What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

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".  

I'm completely open to this ... under prophetic direction.

It seems to have skipped right over this forum that, as of a First Presidency letter two or three weeks ago, elders quorum presidencies now need to be sustained by the entire ward in sacrament meeting, in parallel with Relief Society presidencies. Likewise, secretaries, instructors and so forth that serve in Relief Societies will now be sustained inside the Relief Society meeting by the sisters, in parallel with what happens inside elders quorums.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

What cultural reasons are you referring to? 

BTW, it is the duty of the 12 Apostle to administer the sacrament per D&C. The bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons do the local work with their authorization when they are ordained and set apart..

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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. 

I agree with your comments. I think they are compatible with what is described in 3 Nephi 18.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I did in an earlier post. There isn’t enough information in the verse to make the assumptions you are making. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm completely open to this ... under prophetic direction.

It seems to have skipped right over this forum that, as of a First Presidency letter two or three weeks ago, elders quorum presidencies now need to be sustained by the entire ward in sacrament meeting, in parallel with Relief Society presidencies. Likewise, secretaries, instructors and so forth that serve in Relief Societies will now be sustained inside the Relief Society meeting by the sisters, in parallel with what happens inside elders quorums.

Under prophetic direction, yes. But not ad hoc, IMO.

Interesting changes.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did in an earlier post. There isn’t enough information in the verse to make the assumptions you are making. 

I would have to disagree with you on that. To me it is very plain.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes.

Then so was his second cousin Jesus? Elisabeth was a daughter of Aaron. Was Mary?

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, blueglass said:

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".  

I think I have made a case that deacons passing the sacrament does have scriptural support. It is a duty, not a work, and therefore requires ordination. You may disagree. 

[SouthernMo]

54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Your narrow view to only focus on one chapter in one book of scripture (in this case 3 Nephi 18) despite all of the revelations we have received regarding the priesthood will inhibit your search for truth.  You may prove your point in the microcosm of that small sliver of revealed truth, but you will miss the richness and context of other revelations.

I could prove my point that we should be practicing polygamy right now if I only focus on D&C 132. I could challenge anyone to prove me wrong using only that section.

But, there is more light to be had. And with more light, we see the truth more clearly.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Your narrow view to only focus on one chapter in one book of scripture (in this case 3 Nephi 18) despite all of the revelations we have received regarding the priesthood will inhibit your search for truth.  You may prove your point in the microcosm of that small sliver of revealed truth, but you will miss the richness and context of other revelations.

I could prove my point that we should be practicing polygamy right now if I only focus on D&C 132. I could challenge anyone to prove me wrong using only that section.

But, there is more light to be had. And with more light, we see the truth more clearly.

OK. Great comments. 👐 Not interested in polygamy, though, thank you.

Focusing on 3 Nephi 18's treatment of the sacrament because ....................................... it is the only place in the scriptures that has the kind of detail we need about the ordinance in the very words of the Savior when he established it among the Nephites. Other than that, it's not much. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

As I said it was in wards that did not have many aaronic priesthood boys.

Journal of Mormon History
"there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers
could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was
blessed. While it was "custom" for priesthood men or boys to
pass around the bread and water, he said, "it would in no wise
invalidate the ordinance" if some "worthy young brethren lacking
priesthood performed it in the absence of ordained boys" and he
had "no objection" if it were done
Women and custodians usually prepared the sacrament table,
so it did not appear on a list of priesthood duties until 1933. 
As late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric publicized for bishops
the example of young women in one ward who "take care
of washing and sterilizing the sacrament sets after each service."
Annette Steeneck Huntington recalled that during the
1930s in Emigration Stake, the "young girls in MIA . . . filled the
water cups in the kitchen and placed the bread on the trays. We
then prepared the Sacrament table with the cloth and trays on
it. It was a wonderful privilege I shall always remember."
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

Women blessing and passing the sacrament is documented in the the book: Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany https://www.amazon.com/Moroni-Swastika-Mormons-Nazi-Germany/dp/0806146680 )

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

As I said it was in wards that did not have many aaronic priesthood boys.

Journal of Mormon History
"there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers
could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was
blessed. While it was "custom" for priesthood men or boys to
pass around the bread and water, he said, "it would in no wise
invalidate the ordinance" if some "worthy young brethren lacking
priesthood performed it in the absence of ordained boys" and he
had "no objection" if it were done
Women and custodians usually prepared the sacrament table,
so it did not appear on a list of priesthood duties until 1933. 
As late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric publicized for bishops
the example of young women in one ward who "take care
of washing and sterilizing the sacrament sets after each service."
Annette Steeneck Huntington recalled that during the
1930s in Emigration Stake, the "young girls in MIA . . . filled the
water cups in the kitchen and placed the bread on the trays. We
then prepared the Sacrament table with the cloth and trays on
it. It was a wonderful privilege I shall always remember."
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

Women blessing and passing the sacrament is documented in the the book: Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany https://www.amazon.com/Moroni-Swastika-Mormons-Nazi-Germany/dp/0806146680 )

 

Thank you! Interesting story, but no trends set here, right? Wards or ward? I have been in wards where there were only 1 or 2 deacons. We made do.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

4 hours 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.

