Permission from the Bishop

[deseretgov]

In order to hold a sacrament meeting or simply administer the sacrament you need the permission from local bishop. Now my question. I'm sure there has been an answer to this before but I don't remember it.

Say a group of members somehow get maroon on a island or lost in the mountains. Let's also say that this group is able to survive easy. Like a Gilligan's island scenerio. Now there is no bishop in the group only a couple elders or something. This group has no means of contacting a bishop to get permission to have the sacrament. Can this group partake of the sacrament or must they wait for months or years before being rescued?

Obviously this is a highly unlikely circumstance. But I'm curoius as to the protocol.

What if some of the group wanted to get married, obviously they couldn't have a temple marriage, but would permission from the group be enough to constitute a legal marraige?

Remember Gilligan's Island scenerio, survival is not an issue, plenty of food and shelter.

[BenRaines]

I would say that no you would not need permission. If a worthy High Priest is among the group he would preside. As for marriages they could, I guess, form their own government and then the person in charge of the govt would authorize who could marry and who qualified.

Ben Raines

[tubaloth]

wasn't there some story about Elder Maxwell having sacrament in his own fox hole. I don't know if he got permission to do that before hand or not.

I think this is one of those, go by the spirit type of things.

I think it would come down to if you actually had the actually prayers (for sacrament).

There is one thing to do the sacrament on your own the PROPER way.

Its completely different to do it on your own and NOT PROPER way.

[Palerider]

The reason for him to give permission is this....he is the Leader of the Ward....he has the final say in all things pertaining to the Ward and needs to be aware of whats going in the ward. If someone needs the sacrament he needs to be aware of that and give permission. He might also know something about the person or persons that could be the recievers of the sacrament and a reason why they should not have it and therefore will not approve it.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Palerider

[HoosierGuy]

I was just listening to a talk on my iPod by Elder Matthew Cowley. The talk is called Learning to Live Simply and I had no idea it was from the 1950's! It's a great talk. He talks about the Sacrament in part of it.

He told a story about a young sailor during the war (WW2 I assume.)

The sailor was from San Francisco and a new convert to the Church. He was the only member of the Church on a big Nay ship. He was ordained a Priest. The other sailors would urge this new member to go out and party and have a good time with them when on leave. He always refused. He said he had the strength to refuse those invitations because the Captain of the ship, every Sunday, gives him a little room, and he goes into that room all by himself, and he has a serviceman’s copy of the Book of Mormon. He opens it up to Moroni and takes a little water and piece of bread, and he gets on his knees, and he blesses the Sacrament, and he passes it to himself, and he's safe for another week - nobody on earth could tempt him that week. A new member he was.

[Maxel]

I was just listening to a talk on my iPod by Elder Matthew Cowley. The talk is called Learning to Live Simply and I had no idea it was from the 1950's! It's a great talk. He talks about the Sacrament in part of it.

He told a story about a young sailor during the war (WW2 I assume.)

The sailor was from San Francisco and a new convert to the Church. He was the only member of the Church on a big Nay ship. He was ordained a Priest. The other sailors would urge this new member to go out and party and have a good time with them when on leave. He always refused. He said he had the strength to refuse those invitations because the Captain of the ship, every Sunday, gives him a little room, and he goes into that room all by himself, and he has a serviceman’s copy of the Book of Mormon. He opens it up to Moroni and takes a little water and piece of bread, and he gets on his knees, and he blesses the Sacrament, and he passes it to himself, and he's safe for another week - nobody on earth could tempt him that week. A new member he was.

DUDE, I thought of that EXACT same story! I love listening to Elder Cowley's talks!

I was going to cite the above story, and Elder Maxwell's personal sacrament meetings in his fox hole, but they've already been covered, so...

[bmy-]

It's a formality really. It's going to 'work' either way as the entire point behind it is renewing your covenant.. and you can do that with/without the physical bread and water.

[lilered]

It's a formality really. It's going to 'work' either way as the entire point behind it is renewing your covenant.. and you can do that with/without the physical bread and water.

From a practicial point, if no bread nor water were available, then I think it may be acceptable however we are clearly told in the scriptures the bread and water are necessary. These are the Sacrement.

D&C 59:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

In the New Testament we have an account of the Lord administering the sacrament to His disciples. This is found in Matthew, the 26th chapter:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28).

The Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, chapter 18, gives us a detailed account of the Savior’s administration of the sacrament to the Nephites:

“And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.

