Sacrament to Bishop First: Scripture or Policy?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Because the First Presidency and Quorum are much more in contact now and meet much more regularly. There is also a deeper sense of loyalty to the prophet in the Quorum now then existed 50-60 years ago.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because the First Presidency and Quorum are much more in contact now and meet much more regularly. There is also a deeper sense of loyalty to the prophet in the Quorum now then existed 50-60 years ago.

I believe you so I won't CFR this.

But I'd love to know how we know this to be true.  The Quorum met weekly in the days of HJG too.  But I know that there was also more conflict in the Quorum back then too.

[Jeanne]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Now you got me wondering about the film Brigham City.  I will have to see if I can get it somehow. 

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I personally like it when there is a mistake and the prayer has to be repeated. It automatically makes me more attuned to the actual wording, because I find I pay closer attention to what is being said. To me it shows the importance of the only ritual we do for ourselves, over and over again, in helping us utilize the atonement in our lives.

Although I feel bad for the priest, I don't think anyone ever thinks the worst of that priest for having made mistakes. If anything it breeds more sympathy/empathy for his feelings, if you ask me.

[Gray]

The only thing in scripture that might suggest an order would be "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". It seems then that bishops ought to get it last, but that teaching has never seemed enter our collective consciousness. 

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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". 

Just yesterday, the missionaries were blessing the sacrament for us. One of them said a wrong word, but then corrected himself and re-said that particular clause. I watched as the first councilor (bishop was out of town) signified to the Elders if he okayed the prayer or not. He was unclear in his signal. He lifted his head from the prayer, turned to look at them and lifted his finger, then he bowed his head again and it was hard to tell if he okayed it and was just in contemplation, or if he was waiting to have the prayer recited again. I remember thinking, "I'm glad I'm not in those missionaries shoes right now." The missionaries kind of looked at each other for a little while, then just decided to stand and allow the deacons to approach the table and pass. I watched to see what would happen as the first deacon approached, to see if the first councilor would send him back or not when he lifted his head. He didn't and instead took the sacrament.

Previous to that I never gave it much thought on why we should pass it to the presiding priesthood holder, for my entire life. It really made a lot of sense as to why, when I saw what happened in church yesterday. I find it uncanny to see this topic arise here on the same day. I don't know what I would have thought about it if it would have happened before yesterday. I find these types coincidences cool.... kind of like they aren't really coincidences but just anonymous, little miracles that God lets happen. I would have said something about it but Nehor beat me to it.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The only thing in scripture that might suggest an order would be "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". It seems then that bishops ought to get it last, but that teaching has never seemed enter our collective consciousness. 

Or does it mean that the bishop should be the first???

[cinepro]

9 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.

This wasn't just in Germany.  Apparently there was a period of time when a lot of LDS congregations were getting creative (and excessively formal) with the Sacrament, as documented in the paper:

Excessive Formalities in the Mormon Sacrament, 1928–1940

 

This is a funny story by Presiding Bishop Robert L. Simpson about his experience as a Deacon in the 1930s that I always enjoy sharing when the subject comes up:

Our new chapel had just been dedicated. It was beautiful. We were so proud. We even had a separate sacrament alcove behind the bishopric seats on the stand. Bit by bit we tried to enhance our sacrament service. Red velour drapes were installed to be drawn apart at the precise psychological moment. Smaller drapes revealing a picture of the Last Supper were drawn just before the sacrament prayers were given. All of the deacons wore white shirts and black bow ties. And last but not least, we had worked out a system of musical chimes to signal the opening of the drapes and the sacrament prayers. It was the most beautiful and dramatic sacrament presentation ever devised in any dispensation. Even the stake president was impressed—so much so that he invited President Heber J. Grant to come and see the Church’s new ‘Hollywood’ version of the sacrament. President Grant accepted the invitation and witnessed what turned out to be our final presentation. We were taught in unmistakable, but kindly, terms what the sacrament service should be. I’ll never forget that lesson. It was valuable not only to me, but to everyone else in that ward and in that stake.

 

[/quote]

[rockpond]

An interesting experience we had...

