Unnecessary Spiritual Hierarchies: Leaders Receiving the Sacrament First

Stephen C

•

My most (in)famous ecclesial moment was when, as a young child, I received the sacrament before an apostle. Elder Maxwell’s son (or son-in-law or something) was our bishop, so he was visiting from out of town, the deacons messed up, and got a tongue lashing afterwards about how the presiding officer receives the sacrament first. (I, however, have no memory of this–too young).

Some spiritual hierarchies are organizationally necessary. God’s house is a house of order after all, and sometimes you need a prophet to lead a people to settle in a desert instead of lush Southern California. 

But some aren’t, and IMHO “presiding officer receives the sacrament first” is one of them. First, I get the point in trying to honor leadership, but we already have plenty of formal leadership honoring in our culture without using ordinances to further differentiate; Church leader self-esteem is not exactly at risk, and those sorts of hierarchy-reinforcing mechanics aren’t going to help the kind of members who reactively disregard or attack leaders. 

Plus, deacons (speaking from my own personal experience as one) aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. We could barely get the sacrament passing pattern down on a typical Sunday (typically, outer-most in line serve to the flanks, then take the foyer, while the middle take the middle and work backwards, with some variation from ward to ward); throwing hierarchy ranking into the mix was typically too much for our small little 12-year old brains. 

Just a not-very-important aside. This isn’t a huge thing, and the Old Ship Zion will still be fine if this rule (or tradition, or whatever it is) stays.

Comments

31 responses to “Unnecessary Spiritual Hierarchies: Leaders Receiving the Sacrament First”

  1. D

    ” Church leader self-esteem is not exactly at risk” – isn’t that where this comes from though?

    I still have vivid memories of a mission visit from Elder Hugh Pinnock in the late 90s lecturing the missionaries about who gets on the elevator first and in what order at the church office building and it was very much a hierarchy, and this is why we stand when a GA enters the room. The Q12 won’t exit their meetings except in order of seniority. It’s very much baked into the leadership culture.

  2. A Turtle Named Mack

    Thanks for highlighting this, Stephen. It’s definitely unnecessary, yet it persists. Maybe it isn’t a huge thing. But maybe it’s a symptom of a huge thing?

  3. John Mansfield

    The proposed iconoclasm sound fine by me, but isn’t the stake president’s counselor or whoever sitting near the bishop, and the bishop just quietly motions the deacon approaching him to instead give that other man first offering of the bread and water?

    One thing I enjoy about visiting other wards is the variety of arrangements the priests and deacons have for conducting the ordinance, keeping it an ordinance and not a ceremony.

    “aren’t going to help the kind of members who reactively disregard or attack leaders”
    Well, good luck with that.

  4. REC911

    IMO this is where that tradition came from…

    Up until the spanish flu outbreak (1918 i think?) the bishop at that point in all wards was the one and only person that blessed the sacrament. In doing so, he took it first just like the Catholic priest do today. Our sacrament looked very much like a Catholic version with members coming up to the bishop to drink out of the same cup. Not sure if the bishop put the bread in the mouth or hand for the members back then. We started to pass the sacrament because of the spanish flu outbreak. Since the bishop blessed and took the sacrament first up until this point, him being first stuck. Typical tradition turned doctrine that we tend to do a lot in the church.

    Like the tradition that the sacrament should be taken with the right hand. It is back in the handbook.

  5. Adam F

    AMEN on this. With changing cultural mores, this sends a jarring signal to anyone paying attention IMHO

  6. DaveW

    My first Sunday as a deacon we had the bishopric on the stand, and the stake president, and one of his counselors, and a high councilor, and some other guy. Being a less-ignorant-than-typical deacon, I knew who the stake president was and that he out ranked the bishop. But when I tried to give him the bread, he pointed to his right, toward the bishop. So I went two seats to the right to the bishop, who pointed to his left. I was, at this point, thoroughly confused, but obviously they wanted me to give the bread to the ‘other guy’ who was sitting between them. Turns out the other guy was from the first quorum of the 70. I’m sure they announced his presence at the start of the meeting, but no 12 year-old pays attention to stuff like that.

    Taking the sacrament with the right hand has been in and out of the handbook multiple times. Its a prime example of how the handbook documents both hard doctrine, and arbitrary protocols, and that we have no way of distinguishing between the two.

