Comments on: On Music and the Sacrament

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:19:25 +0000

The conclusion to “recommend” to the Sunday School leaders is an interesting glimpse of previous notions of stewardship and lines of authority.

By: m&m

m&m — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:56:41 +0000

Love this. I didn’t know about the music playing that used to exist.

And here’s another bit of ignorance – do young men still get to figure out who the presiding authority is?

And love #21, Ardis, you goody-two-shoes you.
(I guess that makes me sound like one, too.)

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:26:08 +0000

18-19: That’s interesting, if it is generally how you both kinda sorta remember it. Administering the sacrament is mandated; the scriptures are silent as to whether or not there is to be music, or what should be the costume of the officiators, or to whom it should be first passed. One authority directs those details and gives very good reasons for his choices. Then another authority changes a detail, again for a very good reason. The core elements do not change; the trappings, and the meanings assigned to them, have changed, as we’ve seen so often.

That doesn’t bother me a bit. It *does* suggest that I ought to be flexible enough not to be upset when one/some of the nonessentials change, *and* that I have no real reason to grumble about any of it. (Somebody will be served first; deacons have to wear a shirt of some color; either there is music or there isn’t — why not relax and follow-the-leader on such nonessentials? Why make it a point of personal style, or claim it as a matter of personal agency or integrity, deliberately to go in some other direction?)

/goody-two-shoes musings

(written before I saw Mark B.’s comment)

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:14:59 +0000

I was in a bishopric from 1981 until 1985, and in stake leadership positions after that, and I don’t remember anything like that, BruceC. There have been instructions given to not make a big deal of it–that the other deacons didn’t need to stand at the sacrament table while the bishop was receiving the sacrament–that if the deacon taking the sacrament to the bishop would leave immediately upon receiving the tray, the others could walk to where they were to begin, and that in the normal course they would be able to start immediately, with just a quick glance to the stand to make sure the bishop had received it. But I don’t remember if those are in the handbook, or if they’re something I dreamed up and gave to the Aaronic Priesthood leaders.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:45:04 +0000

Bruce C: Now that you mention it, I seem to recall that as well (or maybe my memory is shot). If I remember correctly, the change was made so that the presiding authority didn’t get singled out or something like that.

By: BruceC

BruceC — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:14:09 +0000

I may be crazy, but I recall a short period of time when the sacrament was not passed to the presiding authority first. It didn’t last long, but I think I was in the Aaronic Priesthood at the time (early 80s). Everyone I have told about this said I was crazy. Did I just imagine it? Or maybe I was just attending an apostate California ward.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:25:15 +0000

I think I like Bro. Dumpy – I mean Dumpty.

Yeah, I agree – completely.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:26:33 +0000

That’s Bro. Humpty Dumpty. It’s a compound last name, sans hyphen.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:07:31 +0000

Bro. Dumpty, it’s too old for me, too (except when I’m transcribing something old). Even Ray might agree.

Thanks for pulling this out.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:35:05 +0000

Here finally is the OED definition that seems to fit best (except for the words: “the partaker’s thought”):

2. absol. or intr. To take away a portion. Usually to detract from: to take away from, diminish, lessen (a quality, value, authority, etc.).

It seems that “anything which detracts from the contemplation of the covenants the partaker is making” would fit this definition better. And it would fit with my sense of the meaning of detract. And I’m like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Another possibility is:

†4. trans. To draw away or aside, withdraw, divert (from an action or undertaking); refl. and intr. To withdraw, refrain. Obs.

An 1802 usage note is “[To] detract their attention from every thing foreign.” This seems to match the First Presidency usage.

I don’t know if the “Obs.” notation refers to the entire definition or just the last part. But as obsolete as some of the words and grammatical forms I use, this one’s too old for me.