Last Sunday a gay excommunicated member passed the Sacrament in my ward. He was sitting next to me, and as the Sacrament tray came down the row, he reverently held the tray while I took the bread, and then a few minutes later the water.
This was not the first time he has passed me the sacrament. About 25 years ago he passed me the sacrament as a 12 year old Deacon. While it did not mean much to me 25 years ago, it was much more meaningful this last Sunday. He is close friend of my daughter, and just recently started to attend church again. I’ve sat by him a few Sundays since he has started to return. I don’t fully know his reasons for returning, but I feel his spirit as I sit next to him. He is a wonderful man.
This has got me to wondering about the authority to pass the sacrament. If my friend had been at the end of a row, and no deacon was there when he got the tray, could he have handed the tray to the row behind him? Could he have stood up and passed the tray across the aisle? What authority is needs to “pass the sacrament”? Everybody passes the tray in a row, from non-members to little children. But does it take priesthood to pass it between rows? To carry it down the aisle? Where is the line?
Or is passing the Sacrament just an assignment given to the Deacons, and could it just as easily be given to the Young Women? I could not find any scriptural basis for the Deacons or any Priesthood holder to pass the sacrament. Nothing in the D&C anyplace. The only place I found it was in the Church Handbook of Instructions, where it says “After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread (water)……..”. What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Today a priest was prepairing the sacrament by himself when his sister helped with the top cloth. An ex bishop soon let her know it was not appropriate.
Yes we do have a book full of rules based on???
Geoff-Aus, that seems like an example of how ”the traditions of men” come to overlay, then even displace, simple gospel principles.
I think historically we should think about the psychology and power of religious elites to refashion institutions in their own interest. Israelite priests created a lot of rules, some of them recorded in the Bible and others simple practices that became tradition, that protected and expanded priestly duties. The real evidence of this is that when the temple was destroyed in 597 BC, priestly identity and rhetoric survived for centuries even with no temple to serve in. They were a self-serving and self-perpetuating elite .
Same with monks and priests in the medieval Catholic Church, even more so. The laity were second-class or even third-class citizens in the kingdom, while (relatively) celibate monks and priests developed more and more justifications for why monks and priests and archbishops and popes were super special in God’s eyes, had special responsibilities, and should control most of the property.
In Mormonism, “the Priesthood” is the elite. Same process, with self-serving traditions emerging to expand the role and powers of the priesthood over the last two centuries. At the same time, the rather unprecedented rise of womens rights in general society over the last century has forced some compromises — LDS women can serve missions, teach Sunday School, and speak in Conference. But still I think it’s a two steps forward, one step back process — leadership will only compromise on marginal things, not on the central role and power and perks of the Priesthood and its leadership.
It seems to me it is a policy based on an assumption. An assumption that any and every ordinance must be done by the priesthood (one exception being in the temple).
I have also listened to a podcast about the history of the Aaronic priesthood http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/09/men-to-boys-development-of-the-priesthood/ and learned that the Aaronic priesthood wasn’t originally given to young men. It has changed over time and used to try and keep YM active and participating.
But overall it seems to fit a trend. Young women used to be allowed to bake and bring the sacrament bread. Women used to be allowed to give blessings for healing. Women used to be fully in charge of the Relief Society organization. It does seem a trend over a long period of consolidation of moving more things to be done or under the control of men. Only recently has any attempt been made to counter that trend and so far they are somewhat minor changes.
I have heard some say that “men are given the priesthood because they need it” implying that religiosity must be contained within that second X chromosome and all the men are less spiritual with that sad Y chromosome.
Thanks for the post, and those are some great questions you ask.
FWIW, I have traveled extensively around Latin America, and have always made an effort to attend LDS services when I can. From what I have observed, the deacons always make it a point to pass the sacrament to each person individually. No passing trays down the rows.
While I do enjoy this approach better, it would simply not be possible in many wards I have attended in the US (especially my current ward, which seems to be pushing 500+ members every week). I would view passing trays down the aisle as pure logistics.
Again, while these are great questions, one thing I worry about is an increased cultural (Pharisaic?) reverence around the sacrament tray itself. I don’t think that would be a good idea; there are already enough of those (e.g. only taking sacrament with the right hand, white shirts, beards [to some extent], etc.).
This post brought to mind a verse of scripture where Jesus said,” strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” I decided to look this verse up and came across this statement in google.
“Jesus is indulging in a bit of hyperbole here. He’s imagining someone who is about to take a drink of water from a cup, notices that there’s a small bug in it, strains the bug out, and then drinks the water, never noticing that there was a camel floating in the cup.
Silly? Sure, but it gets the point across. Jesus’ claim was that the religious leaders were focusing on the lesser matters, while completely ignoring the more important ones.”
Jared, so what you are saying is that all the minor rules of the church, such as who gets to serve the sacrament, are the gnats that the religious leaders are obsessed with and they are missing the camels? Or are you saying that just by discussing this on an online forum, we are all obsessing over gnats while ignoring the camels in our relationships with Jesus?
According to D&C 20, the sacrament can only be administering by a priest or elder,. Deacons and teachers are prohibited from administering the sacrament (D&C 20:58). Furthermore, Elder Francis Lyman was asked if Church members not holding the priesthood could pass the sacrament, his response was:
“You pass it to one another, do you not, all the time, all you sisters and all you brethren? Then why ask the question? The administering of the sacrament is not passing it to the people. The administering of the sacrament is when the brethren offer the prayer in blessing the bread or water. That is the administration of the sacrament. That cannot be done by Deacons, nor by members of the Church who do not bear the Priesthood.”
