During my 5 years serving as a bishop, like every other bishop, I had countless interactions with individuals in my ward where I felt it necessary to restrict the sacrament or other ordinances for a time as they were going through “the repentance process.” This process of restricting the sacrament (and other ordinances) might take place so many times that it soon feels like sour spiritual paperwork that must be done because the handbook says so. All too often individuals leave the bishop’s office misunderstanding the purpose of why such a restriction of ordinances was placed on them. The moment the bishop instructs the transgressor to remain under spiritual probation is pivotal. If the bishop doesn’t take a moment to fully explain to them the purpose for the restriction they will begin to fill in the blanks with the help of the adversary and hear a message of shame which will halt any progress towards repentance. If the leader doesn’t fully understand why it is happening then those under the restriction will definitely not know why.
I received an email from a bishop who was recently driving home from a long trip. He was pondering over his ward and the names of specific members he interacts with. Suddenly this question came to his mind: “What do members think is the reason behind a restriction on partaking of the sacrament?” He realized he never explains the reason behind it but only assumes the transgressor knows it is coming because that’s generally how things are done in the bishop’s office.
I took this question to the Leading Saints community and was surprised to see the varying opinions about the main purpose of restricting the sacrament. They suggested reasons for the sacramental restriction including:
- The bishop is protecting the person from condemnation and protecting the sanctity of the sacrament (3 Nephi 18:28-29)
- It’s a wake up call to the transgressor to change and return to the path of righteousness
- It doesn’t make sense to renew a covenant they aren’t keeping
All of these reasons are not surprising to anyone that understands the basic doctrine of repentance and they are all mostly accurate, but these reasons alone are not helpful to the individual wanting to repent. ChurchofJesusChrist.org defines repentance as:
A change of mind and heart that gives us a fresh view about God, about ourselves, and about the world. It includes turning away from sin and turning to God for forgiveness. It is motivated by love for God and the sincere desire to obey His commandments.
In short, repentance is about change and not punishment.
With that definition in mind let’s reconsider the common reasons listed above.
Is the reason for restricting the sacrament to protect the transgressor from a vengeful God that is seeking to condemn the sinner? As we learn in 3 Nephi 18, partaking of the sacrament unworthily will bring us condemnation, but that is for those that are unrepentant, and if someone is unrepentant they are probably not in the bishops office seeking to reconcile their sins.
Elder John H. Groberg talked about this in his 1989 General Conference talk:
What does it mean to partake of the sacrament worthily? Or how do we know if we are unworthy?
If we desire to improve (which is to repent) and are not under priesthood restriction, then, in my opinion, we are worthy. If, however, we have no desire to improve, if we have no intention of following the guidance of the Spirit, we must ask: Are we worthy to partake, or are we making a mockery of the very purpose of the sacrament, which is to act as a catalyst for personal repentance and improvement? If we remember the Savior and all he has done and will do for us, we will improve our actions and thus come closer to him, which keeps us on the road to eternal life.
The Beauty and Importance of the Sacrament, April 1989 General Conference
So if bishops are only restricting the sacrament from individuals to protect them from condemnation that message can easily cast shame on the transgressor; what they have done has, in a sense, angered God and he is coming for them to deliver hard justice. Hurry and hide behind the bishop and he will protect you from condemnation. The adversary is the only one who tells us to “hide”.
The bishop must restrict the sacrament in order to give the transgressor a wake up call so they know how serious their sin is. This is incorrect. From the ChurchofJesusChrist.org definition of repentance mentioned above, repentance is about change, not about punishment. Yes, the guilt one feels from sin can be very motivating and propel someone towards change. To do this, they assume, they must skip the sacrament as a form of spiritual time-out until they learn their lesson. This position again only shames the individual into change when Christ only motivates through love. They should never want to repent because they think they are a broken sinner, they should only want to change because they love the Savior so much and want to keep His commandments.
It doesn’t make sense to renew a covenant through an ordinance if they aren’t keeping the ordinance. This is a logical argument and I guess it is correct, but in such an emotional process of repentance this logical position is not helpful to the transgressor seeking change. “Well, thanks for letting me know you sinned, I guess it wouldn’t make sense for you to take the sacrament so let’s skip that for awhile.” In other words the leader is again communicating they are broken (shame) and this logic provides no message of love to help them want to change.
