What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

[JAHS]

2 hours 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?

But does everyone in those congregations go up? Not in some other churches I have seen. In our church everyone would want to do it. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Here's how I see it...

The Bishop's duty is to administer the sacrament to the members of the ward, or, the "one" ordained in 3 Nephi 18. By extension, that could be the Prophet/Apostles/Stake President/Bishop, each delegating the authority and obligation they have been given to administer the ordinances. Instead of personally administering the ordinance of the sacrament individually to the members (as a Catholic priest does), he delegates that to the quorum over which he presides, the Priests. They could break the bread and bless it and the water water and then give them to the members. Instead, that responsibility is delegated to the Deacons. Together, the Priests, Teachers, and Deacons administer the priestly ordinance in a manner compatible and in compliance with the manner prescribed by Jesus in 3 Nephi 18. He told the disciples to take the emblems and give them to the people, just as he had done to the disciples. I see this as evidence that the Deacon's duty as we practice it is authorized by the Savior and has scriptural basis. Is it mandated that deacons do it? No, but I don't think one can say their duty is not part of the priestly ordinance. I think it is. I'm ok if you don't agree. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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.

They also performed baptisms, which is an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood....before they met the Mulekites. Was John the Baptist a son of Aaron?

Edited October 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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.

I think when you take something and give it to someone else, you are engaged in what would normally be called passing. Included in Jesus instructions when he ordained his disciples was that they were authorized to give the emblems to the people, just as he had given them to the disciples.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is it mandated that deacons do it? No, but I don't think one can say their duty is not part of the priestly ordinance. I think it is. I'm ok if you don't agree. 

I'd say if that's the reasoning then there's no reason it couldn't be delegated to others. That is there's nothing inherent here to priesthood. However more to the point I think that the practical difference between what deacons do and what members do is completely unclear.

My own view is that the deacons aren't allowed to take the trays off the table precisely because it's the priests that are distributing them. Thus the person blessing first looks over to the bishop who is the presiding figure authorizing the sacrament. If the bishop approves then and only then does the priest distribute it to the congregation by way of the deacons. If the priest sees the bishop doesn't approve then he reblesses the sacrament which is why the deacons don't get to distribute the sacrament with the priest only administering. The distribution is tied to whether the ordinance is considered authorized.

However in terms of the passage your originally brought up it seems ambiguous.

Edited October 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They also performed baptisms, which is an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood....before they met the Mulekites. Was John the Baptist a son of Aaron?

Yes.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think when you take something and give it to someone else, you are engaged in what would normally be called passing. Included in Jesus instructions when he ordained his disciples was that they were authorized to give the emblems to the people, just as he had given them to the disciples.

If that’s the definition of passing that we are using then I pass the sacrament every Sunday.

[Ouagadougou]

7 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?

I personally don't think Christ cares about who "passes" the sacrament to whom; this is really just a technicality, IMO.  I think Christ/God are more concerned with us partaking of the sacrament worthily and remembering his name and sacrifice.  Don't we all technically pass the sacrament to each other when it is handed to the person sitting at the end of each bench?  

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual/lesson-15-jesus-christ-instituted-the-sacrament?lang=eng

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

Well, I've got to hand it to you...!

I agree with the changing nature of cultural practices. But I think we may have a transitional boundary area here with who passes the sacrament in that the priesthood emphasis follows a godly design in any culture. In any culture, the bishop presides over the sacrament meeting by virtue of his office; this involves the temporal as well as spiritual conditions of the meeting. They are led by the Spirit, they are physically scheduled and set up to promote peace and reverence. The Aaronic Priesthood offices exist to specifically assist the bishop in his temporary duties, with the priests additionally (spiritually) in blessing the sacrament. Even preparing the sacrament table, trays, bread and water, seating, etc. are temporal duties under the bishop's responsibility. It is not only reasonable but a righteous use of the priesthood authority for him to rely on the priesthood resources at hand and their delegated authority by virtue of the laying on of hands to maintain a sense of reverence and order in organizing the blessing/prayer setting and bringing the trays into the congregation in an orderly fashion prior to the congregants passing them between them along their seats. To use women in lieu of priesthood holders who are specifically ordained to help the bishop gets away from that transitional boundary extending from the bishop to the Aaronic priesthood offices to the congregation. To set someone apart to a calling for the purpose of replicating the duties of an existing priesthood office for purely cultural reasons (since we do this for Church organizational purposes through all sorts of callings) seems a bit worldly to me. 

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say if that's the reasoning then there's no reason it couldn't be delegated to others. That is there's nothing inherent here to priesthood. However more to the point I think that the practical difference between what deacons do and what members do is completely unclear.

I think I mentioned this in the previous post but, I know in the 40s during the war the young women sometimes prepared the sacrament table and in some cases also even passed it when there were not enough priesthood holders avaliable in some of the smaller wards that also didn't have many young men to do it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think when you take something and give it to someone else, you are engaged in what would normally be called passing. Included in Jesus instructions when he ordained his disciples was that they were authorized to give the emblems to the people, just as he had given them to the disciples.

I think when the bishop passes on using the priesthood offices to help in his priesthood responsibilities and calls others to perform them for cultural reasons alone, I think we're getting away from the proper balance the Lord set up in who gets what office and calling.

[CV75]

Just now, JAHS said:

I think I mentioned this in the previous post but, I know in the 40s during the war the young women sometimes prepared the sacrament table and in some cases also even passed it when there were not enough priesthood holders avaliable in some of the smaller wards that also didn't have many young men to do it. 

I find this to be a very practical solution in extenuating circumstances.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

I don't see what is wrong with vigorously defending my thesis. I can fill the holes and poke holes in others' arguments, no?

