I recently read a really good book, “Word by Word, the Secret history of Dictionaries.” I learned something I did not know. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. What this means is that dictionaries “describe” how words are used, and does not “prescribe”, or tell you how to use a word. As an example, most dictionaries have the word “irregardless” since it is being used so much.
I would expect the Church Handbook to be prescriptive. It would tell us what we should do. Yet the section on using the right hand in the new handbook sounds descriptive.
Members partake with their right hand when possible.
GH, 18.9.4, 7
What is missing to make this prescriptive is the word “must” or “shall”. So I then checked the reset of the section on the sacrament. There was plenty of prescriptive statements.
The bishop holds the priesthood keys for administering the sacrament in the ward. All who participate in preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament must receive approval from him or someone under his direction.
GH 18.9.1
There is the word “must”, meaning this is something that has to be done. The Bishop has no choice in this. Next we have the word “should”
Because of the sacred nature of the sacrament, priesthood leaders should prepare carefully so it is orderly and reverent. Sacrament tablecloths should be white, clean, and pressed. Sacrament trays should be clean. Sacrament trays and cups should be ordered well in advance.
GH 18.9.3
Should is used as a less prescriptive term. Not at forceful as “must”, but still something to do. Of course the sacrament service does not break down if the tablecloths are not clean and pressed, though they “should be”.
Lastly we have “may”
If members of his ward are unable to partake of the sacrament because they are confined to a home, care center, or hospital, the bishop may authorize priesthood holders to administer the sacrament to them. He may authorize this even if they are temporarily outside his ward boundaries.
GH 18.9.1
Here the word may allows the option to the bishop. He can or cannot do this, it’s his choice. Now there is a some legal precedent in contractual law that “should/shall” has the same meaning as “must”, but I don’t see that here. The writers of the handbook seems to have selected three words to convey levels or requirements:
- Must: you have to do it
- Should: highly recommended you do this
- May: your choice
But we could have a leader that interprets the “should” as a must, and you could have one that uses the “should” as a suggestion. These words are not defined like they are in some of the tech manuals I work with. In the front of these tech manuals they describe these words, and exactly what they mean.
So lets get back to which hand to use for taking the sacrament. How would that sentence have changed if it had been written like this?
Members must partake with their right hand when possible.
Members should partake with their right hand when possible.
This puts a new meaning to it. It makes it prescriptive, telling the reader what “must/should” be done. The original then sounds very descriptive, like it is describing the way it is typically done, either out of habit or custom. Was this on purpose? Is this really a descriptive sentence, or is it a sly way to prescribe the way to take the sacrament without actually saying you must/should do it?
What do you think?
(For much more thorough and in dept look at this, see Zelophehad’s Daughters Blog )
Wheat & Tares 
I am 66 years old and have been “aware” that the sacrament should be taken with the right hand. I do not know where and when this came into “my field of knowledge”, but I do know that I “notice” when someone uses their left hand. It instantly brings judgment into play. Kind of pharasitical when you think about it. Do we really need to be commanded or softly suggested as to which hand to partake of the sacrament with or can we give the individual soul that decision to handle. Then maybe we could think about bigger more important things and learn not to judge. One size DOES NOT FIT ALL .
I think it’s a light prescribe – they don’t want bishops calling people in over this, but I think it’s more than just descriptive.
I’ve been surprised by the number of people who’ve been unaware of the practice. It was deeply engrained into me growing up in a ward in the British midlands.
I agree with Elisa.
I’m left handed and prefer to use my left because it feels natural and automatic. Since 90% of people are right handed the right hand was probably the default simply because of the biology of handedness. After some time one or more church leaders may have decided there must be/could be/should be symbolism involving the right hand I believe the symbolism of the emblems of the sacrament and the symbolism of ingesting said emblems is of central importance, not which hand conveys the bread or water to the mouth. This is probably wicked thinking on my part, for left handed people have long been considered sinister. I have also heard the right hand is favored because traditionally the right hand is the eating and shaking hand and the left hand is the toileting hand.
I’m not saying I disagree with the instruction to take the sacrament with the right hand. But on a scale of 1-10 in terms of importance, I rate it less than 1. I guess the Pharisees in the crowd would rate it a little higher.
Bishop Bill, I enjoy your posts because they make me think and research. So..thank goodness for the internet so we can find out the whys of the things we do. It would not hurt for there to be a small descriptive in the handbook regarding the right hand of god and spiritual and religious meaning that it represents power and authority. Maybe made clear to an individual at baptism? But like me…until now, I just did it and “knew not why”. I feel like this is cerainly “milk” information…and now it has more meaning and I can tell someone the why involved in taking the sacrament with the right hand. This where questioning gets one. Like I said in my years of activity, this has never been something I heard explained in any talk on the sacrament. Good post!
