What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think it is clear that Jesus personally passed the sacrament to all 12 disciples, or if he passed it to them (in general) and they passed it to each other, as depicted in most last supper videos made by the church.

I prefer the former, but I understand what you say about the latter. In other instances Jesus personally ministered to people individually and also with the help of his followers. Maybe he baptized, maybe he didn’t. 

Quote

Further, with a careful reading of 3 Nephi 18, it appears that Jesus had the disciples pass the sacrament to the congregation before they ever were ordained

Yes, and they did exactly what he told them to do, just as Joseph and Oliver followed the instructions given by John the Baptist... he conferred the AP on them, told them to baptize each other, and then they ordained each other to the AP. That’s not the way we do it today, but that’s how they were told to do it. We can also note that the ordination before Jesus ascended that day was to give them the power to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. Since they were already performing baptisms, before his visit, they may have had the lesser Priesthood.

Quote

In verse 4, he commanded them to give to the multitude.  But it becomes clear in verse 5 that he had not yet ordained them to administer the sacrament.  This is pretty compelling evidence that no ordination is required to pass to the multitude.  Jesus himself broke and blessed the sacrament, as he was the only one with authority to do so at the time; but as the only one with authority, he himself did not pass it to the multitude.  He allowed other's who were not ordained to do so.  

Yes, and then he instructed them henceforth always to do it in the way he had showed them by example, which included the instruction and authority to give it to the multitude. I see that as a singular occutence not to be repeated.

Quote

Just as it says in verse 5, the same person who is ordained to break and bless the sacrament [the priest] is the only one ordained to give it to the multitude.  Jesus set that example.  He broke, blessed, and gave the sacrament to the multitude as the only one with authority to do so.  It is clear that how it is distributed throughout the multitude requires no authority. 

I don’t follow this. Are you saying He performed the ordinance and then gave instructions and authority to the 12 to copy him exactly, that they had authority to brake, bless, and give, but the give part did not require that authority? That’s not clear to me.

From my point of view, Jesus gave them authority to bless, break, and distribute it  (however that was done), and today the Priests and Deacons exercise the same authority under supervision of the bishop to break, bless, and distribute it, meaning to take it from the altar and give it to the people. This indicates to me that the deacons are taking part in a priestly ordinance that requires ordination and authority. They are the extended arms of the Priests, the vehicle by which the emblems are given, if you will.. At every other step of the way, the ordinance requires authority. I think it is logical to conclude the deacons too must be authorized to give it to the people. You may disagree here.

As noted earlier, if the the sacrament is taken to a home and given to the people there, it is done by Priesthood holders under the direction of the bishop, not by members taking extra bread and water to them. I also think of the personalized nature of how the sacred things are given in the temple. I think that pattern is followed in the sacrament.

The 12 disciples stood in the place of Jesus as they performed the ordinance. After his departure, they continued to do it standing in his place but not in his presence. The only clue we have how they did it is in Moroni 4,

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--

so they obviously instituted a procedure perhaps similar to ours today where the 12 are assisted in their mandate to administer the sacrament on the individual level..Today the bishop by virtue of his ordination stands in the place of Jesus and the Aaronic Priesthood holders (including the deacons) by virtue of their ordination stand in the place of the apostles, IMO, of course.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is a hypothetical. Were a bishop to go outside the priesthood structure he has for running the sacrament meeting just to keep up with the times or make a statement (calling and assigning or even setting apart women to pass the sacrament for example), that in my mind would be improper and taking focus off of the sacrament.

I agree. This is why I think sisters passing the sacrament into the lounge after being handed the tray by the deacon is a non-issue. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here's the link. When I click on it it takes me to the Journal of Mormon History Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996. The information starts on page 129.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

Thank you. A very informative paper. I’ll comment when I have more time.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Verse 5 speaks only about an ordination necessary to bless the sacrament.  It does not say anything, either way, about the authority needed to pass the sacrament to the multitude.

We could look at this today and say that while our deacons and teachers have the authority to pass the sacrament to the congregation, they lack the authority necessary to bless.

I guess we read this differently. IMO, I see these as three essential parts of the ordinance:

Quote

He took of the bread and [1] brake and [2] blessed it; and he [3] gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.

I give power that he shall [1] break bread and [2] bless it and [3] give it unto the people of my church.

I have [1] broken bread and [2] blessed it and [3] given it unto you.

 

And he says, 

Quote

And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have [1] broken bread and [2] blessed it and [3] given it unto you.

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.