Not too long ago our Stake President was visiting the ward.  I think that when the sacrament prayer was said there may have been a small slip and correction.  When we raised our heads the bishop looked to our SP (as the presiding officer) to get is acknowledgement as to whether the prayer needed to be repeated.  The SP gave a thumbs up and the sacrament passing went forward.

After the meeting concluded, the SP commented to the Bishop that while he (the SP) may be the presiding officer when visiting us, the Priests blessing the sacrament were HIS (the bishop's) young men and the Bishop should be the one to decide if the prayer needed to be repeated.  

Without needing to spell it out, the SP seemed to be telling our bishop that there could be a young man who struggles with reading or memorizing or speaking in public... and this SP didn't want to correct them without understanding those underlying issues and those instances when sometimes it's "good enough".  

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Or does it mean that the bishop should be the first???

 

Ha!

But additionally:

Quote

 

Mark 10:42-45

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

Our traditions in the church are not in harmony with this principle. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Because the First Presidency and Quorum are much more in contact now and meet much more regularly. There is also a deeper sense of loyalty to the prophet in the Quorum now then existed 50-60 years ago.

I was around 50 or 60 years ago. I haven't noticed that change. President McKay seemed to have enjoyed the same loyalty as subsequent Presidents.

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

The only thing in scripture that might suggest an order would be "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". It seems then that bishops ought to get it last, but that teaching has never seemed enter our collective consciousness. 

Except that's talking about a whole 'nuther issue. It's not done because the bishop wants to make himself greater than others.

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Ha!

But additionally:

Our traditions in the church are not in harmony with this principle. 

It would be hard to make a case that the bishop should be given the sacrament last because he lords it over the congregation or is not the servant of all.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It would be hard to make a case that the bishop should be given the sacrament last because he lords it over the congregation or is not the servant of all.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Bernard Gui]

It's a policy and procedure, not a scriptural mandate. Why should it matter which? I don't begrudge the presiding officer this small token of respect. 

A few prayers (baptism sacrament, temple) are for covenants. They are required to be said word perfect. We need to be precise in knowing what we are promising to do and what the Lord is promising in return. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[HiJolly]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have a source for this?

Yes, IIRC it is in the personal recollections of Ted Lyon, Mormon Stories episodes 101, 102 or 103.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, HiJolly said:

Yes, IIRC it is in the personal recollections of Ted Lyon, Mormon Stories episodes 101, 102 or 103.

Hmmmmmm. Must be true, then.

[Duncan]

Just now, HiJolly said:

Yes, IIRC it is in the personal recollections of Ted Lyon, Mormon Stories episodes 101, 102 or 103.

he told some doozie stories about his Dad as I recall! 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, HiJolly said:

Yes, IIRC it is in the personal recollections of Ted Lyon, Mormon Stories episodes 101, 102 or 103.

Who was Ted Lyon?

[gopher]

I made the mistake of using Moroni 4 instead of D&C 20 when following along with the priest blessing the bread.  The bishop was out of town and I didn't have his card with the prayers on it.  The priest said "keep his commandments which he has given them" instead of "hath" as it reads in Moroni so I asked him to do it again.  He said it wrong again so I went over, looked at the words on the card he was using, and walked back embarrassed to my seat.  I was new in the bishopric so he forgave me, but I felt pretty dumb.  With the 3,000 changes made to the Book of Mormon, why couldn't the church have added one more to fix that one verse to match the D&C?

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

An interesting experience we had...

Not too long ago our Stake President was visiting the ward.  I think that when the sacrament prayer was said there may have been a small slip and correction.  When we raised our heads the bishop looked to our SP (as the presiding officer) to get is acknowledgement as to whether the prayer needed to be repeated.  The SP gave a thumbs up and the sacrament passing went forward.

After the meeting concluded, the SP commented to the Bishop that while he (the SP) may be the presiding officer when visiting us, the Priests blessing the sacrament were HIS (the bishop's) young men and the Bishop should be the one to decide if the prayer needed to be repeated.  

Without needing to spell it out, the SP seemed to be telling our bishop that there could be a young man who struggles with reading or memorizing or speaking in public... and this SP didn't want to correct them without understanding those underlying issues and those instances when sometimes it's "good enough".  

