What Does the Sacrament Prayer Really Say: Not What We Often Teach

[quote="squarepeg"]The Sacrament Prayer says that we will always have His spirit to be with us if we take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Maybe that's an easy one to write off as impossible since I definitely don't remember Him always. Sometimes I'm just thinking about something else and not of Him, because if I thought of Him all the time, I couldn't focus to help my kids with their math, couldn't get through the grocery checkout, couldn't make phone calls to the health insurance company about confusing bills, etc. And I break commandments all the time, every day, in spite of my best efforts to keep them. I also developed an allergy to wheat and can't take the Sacrament bread at all anymore. But I actually don't know of anyone who can keep the promises we make when we take the Sacrament, so maybe none of us is entitled to the attached blessings, either?[/quote]

Is that really what the prayers say? Are there "ifs" in there? I read it like this (emphasis added):

We usually talk about the Sacrament prayer as an if/then statement. For example, with regard to the bread:

IF we remember Jesus' body - and IF we are willing to take his name upon us - and IF we always remember him - and IF we keep his commandments - THEN we will always have his Spirit to be with us.

However, that is not what the words actually say, in and of themselves.

Here is the prayer in its entirety, with some holding for emphasis:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it,

- that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father,
- that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son,
- (that they) always remember him
- and (that they) keep his commandments which he has given them;
- that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

We make NO promises in those words, and neither does the priest. The  priest asks God to bless the bread (or water as the case may be, recognizing the wording is slightly different but essentially the same) to ALL THOSE who partake of it (no worthiness standard implied) that four things we are willing to do and receive will happen: 

1) we eat in remembrance of the body (or blood) of the Son;
2) we are willing to take the name of the Son;
3) we always remember him;
4) we may have the Spirit to be with us.

Again, nowhere do those partaking promise to do anything; rather, the priest asks the Father to bless everyone who partakes with a special blessing because of what they are willing to do - regardless of whether or not they do this even things.

I know that is not the view of the mainstream, but it is a literal interpretation of the words themselves.

The Sacrament: Honoring the Literal or Metaphor through Symbol

In a Gospel Principles lesson recently, I mentioned the Catholic idea of trans-substantiation, wherein the people literally ingest the body and blood of Christ. I said I know we view the sacrament symbolically but that the idea of "partaking of Christ" in a way that changes us is powerful and beautiful.

In that light, I love the idea of the sacrament table as Jesus' self-sacrificial altar (and as his final step in the process of perfection - "It is finished.") and the congregation as partakers in that sacrifice and similar pathwaybtonperfection - even though that image is grossly archaic and barbaric to our modern society. It's okay for me, specifically because I view the Garden and Golgatha suffering as representatively symbolic to begin with, so extending the former literal or metaphorical to a current simile doesn't bother me.

I can honor the literal view while not adopting it myself.

An Indescribably Powerful Post about Saying the Sacrament Prayer

Ninety one words - Wilfried Decoo (Times & Seasons) 

The Sacrament Is Not Just about Me; It Is about Us

Thoughts on the sacrament, part 2: The meal and the garden - Aaron R. (By Common Consent)

The final two paragraphs are especially meaningful and profound. 

God Will Reveal Himself to Us in the People around Us

Thoughts on the sacrament, part I: The road to Emmaus - Aaron R. (By Common Consent)

Inclusion vs. Exclusion: Some Things Make Me Want to Scream

I have a friend who told me recently that her Bishop has decided that anyone who is not in the chapel during the administration of the sacrament will not have the sacrament taken to them - that the sacrament will be passed only to people who are in the chapel. 

Some. Things. Make. Me. Want. to. Scream!

My rule for all interaction with anyone is to choose, consciously, to err on the side of charity and inclusion and not on the side of judging and exclusion.  I know I will make mistakes in how I interact with people (and that I will fail to follow my own rule on occasion), and I know others will do the same.  I know that others will make mistakes in how they interact with me.  I accept the simple fact that none of us are infallible - that all will "come short of the glory of God" in this life, and that social, interpersonal relationships are a prime example of how we all fall short.  

However, I also believe deeply that tenderness always is a better reaction than harshness - even when harshness is warranted and even, ultimately, unavoidable.  I believe strongly that it is better - much better - to include rather than exclude.  Sometimes, exclusion becomes necessary - but I believe we tend to exclude too quickly.  I believe that excluding reflexively, broadly and/or collectively, instead of carefully, thoughtfully and/or individually is a natural (wo)man tendency and flat-out wrong - and it is contrary to everything I understand about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Generally, I can see reasons why Bishops and other church leaders might make decisions with which I personally don't agree, and, generally, I can support those leaders even when I disagree with their decisions.  However, denying the sacrament to someone who has made the effort to attend church but is not sitting in the chapel crosses a line that I cannot accept or support.  Not only is it in direct opposition to the standard practice throughout the LDS Church, but it simply is wrong at the most basic, fundamental level. 

I hope my friend's Bishop, who probably is a good, sincere person trying to do the best he can, recognizes the error of his decision and changes this particular decision - and I hope others do not make the same mistake. 

I Like Wearing White Shirts to Administer the Sacrament, but Not "The Uniform of the Priesthood"

I LOVE the idea of making the sacrament more tied to baptism in a visual way, so I have no problem with the desire to have the young men who administer the sacrament dress in white (and only a shirt is less restrictive than fully white attire). I have a friend who used to think that there was no doctrinal basis for asking those who administer the sacrament to wear a white shirt, but she understood better when I referenced the General Conference talk in which that advice was given and talked a bit about the intended symbolism from that talk.