I think “these things” mean “break, bless, give”. However it is given, I believe one must be authorized to give it just as one must be authorized to break and bless it. So, I think deacons have that authority.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[kllindley]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

He gave it personally to each disciple individually? I don't see where it says that, and not that he handed it to one who handed it to the next. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

He gave it personally to each disciple individually? I don't see where it says that, and not that he handed it to one who handed it to the next. 

I think it is reasonable to assume he gave it to them individually.The text says he gave it to them, not that he gave it to them and then told them to give it to each other. It is clear to me that he gave it to each individually, but you are welcome to disagree.

If your reading is correct, then it would appear to be similar to what we do today where the deacons and priests serve each other and the congregation under the bishop’s direction.

In either case, it is clear Jesus explicitly and repeatedly gave them the commandment and the authority to break, bless, and give it to others as he had done for them. IMO, this is evidence that deacons are participating in a priestly ordinance that requires their ordination.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I guess we read this differently. IMO, I see these as three essential parts of the ordinance:

And he says, 

I think “these things” mean “break, bless, give”. However it is given, I believe one must be authorized to give it just as one must be authorized to break and bless it. So, I think deacons have that authority.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the person passing being "authorized". That is different than being ordained though. 

[Nevo]

Another relevant passage from William Hartley's article:

Quote

During the 1870s and 1880s, a few wards started letting deacons pass the sacrament. In 1873 in Kanab Ward, the acting teachers blessed the sacrament and the deacons "pass[ed] it to the people." When a ward member objected, citing the Doctrine and Covenants requirement that priests "administer" the sacrament, Bishop Levi Stewart told him that Brigham Young said passing the sacrament was not administering it, so it would be "perfectly right" for deacons to pass the sacrament.

— William G. Hartley, "From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996," Journal of Mormon History 22, no. 1 (1996): 110.

Certainly, it is "perfectly right" for deacons to pass the sacrament.

This brings to mind something I read a while ago by a Catholic scholar:

Quote

Let us turn now to the scene in which Mary plays the major role, the anointing at Bethany (John 12:1–8). The scene has certain eucharistic overtones, which ought not to be overlooked. It is situated six days before the Passover, which according to John's chronology of the passion, falls on the following Saturday (see 19:31). The meal at Bethany, therefore, took place on Sunday evening, the customary time of the Eucharist in the early church. Those whom Jesus loved (see 11:3, 5) gave a supper for him, and we are told that Martha "served." The Greek verb for "serve" is diakonein. By the time John's Gospel was written at the end of the first century the term diakonos, "servant," had become the title of a recognized ministerial office in some Christian communities (see Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12–13; Rom. 16:1), and waiting on table a function conferred by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:1–6). Alf Cornell has made the interesting suggestion that if any established ministry existed in the Johannine community it was probably that of deacon. . . .

I do not wish to defend the hypothesis that the supper at Bethany is presented explicitly as a "sacrament" in the strict sense of the term. But it does seem to be evocative of Eucharist, and within that perspective it is worth noting that Jesus is the guest of honor and Martha and Mary are the ministers, a presentation of Eucharist that would fit well in the setting of the Johannine community. 

— Sandra M. Schneiders, Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Herder & Herder, 1999), 107–108.

FWIW.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Nevo

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Another relevant passage from William Hartley's article:

Certainly, it is "perfectly right" for deacons to pass the sacrament.

This brings to mind something I read a while ago by a Catholic scholar:

FWIW.

Worth a lot. Thank you.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think most of us have a problem with the person passing being "authorized". That is different than being ordained though. 

The Nephite 12 were ordained for that purpose.

[jpv]

Not sure why this scripture isn't brought up:

D&C 20:58

But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament

[BlueDreams]

On 10/30/2018 at 6:56 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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?

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?

 

Up until the point in bold,  I agree. That is what it says. The bold is completely based on your perspective and imagination as to what happened in large part likely based on current policy. That's called presentism. Though I can agree that that may have been what happened. I could also imagine them handing baskets of broken bread to the people to pass amongst themselves in intervals, making sure all had a chance to partake. I could see them choosing people to help or seeking volunteers to help in distribution. I could see them calling all children to lend a hand. Or all women. Or a mixed bunch. Or no bunch at all and they really did take the time to go to each of them individually. All of these could have happened. The passage does not give a specific detailed account of how they fulfilled Christ's edict. Just that they did. 

 

 

Quote

 

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?

 

Is there reasoning to back our current policy based on scriptural interpretation? Yes, that I agree with. Is there exact and explicit wording that insists the only correct way to pass the sacrament is through Deacon assistance solely? That I would disagree with. 

Quote

 

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. 

