Jump to content

Sacrament at Home Church


Recommended Posts

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

Link to post

Truthfully, I don’t care who takes it first.

I have little children so I bless and pass.

i bless it then pass it to everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post

I pass it to Sister Gui as a priest would do would do to the member In the absence of a deacon, and then she passes to me. I'm not the bishop. The nice thing is that the piece of bread is substantial....not the morsel or crumb we usually get in church.  I'm sad that the teachers usually throw away half the bread in the trays. Just break them a little bigger.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 4
Link to post

If I don't let my little grandkids get it first it will be all over the floor as they rush to see who can get it first. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

There is no need for anyone specific to take it first. That is just a custom in the church that serves some practical purposes (lets person presiding have a full chance to correct any mistakes, allows them to partake early so they can observe everyone else receiving it to make sure it gets to everyone and is passed correctly, etc.) Since no one at a home sacrament meeting holds the keys to the ordinance no one has to take it first even by custom. If you want to let the person who would be presiding if we were living the patriarchal order take it first you can but you do not have to.

  • Like 4
Link to post
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no need for anyone specific to take it first. That is just a custom in the church that serves some practical purposes (lets person presiding have a full chance to correct any mistakes, allows them to partake early so they can observe everyone else receiving it to make sure it gets to everyone and is passed correctly, etc.) Since no one at a home sacrament meeting holds the keys to the ordinance no one has to take it first even by custom. If you want to let the person who would be presiding if we were living the patriarchal order take it first you can but you do not have to.

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus gave it to the disciples first and then they gave it to the people. He gave these instructions:

Quote

3 And 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.
4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
5 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, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.
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.

They followed the same  pattern the next day. 

Quote

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.
4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.
5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

Seems to me the one who breaks and blesses the bread gives it to others first. So, I would bless it and then give it to my family first.

The first reference to this that I have found was in the April 1946 Conference talk by Elder David O. McKay.
 

Quote

There is one other point which might be associated with the passing of the sacrament. It is a beautiful, impressive things to have our boys administer it. They are the servants; they are waiting upon us and waiting upon the Lord and have come there because they are worthy to officiate if the bishop has spoken to them properly.

. . . be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord 

If every boy could sense this, quietly and with dignity he would pass the sacrament to us. Sometimes they pass it first to the organist, as if no moment should be lost before she starts to distract our attention. The music starts at once. No matter how good it may be, the tones of the organ, if we are respectful to the organist, divert our attention from the prayer that has just been offered. 
Rather should that young man carry the sacrament to the presiding officer, not to honor him, but the office, as you honored our President tonight. That presiding officer may be the bishop of the ward; if so, let the young man carry the sacrament first to the bishop. After that pass it to one after the other who sit either on the left or the right of the presiding officer; not going back to the first and second counselors and then to the superintendent. The lesson is taught when the sacrament is passed to the presiding officer. The next Sunday, the president of the stake may be there, who is then the highest ecclesiastical authority. Do you see what the responsibility of the deacons and the priests is? There is a lesson in government taught every day. It is their duty to know who is the presiding officer in that meeting that day. Next Sunday there may be one of the General Authorities. Those young men will have in mind the question, "Who is he today, and who is the presiding authority?"

Before this, the organist would play music during the sacrament. This practice ended. I have always understood the presiding authority receives the sacrament first to honor his position. I have never heard until now that it was done for practical reasons such as being able to keep an eye on things.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

This never crossed my mind at all. I give it to my wife first (just the two of us now). If we still had the kids at home, a son would pass it to whoever is closest to him first ans then lastly to whoever is blessing.

Now that you bring it up, the bishop is still presiding. The father might traditionally conduct the meeting, but I can't see anyone preventing either spouse or responsible child from doing so.

What does your local leadership instruct you to do?

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
Link to post

The practice of the presiding authority receiving the sacrament first started in the 1930 or 40s.

from a talk given in general conference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

In my home I am both presiding and officiating the ordinance. I take the sacrament last, after I have passed it to each of my family members.

 

Quote

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

No, that would not be necessary. The sacrament can be passed to anyone first.

The reason we pass it to the presiding authority first during our regular Sunday services is, as others have noted, largely for pragmatic reasons. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

The practice of the presiding authority receiving the sacrament first started in the 1930 or 40s.

from a talk given in general conference.