“And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.

“And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.

“And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

“And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

[Moksha]

If you were to say that permission is required, you would be pushing the letter of the law to the absurd. The Captain would need to whack you in the head and tell you it was for your own good little buddy.

[Hemidakota]

In order to hold a sacrament meeting or simply administer the sacrament you need the permission from local bishop. Now my question. I'm sure there has been an answer to this before but I don't remember it.

Say a group of members somehow get maroon on a island or lost in the mountains. Let's also say that this group is able to survive easy. Like a Gilligan's island scenerio. Now there is no bishop in the group only a couple elders or something. This group has no means of contacting a bishop to get permission to have the sacrament. Can this group partake of the sacrament or must they wait for months or years before being rescued?

Obviously this is a highly unlikely circumstance. But I'm curoius as to the protocol.

What if some of the group wanted to get married, obviously they couldn't have a temple marriage, but would permission from the group be enough to constitute a legal marraige?

Remember Gilligan's Island scenerio, survival is not an issue, plenty of food and shelter.

You do not need a Bishop approval to hold a Sacrament. Any worthy officiating Aaronic Priesthood, Office of a Priest, can setup and conduct a Sacrament. It is the duty of the Aaronic Priesthood to prepare and administer the Sacrament. In the absent of of true lineage of Aaronic by descendant, then a Elder or High Priest can do the same.

[Hemidakota]

It's a formality really. It's going to 'work' either way as the entire point behind it is renewing your covenant.. and you can do that with/without the physical bread and water.

Tokens of body of Christ. A ritual that is require by the Savior, to keep us in remembrance of Him, until we can learn the simple principles of renewal of covenants without them.

[Just_A_Guy]

I would agree with Ben Raines vis a vis marriage. As to the sacrament, I would respectfully disagree with Hemidakota. The essence of the Great Apostasy was the loss of priesthood keys. As I understand it, merely being ordained to a particular office in a particular priesthood does not give you the keys to the ordinance of the sacrament.

You cannot claim a priesthood key merely because you are now isolated from the last person to have properly exercised that key. The primitive Church learned that by painful experience.

[Hemidakota]

Is it me or the office of the Bishop has changed today where it is not destined for Aaronic Priesthood? Hmm...unless we received additional revelation from the Lord, and canonized it in the D&C, then I can be corrected. Read D&C 64 & 84....then, there are some more. If not, read the Church Handbook of Instruction. It resides with the office of Priest.

For others, unless you had served as a Bishop or in a Bishopric, you are to preside over which priesthood? Aaronic. It is the Stake President responsibility to preside over the higher priesthood.

In D&C 68:14-21, we read:

"There remain hereafter, in the due time of the Lord, other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister even according to the first;

"Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.

"And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are [of] the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;

"For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.

"No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.

"But, as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power, under the hands of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

"And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.

"But, by virtue of the decree concerning their right of the priesthood descending from father to son, they may claim their anointing if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord under the hands of the above named Presidency."

Edited January 27, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't see how the above substantiates your earlier claim that

In the absent of of true lineage of Aaronic by descendant, then a Elder or High Priest can do the same.

If I read you correctly, you have not disputed that the Bishop (or President of the Aaronic Priesthood, if you will) still holds the keys to the ordinance. And D&C 68:14-21 does not stand for the preposition that a man may set himself up as a bishop merely by virtue of the absence of proper authority in conjunction with either his Melchizedek Priesthood office or his lineal descent from Aaron: in either case, he must go through proper channels (the First Presidency).

If you wish to bypass the role of bishops entirely and argue that the keys to the ordinance of the sacrament actually pertain to the Stake President in his calling as President of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I might be persuaded. But then, the Stake President isn't on the island either.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Ok! Then for the sake of argument here, who presides here and why?

Say a group of members somehow get maroon on a island or lost in the mountains. Let's also say that this group is able to survive easy. Like a Gilligan's island scenerio. Now there is no bishop in the group only a couple elders or something. This group has no means of contacting a bishop to get permission to have the sacrament. Can this group partake of the sacrament or must they wait for months or years before being rescued?

[Just_A_Guy]

What, like, if they decided to have a church meeting? I'd say that they can get together, sing, pray, etc., but barring re-establishment of contact with Church authorities or a restoration of keys in situ they cannot administer the sacrament.