If taking the sacrament with the right hand were truly significant to the Lord, why didn’t He say so in the NT, or at least in the Book if Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants where the word-for-word sacrament prayers were dictated? Why was this right hand practice not in the last Handbook? Why do we have to go back to 1930-something, I think, to find it in any handbook? (I think Stapley posted his research on this.)
The Lord isn’t in the least bashful about ordering that something be written and published. But He’s been silent on this. These per curiam “ shoulds“ and ”shouldn’ts“ drive me crazy. The unwritten order of things lets leaders of the moment slip all kinds of things in underneath the radar of express revelation and common consent.
It’s ironic that just as this mildly prescriptive “right hand” practice is reintroduced, the strongly-prescriptive yet sacralized “white shirt” makes its long-overdue exit.
I’m 40 years old and born and raised in the church. I never remember a time when members were told to partake of the sacrament with their right hands or that it was to be distributed with the right hand. This is nothing more than Pharisaic emphasis on unimportant minutiae. Never have I seen a greater violation of the spirit of the law. I mean, how do the leaders or members actually read Jesus telling off the Pharisees in the Gospels and proceed to talk about the importance of the right hand in the sacrament with a straight face?
I think we are picking at straws here. It seems to be understood that we take the sacrament with our right hand if we can. Why are we worrying about what the handbook says,whether it is must,should or can or can’t, taking the sacrament is what is most important. Sorry but the intent of the handbook is more important to me than the letter. Why pick at every word written we know the intent?
This has long been my key problem with the Proclamation. If the gender roles therein are “descriptive,” fine, but what’s the point? Also, they are demonstrably wrong often. If they are “prescriptive,” then it belies how true or accurate they are. It’s wrong to force people into prescribed boxes that don’t fit them for no real reason (and none is provided). So either way, the document’s statements on gender roles fail.
I received a link to a message from Pres. Nielson on social media today. There were lots of don’t be afraid messages but they were more than countered in number and intensity by fear-mongering for “not doing it right”. Having read this OP earlier, I especially noted an admonition about the “precision” with which we need to keep our covenants.
If God doesn’t save us from the woes of the world, it’ll be because we aren’t keeping every jot and tittle.
I feel that God’s “plan” for me, his love for us, and whatever he chooses to inflict or bless us with has to be bigger than the likes of “use your right hand to take the sacrament.” Or maybe we should just keep checking all the boxes just in case.
Concerning BeenThere‘s comment, which I appreciated:
I worked as a Temple Worker in the Washington, D. C. Temple for several years. Reflecting the temple ceremony itself, we were repeatedly trained that God wanted both love and things to be done exactly right in the temple, but that if both could not be achieved,
love was always to win out. Even temple workers and patrons have trouble getting things right, all the time. That is okay.
This is not just an issue in the Church. It is also seen in the government and in the private sector: a certain class of leader is so bothered by the possibility of error that they would rather complete 10 vital tasks with 100 percent accuracy, rather than 50 vital tasks with 99 percent accuracy.
My advice for me and everybody is to do the best you can, and don’t sweat it, regardless of who is doing the talking. The Grace of Jesus Christ exists to make our errors perfect before God.
While living overseas in Asia 1995-1999, I once translated a talk for Elder Russell Nelson, in which he, who in my judgment is a very OCD precise person: told a priesthood leadership gathering the following. I remember it very well:
(RMN speaking) I was the head of cardiac surgery at U of U hospital; I was a practicing surgeon; I was a Stake President; I was a husband; I was the father of 10 children. I was not doing anyone justice: my patients, my students, my stake members; my wife; my children. I just did my best. Brethren, just do your best.
I appreciated his talk. I do not think it is necessarily typical of the man, but he said it, I translated it, and I took it to heart.
BeenThere, conscientious people, to survive in the Church, need to be selective in what remarks their leaders make, that they listen to, and how much to pay attention to them.
Preferable is a nice word to add to prescriptive shoulds, musts, shalls…something about agency!
In Sunday classes, Mormons decry those Pharisees who built fences around the law … then proceed merrily along continually building more fences around the commandments. Obviously it matters not a whit which hand you use. We all know that.
A couple of years ago an apostle visited our ward and spent about five of his ten minutes giving us a finger-wagging lecture on taking the sacrament with our right hand. It was really important. Just the right hand. Unless you couldn’t use your right hand (broken arm in a cast, holding a baby with your right arm) — in which case it was just fine to use your left hand. So it is really, really important to use your right hand, except when it isn’t and then it doesn’t really matter.
