Sacrament rules

[Vort]

It's false in the sense that the Church isn't willing to take a stance on the issue.

How does this make it false? (Serious question.)

But, I also don't care as much about the ritualistic aspects of our faith as others do, so my approach won't work for anyone who puts more stress on the ritualism.

I think "ritualistic" is not really what people like me are getting at. Rather, there is the underlying idea of what gives meaning to something.

If I say "I love fish", that probably doesn't mean the same thing as "I love God". If I say "As you wish", that probably doesn't mean "I love you". In many cases, such as The Princess Bride, such alternative or nonstandard interpretations are perfectly fine. Maybe they even add variety and beauty to our lives.

But when we are conversing with God, and more specifically when we are engaging in covenant conversations with him, I believe the communications demand wording as precise as reasonably possible. Obviously, the things of God cannot be adequately communicated with words alone, which is why we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost. But the words are still important -- not because they are ritualistically magical, but because they fulfill the necessary communication. That communication is conveyed through word, action, and the Spirit, and all those elements must be present, or else the communication has not taken place.

Can we baptize someone with authority simply by saying, "Okay, I baptize you"? No. Certain words must be spoken. It's not ritualistic magic; we translate those covenant words into other languages, and they work just as well. Rather, it is a part of the communication, without which the covenant has not been made.

So it is with the sacrament, in my view. Preparing ourselves for the sacrament involves many things, and includes participating with the congregation and the priests in prayer. If we do not participate in the prayer, then we have not prepared ourselves to receive the ordinance, just as we cannot walk into an endowment ceremony halfway through without receiving our washings and anointings first and expect to receive our endowment.

So should people in such a situation partake of the sacrament? As you note, the Church has no policy on this matter. I see no explicit harm in partaking of it, though the partaker should realize that he is not fulfilling either the letter or the spirit of the law of the sacrament. Because of this, it is my opinion that it is useless to take the sacrament in such a situation. In fact, it is potentially harmful in that it might tend to reduce (in our minds) the sacrament to eating some bread and drinking some water.

But if you or anyone else wants to take the sacrament without having been present for the prayer and/or take the water after having missed the bread, I will neither harangue you nor even stay up late worrying about it. I don't claim my understanding of things as The Ultimate Truth, and even if I am right, I don't see that everyone else needs to adopt my view of the matter right now.

[The Folk Prophet]

If I say "As you wish", that probably doesn't mean "I love you".

Fascinating. I don't mean to thread hijack too much with this, but thought it interesting enough to respond. From a certain point of view, this is precisely what the Lord taught us the meaning of loving actually is. As in, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

I know that's off topic, and not even really your point. And I don't mean to throw a wrench into the point that you are trying to make (there is specific meaning behind ritual that makes it important). Moreover, obedience to someone, now that I think it through, does not, actually mean you love them, as in, "if you love me, keep my commandments" does not mean "if you keep my commandments, you love me" -- so you're actually exactly correct. Hmm. Which makes my entire post useless... ...but I've already typed it out, so....

[mactechnm]

That's just plain crazy! Where exactly in the handbook is that? (That you must be there for the bread or you can't partake of the water). Church members sure love to make up their own rules.

[The Folk Prophet]

That's just plain crazy! Where exactly in the handbook is that? (That you must be there for the bread or you can't partake of the water). Church members sure love to make up their own rules.

I'm pretty sure (didn't go back and re-read everything) that no one said it was a rule.

There is a general rule, however, that applies to pretty much everything. It's called common sense. Unfortunately it's fairly divergent what some people think is "common" and what some people think is "sense".

[EarlJibbs]

That's just plain crazy! Where exactly in the handbook is that? (That you must be there for the bread or you can't partake of the water). Church members sure love to make up their own rules.

Of course, if it doesn't say it in the hand book, anything must be okay right? I agree that members love to make up their own rules... but I do not share your negative outlook on it. Since the church certainly doesn't place them [everything we can/cannot do] all in the handbook what choice do we have but to make educated, spiritually guided rules?

In this case, I think it was well within the family members right to teach their children this lesson. You may feel differently in your family, and that is okay also.

[Vort]

That's just plain crazy! Where exactly in the handbook is that? (That you must be there for the bread or you can't partake of the water).

Generally speaking, it's a good idea not to make such a comment on a thread you haven't yet bothered to read.