That is interesting to me.  Thanks!

[Boanerges]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was around 50 or 60 years ago. I haven't noticed that change. President McKay seemed to have enjoyed the same loyalty as subsequent Presidents.

Hmm. I seem to recall some discord between some apostle and McKay. Something about a book that McKay didn't totally agree with and he made the apostle put a disclaimer in it that it was his opinion and not the position of the church. After that it became standard to put such a disclaimer in all the books. Wish I could remember the name of the book or the author, but it's totally been put out of my memory. There was something about a second edition and waiting until McKay was incapacitated to publish it, too, as I recall.

I also seem to recall some other disagreements in the Q12 during McKay's time, something between that last Smith who would become president and some other apostles regarding evolution, creation, etc. It's terrible getting old.

McKay himself seemed to be fairly progressive for his time, it's clear the quorum did not fully embrace some of his ideas.

(Only some of the above is tongue-in-cheek.)

On topic, I think it's more tradition than anything else. Our bishop always nods his approval (or disapproval) after the prayers. There was one time the person blessing didn't see the "do over" signal and the bishop got up and went over and asked him to do it over. Another time the poor kid kept making the same mistake, so after the third time the bishop went over with card in hand and pointed out to him the correct word, after which he did it correctly.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Boanerges

[ALarson]

19 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?

Here's this from the "LDS Church History" page:

Quote

 

May 2, 1946 Letter To Presidents of Stakes and Bishops of Wards...

"...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.

When the sacrament is given first to the presiding authority, those officiating may pass the sacrament consecutively to members of the Church who are sitting on the rostrum and in the audience."

Signed:

Sincerely yours, GEO. ALBERT SMITH, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency. {1946-May 2-Original circular letter, L.D.S.}

http://lds-church-history.blogspot.com/2012/02/george-albert-smith-may-1-1946.html

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

35 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Hmm. I seem to recall some discord between some apostle and McKay. Something about a book that McKay didn't totally agree with and he made the apostle put a disclaimer in it that it was his opinion and not the position of the church. After that it became standard to put such a disclaimer in all the books. Wish I could remember the name of the book or the author, but it's totally been put out of my memory. There was something about a second edition and waiting until McKay was incapacitated to publish it, too, as I recall.

I also seem to recall some other disagreements in the Q12 during McKay's time, something between that last Smith who would become president and some other apostles regarding evolution, creation, etc. It's terrible getting old.

McKay himself seemed to be fairly progressive for his time, it's clear the quorum did not fully embrace some of his ideas.

(Only some of the above is tongue-in-cheek.)

On topic, I think it's more tradition than anything else. Our bishop always nods his approval (or disapproval) after the prayers. There was one time the person blessing didn't see the "do over" signal and the bishop got up and went over and asked him to do it over. Another time the poor kid kept making the same mistake, so after the third time the bishop went over with card in hand and pointed out to him the correct word, after which he did it correctly.

Of course.... Because we know about every discussion and exchange of opinion in the Quorum meetings. But then there are the multiple statements from people who actually are in the meetings that describe how they come to consensus. 

Quote

For the past eight and one-half years I have served as a member of a council of twelve men. We come from different backgrounds, and we bring to the Council of the Twelve Apostles a diverse assortment of experiences in the Church and in the world. In our meetings, we do not just sit around and wait for President Howard W. Hunter to tell us what to do. We counsel openly with each other, and we listen to each other with profound respect for the abilities and experiences our brethren bring to the council. We discuss a wide variety of issues, from Church administration to world events, and we do so frankly and openly. Sometimes we discuss issues for weeks before reaching a decision. We do not always agree during our discussions. But once a decision is made, we are always both united and determined. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/counseling-with-our-councils?lang=eng

We demand precise language in legislation and legal contracts. I would expect no less when making much more significant eternal covenants.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

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 have seen it a couple of times where hands were tentatively raised in a large crowd and missed because deacons aren't looking back and the priests at the table either weren't paying attention or they couldn't see.  It makes sense to have one guy assigned to keep an eye out so there is no confusion and one week you have 3 people and the next no one paying attention.