So these three reason are “accurate” but if a bishop leads with these reasons they will only leave the individual feeling shameful and deserving of punishment.
To truly articulate to the transgressor a message of love that will propel them towards change two important principles must be understood: (1) Repentance is not about punishing the transgressor and (2) The Law of Justification and Sanctification.
Justification vs. Sanctification
The purpose of our mortal journey is not only to cleanse us of sin through the Savior’s Atonement so that we can return to the presence of our Father in Heaven. If it was the only purpose why would we have left His presence and started sinning in the first place? The purpose of this life can be boiled down to two basic points: (1) to justify or cleanse ourselves from sin through Christ, (2) to be sanctified and become more like our Father in Heaven so that when we return to Him we will be ready to continue our progression. This doctrine is all throughout the scriptures when we hear phrases like “bless and sanctify” (sacramental prayer), “pure heart and clean hands” (Alma 5:19, 21, 24), and is regularly being referenced during General Conference (here’s an example from Elder Bednar). It is really the simplest way to describe the purpose of Christ’s Atonement; to cleanse us and to sanctify us.
With that said, when an individual steps into a priesthood leaders office with the intent to repent they are there to rectify that two fold purpose of justifying their sins and sanctifying their heart. In the context of this article whenever the word justification or justify is used it does not mean they are wanting to show they were not in the wrong when they sinned. To justify sin through Christ means to make equal, to make good again, or to pay the debt. To sanctify the individual is to make holy, saintly, or more like our Father in Heaven. Many leaders and individuals make the mistake that the repentance process is only about paying for the sin, or justifying the sin (punishment). This perspective can confuse the purpose of restricting ordinances because if that bishop’s office meeting is only about how to pay for sin then the focus goes to how the transgressor will pay for the sin. By keeping the focus on how Christ suffered for their sins, then that invites a message of love, which leads to change.
So are you saying an individual shouldn’t feel bad or suffer during the repentance process? Repentance is definitely no walk-in-the-park. It often hurts as you see how your actions have hurt others, hurt yourself, or caused consequences that aren’t immediately reversible. But it is important to understand that personal suffering during repentance isn’t for the purpose of an individual paying for their sins. Paying for sin was Christ’s role and “His Grace is sufficient” (2 Cor. 12:9) to pay for 100% of the sin. Here we can see how important it is to make this clarification with the transgressor that any suffering or restriction is not for the purpose of paying for the sin; rather, it is for the purpose of changing their actions in order to continue down the path of sanctification; or helping them become more like God.
For the sake of being clear, allow me to restate this point with other words: When we ask for forgiveness we are asking for justification, when we seek repentance we are working towards sanctification. Forgiveness and repentance are not the same; forgiveness is an event, repentance is a process we repeat everyday. Just like Jesus Christ is a Savior (justification) and a Redeemer (sanctification), forgiveness comes immediately when we sincerely ask for it. And repentance changes us overtime as we enable the Atonement of Jesus Christ in our life. The big misunderstanding made by priesthood leaders or transgressors is to assume they are meeting together to only justify the sin, “Get it over with, bishop! I’ll skip the sacrament for 6 weeks and then let’s move on with our lives.” Neither is the point of the appointment to put the transgressor through a “repentance process” so that together you can win the Savior’s forgiveness. “Let’s have you skip that sacrament for 6 weeks and maybe the Savior will have forgiven you by then for your awful mistake.” That is misunderstanding the process and casts shame on the individual striving to repent (moving away from a message of love). It would be more appropriate to say, “Isn’t it wonderful that the Savior has forgiven you! Now, let’s work together by getting any habits or addiction under control so that you can once again renew your covenants through the sacrament and receive His sanctification.”
Conclusion
In Exodus 12:43 it states, “And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.” When we sin we become strangers to the Lord, and as strangers we cannot “eat thereof” with the Lord until we have circumcised (or sanctified) our hearts and returned to Him. Just like an individual being interviewed for baptism isn’t being punished for their past sins so that they can be baptized, an individual confessing in a bishop’s office isn’t being punished but encouraged to sanctify their heart and change. In 3 Nephi 9:20 we learn that the Savior only requires “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” He does not require an individual to suffer long enough so that His suffering and sacrifice can begin. His grace is sufficient and He will take 100% accountability for our wrongdoings! So when an individuals has been restricted from the sacrament they need to remember that they are only required to bring a broken heart to sacrament meeting rather than a clean report card. If they wait until they don’t feel like a sinner anymore (justification), they will never make it to the altars of redemption (sanctification).