So, let's read the instructions, ok?

Quote

 

Jesus commanded his disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.

When the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.

When they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

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. This shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you."

He commanded his disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.

They did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.

When the disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them:

"Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you. And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name. I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock."

Jesus took the bread, broke and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples. 

Jesus told the disciples to do the same....break, bless, and give the bread to the multitude. He said one would be ordained with authority to do this. 

He told them that they should do this always.

He then commanded the disciples to take and drink the wine, and then to give it to the multitude to drink.

He blessed them because they did this and commanded them to do it for all who repent and are baptized.

I imagine on that day when perhaps over 2000 people received the sacrament (we don't know how many of the multitude were baptized), the 12 may have had some help, but it would have been authorized help according to Jesus's instructions.

Agreed?

 

The ordination he gave them authorized them to obtain, prepare, brake, bless, and distribute the emblems to the people.

His words "give unto the multitude" to me mean "hand it to them," "distribute it to them," "present it to them," take it over to them," or "pass it to them," if you will.

What do we do today?

The Aaronic Priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith by John the Baptist. 

12 Apostles (Nephite: Disciples) were called. They were given the commandment and authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, and ordain Priests and Teachers (D&C 18:32, 20:40).

The priesthood duty of the priests is to baptize and administer the sacrament. Deacons and Teachers have the duty to assist the Priests in their duties.

Deacons and teachers were not given the authority to administer the sacrament which by modern interpretation means the breaking and blessing of the bread and blessing the water. In assisting the Priests in their duties, however, it has been interpreted that they would do the preparation and the distribution. At this point I remember that part of the commission Jesus gave to the Nephite 12 was the authority to distribute the emblems to the people. In our case, this duty falls to the deacons. The commandment to gather the bread and wine has been interpreted to be the duty of the teachers.

Agreed?

 

My point....some have said there is no scriptural foundation for our practice of the deacons passing the sacrament. I disagree for the reasons stated above. If we were not seated in narrow rows, the deacons could administer the emblems directly to each individual, much like what is done in the temple ordinances. If we were seated in a circle or randomly around room, the deacons could pass the sacrament to each person individually, but we don't sit that way. Whatever way we sit, the deacons share in the duty of the priest to "give" the sacrament to the congregation by taking it from the priests at the altar and passing (giving) it to the congregation, which is in compliance with the instructions Jesus gave to the Nephites and the authority he gives both Nephite and modern priesthood bearers. Deacons passing the sacrament is an authorized and legitimate part of the priestly ordinance of the sacrament. As far as I know, there is no other authorization for someone who is not ordained to do this. Are you aware of any?

Feel free to poke holes. 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Feel free to poke holes. 

I’ve poked holes, and you have not responded. Should I understand that you acknowledge that I have found flaws in your position?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ve poked holes, and you have not responded. Should I understand that you acknowledge that I have found flaws in your position?

Not at all. A lot of people have responded and my time is limited. Specifically, what do find wrong? Please refer to 3 Nephi 18 in your response.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I personally don't think Christ cares about who "passes" the sacrament to whom; this is really just a technicality, IMO.  I think Christ/God are more concerned with us partaking of the sacrament worthily and remembering his name and sacrifice.  Don't we all technically pass the sacrament to each other when it is handed to the person sitting at the end of each bench?  

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual/lesson-15-jesus-christ-instituted-the-sacrament?lang=eng

 

You may personally think that, but you would not be in agreement with the person in instigated the ordinance. If you think we all pass the sacrament to each other, you have not read the thread. Please refer to 3 Nephi 18 in your response.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Yes, but then they would not be sitting with their families. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours 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.

Jesus gave the sacrament individually to the 12 and then told them to do the same thing to the multitude. There is nothing in the context that would indicate they passed it among themselves. Deacons do this because they hold the Priesthood and are authorized to assist the Priests. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Here's where we disagree. Jesus administered personally to the 12 and authorized them to administer personally to the multitude...

Quote

And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

So, the deacons, teachers, and priests stand in the place of Jesus and act in his name (as do all when they perform ordinances), administering and giving the emblems of his atonement to the members of the Church, having received his authority to do so. I think 3 Nephi 18 is a canonical reference that supports this. You may disagree....

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

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?

I think the context shows he took this very seriously and deliberately chose the 12, just as he did in Jerusalem. Subsequent mentions of the sacrament in the Book of Mormon are consistent with this.

[blueglass]

After April 2014, the lesson for young women on the priesthood was changed significantly.  For 2018 it said, "Help them understand that when they serve in the Church, they work under the direction of leaders who hold priesthood keys. Because of this, they participate in the work of the priesthood."  As there are no scriptures to support the duty of 12-year old deacons passing the sacrament we should be open to including 12-year old girls passing the sacrament as a "work of the priesthood".  

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours 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

We know about delegation, though. It certainly is practiced here. The D&C gives the responsibility of the sacrament to the Quorum of the 12. Not too practical to have them trying to cover all the wards every Sunday.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours 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.

Jesus commanded them to give to the multitude in the same manner he gave to the 12. That seems quite clear to me.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If that’s the definition of passing that we are using then I pass the sacrament every Sunday.

You might say that if we ignore the context of the scripture and everything else I have said here. Please address 3 Nephi 18 in your response.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I find this to be a very practical solution in extenuating circumstances.

JAHS said: I think I mentioned this in the previous post but, I know in the 40s during the war the young women sometimes prepared the sacrament table and in some cases also even passed it when there were not enough priesthood holders avaliable in some of the smaller wards that also didn't have many young men to do it. 

CFR, please. Deacons, teachers, and priests were not pressed into service in the 40s.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui