What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It is quite possible they did not even have a separate Aaronic Priesthood. They probably did not have any Levites or Priests except maybe a few who came with the Mulekites and they were the only ones we know of who were authorized to hold the limited Aaronic power until Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Jesus May have reintroduced it but maybe not. It is also possible they had the Aaronic Priesthood under different instructions before Christ.

They had temples, they lived the Law of Moses, they offered animal sacrifices.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

Not if you're trying to make the point that only those ordained to a priesthood office should be passing the sacrament. 

 

With luv,

BD

I really don’t want to rehash that discussion. Those who pass the sacrament along rows or in a lounge still receive it from ordained Priesthood bearers because of our circumstances. I refer you back to the Savior’s explicit instructions in 3 Nephi 18. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They had temples, they lived the Law of Moses, they offered animal sacrifices.

They had no descendants of Aaron at least until they contacted the Mulekites. So either they had a different unrecorded method of determining who could serve as the equivalent of Priest and Levites or they operated the temples using the Melchizedek Priesthood which is perfectly permissible.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I an saying what it says in 3 Nephi 18: by command of Jesus, administering the sacrament is a priestly ordinance...preparation and distribution. In the OP someone said there is no evidence that passing (giving) it to the members requires ordination. IMO, this scripture explicitly says it does.

I think you're making a big assumption that "passing" is the same as "giving". I think it all comes down to how one defines "administration" of the sacrament. It seems very clear that the blessing is part of the administering of the sacrament, but it is much less clear that "passing" is part of administering, IMO.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I an saying what it says in 3 Nephi 18: by command of Jesus, administering the sacrament is a priestly ordinance...preparation and distribution. In the OP someone said there is no evidence that passing (giving) it to the members requires ordination. IMO, this scripture explicitly says it does.

So are you just talking about blessing the sacrament then?  I might be misunderstanding you.  If you are talking about preparing and passing the sacrament, then according to 3rd Nephi, we are currently doing it wrong, aren't we?  We let others than just priests prepare and pass it.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You quote this scripture...

If anything, I believe this would more accurately reflect the need for "one" who holds keys to authorize the administration of the sacrament. This would be about the bishop, not about a general priesthood requirement for passing

Of course, but those to whom he delegates that responsibility are ordained...the sacrament is a priestly ordinance and those who administer and distribute it are ordained ministers just as Jesus commanded. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They had no descendants of Aaron at least until they contacted the Mulekites. So either they had a different unrecorded method of determining who could serve as the equivalent of Priest and Levites or they operated the temples using the Melchizedek Priesthood which is perfectly permissible.

Of course. In 3 Nephi 18 Jesus authorizes his disciples to administer the emblems of his Atonement.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I really don’t want to rehash that discussion. Those who pass the sacrament along rows or in a lounge still receive it from ordained Priesthood bearers because of our circumstances. I refer you back to the Savior’s explicit instructions in 3 Nephi 18. 

Bernard, several people here do not interpret how it should be implemented today the way you are. There are several valid points made that poke holes in your assertions. Referring back to the same scripture as though there is a singular and clear interpretation is simply incorrect.  I've read the same instructions you have and see something very different by both how we currently pass the sacrament and potential variations that may or have come up.

 

With luv,

BD 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the thread discussing women passing the sacrament in the mother’s lounge, Rivers said,

Reading in 3 Nephi 18 today, I came across this passage:

It would appear that at least among the Nephites, passing (giving) the sacrament was done by disciples ordained by Jesus with specified authority and instructions.

In our time those who are ordained to pass (give) it to the members are called deacons. This seems to contradict that claim that passing the sacrament is not a priestly ordinance.

Comments?

In 3 Nephi, those who were given authority gave it to "the people," and to "the multitude." This seems to allow that they did not pass it individually but collectively, and the members of the congregation passed it along through the multitude. As we do today on a smaller scale. Where the deacon office assists the priest office, it seems appropriate that deacons (or those of any other priesthood office) assist them in getting the bread and water into the congregation.

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So are you just talking about blessing the sacrament then?  I might be misunderstanding you.  If you are talking about preparing and passing the sacrament, then according to 3rd Nephi, we are currently doing it wrong, aren't we?  We let others than just priests prepare and pass it.

I guess I’m not being clear.

Some have said there is no scriptural evidence that those who pass the sacrament have to be ordained..

in 3 Nephi 18 Jesus sent some disciples to get bread and wine. While they were gone he told the people to sit on the ground. They were not in narrow rows in pews. When the disciples returned, he broke and blessed the bread and gave it to the disciples to eat. He then commanded them to do the same thing to the rest of the people. He then did the same thing with the wine. He said there would be one (or more?) ordained to do this for perpetuity after he was gone.

In Moroni 4 and 5, Moroni gives the prayers given by the Priests or elders while administering the sacrament. 

