Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

What do you think about the latest hot topic from the 100 Hour Board? Speak your piece here!

Moderator: Marduk

Post Reply
NerdGirl
President of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:41 am
Location: Calgary

Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by NerdGirl »

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/84680/

When I was at BYU I pretty much always had afternoon church and a lot of people in my wards would be at missionary farewells/homecomings/baby blessings/whatever in the morning and would have already taken the sacrament so they didn't take it again at sacrament meeting the sequel.

Also I frequently don't take the sacrament if I'm visiting a ward that's not mine or my parents' because there is no gluten free sacrament bread (aka rice crackers), because if I eat regular bread I will die and take the entire building out with me. I guess that's not non-dramatic, though.

Also I've met a number of people who think that taking the sacrament is breaking their fast (which I disagree with, but it seems to be a not uncommon view), so if they are fasting and want to keep fasting, they don't take the sacrament. I think that's a little weird, but whatever works for them.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
The Best
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: Salt Lake County

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by TheBlackSheep »

I was taught that you aren't supposed to skip the sacrament (providing, as you said, you haven't already taken it that day) unless your bishop tells you not to. That being said, my mom is the kind who skips the sacrament if she is particularly angry. That's a line for her.

Mostly, I just want to say, how is this relevant to the girl? Why is she paying attention to who is skipping the sacrament? What a personal decision! If you happen to notice and you care so much and can trust the person so little, I guess I'd hypothetically hope you don't date this person. In a world where the worst case scenario is that they are working through a major sin with their bishop and have been instructed not to take the sacrament, how would this ever be relevant?

Four and a half years ago, I was at my niece's baby blessing. Being inactive and the heathen that I was, I quietly passed the tray without partaking. Another niece, who was about nine at the time, noticed, as I passed the tray to her. In the quiet of the chapel, she said, "Why aren't you taking the sacrament?" I whispered that we would talk about it later, and when I tell my nieces and nephews that I mean it, so there's an expectation that we can really talk about things. However, immediately, she said, full voice, "Did you SIN?" Now, obviously, she was only nine, but out of the mouth of babes and all that. I think it's a larger cultural problem.
User avatar
TheBlackSheep
The Best
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: Salt Lake County

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by TheBlackSheep »

I mean, if I were still LDS, I guess I'd be concerned if I was already in a serious relationship with someone and I noticed that they skipped the sacrament and I didn't know why. My concern, however, would be rooted in our apparent communication problems or his or her guilt/shame. That's what I'd want to talk about.
Emiliana
The Other Token Non-Mormon
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Emiliana »

So, I am confused about why sin might keep a person from taking the sacrament? And that a bishop sometimes tells a person not to? What's the reasoning there?

My understanding of communion/sacrament/Mass (as an agnostic with Episcopal sympathies) is that its purpose is a) to remember Christ, and b) to receive spiritual nourishment. Seems to me that if you've been sinning and you'd like to repent, you'd need more of both of those things, not less.
User avatar
bobtheenchantedone
Forum Administrator
Posts: 4229
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: At work
Contact:

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by bobtheenchantedone »

Emiliana, that was one of the differences Marduk and I found so interesting when we visited a nearby Catholic church and chatted with a lady there. Yes, exactly opposite to belief in other churches with a sacrament-type ritual, the LDS church discourages taking it when you need to repent from serious sin rather than encouraging you to partake more often.

Back during my still-at-church-but-panicking-every-week days, I once took the bread and then the friend I passed the tray to passed without taking it. I somehow interpreted that action as implying that I shouldn't have taken the bread either, and I was so distressed at the idea that I had taken the bread when I shouldn't have that I had to run out of the chapel because I thought I was going to throw up.
The Epistler was quite honestly knocked on her ethereal behind by the sheer logic of this.
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Zedability »

The idea is that the sacrament renews your baptismal covenants. In the baptismal covenant, you promise to keep the commandment. When a sin has seriously breached that covenant, taking the sacrament is basically a mockery of the covenant, like "I'm not done repenting and I'm going to act like I've been keeping my covenants anyways." The idea is that a really serious sin, like sexual sin, is due to a really deliberate choice to go against the covenants, and taking the sacrament is acting like you're still fully keeping them? And since repentance involves forsaking the sin, some more serious sins take longer to forsake, so you haven't fully repented.

