Sacrament at Home Church

[2BizE]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't have a problem with that.  It's quite handy to know who of the three men on the stand is the bishop.

 

I don’t think  this “unknown order of things” rule was created with the bishop in mind.  People in the ward know who the bishop is.  I believe this was invented over the years where GAs would go to a ward and sit on the stand.  Nobody knew who they were...the deacons would pass to the bishop first and the GAs felt like they should have been first to get the sacrament.  This was probably back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s.  At some point this information was passed around through various channels until it was trained to the bishops and deacons.

[MustardSeed]

Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped.  NEVER with youth. Imo

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I don’t think  this “unknown order of things” rule was created with the bishop in mind.  People in the ward know who the bishop is.  I believe this was invented over the years where GAs would go to a ward and sit on the stand.  Nobody knew who they were...the deacons would pass to the bishop first and the GAs felt like they should have been first to get the sacrament.  This was probably back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s.  At some point this information was passed around through various channels until it was trained to the bishops and deacons.

I was in a ward once for 6 weeks before I figured out who the bishop was.  It was not a friendly ward (and I only met the bishop when he stopped us in the hallway and told us we were actually in the wrong ward) but it was huge and we were also sitting in the overflow, far from the podium.  

But your theory doesn't make any sense to me.  Even if the GAs got the sacrament first, that wouldn't mean that anyone knew who they were.  That can be resolved by the person conducting the meeting pointing out who is presiding (which is a common practice today).

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped.  NEVER with youth. Imo

I agree.  And I think that that is what is happening more and more.  Even people with known pornography problems are now often not restricted from the temple or the sacrament, because those things are what help someone repent.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think we readjust our ideas of what makes someone unworthy to partake. 

Such as.....

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Probably the same way we deal with other scriptures we ignore.

 

We ignore explicit instructions from the Savior himself? Not a General Authority's opinion or a tradition, but a commandment from the Lord? How does that work?

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such as.....

Do you have desire to repent and follow Christ?

If the answer is "yes" they are worthy. If the answer is "no" they aren't because they really aren't repentant.

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We ignore explicit instructions from the Savior himself? Not a General Authority's opinion or a tradition, but a commandment from the Lord? How does that work?

Where does the Savior teach that someone who is repenting from porn should not take the sacrament, for example?  In the simplest form, one could argue that no one is 'worthy' to partake of the sacrament, in that we are all sinful and all have need of repentance each week, yet we are still commanded to partake of the sacrament weekly, even in a sinful but repentant state.   Clearly, being sinful and repentant but still partaking of the sacrament does not always mean that one has done it unworthily.   So the issue comes down to 'what does the Savior mean by unworth?'

We have traditionally interpreted the verse in specific ways that especially kept those repenting from sexual sins (porn, masturbation, premarital sex, etc) from partaking, but it doesn't actually say anywhere in the verse that that's what He meant.  GA opinion and tradition on the matter informed the church's interpretation of unworthy.  But it was nowhere explicitly stated in the scriptures.

In the last couple of years, that interpretation has been reworked.  The prophet and apostles have decided that our previous interpretation was not correct (or at least not correct for us right now) and have changed some things so that we can come closer to the Savior's explicit instructions on the matter, not farther away.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such as.....

Following what our prophet has newly taught and outlined and recognizing that the way that we used to define 'unworthy to partake' has changed:

"Partaking of the sacrament is an important part of repentance. It should not be the first restriction given to a repentant person who has a broken heart and contrite spirit. However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time."

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped.  NEVER with youth. Imo

While the practice may be overused in certain areas, I can't quite bring myself to agree that such restrictions should "never" apply to youth.

I had an experience as a youth where I confessed something to my bishop. At the time, I felt immense guilt about what had happened. In fact, I was concerned that I hadn't clearly communicated just how badly I had messed up because the bishop recommended that I only abstain from taking the sacrament for one week. 

With age, maturity, and hindsight, I now recognize that my bishop was genuinely inspired to ask that of me because, although I now know that the situation probably should not have warranted me abstaining from taking the sacrament at all, that is manifestly not how I felt at the time. And going a week without taking the sacrament really helped me to move forward spiritually. 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Amulek

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

While the practice may be overused in certain areas, I can't quite bring myself to agree that such restrictions should "never" apply to youth.

I had an experience as a youth where I confessed something to my bishop. At the time, I felt immense guilt about what had happened. In fact, I was concerned that I hadn't clearly communicated just how badly I had messed up because the bishop recommended that I only abstain from taking the sacrament for one week. 

With age, maturity, and hindsight, I now recognize that my bishop was genuinely inspired to ask that of me because, although I now recognize that the situation probably should not have warranted me abstaining from taking the sacrament at all, that is manifestly not how I felt at the time. And going a week without taking the sacrament really helped me to move forward spiritually. 

 

I think a definite deadline is very different than an opened ended ‘let’s see how you have progressed in your self control’ approach. The latter requires the problem be fixed before receiving the sacrament, the former is giving a certain amount to time to dwell on how sin and repentance can affect our lives and preparing ourselves for the act symbolizing the process. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

While the practice may be overused in certain areas, I can't quite bring myself to agree that such restrictions should "never" apply to youth.

I had an experience as a youth where I confessed something to my bishop. At the time, I felt immense guilt about what had happened. In fact, I was concerned that I hadn't clearly communicated just how badly I had messed up because the bishop recommended that I only abstain from taking the sacrament for one week. 

With age, maturity, and hindsight, I now recognize that my bishop was genuinely inspired to ask that of me because, although I now know that the situation probably should not have warranted me abstaining from taking the sacrament at all, that is manifestly not how I felt at the time. And going a week without taking the sacrament really helped me to move forward spiritually. 

 

As bishop I ran into this a number of times, both with people feeling they should abstain from the sacrament for a short period or those who felt they needed to turn in their temple recommend. They felt strongly that some kind of penance had to be paid for their transgression and they would only feel better if they paid it. So I let them pay it, not because I thought God demanded it, but because the individual had been conditioned to believe it was necessary. So if they were adamant about turning in the TR for a minor reason I might agree to hold onto it for a couple of weeks or something like that.

I remember one poor teen who felt like he was the absolute worst of God's children because be looked at p0rn 2 times in the past month. He felt he was an addict. I felt terrible for the kid and would explain why I didn't think God would want him to abstain from the sacrament but would agree if he truly believed he would be forgiven when I asked him to take the sacrament next. He did. I think it worked...at least short term. But ultimately I think I made a mistake by reinforcing an incorrect notion that his guilt/shame should dictate the kind of restriction/punishment God wanted him to endure to earn forgiveness. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Following what our prophet has newly taught and outlined and recognizing that the way that we used to define 'unworthy to partake' has changed:

"Partaking of the sacrament is an important part of repentance. It should not be the first restriction given to a repentant person who has a broken heart and contrite spirit. However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time."

 

That is how I was instructed back in 1980 as a bishop. I don't recall in any bishopric training before or since that it is the first restriction given to a repentant person. I certainly did not approach all penitent members that way. I believe I was following the words of the prophet then. Others may have had different experiences. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you have desire to repent and follow Christ?

If the answer is "yes" they are worthy. If the answer is "no" they aren't because they really aren't repentant.

 

And if the answer is "no"........

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is how I was instructed back in 1980 as a bishop. I don't recall in any bishopric training before or since that it is the first restriction given to a repentant person. I certainly did not approach all penitent members that way. I believe I was following the words of the prophet then. Others may have had different experiences. 

I agree.  I would never impose that unless after a formal disciplinary council, that was the decision.

I know in my own life how essential the sacrament is to repentance.  I am a bit of an expert on repentance since I have had to do so much of it.    Getting feedback from the Lord weekly is an essential part of charting progress or lack thereof. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree.  I would never impose that unless after a formal disciplinary council, that was the decision.

I know in my own life how essential the sacrament is to repentance.  I am a bit of an expert on repentance since I have had to do so much of it.    Getting feedback from the Lord weekly is an essential part of charting progress or lack thereof. 

If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. 

I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where does the Savior teach that someone who is repenting from porn should not take the sacrament, for example?  In the simplest form, one could argue that no one is 'worthy' to partake of the sacrament, in that we are all sinful and all have need of repentance each week, yet we are still commanded to partake of the sacrament weekly, even in a sinful but repentant state.   Clearly, being sinful and repentant but still partaking of the sacrament does not always mean that one has done it unworthily.   So the issue comes down to 'what does the Savior mean by unworth?'

It is quite possible that a temporary restriction is the best course for a person who is in the repentance process from serious sin. Maybe not. It depends on the manifestation of the Spirit. This is not necessarily something new.  I'm reminded of Elder Groberg's talk on the sacrament in 1989.

Quote

The Lord said, “And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me.” (3 Ne. 18:25.)

But the Lord, who knows the terrible consequences of hypocrisy, also warned: “Ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, …“For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul.” (3 Ne. 18:28–29.)

What does it mean to partake of the sacrament worthily? Or how do we know if we are unworthy? If we desire to improve (which is to repent) and are not under priesthood restriction, then, in my opinion, we are worthy. If, however, we have no desire to improve, if we have no intention of following the guidance of the Spirit, we must ask: Are we worthy to partake, or are we making a mockery of the very purpose of the sacrament, which is to act as a catalyst for personal repentance and improvement? If we remember the Savior and all he has done and will do for us, we will improve our actions and thus come closer to him, which keeps us on the road to eternal life.

If, however, we refuse to repent and improve, if we do not remember him and keep his commandments, then we have stopped our growth, and that is damnation to our souls.The sacrament is an intensely personal experience, and we are the ones who knowingly are worthy or otherwise...

As we worthily partake of the sacrament, we will sense those things we need to improve in and receive the help and determination to do so. No matter what our problems, the sacrament always gives hope. Most of these problems we must work out ourselves. For example, if we aren’t paying our tithing, we simply determine to start doing so. But for some problems, we must see our bishop—the Spirit will let us know which. Doing what the Spirit dictates always results in blessings.

Apropos to this discussion, he gave this example as an appropriate use of sacrament restrictions:

Quote

Most of these problems we must work out ourselves. For example, if we aren’t paying our tithing, we simply determine to start doing so. But for some problems, we must see our bishop—the Spirit will let us know which. Doing what the Spirit dictates always results in blessings.

Let me give an example. Some years ago, a young couple we will call the Joneses visited with their bishop about a problem the wife had. The details are not important, but through the direction of the Spirit, the bishop’s decision was that, among other things, Sister Jones would not partake of the sacrament for a period of time while she worked out some attitudes and problems. With lots of love and support, she continued to attend meetings with her family, and few but her husband and the bishop were aware of the situation or even noticed that week after week she did not partake of the sacrament. At first she didn’t feel much difference; but as time went on, she became more and more desirous to be worthy to partake of the sacrament. She thought she had repented before, but as the real soul-searching deepened and as her desire to worthily partake of the sacrament increased, true fundamental changes began to take place in her life and in her actions and in her thinking.

More time passed. Finally, during one sacrament meeting, the Spirit bore witness to the bishop and to Brother and Sister Jones that the time had come for her to again partake of the sacrament. “Next Sunday,” the bishop said. Next Sunday came, and Sister Jones sat again with her family, nervous, yet excited and full of anticipation. “Am I really worthy? How I want to be!” she thought. The sacrament hymn was more meaningful than ever. She sang with such feeling that it was difficult to hold back the tears. And the sacrament prayers—how profound! She listened so intently that every word sank deep into her soul—to take his name, always remember him, keep his commandments, always have his Spirit. (See D&C 20:77, 79.) “Oh, how I desire this,” she thought.

The deacons began to move up and down the aisles, and the trays were passed from person to person across the rows. As one young deacon got closer and closer to her row, her heart began to pound harder and harder. Then the tray was coming down her very row. Now her husband was holding the tray in front of her! Tears streamed down her face. There was a barely audible sob of joy, “Oh!” as she reached for the emblem of the Lord’s love for her. The congregation did not hear the sob, but they did notice the tears in the bishop’s eyes. Life and hope and forgiveness and spiritual strength had been given and received. No one could be more worthy. Sister Jones truly wanted to have his Spirit. She wanted to take his name upon her. With all her heart, she wanted to remember him and keep his commandments. She wanted to repent, to improve, and to follow the guidance of his Spirit.

Quote

We have traditionally interpreted the verse in specific ways that especially kept those repenting from sexual sins (porn, masturbation, premarital sex, etc) from partaking, but it doesn't actually say anywhere in the verse that that's what He meant.  GA opinion and tradition on the matter informed the church's interpretation of unworthy.  But it was nowhere explicitly stated in the scriptures.

In the last couple of years, that interpretation has been reworked.  The prophet and apostles have decided that our previous interpretation was not correct (or at least not correct for us right now) and have changed some things so that we can come closer to the Savior's explicit instructions on the matter, not farther away.

Setting hard and fast rules and procedures removes the influence of the Spirit from the decision of the moment. Sometimes such restrictions might be appropriate if they are dictated by the Spirit. As I said before, I have never understood that they are to be the first line of action.

Quote

Brethren, as leaders we must do more to have more people attend sacrament meeting and partake of the sacrament with more worthiness! We must teach more fully, with deeper feeling and greater power, the doctrine of Christ as embodied in the sacrament.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree.  I would never impose that unless after a formal disciplinary council, that was the decision.

I know in my own life how essential the sacrament is to repentance.  I am a bit of an expert on repentance since I have had to do so much of it.    Getting feedback from the Lord weekly is an essential part of charting progress or lack thereof. 

Indeed. It is not something handed out willy-nilly, as seems to be implied here. There have been a few times when I have refrained from partaking of my own volition because I knew I was not sincere in my repentance. Other than in Church discipline matters I don't recall imposing it on others as a bishop, but perhaps as a preliminary step before the need for a council became apparent? Maybe? Can't remember.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. 

I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. 

I haven't talked with many folks who have had children go in to confess sins. I can only think of once, and that was in a confidential setting of which I was a participant. That seems to me an odd conversation and a breach of confidence. 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. 

I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. 

If my bishops had not used it as a behavioral adjustment option I can’t help but wonder about my children’s activity in the church. 
 

Just this week a friend of mine shared that at age pre teen she went into the Bishop because she Had been forced to be sexual with somebody. At her young age she didn’t know how to articulate her situation but at any rate he withheld the sacrament.  Guess who is inactive as an adult?  I was the first to tell her that she never should have been kept from the redeeming and healing experience of the sacrament- I can’t help but be sad for her. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

While the practice may be overused in certain areas, I can't quite bring myself to agree that such restrictions should "never" apply to youth.

I had an experience as a youth where I confessed something to my bishop. At the time, I felt immense guilt about what had happened. In fact, I was concerned that I hadn't clearly communicated just how badly I had messed up because the bishop recommended that I only abstain from taking the sacrament for one week. 

With age, maturity, and hindsight, I now recognize that my bishop was genuinely inspired to ask that of me because, although I now know that the situation probably should not have warranted me abstaining from taking the sacrament at all, that is manifestly not how I felt at the time. And going a week without taking the sacrament really helped me to move forward spiritually. 

 

Sounds like a great lesson for you. 
My own story as a young person sounds similar, only sacrament was not withheld. I left the bishops office feeling humbled and redeemed- and special again. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I haven't talked with many folks who have had children go in to confess sins. I can only think of once, and that was in a confidential setting of which I was a participant. That seems to me an odd conversation and a breach of confidence. 

Assumptive imo

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And if the answer is "no"........

Yes, that IS the question isn't it??

Without knowing the exact situation, I would think it likely that probably more formal action is warranted.

For me, those kinds of things were a nightmare because in some such cases, individuals who have no desire to repent could spread that attitude to others in the Ward, or convince others that their actions were "ok" because no action was taken.

"I know what he did and nothing happened, so it must be ok"

That's the attitude you do not want to foster.   It's a horribly tough decision point.

Suppose someone comes to you and tells you that they were unfaithful to their spouse one time, ten years ago, and never repeated the indiscretion, and never revealed it to the spouse.   You know the family and the spouse well and the person before you says that if the spouse found it, even though all those years ago, it would be a divorce for sure.

Because you know both individuals, and that the spouse tends to be a rather unforgiving person, you believe them.  They have four children and the oldest is 12 years old.  A divorce would be disastrous for the children.

The standard teaching is that the spouse should be informed, and that the couple receive therapy.  There should be no secret indiscretions between spouses.

Welcome to being a bishop.  What would you counsel?

If you prohibit taking the sacrament, it would alert the family for sure, and probably half the ward would become aware that something was going on.

And then it comes out that another member of the Ward, knows the secret, as a "best friend" of the offender.  If you do nothing as bishop, what will that be signally to the other person who knows?

The point is that there are seldom clear answers in the real world.   And those who aspire to be bishops don't get it. 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is quite possible that a temporary restriction is the best course for a person who is in the repentance process from serious sin. Maybe not. It depends on the manifestation of the Spirit. This is not necessarily something new.  I'm reminded of Elder Groberg's talk on the sacrament in 1989.

Apropos to this discussion, he gave this example as an appropriate use of sacrament restrictions:

Setting hard and fast rules and procedures removes the influence of the Spirit from the decision of the moment. Sometimes such restrictions might be appropriate if they are dictated by the Spirit. As I said before, I have never understood that they are to be the first line of action.

 

I agree. But I think that the new caveat in the handbook shows that bishops had been to quick to restrict the taking of the sacrament, regardless of the known understanding that they were to use the spirit when deciding the proper course of action. 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. 

I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. 

Yes I agree 

It seems so clear to me, though, that I cannot understand why it was even necessary!