Jump to content

Sacrament at Home Church


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I think a good heart to heart talk about repentance and the covenant we make as members is what is needed at times like that.  With some words that strike home and make it real to the covenant breaker.

You said you would repent of your sins and then you did something like that!?! 

Do you realize that when you take the sacrament you are saying you will ALWAYS remember our Savior and keep his commandments?

When you take the sacrament again are you going to keep that promise or are you going to break that promise again?  You do know our Lord will always be there to help you do what is right, don't you?

I think you need to take some time to think about what it means to take the sacrament before you take it again, otherwise you may not be worthy to take the sacrament as you should.

 

Ok.  Well, shaming is one way. 

Link to post
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As a parent I would never discuss that with others. Sounds a little strange to me frankly.

I just shared my story here, I mean, it’s not terribly uncommon for mothers to talk.  It’s not strange.  
details of the “sin” yes, but the basics? “ My kid talked to the bishop and now is not taking sacrament? “ just about every kid should be talking to the bishop, no shame in that. 
I believe strongly in protecting my kids’ privacy, always have. 
but are we discussing privacy rights or are we discussing the reality that til now , bishops may have overused restriction from sacrament and it’s time for a change? 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Yes, that is pretty much the theory.  

Ooookaaayyyy.

Link to post
49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

but are we discussing privacy rights or are we discussing the reality that til now , bishops may have overused restriction from sacrament and it’s time for a change? 

How would you know whether they are or aren't?  Everything you or I would know would be anecdotal.  Anything "the church" knows would be anecdotal as well as there are no records kept of informal discipline.

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 8/11/2020 at 1:01 PM, Ahab said:

In our home, my wife and I preside, even when our bishop or other authority in the Church comes over for a visit, so we're talking apples and oranges here.  And as I said in another post my wife feels more comfortable with me taking the sacrament first, so I do.  It is the sacrament, though, and our Lord has proscribed certain procedures and terminology to be used while taking the sacrament emblems, so my wife and I do those things otherwise we would only be eating and drinking some things.

Yea, sounds like that works for you all.  In my home, my husband offers me the sacrament first, and I appreciate it because I know he is doing this to be considerate of me, like when he open my door, helps me with my coat or offers me the serving dishes first, while we're eating dinner, or clears my plate for me, etc.

  • Like 3
Link to post
9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How would you know whether they are or aren't?  Everything you or I would know would be anecdotal.  Anything "the church" knows would be anecdotal as well as there are no records kept of informal discipline.

Of course anything I’d know of is anecdotal.  Which is precisely why I said “may have”.  Weren’t we discussing the fact that this has now been detailed in the handbook and so one might assume that there has been anecdotal evidence that it happens too often? 
 

Not that it matters. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course anything I’d know of is anecdotal.  Which is precisely why I said “may have”.  Weren’t we discussing the fact that this has now been detailed in the handbook and so one might assume that there has been anecdotal evidence that it happens too often? 
 

Not that it matters. 

In my 1944 Handbook of Instructions, there is a warning that hip boots and waders are not to be used by brethren who baptize, and that ushers are not to ask sisters to remove their hats in sacrament meetings even if they block the view of the folks sitting behind. 

Link to post
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my 1944 Handbook of Instructions, there is a warning that hip boots and waders are not to be used by brethren who baptize, and that ushers are not to ask sisters to remove their hats in sacrament meetings even if they block the view of the folks sitting behind. 

And when those problems ceased to be problems, they removed them from the handbook.  The handbook is a good gauge of where members or leaders need correction or more guidance.  Things that aren't causing concern or being done wrong, aren't typically brought up.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
18 hours ago, alter idem said:

Yea, sounds like that works for you all.  In my home, my husband offers me the sacrament first, and I appreciate it because I know he is doing this to be considerate of me, like when he open my door, helps me with my coat or offers me the serving dishes first, while we're eating dinner, or clears my plate for me, etc.

I hold the sacrament plate in front of my wife, as I am sitting beside her, and she will just look at it until I partake of my part, first.  I've gone as long as a minute, it seemed because I didn't actually time it and she still just sat there waiting for me to partake of it first.

So I take it first because that is what she wants me to do.

