changes when it stops being useful.  That's not how doctrine works.  That's a very important distinction in my view.  

That matches the perspective of many that I've spoken with...

Whether it's right or wrong, we want doctrine to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.  Policy, while it may be directed by God, can be something that is temporary.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's probably not a great idea to assign feelings and motives to women who choose to breastfeed in the mother's lounge.  I used the mother's lounge often when my babies were little, even though I bottle-fed most of my babies.  Shame had nothing to do with it.  

Your mother’s lounge must have smelled a lot better than the one I tried to not use. 

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, whether or not our leaders seek and receive divine direction on policy is irrelevant to the discussion.

God could certainly give direction or inspiration on a policy (and I believe that He does) but that doesn't make it more than a policy.  A policy serves a specific function at a certain time and changes when it stops being useful.  That's not how doctrine works.  That's a very important distinction in my view.  

 

51 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The important thing is that we're doing what we're asked to do.  We believe in sustaining and following the prophet.  Whether what he asks us to do is doctrine or policy or whatever, what is important is that we follow the prophet.

I certainly agree with this. If I earnestly believe a thing is divinely directed, I’m not inclined to nitpick over whether it is called doctrine or policy or whether it might change in the near future or is apt to be in place through the Millennium and beyond. 

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The important thing is that we're doing what we're asked to do.  We believe in sustaining and following the prophet.  Whether what he asks us to do is doctrine or policy or whatever, what is important is that we follow the prophet.

No. The important thing is that we follow God, not in a man. Following the prophet no matter what is a dangerous view IMO and can lead to disaster.

I'm surprised to hear some suggest that there is no difference between policy and doctrine. I guess that explains a huge difference in my worldview and theirs.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The important thing is that we're doing what we're asked to do.  We believe in sustaining and following the prophet.  Whether what he asks us to do is doctrine or policy or whatever, what is important is that we follow the prophet.

I think our church history shows that this is not necessarily the best route.

[juliann]

On 10/15/2018 at 9:57 AM, rongo said:

My wife said that she would feel like there was a big hole if women held priesthood office. For her, she treasures accessing that through me, and other women agreed with that. 

I think that's why it's a non-starter in the Church. Normative Mormons (those typical of the norm) don't want it at all. 

I don't think any of them (including my wife) would go inactive or stop coming, but they would definitely feel a drop in enthusiasm and commitment. 

But I, for one, do not want to access the priesthood through you. 

We have talked about women and priesthood in RS with no strong feelings one way or another. 

Get back to us when you can report what women say to each other rather than to obviously disapproving males. And I will be sure to give your nursing advice to my daughter for her very hungry newborn. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think our church history shows that this is not necessarily the best route.

Is there a better route than following the prophet? 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is there a better route than following the prophet? 

Sometimes, yes.

IMO- the greatest lesson of the First Vision was that God knows each of us and that we each have access directly to God. Joseph bypassed the ministers who were claiming to tell him what God wanted. He went straight to the source, cutting out the middle man. That's not to say that Joseph didn't seek wisdom and guidance from wise preachers of his day, and I think we are wise to do the same in our day. Prophets and apostles can provide insights, but they are not substitutes for God, nor are their words perfect. We cannot expect to return to God by following imperfect humans.

I don't believe it is God's intention that we replace one well-intentioned middle man for another. I think God would prefer we take the good where we find it, leave the bad where we find it, and go straight to the source.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is there a better route than following the prophet? 

Following the Lord.  Heeding the prophets' teachings but letting the Holy Spirit tell us when those teachings are correct.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The important thing is that we're doing what we're asked to do.  We believe in sustaining and following the prophet.  Whether what he asks us to do is doctrine or policy or whatever, what is important is that we follow the prophet.

We do believe in following the prophet, and I take that very seriously.  We also believe that prophets are fallible.  I think that Christ expects us to follow the prophet even when he's wrong because I think most of the time, when the prophet is wrong, it still isn't going to hurt us to follow him (and Christ knew, when He taught that whether or something comes from Him or the prophet it's the same, that they have weaknesses and will be wrong sometimes).

But I don't think any of that means that we shouldn't care about the difference between a policy and doctrine.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That matches the perspective of many that I've spoken with...

Whether it's right or wrong, we want doctrine to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.  Policy, while it may be directed by God, can be something that is temporary.

I don't think that doctrine needs to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's probably not a great idea to assign feelings and motives to women who choose to breastfeed in the mother's lounge.  I used the mother's lounge often when my babies were little, even though I bottle-fed most of my babies.  Shame had nothing to do with it.  

My son wanted to look at what was going on. It also helped having a chair with arms to support. Having a quiet, comfortable place was nice, made it easier.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that doctrine needs to be fully representative of eternal, unchanging truth.

I don't think it can be fully representative.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That hardly sounds convenient to me. 

It would be very convenient in a branch with primarily women attending, such as the Singapore branches that meet throughout the week to accommodate the domestic workers that can't all get Sunday off.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why?  This makes no sense to me.  Why should a baby have to wait 20+ minutes to eat when there is absolutely no reason the sacrament can't be taken to the mother's lounge?  It's certainly not an extreme measure, or any more extreme than taking it into the foyer. 

That seems like a sacrifice without any purpose at all.   

If one doesn't take a baby to church until they follow a schedule imposed by parents, some parents will be missing a lot of church through no fault of their own (not all children can adapt to being scheduled....a diabetic response usually requires immediate action, for example, and while uncommon can occur in babies).