I don't know if I'm explaining this right. But the thing is, it's kind of like filing for bankruptcy – you can't meet the obligations you agreed to, so you're kind of relieved from those obligations so you don't keep accumulating the consequences.

3 Nephi 18:28-32:

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.

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Zedability »

But it is an interesting difference. I hadn't thought much about it before, since I wasn't familiar with the intricacies of sacrament/communion in other congregations. I just knew there was a scripture and church policy that said not to. I shall have to think about it more since apparently I don't really know how to explain/understand it.
Emiliana
The Other Token Non-Mormon
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Emiliana »

Okay, the idea of it being a renewal of covenants makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining, Zed.

In Episcopal theology, the term sacrament refers to seven different acts, which if I can remember them, are baptism, confirmation, communion, ordination to priesthood, marriage, last rites, and ....... something else. You'll sometimes hear them referred to as the "visible signs of invisible grace." So if you're in the process of repenting, you need MORE than the usual reminders of grace. I think it would probably be in poor taste to take communion if you've just gone and murdered someone, and have no remorse about it and are about to go murder someone again, but other than that you should probably just go take communion. And the Episcopal church practices open communion, which means that anyone who even vaguely identifies as Christian is welcome to partake.

The Catholic church's theology of sacraments is similar. But they believe in transubstantiation, which means that when the priest blesses the elements, they actually BECOME the body and blood of Christ, not just symbols of the body and blood. So naturally if you're going to be eating the actual body and blood of Christ, there are a few more restrictions. You have to be a Catholic, and have to be "in good standing," which I think probably means you have to go to confession once in awhile? I'm not certain. But anyway, I don't think priests ever tell you NOT to take communion.
Zedability
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Zedability »

Yeah. In our church we use the word "ordinances" where you use "sacraments," and "sacrament" where you use "communion." All of the ordinances involve making or renewing covenants, so breaking one impacts your ability to participate in or access the blessings of another.
Imogen
Picky Interloper
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Texas

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Imogen »

Emiliana wrote:Okay, the idea of it being a renewal of covenants makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining, Zed.

In Episcopal theology, the term sacrament refers to seven different acts, which if I can remember them, are baptism, confirmation, communion, ordination to priesthood, marriage, last rites, and ....... something else. You'll sometimes hear them referred to as the "visible signs of invisible grace." So if you're in the process of repenting, you need MORE than the usual reminders of grace. I think it would probably be in poor taste to take communion if you've just gone and murdered someone, and have no remorse about it and are about to go murder someone again, but other than that you should probably just go take communion. And the Episcopal church practices open communion, which means that anyone who even vaguely identifies as Christian is welcome to partake.

The Catholic church's theology of sacraments is similar. But they believe in transubstantiation, which means that when the priest blesses the elements, they actually BECOME the body and blood of Christ, not just symbols of the body and blood. So naturally if you're going to be eating the actual body and blood of Christ, there are a few more restrictions. You have to be a Catholic, and have to be "in good standing," which I think probably means you have to go to confession once in awhile? I'm not certain. But anyway, I don't think priests ever tell you NOT to take communion.
A priest will never tell you not to take communion while you're in line, but we're supposed to know when it is and isn't appropriate for us to take communion. We must go to reconciliation (confession) at least once a month. That way we are reconciled to God and the church. Divorced people are not supposed to take communion. You're also not supposed to take it if you've missed a Sunday Mass because that is a mortal sin. If you can't take communion you can still go to the priest and receive a blessing from him/the eucharistic minister.
beautiful, dirty, rich
User avatar
Whistler
Posts: 2221
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Non dramatic reasons for not taking the sacrament

Post by Whistler »

if it's someone that you're seriously dating, or maybe one of your own young children, then I think you might want to bring it up why they aren't taking the sacrament. Otherwise, yeah, it's not your business.
Post Reply