So I’m a little confused. Can you explain in more direct terms (so that my feeble mind can understand it) why Bishops ask members to withdraw from taking the sacrament for a specified time period. If it’s not part of disciplinary process, exactly what purpose does it serve?
Here is a quote from Elder Ballard…
When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression.
Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so.”
Later in that same talk he tells the story of a woman who had been excommunicated with these words, “As the weeks and months passed, she found that her pain and suffering were actually aiding the cleansing and healing process. In fact, her pain and suffering served a necessary purpose in the process of healing.”
Could it be that withholding the privilege of partaking the sacrament is a message to the member that participating in this ordinance is a sacred privilege with wonderful blessings for worthy members and to let them feel the gravity of their inappropriate behavior?
I’m probably totally missing the point on this.
I’m very interested because my BOM reading today happens to be 3 Nephi 18, which talks about the sacrament.
Thanks Kurt!
Thanks for your comment. I was really striving to be clear in the article but it may need further work to clarify my points.
To answer your question and to create more clarity I think it is helpful compare it to the baptismal process we see in the church with new converts. They are required to learn from the missionaries and then participate in an interview with a leader to approve them for baptism. Nobody would claim the purpose of that meeting with the leader is to make them feel bad about their sins and to make sure they have paid for their sins. Of course not because Christ has already done that. The purpose of that interview is to see if they have a certain level of stability when it comes to basic commandments so that they can benefit from the blessings of further ordinances.
In Elder Ballard’s quote he says nothing of required suffering in order to pay for the sin. He only references a change of heart (or change of attitude or behavior). There is pain and suffering in repentance, as that excommunicated sister experienced, but the purpose of that suffering is not to pay for the sin and many times is self inflicted unnecessarily because the adversary wants them to feel shame.
I’ve maybe muddied the waters further but I appreciate the chance to articulate this further.
First time commenter, LOVE Leading Saints, it has transformed my entire approach to leadership both inside and outside of church. Can’t say “thank you” enough.
Some thoughts and questions I had while reading through the post today that I hope to articulate in writing:
1) Is the sacrament restriction scriptural?
– The post refers to 3 Ne 18:28-29 as the scriptural basis for the restriction (also see D&C 46:4), but I wonder if verse 29 should be the cutoff? Verse 30 sheds light on who is being referred to as being “unworthy” to partake of the “flesh and blood”: …if it so be that he REPENTETH AND IS BAPTIZED IN MY NAME…ye…shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.” So wait, when Christ is speaking of partaking of the flesh and blood unworthily, he is referring to people who have not repented and have not been baptized? So he is referring to “non-members”? Is this interpretation sound?
2) Did Jesus indicate who should partake of the flesh and blood, and what the standard of worthiness must be?
– Jump back to 3 Ne 18:5, which has Jesus outlining who qualifies to partake: “…give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.” And in verse 11: “And this shall ye always do to those who repent (change of heart and mind) and are baptized in my name”. Wait…that’s it? Repent, believe, be baptized = worthy to partake of the flesh and blood. Jesus didn’t offer caveats or disclaimers on priesthood restrictions or church disciplinary measures to withhold the sacrament from noncompliant followers? Jesus commands them, in verse 12, to administer the sacrament in this way, adding in verse 13, that if any among them administered the sacrament with any additions (requirements, standards, policies, etc.) or any subtractions, they are not building on His rock.
Have we done “more or less” than what Jesus proscribed in handing down priesthood restrictions to members who have sinned in ways that local leaders deem “punishable” by withholding sacrament participation? (I understand the post is not framing sacrament restriction as punishment or discipline, it simply comes across that way to most members, which is what you are trying to correct in the post.)
I don’t have the time to really flesh out this response, so I encourage debate. My short answer is because they are poorly trained and don’t know what else to do.