I would venture to surmise that the meeting, such as it is, should be conducted by the ranking priesthood-holder there as per D&C 20.

[Hemidakota]

Exactly...that is the correct answer. There is no need for permission from a Bishop of a local ward. It is the responsibility of that group to see if there is an true Aaron lineage among themselves and if not, presiding of that lay group would be someone of the higher priesthood.

Why is this so? How many good standing military members we have that serve in military combat roles and far from the church? How do they conduct Sacrament on a given Sunday, having no access to a church or presiding officials? As described above....

[Just_A_Guy]

Why is this so? How many good standing military members we have that serve in military combat roles and far from the church? How do they conduct Sacrament on a given Sunday, having no access to a church or presiding officials? As described above....

Priesthood-holding members of the military may do this because they have been authorized to do so by members of the Church leadership who hold the keys to the ordinance.

Service Member Groups

Where military personnel cannot attend a ward or branch, the president of the stake or mission where the military installation is located organizes a Latter-day Saint service member group. He calls and sets apart a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder to be the service member group leader. He also oversees the calling of two worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders to be the group leader’s assistants. The stake or mission president gives the group leader a Certificate of Appointment and a letter that outlines his responsibilities and authorizes him to preside over the group and conduct meetings.

If a stake or mission president is not available to organize a service member group, you or another Church member at the installation should request guidance from the Church’s Military Relations Division.

Principles of the Gospel, p. 4

The CHI makes it clear that ordinary priesthood-holding members, whatever their office, may not hold their own sacrament services independently of the local bishop.

[ruthiechan]

Priests are the ones who pray over the sacrament yes?

Deacons are the ones who pass out the sacrament yes?

Priests can do pass out the sacrament too, so can Elders and High Priests. But Deacons can't bless the sacrament. . .

So, if a Priest is on the island with them what's the issue?

Just A Guy and Hemi you both have me rather confused.

[BenRaines]

In the case of being stranded on a deserted island I would say it will be much easier later to ask for forgiveness than in this case it would be to ask for permission.

I do not see it as grave as trying to right the ark of the covenant. No one is going to die from it.

Ben Raines

[Just_A_Guy]

Ruthiechan, just because a 16-year-old can bless the Sacrament, doesn't mean he can do it in his high school locker room for his football buddies if he so chooses. As I understand it, the keys to the Sacrament--the authority to determine whether, when, where, and how it is administered--lie with the local presiding authority.

The issue is, on a hypothetical desert island, whether the "ranking priesthood holder" may step up and claim the right, usually reserved for the Bishop, to authorize the administration of the Sacrament. Hemi seems to argue in the affirmative; I in the negative.

[sensibility]

I think that the organization of the Church is a means unto an end, not an eternal truth in and of itself. If the choice was to either never take the sacrament again until we were rescued, or to disobey the rules of an organization that was set up to ensure that the ordinances of the Gospel are distributed efficiently, I think God would be most pleased for us to take the Sacrament, as long as there was someone there to bless it. Jesus did command us to do it, after all.

That's just me, of course, and if I were in a situation where I were cut off from my presiding leaders, I'm sure the Spirit would direct otherwise if God didn't want us to take the Sacrament.

[Just_A_Guy]

I concur that in such a case, one has to listen to the Spirit.

Still, perhaps we could put this twist on the hypothetical:

Let us say that the group of members includes a sizeable number of high priests. The group collectively knows the temple ceremonies backwards and forwards; they have resources to build a "temple" of sorts and make the necessary ceremonial items; and they have a healthy supply of names whose work has not been done.

Would it be proper for this marooned group to build their own temple and administer proxy baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, initiatories, endowments, and sealings?

Why or why not?

[HiJolly]

Ruthiechan, just because a 16-year-old can bless the Sacrament, doesn't mean he can do it in his high school locker room for his football buddies if he so chooses. As I understand it, the keys to the Sacrament--the authority to determine whether, when, where, and how it is administered--lie with the local presiding authority.

The issue is, on a hypothetical desert island, whether the "ranking priesthood holder" may step up and claim the right, usually reserved for the Bishop, to authorize the administration of the Sacrament. Hemi seems to argue in the affirmative; I in the negative.

I agree with Hemi. Mormonism often produces practical solutions to problems.

HiJolly

[Just_A_Guy]

Mormonism often produces practical solutions to problems.

What was the practical solution offered to the primitive Church when all the apostles disappeared?