Sacrament to Bishop First: Scripture or Policy?

[CMZ]

Does the practice of the sacrament first being passed to the bishop (or whoever the meeting's presiding officer is) stem from a scripture?

[cdowis]

There is no specific scripture.  

There is also no specific scripture that says that we should not have a crucifix hanging  above the podium.

Edited September 19, 2016 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

No, it does not.

It is a rule that serves a few functions:

1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene.

2. As the highest ranking Priesthood leader in the ward it is his responsibility to make sure the sacrament is passed correctly. Giving it to him first means he is not distracted in the middle and can monitor the passing to make sure no one is missed.

3. The Bishop often misses breakfast due to morning meetings and giving him the bread and water first ameliorates noises his stomach may make during the three-hour block to preserve reverence.

[waveslider]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it does not.

It is a rule that serves a few functions:

1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene.

2. As the highest ranking Priesthood leader in the ward it is his responsibility to make sure the sacrament is passed correctly. Giving it to him first means he is not distracted in the middle and can monitor the passing to make sure no one is missed.

3. The Bishop often misses breakfast due to morning meetings and giving him the bread and water first ameliorates noises his stomach may make during the three-hour block to preserve reverence.

1 and 2 for sure! 3

[Duncan]

From what I understand it started just after Pres. Grant became the President of the Church, although I am not sure he had anything to do with the change

[cdowis]

The church has been careful to have the sacrament meeting uniform throughout the world.  During WW2, for example, church leaders were unable to visit the wards in Germany, and after the war it became necessary to correct some of the practices.  In one ward, they were using lighted candles on the sacrament table.

The Handbook of Instructions may not be  canonized scripture, but they are based on inspiration and revelation.  I understand, that some recent clarifications regarding the sacrament include the instruction that it is unnecessary to use the right hand to take the sacrament, and that the deacons do not need to hold their hand behind their back.

Edited September 19, 2016 by cdowis

[oremites]

To be nit-picky, it's the presiding officer, not the Bishop:

"The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first."

When I was a Deacon, I hated that rule.  More than once I had to be corrected when I tried giving the sacrament to wrong person first.  My thought process was: "There's some old guy from the the Stake visiting today.  He gets the sacrament first, right?"

[Kenngo1969]

If the Sacrament has been laced with some fast-acting, lethal poison, we certainly don't want the rest of the congregation to be exposed to it before the bishop's demise apprises us of that fact (see John 15:13).

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the Sacrament has been laced with some fast-acting, lethal poison, we certainly don't want the rest of the congregation to be exposed to it before the bishop's demise apprises us of that fact (see John 15:13).

That doesn't show much faith in the "bless and sanctify" function of the authoritative prayer.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene.

A few years ago the priests offering the prayer said it wrong three weeks running.
All three times my Bishop let it slide.

 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

The church has been careful to have the sacrament meeting uniform throughout the world.  During WW2, for example, church leaders were unable to visit the wards in Germany, and after the war it became necessary to correct some of the practices.  In one ward, they were using lighted candles on the sacrament table.

The Handbook of Instructions may not be  canonized scripture, but they are based on inspiration and revelation.  I understand, that some recent clarifications regarding the sacrament include the instruction that it is unnecessary to use the right hand to take the sacrament, and that the deacons do not need to hold their hand behind their back.

Well...candles on the table would have put a fire in the meeting!!  Can you see a young priest with his hair on fire???  I like toast!!

Edited September 19, 2016 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A few years ago the priests offering the prayer said it wrong three weeks running.
All three times my Bishop let it slide.

 

Good for your Bishop.  I still remember one of my best friends saying the prayer wrong something between 5 & 10 times his first time as a priest.    Very traumatic for him. Mormonism seems to be the kind of religion where we in general think that the spirit of the law is what matters most.  Not sure where the tradition came from that exact wording is important on the sacrament prayer?  Seems like a good tradition to let go of.  

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it does not.

It is a rule that serves a few functions:

1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene.

2. As the highest ranking Priesthood leader in the ward it is his responsibility to make sure the sacrament is passed correctly. Giving it to him first means he is not distracted in the middle and can monitor the passing to make sure no one is missed.

3. The Bishop often misses breakfast due to morning meetings and giving him the bread and water first ameliorates noises his stomach may make during the three-hour block to preserve reverence.

hm... 

1.  huh?  I've never thought of it like this.  what could possibly go wrong?  I've never seen a bishop or presiding leader stop the meeting upon taking the bread or water first.  "stop...Stop...let's re-do.  The bread tasted bad, as if someone put in too much yeast or something". 

2.  Passed correctly? Sticking a tray in front of him can be done in the wrong way?  I think I put it up just under his chin once without noticing.  But he didn't stop the meeting on account of such an oversight.  Whenever someone has been missed or row or a section, I've never seen the bishop notice.  It usually takes someone from the audience raising their hand or grabbing one of the deacons as he walked by.  I don't see the need for the bishop to sit and watch all the passers in this way. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

hm... 