 

The bold is probably the weakest part of your thesis. If it is important who specifically passes the sacrament (to replace pass with give is, again, your interpretation) and its actually apart of the ordinance, we would adjust our practices to match the needs of our ordinances even if it were inconvenient. In all major parts of ordinances in the church, they are expected to be performed by those authorized to perform them with exactness from beginning to end. Note the underlined. There is much more leeway given to receiving the ordinance, usually. In the temple, with our most sacred ordinances, the general rule is to make sure that in bringing the ordinances to the people, we do our best to remember what's most important: the people receiving it and participating in it. And where there can be needed leeway, it should be given in order to not reduce people's access to the spirit. 

The general policy currently is for deacons to have preference in passing the sacrament from row-to-row.  It's not in direct conflict with scripture to do so and it has served purposes in helping those who are receiving the ordinance (including the deacons themselves). In other words, its relatively functional as of now. But in order to help fulfill the true purpose and command of the Lord to give to all members or for other purposes we may not fully foresee right now, there may be changes or exceptions to that policy that would still not contradict the doctrine found in 3 Nephi and the NT. 

My concern with your theory is that I'm worried it focuses more on the procedure of an ordinance than the true purposes for it and that it assumes current policy is the only possible interpretation or correlation to the doctrine given. That could act as an unintentional stumbling block if we confuse too much procedure with the Word and truth. I am not saying that people can choose how to implement the sacrament willy nilly. But I've seen people become stuck on procedure to a point that any needed flexibility or alterations can be met with hesitance...even at the cost for other's spiritual experience and communion with the Lord through the ordinances. 

If you're wanting me to say that there is support for our current policy found in scripture, I can agree. If you're wanting me to say that's the only and/or best way to go about it both in the past, present, and future based on scripture I would strongly disagree. It works for now in most cases. There could be benefit in changing the policy to better meet the needs of the people in the future or in differing regions of the world. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 1, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Quote

Up until the point in bold,  I agree. That is what it says. The bold is completely based on your perspective and imagination as to what happened in large part likely based on current policy. That's called presentism. Though I can agree that that may have been what happened. I could also imagine them handing baskets of broken bread to the people to pass amongst themselves in intervals, making sure all had a chance to partake. I could see them choosing people to help or seeking volunteers to help in distribution. I could see them calling all children to lend a hand. Or all women. Or a mixed bunch. Or no bunch at all and they really did take the time to go to each of them individually. All of these could have happened. The passage does not give a specific detailed account of how they fulfilled Christ's edict. Just that they did.

I don't agree that it's presentism. From my point of view, what you describe confirms my thesis.

If they handed baskets of broken bread to be passed among the people, then they were doing what Jesus told them to do and gave them authority to do....give it (pass it) to the people, which is precisely what deacons do today....they take the emblems from the altar and give them (pass them) to the people who then pass them along rows in the chapel. If the priests passed them directly to people who came up as volunteers, they would still be doing what Jesus commanded....break, bless, give. The deacons serve as their authorized assistants.

Quote

Is there reasoning to back our current policy based on scriptural interpretation? Yes, that I agree with. Is there exact and explicit wording that insists the only correct way to pass the sacrament is through Deacon assistance solely? That I would disagree with. 

That is not the issue. I have never said there is exact and explicit wording. I have always said it is evidence the deacons are participating in a priestly ordinance that requires ordination.

Quote

The bold is probably the weakest part of your thesis. If it is important who specifically passes the sacrament (to replace pass with give is, again, your interpretation) and its actually apart of the ordinance, we would adjust our practices to match the needs of our ordinances even if it were inconvenient. In all major parts of ordinances in the church, they are expected to be performed by those authorized to perform them with exactness from beginning to end. Note the underlined. There is much more leeway given to receiving the ordinance, usually. In the temple, with our most sacred ordinances, the general rule is to make sure that in bringing the ordinances to the people, we do our best to remember what's most important: the people receiving it and participating in it. And where there can be needed leeway, it should be given in order to not reduce people's access to the spirit. 

I'm not sure I understand this point. The definition of "pass" is "to transfer (something) to someone, especially by handing or bequeathing it to the next person in a series. Synonyms for "pass" (meaning to pass something to another) include  "let someone have, give, hand over, hand round, reach, convey, deliver." I think my interpretation is valid. Giving the sacrament is part of the ordinance that requires ordination. If your interpretation is correct, then the deacons would merely be intermediaries. The accepted precedent is that the deacons are more than intermediaries and must also be ordained to serve this function. In previous Church practice, elders blessed and passed the sacrament (administered it).