See my quote from David O. McKay just above.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In my home I am both presiding and officiating the ordinance. I take the sacrament last, after I have passed it to each of my family members.

 

No, that would not be necessary. The sacrament can be passed to anyone first.

The reason we pass it to the presiding authority first during our regular Sunday services is, as others have noted, largely for pragmatic reasons. 

 

Rather should that young man carry the sacrament to the presiding officer, not to honor him, but the office, as you honored our President tonight.” David O. McKay, 1946

Link to post
13 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

As an embellishment on the "presiding" question, I also wonder to what extent, if any, priesthood holders administering the sacrament act as a judge in determining who is or isn't worthy to partake. We had a family reunion recently and there were a number in the family who would likely be found "unworthy" so I was a little worried how my father would handle it because he's kind of the type who would restrict his own family from taking it if he felt they weren't worthy. But alas, everyone who wanted to was able to partake.

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

I told my wife that I felt comfortable taking the sacrament with her, at the same time, but she said she felt more comfortable with me taking it first.  We use Wheat Thins and I hold 2 on a saucer with one hand while I take mine in my other hand, and she always waits until I take mine first before she takes hers.  And knowing she feels that way I drink from the cup of water first before passing the same cup to her.  I figure she's either trying to show me some respect or that I am acting as her taste tester to make sure neither are poisoned.  And of course I know they are not poisoned because I eat and drink the same things at other times when they are not blessed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Rather should that young man carry the sacrament to the presiding officer, not to honor him, but the office, as you honored our President tonight.” David O. McKay, 1946

Yes, then Elder McKay said that the sacrament should be passed to the presiding officer first - that is where this tradition began.

But there is no doctrinal or theological basis for that being a necessity. 

It certainly isn't a requirement.

If the stake president visits a ward and doesn't receive the sacrament first, that does nothing to invalidate the ordinance.

The stake president does not make them start over, repeat the prayer, and then bring the emblems to him first. Nor should he, as there is no requirement that it be administered in that manner. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yes, then Elder McKay said that the sacrament should be passed to the presiding officer first - that is where this tradition began.

But there is no doctrinal or theological basis for that being a necessity. 

It certainly isn't a requirement.

If the stake president visits a ward and doesn't receive the sacrament first, that does nothing to invalidate the ordinance.

The stake president does not make them start over, repeat the prayer, and then bring the emblems to him first. Nor should he, as there is no requirement that it be administered in that manner. 

 

President McKay's statement that the sacrament should be administered to the presiding officer first is what made that act a requirement in our sacrament services.  He was speaking as the President of the Church, with the keys.

We don't all need to agree with him or any other President before the pronouncements of a President of the Church become binding upon us as members of the Church.

Link to post
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As an embellishment on the "presiding" question, I also wonder to what extent, if any, priesthood holders administering the sacrament act as a judge in determining who is or isn't worthy to partake. We had a family reunion recently and there were a number in the family who would likely be found "unworthy" so I was a little worried how my father would handle it because he's kind of the type who would restrict his own family from taking it if he felt they weren't worthy. But alas, everyone who wanted to was able to partake.

In a chapel setting generally the presiding authority has already asked anyone who should not be partaking not to partake. I doubt he would jump up and stop them but if someone is operating under some form of membership restriction and continues to partake when instructed not to that would probably indicate a lack of penitence and/or seriousness about the situation.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I told my wife that I felt comfortable taking the sacrament with her, at the same time, but she said she felt more comfortable with me taking it first.  We use Wheat Thins and I hold 2 on a saucer with one hand while I take mine in my other hand, and she always waits until I take mine first before she takes hers.  And knowing she feels that way I drink from the cup of water first before passing the same cup to her.  I figure she's either trying to show me some respect or that I am acting as her taste tester to make sure neither are poisoned.  And of course I know they are not poisoned because I eat and drink the same things at other times when they are not blessed.

I would recommend using bread if possible. While substitutions are allowed "in extremis" bread has symbolic representations to make it particularly appropriate in representing the body of Christ. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As an embellishment on the "presiding" question, I also wonder to what extent, if any, priesthood holders administering the sacrament act as a judge in determining who is or isn't worthy to partake. We had a family reunion recently and there were a number in the family who would likely be found "unworthy" so I was a little worried how my father would handle it because he's kind of the type who would restrict his own family from taking it if he felt they weren't worthy. But alas, everyone who wanted to was able to partake.