The doctrinal basis is obvious to anyone who accepts the possibility of continuing revelation, changing symbolism and/or apostolic/leadership authority to make a doctrinal basis for new practices. The case of requesting white shirts be worn in the administration of the sacrament is far less radical a change than going from circumcision to baptism as a sign of accepting God and joining "his people".  People might not agree with the doctrinal basis for a practice, but there absolutely is one - and a very solid one in the case of white shirts and the sacrament.

Having said all of that, I really dislike the idea that there is a "uniform of the Priesthood". I believe linking the sacrament and baptism through visual symbolism is awesome; extending and distorting that link by applying it to everything imaginable (even simple church attendance) is planting so many hedges that the principle gets obscured completely - and, given how few members even remember the apostolic injunction against extending it to other things and not making it mandatory even for the sacrament, I would argue the "uniform of the Priesthood" angle actually has killed the original beauty of the General Conference explanation of why white shirts should be worn to administer the sacrament. For too many members, it has become about the shirt instead of the symbolic union of ordinances.

As I said in my response to Anonymous' comment below, I believe we have taken it to such an extreme that we have lost, almost completely, the deep meaning of wearing white for specific things - like *changing* into white for temple ordinances and baptism and wearing white to administer the sacrament.  Putting on ("donning") white for those particular things adds symbolic meaning; wearing white all the time for everything church-related lessens that meaning, sometimes to the point of obscuring it completely.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: When Ordinances Become "Communal" and Their Real Power Is Manifest

Last Sunday was the final week to discuss "Ordinances and Covenants", so I borrowed a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2 - intending to highlight some of the ordinances we hadn't discussed previously and the general policies surrounding performing ordinances. (Section 20) It didn't go fully according to my plan; it turned out to be a much better discussion than I could have imagined.

I started by revisiting the foundational concepts we had discussed in the first lesson this month:

1) Ordinances are actions we perform to convey a specific meaning or message. They are symbolic and have NO power whatsoever except what we give to them. For example, if baptism was about immersion in water only, we could have people jump into a pool and call it baptism - or we could eat some cake and drink some fruit punch in the cultural hall and call it the sacrament.

2) Covenants are the actual meaning of the ordinances - meaning the power and purpose of ordinances is wrapped up in what they motivate us to promise to do and then actually do. Again, without covenants, there is no power whatsoever in ordinances - since it's not performing them that is the key but rather what we choose to become as a result of participating in them.

I then explained what I had in mind, held up the handbook and asked how many of them knew that the handbook was available to all of them online. I shouldn't have been surprised due to their ages, but most of them (whose parents almost all have prominent callings in the ward) didn't know there was a handbook that contained the official church policies and general counsel. Due to that, I took a few minutes to read through the section titles and go through how to access the handbooks online - step-by-step, so they could do so anytime the wanted.

From 20.1 (General Instructions), I showed them the part about saving ordinances needing authorization from the person who holds the keys to the performance of that ordinance (the person who is authorized to control, direct and oversee it), then we read the general format of all ordinances:

1. It should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.
3. It should be performed with any necessary procedures, such as using specified words or using consecrated oil.
4. It should be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys (normally the bishop or stake president), if necessary according to the instructions in this chapter.

I modeled what something like a baby blessing would sound like if only the minimum requirements were included ("Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the priesthood, I give his child the name of Jane Doe" - perhaps with an additional, "and bless her with everything you desire to give her. Amen.") - and stressed that such a blessing would be every bit as meaningful as one that lasted for 15 minutes. We discussed the danger of allowing blessings to become about us and our oratory skills. I told them about my varying experiences with blessings - how I have participated in hundreds of blessings throughout my life, with only a handful where I can say, without doubt, that I spoke revelation directly from God. I explained that even though I couldn't say that about the other hundreds, I was glad I had participated in them in order to experience the overpowering ones.

We talked about what kind of ordinances require exact wording (e.g., baptism, the sacrament, temple ordinances, etc.) and which ones don't (e.g., all blessings, confirmation after baptism, etc.). We talked about what is necessary for someone in one ward or branch to perform an ordinance in a different location (approval from the leader in that other location) and how that decision might be made (a letter from the other Bishop, a phone call, an active temple recommend - although that last one might not be accurate, if someone had sinned egregiously after receiving it, etc.). We then read 20.1.3 about that situation, and I pointed out the use of "should" - as opposed to "must". I told them we would revisit that issue at the end of the lesson.

From 20.1.1 (Participation in Ordinances and Blessings) and 20.1.2 (Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing), we talked about ordinances that require a current temple recommend and the Melchizedek Priesthood (primarily the "saving ordinances") and the difference between being the voice in an ordinance (representing the church leadership) and simply participating (less strict standards, with more discretion given to the local leader). We also discussed how baptism does NOT require either the Melchizedek Priesthood or a current temple recommend, even though it is considered a saving ordinance - which means there are a LOT of fathers who may perform that ordinance for their children who might assume they can't. I told them that I hope when they are leaders of any kind that they are mindful of such situations and allow fathers to do so as much as possible.

I mentioned that, as I read the handbook, I am struck by how many policies and how much counsel HAD to have been the result of members doing really stupid things. I mentioned how much smaller the current version is than in the past, but, even now, I envision the leadership sitting down to discuss the handbook and saying:

You're kidding me! They did WHAT?! Ah, crap, now we're going to have to write a policy and give counsel about that.

At this point, the lesson took a different turn than I had expected. We read the following:

Those who participate are usually limited to a few, including priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers. Inviting large numbers of family, friends, and leaders to assist in an ordinance or blessing is discouraged. When too many participate, it can become cumbersome and detract from the spirit of the ordinance. Those who perform an ordinance and those who preside are the only ones required. Others provide support and sustain the spokesman.