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.

I disagree. I think passing it should be done by the Priesthood if at all feasible.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Edit: Beaten by a mile

I am guessing this was a lack of Priesthood in general and there were few or no Young Men-age boys in the ward or branch.

Edited October 31, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then so was his second cousin Jesus? Elisabeth was a daughter of Aaron. Was Mary?

 

No idea. In Jesus it is pretty obvious though that the lineage to the tribe of Judah would have been dominant based on scripture. So even if He had Levite blood he was not an Aaronic Priest. At some point he did receive (or was born with?) the full Priesthood.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting story, but no trends set here, right? Wards or ward? I have been in wards where there were only 1 or 2 deacons. We made do.

But then you probably had enough older Elders and High Priests to step in and do the job, whereas during the war the men were not there.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, JAHS said:

But then you probably had enough older Elders and High Priests to step in and do the job, whereas during the war the men were not there.

Indeed. Even the tottery high priests sometimes. But they wouldn't be at war, no?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. Even the tottery high priests sometimes. But they wouldn't be at war, no?

I am sure the women were only used when absolutely necessary.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think I have made a case that deacons passing the sacrament does have scriptural support. It is a duty, not a work, and therefore requires ordination. You may disagree. 

Then there were quite a few times the sacrament was passed wrongly and the ordinance invalidated through our history.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then there were quite a few times the sacrament was passed wrongly and the ordinance invalidated through our history.

CFR, please.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I am sure the women were only used when absolutely necessary.

So am I. Collect fast offerings, not pass sacrament, if I read the article correctly?

I'm not sure why this would have to be. If there is a presiding elder present then there would be no need for sisters to participate in administering the sacrament. He could do it all himself. If there is no presiding authority such as a bishop, branch president, or another priesthood leader serving in their absence, who authorizes the administration? Baptisms? Ordinations? Callings?

He could do it by himself. As a missionary in Danli, Honduras, my companion did pretty much everything....played and directed the music, blessed and passed the sacrament, taught the lessons, often gave the talks. 

 

Who is the "he" in this quote?

Quote

"there was "no rule in the Church" that only priesthood bearers
could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was
blessed. While it was "custom" for priesthood men or boys to
pass around the bread and water, he said, "it would in no wise
invalidate the ordinance" if some "worthy young brethren lacking
priesthood performed it in the absence of ordained boys" and he
had "no objection" if it were done.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No idea. In Jesus it is pretty obvious though that the lineage to the tribe of Judah would have been dominant based on scripture. So even if He had Levite blood he was not an Aaronic Priest. At some point he did receive (or was born with?) the full Priesthood.

If you are a son of Aaron, you are a priest, no? Descendants of Aaron have the right of bishopric and can serve without counsellors in our Church. When that time comes.....

The Nephites baptized with authority from the start. 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples:

If we are going to go solely on this passage then we need to go with only the apostles passing the sacrament as well. Note that he doesn't say anything about delegating when apostles are not there.

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 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.

 

So one of the apostles needs to do this.

It also does not mention HOW he gives it. It mentions nothing abut giving it to someone else before the people get it. 

It also doesn't mention if they were in tight rows or lose scattered (am not reading more than the passage quoted here so feel free if it specifically says elsewhere how they sat) 

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

6 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 he specifically says "even as I have done" to the diciples. No mention of any seventies, elders, priests, deacons or teachers. 

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, 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.

 

Again with the deciples.

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

9 And it came to p*** that 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.
10 And 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.
11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
12 And 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.

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?

 

•  
• Quote
•  
•  

 

I am with Hamba on this. I am open to others passing under the direction of the prophet. I'm also open that only those ordained can pass.

This passage shows only that the apostles were supposed to bless and give the bread and water. We know not a thing about how it was given. With the lack of info given in the passage it could have been done exaxtly as mentioned above in a Catholic church. It could have been done by the apostles winding around the people. Since it only mentions one cup one of the apostles could have given it to the first person and then that one cup was passed person to person by everyone there. Maybe each apostle gave it to 12 different people within the crowd and they in turn gave it to others. 

There is a glaring lack of the how in this passage so we really can't use it as much of a reference for today.

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who is the "he" in this quote?

President Heber J. Grant

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would have to disagree with you on that. To me it is very plain.

So if you're only trying to convince yourself, you're in good shape