IMO, this is scriptural evidence that passing the sacrament is part of a priestly ordinance that requires Priesthood authority.  

Quote

The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it--

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In 3 Nephi, those who were given authority gave it to "the people," and to "the multitude." This seems to allow that they did not pass it individually but collectively, and the members of the congregation passed it along through the multitude. As we do today on a smaller scale. Where the deacon office assists the priest office, it seems appropriate that deacons (or those of any other priesthood office) assist them in getting the bread and water into the congregation.

Yes, that is how I read it.

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're making a big assumption that "passing" is the same as "giving". I think it all comes down to how one defines "administration" of the sacrament. It seems very clear that the blessing is part of the administering of the sacrament, but it is much less clear that "passing" is part of administering, IMO.

Not at all. In the context of the event, it is clearly what happened. He gave it to the disciples and then instructed them to follow his example and give it to the people. It’s quite clear.

[Bernard Gui]

I didn’t anticipate this being a controversial topic... a scriptural reference to the authority needed to administer (prepare, bless, distribute) the sacrament. Any comments on the scripture itself?

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In 3 Nephi, those who were given authority gave it to "the people," and to "the multitude." This seems to allow that they did not pass it individually but collectively, and the members of the congregation passed it along through the multitude. As we do today on a smaller scale. Where the deacon office assists the priest office, it seems appropriate that deacons (or those of any other priesthood office) assist them in getting the bread and water into the congregation.

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, that is how I read it.

I agree with this.  It does seem appropriate that the deacon assist the priest in this ordinance as his duty calls him to assist. 

Quote

he [the priest] shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church

This is explicit that the person who is commanded to "give it" is the same who is to break and bless it. 

I think the point that other's are making is that the priestly "giving" of the sacrament to the people of the church is fulfilled as the sacrament leaves the hands of those who bless it at the sacrament table.  It is passed from the sacrament table by the priest who breaks and blesses it to be distributed through the congregation  However the "multitude" passes it beyond that point is not explicit in scripture.  It does not say that authority is needed once it leaves the hands of the priest.   

That's all this is.  It seems an appropriate duty of the deacon to assist, but I don't see it as a canonically explicit requirement that it MUST be a priesthood holder. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. We all have our ways of participating in this sacred ordinance. The traditional Mass is similar to the instructions Jesus gave the Nephites, except, IIUC, only the priest takes the wine in the place of the congregants.

Correct.

[rpn]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the thread discussing women passing the sacrament in the mother’s lounge, Rivers said,

Reading in 3 Nephi 18 today, I came across this passage:

It would appear that at least among the Nephites, passing (giving) the sacrament was done by disciples ordained by Jesus with specified authority and instructions. 

 

Or that he gave it to the disciples so they could be of service to others, or because it was they who were readily around who would do what they were asked to do?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I didn’t anticipate this being a controversial topic... a scriptural reference to the authority needed to administer (prepare, bless, distribute) the sacrament. Any comments on the scripture itself?

I don’t disagree with your premise, I just don’t think that the scripture in 3rd Nephi supports it. There just isn’t enough information in it. 

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's interesting that in other churches (some but I'm sure not all) those who receive communion take a more active role in participating. They literally leave their seat and go to receive instead of having it brought to them passively. I think it's a beautiful thing to watch people purposely go to partake, instead of picking a piece of bread from a tray that happens to be passed in front of them while they may, or may not, be thinking about the ordinance. It could be done the same way in our church if leadership wanted to. Members would receive the sacrament directly from the priests who administer it.

Hey, we're trying to shorten our sacrament meetings, not make them longer.  😉

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Hey, we're trying to shorten our sacrament meetings, not make them longer.  😉

Actually, I've always been very impressed by how quickly it goes in other churches but they tend to bless both elements with one prayer. Doing them separately and having people line up twice would slow things down. The one I've seen most is that people line up and go to one of 2 stations. If it was done that way it wouldn't take any extra time.

Obviously there are 2 separate prayers; 1 for the bread and 1 for the water. I'm curious if there is any doctrinal reason why they couldn't be said one immediately after the other and then have the person receive both at one time?

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Actually, I've always been very impressed by how quickly it goes in other churches but they tend to bless both elements with one prayer. Doing them separately and having people line up twice would slow things down. The one I've seen most is that people line up and go to one of 2 stations. If it was done that way it wouldn't take any extra time.

Obviously there are 2 separate prayers; 1 for the bread and 1 for the water. I'm curious if there is any doctrinal reason why they couldn't be said one immediately after the other and then have the person receive both at one time?

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(Matthew 26)

The same pattern, that of administering first the bread and then the wine, is also followed by the Savior in 3 Nephi 18.  