I served as bishop for a little over 5 years. In that time, like many bishops, I became very familiar with the HB1 and HB2. While it’s been awhile since my release, so I can’t quote sections well, what I remember clearly was that with the majority of the counsel given to bishops regarding discipline, phrases such as, “It may be necessary” or “might be considered” were used, not phrases like “You must” or “You need to…” This of course illustrates multiple leadership principles. It appears to indicate that the senior brethren don’t want to be too formulaic or prescriptive. They can’t answer your question, but God can. Furthermore, He and only He can give the right answer every time in every situation and so the words used force bishops to turn to Him since the handbook isn’t really that helpful. I always felt that was both elegant and appropriate.
I think sometimes bishops don’t know what to do when someone comes to them in sin and they react to it with one of the only tools they have: discipline. Of course, as they gain experience, they gain more tools, like love and compassion and understanding and so forth. I think most bishops are poorly trained and few, if any are calibrated by their stake presidents. I served under multiple stake presidents. One met with me monthly for a PPI, and he invested in calibrating all of us in his stake by training with us together, asking questions like, “What do you do when someone walks in confessing adultery?” While stake presidents, too, need to be cautious about getting between bishops and the Lord in the exercise of their keys, they can be a valuable resource for helping expand a bishop’s toolset.
I also think bishops want to do something to help and again, react with discipline or restriction. Sometimes in our rush to fix we like to place people on restriction when it’s unclear what the cues will be to know when to remove them. When I served as bishop I did place people on restriction from the sacrament, but it wasn’t as common as even I thought it would be. My personal leaning tended to center on this idea: this person is under covenant to partake of the sacrament weekly and is in great need of a deep and personal connection with the Savior right now. Will restriction cause more harm than good right now in their life? And honestly, except with people who were non-repentant walking into my office, for the majority of members I felt their need to commune through the sacrament was more healing, instructive, and transformational than any forward progress that restriction could have hoped to achieve.
Excellent reply Brother Keller. Your comment, “Will restriction cause more harm than good right now in their life?” is so important. Every situation is different. And I think with youth especially, we need really ask that question and give it deep thought before we make a judgement.
I know that your time is limited Brother Keller, but I’m interested to know what you believe is the reason *why* behind asking someone to abstain from the sacrament, which is the topic of this article.
This is something I’ve been studying and so I’m very interested in this topic. What do you believe is the reason why we ask members to temporarily abstain from partaking of the sacrament?
David-great name! How I applaud your thirst to really consider this question.
I am not an expert, and of course my opinions are just opinions, not by any stretch doctrine.
There are many things to consider when attempting to ferret out “why” bishops place members on restriction. And human nature looks for patterns when sometimes there aren’t any or they are so nuanced and subtle that mortal exploration completely misses them. I can admit that during my tenure as bishop I likely missed impressions and that I bungled situations where I wish I could have had a do-over. I am equally sure that at times I was guided by revelation to make decisions or say things that to this day I don’t fully understand but that I know were the will of the Lord. Sometimes even the bishop doesn’t really understand why he did or didn’t, nor can he predict when he will or won’t do it again. He’s just trying to listen to the spirit and be humble enough to stumble along where He leads His servant.
Here are some things to consider.
1. Culture. If you’ve seen people who have gone to their bishop and come out of the office restricted from taking the sacrament, you might assume that’s how it works.
2. Age. Older and younger bishops may look at sin, repentance, and the sacrament differently.
3. Experience. Personal experiences the bishop has with the atonement in his own life, especially if he has experienced serious sin or addiction, of course influence how he will view such events in the lives of his flock. Going back to #1: if he looked at pornography as a youth and was restricted for a time from taking the sacrament, and now, 30 years later, finds himself on the other side of the desk, he may simply think that’s the way it’s done because that’s what helped him or what his loving and helpful bishop did for him.
4. Stake culture. What gets emphasized changes as leadership changes. Usually stake culture persists longer than ward culture. If in a stake the pattern has always been to restrict the sacrament, that idea can persist for decades. As leaders change callings, sometimes even they don’t remember nor understand what started the tradition, but they continue to follow it because they think they’re doing what they’re supposed to.
a. While unrelated, and hopefully not faith diminishing, a comment about coordinating councils might help with this point. As you may know, different areas in the US are assigned to Coordinating councils, presided over by an Area Seventy. In my area, it’s 10 stakes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met with the stake presidents across my coordinating council who are all attending the same meetings, getting the same instructions, but taking home different messages to their stakes that are then promulgated to the wards within the stake. This pattern of training and information conduction can lead to pockets of tradition that may be personality, not principle or doctrine based.