And yes I do the door open thing for her too, and help with her coats and sweaters and shoes, and also do whatever she wants me to do as far as getting my food and clearing the table and doing the dishes and running our Neato over our the floors... robots are wonderful tools... and whatever else she wants me to do for her that I am able to do.  I'm not as good a chef as she is though so she prepares most of our food, except for what we smoke or barbeque, but she is happy that I take it as one of my chores to always clean up the kitchen including washing and putting away the dishes and all of the other things she puts on my Honey-do list.

Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 there is a warning that hip boots and waders are not to be used by brethren who baptize

My grandfather told me that when he was baptized (1908) that it was in a duck pond on a nearby farm.  He came out with feathers all over him.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

And when those problems ceased to be problems, they removed them from the handbook.  The handbook is a good gauge of where members or leaders need correction or more guidance.  Things that aren't causing concern or being done wrong, aren't typically brought up.  

Thanks. That was my point.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

That was my point.

I didn’t realize you were agreeing with Mustard Seed, sorry. 

Link to post
On 8/12/2020 at 10:11 PM, Bernard Gui said:

In my 1944 Handbook of Instructions, there is a warning that hip boots and waders are not to be used by brethren who baptize, and that ushers are not to ask sisters to remove their hats in sacrament meetings even if they block the view of the folks sitting behind. 

 

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

And when those problems ceased to be problems, they removed them from the handbook.  The handbook is a good gauge of where members or leaders need correction or more guidance.  Things that aren't causing concern or being done wrong, aren't typically brought up.  

 

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. That was my point.

 

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn’t realize you were agreeing with Mustard Seed, sorry. 

You both solidified the point very well. Thanks. 
 

Hip boots and waders? Seriously? 
 

I suppose it gives verity to the truism that the past is a foreign country and they do things differently there. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Seems sensible enough. After all, it's the person being baptized who needs to be immersed - not the person performing the baptism. So if there is a way for you to perform the ordinance and stay dry then why not go for it? 

Now, I can see how at a typical service (i.e., in a meetinghouse font), a pair of green / tan / camouflaged waders might detract from the ordinance, so you would need to find an all-white set. Only those might be really hard to find or really expensive, so now Beehive Clothing would have to start making bright-white waders. And since the church wouldn't be looking to make a profit off them, they might end up being cheaper than commercial waders, and now you've got half the guys from the Nowheresville, Idaho ward down at the river wearing their all-white waders, fishing for trout as part of their annual father-and-son camp out. 

Yeah, probably best to just stick with the jumpsuits and call it a day. ;) 

 

:lol:

Link to post
On 8/11/2020 at 2:58 PM, Ahab said:

Yeah I think a good heart to heart talk about repentance and the covenant we make as members is what is needed at times like that.  With some words that strike home and make it real to the covenant breaker.

You said you would repent of your sins and then you did something like that!?! 

Do you realize that when you take the sacrament you are saying you will ALWAYS remember our Savior and keep his commandments?

When you take the sacrament again are you going to keep that promise or are you going to break that promise again?  You do know our Lord will always be there to help you do what is right, don't you?

I think you need to take some time to think about what it means to take the sacrament before you take it again, otherwise you may not be worthy to take the sacrament as you should.

 

No offense, Ahab, but that is terrible.

Have you ever committed the same sin more than one time, EVEN after you've partaken of the sacrament?

We all sin repeatedly which is why the sacrament is intended to be received regularly. Shaming a person because they sin is incredibly counter productive and more than a little bit hypocritical.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Seems sensible enough. After all, it's the person being baptized who needs to be immersed - not the person performing the baptism. So if there is a way for you to perform the ordinance and stay dry then why not go for it? 

Now, I can see how at a typical service (i.e., in a meetinghouse font), a pair of green / tan / camouflaged waders might detract from the ordinance, so you would need to find an all-white set. Only those might be really hard to find or really expensive, so now Beehive Clothing would have to start making bright-white waders. And since the church wouldn't be looking to make a profit off them, they might end up being cheaper than commercial waders, and now you've got half the guys from the Nowheresville, Idaho ward down at the river wearing their all-white waders, fishing for trout as part of their annual father-and-son camp out. 

Yeah, probably best to just stick with the jumpsuits and call it a day. ;) 

 

No real fisherman would be caught dead in white waders. I think they might have been using them for outdoor baptisms. I know folks who were baptized in lakes, ponds, and irrigation ditches. One of my BYU roommates was baptized in Lake Michigan in the winter.

