Children and the Sacrament

[superg]

I recently came across this forum topic when asked this question myself. My initial thought was that it is acceptable for the purposes such as setting an example, practice, education, and to assist children with focusing on remembering Christ.

In 3 Nephi 18:11 our Lord states "And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name;"

Having somewhat of a legal background, that statement appears to clearly premise baptism as a prerequisite to the sacrament.

HOWEVER, I then read the following from Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: "Little children, as sinless beneficiaries of the Lord’s Atonement, may partake of the sacrament as they prepare for covenants that they will make later in life." which for me clearly resolves the issue. Let them participate and give them confidence that they are choosing the right by doing so!

"Worshiping at Sacrament Meeting" -Ensign, Aug. 2004

3 Nephi 18:1-11

Can anyone provide doctrinal and direct documentation on whether children under the age of 8 (unbaptized children) should take the Sacrament?

I understand that Mormon was appalled that the Church in his day was performing baptisms for infants and children under the age of 8, and his reason for this is because children who have not yet reached the age of accountability are already guaranteed salvation, and therefore to assume that they require baptism is an affront to the Power of the Atonement.

Similarly, it is my opinion (I have not seen any direct doctrine to support it) that it is wrong for children who have not yet been baptized to "renew covenants" that they have not yet made (and do not need to make).

Can anyone show me revealed doctrine on the subject? (Lesson manuals, including nursery lessons, does not constitute doctrine -- I'm looking for something directly from the Prophet or an Apostle of the Lord.)

Many thanks!

Edited October 11, 2010 by superg

[imdll]

Can anyone provide doctrinal and direct documentation on whether children under the age of 8 (unbaptized children) should take the Sacrament?

I understand that Mormon was appalled that the Church in his day was performing baptisms for infants and children under the age of 8, and his reason for this is because children who have not yet reached the age of accountability are already guaranteed salvation, and therefore to assume that they require baptism is an affront to the Power of the Atonement.

Similarly, it is my opinion (I have not seen any direct doctrine to support it) that it is wrong for children who have not yet been baptized to "renew covenants" that they have not yet made (and do not need to make).

Can anyone show me revealed doctrine on the subject? (Lesson manuals, including nursery lessons, does not constitute doctrine -- I'm looking for something directly from the Prophet or an Apostle of the Lord.)

Many thanks!

I realize this is a bit older thread but this question seems to arise on a semi regular basis so likely this thread will be read by someone with similar questions.

First off, if there were an issue with young children partaking of the sacrament you can be sure the brethren would address the issue and make sure members of the church clearly understand what is appropriate. So one's first clue that this is not a problem is the lack of such an address.

It has become increasingly concerning to me how some members of the church look for issues where there are none. While I do understand a desire to be sure to be walking on the correct side of the line, so to speak, there does seem to be a need by some to constantly question and require direct confirmation on just about every possible topic. We need to keep in mind and be warey of the fact that there is a scripture about needing to be commanded in all things. The brethren really shouldn't have to repeat and repeat the same information and do so over the pulpit at General Conference in order for members to understand what the Lord desires of us. It also depends upon one's heart as to the intent in knowing more. Are we looking to truly better understand doctrine or looking for arguements and trying to stir up issues that really aren't issues at all?

While I can understand a desire for more information than simply what comes from a nursery manual etc. (facts and info have always interested me), proper respect should be given to what is published in the manuals provided by the Church as that information does "constitute doctrine". We have been counselled time and again to adhere closely to what is within the manuals provided by the church. The reason for this is because the information provided within those manuals is approved by the members of the First Presidency and therefore can be considered "doctrine." Mindless traditions with no basis in doctrine are not being promoted within the pages of manuals published by the church.

Should there ever be a time when an LDS parent knowingly teaches something to their child or others that is opposite to what is being taught in a manual published by the church? We can know we are on track by weighing things against revealed truths and known doctrine. If we are off track it is up to us to right ourselves not up to the church to get in line with our wrong thinking. It is also extraordinarily dangerous ground to promote wrong thinking.

Since more direct information has been requested I should think the following quotes will sufficiently provide the "revealed doctrine" requested. There can be no question as to where the brethren stand on the issue of children younger than eight years of age and partaking of the sacrament. President Young says it about as clearly as can be said. "Up to the age of (8) they are entitled to the sacrament." ENTITLED seems pretty cut and dry and should removes any questions on the matter.

President Brigham Young

"Children who are capable of repentance should be baptized when they reach the proper age, according to the revelations. Up to that age they are entitled to the sacrament."

(Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.2, p.289)

President Joseph Fielding Smith

"There is no reason why any member of the Church should be concerned over the fact that little children may partake of the sacrament. The most important thing is to be sure that we who are grown to full maturity keep ourselves worthy of this sacred ordinance.

(Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.2, p.90)

CHILDREN TO PARTAKE OF SACRAMENT. All little children virtually belong to the Church until they are eight years of age. Should they die before that age, they would enter the celestial kingdom. The Savior said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then why should they be deprived of the sacrament?

(Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.350)

Edited December 31, 2012 by imdll

[skalenfehl]

Moroni 8: 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

It stands to reason that as little children are whole, it is not a mockery for them to partake of the sacrament as there is no condemnation for their innocence. The only condemnation that exists is for the unrepentant to partake of it unworthily, which doing so brings condemnation to their soul.

3 Nephi 18:28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

My two cents. Incidentally, Mormon tells Moroni in chapter 8 just how harshly people will be judged for baptizing innocent children. Now that is mockery!

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

[imdll]

Not only is it not a mockery for children to partake of the sacrament, according to President Brigham Young they are "entitled". It isn't just a matter of there being no condemnation, they are entitled. That leaves me with a question of the seriousness of the act of denying them something they are "entitled" to.

Edited January 3, 2013 by imdll

[Guest]

Hmm... I thought skalenfahl agreed with you.

Edited January 4, 2013 by anatess

[imdll]

Yup she did. I have revised my post. I missread her post initially. Sorry about that, running on very little sleep the last few days. I shouldn't post when I'm firing on so few cylinders. Please remove the quote of my foolishness, I am embarassed about my unecessary rant.

Edited January 3, 2013 by imdll

[skalenfehl]

Yup she did. I have revised my post. I missread her post initially. Sorry about that, running on very little sleep the last few days. I shouldn't post when I'm firing on so few cylinders. Please remove the quote of my foolishness, I am embarassed about my unecessary rant.

*Ahem* I am a he.

[imdll]

Ok. so I have spent how much time today with my foot in my mouth? Sorry! Good grief!

[Guest]

Yup she did. I have revised my post. I missread her post initially. Sorry about that, running on very little sleep the last few days. I shouldn't post when I'm firing on so few cylinders. Please remove the quote of my foolishness, I am embarassed about my unecessary rant.

Request denied. LOL. Just kidding.

[imdll]

Anatess, I deserved that :-)

In my defence, I have been in a bit of a battle with another individual over this matter and so defending my position has become a bit of a habit as of late. That and the recent lack of sleep had me misreading skalenfehl's post.

I have seen on more than one occasion misinterpreted information growing to surreal levels and have witnessed the fall of more than one once strong member of the church. The trip to left field starts with a single step and it amazes me sometimes how willing some people are to question and twist doctrine to fit their own personal interpretation of things. Having recently witnessed this occur in two friends' families I was over sensitive to what was being discussed here. (There has been a recent rash of left field thinking among some members with young children formerly from my area. They have "thoughtfully" spread some of their backwards thinking around.) I will attempt to be more mindful of that personal sensitivity in the future and attempt to keep it in check.

[Traveler]

I am not sure why we discuss some things. For the record - I believe that if someone were to understand the sacred nature of the sacrament (note that by name is sacredness referenced) and desire to take the sacrament - I would personally not deny them their choice.

First: If they desire a good thing for taking the sacrament - I do not believe that any harm would come to anyone because of it.

Second: if they desire an evil thing in taking the sacrament - then it is only to themselves that they bring damage or damnation which is already their lot for desiring the evil thing in the first place. I would warn and advise them against such evil (which I believe to be the intent of scripture warning against taking the sacrament unworthily) but from my convictions I would not deprive a person of their “agency” to choose evil.

The Traveler

[imdll]

I am not sure why we discuss some things. For the record - I believe that if someone were to understand the sacred nature of the sacrament (note that by name is sacredness referenced) and desire to take the sacrament - I would personally not deny them their choice.

First: If they desire a good thing for taking the sacrament - I do not believe that any harm would come to anyone because of it.

Second: if they desire an evil thing in taking the sacrament - then it is only to themselves that they bring damage or damnation which is already their lot for desiring the evil thing in the first place. I would warn and advise them against such evil (which I believe to be the intent of scripture warning against taking the sacrament unworthily) but from my convictions I would not deprive a person of their “agency” to choose evil.

The Traveler

When you say "I am not sure why we discuss some things." I'm not clear about what you mean.

Since prior to the age of accountability it would be impossible for a child to partake of the sacrament unworthily, and according to President Brigham Young children are "entitled" to the sacrament, I am a bit confused by your comments about good and evil desires as the topic has been about children and the sacrament. Are you referring to young children or accountable souls?

Edited January 4, 2013 by imdll

[imdll]

I found one other quote on this topic I thought I would share.

Worshiping at Sacrament Meeting - Ensign Aug. 2004 - ensign

Worshiping at Sacrament Meeting

BY ELDER RUSSELL M. NELSON

Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Adapted from an address given at a worldwide leadership training meeting on 21 June 2003.Sacrament meetings can be planned and conducted to help us remember the Lord and His Atonement.

August 2004

Little children, as sinless beneficiaries of the Lord’s Atonement, may partake of the sacrament as they prepare for covenants that they will make later in life.

