51189 - Sacrament

[crmeatball]

I have never lived in a ward where the Bishop would not allow the priesthood pass the sacrament to those who may have arrived late or may have needed to exit the chapel for whatever reason. I find such a policy somewhat disturbing. The primary purpose of our attending church each Sunday is to renew our covenants by partaking the sacrament, yet there are wards who are prohibiting such simply because someone was late. Seems like an awfully harsh penalty for someone who may have a legitimate reason for their tardiness or need to be outside. I recall from this past conference (it may be from another recent meeting) a General Authority stating that we need to make sure we take out unruly children as to not disturb others around us. Besides, having the deacons go into the foyer to pass the sacrament does not cause a ruckus.

As for the thought of partaking of the water if you have not partaken of the bread, I really do not think it is all that important. If someone wants to partake of the sacrament, it is not the place of the person passing the sacrament to prohibit them. They have not been called as judges in Israel (unless of course the Bishop or Stake President is passing the sacrament) and are not checking worthiness, membership or if they took the bread first before passing the sacrament to them. I think all too often, we create rules and policies which really go beyond the mark, much like the pharisees, who created a hedge around the law. We need to make sure as we create rules and policies that these do not detract or distract from the ordinance itself. My personal opinion is that a rule about not passing to those in the foyer or not allowing someone to partake of the water without first the bread distract from what is actually taking place.

Sorry for the rant, I just want to see others thoughts on this.

[Tao]

I can see both sides, which does make things interesting if traveling in wards where priesthood may be lacking. I have been in council meetings when the desire was expressed to make the ordinance of the sacrament more like Temple ordinances. (I do not recall the source of the letter, it may have been a Stake President, it may have been someone further up.) That particular Bishop chose to adopt a closed door policy, even though it does come across as rather harsh. The precedent he cited was the closing of doors when a Temple dedication is being broadcast (if you were even a minute late, you were unable to attend), and the parable of the ten virgins.

As for the partial sacraments, I really don't mind one way or the other, but I can say that it can be rather awkward for that deacon, as it is easy to feel as though you are forcing what you chose upon those who are more timid, and it is embarrassing to have the bold call you out for what they perceive as a misstep on your part in the middle of such a sacred ceremony.

[TheAnswerIs42]

As the mother of a very wriggly, loud little toddler who hates sitting still, I must say I am very grateful that I have never seen a ward with a closed door policy. I would feel horrible if I had to stay in the chapel if my daughter was disturbing the spirit, but I would be rather upset if someone told me that doing my part to make the sacrament more reverent (taking the screecher outside) meant that I would not be allowed to partake of the sacrament. I can't remember ever complaining about anything to leaders about decisions they made, but you can bet that if they ever did that in my ward, I would come to them very upset. Partaking of the sacrament is very important to me, as is making sure that those around me can still feel the spirit.

Now, if this is a single's ward, I would be only mildly miffed for those who missed out.

[NerdGirl]

I've heard about wards with a closed door policy, and the idea really bothers me. I think if I ever ended up in a ward that decided to that and used the ten virgins analogy, I would feel compelled to point out that the ten virgins were virgins and didn't have little kids to worry about.

On another note, I've wondered about the appropriateness of partial sacraments. I can't eat bread (a fairly recent development), which is fine in my home branch because there are alternative arrangements for me. But I haven't yet figured out what I would do if I were visiting a different ward for sacrament meeting, and I really don't know if it's okay to just take the water. Mostly I worry that someone would freak out if I did that.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

In Mexico some of the wards I was in had a closed door policy, but they said it was because there was no intercoms to the hall; because those in the halls couldn't hear the sacrament being blessed.

[Fredjikrang]

In my singles ward there is a closed door policy, but I think it is understandable considering.

