GA Kevin S Hamilton gave a talk today-a thought on sacrament

[MustardSeed]

Stake Conference today, visiting GA is Elder Hamilton.  
His emphasis was ‘staying on the path’ and he spoke of the need for patience for the slow bumpy progress of converts and those returning.  
he told a story of a convert who he supported for years, including offering him lodging in his own house.  this man showed up to church regularly smelling of tobacco and was  financially dishonest etc etc. Anyway, Elder Hamilton emphasized that no matter how crazy this guy got, he “ always showed up, consistently took the sacrament” and it was this consistency that eventually changed the direction of his life. 
 

Why then do we take away the sacrament from people? If someone is willing to show up in a bishops office and go through the humbling experience of confession, doesn’t that put them in equal position with somebody who is returning more punishing for people because they stumble then we are for people who decide from a dark place that they are going to change their lives? 
 

If I could change, one thing about the way, we operate this would be a contender for me. It’s my belief that people who want to move toward Christ need the sacrament in their lives and the more often they can go to church and attend the temple and do the things that bring us closer to the Savior The more likely they are change their lives, and change their brains.

What is the benefit of withholding the sacrament from anybody?

 

I don’t know if this is what Elder Hamilton was referring to. I’m sure it wasn’t. However, it reinforced for me to believe that I have that the consistent participation in sacrament is necessary for all people. Which is exactly what he said.

[Rain]

If I remember right, this is one of the things that was loosened in the handbook recently.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Stake Conference today, visiting GA is Elder Hamilton.  
His emphasis was ‘staying on the path’ and he spoke of the need for patience for the slow bumpy progress of converts and those returning.  
he told a story of a convert who he supported for years, including offering him lodging in his own house.  this man showed up to church regularly smelling of tobacco and was  financially dishonest etc etc. Anyway, Elder Hamilton emphasized that no matter how crazy this guy got, he “ always showed up, consistently took the sacrament” and it was this consistency that eventually changed the direction of his life. 
 

Why then do we take away the sacrament from people? If someone is willing to show up in a bishops office and go through the humbling experience of confession, doesn’t that put them in equal position with somebody who is returning more punishing for people because they stumble then we are for people who decide from a dark place that they are going to change their lives? 
 

If I could change, one thing about the way, we operate this would be a contender for me. It’s my belief that people who want to move toward Christ need the sacrament in their lives and the more often they can go to church and attend the temple and do the things that bring us closer to the Savior The more likely they are change their lives, and change their brains.

What is the benefit of withholding the sacrament from anybody?

 

I don’t know if this is what Elder Hamilton was referring to. I’m sure it wasn’t. However, it reinforced for me to believe that I have that the consistent participation in sacrament is necessary for all people. Which is exactly what he said.

When Jesus spoke of withholding the sacrament to the unworthy (3 Nephi 18:29 and 4 Nephi 1: 27), it would seem, given the timing of His teachings to the Nephites, that He was referring to the contentious and the spirit of the devil from Chapter 11 preventing people from repenting and being baptized (18: 30 - 32); since such a spirit will yet seek to take the sacrament (18:34). The baptized who slip without contention or disputation over the doctrine don't seem to fit in this category. A bishop ideally has the gift of discernment concerning this, and other methods to inspire understanding.

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

When Jesus spoke of withholding the sacrament to the unworthy (3 Nephi 18:29 and 4 Nephi 1: 27), it would seem, given the timing of His teachings to the Nephites, that He was referring to the contentious and the spirit of the devil from Chapter 11 preventing people from repenting and being baptized (18: 30 - 32); since such a spirit will yet seek to take the sacrament (18:34). The baptized who slip without contention or disputation over the doctrine don't seem to fit in this category. A bishop ideally has the gift of discernment concerning this, and other methods to inspire understanding.

Anecdotally, I have worked with too many who are denied participation who really want and need it. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

If I remember right, this is one of the things that was loosened in the handbook recently.

Yep, and I was so grateful.  So many times it is the first (and only) restriction that a bishop would be on someone (usually a youth dealing with pornography stuff) and I was so glad to read the handbook make the point that in a lot of situations removing that ability is not always appropriate.

"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."

Edited September 10, 2023 by bluebell

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Anecdotally, I have worked with too many who are denied participation who really want and need it. 

I take it you mean that their bishop told them to stop participating until they gave up [can you provide examples?], and they expressed to you that they disagree with this approach because they find themselves moving backward instead of forward in their personal commitment to the Lord. Is that correct? Have any had an opportunity to discuss their concerns with their stake presidency?  I too have seen attitudes, practices differ between decades and among bishops, and second opinions from the stake, also.

[MustardSeed]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I take it you mean that their bishop told them to stop participating until they gave up [can you provide examples?], and they expressed to you that they disagree with this approach because they find themselves moving backward instead of forward in their personal commitment to the Lord. Is that correct? Have any had an opportunity to discuss their concerns with their stake presidency?  I too have seen attitudes, practices differ between decades and among bishops, and second opinions from the stake, also.

