I do appreciate the huge variety of voices that you let us hear! Thanks!

Julia
poetrysansonions.blogspot.com

One thing to remember is that not everything taught in the past — or today — is doctrine. Some of it is advice, or culture, or practicality. It’s easy to recognize that in some cases: nobody would think knowing how to burn hotdogs over a fire is doctrinal, even though our Scouts spend endless hours and dollars seeming to learn just that. I think exactly the same is true of these early 20th-century girls’ lessons: Whoever wrote them was trying to incorporate ideas she had absorbed from reading the latest philosophy or psychology news in the magazines, in order to teach correct behavior. She wanted girls to be respectful and attentive to speakers in religious settings, so she pulled in some pop psychology about how a speaker absorbs the good vibrations of a reverent audience. Doesn’t make it doctrinal. It’s advisory. It’s an attempt to make old-fashioned reverence relevant to the modern girl of 1901.

I know you are busy, but is there any context that makes all errors of doctrine (or that seem like errors to us now) any more comprehensible?

I guess that every time I won a speech or debate tournament I should have given my award to my competitors for their strength of character, which allowed me to win. And think of all the rounds I have judged since leaving high school. I was the only one listening, so my strength of character must have fluctuated wildly. (Okay, I will step off that horse. I just remember hundreds of speech qualifying rounds with terrible speeches.)

Julia
poetrysansonions.blogspot.com

Maybe it was my ignorance of the finer points of mittens that gave it away, sort of the way the old lady knew Tom Sawyer in drag was really a boy, when he put his legs together to catch the thimble (or whatever it was she dropped) and actually hit the rat when he threw a rock at it.

Every person in the audience or congregation exerts an influence upon the speaker. This influence may be strong or weak, according to the strength of character of the listener.

I guess that says something about boring, rambling high council talks. Now I know it wasn’t my fault when I used to serve as an HC and didn’t do well. I’ve heard of speakers getting an audience all tuned in to what they are saying, but this is the first time I’ve heard anybody refer to a reverse mesmerism of the speaker by the congregation.

If I had been a young woman in 1900, I’d have gone home mad.

I can imagine the last part, Mark B., but not the first.

Once the ordinance of the sacrament is over, the bread and water have served their purpose and do not retain any consecrated status. Eat and drink to your heart’s content. So saith, more or less, a handbook I read a long time ago.

Other than that, this lesson seems to be one long FAIL. Belshazzar’s feast involved the sacrament–or the vessels used in the sacrament? For an ordinance that was instituted half a millennium later?

And what not a word about what reverence means, other than being quiet? No suggestion that worship involves revering God, and that all those other behaviors will follow naturally?

If I had been a young woman in 1900, I’d have gone home mad.

A strong-minded person not in harmony with the subject spoken of can so influence the speaker the he becomes confused and is not clear in his arguments, while a strong-minded, intellectual person in sympathy with the speaker can help him to think clearly. People in all the world recognize this principle.

We do? I might recognize it if I had any idea what she was talking about.

Just one whisper will cause a rupture in this unified sympathy which ascends to the Master and to the speaker.

What an unchristian statement. This does not allow for the presence of children and babies at church.

the consecrated water

I’ve never heard this concept. I have heard of respect for the sacrament, stories about not leaving dropped bread on the floor, but this sounds rather Catholic.

People should go to Sacrament meetings with their mouths clean and teeth brushed. Is it reverent to drink out of a sacred vessel with an unclean mouth?

Eww. I’m glad for the current system of individual cups. (Which reminds me of the wonderful “Ads You’re Not Going to See Again” series from a few years back including the one on Sacrament Trays)

We are commanded to partake of the Sacrament with bared hand and with the right hand

That’s timely, due to the very interesting discussion Julia provoked!

The consecrated oil should be kept carefully corked, as even viler contamination might get into it than flies or insects.

Oh my goodness, the last chapter in this series was pertinent and interesting, but in this one she’s back to her usual amusing statements. Could this be Susa Young Gates? Anyone familiar enough with her writing to be able to tell?