Edited September 6, 2013 by imdll

[David Thompson]

HI,

I have been trying to get some closure on this topic for quite a while without any success.

All the comments so far have ignored the Saviour's explicit commandment in 3rd Nephi 18, that if we do "more or less" than He commands (the sacrament bread is to be given to those members of His church who believe and are baptised. The wine to those members of His church who repent and are baptised) then we are not built upon His rock but on a sandy foundation and the "gates of hell" are open to recieve us.

I am sure you will agree that giving the sacrament to anyone outside of these specific parameters is "doing more" than He commands and that we bring ourselves under justifiable condemnation.

Regarding the distribution of bread and wine to the multitude, although the bread is blessed, there is no mention of a blessing on the wine (just an observation in relation to this being the sacrament)

Also, D&C 20:68-71 states that, after baptism, the member shall be taught, previous to partaking of the sacrament and that no one shall be baptised until they have reached the age of accountability and are capable of repentance.

Handbook 2 instructs bishops to allow anyone in the meeting to take the sacrament (I can find no doctrinal evidence for this practise)

Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" states that " children are entitled and encouraged to take the sacrament to prefigure the time when they enter into covenants".  Again, I can find no statement by any church authority which allows this.

I am sure that, as a church, we don't do "practise " ordinances.  Has anyone done a practise baptism? Practise endowment? Do we allow 10 or 11 year old boys to practise passing the sacrament? Are engaged couples allowed to practise being married?

In all of the manuals regarding the teachings of the Presidents of the church, there is no mention of sacrament eligibility.

We have had revelations regarding the universality of the priesthood, the lowering of age for missionaries, the changes in quorum organisation and the introdution of ministering, but I cannot find a statement fom anyone saying that the commandments relating to sacrament eligibility have been done away with.

Pplease help enlighten me, if you can.

[zil]

2 hours ago, David Thompson said:

I have been trying to get some closure on this topic for quite a while without any success.

David, I'm sorry this is such a struggle for you - mostly because I don't think you'll find an answer from the membership beyond what you've already found here.  And it seems pretty clear that our leaders haven't given any more specifics than what you've already found.  So might I suggest two things:

1) Let the Lord worry about other people's stewardships.  That is, if this is all wrong, let the Lord judge, because that's his place and not yours.  If you don't want to allow your own children to partake of the Sacrament, don't.  If you invite non-members to church with you, speak to them ahead of time about not partaking.  If you're asked to help administer the Sacrament and feel like you can't in good conscience, decline - perhaps have a chat with your bishop about this.

2) Go straight to the source.  God knows what's right and wrong.  He knows why the scriptures, handbooks, and everyone else say what they say and do what they do.  Talk with Him about your findings and thoughts.  Be willing to accept that His wishes may be contrary to your understanding (not necessarily because they are, but because if you're not willing to accept this, you may get nothing but silence).  Ask Him to give you peace first, and understanding second.

[Lost Boy]

Lost Boy doesn't care if non-members or little children partake of the sacrament.  They have not covenanted and so the sacrament holds no meaning to them.  Nor do I think they are going to hell for doing this.  There is no point in making a big deal about it.

What Lost Boy finds odd is those who use the excuse that it is preparing the kids to take the sacrament after they are baptized.  Preparing them???  What is there to prepare?  This isn't a weightlifting competition or a marathon or a BAR exam.

If the kid needs preparation to take the sacrament before baptism, my guess is the kid isn't ready for baptism....  And may not ever be mentally ready for it.  I mean most 8 year old can easily be taught to take one piece of bread and one cup of water without any preparation.

I mean, do you really think the savior cares if a kid takes the sacrament?

Edited August 24, 2018 by Lost Boy

[anatess2]

On 9/5/2010 at 11:19 PM, carlimac said:

Just a thought to ponder...I think the answers given here have been appropriate and really good. But I wonder if children and adults, too would consider taking the sacrament more significant and a privilege if we didn't give it to children till after their baptism. Catholics make a really big deal out of first communion (maybe too big a deal in some cases??) but they prepare the kids and put a huge emphasis on it as being something they do for the first time. So in their lifetime of communion taking, there is a "before" time when they weren't allowed it, then an "after" when they are old enough and prepared enough to participate... something to be cherished rather than something they have always done simply out of habit.

It's a very different thing for Catholics.  The Eucharist in the Catholic church is the LITERAL body and blood of Christ.  It's not just partaking with a communion of saints of literal bread and water.  You cannot take into yourself the body and blood of Christ until you qualify for it.  Anybody taking the body and blood of Christ while unworthy puts their souls in peril.

In addition, once the wafer and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, it can only be stored in the sacristy.  If there is no sacristy then they have to be eaten/drunk.  They can't be put in a bag, in a tupperware and let sit on a table etc. etc.  It is a very important sacred thing for Catholics.

Edited August 24, 2018 by anatess2