Doctrine Behind Leaders Receiving Sacrament First?

The doctrine is simply that the sacrament is done under the authority of the Bishop.

The presiding authority receives the sacrament first, which is a policy.

Receiving the sacrament first has nothing to do with being better than everyone else, because they're not. It is in recognition of the keys that they hold over the ordinance. I imagine there is also a practical matter that it signals that the ordinance was performed correctly.

I think it may be tradition or policy. In my mind, the reason they get it first, is essentially saying that the sacrament prayers were said correctly and acceptable to the presiding key holder.

This is the only scripture I know of that might be applicable:

3 Nephi 18:3-4

3 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat. 4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

When Jesus instituted the sacrament among the Nephites, it seems he had the Apostles take the sacrament first, then give it to the congregation. This would parallel today's practice of the presiding authority receiving the sacrament first, the difference being they aren't the ones directly giving it to the congregation afterwards.

I think of it as a sort of "you have to receive something before you can share it" kind of thing. It doesn't much look that way now since the responsibility of administering the sacrament has been delegated to the Aaronic Priesthood quorums, but I think that's the governing principle.

It was invented in the 1920s by the Presiding Bishop of the time as a way to teach priesthood governance to the youth.

(This was around the same time they standardized ordaining teenagers to the Aaronic Priesthood and invented "passing the sacrament" as a duty to give the deacons something to do)

I was in a meeting where Elder Anderson spoke. He said the presiding priesthood member takes the sacrament first as an example to the congregation they are worthy to take the sacrament or something to that effect.

18.9.4 The presiding leader receives it first, after which there is no set order.

 I don’t think every policy must have a scriptural backing. 

Tradition

I think it’s a traditional carryover recognizing the importance of priesthood keys. I think from a pragmatic standpoint, it also gives the presiding authority an opportunity to pause the sacrament for any reason, such as if the prayer was incorrect. But yes, I think it’s a bit silly to say no, the counselor in the stake presidency must get it first instead of whoever is closest.

Probably not the main reason, but one I have heard is that it ensures no one receives the bread/water if it was done wrong. Usually whoever presides the meaning has a “final say “ on if the prayer was said right. If it needs to be repeated, they would signal. Once they partake, we can be sure he approves it.

In regard to the relief society general president, I think it’s just a matter of presiding keys. Same way the young men’s general president, primary president, Sunday school president, wouldn’t preside either (unless they are general seventy). Even an area seventy from another area doesn’t preside.

On the question of the Stake Presidency passing the sacrament... choosing who to pass is the responsibility of the deacon's quorum president.

He could invite them to pass, sure, but consider: the stake presidency is serving the ward in so many ways. Does it really make sense to deny someone else an opportunity to serve?

I asked my wife how she would answer your question. Besides reciting the Church handbook, she told me about a less active man who only came because he was invited to bless/pass the sacrament with the Aaronic priesthood, but went inactive again once he stopped being invited.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, in one of his books, that it was done to teach first the deacons and secondly the membership generally how church leadership works in terms of who gets to preside at a meeting.

He presented it as just a tradition (though a useful one) and didn't bring up poison, and he didn't bring up any scriptural or doctrinal backing, which leads me to believe that it's neither of those, because JFS could reach pretty deep in profoundly weird ways to justify church traditions (see, for example, his justifications of taking the sacrament with the right hand).

No doctrine that I'm aware of other than the presiding authority presides over the administration of the sacrament (usually the bishop unless a SP member is there or he is absent). The policy is simply that he gets the sacrament first in case communication about proper administration isn't sent down after the prayer is said. Most priests are training to look at the bishop after they say the prayer for confirmation but that sometimes doesn't happen. That's what it's for basically. I will say that I've never seen it happen though - that a miscommunication happened and the bishop had to send the deacon back down to have the prayer said again.

It’s just tradition. It’s like men and the priesthood, only male apostles, racism in who gets the priesthood, polygamy. Like the last two, eventually these kind of things will go away.

18.9.4

After the prayer, priesthood holders reverently pass the bread to the members. The presiding leader receives it first, after which there is no set order. Once a tray is handed to members, they may pass it to one another.

"If Jesus were visiting your ward, I feel like he would either be serving us the bread and water himself, or at the least, he would want to ensure that every other person was able to partake before He did."

Jesus is the bread and water. They both symbolize him. So I wonder if he would eat or drink any of what we serve as a symbol of him, or what he served to the apostles. The scriptures we have don't say whether he ate or drank any of it, not in Matthew or Luke anyways. Do you know of any scripture stating he ate or drank any symbols of himself?