[Katya]

As for the thought of partaking of the water if you have not partaken of the bread, I really do not think it is all that important. If someone wants to partake of the sacrament, it is not the place of the person passing the sacrament to prohibit them. They have not been called as judges in Israel (unless of course the Bishop or Stake President is passing the sacrament) and are not checking worthiness, membership or if they took the bread first before passing the sacrament to them.

Doctrinally, I doubt it's a big deal if one takes only 1/2 of the sacrament. However, it's a bit awkward to have to refuse the tray (for whatever reasons) and I think it might make things a bit smoother if the deacon or the person sitting next to you remembers not to pass it to you so you don't have to refuse it AGAIN.

That said, I've had friends with severe wheat allergies / gluten issues who couldn't have regular bread. If they hadn't made special arrangements ahead of time, I think they ended up taking the water but not the bread.

[Unit of Energy]

my stake doesn't have the sacrament passed in the foyers, but that is because there are so many wards meeting at the same time, it's difficult to tell which ward you belong to.
In singles wards I have no problem not passing in the foyers, we have few obligations that would require us to miss. however, as the oldest of a large family I'm rather opposed to keeping fussy children in the chapel, and opposed to not allowing those that have to leave to take them out the blessings of the sacrament. Although, since passing the sacrament is pretty much the first thing that we do in the meeting, my parents would always try to keep us calm enough to stay in the chapel, and when the priesthood was excused they would take out the misbehaving or fussy child.

[bobtheenchantedone]

NerdGirl: up until rather recently I wasn't supposed to eat bread. What I did was bring something I could eat (in my case, homemade rice bread), hold that on my lap during the blessing of the bread, and eat a piece of it when the bread was passed to me. This was what my bishop recommended I do in order to prevent mistakes, and the timing made it clear that I was still taking the sacrament so the men would pass the water to me later.

[Humble Master]

Like I said in my answer, I'm in a ward with a closed-door policy. At first it was a little strange, but everyone has gotten used to it very quickly.

The doors are open until just before prayers are being said, so people who are a little late to church no to head right in if the doors are open. I've had to take Lil' Master to the back of the chapel and walk and bounce her so she wasn't screaming, and everyone was understanding. It was different at first, but we've adapted, and generally people seem to like the system. Some parents of little ones expressed concerns when it was first announced, but they seem to have adapted.

[Yarjka]

My home ward growing up experimented with a closed door, no-serving-sacrament-to-the-foyer policy ... It was right when I became a Priest, and I was very much opposed to the new rule. However, there was a general disagreement with the policy by the membership of the ward, resulting in many complaints. In the end, the bishop decided to renew the open policy in which the sacrament is passed to the people in the foyer. I think the closed door experiment only lasted three months or so. That said, I oppose the closed door policy more for the sake of the parents of crying children, and not for those who arrive late. I mean, what about those who arrive so late that the sacrament has already been concluded? Perhaps we should do sacrament at the end of sacrament meeting so that everyone who comes late has a chance to partake of it? Maybe we should do a second session at the end of all three meetings in order to accommodate those who may have arrived late due to circumstances beyond their control? At some point it just gets silly ... if you arrive late, you miss the sacrament, whether by one minute or by twenty minutes, it is the same. There is no doctrine that partaking of the sacrament each week is essential for our salvation ... if that were the case, then we wouldn't be allowed to miss it during conference weekend, but we do.

I always like visiting other wards because it's so interesting to see the unique aspects of the administration of the sacrament. In my current ward, the Deacons each hold only one tray (never two ... if the trays are passed somehow through the pews in a way where two trays end up on one side, the Deacon will never grab it unless he has passed off the one he is holding). It seems weird to me, since I grew up in a gigantic ward where usually 15-20 Deacons/Teachers were passing the sacrament, and each of us held two trays, always. In my current ward, the hand that is not holding the tray is held behind the back, so the Deacons look like waiters at a high-end restaurant. I think it's terribly distracting, but, of course, I'm one who opposed the ruling of my bishop as a Deacon that we should stand facing the front of the room while the sacrament tray is being passed through the pews, rather than facing the pew itself awaiting the tray's arrival.