5. Preparation. Many times bishops are completely surprised by who walks in the door and what they walk in the door and dump on him. When that happens, sometimes, in an effort to do something to help, they administer sacrament restriction almost the same way a physician might give an antibiotic: if you walk in with these symptoms, you get an antibiotic and we’ll see if that improves things. If it does, you’re a hero, even if it wasn’t needed or wasn’t the only way to address the symptoms, like prescribing it for viral strep throat. If it doesn’t work, we’ll try something else.
6. Expectations. Many come into the bishop’s office expecting to be excommunicated for relatively minor sins, like drinking a beer or looking at a pornographic website. Sometimes I believe bishops restrict the sacrament because it allows the sinner to receive the punishment they are expecting and desiring. While punishment is not part of repentance, it certainly plays a central role in too many of our lives. Giving the expectant sinner the “punishment” of no sacrament for a period of time may actually allow or accelerate their healing because without it they may constantly doubt their forgiveness or worthiness.
7. Upbringing. Related to #6, if every time you misbehaved in the home in which you were raised you were spanked, as an adult you sort of expect a spanking when you screw up. If you don’t receive one, sometimes, even if it’s just on a subconscious level, you wonder if the repentance process can be completed. So many of us view punishment as a way we pay for our mistakes and naturally extend that to sins, which of course we have no capacity to pay for on our own. Nevertheless, many will still try to do so and perhaps sometimes bishops restrict the sacrament to meet that perverse but real need in their members.
I could probably go on. Each situation is unique and there are so many various ways to discuss this. What I’ll conclude with is this. I cannot imagine a person on this wonderful earth who wouldn’t profit from a better understanding of Jesus Christ, His atonement, and repentance. While not an expert, I do understand that repentance is about change, not punishment. What I do understand is that the taking of the sacrament is the highlight of my week, a personal, powerful privilege of communion that I treasure. What I do understand is that it is my personal belief that our Savior would have us not only partake of the sacrament weekly, but do so more with our whole souls that we currently are. So, my bias usually directed me to look for excuses as a bishop to allow members to continue that privileged practice rather than reasons to deny them that privilege. Since we’re all limping our way back home, and because repentance, change, is so hard to do and sustain, I guess I tried my best to find reasons for the communion of the sacrament to remain in the lives of as many of my ward members as possible.
While I cannot perceive a pattern in my ministry of when I did and didn’t restrict the sacrament, I can say that rebellion and sin look and feel different to spiritual eyes. Sins serious enough to result in formal discipline often (but not always) resulted in a sacrament restriction until the council could determine what to do. But rebellion even in the absence of serious sin, maybe caused me to lean more towards sacrament restriction. We all make mistakes and all need the Savior to overcome them. But those who fight against Him-allowing them to partake of Him in the intimate way we do as we partake of the sacrament…well, that usually just didn’t feel right.
Wow! Thank you so much for taking time to reply with such an in depth response. Your whole reply would be an excellent article for this site.
I feel that the two people who understand the atonement the most are (1) people who have committed serious enough sin where they had to struggle through the repentance process and finally be resolved of there sin. and (2) bishops who help them through the process.
I have experienced #7 myself. When I was a young man I went to see the Bishop about something I had done and in our conversation it seemed we didn’t even talk about what I’d done. He never asked me any further questions about it. It was almost as though he tried to avoid the whole situation. I remember walking out of there not feeling as though I had gotten it off my chest. I felt like it was too easy. It almost felt as though I had skipped the most important part of the repentance process. I was young and didn’t have any frame of reference.
This whole topic is fascinating to me and although I have sat on church courts on the high council and in ward level courts, I have never really studied this topic deeply. (i.e. How church discipline and the atonement should work together to receive forgiveness.)
Your comments and thoughts on this are very interesting to me. Thank you again Brother Keller for taking the time to write your thoughts.
Right now I’m studying the doctrinal purpose for withholding the sacrament. I know there is a doctrinal reason why the Savior commanded us to not partake of the sacrament “unworthily” and why leaders were commanded to not allow the sacrament to be knowingly given to members who were known to be unworthy.