I asked the students why the policy is usually to limit those who participate in ordinances to "a few" people. They were a bit stumped by that, so I asked them what would happen if a large family, with lots of adult relatives (like mine), wanted to have all of those people (say 35) help bless a baby. (I used an extreme to make the point obvious.) I gave them a visual illustration of how each person would have to stand in order for all of them to reach the baby - and we spent a few minutes laughing at the possibilities. When we had stopped laughing, I pointed out that what had just happened in our classroom (laughing at the visual image) is precisely why the policy is in place - along with the desire to not have ordinances become a contest to see who has "the most righteous" posterity / family or create concern about overlooking anyone and having people be upset that they weren't asked to participate.

Somehow, that discussion led to a different discussion about what happens when an entire congregation becomes invested in an ordinance and it becomes more than an individual experience and more of a true community (group unity) event. I shared the gist of one of my favorite blog posts ever, "Ninety One Words" - about a young man with a severe stutter being asked to say the sacrament prayer. I described how, by the end of the prayer, the entire congregation was mouthing the words silently - praying for the young man to have or receive the strength he needed to get through it. I explained how the sacrament had never meant more to that congregation, since they were united in support of someone else and were inspired to consider the words themselves more carefully and deeply than had happened previously in their lives. (Please read the post. It is stunning.)

The story really touched the students, and one of them shared an experience he had witnessed in his previous ward, prior to moving to our ward. He said the missionaries had been referred to and started teaching a man who was in the hospital being treated for the effects of being severely overweight - somewhere over 500 pounds. He accepted the message and asked to be baptized, but he couldn't fit in the church's font - so the Bishop arranged to perform the ordinance at a pool in the community. About a dozen or so people got into the pool, and someone said the baptismal prayer at the edge of the pool next to the man. After the prayer, people outside the pool used a fireman's tarp (the kind that is used to catch people who jump from burning buildings) to lower the man into the pool, where the people in the pool took the tarp and allowed it to sink to the bottom so the man could be immersed - then lifted the man back out of the pool and set him and the tarp back on the edge of the pool.

We talked about how it is moments like those experiences when what too often becomes little more than rote, autopilot actions suddenly take on real, deep meaning - when necessary exceptions almost force us to see the ordinances as they are intended to be - when we become truly invested in them and realize how much they mean to those who see and feel the power of the symbolism and are determined to participate no matter the difficulty.

We were almost out of time at that point, so I simply mentioned how important it is to read the handbook carefully and notice the choice of words, especially those like "should", "must", "can", "might", "encouraged", "discouraged", "forbidden", etc. I told them that I personally read everything with an eye to the most charitable, inclusive application possible - that I would rather err on the side of inclusion and charity than on the side of exclusion and judgment. I shared the story told here (without sharing the name of the site, obviously) about someone being denied the opportunity to have his baby blessed during sacrament meeting because he wasn't a member at the time - and I pointed out that there is nothing in the handbook that says a non-member can have a baby blessed, but there also is nothing in it that says it can't be done. I told them that I believe it our Christian duty to make our decisions based on what we feel would be the best for the people involved - what we would want if it was us making the request, as long as such a request was not explicitly forbidden in the handbook. I told them that they all probably will be leaders of some sort in the Church at some point in their lives and that I hope they will read and apply the handbook policies and counsel as expansively as they can - to make as many ordinances as "communal" as possible.

There was a spirit during the last part of the lesson that I couldn't have anticipated, and I am grateful it went differently than I had planned.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Sacrament Covenant - Repentance; A Deeper, Fresh View

Yesterday, we focused on the lesson outline: "How can I make the sacrament more meaningful to me?" We had talked the first week about the sacrament and the covenants associated with it, but I really like the way the opening paragraph of the outline is worded, so I used that paragraph as the foundation of a deeper look at how to maximize the concept of the sacrament in practical terms in our lives.

The lesson outline starts with the following:

During the sacrament each week, we should examine our lives, ponder the Savior’s Atonement, and consider what we need to do to repent of our sins. We do not need to be perfect in order to partake of the sacrament, but we should have a spirit of humility and repentance in our hearts. The sacrament can become a source of strength and an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to living the gospel.

I started by reminding everyone of a lesson we had last year about repentance - particularly how we only understand half of the concept of repentance when we focus solely on remembering our sins / mistakes and vowing not to repeat them. (If anyone wants a fuller look at that concept before continuing with this lesson summary, read the following post from January 2008, since our discussion was based on that post: "A Fresh View of Repentance".)

I asked everyone what "repent" means, and they remembered that it simply means "change". I explained that we were going to talk about two ways to try to repent: 1) the traditional focus on recognizing past sins and committing to not repeat them; 2) changing our very nature by developing characteristics that will help us not feel and act in the same way we naturally would.

I mentioned that the first approach (the traditional steps of repentance method) is necessary for "hardcore" sinners (similar to what addicts might have to do because they might struggle with a temptation all their lives but simply have to commit to a sheer force of will no matter how long it takes, along with other strategies), but that, for most people, just suppressing an inclination generally results in that inclination eventually erupting through built-up pressure - which, as one student said, leads to a vicious cycle of failed attempts and self-criticism. I call this reactive repentance, and I stressed that the ONLY focus of this sort of repentance is to remain as good as we are at any given point - to not let our "badness" overcome our goodness, so to speak. There is no real "growth" in that approach; rather, it is much more of a fight to remain stationary.