Quote

The general policy currently is for deacons to have preference in passing the sacrament from row-to-row.  It's not in direct conflict with scripture to do so and it has served purposes in helping those who are receiving the ordinance (including the deacons themselves). In other words, its relatively functional as of now. But in order to help fulfill the true purpose and command of the Lord to give to all members or for other purposes we may not fully foresee right now, there may be changes or exceptions to that policy that would still not contradict the doctrine found in 3 Nephi and the NT.

Not just deacons, but any priesthood holder can pass the sacrament. AFAIK, there is no record of non-priesthood holders distribution the sacrament as deacons (formerly elders) do.  

I'm not sure what the true purpose and command would be. 3 Nephi 18 explains the purpose quite well, and the current method accomplishes it efficiently and reverently. 

Quote

My concern with your theory is that I'm worried it focuses more on the procedure of an ordinance than the true purposes for it and that it assumes current policy is the only possible interpretation or correlation to the doctrine given. That could act as an unintentional stumbling block if we confuse too much procedure with the Word and truth. I am not saying that people can choose how to implement the sacrament willy nilly. But I've seen people become stuck on procedure to a point that any needed flexibility or alterations can be met with hesitance...even at the cost for other's spiritual experience and communion with the Lord through the ordinances.

I don't think that is a fair criticism. The purpose of the OP was not to discuss the true purpose for the sacrament, but rather the wording of the instructions Jesus gave to his disciples on how it should be administered with the intent to show that those who give it to the congregation are ordained for that purpose. I have no idea how this could possibly detract from someone's spiritual experience and communication with the Lord, unless they were sitting there stewing because the young women don't get to pass the sacrament. In that case, I would say they are responsible for detracting from their own experience.

Quote

 

If you're wanting me to say that there is support for our current policy found in scripture, I can agree. If you're wanting me to say that's the only and/or best way to go about it both in the past, present, and future based on scripture I would strongly disagree. It works for now in most cases. There could be benefit in changing the policy to better meet the needs of the people in the future or in differing regions of the world. 

 

 

 

I'm not wanting you to say anything. Why would I do that? I'm simply pointing out that I believe the Savior's instructions in 3 Nephi 18 are evidence that those who (give) pass the sacrament (meaning deacons who act as extensions of the priests, in our case) should be ordained for that purpose. I think it is more than just a policy and have stated my reasons.  Speculation about the future don't figure in, AFAIAC. You are free to disagree.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/31/2018 at 10:46 AM, JAHS said:

Here's the link. When I click on it it takes me to the Journal of Mormon History Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996. The information starts on page 129.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

Thank you for sharing this!

I've never been one who thought the Restoration must have been complete in all its forms and glory on April 6, 1830, so change is not a concern for me. Learning how the Church and its leaders coped with changing demographics, locations, and culture with relation to Priesthood quorums, ordinations, duties, etc., has been an inspiring and fascinating read.

In reference to the sacrament, I noticed this reference: "The Holy Sacrament," Improvement Era 13 (April 1910): 570-71. I found the source at https://archive.org/stream/improvementera1306unse/improvementera1306unse_djvu.txt

Quote

The Holy Sacrament. — "Is it, or is it not, proper for an elder passing the sacrament, to refuse to give it to one he knows to be unworthy of partaking of it?"
   It is the duty of the bishop solely to sit in judgment in such a case. By the authority vested in the bishop, as a high priest, the sacrament is administered. It is in his charge; and if there are members in the congregation who are unworthy of the sacrament, it is the duty of the  bishop, and no one else, to sit in judgment in such a case. Therefore it is not proper for an elder to refuse any person the sacrament, unless he has previously been instructed to do so by the bishop of the ward. But,if the elders who administer the sacrament know of persons in the congregation who are unworthy to partake of it, it is their duty to so report to the bishop, and await the bishop's instruction (read III Nephi 18:  28-30).

Let's see if you agree with my reading.

Apparently, some of those passing the sacrament may have been also passing judgment on those to whom it should be passed. These were elders officially assigned to function as priests, teachers, and deacons as was the practice at the time - before young men were given these duties. 

The cited doctrinal basis for forbidding the sacrament is III Nephi 18: 28-30

Quote

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

Similar instructions are found in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Mormon 9:29, and D&C 46:4.

I assume that some elders had taken it upon themselves to deny the sacrament to certain members based on the duties specified in D&C 20...."The teacher's duty is.... to see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking..." I also surmise that non-ordained members would not been in the position of judging who receives the sacrament and therefore would not be passing it in the same manner as the elders.

This notice was published to correct that practice. Only the bishop can determine worthiness. Nevertheless, it is elders who are passing the sacrament.