Bishops and stake presidents are called upon to be judges.  Thankfully the rest of us aren't.

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Yes, then Elder McKay said that the sacrament should be passed to the presiding officer first - that is where this tradition began.

But there is no doctrinal or theological basis for that being a necessity. 

It certainly isn't a requirement.

If the stake president visits a ward and doesn't receive the sacrament first, that does nothing to invalidate the ordinance.

The stake president does not make them start over, repeat the prayer, and then bring the emblems to him first. Nor should he, as there is no requirement that it be administered in that manner. 

 

Yes. I provided the quote in context above. 

That's because the stake president is usually a humble or at least reasonable person who wouldn't cause a stir by insisting he get the sacrament first. In the current handbook it states the sacrament is to be passed to the presiding authority first, and in Elder McKay's talk he talks about training the deacons how to do that. That's about as much a requirement as any other procedures in the handbook. The 1949 handbook does not include this instruction. I don't know when it was first included.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

President McKay's statement that the sacrament should be administered to the presiding officer first is what made that act a requirement in our sacrament services.  He was speaking as the President of the Church, with the keys.

We don't all need to agree with him or any other President before the pronouncements of a President of the Church become binding upon us as members of the Church.

Only he wasn't speaking as president of the church. He didn't become president for an other five years. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
19 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church.

If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?

I think those presiding officer takes the sacrament first thing is simply a made up power/virtue signal....

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's because the stake president is usually a humble person who wouldn't cause a stir by insisting he get the sacrament first. In the current handbook it states the sacrament is to be passed to the presiding authority first, and in Elder McKay's talk he talks about training the deacons how to do that. That's about as much a requirement as other procedures in the handbook. 

Only that's not how requirements work. It's either a requirement which must be followed or it isn't really a requirement.  

If having the presiding authority take the sacrament first is genuinely a requirement, then the presiding authority has an obligation to make sure that happens, regardless of whether or not it might 'cause a stir.' 

A bishop might not want to cause embarrassment by having the new priest repeat the sacrament prayer for the 8th time, but since word-perfect recitation is a requirement, that is what the bishop is obligated to do.

I agree that passing the sacrament to the presiding authority is what we ought to do, but failure to do so has absolutely zero impact on the efficacy of the ordinance.  

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to post
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I pass it to Sister Gui as a priest would do would do to the member In the absence of a deacon, and then she passes to me. I'm not the bishop. The nice thing is that the piece of bread is substantial....not the morsel or crumb we usually get in church.  I'm sad that the teachers usually throw away half the bread in the trays. Just break them a little bigger.

I've noticed the pieces of bread are much larger on fast Sunday than other weeks when having the sacrament at home.

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Only that's not how requirements work. It's either a requirement which must be followed or it isn't really a requirement.  

If having the presiding authority take the sacrament first is genuinely a requirement, then the presiding authority has an obligation to make sure that happens, regardless of whether or not it might 'cause a stir.' 

A bishop might not want to cause embarrassment by having the new priest repeat the sacrament prayer for the 8th time, but since word-perfect recitation is a requirement, that is what the bishop is obligated to do.

I agree that passing the sacrament to the presiding authority is what we ought to do, but failure to do so has absolutely zero impact on the efficacy of the ordinance.  

 

Several times I have seen a bishop correct the deacon as he approaches him first when a member of the stake presidency is present. Also when the deacon has approached a high councilor, I have seem him defer to the bishop. I have done that myself. The folks on the stand know the score, so it's up to them to make the call. I've never seen them ignore the instructions. The intent was not to embarrass the deacon but to do what we have been asked to do. It was established by an apostle/prophet and sustained by his successors who put it in and keep it in the handbook, it is observed throughout the church, but if you say it's not really that important, I'll go with you. ;)

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would recommend using bread if possible. While substitutions are allowed "in extremis" bread has symbolic representations to make it particularly appropriate in representing the body of Christ. 

Not to mention that breaking it is an important part of the ordinance and symbolism, and breaking wheat thins seems awkward, at best.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...