The second approach is to recognize a weakness and work to develop a characteristic that will eliminate the inclination / weakness / undesired action. This also is focused on "change", so it is "repentance" every bit as much as the other approach. I call this approach proactive repentance. 

I asked the students if any of them had ever lost their temper and acted toward someone in a way that they regretted. (I picked a fairly generic issue in order to make it personal for all of them but avoid embarrassing anyone.) They all grinned and raised their hands. I asked them how they could change that - how they could go about trying to not do it anymore - other than simply committing not to do it. I asked them to think about exactly what they could do to tackle that particular issue. Eventually, we came up with the following:

1) Develop more patience;

2) Learn to understand the other person better - both their view/perspective and what things in their life might lead them to say and/or do something that bothered the students enough to get upset and lose their temper.

We talked about patience being the "lower" standard and understanding being the "higher" goal. One of the students in the class has Asperger's Syndrome and occasionally says something inappropriate or off the wall. He said it was okay to use him as an example, so we talked about why everyone else didn't get mad at him and lose their tempers when he said or did something that might make them mad if someone else said or did it. They all said they understand and love him - and, beside being a wonderfully tender moment, it helped them see what I meant about repentance being more than just not doing things. It also can mean doing something to improve one's self and change actions as a result, in this case by understanding someone enough to love them no matter what they say or do.

One student said he would like to read the scriptures more, so we talked about how repentance also can apply to things that aren't seen as sin but are strictly things we want to do better - things we want to change. For this discussion, I focused on the idea of needing to examine one's life and make "repentance" a very practical exercise. We talked about needing to think about themselves and when they are most alert - to look at their real-life schedule and choose a time that will work to read the scriptures - to actually calendar the time so it becomes habitual - to perhaps let others know so they can remind us of the commitment - etc. There were seven people in the room, and we came up with at least four approaches that would be best for someone.

This highlighted that repentance is an individual thing - that there is no one-size-fits-all, universally right approach - that nobody ought to try to force someone else to repent in the same way that person does.

Finally, I returned to the sacrament and pointed out that the ideal is not just to "think about Jesus" but rather to have faith in the Atonement enough to examine our lives and use the sacrament as a way to recommit to a practical examination and plan to change - to move from a warm fuzzy spiritual contemplation to a difficult, reflective, practical exercise founded on a spiritual hope.

I left them with the request to pick something that they want to improve about themselves and start focusing on doing so, if only one thing at a time for a limited time and if only to make some limited improvement during that time (rather than trying to overcome it completely and be "perfect" [whole, complete, fully developed] at it in the short-term).

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Power of Ordinances through Covenants - Part 1

I just realized I didn't post yesterday the summary of my lesson last Sunday. Here goes: 

The topic this month is Ordinances and Covenants. I really like the first verse cited in the first lesson outline - the "theme verse" (D&C 84:19-20), which says:

And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

I began by casting ordinances as symbolic actions within the administrative Priesthood (what is performed by others - currently only ordained men) and covenants as the responsibility of the "priesthood of believers" (things men and women both do through the authority and power of the priesthood we discussed last month when analyzing Elder Oaks'' talk). I told the students we would be talking for at least a couple of weeks about specific ordinances, what they mean (the symbolism of each one), the covenants associated with them and what "power of godliness" they manifest. To set the stage, we talked about the relationship between ordinances and covenants - focusing on the idea that the ordinances symbolize, in a tangible, physical manner, the covenants we make with God and ourselves and that living covenants is how divine power (the power of godliness) is manifest. To illustrate that relationship, we covered baptism, the sacrament and confirmation after baptism.

In the spirit of a summary, the following is the result of our discussions. Keep in mind that what follows was not presented in a lecture format but rather through discussion, as I try to do nearly every week.

Baptism means, literally, immersion. (The original meaning of "to baptize" means "to immerse".) The symbolism of baptism is the burial of one's old life and a birth as a "new creature in Christ". By being immersed in water, the person symbolically is immersed anew in Christ and emerges as a "Christian" - or, in Mormon terms, a god in embryo or a developing God, someone who is following Jesus in an evolutionary, progressive way. S/he is born into godhood, so to speak, and begins a journey toward perfection (completeness, wholeness, full development) in Christ.

The covenants we accept at baptism all deal with actualizing (making literal) the symbolic meaning of the ordinance. We promise to take Jesus' name upon us, always remember him, stand as a witness of him, keep his commandments, etc. (I skipped the comfort, mourn and bear burdens covenants, since we are going to devote as much of the lesson as possible later today on that concept.) The power of godliness that is manifest in baptism is NOT in the physical ordinance itself, and there is no magic / sudden / automatic power involved. Rather, the power is activated when a person acts on the covenants: becoming a real disciple of Christ, always remembering him (and acting on that remembrance), standing as a witness of him (not just in word but in deed, as well) by doing the things he did and asked us to do (loving, not judging, serving, teaching, supporting, embracing, etc.). The power is the metamorphosis that occurs when a "natural (wo)man" becomes unnatural or godly - literally becoming a new person, just like the ordinance symbolizes.

The word "sacrament" means "a visible sign of an inward grace; something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance." The "inward grace" symbolized by the sacrament is being cleansed by Jesus' blood and body - and we normally talk about it in terms of remembering Gethsemane and Golgotha and what occurred there. However, it is more than just remembering Jesus during the ordinance; it is supposed to be remembering his sacrifice for us and being cleansed anew (renewing our baptismal covenants). Thus, the power of the sacrament is the exact same as being baptized - the continuation of the metamorphosis to which we commit initially, contingent on us actually living the covenants on a continual basis. The exact composition of the sacramental elements can change (wine to water, for example, or military rations, when bread and water are unavailable), as long as the meaning and power remain unchanged.

