Comments on: Drop it! Who’s Worthy to Take the Sacrament?

By: James R

James R — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:52:32 +0000

Is there a thread about what SteveS said? It seems like a person would have to repent of their baptismal covenants fully, before they take the sacrament. However, they can still be a sinner, everyone is a sinner. However, the baptismal covenants are still very hard to live by. If someone tells a lie, should this keep them from taking the sacrament?

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:41:49 +0000

Adrianne – this incident was in a pretty small branch in the Canary Islands. The missionary was acting as a branch president. The investigator came in during the opening hymn and sat alone. Sort of a “perfect storm” situation. On a positive note, though, this was 20 years ago.

By: Adrianne

Adrianne — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:20:14 +0000

Sorry to keep posting, but I have never heard of a Bishop (the common judge in israel) stand up and shout at someone in the congregation to not take the sacrament.

By: Adrianne

Adrianne — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:16:23 +0000

The fact that it was done so irreverantly, in front of everyone declaring that persons supposed “unworthiness” is not something Jesus would do, I don’t think. That is simply ridiculous, and if I had been there, I would have been ashamed of that.

By: Adrianne

Adrianne — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:12:44 +0000

Obviously that missionary felt strongly about worthiness and the sacrament. So he should have explained the significance before the actual meeting. There is no reverence, humility, or love in ordering someone not fully knowledgeable of the gospel to drop a piece of bread….. and isn’t that what we as members and examples of the gospel strive for? Reverence, meekness and love?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:29:03 +0000

Church handbook of instruction page 29 under the heading of “Sacrament General Guidelines”

“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.

By: SteveS

SteveS — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:30:52 +0000

I don’t know if this constitutes a threadjack; if so, I’m sorry, but maybe it could be duly noted by the permas here and we could address it at another time. I wonder what makes people decide whether to take the sacrament or not on a personal level. The renewal of covenants is part of the sacrament, but isn’t the sacrament also a part of retaining a remission of one’s sins? If we choose not to partake, aren’t we catching ourselves in a catch-22, willingly abstaining from the ordinance designed to redirect our devotions and actions toward HF and Christ? Aren’t sinners the very people the sacrament is designed to help? Perhaps I don’t understand the doctrines and principles of sacrament and its relationship to repentance. Would anyone like to take a stab at it?

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:54:36 +0000

Joe – I think Jeff was asking whether your statement that you left LDS to become “Christian” was a dig (implying that LDS are not Christian). Jeff converted to LDS from Judaism. I assume you meant non-denominational Christian or a mega-church, for example, which are commonly just referred to as “Christian” vs. Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc. I assume as an ex-Mo you do not consider us non-Christian.

By: Teach

Teach — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:02:12 +0000

I grew up in church all my life, and being milatary we traveled all over the world and attended many churches. My Bible teaches me that , we call it taking communion, is a very personal thing and the Bible instructs us to make sure we are spiritually ready to partake. No one has the right to stand guard over the plates as they are passed. We are to be focused on our Lord and not on those around us, bringing our own thoughts in line with God and His will. Do this in remebrance of Him, not judging the worthines of anyone but my own self.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:32:26 +0000

Jeff, does it matter – really?

By: Jeff Spector

Jeff Spector — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:15:37 +0000

“I recently left the LDS faith and now attend a Christian church.”

Is that supposed to be a small dig?

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:01:06 +0000

Joe, I don’t think there is ANY harm in you taking it, as long as you understand the promises entailed and are willing to make them. Politely passing on it is a fine option, but if it were me I would take it – unless I was attending a ward where people knew I was attending another church. To avoid offending them, I would pass.

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.

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:51:08 +0000

Joe, my thought would be to politely pass on it. That’s an opinion only.

By: rp

rp — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:00:05 +0000

I think the ordinance most closely related to the sacrament is the ancient animal sacrifice, not baptism. I guess in a way it could be thought of as “renewing” the baptismal covenant, since we promise similar things in both, so I don’t think that’s a false teaching per se, but I wouldn’t restrict children from taking it just because they haven’t been baptized yet.

By: Derek P. Moore

Derek P. Moore — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:53:10 +0000

Sure, it is one thing to allow toddlers to partake of the sacrament so as not to feel left out (as in the Catholic Church were children do not partake until Confirmation and First Communion). Toddlers can at least begin to be taught the meaning of sacrament, and they can thereby begin to derive something from it (even if it’s not much), but they can at least understand something of what they’re doing.

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.

By: John Nilsson

John Nilsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:21:09 +0000

As evidence of the above, here is an excerpt from Elder Haight’s April 1988 Ensign article “Remembering the Savior’s Atonement”:

“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.”

By: John Nilsson

John Nilsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:17:32 +0000

Derek,

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.

By: wren

wren — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:51 +0000

People will get out of taking the sacrament exactly what they think they will or won’t get out of it. It’s a ritual of personal nature. No one will be struck down by lightning nor will the heavens open and pore out pennies based on one’s partaking of the sacrament. If you listen to the instructions given when it is blessed, it’s about remembrance.

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:23:42 +0000

Tony R. – I have heard that the right hand/left hand issue is a throwback to cultures in which the left hand is considered unholy because it is the hand you use to wipe your bottom. Sorry if I’ve ruined it for your lefties out there!

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:06:06 +0000

…role jumped up from his seat on the stand and commanded the man (in Spanish) to “Drop it!” which he did.

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.

By: Derek P. Moore

Derek P. Moore — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:21:20 +0000

Sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal covenant. It is only to be taken by baptized members (this excludes all children under 8, even though I see self-righteous mothers every Sunday trying to feed their 1-year-old granddaughter a tiny cup of water, such exclusion has nothing to with “innocence”), and baptism is the only test of worthiness to be used for taking the sacrament (excepting personal choices while going through a repentant process, as I know my mother has declined sacrament while repentant).

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!

By: Tony R.

Tony R. — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:37:11 +0000

If I didn’t feel comfortable taking the sacrament, I wouldn’t feel very comfortable attending the sacrament meetings, because I would feel like people might be judging me. “I wonder what big sin he committed that is keeping him from taking the sacrament”

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.

By: Martin Willey

Martin Willey — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:25:20 +0000

I agree with Elder Oaks. I also think his advice is consitent with a contextual reading of 3 Ne. 18:28-29, which was a directive given to his “disciples” whom he had ordained to adminster church affiars, not to the multitude generally.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:12:28 +0000

What Elder Oaks said.

By: Mike L.

Mike L. — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:09:06 +0000

AHLDuke, I also remembered some instruction like that. So I searched in my digital version of Preach My Gospel, but any such instruction is notably absent, despite several sections that talk about the sacrament. I think the absense of such instruction speaks volumes.