Left Hand

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps he will explain so we can all rest easy once more.

I think he was pretty clear that this is what he believes (the need for exactness in using the right hand to partake of the sacrament).

But maybe he should have clarified that it's not church doctrine or a commandment to do so.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

At least now, parents can request to be present (or have another adult present) rather than their child or youth being alone with an adult male (who may be asking questions of a sexual nature).

That is progress, IMO and is also a good protective measure for the adult male as well.

Should have put "allowed". But wonder how common this new rule is being used or how many know of it.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think he was pretty clear that this is what he believes (the need for exactness in using the right hand to partake of the sacrament).

But maybe he should have clarified that it's not church doctrine or a commandment to do so.

Maybe so.

[ALarson]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Should have put "allowed". But wonder how common this new rule is being used or how many know of it.

I know that in my ward, the members are aware of it and many have requested to be in the interviews with their child/youth.  I've posted here before that my Bishop is in full support of this and has had some really positive experiences with having a parent in the interview.  Many have turned into great discussions, questions asked and answered, and parents have reported that at times the discussion has continued at home.  

I get that no system is perfect and many have reasons or opinions as to why a parent shouldn't be in the room.  But, overall....I think more fall into the category of benefiting from it rather than it being a negative.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not sure how the subject of the propriety of a man being alone with his blood sister got expanded to the rise of the Me Too movement.  Let’s stay focused on that idea.

I'm not sure if you understand why public figures need to exercise what might seem to us peons to be over-the-top caution.  And by the way, it wasn't "being alone with his blood sister", it was being seen in public walking with a woman not his wife, even if she was his sister, because who the heck knows she's his sister? Perhaps few enough people know what his wife looks like, but the number of people who do know what his wife looks like is much larger than the number of those who knows what his sister looks like.  Of course, you've never ever heard of church leaders being accused of stuff.  Never happens.  No such thing as a rumor mill, is there?

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Do I intend to ridicule Elder Oaks?  Being cautious about walking across campus with his own sister - yes, this seems ridiculous to me. He seems to be highly concerned about his reputation (appearance among LDS students that he is true to his wife).

You do not seem to be someone as dense as this seems to suggest.  Of course YOU can walk across campus with any given woman at any time, including your sister, and nobody will think the first thing about it, because you are one among an anonymous crowd with no fame whatsoever.  

But nobody as well-known as President Oaks can take anonymity for granted.  And I am sure you have read 1 Thess 5:2 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."  Perhaps you don't understand it in connection with prominent individuals.  President Oaks doesn't enjoy your privilege of non-notability.  If someone sees you with a woman not your wife, who the heck cares?  If someone sees President Oaks in the same circumstance, tongues may soon begin to wag, and the consequences will devolve not only onto him, but also onto the Church.  I think he is wise to take appropriate precautions, because the potential fallout is much more serious.

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But, I agree with your point that understanding his words more fully is important.  Perhaps there is more to the story. I can only say that while he is free to live as Victorian of a life as he wants, I do not feel the least inclined to see his choice as reasonable.

How is avoiding a potential misunderstanding over a matter of morality living a Victorian life? 

 

[CA Steve]

Just goes to show how things have changed. I've heard that in the old days you would tell people your wife was your sister so they wouldn't murder you.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Just goes to show how things have changed. I've heard that in the old days you would tell people your wife was your sister so they wouldn't murder you.

Like in this scripture:
"And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah" (Gen 20:2)

Although Abraham was half right because Sarah was his half sister. 

[mnn727]

Good thing President Oaks didn't mention White Bread. 

 

[MustardSeed]

I seriously doubt even the most zealous member is going to interpret a storied example from Oaks about his sister as God’s Law. 

Thats just trying to make a point about the ridiculousness of power and religion. 

**in my opinion** of course. 

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How is avoiding a potential misunderstanding over a matter of morality living a Victorian life? 

 

It’s a good question, but I see the situation differently. I would ask if worrying about one’s reputation is worth avoiding being seen with one’s own sister.

Who cares about a misunderstanding about morality?  If someone immediately assumes that I am cheating on my wife because I’m walking across BYU’s campus (quite publicly) with a woman, what do I care?  Why do I have to do my best to make sure others think highly of me?

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It’s a good question, but I see the situation differently. I would ask if worrying about one’s reputation is worth avoiding being seen with one’s own sister.

Who cares about a misunderstanding about morality?  If someone immediately assumes that I am cheating on my wife because I’m walking across BYU’s campus (quite publicly) with a woman, what do I care?  Why do I have to do my best to make sure others think highly of me?

I think he was probably less concerned about his personal reputation and more concerned about the reputation of his mantle.  Rumors (true or not) of church leaders can cause serious doubts and add fuel to the fire of a faith crisis.  They are not always easy to correct, especially when you don't know they are being spread.  I understand his being overly-cautious given his role.  I wouldn't be surprised if his caution is based on personal experience or that of other church leaders.

Edited February 8, 2019 by pogi

[CA Steve]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It’s a good question, but I see the situation differently. I would ask if worrying about one’s reputation is worth avoiding being seen with one’s own sister.