  7. RLD

    I’m with you on this. Church culture is already more hierarchical than it needs to be, and it doesn’t need this reinforcement. (I’d argue it’s even more hierarchical than the Handbook calls for. Most members would say the bishop leads everything in a ward, while the Handbook says that for some big areas the bishop “coordinates” while the EQ and RS presidents “lead.”)

    But Jonathan Haidt helped me have more charity about it. Apologies to those who know this literature well, but in his book The Righteous Mind he describes asking research subjects to respond to a hypothetical situation:

    You’re at a big family reunion, and each family will perform a comedy skit. The script for your family’s skit calls for you to pretend to slap your father. He is enthusiastic about the skit, and it has been carefully choreographed so there is no risk of you actually hitting him. Will you do it?

    I would, but when I picture that situation I can feel my gut-level respect for authority saying “This is wrong!” in a way that it doesn’t at all if I replace my father with one of my brothers. (For one thing, my brothers are all hams who would milk the scene for all it is worth.) I’m sure Peter had that same gut feeling when Jesus washed his feet.

    Some people just seem to be born with a stronger gut-level respect for authority than others, and for those people little things, like taking the sacrament first, or the bishop’s first counselor sitting on his right and his second counselor on his left, just feel deeply right. I’d still get rid of them, but I understand where it’s coming from.

    (I think this also explains why some members bristle at any suggestion of prophetic fallibility, while for others it’s obvious.)

  8. Lisa

    Here’s the one I struggle with. Church protocol says that only the presiding officer in the meeting can decide if the congregation may stand for the singing of a hymn. I’m not sure if this directive is currently in the handbook, but even if it is, many people don’t know about it. I’ve heard more than one first-person account of being at stake conference and seeing the music leader be publicly corrected when they unknowingly motion for the congregation to stand for the intermediate hymn. I just don’t understand how this can possibly be so important that it’s worth embarrassing some poor unsuspecting music leader in public.

  9. Left Field

    I agree that it’s unnecessary and certainly not scriptural.

    I also am not fond of the practice of having all the other deacons wait at the sacrament table until the bishop takes the sacrament. The handbook says the presiding officer receives the sacrament first, but it doesn’t say we are supposed to make a big show of it. I’m not sure of the current handbook, but not too many years ago, it did say that deacons can be walking to their assigned place while the bishop takes the sacrament.

    The wait-at-the-table practice seems to come and go over the years depending on the ward and the bishop and the Aaronic priesthood advisors. A few years ago, we had an advisor who always assigned himself to the pass to the bishop. The deacons were perfectly able to see when the bishop had taken the sacrament, but the advisor would nevertheless turn around and give the most exaggerated nod imaginable to signal the deacons that they could leave the table. I’m not sure, but he might have been monitoring the moment the bishop swallowed, or perhaps when the bread had fully transited the esophagus.

    For a short while in my ward, they had the deacons wait for both the stake president and the bishop to take the sacrament. I think the bishop put an end to that. There is only one person presiding.

  10. Restored Cricket

    I don’t man. In my Bible Jesus had each of the Apostles had wash His feet before they were allowed to eat the stale Wonder bread and drink the oddly metallic-tasting water.

    Jesus was super big on titles, hierarchy, and ‘the uniform of the Priesthood.”

  11. Jonathan Green

    Innocuous displays of respect for people we dump a ton of personal concerns on each week are good, actually.

  12. Anon

    In the sacramental meal in Third Nephi, the apostles eat first, and they eat until they are filled. Then everyone else in the congregation gets to eat. I think that is the scriptural precedent for the practice.

  13. E

    What’s interesting to me is that the handbook requires this practice, it isn’t one of the “unwritten order of things” practices, but there is no explanation of WHY the presiding authority is served first. I agree that it appears to be an “unnecessary spiritual hierarchy”, but others who have commented seem to find it off-putting (and I get that) while others believe it’s an “innocuous display of respect”. Okay. Since there is no explanation for this requirement it can be anything you want it to be I guess.

  14. anononandoff

    i actually disagree on this one. scriptural patterns show Jesus administering the sacrament first to His 12, and then to others. i’m particularly struck by that pattern in the book of mormon. for me, it’s all about the way HIS power is distributed and is all an invitation to ponder what (or Whom) priesthood holders represent.

    if the bishop represents God or Christ, wouldn’t we start with serving Him the gift He gave us? and yet He desires us all to receive it AND lets 11-year-old boys have the experience of representing Him in that act…just like He did anciently.