A rare 1870 photo accompanying the BYU Studies article (page 95) shows a sacrament meeting where adults are shown at the table blessing the sacrament with arms raised and three empty chairs facing the altar on the floor. There are several men seated to the left of the table, but it is unclear if they are the ones who will be passing the sacrament. There is no reference in the paper that anyone other than priesthood holders administered (blessed) or passed the sacrament from the organization of the Church in 1830 to the present, nor that passing the sacrament to the congregation was not part of the complete ordinance (administration of the sacrament).

As to the OP, IMO this is further evidence that those who pass the sacrament must have priesthood authority....in this case (1909-10), they were elders called to serve in the Aaron Priesthood, meager though as some here might insist.

Thanks again.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/31/2018 at 11:29 AM, Rain said:

 

OK, so so my assumption is that somehow the women in initiatory were given the authority to administer those things. Is that true?  If so does it apply to those women doing the endowments as well?  Are they "ordained" or something else?  If they are not ordained then what you are saying above only applies to half of us. 

I have to disagree that there is "evidence".  I see how you see it as evidence.  I see it as something that points out we really don't have evidence to make a call on it - in other words, it is missing so much that it is only evidence that that situation doesn't fit our situation.

I don't follow the logic of your first paragraph as it applies to passing the sacrament. In order for males to do that, they must receive the Aaronic Priesthood by the laying on of hands of someone who is authorized and be ordained to an office of the Priesthood. Baptizing requires they be ordained to the office of a priest. The ordinances of confirmation, bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost, blessing the sick, consecrating oil, sealing, baptism for the dead, certain temple functions, ordaining to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and giving patriarchal blessings all require ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood and are therefore restricted to males. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

That you don't see it as evidence is fine. As noted above, the Savior's instructions on the ordinance of the sacrament and the authority to administer it include three necessary actions: 1) break the bread, 2) bless the bread (wine), and 3) give it to the people. 1 and 2 are useless unless accompanied by 3, and I read the scriptures as mandating 3 be done only by those ordained. This are consistent in all his words in 3 Nephi 18. Throughout our church history, we have conformed to those instructions. 

In the temple, each person is given personal things under the direct command of God the Father through delegation and with direct contact with the person in authority (woman to woman, man to man at certain times, but man to woman at others). In our sacrament service, a similar pattern is followed. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't follow the logic of your first paragraph as it applies to passing the sacrament. In order for males to do that, they must receive the Aaronic Priesthood by the laying on of hands of someone who is authorized and be ordained to an office of the Priesthood. Baptizing requires they be ordained to the office of a priest. The ordinances of confirmation, bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost, blessing the sick, consecrating oil, sealing, baptism for the dead, certain temple functions, ordaining to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and giving patriarchal blessings all require ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood and are therefore restricted to males. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

ALWAYS when I ask a question it is just a question. I realize that many people here read my questions as points, but they are only questions. That paragraph is basically a bunch of questions I am hoping someone will answer.

 

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I assume that some elders had taken it upon themselves to deny the sacrament to certain members based on the duties specified in D&C 20

I remember on my mission in Austria in the 70's we had an entire family of investigators come to church and there were some adults passing the sacrament. One started to go up to the family and give them the sacrament but then he very diliberatly pulled it away from them and went on to the next row. It was embarassing for the family and they seemed a little offended. The Bishop also used to say before the sacrament started that the sacrament will be pased to members and small children, in other words not to non-member adults.  I know that now the sacrament can be offered to anyone, member or non-member, unless the Bishop specifically directs a member to not partake of the sacrament as part of some sort of church discipline. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by JAHS

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I remember on my mission in Austria in the 70's we had an entire family of investigators come to church and there were some adults passing the sacrament. One started to go up to the family and give them the sacrament but then he very diliberatly pulled it away from them and went on to the next row. It was embarassing for the family and they seemed a little offended. The Bishop also used to say before the sacrament started that the sacrament will be pased to members and small children, in other words not to non-member adults.  I know that now the sacrament can be offered to anyone, member or non-member, unless the Bishop specifically directs a member to not partake of the sacrament as part of some sort of church discipline. 

i’ve never seen a bishop stop someone from taking the sacrament from the stand. It would be uncomfortable for everyone, but I can imagine the chaos if the priesthood holder passing the sacrament (or the person sitting next to them in the pew) refused to pass it to them. 