In one of the wards I have visited, the Deacons lined up in the back of the room horizontally, and then proceeded to come up the aisle. In my ward growing up, we lined up front to back along either aisle of the middle. My ward growing up had a strict white-shirt only policy, which I have been very sad to see make it's way to an apparently church-wide policy. In general, I don't like unnecessary rules that make an ordinance more difficult to participate in.

As far as taking the water without the bread, I grew up thinking that was equivalent to drinking damnation to your soul, so my duty as a Deacon would be to protect an unwitting person from making such a serious mistake. I think other Deacons may feel the same way, so I understand how it could be alarming for them to be told to offer the sacrament to those who arrived too late to take the bread. I still don't take the water if I didn't take the bread, but I consider that a personal decision, and I don't think it plays heavily into one's eternal salvation. Incidentally, I remember an odd case in my youth where there was just barely enough water cups left to get to everyone in the ward, but not enough for us to drink at the conclusion of passing. The Priests offered us the trays which only had a few water cups on them, but not enough for everyone, and some of us (since we didn't want to make the Priests go through the awkward process of preparing more water and blessing it again (they were older than us, and I was generally pretty intimidated by them)) simply pretended to grab a cup of water and drink, so that the sacrament could be concluded and no one would notice anything was amiss. I've never felt so much guilt in my life ... I had pretended to take the sacrament ... I had mocked a sacred ordinance ... I had destined my soul for eternal damnation simply because I was afraid to say something and ensure the ordinance was performed correctly. I still feel guilt from that now, actually. I relate this story merely to show that these are Deacons passing the sacrament, and Deacons take things very seriously. It would be hard to imagine the incredible fear a Deacon has at messing up the passing of the sacrament if I hadn't been one myself (of course I have no doubt that many Deacons don't take it seriously at all, and/or have no such fears and anxieties in the fulfilling of their duty).

As far as not being able to take bread due to a medical condition: most wards will be accommodating if you bring an item that you can eat. Simply arrive 10 minutes or so before the meeting (or, ideally, call the bishop in advance to let him know), go up to the bishop or one of his counselors, let him know the situation, and he will inform the Teachers/Priests who are preparing the sacrament to place the item on one of the trays. He will let the Deacons know which tray has the item on it, and they will ensure that the tray reaches you and that no one inadvertently eats your item (I've never seen it happen where the item was eaten by someone else ... rarely indeed would someone choose to grab a rice cracker when they are used to partaking of bread, although perhaps a young child might do so not knowing any better).

[Unit of Energy]

I find it odd to have more than one tray per deacon. I actually grew up in relatively small wards for the LDS population in my area. There were a lot of inactive or incapacitated members. The incapacitated members had the sacrament taken to their homes. Obviously the inactive members did not. But because of the high number of elderly people in my area, both of the wards I was in as a child and teenager rarely had all deacons passing the sacrament. In fact there were many periods when there weren't even enough young men, and the Elders quorum had to help with the ordinance.

[Tao]

I always like visiting other wards because it's so interesting to see the unique aspects of the administration of the sacrament.

I quite agree. I remember, though, one time while blessing the sacrament in a new ward for the first time, the bishop stopped me and had me begin again "this time on both knees." I immediately complied, but my pride was bruised. Never had I ever heard that particular facet, and if it was a personal position of the bishop, could he not have approached me afterward and suggested I change? Years later I was listening to a talk from an Apostle wherein he made mention of his respect for an individual who honored the priesthood in every manner, from always wearing his white shirt and tie when utilizing the priesthood to blessing the sacrament on both knees. Needless to say, I was chagrined. I try to be more understanding from then on out, and have personally always blessed the sacrament on both knees ever since.

My ward growing up had a strict white-shirt only policy, which I have been very sad to see make it's way to an apparently church-wide policy. In general, I don't like unnecessary rules that make an ordinance more difficult to participate in.