Link to post
21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn’t realize you were agreeing with Mustard Seed, sorry. 

I don’t necessarily agree, but I do think hip boots, waders, and ladies’ hats are in a different category than bishops and sacrament restrictions. 

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

I don’t necessarily agree, but I do think hip boots, waders, and ladies’ hats are in a different category than bishops and sacrament restrictions. 

I agree with this. Greater clarification in the current handbook is not necessarily an indication that bishops by and large were doing things wrong in the past. 

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

I don’t necessarily agree, but I do think hip boots, waders, and ladies’ hats are in a different category than bishops and sacrament restrictions. 

So we weren't actually making the same point?

Link to post
22 hours ago, bluebell said:

So we weren't actually making the same point?

I do agree that sometimes instructions appear in the Handbook to clarify misconceptions or correct certain practices. I suppose such things appear because someone complained. If enough complaints are made, then perhaps a correction needs to be made. I don’t think that necessarily means there is widespread malpractice. That’s why I quoted the old Handbook. I doubt hundreds of baptisms were being performed all over the world by brethren in hip boots, nor that ushers everywhere were asking sisters to remove their hats.

I’m sure there are bishops that improperly use restricting the sacrament as the first go-to option for people in the repentance process, but as I stated that has not been my experience. I have no way of knowing how frequently this happens, what the level of sin is involved, what all their motivations were, or whether or not they were following the instructions of the Spirit or just shooting from the hip. So I don’t necessarily agree with her conclusions. 

I also disagree with Mustard Seed that how we should deal with 3 Nephi 18.

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;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

She said,  “Probably the same way we deal with other scriptures we ignore.“ I do not believe we should ignore the explicit instructions of the Savior when he instituted the sacrament. I provided a talk by a contemporary General Authority discussing this issue. 

And, I strongly disagree with her statement that  “Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped.  NEVER with youth. Imo.” I think it would be a serious mistake to do this. It would limit or eliminate the role the Spirit as the bishops performs his role as a judge in Israel.  

I do agree with Scott Lloyd’s statement that

Quote

Greater clarification in the current handbook is not necessarily an indication that bishops by and large were doing things wrong in the past.



 

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3
Link to post
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I do agree that sometimes instructions appear in the Handbook to clarify misconceptions or correct certain practices. I suppose such things appear because someone complained. If enough complaints are made, then perhaps a correction needs to be made. I don’t think that necessarily means there is widespread malpractice. That’s why I quoted the old Handbook. I doubt hundreds of baptisms were being performed all over the world by brethren in hip boots, nor that ushers everywhere were asking sisters to remove their hats.

I’m sure there are bishops that improperly use restricting the sacrament as the first go-to option for people in the repentance process, but as I stated that has not been my experience. I have no way of knowing how frequently this happens, what the level of sin is involved, what all their motivations were, or whether or not they were following the instructions of the Spirit or just shooting from the hip. So I don’t necessarily agree with her conclusions. 

I also disagree with Mustard Seed that how we should deal with 3 Nephi 18.

She said,  “Probably the same way we deal with other scriptures we ignore.“ I do not believe we should ignore the explicit instructions of the Savior when he instituted the sacrament. I provided a talk by a contemporary General Authority discussing this issue. 

And, I strongly disagree with her statement that  “Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped.  NEVER with youth. Imo.” I think it would be a serious mistake to do this. It would limit or eliminate the role the Spirit as the bishops performs his role as a judge in Israel.  

I do agree with Scott Lloyd’s statement that



 

 

 

So you weren’t actually saying what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying. 😊

Link to post
7 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you weren’t actually saying what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying. 😊

In a way, yes I was. We’ll leave it at that. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...

I suppose a lot of us are kind of in a hybrid home church / regular church system right now. In my area anyway we have Sacrament meeting once per month since the ward is broken into 4 different groups that make social distancing easier. So a small subset of the ward meets weekly but each individual/family is only scheduled to attend once per month.

But I was a bit surprised that there was no church yesterday for anyone since it was a 5th Sunday. Did everyone take the 5th sunday off or was it just my area? Seems a little strange though I imagine it was done to keep the same groups meeting on the same weeks each month. But cancelling church because it's a 5th Sunday seems unusual to me as it would suggest church attendance isn't nearly as important as it used to be.

 

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...