  15. anononandoff

    by that i mean that anciently, He didn’t give bread and wine (or loaves and fishes) personally to everyone. He asked those with His authority to do it. that’s how He rolls.

  16. ji

    I don’t think the 3 Nephi model establishes our modern practice. Jesus didn’t give the bread to the twelve first because they were presiding — He was presiding! Remember, He gave the bread to the twelve and they ate, and afterwards the twelve gave to the multitude.

    If we follow the 3 Nephi model as precedent, using deacons as distributors, wouldn’t the deacons partake first, and then they would distribute to the multitude? But generally, in our practice, the deacons partake last or near last. I am okay with our modern practice of the presiding official partaking first, but we cannot say we do that because of the 3 Nephi model.

  17. rogerdhansen

    Of all the Church’s spiritual hierarchies, this is one of least significant. Honoring a man who has given a major portion of his adult life to serve (babysit) 300 people doesn’t seem like a serious issue. I agree with Jonathan.

    The bigger issue is the Sacrament ordinance itself. When I was young (think prehistoric times), the sacrament was administered twice each Sunday. With the 3-hour and 2-hour block innovations, it is administered once. During Covid, it wasn’t administered at all. And many attempts at home administration were squashed by leadership. How important is the standardized rite? Do we need it to take upon us the name of Christ and to agree to keep his commandments (ie. love thy neighbor)?

    The Sacrament is not a saving ordinance. And its importance has been seriously devalued. And at its heart, it is barbaric.

    One indication of the Church’s possible renewed emphasis on the Sacrament is the new design of the chapel. Moving the Sacrament table (altar) to center, just below the dais. Or maybe this move is to further prove we are Christian.

  18. Kent Gibb

    When I was a deacon (1956) I was told that the Bishop, being the presiding person, approved that the Sacramental prayer was said perfectly. If he approved, he would partake and so would then be distributed to the congregation. That made perfect sense to me. He was simply saying “This has been done properly” and so the deacons would then distribute it to the congregation.

    One other thing that bothers me more is the requirement that a member of the Stake presidency MUST sit on the stand whether he was in official business or with his family in his home ward. I felt it unfair that he NEVER got to sit with his family when he attended church. (I don’t know if this is a local {Edmonton, Alberta} requirement or if it is a church-wide requirement.)

  19. Jonathan Green

    During the pandemic when meetings were canceled, households with worthy priesthood holders were authorized to bless the sacrament. Households without a priesthood holder had to rely on ministering brothers for the sacrament.

  20. Carey F.

    >>> Honoring a man who has given a major portion of his adult life”

    These kind of justifications about how or why the Church enacts certain things policies especially when they are connected to (male only) Priesthood should give one pause about why these justifications are thought of. Whether they were part of the motivations that this policy was enacted may be beside the point because clearly this is a bi-product of this policy.

    The sacrament should not to be used as an opportunity to praise leaders (especially when this only applies to men) who are called to serve. We need to be vigilant in avoiding setting our “hearts on the things of the world, and the honors of men”. This is pretty well established in our doctrine (See D&C 121).

  21. Anon

    I’ve never thought that having a leader take the sacrament first was honoring his person. Take a close look at the sacrament prayers, especially the line about the Spirit. In 3 Nephi the apostles ate until they were “filled.” Only then did they serve the rest of the congregation. What is the symbolism here? Unfilled apostles can’t distribute light and truth they don’t have. The congregation waits until the apostles are filled.

    The symbolism IMO teaches the congregation to wait patiently on their leaders. It also places an extraordinary burden on apostles, seventies and bishops… leaders who take the sacrament first.

  22. rogerdhansen

    Jonathan, you are talking about the ideal. Unfortunately, reality frequently fell short. Many singles were denied the sacrament, and some bishops didn’t authorize home sacrament. If I remember correctly, Ardis P. didn’t receive the sacrament for quite a period.

    Carey, there are numerous and stronger examples of excessive bowing to hierarchy than Bishops being given the sacrament first.

  23. REC911

    the sacrament is a ritual that we put way too much emphasis on in how it is performed and not enough emphasis on how we should renew our commitment to follow/act like the Savior. It is for us to recommit ourselves and try again. I think all our temple ordinances are the same way. The leaders talk endlessly on getting them and rarely on what we should do after getting them. Same with reading the BoM. I have been asked by leaders, top down, to read that book every day but never challenged to live its principles.

    We have turned into an org that worships the ordinance and not using the ordinance to become better. Doing the ordinance is just part of what needs done. Becoming a new person, born again, Christ like, is the ultimate goal we just dont focus on as a church.

    Get them baptized, get them endowed, get them sealed. Done. Next.

  24. David T

    See, I had never been taught it was to honor them, but as they are Presiding, them partaking was essentially the signal to the congregation that the ordinance was accepted and validated as being done correctly.

  25. Jonathan Green

    I’m not sure how any church member can claim that they have never been challenged to live the principles of the Book of Mormon, as that is complete nonsense. If you need to, please review the talks from the most recent General Conference.

  26. Mike Nielsen

    Provo Bishop John E. Booth told a story in 1894 about Brigham Young and the passing of the sacramental emblems. Booth prefaced his remarks by pointing out, “the manner of serving the sacrament had varied at different periods of the church’s history.”

    Booth then said that while Young was visiting a Provo meetinghouse, he “sat on the east side of the pulpit. The one serving the bread came on the stand from the west, and passed by a member to first serve President Young. The president censured that conduct quite severely, and stated that when it came to partaking of the sacrament all were equal, and the Latter-day Saints should partake of it as their turn came. None should be passed in order that a superior office might be first served.”

    It’s second hand obviously but still notable.

    Cited in “About Administering the Sacrament,” in Provo Daily Enquirer, February 5, 1894, page 1.

  27. Mike Nielsen

    “…that a superior officer might be first served.” Not office. Transcription error on my part.

  28. Kendall Buchanan

    Thanks, Chad. I wanna use comment to opine on “culture vs. doctrine”, which seems to be making the rounds:

    I have never heard anyone in the Church persuasively describe the difference between culture and doctrine—they are indisputably intertwined, as they are in *in all religions*. We lean on our stated beliefs to justify the practices that serve us; conversely, we strike things from our culture using tools like scripture—again, if we choose. However you interpret hierarchy and the proper mechanisms for enacting change within the Church, it remains a living organism that responds to feedback, adapting its culture and doctrines in tandem.

    Even if it is true that church leaders are working to separate our beliefs from pioneer practices, we will emerge with a new culture informed by new interpretations of doctrine! I liked the comment above that established 3 Nephi as the scriptural precedent for serving priesthood leaders first—I’d never heard that; and if we repeat that enough to each other, well… you get the idea.

    I’m not arguing that our beliefs are trivially malleable, or not guided by God—but I think when you’re critiquing a practice, you’re critiquing the beliefs that inform the practice too.

  29. The Handbook Is Our Time’s Stone Tablets

    A long ago when I was a zoology student at BYU, there was a spring term thing where you could live in a lodge up above Sundance with a number of other students and some professors, and a nice lady would cook. We were there for the duration, and it was a good experience. Sundays, of course, there needed to be church. We would line up some chairs and have church. It wasn’t a church unit, so there’d be a bishop for the day, to call things to order and whatnot. The bishop could be whoever, and sometimes was female. The sacrament might go to the bishop first, or to someone who was nearer. This wasn’t dictated by the professors, it’s just how we did it. Although our professors were not very orthodox. After sacrament meeting we’d pull the couches in a semicircle around the fireplace, and have a fairly informal Sunday School lesson, maybe with some people in jammies. Those were nice times.

  30. Sute

    Interesting thoughts. Recall the design of the Kirtland temple. There’s a pretty big emphasis on hierarchy in it.

    Consider the nature of the work of eternity as flash-backed and foreshadowed in the temple drama with the returning and reporting.

    The structure of the higher and lesser priesthood and different offices all have some degree of seniority to it.

    It might rub an egalitarian the wrong way. But only if you view it wrongly.

    We could make all kinds of replies about what would Jesus do. But I think the symbolism of him going first, in the suffering of Gethsemane and the sacrifice on the cross sets the right pattern to follow. The leaders in authority aren’t honored for being special. They are literally the ones who sacrifice first of themselves for the congregation.

    I think we get that wrong idea that the bishop, stake president or general authorities are enjoying cushy perks of their leadership.

    Especially at the general authority level, their time is no longer their own. It’s no mere job. It become their life and they essentially sacrificed all their desires to do it.

  31. Beth

    Somewhere earlier in my life, I got the idea that presiding is more of a responsibility than it is an honor. As such, I’ve always viewed the presiding authority who receives the sacrament first as a taster. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.