"Confirm" means "establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify". Confirmation, at its most basic level, simply validates publicly what is performed privately (or in front of a limited number of observers). Part of that is for the person who was baptized, so s/he can claim a cleansed state without disputation from others, but the primary focus is on the rest of the community - an official stamp of approval by the leadership certifying acceptance into the group. The added Mormon element is the second part of the ordinance - the charge to receive the Holy Ghost. That symbolizes the beginning of divine assistance in the new journey of discipleship - and the power of the ordinance occurs, just like with baptism and the sacrament, when we act in such a way that we really do "receive the Holy Ghost" (or, more generically, listen for and follow what we believe to be God's will in our lives).

I made a point to talk about why it is wrong to say that we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost when we are confirmed. That wording makes the primary "actor" (the one who is active as the primary subject) the person who performs the ordinance, while the wording ("receive the Holy Ghost") clearly puts the responsibility for the actualization of the power squarely on the person who has been baptized.

We also talked about how baptism does NOT bring anyone into the Church, since a person who died immediately following being baptized would never have been, officially, a member of the Church.

Finally, we talked about how the blessing that commonly is pronounced along with the confirmation is NOT part of the ordinance itself but rather a cultural practice to provide guidance and revelation to the person. If the person performing the ordinance ended it right after the admonition to receive the Holy Ghost, it would be considered a full and proper confirmation.

To wrap up the lesson, I simply pointed out that the power of each of these ordinances is manifest ONLY if the person on the receiving end takes the covenants seriously and uses the ordinances as a symbolic launching pad toward developing the characteristics of godliness that allow God to make us what we would not become on our own - that the power of godliness is a transformative process of continually lived and internalized action, not symbolic actions performed once or even periodically.

Sacrament Meeting Can Be a Revelatory Worship Service - or Just Another Meeting

NOTE: A friend of mine who was preparing to serve a mission wrote the following to me some time ago.  I honestly had not considered Sacrament Meeting in quite the way she explained, and I was moved by it.  I am publishing it here, with her permission, in order to emphasize the need to focus on the unique purposes of our varying Sunday meetings - to treat Sacrament Meeting as a WORSHIP service centered on Jesus Christ and not dilute the nature of worship by assigning and giving talks that would be best suited for Sunday School or the Relief Society / Priesthood meeting.  Our Sacrament Meetings, especially, should be what Elder Bednar called "revelatory experiences" - not "just" time to talk about things that could be discussed in detail elsewhere.
-----------------------------
After attending church today, I feel the need to vent a little to someone who will actually listen to what I have to say.

Here's what it all boils down to: for the past few months of attending sacrament meeting, I am simply appalled with the general Mormon attitude towards Sacrament meeting I have seen. It frustrates me, and makes it difficult for me to have the motivation to go.

A few months ago while attending an Institute class that was specifically structured to discuss the Atonement, we had a lesson on the symbolism and sacred nature of the Sacrament and sacrament meeting. I know that you are aware of the symbolism, but allow me to quickly paraphrase what I learned. My teacher spoke about how the entire meeting should be focused on the Atonement of the Savior. He pointed out how the ideal meeting should be much like a funeral for a loved one. We come dressed in our best clothing (typically conservative and simple) and should reverently enter the chapel. The chapel itself is to represent the sacred tomb where our Savior was laid to rest after his sacrifice for us. In a very real sense, we are entering his tomb, where his body symbolically lays covered in white at the sacrament table. Ideally our thoughts and hearts should be turned to Him the moment we enter the room.

After entering, we then begin the meeting with prayer and song. An important purpose of these two things is to unite all in attendance to the same special spirit. The reason why we all come dressed similarly, and bow our heads and fold our arms in a uniform way, is to help us become united. The very essence of the English word Atonement is "at one ment", meaning together, united, connected, etc. That is the purpose of the Atonement-- to help us become one with God. Christ is the perfect example because he is literally the perfect union of man and God. This is the same reason why we are encouraged to sing together. All of these processes are intended to help us to unify our hearts together and become one with each other and God through the Spirit.

Another interesting thing my teacher taught my class is that as the priest kneels down and bows his head, he is acting at a proxy for Jesus Christ. It is as though Christ is blessing the sacrament for each of us, as he did for his apostles at the Last Supper.

The last piece of Sacrament meeting that I'd like to touch on is the talks given from the pulpit. As the sacrament is, in effect a funeral service, these talks should be on the person the funeral is for... Jesus Christ. This is where sacrament has really been getting to me lately. I come to hear others reflect on the Savior, and instead I get trip logs about girls camp and high adventures. Day one we did this... day two we did this... day three... and on and on. This just doesn't sit well with me! There's a time and place for everything, but reporting about your trip during sacrament is not the right place! Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the speakers synthesized their experience and turned it into a lesson of spiritual thought, but this usually is not the case. There are times when Christ isn't even mentioned at all in the talks! Now I'm not saying that all the talks have to be on the same thing, but they should all tie back to Christ and His Atonement.

At a real funeral, these talks would come before the body is removed, and my teacher pointed out occasions where he had attended meetings that did just that. It would be interesting to attend such a meeting where the Sacrament ordinance was the focal point of the entire meeting (the climax if you will). I feel like placing the sacrament at the end like this would greatly change the flow of the meeting.