Honestly, the Church gets dumber every year.
I’d be interested in knowing from Dave B. who that apostle was.
Silly “finger wagging” is not unique to any organization at any level.
I was amused some years ago when a bishop refused to proceed with ordaining my grandson to the Aaronic Priesthood until my left hand was placed on the shoulder of the person in the circle to my left. In fact, he took my left hand and put it there! So I guess sometimes the left hand is also really, really important. 🙂
Then there was the temple worker who gave me a lecture because the elastic of my cap was at the hairline and not in the middle of the forehead. I’m afraid I gave him an inappropriate lecture right back — but then there were no other family members immediately present to be embarrassed.
Taiwan, RMN may be precise about some things, but he is not when it comes to conceptual analysis or language or being careful about what he says. See e.g. his 2003 Ensign article confusion about no such thing as unconditional love or his Victory-for-Satan speech, etc. or his January 2016 speech from Hawaii.
Wondering:
Enjoyed your Input. The story about the elastic of the temple cap is particularly representative of an excessively rule-bound approach. I will counter that story, with a second-hand story I have heard about Richard Scott, who as a member of the Q12, attended an endowment ceremony, and put his robe packet under his seat, and was rebuked by a temple worker that that was not proper. Scott reminded the temple worker that everything in the temple, including the floor, was consecrated.
As to RMN, and my saying that he is an OCD precise person, and your point that he is not careful in what he says, and give as examples his no unconditional love speech or his January 2016 speech. You might have expressed his mindset better than I.
The impression that I have formed is that he is a man who can see many things that need fixing, and takes decisive steps to do that (a surgeon’s mindset, that implements 2-hour church, revamps the temple ceremony, simplifies priesthood organization into one ward Elders Quorum, etc., etc.).
The thing that concerns me is that I have not seen much that indicates that RMN understands that opinions different than his might have some validity (e.g. his comment that to him it is inconceivable that anyone could believe in evolution). He seems to me to be a person who believes that whatever comes into his mind comes from God.
It has also gradually seeped out that there was displeasure in the Q12 about his Hawaii speech; that there had been no consultation with his colleagues, first, as is more customarily the practice. His is not a collegial managing style.
So on a personal level, I have memories of a beautiful encouraging speech that I translated. mixed with a strong-willed management style that seems disinclined to differentiate between personal views and inspiration.
As a believing member of the Church, I believe that God guides this Church, but the process is often uncomfortable, and I don’t think we give enough emphasis on God working through intelligent, sincere, well-intentioned minds that are not infallible.
Taiwan: “a person who believes that whatever comes into his mind comes from God” — this could be either hubris or uninformed humility. I think I’ve seen both in various people. (I don’t know that I’ve succumbed to that particular manifestation of hubris myself, but there have undoubtedly been others . I wonder whether there could be any human who hasn’t experienced both hubris and humility.) But in either case the LDS culture of GA adulation reinforces such a belief on the part of GAs and seems to get in the way of any reality check.
Still, probably no one should pay much attention to comments on this from one as repelled by authoritarians and sycophants as I.
I agree that we “don’t think we give enough emphasis on God working through … sincere, well-intentioned minds that are not infallible.”
Taiwan – I appreciate your comment on Grace. I somehow had gotten well into my 40’s thinking that grace was that last bit that would save me after all I could do ( wonder where I got that). When I took my last breath, would I be worthy of the grace that would make up the difference? I then came to understand that we are always swimming in grace – it is what sustains us daily – not just extra credit on the final exam.
Five or six years ago there was an article in the Ensign about grace. It was written by my bishop at the time (who works in the curriculum department at the Church Office Building). I told him how much I enjoyed it and remarked that we don’t hear much on grace at church. He said, “We are finally able to start talking about grace.”
Your comment to me: “conscientious people, to survive in the Church, need to be selective in what remarks their leaders make, that they listen to, and how much to pay attention to them” is very true. I was a poster child for 20+ years. Eventually, for me, the calculus for surviving in the church was too costly. Perhaps if the remarks were offered up more humbly – for our consideration – rather than couched in absolute and authoritarian terms, weighing them would have been more a pleasure than the emotionally painful experience it was for me. I absolutely did not want to be out of step with the brethren. I took it seriously and did not want to be wrong and was very leary of my conclusions if they didn’t line up.
It would be too glib to frame it as “cutting out the middle man”, but it has been freeing and uplifting for me to not start from a mindset that these men are God’s (only) spokesmen to the earth and that I fail to heed their every word at my own peril.