Return to Church Guidelines


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

does it say in the scriptures that a man cannot give the sacrament to his family?

A man of himself is not authorized to give the sacrament to his family or anyone else. That authorization comes from him who holds the keys, in this case the bishop. Same with baptism or ordaining to a Priesthood office; if the proper authorization is lacking, then the ordinance, even if performed, is of no force or validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, person0 said:

I want them to be safe too.  Even if we open church back up, it may be best to invite our older members to remain at home for a while, unless they choose to accept the risk.  I don't want people to get sick, I would just rather continue to have our private sacrament meeting and primary class that we have been having at home each Sunday than to return to Church with stringent requirements.

I understand bud. 

I posted on my Facebook yesterday that I feel sorry for business owners. If they force people to wear a mask, people won't go to that store because, "Hey man no one tells me what to do." If they don't enforce masks, no one will go because they'll feel unsafe. So they are in a lose-lose situation. 

The church leadership also can't please everyone with this issue. I get the feeling that a ton of people are going to stay home, even if the church reopens. And I can't blame them, really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

A man of himself is not authorized to give the sacrament to his family or anyone else. That authorization comes from him who holds the keys, in this case the bishop. Same with baptism or ordaining to a Priesthood office; if the proper authorization is lacking, then the ordinance, even if performed, is of no force or validity.

I'm just asking where it says this in the scriptures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I'm just asking where it says this in the scriptures?

D&C 107:65-67:

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.
67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

But it really shouldn’t take a scripture to make that clear.  The whole reason the restoration was necessary, was that the priesthood authority enjoyed by the primitive church was gone.  If priesthood holders had the independent authority to go around doing ordinances all willy-nilly without the approval of a keyholder, then those of the primitive church simply would have passed their priesthood on to the next generation, God would have honored those ordinations, and we’d all be Catholics today.

But that’s not what happened.  Legitimate priesthood authority died out—not because every. single. ordained priesthood holder died simultaneously, but because the priesthood keyholders whose say-so was needed in order to do additional ordinations, disappeared.   

To suggest that Russell Nelson can’t instruct priesthood holders *not* to administer the sacrament (or any other rite) in their own home, is to say that a) the entire restoration was unnecessary, and/or b) Nelson is a mere pretender to the scriptural title of “presiding high priest”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 107:65-67:

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.
67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

But it really shouldn’t take a scripture to make that clear.  The whole reason the restoration was necessary, was that the priesthood authority enjoyed by the primitive church was gone.  If priesthood holders had the independent authority to go around doing ordinances all willy-nilly without the approval of a keyholder, then they simply would have passed their priesthood on to the next generation, God would have honored those ordinations, and we’d all be Catholics today.

To suggest that Russel Nelson can’t instruct priesthood holders *not* to administer the sacrament (or any other rite) in their own home, is to say that a) the entire restoration was unnecessary, and/or b) Nelson is a mere pretender to the scriptural title of “presiding high priest”.

Why do you assume I am trying to make some point, I just wanted the scripture. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 107:65-67:

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.
67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

But it really shouldn’t take a scripture to make that clear.  The whole reason the restoration was necessary, was that the priesthood authority enjoyed by the primitive church was gone.  If priesthood holders had the independent authority to go around doing ordinances all willy-nilly without the approval of a keyholder, then those of the primitive church simply would have passed their priesthood on to the next generation, God would have honored those ordinations, and we’d all be Catholics today.

But that’s not what happened.  Legitimate priesthood authority died out—not because every. single. ordained priesthood holder died simultaneously, but because the priesthood keyholders whose say-so was needed in order to do additional ordinations, disappeared.   

To suggest that Russell Nelson can’t instruct priesthood holders *not* to administer the sacrament (or any other rite) in their own home, is to say that a) the entire restoration was unnecessary, and/or b) Nelson is a mere pretender to the scriptural title of “presiding high priest”.

I'm probably saying the same thing you just said, but I'm clarifying how I understand it. 

The verse you stated covers the Stake President and the keys thereof, but many of the priesthood ordinances and items were done WITHOUT authorization (and still are, for example, dedication of homes, blessings of healing, father's blessings, etc).  Furthermore, the local leaders were not the ones that were killed off necessarily in the past (Bishops seemed to have survived, and they were the ones that authorize the sacrament today).  Historically speaking, though this differs from the church (and I have been quite vocal that I cannot back my religious views with my beliefs on many occasions, so something to consider on this) in that there was NO limitation on those who held the priesthood administering communion (or what we call the sacrament) from any records we have found.  If they held the Priesthood, they were allowed to administer the communion/sacrament/last supper/whatever phrase they use to describe it. 