I wonder what the correct protocol would be if someone were restricted because of a church discipline but defiantly took it anyway. The way things are going today, I would not be surprised if that happened and it were videod and put on YouTube. 😧

If MiserereNobis is looking, what would happen if a person forbidden to take the Eucharist came forward? 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

ALWAYS when I ask a question it is just a question. I realize that many people here read my questions as points, but they are only questions. That paragraph is basically a bunch of questions I am hoping someone will answer.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t know that about your posts. You asked,

Quote

Quote

OK, so so my assumption is that somehow the women in initiatory were given the authority to administer those things. Is that true? 

My understanding is that sisters are authorized by the temple president to perform certain ordinances for other sisters that would not be appropriate for a man to perform on sisters. Not being a temple worker, I must assume this happens in their setting apart, but it is not an ordination to some kind of priesthood as we know it.

Quote

If so does it apply to those women doing the endowments as well?  Are they "ordained" or something else.

Same answer as above except there is nothing that might be considered inappropriate in the endowment ceremony.

Quote

Quote

If they are not ordained then what you are saying above only applies to half of us. 

I don’t understand this conclusion. Sorry.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

On 10/31/2018 at 12:29 PM, Rain said:

 

OK, so so my assumption is that somehow the women in initiatory were given the authority to administer those things. Is that true?  If so does it apply to those women doing the endowments as well?  Are they "ordained" or something else?  If they are not ordained then what you are saying above only applies to half of us. 

I have to disagree that there is "evidence".  I see how you see it as evidence.  I see it as something that points out we really don't have evidence to make a call on it - in other words, it is missing so much that it is only evidence that that situation doesn't fit our situation.

Hey Rain, I can answer these Q's pretty easily. Yes, Women are given authority to administer initiatory and enowment ordinances to sisters when they are set apart in their calling to do so by the temple presidency. It's the same authority with both endowment, name issue, and initiatory, for women called to be ordinance workers. We're not "ordained" per se, as is commonly meant in the church today by that word. But it's the priesthood power given to us to administer in this ordinance by the temple presidency, though. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 2, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/31/2018 at 10:36 PM, jpv said:

Not sure why this scripture isn't brought up:

D&C 20:58

But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament

I believe in practice “administer” has been construed to mean break the bread and bless the emblems. That is addressed in the article cited above by JAHS. It’s an interesting development.

[BlueDreams]

Quote

 

I don't agree that it's presentism. From my point of view, what you describe confirms my thesis.

If they handed baskets of broken bread to be passed among the people, then they were doing what Jesus told them to do and gave them authority to do....give it (pass it) to the people, which is precisely what deacons do today....they take the emblems from the altar and give them (pass them) to the people who then pass them along rows in the chapel. If the priests passed them directly to people who came up as volunteers, they would still be doing what Jesus commanded....break, bless, give. The deacons serve as their authorized assistants.

 

 

 

The presentism is excluding or ignoring other methods that the people in 3 Nephi could have equally used to give the sacrament to the people that doesn’t fit your thesis or the practice as we currently have it. The command to give part can be considered done as soon as the people blessing and breaking the sacramental emblems have handed it to a person who didn’t bless it. Whether that be the boys waiting to pass it to rows, the person sitting next to them in a small room of members, etc..they have done what is sufficient to meet the command in 3 Nephi. In all but the example of calling others ordained or handing it individually themselves, there are methods that include utilizing non-ordained members to pass. And we still use non-ordained members to pass the sacrament. We’re just sitting in the rows doing it. If it were as essential as you're assuming with your thesis to have an ordained priesthood holder give to each member in the way you’re describing, our current practice would be changed as well to meet up to scriptural edict. But there isn't said scriptural edict. 

Quote

 

That is not the issue. I have never said there is exact and explicit wording. I have alwayssaid it is evidence the deacons are participating in a priestly ordinance that requires ordination.

 

 

 

Then I still disagree. 3 Nephi is not sufficient evidence for what you’re posturing for the reasons I stated above.

Quote

 

I'm not sure I understand this point. The definition of "pass" is "to transfer (something) to someone, especially by handing or bequeathing it to the next person in a series. Synonyms for "pass" (meaning to pass something to another) include  "let someone have, give, hand over, hand round, reach, convey, deliver." I think my interpretation is valid. Giving the sacrament is part of the ordinance that requires ordination. If your interpretation is correct, then the deacons would merely be intermediaries. The accepted precedent is that the deacons are more than intermediaries and must also be ordained to serve this function. In previous Church practice, elders blessed and passed the sacrament (administered it).

 

I am using pass as we currently do in the church. Which is what all of us do to some extent in the church every Sunday. We don’t delineate through language, those who pass the sacrament from person to person in a pew v. passing the sacrament from row to row and into the foyer. There is no specifier as to what it looked like to give the sacrament to the peoples in 3 Nephi. To have give and pass be synonymous in these specific acts and interpretively exclude methods of passing that don’t specifically entail priesthood-holders is arbitrary. And again, current precedent can change and has the doctrinal flexibility to do so.  

