“Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.”

This, along with Dallin H. Oaks’ comments, should put to bed who can and cannot take the sacrament.

I asked the question with a sincere heart, and meant no “dig” by the words chosen.

I sat in LDS service today next to a dear lifelong friend. I wanted especially to avoid offending her (and her family) because I think she might know I left the LDS faith. At best she understands my reason for passing the sacrament… At worst she thinks I’ve commited some egregious sin and I don’t feel worthy.

Nevertheless I prayed for her and her family today, and maybe she prayed for mine. We are both probably unable to be swayed in our faith as it stands, but I would hope that we can remain friends.

Is that supposed to be a small dig?

I have no doubt the Lord knows your heart and will not judge either choice as sin, especially if made in a spirit of worship and respect.

I have a [b]firm[/b] belief in Jesus Christ, and take communion every month [b]very serously[/b] with all of my heart.

Any advice is appreciated. God bless you all.

But parents force-feeding their infants a sip of water and morsel of bread is a blatantly self-righteous act, and it is treating the consecrated bread and water as though it were some sort of magic potion that will protect the baby.

“Inviting Children to Participate. On 11 July 1877, the First Presidency issued one of the most important documents in our Church history to set in order the priesthood. This letter was the culmination of President Brigham Young’s administration, for he died a little over a month later. In this historic letter, the First Presidency said that children should be given the sacrament during Sunday School so they could “be taught the value and importance of that ordinance.” The First Presidency noted that “the proper observance of the Lord’s day would be greatly increased among the rising generation if this were to become a custom in all our settlements.” (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 2:289.) The sacrament did become a part of Sunday School opening exercises and continues to be given to children during weekly sacrament meetings. Many have been blessed because of that practice.”

Ummm, I see where you’re coming from, but Church leaders have repeatedly stressed that it’s OK for little children to partake of the sacrament. They can learn to love and remember Jesus Christ and his sacrifice as well as someone who has been baptized.

It is this type of arrogance that turns so many people off from the Church (I am assuming this man did not know the investigator or have personal knowledge of some grievous sin he had committed). IMO it amounts to unrighteous dominion.

There are verses in D&C and the Book of Mormon that expound upon this connection of baptism being the (only) prerequisite to sacramental “worthiness” — I will leave finding these references as an exercise for the reader.

Back to your story, however, certainly the missionary was out-of-line to disrupt the reverence of the passing of the sacrament in such an absurd manner. Certainly they were both unworthy to partake of the sacrament that day!

on a side note- my wife makes a big deal about people not taking the sacrament with the right hand. I think this is silly.

For members who do not partake on any given week, it is a personal choice to abstain if they do not feel that they have fully repented of some particular sin. After all, it is in remembrance of our baptism, where we received a remission of our sins to that point.

No one, other than the Bishop/Branch President has the right to tell another not to partake of the sacrament. Except a parent, perhaps as a teaching moment to an unrepentant child.

It’s only the Bishop who judges people in church and it is his responsibility to tell someone during an interview, a private interview and delicately, to not take the sacrament because they are unworthy.

Ah, and if people decide not to take it on their own they are only telling the bishopric that something is wrong with their morality since Bishops are usually looking at the congregation as the sacrament goes around -unless they’re sick of the job and want a release.

Are you there each week - or each week you can be? (Yes.) Have you done something that requires confession to the Bishop? (No) Take the sacrament! Leave the self-flagellation to others.

Non-members visitors should be told the nature of the sacrament, what the promises are, and the significance of it, and given to understand that if they have no trouble with that promise, then they should be equally willing to be be baptized and join their names to ours. Either that or simply told that we have a ceremony as a part of our meetings that we use to remind us of the sacrifice Christ made for us. It is unwise, I think, to simply bring them in unprepared to our meetings.

I mean, I had my name removed, but we attend sacrament meetings occasionally for blessings, baptisms, ect. I don’t take the sacrament. But if my five year old or two year old reaches, I’m not going to stop them, even though they were never even blessed in the church. I honestly can’t remember if i took the sacrament before I was baptized, but it wouldn’t surprise me if I did, not understanding the rules. and if I was going to ‘rebuke’ someone for it, I would do it in private after the meeting, not call them out in front of a room full of very quiet people.

and shouldn’t members being contemplating the sacrament while it’s being passed, not paying attention to who else is partaking?

Heh. That was easy.

When I was still a relatively new member (late 60s/early 70s), this was more of an issue than it is today, and it was common to instruct visiting non-members (ahead of time! not in the act, thank you!) not to partake of the Sacrament. But that has largely, though not completely, vanished. Interestingly, just in the past few months we had a Catholic investigator in our ward who on her own refused to take the Sacrament until she was baptized (which she was). She said that it made it very special for her. ..bruce..

I believe I read that in the book Ed Kimball wrote about his father, Pres. Kimball.

We sometimes forget that the sacrament is a renewal of OUR baptismal covenants, but it also is accessible to those who have NOT been baptized (like our children) - and, therefore, for them it is NOT a renewal. For our children, it functions more as a preparatory promise. The sacrament is NOT limited to us, as if it was something only for the “righteous” children’s club. It is a sign of commitment, for us to baptismal covenants already made and for others non-baptismal promises already or willing to be made. If I allow my 5-year-old to partake and not my 40-year-old, devout Christian friend, I think that says more about me than about them.

Should a non-member partake? Let me ask a different question:

If they are willing to make the promises inherent in it, and if they are living their best to the extent of their knowledge, why should they not partake?

I agree 100%. This sometimes came up when I was on my mission. But even Elder Oak’s comment doesn’t answer the root of the problem: should a non-member take the sacrament?

“to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.”