There are still Priesthood Keys from the Melchezidek Priesthood, or what we understand them to be, which would still be limited and these that died out.  Such items as Authorizing the admittance of members into a specific church (which we now do through Baptism in our church though we would call the process more confirmation and the gift of the Holy Ghost today) had to be done by certain individuals with keys.  However, the BIG keys (as, a Bishop of Rome or another city would theoretically, if they were a Bishop and Bishops were the same in Paul's time as ours, would still have the keys to administer the sacrament initially) such as sealing, temple work, and the higher ordinances would have been impossible to do after the Apostles died (were killed off). 

The Bishops still remained alive, and at least temporarily, they would hold the keys over their specific wards.  It was the apostles that died off, and under them many of the important keys died with them or made it impossible to pass on other keys (it's a chain reaction you could say, after the apostle dies, it is hard to pass down the keys they hold onto others, including the High Priest of the High Priesthood.  If the High Priest does not attain the keys of administration, he cannot thus pass down keys to those under him).

The verse you list does not specify which ordinances or blessings to the degree of which we limit them today.  Thus, I would say it is unclear overall on whether this actually limits someone from blessing the sacrament in their home if they have the right priesthood.  There are other items they can do (the aforementioned dedication of homes, etc) without authorization, which makes it less clear on what specifics are in this order as per the D&C.

In my understanding...

Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes (and this is actually a relatively NEW development, even in the church in being this specific in policy in regards to this) unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because it is a directive of the Church currently.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes (and this is actually a relatively NEW development, even in the church in being this specific in policy in regards to this) unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because it is a directive of the Church currently.

Which is another way of saying those with the keys say this is how it works. The priesthood is always and only exercised under the authority of priesthood keys. Some things just require special permission while others are authorized at the time of preisthood ordination but it's always done under the authority of priesthood keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm probably saying the same thing you just said, but I'm clarifying how I understand it. 

The verse you stated covers the Stake President and the keys thereof, but many of the priesthood ordinances and items were done WITHOUT authorization (and still are, for example, dedication of homes, blessings of healing, father's blessings, etc).  Furthermore, the local leaders were not the ones that were killed off necessarily in the past (Bishops seemed to have survived, and they were the ones that authorize the sacrament today).  Historically speaking, though this differs from the church (and I have been quite vocal that I cannot back my religious views with my beliefs on many occasions, so something to consider on this) in that there was NO limitation on those who held the priesthood administering communion (or what we call the sacrament) from any records we have found.  If they held the Priesthood, they were allowed to administer the communion/sacrament/last supper/whatever phrase they use to describe it. 

There are still Priesthood Keys from the Melchezidek Priesthood, or what we understand them to be, which would still be limited and these that died out.  Such items as Authorizing the admittance of members into a specific church (which we now do through Baptism in our church though we would call the process more confirmation and the gift of the Holy Ghost today) had to be done by certain individuals with keys.  However, the BIG keys (as, a Bishop of Rome or another city would theoretically, if they were a Bishop and Bishops were the same in Paul's time as ours, would still have the keys to administer the sacrament initially) such as sealing, temple work, and the higher ordinances would have been impossible to do after the Apostles died (were killed off). 

The Bishops still remained alive, and at least temporarily, they would hold the keys over their specific wards.  It was the apostles that died off, and under them many of the important keys died with them or made it impossible to pass on other keys (it's a chain reaction you could say, after the apostle dies, it is hard to pass down the keys they hold onto others, including the High Priest of the High Priesthood.  If the High Priest does not attain the keys of administration, he cannot thus pass down keys to those under him).

The verse you list does not specify which ordinances or blessings to the degree of which we limit them today.  Thus, I would say it is unclear overall on whether this actually limits someone from blessing the sacrament in their home if they have the right priesthood.  There are other items they can do (the aforementioned dedication of homes, etc) without authorization, which makes it less clear on what specifics are in this order as per the D&C.

In my understanding...

Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes (and this is actually a relatively NEW development, even in the church in being this specific in policy in regards to this) unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because it is a directive of the Church currently.