Pondering the deeper meaning of these things really can change your whole perspective of the Sacrament. I feel guilty throwing stones at others when I know I too am imperfect. We are all in this together and I realize that. I just feel strongly that Sacrament service today hardly accomplishes what it was designed to do. I hope what I'm saying makes sense and I apologize for jumping around a bit. Perhaps I am wrong in my argument, and if I am please let me know. These are just me feelings, and I hope that since you are in position of leadership that perhaps you could consider ways that you could help Sacrament be a little more sacred. Even those like me who are not in leadership can do our part.

I Favor Some Simple Adaptations to the Blessing of the Sacrament

I have been asked more than once how I view situations where someone is blessing the sacrament and struggling to say the prayer correctly, so I decided to put my thoughts in writing.  I'm sure that won't surprise anyone who knows me even only a little.  I would appreciate any thoughts about this from those who read this post (especially other suggestions of things you would favor), and especially actual cases of things you've seen: 

In cases where there is concern about multiple attempts, or after the first instance of an incorrect attempt, I favor having the priest / administrator who is not saying the prayer place his hand on the shoulder of the person saying the prayer, and squeezing the instant the person makes a mistake. That way, the person can repeat only what was said incorrectly, without having to start all over again - and, sometimes, without the congregation even noticing what has happened. Technically, this approach could eliminate every instance of having to repeat the prayer from the beginning. 

I favor going as slowly as is needed to not make mistakes - no matter how slowly that is. There is a young man in my current ward who has to pronounce every word clearly and separately in order to ensure he says it correctly, and it is wonderful to hear him take it that seriously. 

I favor coaching people who are saying it for the first time - prior to the actual ordinance occurring.

I favor letting small mistakes go, if they don't change the meaning of the prayer in any way.

I favor having someone whisper the prayer to someone who can't read and/or can't memorize the words - one word at a time, if necessary, so that being able to read or memorize is not a prerequisite for blessing the sacrament.

I favor teaching the congregation sign language and allowing them to keep their eyes open if there is someone who cannot speak who could bless the sacrament using sign language.  I visited a ward recently where one of the priests signed the prayers for a deaf member while other priests read the prayers.  It was wonderful - but I wouldn't mind occasionally if signing was the only language used and the congregation was taught to understand it. 

I favor allowing a member whose native language is not English (or the dominant language of the congregation) to bless the sacrament in the native language - but first teaching the congregation the prayer in that language and/or preparing a card for the Bishop or presiding authority, with the foreign words spelled out in the alphabet of the Bishop or presiding authority, in order to allow him to ensure it is said correctly.  

Just like with baptism, one mistake happens. Even two mistakes happen. Three is a failure of planning and/or leadership, in one way or another - as is failure to allow someone to bless the sacrament simply because of any issues that can be addressed in simple ways. 

The Purest and Simplest Way to Make Sacrament Meeting a True Worship Service and a Revelatory Experience

I have read quite a few comments from people decrying a lack of emphasis on Christ in our Sacrament Meetings.  They acknowledge the prayers in his name and the sacrament itself, but they are concerend about how often the talks are not focused on Jesus or Heavenly Father in an obvious (or even implied) way. 

I have been in such Sacrament Meetings, and I understand that concern.  I even agree with it to the extent that it happens, which, I agree, is too often.  My response is pretty straightforward, since I believe the "solution" is quite simple. 

The central issue is not at "The Church" level. It's an issue in individual wards and branches, since the Branch Presidents and Bishops are the ones who are responsible for the topics assigned as Sacrament Meeting talks. Too many of them still don't understand fully what it means to have a meeting set aside as a worship service - and too many of them still assign topics for Sacrament Meeting that will be addressed in Sunday School and/or should be reserved for the third hour in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, but when they catch that vision and "get it" with regard to Sacrament Meeting, it's wonderful. I've lived in wards where that happened, and I've visited wards and branches where that happens, and there is a marked difference in those congregations that spills over into other areas, as well.

For the last few years, I have had the good fortune of being in a position from which I can mention that to local leaders and be taken seriously, and I have done so and will continue to do so. It sounds simplistic, but I believe making Sacrament Meeting a true worship service (a "revelatory experience" - as Elder Bednar said in the recent CHI training) can do more for a ward than just about anything else - and it certainly is the simplest and purest of the options.

A Wonderful Sacrament Meeting Experience: God Bless Truly Humble and Selfless Saints

The following experience happened some time ago, but it came to mind tonight - so I thought I would write a post about it.  I hope it touches someone and is an answer to prayer in some way:

I normally like to arrive at least 30 minutes early when I am visiting a ward or branch as part of my calling, but, due to circumstances I don't need to detail here, I arrived at the branch I was visiting with only about 5 minutes to spare. When I walked in and spoke with the Branch President, he told me that they had just realized as the young men were preparing the sacrament this morning that they were out of cups for the water. They were discussing what to do as a result.

They had decided to shift the sacrament to the end of the meeting, so the Branch President could drive home and bring a bunch of small drinking cups from his house. It would be a bit awkward and difficult to manage, but it was the only solution that came to mind. I suggested they go ahead and follow that plan, but that I would call someone in my home ward (which met at the exact same time as the branch) and see if they had any extra sacrament cups - and ask if anyone in that ward would be willing to miss their own meetings and attend the branch that day in order to allow the branch to use regular cups for the sacrament at the end of their meeting. The Branch President left to go home to get his cups, and I called a few numbers I had on my cell phone until I reached the High Priests Group Leader.