Quote

 

Not just deacons, but any priesthood holder can pass the sacrament. AFAIK, there is no record of non-priesthood holders distribution the sacrament as deacons (formerly elders) do.  

 

 

 

Yes, I’m aware that other priesthood holders pass. I meant preference is given to Aaronic priesthood holders, specifically deacons/teachers not that no other priesthood holders could or have.

Quote

 

I'm not sure what the true purpose and command would be. 3 Nephi 18 explains the purpose quite well, and the current method accomplishes it efficiently and reverently. 

 

 

 

The current method does….BUT….it could include young women being more actively participatory (as an example) without it changing the pattern of 3 Nephi in the least. Which is the problem in deeming this evidence for a specific group passing the sacrament.

Quote

 

I don't think that is a fair criticism. The purpose of the OP was not to discuss the true purpose for the sacrament, but rather the wording of the instructions Jesus gave to his disciples on how it should be administered with the intent to show that those who give it to the congregation are ordained for that purpose. I have no idea how this could possibly detract from someone's spiritual experience and communication with the Lord, unless they were sitting there stewing because the young women don't get to pass the sacrament. In that case, I would say they are responsible for detracting from their own experience.

 

 

 

 It may have been a better criticism in the other thread which those who were more strident about tradition precedent and procedure were more likely to not be okay with the nursing room passings as shown. If the implication to something means that some may not receive the ordinance unneccesarily, that could be an example of impeding spiritual experiences. Some could and have offered that having young women be more active in participation in ordinances in some way can also help in developing their spiritual development along with their male counterparts.

But in general, I am leery of assuming scriptures say something that they don’t because it can lead to rigidity in our current practices. 

 

Quote

I'm not wanting you to say anything. Why would I do that?

It's a figure of speech. I didn’t expect it to be taken literally.

Quote

 

I'm simply pointing out that I believe the Savior's instructions in 3 Nephi 18 are evidence that those who (give) pass the sacrament (meaning deacons who act as extensions of the priests, in our case) should be ordained for that purpose. I think it is more than just a policy and have stated my reasons.  Speculation about the future don't figure in, AFAIAC. You are free to disagree

 

 

 

You can believe and hold your opinion as you would like.... But to state this passage is clear evidence is simply not the case.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 2, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The presentism is excluding or ignoring other methods that the people in 3 Nephi could have equally used to give the sacrament to the people that doesn’t fit your thesis or the practice as we currently have it. The command to give part can be considered done as soon as the people blessing and breaking the sacramental emblems have handed it to a person who didn’t bless it. Whether that be the boys waiting to pass it to rows, the person sitting next to them in a small room of members, etc..they have done what is sufficient to meet the command in 3 Nephi. In all but the example of calling others ordained or handing it individually themselves, there are methods that include utilizing non-ordained members to pass. And we still use non-ordained members to pass the sacrament. We’re just sitting in the rows doing it. If it were as essential as you're assuming with your thesis to have an ordained priesthood holder give to each member in the way you’re describing, our current practice would be changed as well to meet up to scriptural edict. But there isn't said scriptural edict. 

I’m afraid you do not understand what I am saying, but not for want of explanation, much of which you appear to ignore, but that’s fine.

it seems to me the sticking point is just who is giving it to the people? The priests do not. They give it to the deacons who carry it to the people. The deacons act as official agents of the priests. To participate in administering the ordinance in this manner the deacons must be ordained. That’s how I see it. We have the evidence in the manner the Church has done this since the beginning.

Quote

Then I still disagree. 3 Nephi is not sufficient evidence for what you’re posturing for the reasons I stated above.

I am using pass as we currently do in the church. Which is what all of us do to some extent in the church every Sunday. We don’t delineate through language, those who pass the sacrament from person to person in a pew v. passing the sacrament from row to row and into the foyer. There is no specifier as to what it looked like to give the sacrament to the peoples in 3 Nephi. To have give and pass be synonymous in these specific acts and interpretively exclude methods of passing that don’t specifically entail priesthood-holders is arbitrary. And again, current precedent can change and has the doctrinal flexibility to do so.  

Yes, I’m aware that other priesthood holders pass. I meant preference is given to Aaronic priesthood holders, specifically deacons/teachers not that no other priesthood holders could or have.