If I’m reading you right, I don’t think we’re really that far apart—that the authority to perform ordinances ultimately derived from the priesthood key holders and that they have full authority to delineate boundaries to the way a man exercises his priesthood.  I do have a couple observations/responses:

1). From what do you derive the idea that the verses I cite apply to stake presidents and not the First Presidency/presiding high priest of the church?  That part of Section 107 dates to 1831, three years before the first stake was organized.  Church Handbook 3.4.1.1 cites that scripture, among others, for the proposition that 

Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood. Under His direction, priesthood keys are given to men to use in specific callings for accomplishing God’s work, as explained below.
The Lord has conferred on each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all of those priesthood keys.

2.  I agree that in the primitive church, a bishop could keep his congregation going as long as he lived and ordain new priesthood holders, supervise new baptisms, etc.  But he could not independently pick a successor.  Which means that in the absence of church-wide key holders, the life of church rituals = the life of the church’s current corps of bishops, plus the lifespan of all the people who received priesthood ordinations under those bishops’ hands—and then it ends.

3.  While it is correct to say that in the early days of the restoration there was not such a clear organization of wards/quorums/geographical boundaries/hierarchies, priesthood holders were still given certificates of authority by the general church and the Church’s governing councils absolutely reserved the right to govern, restrict, or completely remove a man’s right to use his priesthood.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes (and this is actually a relatively NEW development, even in the church in being this specific in policy in regards to this) unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because it is a directive of the Church currently.

In other words: Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because the bishop, not us, holds the keys to this ordinance.

That is correct.

By extension, if we held the keys to this ordinance, then we could perform the sacrament in our homes without securing special permission.

But we don't. That is not new in Church history; those keys have always rested with the leadership. You can make a strong argument that the reason they're the leadership precisely because they hold the keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vort said:

In other words: Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because the bishop, not us, holds the keys to this ordinance.

That is correct.

By extension, if we held the keys to this ordinance, then we could perform the sacrament in our homes without securing special permission.

But we don't. That is not new in Church history; those keys have always rested with the leadership. You can make a strong argument that the reason they're the leadership precisely because they hold the keys.

Yes...almost. 

It is more because it is done under the Direction of the First Presidency on how to do things rather than them just having keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Originally, there was not much order in how it was performed with many having it done much like it was in other churches with Eucharist or communion.  Even as late as the 1890s there is some indication that at times it was treated as a meal just as much as it was a ceremonial ordinance.  It generally was performed by Older members rather than the young men. 

In the 20th century a bit more uniformity was created to make it alike in most congregations.  We also see the usage of young men being incorporated into it's blessing and passing.  This increasing uniformity continued throughout the 20th century until it is more akin to what we've see today. 

The reasons are not exactly spelled out in the scriptures today.  We have inference and thoughts, but these have evolved in how we utilize and process them since the early days of the church to the present.

They are clarified in usage via various dictations and policies which have come out through the years on how it should be done, authorized, and performed.

Via POLICY and DIRECTIVES, though they may have in the past (when I first joined the church, at least in the several areas I was a member in, one did not always need the Bishop to sign off on having a sacrament weekly or event to event, they could okay it much like it has been given to them these past few months to give a blanket authorization to have the sacrament, and it was not uncommon for those who were away from their wards in another area to be given the okay by their bishop to have the sacrament without the local bishop of the area they were in to have to also sign off on it), I do not think just having the keys to this ordinance would be something we could do today without securing special permission.

We do not naturally have the legal rights to the Aaronic Priesthood (section 107), these would be the right of the Levites.  In theory, they have the keys as their heritage.  This also hearkens to an explanation of WHY we need the Bishop to preside today, because no one except for those of the Levite tribe have the legal right to it.  However, (again, section 107) as the Aaronic Priesthood is the lower priesthood, all rights, responsibilities, authorities, and otherwise are appendages of the Higher Priesthood, the Elder (and High Priest) have the authority to officiate in all the lesser offices and thus may also act as a Bishop.  This means that a natural levite would also have they keys.

However, due to how we interpret section 107 verses 8, 9 & 10, we arrive at the reason WHY we operate under policy and directives and why, just having the keys to do something may not actually give one the RIGHT to perform said ordinances.  As per that...

Quote

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

9 The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

Thus, even with the keys, even if they have them as a Levite, I still needs to be done under the direction of the First Presidency (or the Presidency of the High Priesthood).

