At home sacrament

[provoman]

I know the First Presidency has left the decision to allow at home sacrament to local leadership; however, I have wondered why the First Presidency would leave the decision to local leadership.

I have thought about this because of the various opinions and precautions that individuals take. I have read "internet" accounts on other message boards about people who feel "forced" to attend in person church because local leadership does not permit at home sacrament.   

[PacMan]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

I know the First Presidency has left the decision to allow at home sacrament to local leadership; however, I have wondered why the First Presidency would leave the decision to local leadership.

I have thought about this because of the various opinions and precautions that individuals take. I have read "internet" accounts on other message boards about people who feel "forced" to attend in person church because local leadership does not permit at home sacrament.   

The simple answer is because Bishops are the Presidents of the Aaronic Priesthood and hold the keys to those ordinances in their wards. Although possible, it would be a big step for the 15 to ignore keys once given. 
 

To the extent the 15 don’t standardize the sacrament during the pandemic, it makes sense to let local leaders make decisions where the effects of the pandemic vary. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by PacMan

[provoman]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

The simple answer is because Bishops are the Presidents of the Aaronic Priesthood and hold the keys to those ordinances in their wards. Although possible, it would be a big step for the 15 to ignore keys once given. 
 

To the extent the 15 don’t standardize the sacrament during the pandemic, it makes sense to let local leaders make decisions where the effects of the pandemic vary. 

I would not see the First Presidency ignoring keys if they issued a standard  "at home sacrament is approved" for the whole church.

As for local effects, yes localiities are affected differently. And human reaction is also different based on locality. 

So remove human error, allow at home sacrement so that people dont feel forced to put themselves at risk for sacrament.

Edited December 21, 2020 by provoman

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

So remove human error, allow at home sacrement so that people dont feel forced to put themselves at risk for sacrament.

I live in a jurisdiction that hasn't had a single incidence of community transmission of coronavirus since June. Why do you want to dictate to us?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I would not see the First Presidency ignoring keys if they issued a standard  "at home sacrament is approved" for the whole church.

As for local effects, yes localiities are affected differently. And human reaction is also different based on locality. 

So remove human error, allow at home sacrement so that people dont feel forced to put themselves at risk for sacrament.

If you mean hold in-person sacrament meeting but still allow the option to stay home and administer it there, that is our ward’s current arrangement. I wonder that it is not being done that way pretty much all over. 

Or ward offers live internet streaming of the sacrament program, though the sacrament itself is not carried over the stream. 
 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder that it is not being done that way pretty much all over. 

We did it that way for months, but as I mentioned above, we've had no community transmission of coronavirus for six months now, so once local guidelines allowed our churches to reopen, our area president instructed bishops to withdraw blanket permission for at-home sacrament. It is still an option for certain individuals on a case-by-case basis. Since resuming in-person worship, we've only had two weeks where members of our ward needed us to stream the sacrament meeting live.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, provoman said:

I know the First Presidency has left the decision to allow at home sacrament to local leadership; however, I have wondered why the First Presidency would leave the decision to local leadership.

I have thought about this because of the various opinions and precautions that individuals take. I have read "internet" accounts on other message boards about people who feel "forced" to attend in person church because local leadership does not permit at home sacrament.   

I think the principle of Gathering comes into play here. As the ancient twelve tribes of Israel were given geographical inheritances, our geographically-defined Church units are our inheritance in modern times. So, most (virtually all) ordinance and covenant decisions fall under the scope of local leadership.

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, provoman said:

I know the First Presidency has left the decision to allow at home sacrament to local leadership; however, I have wondered why the First Presidency would leave the decision to local leadership.

I have thought about this because of the various opinions and precautions that individuals take. I have read "internet" accounts on other message boards about people who feel "forced" to attend in person church because local leadership does not permit at home sacrament.   

It seems to me that local leaders can best determine what is appropriate for their area rather than a "one size fits all" approach from church headquarters.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We did it that way for months, but as I mentioned above, we've had no community transmission of coronavirus for six months now, so once local guidelines allowed our churches to reopen, our area president instructed bishops to withdraw blanket permission for at-home sacrament. It is still an option for certain individuals on a case-by-case basis. Since resuming in-person worship, we've only had two weeks where members of our ward needed us to stream the sacrament meeting live.

I agree with you and others who say a central edict should not prevail in areas where conditions do not warrant it. That is why we have area presidencies and area seventies in the Church, answerable, of course, to the Presidency if the Seventy and ultimately to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[PacMan]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you mean hold in-person sacrament meeting but still allow the option to stay home and administer it there, that is our ward’s current arrangement. I wonder that it is not being done that way pretty much all over. 

Or ward offers live internet streaming of the sacrament program, though the sacrament itself is not carried over the stream. 
 

 

That’s how our ward functions. Although, members cannot administer the sacrament at home on days they are “assigned” to meet in the chapel — without the Bishop’s approval. If they have health concerns, the approval is routinely granted. 
 

I’ll also mention that giving local authorities flexibility let’s them have broader discussions with members and ensure that the brethren have temple recommends before administering the sacrament in their homes. 

[Rain]

While I do think that local leaders should know best I am aware that they don't always know best.

I would feel it would be very frustrating if my bishop did not allow home sacrament here with overall rising numbers and me being very high risk so I can totally see where Provoman might be coming from.  

So what does someone do if they were high risk in an area with rising numbers and a bishop who doesn't see the need?

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, PacMan said:

That’s how our ward functions. Although, members cannot administer the sacrament at home on days they are “assigned” to meet in the chapel — without the Bishop’s approval. If they have health concerns, the approval is routinely granted. 
 

I’ll also mention that giving local authorities flexibility let’s them have broader discussions with members and ensure that the brethren have temple recommends before administering the sacrament in their homes. 

This is how our ward is doing it.  Special approval is needed if you don't want to come on your assigned Sunday, but I think it's usually granted if the person feels it's safer for them to stay home.  

I suppose that could change if the bishop saw that same person out eating at the Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards, but generally the bishop is seeming to take people's word for it. 

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I’ll also mention that giving local authorities flexibility let’s them have broader discussions with members and ensure that the brethren have temple recommends before administering the sacrament in their homes. 

A temple recommend isn't needed to bless the sacrament.  The appropriate priesthood and worthiness are the only qualifiers I'm aware of.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose that could change if the bishop saw that same person out eating at the Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards

But of course the bishop wouldn't be in either of those places to see them, would he?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But of course the bishop wouldn't be in either of those places to see them, would he?

Why wouldn't he?   Our area isn't under any kind of lockdown, and he doesn't consider himself high risk (and attends all sacrament meetings in person).

Edited December 21, 2020 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But of course the bishop wouldn't be in either of those places to see them, would he?

Ah ha, that's funny. Reminds me of those times I've been in places that I was embarrassed that the bishop of my ward, two bishops through the years, saw me. The first was in an "R" rated movie, and it wasn't "Schindler's List", and another time at the grocery store. 

[provoman]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I live in a jurisdiction that hasn't had a single incidence of community transmission of coronavirus since June. Why do you want to dictate to us?

Yes so a clarifying point.

The First Presidency to aurthorize and allow as an option for member to have sacrament at home, and that in person where appropriate.

The issue I have read are that "political" opinions appear to driving factor as whether or not a Bishop will allow at home sacrement. 

My thoughts are remove political bias or other bias and just let everyone has the option for now. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is how our ward is doing it.  Special approval is needed if you don't want to come on your assigned Sunday, but I think it's usually granted if the person feels it's safer for them to stay home.  

I suppose that could change if the bishop saw that same person out eating at the Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards, but generally the bishop is seeming to take people's word for it. 

My ward as well. Though, I have accounts which claim to in areas of concern that local leadership is not permitting at home sacrament. 

[JAHS]

A few weeks ago we did start a limited number of members going to church in person and the rest watched it on-line.
However things got worse in CA and now we are back to only online sacrament for everyone.
I am sure if everyone could go back to church our Bishop would still allow someone to stay at home if they were worried about the risk.
 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I suppose that could change if the bishop saw that same person out eating at the Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards, but generally the bishop is seeming to take people's word for it. 

My first thought when I read this was also, "If the the bishop sees them eating at Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards on Sunday, then he has bigger issues than we thought," but then I thought of what can be learned (inadvertently, and oblivious to the members) from their social media. Not just Sabbath observance, but also in welfare areas (e.g., wanting "full service" Church welfare help, but posting about an upcoming week at Disneyworld and getting a pool installed). I've even seen a female former ward member posting about getting an online minister's license so she could perform a marriage (on top of a zipline course, so the bride and groom could zip away after they were married). There is no limit to what people post about themselves. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why wouldn't he?   Our area isn't under any kind of lockdown, and he doesn't consider himself high risk (and attends all sacrament meetings in person).

And then I saw that you meant the bishop seeing supposedly high-risk people doing things that high-risk people shouldn't be doing, but avoiding church as a high-risk activity. I'm sure this is more common than Dillards or Olive Garden. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

And then I saw that you meant the bishop seeing supposedly high-risk people doing things that high-risk people shouldn't be doing, but avoiding church as a high-risk activity. I'm sure this is more common than Dillards or Olive Garden. 

Yeah, I didn't mean he saw them doing stuff on Sunday.  I just meant if he saw someone who said that church was too high risk for them to attend but who was doing every other activity normally, that might be a red flag for a bishop.

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, I didn't mean he saw them doing stuff on Sunday.  I just meant if he saw someone who said that church was too high risk for them to attend but who was doing every other activity normally, that might be a red flag for a bishop.

Got it.  I was thinking you were saying the bishop saw them on Sunday at Olive Garden. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

My ward as well. Though, I have accounts which claim to in areas of concern that local leadership is not permitting at home sacrament. 

As a bishop I once had an issue about a couple who wanted to get married on the beach, about 10 miles outside the Ward.   No go!

We used to be able to do things like that because I did it a few years earlier- it was a popular thing here in So Cal, I have attended baptisms in mountain pools under waterfalls- I don't think it's a change per se, but an enforcement of policies which have always been in place but unenforced before to the point where no one knew it was even a "thing".

But several years ago a clarification came through from SLC that we are actually only Bishops within our ward boundaries.

I recall driving through a rough section of our Ward and stopping at light, and seeing a guy on the corner with head and facial gang and prison tatoos, shaved head, standing there with pants , uh, lower than they should have been, smoking a joint before that was legal.

I said to my wife- "Check this guy out- cheesh!"   And my sweetheart who always keeps me in line said correctly, but chuckling- "Well he's in the boundaries- you are his bishop- go and bring him to the gospel!"

I love that woman!  She keeps me in line! 

 

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But several years ago a clarification came through from SLC that we are actually only Bishops within our ward boundaries.

Interesting. So if a person in your ward wanted to get married at a reception center, for example, that is not within the ward boundaries, the Bishop could not do that?
I don't see that in the Handbook. 
 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is how our ward is doing it.  Special approval is needed if you don't want to come on your assigned Sunday, but I think it's usually granted if the person feels it's safer for them to stay home.  

I suppose that could change if the bishop saw that same person out eating at the Olive Garden or browsing in Dillards, but generally the bishop is seeming to take people's word for it. 

But then you might also get into what is more risky.  

Say for example in your ward is no one wears masks, but you and everyone sings and congregates afterwards on your way out and then the bishop sees you at Dillard's in an area where everyone wears masks at a slow time of day and you just picked up an online order and stopped on your way out to look at some clothes on a table.  Which one is riskier?  Would it be wrong to stay at home from church then?  

I'm just glad I don't need to be the one to decide.