Comments on: I Have a Question, 1891

By: Ed Britton

Ed Britton — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:43:28 +0000

“an Elder, preaching to the people in the place where he lived, stated that the cause of so much sickness and death among the little ones of that settlement last fall and spring was the non-observance by the people of the Word of Wisdom.”

Let’s not adlib doctrine.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:49:57 +0000

In response to Maureen’s question in #45, yes, both of the priests kneel in our ward. Sometimes there are two priests; sometimes three. I don’t know much about how these things work. There are a number of recent converts in my ward whose first language is Spanish, and they’ve given the sacrament prayers in Spanish a few times recently.

By: Paul Reeve

Paul Reeve — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:00:54 +0000

As an elaboration on #44,the JI published three versions of the demonic possession experience and its link to the WofW, according to two versions the possessed boy’s mother “smoked tobacco and drank tea.” One account reports that the entire family eventually “became indifferent to their holy religion and apostatized, and the man who had been so miraculously healed, died a raving maniac.” (Tea anyone?) Two of these printings predate the 1891 questions that Ardis features here (two in 1884 and then another in 1894, three years after GQC attempts to dispel the notion of a connection between sickness/death and WofW). I point this out only to suggest that the question did not necessarily come from left field and that the JI was somewhat at odds with itself on the issue.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:30:31 +0000

Re ##40, 43, the April 1902 Improvement Era featured this item:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. On Administering the Sacrament. Is it proper, according to Church laws, in administering the sacrament when two or more are officiating, for two to kneel together; or should only one kneel at a time? The reader is referred to the Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 20:75-79 and to the Book of Mormon, Moroni 4:1, 3; 5:1, 2. It is customary and proper for the two who officiate in the administration of the sacrament to kneel together while the prayer is being said. In the early part of the history of the Church, when the congregrations were not so large as they are now, it was not unusual for the congregation also to kneel, but it is now both customary and proper for those two who administer the holy sacrament to kneel with the congregation; and it is also in conformity with what would seem to have been the custom of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, as declared in Moroni 4:2: "And they did kneel down with the Church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ saying," etc. This matter, however, may be regulated by the presiding anthority, according to local surroundings, circumstances, and conditions, though a uniform method conformable to the above is desirable.

Thirty years ago, James Allen addressed this issue in the Ensign.

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:51:46 +0000

On the other hand, where else would they kneel if it weren’t “with the church”? Would any be concerned that the priests might be off in a closet somewhere, offering the prayer, and not allowing them to participate in that prayer?

I think the alternative would be to do it before the meeting so that the bread and water come “pre blessed” instead of the blessing being done “with the church”

It is sort of like my father syaing we should bless the food when we get it home from the grocery store so we don’t have to bless it for each meal.

By: Maurine

Maurine — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:31:44 +0000

There are so many interesting comments on these questions that I don’t have anything new to add. But, I do have a question regarding JFS comments on blessing the sacrament: I will make one remark on this occasion tonight, by way of suggestion, that when there are two, which is generally the case, to administer the bread and water, or, in other words, to prepare the bread and water for the sacrament, no matter whether they carry them or not, let these two kneel conjointly together—the one that is not mouth kneeling with his brother who asks the blessing upon either the bread or the water. I think this is proper seeing that they are acting conjointly.

Has anyone actually seen this done, both persons kneeling together? I have only seen one person at a time kneel and say the prayer while the others remain standing.

By: Paul Reeve

Paul Reeve — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:44:50 +0000

RE: The WofW and sickness, Zera Pulsipher recounts in his autobiography a demonic possession exorcism which he performed. However, the demons continued to return to afflict the same young man. Zera appealed to Joseph Smith Sr. for an explanation. JS, Sr. replied that it was a consequence of the boy’s parents not living the WofW. The story was reprinted in the JI twice, if I recall. The full story and references are in the Gadianton Robber article in JMH, which of course is at the office. Not hard to see Mormon folk attempting to make sense of what must have been devastating losses, making a leap of logic from there.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:56:16 +0000

For an interesting pragmatic interpretation, Joseph E. Taylor related the following in 1894:

Some years ago in one of the wards of this stake, though remote from this city, we were holding a ward conference. The meeting house was packed. It was rather small to begin with, although perhaps large enough for ordinary occasions. The bishop had inaugurated the system—he was technical upon the point—of having the people kneel at the time the bread and water was blessed, and I noticed a terrible confusion during the blessing of the bread. The people were packed in the house almost like sardines in a box, and to get down on their knees, and to relieve themselves from that position, created, as I have said, a vast amount of confusion. I suggested to the bishop to have the congregation seated while the blessing was being asked on the water, and have the brethren who were administering the sacrament kneel. I am satisfied in my own mind that this was correct under the circumstances. And by the way, there was another thing very distasteful to me. The floor was very dirty, and consequently a great deal of dust attached to the dresses of the people. If we must kneel we certainly ought to have a floor that is sufficiently clean upon which to kneel with some degree of satisfaction, and not have our minds charged with the thought that in kneeling we are injuring our dresses.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:07:06 +0000

Ardis,

You (and Joseph F. Smith) are right, of course. To say “kneel with the church” carries the sense you describe–that they are “with the church” when they kneel. (And that understanding certainly has carried the day, hasn’t it?)

Which, if we were lawyers parsing the sentence as if it were a statute, would lead us to conclude that the phrase is superfluous as you and Pres. Smith have read it. And that it is only necessary if it is read to mean the whole church kneels with the priests administering the sacrament.

The appeals to authority from the time of Brothers Joseph and Brigham are less than completely convincing in light of other changes in practice since those days.

But, you won’t see me marching on 47 East South Temple, demanding a change in the practice. (It would help, I think, emphasize the solemnity of the occasion if we did it sometimes–say, on Easter Sunday.)

Steve C: I’m sure that a few minutes work with Photoshop on an image downloaded from the Sports Illustrated website would give you a pretty good page that you could run past your wife for her approval.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:19:21 +0000

#38 – Go ahead and try that. I’m too scared.