In this way, they can actually even override a Bishop or Stake President in what they wish if they have directives that state otherwise (which also includes the administration of the sacrament or other ordinances as per their statements and directions, which in many cases are seen as policies they come out with). 

This is why things have changed in many ways over the past centuries.  It is in accordance with scripture, but in absence of direction, they can direct as the spirit directs (or, really, even as they want as long as they are in agreement and the church as a whole continues in agreement).  This is why when I was younger it probably seemed as if it was easier for those who wished to administer the sacrament (for example, let's say on a family camping trip to the wilderness for a month long excursion, or, in another where young soldiers going to Vietnam were given the authority to actually bless their sacrament on their own which is FAR more rare today to give to soldiers, even those going on deployments to Afghanistan or other places) than it is today.  Directives change, but it I still in accordance with that prescribed, or the authority granted to the First Presidency to do so as per the Scriptures. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If I’m reading you right, I don’t think we’re really that far apart—that the authority to perform ordinances ultimately derived from the priesthood key holders and that they have full authority to delineate boundaries to the way a man exercises his priesthood.  I do have a couple observations/responses:

1). From what do you derive the idea that the verses I cite apply to stake presidents and not the First Presidency/presiding high priest of the church?  That part of Section 107 dates to 1831, three years before the first stake was organized.  Church Handbook 3.4.1.1 cites that scripture, among others, for the proposition that 

Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood. Under His direction, priesthood keys are given to men to use in specific callings for accomplishing God’s work, as explained below.
The Lord has conferred on each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all of those priesthood keys.

2.  I agree that in the primitive church, a bishop could keep his congregation going as long as he lived and ordain new priesthood holders, supervise new baptisms, etc.  But he could not independently pick a successor.  Which means that in the absence of church-wide key holders, the life of church rituals = the life of the church’s current corps of bishops, plus the lifespan of all the people who received priesthood ordinations under those bishops’ hands—and then it ends.

3.  While it is correct to say that in the early days of the restoration there was not such a clear organization of wards/quorums/geographical boundaries/hierarchies, priesthood holders were still given certificates of authority by the general church and the Church’s governing councils absolutely reserved the right to govern, restrict, or completely remove a man’s right to use his priesthood.

1.  Actually, I'd say they DO apply more directly to the First Presidency/presiding High Priest of the church.  At the time, they specifically were referring to them most likely.  I say Stake President today because that is the lowest level of delegation in regards to the High Priesthood and a presidency today (A Bishop, though a High Priest, is still under the authority of the High Priesthood and it's Presidency, which ultimately, as you note, IS the First Presidency).  The Stake President is the Presiding High Priest of the Stake, which is why I said the verses would apply to him (A Bishop is over temporal matters, the Aaronic Priesthood and has the keys, but though could be considered a Presiding High Priest as he is over a ward, is not a Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood...as I understand it).

To be clear though, I absolutely agree it applies also to the First Presidency (as well as the other verses I mentioned in 107 above) and in many ways is more focused on them and their directives.

2.  Absolutely.  It was more of a chain reaction, which started at the top and worked it way down.  Depending on what was authorized and given by Peter at the time, we are not sure how far along it went.  Ultimately, that chain reaction reached the lowest levels and the Priesthood was extinguished from practice in an authorized way from the Earth.

3.  I agree. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vort said:

In other words: Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because the bishop, not us, holds the keys to this ordinance.

Then why does our Bishop keep saying that the Stake President has authorized it? I thought holding the keys meant that the Bishop can act independent from the SP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Then why does our Bishop keep saying that the Stake President has authorized it? I thought holding the keys meant that the Bishop can act independent from the SP?

The Bishop holds the keys for his ward and is authorized to act as he sees fit via revelation, but the Stake President has keys for the whole Stake including the Bishop's ward. His direction can and does supercede the Bishop's authority when necessary. And it goes all the way up the chain. The Prophet holds the keys for the whole church. If President Nelson said no further Sacrament is to be administered until I say otherwise, all priesthood holders no matter what keys they hold, would be bound by that statement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Then why does our Bishop keep saying that the Stake President has authorized it? I thought holding the keys meant that the Bishop can act independent from the SP?

When someone is given priesthood keys (the bishop in this case) the person giving those keys (the SP) does not relinquish those authorities. Also, what we have experienced recently wasn't some isolated circumstance that local bishops had to make a decision on. It was actually a temporary policy change that came down from the prophet through the priesthood chain of command. It was the SP responsibility to see that it was implemented in the stake by the bishops. So really it was the prophet that authorized it but the SP was responsible in seeing it carried out.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Then why does our Bishop keep saying that the Stake President has authorized it? I thought holding the keys meant that the Bishop can act independent from the SP?