Following the pattern that the Savior set forth would seem to place us on sound docrtrinal footing in this matter.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why do you think 3 Nephi 18 has nothing to with authority? The issue was significant enough to the Savior (in whose memory it is done and with whom the covenants are made) that he gave explicit instructions both ancient lyrics and in modern times on how it must be done. Accoding to Him, the Priesthood stand in his place and follow his example. He did not take it lightly or consider it strange.

We pass row by row because of the physical structure of our places of worship. If we were not sitting in narrow rows but in broad open configurations, it would be possible for the Aaronic Priesthood to pass to each person individually, or if the congregation came up individually to the altar as in some other churches, there would be no need for the deacons to do it.

In any case, it is only ordained Priesthood bearers who administer the ordinance...authorized just like those who administer the ordinance of baptism and confirmation.... laying on of hands.... to renew those covenants, as instructed by Jesus, and done as a priestly ordinance by ordained disciples.

Your position is unclear to me.

On the one hand, you quote scripture to underline the apparently explicit instructions the Savior gave that only priesthood holders pass the sacrament.

In your next paragraph, you indicate that priesthood holders don’t always pass it because of the traditional layout of our chapels.

If it means so much to Jesus that one must have authority to pass the sacrament, why does our faith not design chapels differently to accommodate this, or distribute the sacrament differently?

[SouthernMo]

One other thing @Bernard Gui:

We need to be cautious when using the Book of Mormon as the place to look for priesthood authority instruction.

Alma 15:13 clearly teaches that both priests and teachers have the authority to baptize whoever desires to be baptized.

Today, only priests and Melchizedek priesthood holders can baptize.  Teachers cannot baptize.  Even then, priests cannot baptize whoever desires to be baptized. They must be interviewed by some higher authority, and still might not be allowed to be baptized if they are in circumstances that ever-changing church policy prohibits.

So if we’re going to use the BoM as a priesthood manual, we must admit that we are not following it as a church today.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I an saying what it says in 3 Nephi 18: by command of Jesus, administering the sacrament is a priestly ordinance...preparation and distribution. In the OP someone said there is no evidence that passing (giving) it to the members requires ordination. IMO, this scripture explicitly says it does.

I think you're still missing the point of dispute. What does it mean to distribute? 

You're taking it as meaning taking the trays as passing it to each row. However why not take it as taking the tray off the table and hand it to the deacon. In that interpretation the deacon and the person at the end of each row are doing exactly the same thing. 

For your argument to work distribute has to be clearly defined. But it's not.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with this.  It does seem appropriate that the deacon assist the priest in this ordinance as his duty calls him to assist. 

This is explicit that the person who is commanded to "give it" is the same who is to break and bless it. 

I think the point that other's are making is that the priestly "giving" of the sacrament to the people of the church is fulfilled as the sacrament leaves the hands of those who bless it at the sacrament table.  It is passed from the sacrament table by the priest who breaks and blesses it to be distributed through the congregation  However the "multitude" passes it beyond that point is not explicit in scripture.  It does not say that authority is needed once it leaves the hands of the priest.   

That's all this is.  It seems an appropriate duty of the deacon to assist, but I don't see it as a canonically explicit requirement that it MUST be a priesthood holder. 

On the other "hand" there is no priestly touching of the emblems (except to prepare the utensils, table and broken bread in preparation) required in order for them to be prayed over. Once the emblems are blessed, they could be placed upon the table for people to walk up and partake on their own. This would still constitute "giving unto the people / multitude," but I think there is an element of reverence for the Lord's service orientation, and feelings of kindness, courtesy and civility toward fellow saints that are natural for a humble priesthood holder to express by literally passing it to a deacon to bring into the congregation. Perhaps it offers a sense of orderliness and peace for some cultures.

Edited October 30, 2018 by CV75

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

On the other "hand" there is no priestly touching of the emblems (except to prepare the utensils, table and broken bread in preparation) required in order for them to be prayed over. Once the emblems are blessed, they could be placed upon the table for people to walk up and partake on their own. This would still constitute "giving unto the people / multitude," but I think there is an element of reverence for the Lord's service orientation, and feelings of kindness, courtesy and civility toward fellow saints that are natural for a humble priesthood holder to express by literally passing it to a deacon to bring into the congregation. Perhaps it offers a sense of orderliness and peace for some cultures.

Perhaps. 

On the other, other hand, many feel that where there is no doctrinal or canonical injunction, a humble young woman should be offered the same opportunity of dignity of service provided to the young men. 

Like the change with blacks and the priesthood, some would have a hard time with the change (mostly old-timers and super conservatives), but I think most would rejoice and welcome the change.  Times are a-changin'  It seems that old, tired, unnecessary cultural practices are going away.  I wouldn't necessarily be surprised to see this happen in my life-time.

I usually pass the sacrament every Sunday due to a lack of Aaronic priesthood in our ward.  I would be happy to share the bench or give the young women and/or relief society a turn to serve.  honestly, it would be a relief. I like to sit with my family. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by pogi