Yes. 

I have noticed small recent shifts for some situations.  We need more IMO. How we did things before and the residual is harmful imo

[blackstrap]

Perhaps there has been too literal interpretation of 1 Cor  11:27-32. Here is a site where several people comment on it .The perspective seems to align more with posts here.

historical interpretation - What does Paul mean by "unworthy manner" in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yep, and I was so grateful.  So many times it is the first (and only) restriction that a bishop would be on someone (usually a youth dealing with pornography stuff) and I was so glad to read the handbook make the point that in a lot of situations removing that ability is not always appropriate.

"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."

Th passage continues, "However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time." This is why I was asking about examples and the penitent getting a second opinion from the stake presidency. Addiction and bad habits of course are not especially grievous sins, though they often dovetail with spiritually destructive thoughts, feelings and behavior. Contention with anger and disputation over doctrine seem to be signs of an unwillingness to repent (of any sin, "serious" or not), hence the Lord's instructions in 3 Nephi 18.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Th passage continues, "However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time." This is why I was asking about examples and the penitent getting a second opinion from the stake presidency. Addiction and bad habits of course are not especially grievous sins, though they often dovetail with spiritually destructive thoughts, feelings and behavior. Contention with anger and disputation over doctrine seem to be signs of an unwillingness to repent (of any sin, "serious" or not), hence the Lord's instructions in 3 Nephi 18.

I'm just grateful that leadership is acknowledging that the removal of access points to the spirit is not always helpful with repentance. 

I have older sons and they each have struggled with pornography at a time or another and both were able to repent and move on, but each bishop (both really good men!) removed the sacrament as an option for them as the very first thing, when that probably wasn't necessary.  My sons were not worse for wear because of their personalities and because we helped them through it as their parents (while keeping the respect for their bishop intact), but sometimes it causes more harm than good.  

Likewise, I personally know of an endowed man (serving in a leadership position while it was happening) who committed adultery for years but who was sincerely sorrowful and repentant when it was discovered.  His repentance process was of course much more involved, but one thing the bishop did not do was to remove his temple recommend.  He told this person's spouse (who was completely supportive of it) that they had learned over the years that, when appropriate, access to the temple and those covenants is a key part of the repentance process.  Not separate from it. 

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that removal of the sacrament or recommends or even membership is never needed.  I think what is being expressed is that it is not always needed, and that it's a good thing that the church is recognizing that and moving forward in different ways than it has in the past.  Some bishops are a bit slow on accepting that change, but I don't fault them for that unless the are not sincerely trying to do what they believe the spirit wants.  I've got no time for egos or those who are more interested in punishing or demanding justice than mercy, but sincere men doing their best I'm good with. 

We all struggle with new perspectives sometimes, myself included.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm just grateful that leadership is acknowledging that the removal of access points to the spirit is not always helpful with repentance. 

I have older sons and they each have struggled with pornography at a time or another and both were able to repent and move on, but each bishop (both really good men!) removed the sacrament as an option for them as the very first thing, when that probably wasn't necessary.  My sons were not worse for wear because of their personalities and because we helped them through it as their parents (while keeping the respect for their bishop intact), but sometimes it causes more harm than good.  

Likewise, I personally know of an endowed man (serving in a leadership position while it was happening) who committed adultery for years but who was sincerely sorrowful and repentant when it was discovered.  His repentance process was of course much more involved, but one thing the bishop did not do was to remove his temple recommend.  He told this person's spouse (who was completely supportive of it) that they had learned over the years that, when appropriate, access to the temple and those covenants is a key part of the repentance process.  Not separate from it. 

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that removal of the sacrament or recommends or even membership is never needed.  I think what is being expressed is that it is not always needed, and that it's a good thing that the church is recognizing that and moving forward in different ways than it has in the past.  Some bishops are a bit slow on accepting that change, but I don't fault them for that unless the are not sincerely trying to do what they believe the spirit wants.  I've got no time for egos or those who are more interested in punishing or demanding justice than mercy, but sincere men doing their best I'm good with. 

We all struggle with new perspectives sometimes, myself included.

There's a good article in the Sep Liahona about responding to children's use of pornography, aimed at parents but certainly apropos for leadership. I'd link it but I'm traveling and better not try!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

There's a good article in the Sep Liahona about responding to children's use of pornography, aimed at parents but certainly apropos for leadership. I'd link it but I'm traveling and better not try!

I didn’t see it in this month’s Liahona, but saw one from a few years ago.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/08/eight-strategies-to-help-children-reject-pornography?lang=eng#aside3_p1

added:  Found it…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/09/united-states-and-canada-section/04-responding-well-to-a-childs-pornography-use?lang=eng#p4

Edited September 11, 2023 by Calm