I think we serve the presiding priest first because he represents someone with keys of the kingdom of God, other than Jesus. And if he were to appear at any time when we are gathered together to partake of the sacrament emblems, I would be watching carefully to see what he did, or did not do, while I did what he has told us to do.

Receiving the sacrament first by the bishopric isn't outlined as a doctrinal requirement in the scriptures, but it follows a practice of order and reverence within Latter-day Saint sacrament meetings. When the bishopric receives the sacrament first, it serves several purposes:

Respect for Priesthood Authority: The bishop is the presiding authority in the ward. By receiving the sacrament first, it emphasizes the respect and reverence for his calling and the priesthood keys he holds. It's a symbolic acknowledgment of his role as a shepherd to the ward congregation. Example of Worthiness: Receiving the sacrament is a deeply personal ordinance that represents a renewal of our baptismal covenants. When members of the bishopric take the sacrament first, they set an example of worthiness and readiness to renew their commitments to the Lord. Practicality and Order: In terms of conducting the meeting smoothly, having the bishopric receive the sacrament first allows them to then focus on their responsibilities during the sacrament service, including overseeing the ordinance to ensure it is performed correctly and reverently.

"Just trying to understand if this is doctrine, policy, or tradition."

It's a policy.

It was established in 1946. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve announced it in a letter dated May 2, 1946:

"It was further suggested, and unitedly agreed upon, that the sacrament should be first given to the presiding authority in the meeting. This may be the bishop, perhaps one of the stake presidency, or one of the visiting General Authorities. It is the duty of the priest officiating to determine who is the presiding authority present; thus, whenever the sacrament is administered, members of the Aaronic Priesthood officiating will have a lesson in Church government."

"Also, what if the General Relief Society President was visiting your ward...."

She wouldn't be the presiding authority.

"This doesn’t seem very egalitarian at all."

The church is a hierarchy.

"If Jesus were visiting your ward...."

I doubt Jesus would take the sacrament. If you look at Jesus' institution of the sacrament in both the synoptic gospels and 3 Nephi 18 and 20, Jesus doesn't share in it. He gives it. The sacrament represents Jesus' body and blood given for us. The ordinance is for us. And when we consider that the primary purpose of the sacrament is to remember Jesus, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to do it.

"How cool would it be if the visiting Stake Presidency member sat with the deacons and actually served the sacrament to members of the congregation?"

During the first decades of the restoration, presiding authorities would bless the sacrament. I would appreciate seeing that once in a while.

There isn't any doctrine. It's just something that's traditionally been done.

If that tradition ever changed (for whatever reason) it wouldn't contradict any doctrine we hold

There's a purpose to the sacrament I think you're missing, which is as a renewal of our covenants and repentance. When I see the bishop or stake president take the sacrament first, I see an imperfect man called to be a leader and servant in God's church renewing his covenant to magnify his calling, repenting of mistakes made, and striving to follow Christ's example. He is, in a modest but very real way, "[offering his] oblations and [his] sacraments unto the Most High, confessing [his] sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord." (D&C 59:12) Along with showing that the sacrament was done in the proper manner, and setting the example for the manner in which we treat the sacrament as we following doing so.

In the scriptures, those who are called to lead God's church are cleansed before he is able to lead and give those cleansing ordinances to those who will follow him.

It because bad bread and water are a real thing. It is the leadership'responsibilities ensure that the congregation won't be made sick or grosses out by the Sacrament. Seriously - this isn't a common problem in most places anymore, but it can still happen.

I had to get the passers to find another 'bread because it was nasty. We used cheerios that day iirc.

My brother told me when I was younger it was to test the the sacrament was not poisoned and the bishop was required to sacrifice himself like Jesus did for us. Kinda funny…

As a youth, I was taught that this tradition started in the early church when they were concerned about the wine being poisoned. The presiding authority was the taste-tester. Then they switched to water as a more practical method of avoiding mass poisoning without sacrificing the leader, but the tradition remained.

I don’t know how true this story is, though.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is we are to follow the example of the saviour, and he gave the sacrement to others.

So, if we were not a top-down authority structure, the bishop-pric should be serving the congregation, and not the congregation to him.

We do many things in the church in reverse of how the Lord taught them.

If Jesus were visiting your ward, I feel like he would either be serving us the bread and water himself, or at the least, he would want to ensure that every other person was able to partake before He did.

Christ was not above receiving His due honor as we see when the woman washed His feet with her hair.