1.  huh?  I've never thought of it like this.  what could possibly go wrong?  I've never seen a bishop or presiding leader stop the meeting upon taking the bread or water first.  "stop...Stop...let's re-do.  The bread tasted bad, as if someone put in too much yeast or something". 

2.  Passed correctly? Sticking a tray in front of him can be done in the wrong way?  I think I put it up just under his chin once without noticing.  But he didn't stop the meeting on account of such an oversight.  Whenever someone has been missed or row or a section, I've never seen the bishop notice.  It usually takes someone from the audience raising their hand or grabbing one of the deacons as he walked by.  I don't see the need for the bishop to sit and watch all the passers in this way. 

1. I saw a situation where the Bishop shook his head no after the prayer and the priests missed it. The bishop walked over as they were passing the trays to the deacons but the bishop receiving it first is a good practical policy to make sure he has time to make corrections. I did not say he takes it and then decides it was done wrong.

2. My bishops have always watched the deacons and have occasionally noticed that a row or person was missed and the persons missed were too shy to say anything and the bishop directed the deacons to fix the problem. Maybe your bishops are lazy?  

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the Sacrament has been laced with some fast-acting, lethal poison, we certainly don't want the rest of the congregation to be exposed to it before the bishop's demise apprises us of that fact (see John 15:13).

 

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't show much faith in the "bless and sanctify" function of the authoritative prayer.

Meh.  It was thoroughly tongue-in-cheek.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

1. I saw a situation where the Bishop shook his head no after the prayer and the priests missed it. The bishop walked over as they were passing the trays to the deacons but the bishop receiving it first is a good practical policy to make sure he has time to make corrections. I did not say he takes it and then decides it was done wrong.

eh...that can happen whether he takes it first or not.  He can also just speak up a little.  Say, "sorry, guys...we need to repeat the prayer." 

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

2. My bishops have always watched the deacons and have occasionally noticed that a row or person was missed and the persons missed were too shy to say anything and the bishop directed the deacons to fix the problem. Maybe your bishops are lazy?  

It'd be easy to overlook.  It's not like there's 2 or 3 passers.  But I'll still look for the day when a bishop does notice....just haven't seen it.  And yet I've seen quite a few have to raise their hand or get the attention of the nearest deacon. 

I thought it was singly a matter of respect for the office or the presider.  But it's always seemed a little kingly to me. 

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I thought it was singly a matter of respect for the office or the presider.  But it's always seemed a little kingly to me. 

Christ is the Great High Priest and He rules and reigns over all. Ultimately, all the keys of the priesthood are His.

If Christ were in a sacrament meeting one would expect the sacrament to be offered to Him first.

As Christ is not here, He has chosen mortals to preside in His place until He returns.

It is in this role, as one who has been called to temporarily stand in the place of Christ, that the presiding officer is offered the sacrament first.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Christ is the Great High Priest and He rules and reigns over all. Ultimately, all the keys of the priesthood are His.

If Christ were in a sacrament meeting one would expect the sacrament to be offered to Him first.

As Christ is not here, He has chosen mortals to preside in His place until He returns.

It is in this role, as one who has been called to temporarily stand in the place of Christ, that the presiding officer is offered the sacrament first.

Yep.  that's been my understanding too.  Not that it matters much to me. 

[Jane_Doe]

14 hours ago, CMZ said:

Does the practice of the sacrament first being passed to the bishop (or whoever the meeting's presiding officer is) stem from a scripture?

No.  It is simply a cultural tradition. 

[HiJolly]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

From what I understand it started just after Pres. Grant became the President of the Church, although I am not sure he had anything to do with the change

Duncan for the win _AGAIN_! And no, Pres. Grant did not have anything to do with the change, it was made via a policy change sent out to Church units from the Q ot 12. In fact, Pres. Grant expressed surprise and a bit of annoyance that the 12 had not consulted nor informed him on the change.

[Jeanne]

52 minutes ago, HiJolly said:

Duncan for the win _AGAIN_! And no, Pres. Grant did not have anything to do with the change, it was made via a policy change sent out to Church units from the Q ot 12. In fact, Pres. Grant expressed surprise and a bit of annoyance that the 12 had not consulted nor informed him on the change.

Interesting...I wonder if this happens more often than we think..??

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Interesting...I wonder if this happens more often than we think..??

Now? I seriously doubt it.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HiJolly said:

Duncan for the win _AGAIN_! And no, Pres. Grant did not have anything to do with the change, it was made via a policy change sent out to Church units from the Q ot 12. In fact, Pres. Grant expressed surprise and a bit of annoyance that the 12 had not consulted nor informed him on the change.

Do you have a source for this?

[rockpond]

The best explanation for the practice of "bishop first" is in the 2001 film:  Brigham City.

The sacrament scene comes toward the end but you have to have watched the whole movie to understand it.  And if you don't cry, you are dead inside.

Aside from that, I agree with Nehor's reason #1.  It's not official, it's not scriptural, but it's a procedure that has a purpose behind it:  presiding officer shows approval of the ordinance.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now? I seriously doubt it.

Why?
There is no reason to think everything gets run by the prophet.  Especially when health becomes an issue.