Proceedings of the Sunday School Convention, Volume 1, p77.
Until the 1950s, women and their daughters used to bake sacramental bread and prepare the bread at the sacrament table, so this preparation was obviously not considered a priesthood duty at one time. It seems like these now-teacher and deacon duties are just duties, not explicit priesthood duties necessitating priesthood ordination.
There is much symbolism in how the ordinance is administered. I noticed this the last time I went to a catholic mass, There, congregants stood and moved forward to partake of the wafer and wine; they must take action to come to Christ. In our services, the bread and water is brought to each member; Christ comes to us, wherever we are. I’m ok with either symbolism; I think both have accuracies that can teach. I do, however, take issue with the symbolism of the male-only priesthood being required for me to receive Christ’s atonement.
Here are some quotes from ‘From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996’ by William G. Hartley in Journal of Mormon History Vol. 22, No. 1, 1996:
During the 1870s and 1880s, a few wards started letting deacons pass the sacrament. … When a ward member objected, citing the Doctrine and Covenants requirement that priests “administer” the sacrament, Bishop Levi Stewart told him that Brigham Young said passing the sacrament was not administering it, so it would be “perfectly right” for deacons to pass the sacrament.
Even passing sacrament trays among the congregation requires no priesthood authority. With or without priesthood, men, women, and children one by one pass the sacrament tray or cups to the next person down the row. Recognizing this reality, President Heber J. Grant wrote to a mission president in 1928 that there was “no rule in the Church” that only priesthood bearers could carry the sacrament to the congregation after it was blessed. While it was “custom” for priesthood men or boys to pass around the bread and water, he said, “it would in no wise invalidate the ordinance” if some “worthy young brethren lacking priesthood performed it in the absence of ordained boys” and he had “no objection” if it were done.
Women and custodians usually prepared the sacrament table, so it did not appear on a list of priesthood duties until 1933. Metal sacrament trays needed to be polished, and fine white linen or lace tablecloths needed to be laundered, starched, and pressed, traditionally the work of women. Women also baked the sacrament bread in many wards. Kate Coreless of Salt Lake City’s Fourth Ward took care of the sacrament table for a quarter century after 1906. She crocheted the cloth, polished the silver trays, baked and sliced the bread, and set the sacrament table.
As late as 1943, the Presiding Bishopric publicized for bishops the example of young women in one ward who “take care of washing and sterilizing the sacrament sets after each service.”
People, if we are going to be this persnickety about it, I say just dump buckets of flour on people and them douse them off with a hose. Where does it say the bread has to be baked? A small dough ball and a few drops of water is enough for a sacrament. We could call it a rebaptism to boot. Just as long as worthy Priesthod authority is doing the dumping and dousing, we’re good to go (to hell).
Wishing the best for your friend.
There isn’t any reason a large ward couldn’t have a priesthood holder directly offer the sacrament to everyone. In Community of Christ, the chapels are designed to allow this. Either the pews are spaced widely enough for the priest to walk down each pew or the pews are short enough for the priest to pass the tray down the pew on a pole. I can see value in a priesthood holder directly offering the sacrament to everyone, but there is also value in letting women participate in the ordinance. The one time I visited a CoC congregation, a female priest was administering the sacrament and it was a nice change from what I was used to.
HH, I’m quite sure there’s still nothing in the handbook prohibiting women from baking and bringing sacrament bread. If anyone is disallowing this, they’re making up their own rules. I suspect the vast majority of sacrament bread comes from the supermarket, where we have no idea who baked it. No doubt a lot of the bakers were women and it’s likely that somewhere between few and none held the priesthood. Baking sacrament bread is not a priesthood ordinance. And of course, neither is unfolding a tablecloth. Or passing the sacrament.
Greg Prince discussed why we allow young men to pass the Sacrament.
We had the same question in our ward. If the Sacrament trays are brought to your row by the Priesthood member. it’s better to be handed down the row by the people rather than the Priesthood member leaning and stretching over everyone to reach the furthest person. An Aaronic Priesthood member would probably put his hand out to steady himself, and then we would have to deal with accusations of “inappropriate touching”.
This question and the comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of priesthood keys. The handbook of instructions in the current guide in this practice. The handbook is written by those who currently hold the keys of the priesthood.. that is, the right to direct how the priesthood operates and is used today. This is regardless of what any scriptures or past church leaders have said. The bishop in the ward is the local authority over the use of the priesthood.. so if there’s any confusion you can ask him, and whatever he says is the right thing to do, because that is his current right (key holder). If the next bishop says something diifferent, then that is right.. because – key holder. But obviously they don’t have authority to contradict the handbook, as that was written by key holders above them in authority.
A similar issue involves the policy of encouraging Priest to bless the sacrament. D and C 20 : 50 . There the Lord says that Priests can only bless the sacrament if no Elders are present . Our present practice is completely contrary. I have asked GA s where is the revelation wherein God changed his mind and have always received disapproving looks at my temerity in even asking the question. Oh well we all know that the handbook trumpets the scriptures every time.