What the other two have already said is true.  I will state what the dynamic is in our stake and it may give you a better feel for what is really going on.

  • Pres. Nelson gives guidelines for stakes to administer the sacrament to people at home.
  • The Stake Pres. then decides how that guidance will fit best with the stake's attributes: geography, personnel, activity rate, relative numbers of active priesthood holders, etc.
  • The bishop then provides the house-to-house plan by making individual assignments of which families will have them administered to, and which families will self-administer.
  • The Elders' Quorum then calls various brethren and decides which active priesthood holders will administer to the houses without sufficient priesthood in the home.

It goes from general to more and more detailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/20/2020 at 8:42 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Theologically, the ONLY reason we do not have the ability to administer the sacrament in homes (and this is actually a relatively NEW development, even in the church in being this specific in policy in regards to this) unless authorized by the Bishop over the area/ward is because it is a directive of the Church currently.

As I recall, this change was official in the early to mid 80s.  I don't remember the exact year.  But I remember that when my family went on vacations where finding a local ward or branch couldn't easily be done, we would have the sacrament in the hotel or cabin where we were staying.  I do remember clearly as late as 1982 or '83 that we were still allowed to do it without any special permission. 

But somewhat after that vacation, the Church made the announcement that this was no longer allowed because too many people were abusing this privilege and using it as an excuse to hold their own sacrament meetings with family and ignoring the rest of the ward entirely.  This kind of defeated the purpose of having a church at all.  So, they recinded that blanket permission.  My parents were converts.  And even after 20 years of membership, they didn't understand some concepts such as keys vs. authority.  But we abided by the counsel we were given.  So, it was a new concept to them.

Fast forward many years.  Around 2004 or 2005 we were on vacation. And we had about 40 people in various rooms of a hotel.  It was in the mountains.  A snow storm came in.  It dumped about 3 ft of snow in one night.  We called the bishop of the local branch and told him our situation.  We asked his permission to hold our own sacrament meeting at the hotel.  He granted it due to extenuating circumstances.

We had a fast and testimony meeting.  We had limited space for cups.  We only had full sized cups.  So, we agreed to share one cup per household.  It was a nice meeting.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we've just been told that we are going to stagger church meetings.  Half the ward per week.  No more than 50.  I think we have about 100 people (slightly less) in the ward.  So, two groups works out well.  Except...

Priesthood is required for ordinances.  Since the Aaronic priesthood is kind of concentrated in certain families, mostly in my family (my youth make up about 20% of the ward's youth and about 50% of the Aaronic Priesthood).  So, if my family goes one week and all the other youth families go the other week, there is a huge disparity in the attendance especially when seeing how the YW volume do not line up with the YM volume.  We're still not going to be able to socialize and welcome each other and feel each others' spirits.

Then what about the leadership?  The bishopric and EQ and RS leaders need to be there all the time.  That duplicates our attendance on some level.  Will we still be able to get two groups of 50 or less per week?  There is a counterbalance because some households don't feel comfortable coming back yet.  They have people in high risk groups.

So, reintegration is not as simple as flicking on a light switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We're still not going to be able to socialize 

I have some high risk friends and we've been able to socialize via Zoom. Do you think your ward could try that? Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2020 at 11:47 AM, mirkwood said:

Guns scare me.  So do masks.  People with guns and masks really scare me.

That's why you can't implement a mandatory mask order in Florida... because it is illegal to conceal carry and wear a mask...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No back to church change in our ward.  We're still doing sacrament meetings at home for those authorized.  But the missionaries are now allowed to visit people but not inside their homes... outdoors is okay.  We've been having our sacrament meetings with the missionaries and some investigators and new members and some return missionaries that have taught these investigators and new members via video conference for about.... hmm, 2 months now?  So, the missionaries are going to ask permission from their Mission President if we can hold our sacrament meeting in our backyard next week.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The one thing I do not like about having the sacrament service in my home - it does not seem like service. 

 

The Traveler

Oh, it is very much a service.  My son prepares and blesses the sacrament, I plan and conduct the hymns, my husband presides and conducts the meeting.  We rotate talks between the 3 of us and the 2 missionaries... all in the service of our God and fellowmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share