That experience also taught me to look into things much deeper before criticizing. That particular evidence of severance has been in place for quite some time now. If it is only recently becoming church-wide, it is likely due to our being slow to heed the words of the prophets.

Incidentally, I remember an odd case in my youth where there was just barely enough water cups left to get to everyone in the ward, but not enough for us to drink at the conclusion of passing. The Priests offered us the trays which only had a few water cups on them, but not enough for everyone, and some of us (since we didn't want to make the Priests go through the awkward process of preparing more water and blessing it again (they were older than us, and I was generally pretty intimidated by them)) simply pretended to grab a cup of water and drink, so that the sacrament could be concluded and no one would notice anything was amiss.

Interestingly, this just happened two weeks ago for me. The majority of those of us passing the sacrament were Elders or High Priests, so it was less awkward to wait for the Priests to bless two additional cups of water, but I can sympathize with the emotion. Had it just been one cup, I think I'd have just passed on partaking, so as to save time and hassle. I have seen it where a tray runs empty just at the end of a row, and an individual will take the last cup, take a sip, and pass it to their spouse/family member.

[Yarjka]

Just to clarify, I'm happy to obey the rules decided upon by the bishop of the ward. It's important to have order in all things, and if he deems it important to wear a white shirt and kneel on both knees, I'm happy to oblige. My personal convictions of the necessity of these things may not agree, but I respect his authority as the presiding officer of the meeting. So, although I disagree about the need for white shirts (although I don't disagree that they can enhance it from a symbolic standpoint), I do feel that until a change in policy is made, it should be followed by those participating in the ordinance.

On my mission there was a heated argument amongst our district of whether or not the sacrament has to be taken with the right hand. While I was on the side of "that's ridiculous! I've never heard anything like that in my life," (and I did win the argument, and still think it's ridiculous to preach the necessity of an 'ordinance hand' that is required for taking the sacrament), I have taken the sacrament with my right hand ever since. Seeing how other people do the details of an ordinance (or of any ritual) really can change the way I view it and participate in it.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

On my mission there was a heated argument amongst our district of whether or not the sacrament has to be taken with the right hand. While I was on the side of "that's ridiculous! I've never heard anything like that in my life," (and I did win the argument, and still think it's ridiculous to preach the necessity of an 'ordinance hand' that is required for taking the sacrament), I have taken the sacrament with my right hand ever since. Seeing how other people do the details of an ordinance (or of any ritual) really can change the way I view it and participate in it.

Huh. I have always seen it done with the right hand. Interesting.

[bismark]

i wrote this a few years back about my frustration with people trying to fill the sacrament with TOO MUCH symbolism:

http://cpanra.org/ryan/lds-theology-the-sacrament

[Katya]

I always like visiting other wards because it's so interesting to see the unique aspects of the administration of the sacrament.

I quite agree. I remember, though, one time while blessing the sacrament in a new ward for the first time, the bishop stopped me and had me begin again "this time on both knees." I immediately complied, but my pride was bruised. Never had I ever heard that particular facet, and if it was a personal position of the bishop, could he not have approached me afterward and suggested I change? Years later I was listening to a talk from an Apostle wherein he made mention of his respect for an individual who honored the priesthood in every manner, from always wearing his white shirt and tie when utilizing the priesthood to blessing the sacrament on both knees. Needless to say, I was chagrined. I try to be more understanding from then on out, and have personally always blessed the sacrament on both knees ever since.

See, my concern is just the opposite, that in emphasizing the outward displays of righteousness & obedience, we run the risk of only focusing on those. Obviously, there are many people whose outward displays of devotion also match their inner feelings, but we have been told, over and over again, how susceptible we fallen mortals are to hypocrisy and superficiality in only paying attention to outward appearances and it makes me sad whenever I see some sort of blanket, trivial rule substituted for exercising good judgment and kindness.