I’ve been reading a lot of what the prophets and apostles have said about it. And so far, all I can surmise from my study is that it is a form of discipline.
However, Ben W. above suggests that the people who should not receive the sacrament are non-members who have not repented and been baptized…only (only meaning we should not have any “church discipline” that gives the withholding of the sacrament as an option). That’s interesting when you read the scriptures and if you follow his line of reasoning. But then that would mean our church leadership has been misinterpreting this practice.
Anyway, I’m still studying, listening and learning.
Thanks so much.
David in Houston
P.S. This whole issue is not that big of a deal to me. It’s just something I’m doing some extra studying on and trying to learn more about.
BY THE WAY, I run a Mormon Marketers Facebook Group and one of the brothers in there said this….
“Brett M. Judd Msw – A few months ago in stake conference, the member of the 70 who addressed us talked about this very topic. He talked forcefully to Bishop’s and that there has been a false understanding by Bishop’s that they are to restrict this ordinance.
He was direct that the sacrament is for those who are trying to become better and that those who are active in their repentance and truly working to overcome need the sacrament. He said that the only time it should be withheld is if there is no penitence and no humility to change.”
I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that “the only time [the Sacrament] should be withheld is if there is no penitence and no humility to change.” I would love to learn who the Seventy was that said that.
I have seen a couple of references to partaking of the Sacrament as being a “privilege” and HB1 even refers to it as a “right.” Since revoking privileges and rights is a common form of disciplinary punishment, perhaps these misnomers may lie at the heart of the misunderstandings surrounding this issue. I know of no scriptural support for the notion that partaking of the Sacrament is either a privilege or a right. Rather, it is a direct commandment by the Lord himself to “those who repent and are baptized in [His] name”. (3 Nephi 18:11)
Since nobody will attain personal perfection in this life, and since certain weaknesses may take years or even an entire lifetime to completely forsake, repentance is an ongoing life-long process rather than a temporary event with an arbitrary duration prescribed by a bishop or branch president.
Worthiness to partake of the Sacrament isn’t determined by whether or not someone has repentED, but by whether or not someone is repentANT. And how do we determine whether someone is repentant? By witnessing that they “humble [them]selves before God, and bring forth fruit meet [aka worthy of] for repentance.” (Alma 13:13) And if sinlessness and perfection aren’t attainable in this life, what then are fruits “meet for” repentance? A broken heart and contrite spirit. (2 Nephi 2:7)
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick;” (Moroni 8:8)
Those who come weekly to the Sacrament table with a broken heart and contrite spirit, pleading for the Savior’s ongoing help with battling their sins and weaknesses, are precisely the ones who the Sacrament is for. The idea that someone must be prevented from approaching the Physician’s table until they have achieved some arbitrary level of self-healing first, is a gross doctrinal misconception.
There may be many cultural and traditional reasons why some bishops restrict members from partaking of the Sacrament. But the only legitimate scriptural and doctrinal reason for such a restriction is if an individual has a clearly unrepentant attitude. Allowing such a person to partake of the Sacrament would indeed make a mockery of the Atonement and would equate to them eating and drinking damnation to their souls. (3 Nephi 18:29)
In my ministry I have found that restricting temple attendance is a whole lot more straightforward and “justifiable” than restricting sacrament participation. The former requires a specific standard of worthiness to enter. The latter, the Lord seems quite liberal with who should be partaking.
What’s more, in the new handbook of instruction sacrament restriction (Section 32.8.3) it states the following under Informal Membership Restrictions: “Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit about which restrictions would best help a person repent. These could include (but are not limited to) suspending the privilege of serving in a Church calling, exercising the priesthood, or entering a temple. The leader could also restrict the person from giving a talk, lesson, or prayer in Church settings. If the leader suspends the right to enter a temple, he cancels the temple recommend in the Leader and Clerk Resources system.
Partaking of the sacrament is an important part of repentance. It should not be the first restriction given to a repentant person who has a broken heart and contrite spirit. However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time.”
Only in the section on Formal Membership Restrictions (32.11.3) does it state the following (among other restrictions): “They may not partake of the sacrament or participate in the sustaining of Church officers.”
I think the message in 2020 is clear, unless under formal membership restriction a bishop would be hard pressed to find a situation that would warrant restricting the sacrament.