The current method does….BUT….it could include young women being more actively participatory (as an example) without it changing the pattern of 3 Nephi in the least. Which is the problem in deeming this evidence for a specific group passing the sacrament.

 It may have been a better criticism in the other thread which those who were more strident about tradition precedent and procedure were more likely to not be okay with the nursing room passings as shown. If the implication to something means that some may not receive the ordinance unneccesarily, that could be an example of impeding spiritual experiences. Some could and have offered that having young women be more active in participation in ordinances in some way can also help in developing their spiritual development along with their male counterparts.

But in general, I am leery of assuming scriptures say something that they don’t because it can lead to rigidity in our current practices. 

 

It's a figure of speech. I didn’t expect it to be taken literally.

You can believe and hold your opinion as you would like.... But to state this passage is clear evidence is simply not the case.

 

With luv,

BD

I can state that it is surely evidence to me. Note the word that I have consistently used....”evidence” not “proof.” This is what you seem not to understand. Once again,  it is simply evidence that those who pass the sacrament (at the altar and carrying it to the congregation - the deacons in our day-) must be authorized to administer the sacrament by virtue of their ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood. I believe this follows the pattern established in the administration of the temple ordinances.

Do you believe any member can take the trays from the priests and pass them to the congregation? If so, what is your evidence? Would the passer even have to be a member? Why?

You are free to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m afraid you do not understand what I am saying, but not for want of explanation, much of which you appear to ignore, but that’s fine.

it seems to me the sticking point is just who is giving it to the people? The priests do not. They give it to the deacons who carry it to the people. The deacons act as official agents of the priests. To participate in administering the ordinance in this manner the deacons must be ordained. That’s how I see it. We have the evidence in the manner the Church has done this since the beginning.

I can state that it is surely evidence to me. Note the word that I have consistently used....”evidence” not “proof.” This is what you seem not to understand. Once again,  it is simply evidence that those who pass the sacrament (at the altar and carrying it to the congregation - the deacons in our day-) must be authorized to administer the sacrament by virtue of their ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood. I believe this follows the pattern established in the administration of the temple ordinances.

Do you believe any member can take the trays from the priests and pass them to the congregation? If so, what is your evidence? Would the passer even have to be a member? Why?

You are free to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Maybe it's easier to ask, what in the verses in 3rd Nephi teach that someone not ordained could not take the bread and water from the priest (or disciples) and hand it to people in the congregation?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's easier to ask, what in the verses in 3rd Nephi teach that someone not ordained could not take the bread and water from the priest (or disciples) and hand it to people in the congregation?

What I see in 3 Nephi 18 is that those who have anything to do with administering the sacrament - from preparing, to blessing, to passing, even to cleaning up - must be ordained as Jesus instructed. It is all part of administering. This is the eternal order of the Church when it comes to all ordinances.

Despite whatever may be in Church videos, I find it difficult to imagine Jesus breaking the bread and then saying to the 12, here, pass this on to the man next to you. It does not say that. There would be questions and disputations about why someone should receive it first or last. I believe the same thing happened with the 12 in Jerusalem. The wording is similar. There they were in a very intimate situation. I can’t imagine him not giving to each individually as He looked into their eyes and souls.. 

I think the optimum scenario is that He blesses the emblems and hands them personally to each man, just like He gives personal redemption to each person. They represent his body and blood and by giving them to each individual he acknowledges their uniqueness and teaches them the intensely intimate nature of his Atonement. Just like washing Peter’s feet.

He instructs the 12 to always follow his example and ordains them with power and authority to break, bless, and give to the people. Only they have authority to stand in his place to give his emblems to the people. Today, the priests stand in His position. The deacons stand in the position of the 12. Today, the priests , teachers, and deacons also stand in the delegated place of our apostles whose duty is to administer the sacrament to the members. The deacons are the ones who do the diving part of the ordinance. This is logical to me.

These instructions impose priestly order and exactness on the ordinance. It is my opinion that if others are enlisted to officially assist the passing, they must follow in the manner he prescribed...to be ordained. I believe this follows the pattern of authority, order, and personalization established in the temple. After all, the sacrament is as at least as important as the temple ordinances and ideally should be treated with similar order and reverence.

His commandment is to give to the people and so the givers go forth and give to each individual.  When deacons pass to the front rows or to the people on the stand, they pass to each individual. Passing down the rows is a matter of convenience with authorization because of our seating configuration and the numbers of people that must be served in a reasonable time. Our general Priesthoof leaders have established  that this is the way we are to administer the sacrament. I trust that they are doing the right thing. I see no good reason to gain say them

This is the best I can express my views. Of course, all the above is my opinion, but this is how I understand it. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui