Jump to content

Deacons passing the sacrament and other non doctrinal practices


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It could be defined as revelation.  But to be doctrine it would have to establish a truth.  And truth doesn't change as policy does.  The only truth about policy is that it's currently God's will.  Until he changes it.

But doctrine is information, presumably true information if it's from God.

So as far as Deacons and passing sacrament it's definitely policy.  Doctrine is that Deacons can't administer sacrament.  It's not an authority of the office.

The question is if passing to people is administering. Policy says it's not, but doctrine is less clear.  It's an interpretation of doctrine that allows it.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So as far as Deacons and passing sacrament it's definitely policy.  Doctrine is that Deacons can't administer sacrament.  It's not an authority of the office.

The question is if passing to people is administering. Policy says it's not, but doctrine is less clear.  It's an interpretation of doctrine that allows it.

It sounds like doctrinally, passing cannot be a part of administering the sacrament, otherwise, the deacons are currently performing a duty they are unauthorized to perform.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree, but would like to know your reasoning.

Policy that was received by revelation or at least by inspiration from the Holy Ghost to our church leaders. 
Therefore I have no reason to question it.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like doctrinally, passing cannot be a part of administering the sacrament, otherwise, the deacons are currently performing a duty they are unauthorized to perform.

That is the current interpretation of the doctrine.  Therefore, policy.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's a good question.  I looked up the definition of doctrine on the church's website and this is what it said:

According to that definition, policy and doctrine are not the same thing, even if the policy is the result of revelation.

Isn’t anything that is a revelation a teaching from God?

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t anything that is a revelation a teaching from God?

Depends if you define an instruction as a teaching.  I think that's semantics.

There are instructions and there is doctrinal knowledge.  They aren't always the same.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Isn’t anything that is a revelation a teaching from God?

I wouldn't say so.  If God reveals to me where my keys are, that's not a teaching, for example.  If he reveals how to organize a church meeting so that it's efficient, or the new stake boundaries, I wouldn't say that is a teaching either.  I don't see 'teachings' and 'information' as synonymous.  

Link to comment
22 hours ago, bluebell said:

Let me clarify.

It appears that the D&C has a narrow definition of the word 'administer', as in it seems like it uses it solely to refer to breaking and blessing the bread and water.  Church culture, on the other hand, has broadened that term to include things like setting up the sacrament and taking it down, and passing it during the ordinance.  We need to recognize the difference between scriptural and cultural.  It's an important distinction.

I have no problem with our apostles and prophets having the deacons and teachers doing those things.  My issue is attempting to make that procedure scriptural.   We need to separate church culture (or policy, as you have outlined) from doctrine.  We create all kinds of problems when we defend policy as if it's doctrine, when it's not.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 132:8 says "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God,
and not a house of confusion".

The problems are not created by humans but rather by Satan.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:8 says "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God,
and not a house of confusion".

The problems are not created by humans but rather by Satan.

I think sometimes it's just us.  We aren't perfect and we aren't all that smart so sometimes we make a mess of things just because of this fallen world and our fallen natures.  Sincere messes, but messes nonetheless. :D 

Link to comment
On 6/11/2021 at 10:32 AM, bluebell said:

So how it's done right now is a matter of policy and not doctrine?  If that's what you are saying then I agree with that.  

I would say that doctrine is involved because those who hold the priesthood keys are entitled to authorize, validate, and determine the specific procedures of the ordinances. How that is done may involve policy.

For example, the deacon quorum president holds the keys pertaining to the functioning of the quorum. If we do things according to priesthood order, he is the one who assigns quorum members to pass the sacrament. That means that if there aren’t enough deacons at the sacrament table, he is the one authorized to call up another priesthood holder to fill the spot.

I believe 3 Nephi 18 requires that all who “administer” the sacrament (however that is interpreted) must be ordained. We may insist that deacons are not authorized through scripture, but this does not change the requirements the Savior established for the ordinance. Those who give it to the people are ordained for that purpose. In the Catholic Church, the people go to the priest to receive Communion. In our church, the priesthood goes to the people. Passing it along rows is an accommodation to our sitting in pews during the service.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
On 6/10/2021 at 1:51 PM, Peacefully said:

At what point does modern usage outweigh the classical usage of such a phrase? You may be fighting a losing battle, lol!

You're certainly correct. Over the centuries English has shed a large number of grammatical features that other languages still have in abundance. Such as multiple grammatical noun cases.  All we have left are nominative, genitive and accusative, and even they are getting rather flattened out. 

The usage of "begging the question" is not a grammatical feature, however, and it actually originates from a mistaken translation from the Greek, by way of Latin! 

The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which itself was a mistranslation of the Greek τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς for "assuming the conclusion". Which is what begging the question is understood to mean -- it's a logical fallacy.

So, in a sense it needs to go away, because it originates from a double mistake, and is confusing. Which is why it is so commonly misused. But what will we use for "assume the conclusion" if it goes away? "Assume the conclusion," probably. But it won't sound quite so hoity-toity, and sometime hoity-toitiness is fun to have.

Link to comment
On 6/10/2021 at 2:54 PM, Tacenda said:

Goes along with saying we must take the sacrament with the right hand or even when someone must raise their right hand under oath. Seems like it's more tradition and it might have to be changed for wards that have more women than men or in very small remote places. 

When we have the sacrament at home, since it's just my wife and I, I bless the bread and water, and my wife simply reaches for the item under question herself. So I guess she is passing the sacrament at home.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would say that doctrine is involved because those who hold the priesthood keys are entitled to authorize, validate, and determine the specific procedures of the ordinances. 

Very interesting concept.  I agree with it completely in principle.   But it's also one of the ways the Great Apostasy manifested.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Very interesting concept.  I agree with it completely in principle.   But it's also one of the ways the Great Apostasy manifested.

Yes. Once the keys are lost, subsequent ordinances are not valid.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

When we have the sacrament at home, since it's just my wife and I, I bless the bread and water, and my wife simply reaches for the item under question herself. So I guess she is passing the sacrament at home.

We talked about this and in light of 3 Nephi 18 we decided I should pass it to Sister Gui. Our kids who had deacons or teachers in the home let them pass to family members. BTW, I am not criticizing what you decided to do.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We talked about this and in light of 3 Nephi 18 we decided I should pass it to Sister Gui. Our kids who had deacons or teachers in the home let them pass to family members. BTW, I am not criticizing what you decided to do.

I wouldn't take it as criticism, either. It seems open to interpretation, and we've done it your way, too. But since she's right there and we're not using trays, I've taken to pointing to the item after the prayer, and perhaps that loosely counts as "passing"? Our ward is going to get back to regular meetings starting on the 27th, so it will soon be moot.

On a different topic entirely, did you guys feel the 3.9 earthquake that happened this morning (4:12 am your time)? The epicenter was just 4 miles west of Skokomish, near Hoodsport. I think I would have slept thru it if I were in Olympia.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would say that doctrine is involved because those who hold the priesthood keys are entitled to authorize, validate, and determine the specific procedures of the ordinances. How that is done may involve policy.

For example, the deacon quorum president holds the keys pertaining to the functioning of the quorum. If we do things according to priesthood order, he is the one who assigns quorum members to pass the sacrament. That means that if there aren’t enough deacons at the sacrament table, he is the one authorized to call up another priesthood holder to fill the spot.

I believe 3 Nephi 18 requires that all who “administer” the sacrament (however that is interpreted) must be ordained. We may insist that deacons are not authorized through scripture, but this does not change the requirements the Savior established for the ordinance. Those who give it to the people are ordained for that purpose. In the Catholic Church, the people go to the priest to receive Communion. In our church, the priesthood goes to the people. Passing it along rows is an accommodation to our sitting in pews during the service.

 

How do you interpret the verses in the D&C that outline that the deacons do not have authority to administer the sacrament?

Link to comment
22 hours ago, JAHS said:

Policy that was received by revelation or at least by inspiration from the Holy Ghost to our church leaders. 
Therefore I have no reason to question it.

I am not asking about the first part, but your reasoning for this comment:

Quote

there needs to be something for the deacons to do to get them involved in priesthood ordinances early on...

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Once the keys are lost, subsequent ordinances are not valid.

Once the ordinances are altered beyond recognition whatever keys are claimed is irrelevant.

Like in Isaiah 24.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, bluebell said:

If God reveals to me where my keys are, that's not a teaching, for example

Hmmm....it is a truth though, a truth he taught you even if unrelated to the Church.  For me Doctrine includes all revealed truths related to the Gospel and I am open to thinking maybe in the end all revelation is gospel oriented because we are here in mortality as part of the Plan of Salvation, which I see as the Gospel in action.  But I probably wouldn’t use doctrine in that manner with others knowing that is not the typical definition or perception of the word.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hmmm....it is a truth though, a truth he taught you even if unrelated to the Church.  For me Doctrine includes all revealed truths related to the Gospel and I am open to thinking maybe in the end all revelation is gospel oriented because we are here in mortality as part of the Plan of Salvation, which I see as the Gospel in action.  But I probably wouldn’t use doctrine in that manner with others knowing that is not the typical definition or perception of the word.

If God directs me to move my family to San Diego that's revelation, but not doctrine.  And the only truth is that it's God's will for my family at that time, not an eternal principle.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not asking about the first part, but your reasoning for this comment:

Quote

 

there needs to be something for the deacons to do to get them involved in priesthood ordinances early on...

I guess I'm just saying, giving them  a priesthood duty to perform and making them responsible for that duty trains them for when
they are older and responsible for more priesthood duties and responsibilities as they grow in the Gospel. They learn and progress  "line upon line".

 

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I guess I'm just saying, giving them  a priesthood duty to perform and making them responsible for that duty trains them for when
they are older and responsible for more priesthood duties and responsibilities as they grow in the Gospel. They learn and progress  "line upon line".

First they learn temporal things then spiritual.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I wouldn't take it as criticism, either. It seems open to interpretation, and we've done it your way, too. But since she's right there and we're not using trays, I've taken to pointing to the item after the prayer, and perhaps that loosely counts as "passing"? Our ward is going to get back to regular meetings starting on the 27th, so it will soon be moot.

On a different topic entirely, did you guys feel the 3.9 earthquake that happened this morning (4:12 am your time)? The epicenter was just 4 miles west of Skokomish, near Hoodsport. I think I would have slept thru it if I were in Olympia.

Didn’t feel anything. Perhaps we were too far away or I was too zonked out.. It’s been a while since we had one near Puyallup. We’re probably due for one. Hope we will be in our new home in Kentucky before that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Hmmm....it is a truth though, a truth he taught you even if unrelated to the Church.  For me Doctrine includes all revealed truths related to the Gospel and I am open to thinking maybe in the end all revelation is gospel oriented because we are here in mortality as part of the Plan of Salvation, which I see as the Gospel in action.  But I probably wouldn’t use doctrine in that manner with others knowing that is not the typical definition or perception of the word.

I can see that perspective. I lean more towards how JLF sees it.  I view information and doctrine differently. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...