My two cents. 🙂
Thanks for the post and comments.
Great article Kurt. I did sense a flavour of main stream Christianity in the ideas of justification and sanctification. That’s not said as a negativity rather as a positive. I think LDS culture has confused the issue in some of these terms and believe there’s lots that can be learnt from our Christian counterparts especially regarding a deeper understanding of sanctification, justification and grace, though the Book of Mormon teachers these principles clearly.
I’d be interested in reading a part 2 to the above article around why the need to meet with a Bishop to overcome an individual’s transgressions?
If all the saviour requires is a broken heart and contrite spirit why can’t I present that directly to him?
What is the need for an intercessory when the Savior has been provided for that role?
If a Bishops role is to hear confessions of serious transgressions then what is serious transgressions and how are they defined? It seems that sexual misconduct is something Bishops deal with a fair bit however that is just one of the Ten Commandments. What about the others? Can I be unworthy for breaking the sabbath day, can I be unworthy for refusing to speak to my parents?
While I admire all Bishops and the roles they have in the church I often wonder about the seriousness situation we place Bishops in when placing them between the repenting prodigal and the father. A wise Bishop I’m sure points the direction to which the prodigal needs to travel almost like a signpost as if the prodigal for a moment has forgotten the way home. However from time to time I’ve seen where the so called repentance process mechanically applied becomes the stumbling block of its on process. In practice the youth may become so focused on seeing out the 6 week don’t take the sacrament period that justification and sanctification are lost to freeing temporary restraints of normal fellowship. Or as your good friend Rob Ferrell observed ‘they white knuckle it for a while’ only ending only to find they slip again.
Is it little wonder then, when the emphasis is solely about being worthy that eventually hearts are broken and footsteps made lost through the front door of the chapel all for the wrong reasons. There’s a good list of reasons above in previous comments about why these things can happen, personally I think if Bishops spent more time explaining, massaging a deeper understanding of Christs power, his role as mediator and the atonement over details of transgressions and behavioural follow up appointments then we would have more Priests ordained Elders and more Young Women sitting in Relief Society.
Brad, thank you for your comment. I agree that a bishop should be more of a guidepost pointing the repentant soul towards Christ rather that focusing on a series of behavioral check ups.
Thank you for your wise words and insights. I have recently been studying the new General Handbook with my husband, a new bishop. When reading the section about repentance, I thought that this was an interesting paragraph in section 32.8.3 “Informal Membership Restrictions”: Partaking of the sacrament is an important part of repentance. It should not be the first restriction given to a repentant person who has a broken heart and contrite spirit. However, if a person has committed serious sins, a leader may suspend this privilege for a time.
I have enjoyed all the comments in this thread and have just a couple of my own to offer.
Behavior is a manifestation of thought processes, and sometimes we don’t know why we think the way we do. If partaking of the sacrament has become an automatic part of Sunday worship, its removal can require us to ponder more deeply why we are engaging in a sinful or damaging habit and how we can turn ourselves toward the Savior with more commitment. In this way, restricting the sacrament serves as a valuable tool to those who have become less spiritually attuned, who, like the Lamanites in Alma 18:5, believed in a Great Spirit but believed whatsoever they did was right. If we have that mindset, we are less likely to recognize that our behaviors can make us spiritually unclean and unworthy. When we have begun the process of turning back toward the Savior, taking the sacrament again can become the symbol of renewed commitment it was always intended to be. I am grateful in my own life for brave bishops who gave me a spiritual “time out” to consider what the sacrament and membership in the church meant to me. I also agree with others on this post that it can send a powerful message of forgiveness and acceptance by the Lord to be encouraged to take the sacrament again.
I am reminded from your comment that Moroni took away the plates from Joseph and his ability to translate for a time to presumably help him understand the severity of fearing man more than God. Saints Volume 1 chapters 5 and 6 and D&C 3 and 10 provide some principles to operate from for when and why to restrict things as part of repentance.
As a bishop I have found that I am not always confident the confessing individual understands the severity and the gravity of a sin but in their minds might be minimizing it. Repentance involves a change of heart and for that change to occur individuals must genuinely understand the offensiveness of a sin to god. To that end I have occasionally found it a useful to briefly restrict sacrament to impress that severity upon them and help make a rote act become more meaningful.