He stepped out of the chapel to take my call just as my ward was singing the opening hymn. He then went back into the chapel, spoke with someone in the Young Men's Presidency, called me back and told me he would bring four sleeves of cups to the branch right away - enough that they could use them again for a couple of weeks if they were unable to get more of their own right away. This good man told his wife and sons what was going on, left Sacrament Meeting before the sacrament was passed, drove 40 minutes to the branch, handed me the cups, then turned around and drove back to his ward without taking the sacrament in the branch - because he had to get back in time to teach the lesson during the last hour to his own high priests.

I took the cups to the priests at the sacrament table in the middle of the final talk, and they finished preparing the trays and the table just as the final special musical number was ending - an absolutely gorgeous solo about the birth of Jesus. They literally were lowering the covering on the sacrament as the final note was ending.

There's something amazing about hearing the sacrament prayer said immediately following a beautiful musical number - when the Spirit is so strong you can feel it almost tangibly. There's also something truly touching about listening to that prayer ("are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son") while picturing the good man who made it all possible driving alone for another 40 minutes back to his own building, having missed participating himself so that he could make it happen for others and still perform the very mundane tasks of his calling.

I know it's a "small thing" in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly brought to my mind the verse:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

The Sacrament in Sign Language

I once was asked if it would be appropriate for a deaf man to bless the sacrament using sign language, since it is important for the members in the congregation to hear the words and understand the prayer in the moment. 

My response was twofold:

1) Ideally, I would have the congregation open their eyes during the prayer in order to "hear" the blessing as it was signed - after spending time in all the meetings for every age group teaching everyone to understand the sacrament in sign language. 

2) As a second option, I would have another Priest verbalize the prayer as the deaf person signs it. 

The most important thing in this case is that a worthy man be able to participate in administering the sacrament, since there is no good reason to keep him from doing so.

Feeling and Not Feeling the Spirit at Church

I feel good most Sundays at church, but that's largely because I have tried hard to develop a true love for other people. I "feel the spirit" regularly, but I'm not sure exactly what that means, really. Perhaps I just feel the "warm fuzzies" more naturally than some.

As far as where someone can feel the spirit, I believe that different people feel God's love for them (solely or more intensively) in different situations and different places. For Joseph as a youth, it was a grove of trees; for Enos, it was while hunting, surrounded by God's creation; for some people, it is at church among their believing peers. 

I go to church to be and worship with others I have CHOSEN to love, no matter our differences - so I tend to feel good while I'm there regardless of what's being said in talks and lessons. When I am edified by a talk or lesson, which happens quite regularly given my attitude toward them, great! When I'm not (and even when I cringe or disagree), great! I'm still with people I've chosen to love in a setting I've chosen for myself.

It's all good, even when it's not all good - and that is important to me.

Oh, and the sacrament hasn't been accompanied with an outpouring of the spirit for me in a long, long time - if ever. It's something important I do as a token of my remembrance of him and commitment to live a Christ-centered life - not as a vehicle to feel the spirit. It just doesn't work that way for ME.

White Shirts and the Sacrament

I honestly was surprised at how I felt about Elder Oaks' talk about the sacrament a few years ago. It actually shocked me. I always had argued against a "white shirt to administer the sacrament" mentality, especially since I had served in a small Asian branch where the best the kids had was clean jeans, t-shirts and sneakers. I had been fairly vocal about it, so I was stunned by how his talk resonated for me.

First, I heard him say "where possible" - which is an extremely important exception to me.

Second, I have never heard the sacrament positioned that clearly and directly as a sacred ordinance linking baptism to the temple in the way Elder Oaks did. I understand and appreciate the link from baptism to the sacrament, but I had never envisioned the deacons and teachers and priests as they administer and pass the sacrament as similar to the person who stands in the font during a baptism dressed in white to symbolize purity and cleanliness and the initiation of a new, covenant life. I don't know why I had never made that connection, but I hadn't.

When Elder Oaks said we are living in an age where more and more people are losing a sense of the sacredness of saving ordinances, it really hit me that he wasn't just talking about others - that, in this instance, he was talking about me. It's been a long time since I felt that type of insight - that I had allowed something deeply sacred to become a bit mundane. It shook me, and it made me look at the symbolism of a white shirt to administer and pass the sacrament in a different light than I had previously. As I said in a comment at an LDS group blog, it hit me that I really do believe it is more important to embed the sacredness of the ordinance more deeply into the hearts and eyes of our young men (and other members) than to take a more "lenient" approach to it. While he was speaking, I realized that my new vision of the ordinance itself was changing my perspective on the issue itself. Finally, it hit me that wearing a white shirt is not a "problem" at all, in and of itself. It struck me that wearing white to baptize and perform temple ordinances isn't a "problem", so why would it be a problem to have it applied to the sacrament - especially since Elder Oaks added the disclaimer "where possible"? It's not a problem unless I make it one, and I no longer want to make it one.

I truly was surprised by my reaction. I mean that. It had been a long, long time since a talk literally changed my perspective almost completely while it was being given. There have been a few that had a major impact, immediately and over time, but I can't remember the last time it happened like this.

When the Church Works, It Is Wonderful to Behold: Yesterday, I Saw It Work

I had an experience today that touched me deeply, and I want to share it with everyone here. 

My advising assignment was changed this month to include my home ward and a different branch than I had been visiting previously.  Yesterday was the first time I had visited officially as an adviser, and I normally would not have been there on the third Sunday of the month.  We speak on the second Sunday of each month, so I normally visit the other branch on the fourth Sunday - so I don't have to be away from my family two consecutive Sundays.  However, since we will be out of town next Sunday visiting family in Oklahoma, I decided I should attend the branch this week. 

I normally like to arrive at least 30 minutes early, but, due to circumstances I don't need to detail here, I got there with only about 5 minutes to spare.  When I walked in and spoke with the Branch President, he told me that they had just realized as the young men were preparing the sacrament this morning that they were out of cups for the water.  They were discussing what to do as a result. 

They had decided to shift the sacrament to the end of the meeting, so the Branch President could drive home and bring a bunch of small drinking cups from his house.  It would be a bit awkward and difficult to manage, but it was the only solution that came to mind.  I suggested they go ahead and follow that plan, but that I would call someone in my home ward (which met at the exact same time as the branch) and see if they had any extra sacrament cups - and to see if anyone in that ward would be willing to miss their own meeting to deliver the cups to the branch by the end of their meeting.  The Branch President left to go home to get his cups, and I called a few numbers I had on my cell phone until I reached the High Priest Group Leader. 

He stepped out of the chapel to take my call just as my ward was singing the opening hymn.  He then went back into the chapel, spoke with someone in the YM Presidency, called me back and told me he would bring four sleeves of cups to the branch right away - enough that they could use them again for a couple of weeks if they were unable to get more of their own right away.  This good man told his wife and sons what was going on, left Sacrament Meeting before the sacrament was passed, drove 40 minutes to the branch, handed me the cups, then turned around and drove back to his ward without taking the sacrament in the branch - because he had to get back in time to teach the lesson today to his own high priests. 

I took the cups to the priests at the sacrament table in the middle of the final talk, and they finished preparing the trays and the table just as the final special musical number was ending - an absolutely gorgeous solo about the birth of Jesus.  They literally were lowering the covering on the sacrament as the final note was ending. 

There's something amazing about hearing the sacrament prayer said immediately following a beautiful musical number - when the Spirit is so strong you can feel it almost tangibly.  There's also something truly touching about listening to that prayer ("are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son")  while picturing the good man who made it all possible driving ALONE back to his own building, having missed participating himself in either unit so that he could make it happen for others and still perform the very mundane tasks of his calling. 

I know it's a "small thing" in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly brought to my mind the verse:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." 

God bless you, Brother Coons.

Reverence: The Kids Aren't the Issue

I wouldn’t trade having children in our meetings for anything, and, as bluntly as I can put this, they aren’t the problem. The adults are, and I say this from the perspective of quite a few years sitting in front of the chapel looking out over the congregation. Here are a few of my observations:

1) Reverence is not quietude. It is an internal feeling of awe, respect, worship - of "revering" something.

2) Children who see their parents or other adults talking in Sacrament Meeting will learn to talk in Sacrament Meeting. Children who see adults not being respectful and worshipful will learn also to model that behavior. This is particularly disheartening during the actual administration of the sacrament, when awe, respect and reverential worship are the heart of the very purpose for the ordinance.

3) Reverence does include a degree of quietude in situations where quietude is appropriate - like the administration of the sacrament. Children who are not taught to be quiet outside of Sacrament Meeting, as a component of reverence, will not be able to be quiet during Sacrament Meeting. I know my wife and have been blessed with children who do not have difficult issues that make being quiet particularly difficult, but we also took time each week when they were pre-nursery age, at home, to sit with them on our laps for extended periods of time (while reading or talking quietly at first and then simply “thinking”) - specifically to help train them to be able to sit silently during the administration of the sacrament and quietly throughout the service. They aren’t perfect little angels, but they don’t distract from the spirit - even when my wife was alone with all six of them.

4) Parents (or mothers alone) who struggle to control the chaos of a disruptive child and others they simply can’t leave alone need others (adults and/or teenagers) who are willing to ask privately if they can help - either by sitting with the family throughout SM or moving to them when the parent(s) needs to leave with a child. The screaming child isn’t the issue; the mother or father not feeling like s/he can leave is - and that is a problem of lack of service within the congregation. The parent who blithely sits and ignores a screaming child also is much more of a problem than the child, and a parent who chastises in again during a time requiring reverence also is a problem.

5) Many husbands and fathers need to take a few slaps upside the head and stop acting like dealing with the kids in Sacrament Meeting is their wives’ job. There is a heavy dose of repentance necessary for many.

There are more examples I could give, but I believe firmly that the issue is not kids in sacrament meeting but rather adults abrogating their responsibilities for those kids. Jesus said, "Suffer the children to come unto me" - and allowing them to worship with us is one way to help fulfill this request, imo. God bless the parent (usually the mother) who sacrifices a bit of her own peace and sanity in an effort to bring her children to Christ and help them learn to worship Him. NOTHING in this post should be used to make that good brother or sister feel guilty when children still are learning reverence and simply being children.

In our ward now, our last Bishop focused a lot of attention on humbly and gently teaching the adults to take responsibility for reverence in the chapel, especially during the administration of the sacrament. The difference in our ward over the past few years has been nothing short of amazing - even with plenty of children in our midst.

Non-Members and the Sacrament

It is our responsibility to explain the promises we make when we partake of the sacrament to those who are visiting. It is their decision whether or not to partake, based on their willingness to make those commitments.

We sometimes forget that, while the sacrament is a renewal of our baptismal covenants, it also is accessible to those who have not been baptized (like our children) - and, therefore, for them it is not a renewal. For our children, it functions more as a preparatory promise. The sacrament is not limited to our unbaptized, as if it was something only for the "righteous children's club". It is a sign of commitment, for us, to baptismal covenants already made, and for others, non-baptismal promises already made or willing to be made. If I allow my 5-year-old to partake and not my devout, adult, Christian friends, I think that says more about me than about them.

Should non-members partake? Let me ask a different question:

If they are willing to make the promises inherent in the sacrament prayer, and if they are living their best to the extent of their knowledge, why should they not partake?