Who cares about a misunderstanding about morality?  If someone immediately assumes that I am cheating on my wife because I’m walking across BYU’s campus (quite publicly) with a woman, what do I care?  Why do I have to do my best to make sure others think highly of me?

Not to mention the implication that the unknown woman is somehow suspicious.

 

The funny thing about his example was this was Dallin Oaks walking across the campus at BYU where he was President of the school itself. Anyone who recognized him, and that would be pretty much everyone, would also know his character. So for his example to have any point, some person who knew who he was and what his wife looked like would simultaneously have to not know enough about him to suspect he might be walking with a women with whom he should not be seen and to ignore the fact that the walk was taking place right out in the open on a campus where he was the president. What part of such an event could possible be construed as suspicious?

 

If I were a U of U alumni my first response would be: "well you are dealing with BYU students so maybe he had a point."

[Navidad]

I broke my right wrist a hundred years ago playing football. I have had very little use of my right thumb ever since because the repair surgery went bad. If I tried to use my right hand things wouldn't go well.  Not only that I would have to use my right non-member hand to take and pass the tray! I wonder if I could get a special dispensation - as a non-member probably not! 🙄

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think he was probably less concerned about his personal reputation and more concerned about the reputation of his mantle.  Rumors (true or not) of church leaders can cause serious doubts and add fuel to the fire of a faith crisis.  They are not always easy to correct, especially when you don't know they are being spread.  I understand his being overly-cautious given his role.  I wouldn't be surprised if his caution is based on personal experience or that of other church leaders.

Hi pogi, 

Lots of response to the remarks I shared from Pres. Oaks.  You and others have weighed in valiantly.  I haven’t and won’t.  I truly believe what I said at the end of that post.  I discovered the deep wisdom in his remarks only through the process I described.  I don’t think I or any other mortal can convey that wisdom to anyone else by responding to someone looking for an immediate “answer.”

My experience during my short tenure on this site is that many here are seeking “answers” from others.  I see value in dialogue on spiritual topics as long as that dialogue among mortals is a precursor to sincere pondering followed by seeking wisdom from Deity.  

When I sense that motivation I’ll weigh in.  When I don’t, I typically won’t, both because I don’t believe the answers alone can impart wisdom, but also because I don’t want to re -enforce the notion that such dialogue is how one gains spiritual wisdom.

I am not, of course, trying to suggest to you, or anyone else, how to engage on this site.  I enjoy reading and learning about your perspective and thought I’d share mine.

Godspeed to you.

 

”

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I broke my right wrist a hundred years ago playing football. I have had very little use of my right thumb ever since because the repair surgery went bad. If I tried to use my right hand things wouldn't go well.  Not only that I would have to use my right non-member hand to take and pass the tray! I wonder if I could get a special dispensation - as a non-member probably not! 🙄

Probably could get a dispensation. First Presidency approval only, obviously. But now that President Oaks is in power, good luck with that. 😉

[Calm]

15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

It’s a good question, but I see the situation differently. I would ask if worrying about one’s reputation is worth avoiding being seen with one’s own sister.

Who cares about a misunderstanding about morality?  If someone immediately assumes that I am cheating on my wife because I’m walking across BYU’s campus (quite publicly) with a woman, what do I care?  Why do I have to do my best to make sure others think highly of me?

Maybe he was less concerned about his reputation and more concerned about the effect it would have on those inclined to gossip or worry about such things, he could have been wanting to spare them by avoiding what might hold the appearance of evil for hopefully no more than a few souls whose sense of self have enough other issues to deal with (given what those types of behaviour towards others are rooted in)

Edited February 9, 2019 by Calm

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Not to mention the implication that the unknown woman is somehow suspicious.

It's not the woman who is suspicious, per se, it's the behavior: spending time, alone, with someone other than your spouse. 

And I don't know about you, but I get along quite well with my sisters - we're really good friends, in fact.

If we were to take a walk around BYU, we would likely walk closer to each other than I would with, say, a co-worker or an employee.

We would smile and laugh a lot more as well. And we would probably make physical contact more often as well. 

To an outside observer, do you know what that sort of behavior resembles? It looks quite a bit like flirting. 

It isn't, obviously, but that's what it looks like to someone who doesn't know better...which would be pretty much everyone.

 

Quote

The funny thing about his example was this was Dallin Oaks walking across the campus at BYU where he was President of the school itself. Anyone who recognized him, and that would be pretty much everyone, would also know his character.

They know his presumed character, but they don't really know anything about him.

I attended BYU and met the president of the university exactly one time. We visited for all of about five minutes - tops. 

He seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

Here's the thing though - I've known nice people who have cheated on their spouses. So, there's that.

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

Ah, the effects of the Puritans linger on...

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Maybe he was less concerned about his reputation and more concerned about the effect it would have on those inclined to gossip or worry about such things, he could have been wanting to spare them by avoiding what might hold the appearance of evil for hopefully no more than a few souls whose sense of self have enough other issues to deal with (given what those types of behaviour towards others are rooted in)

This term “avoid the appearance of evil” is one that I hear often in Mormonism.  Is it really a commandment?  Where did it come from?  Why is that important?

I appreciate your suggestion as to why he would do what he does in this instance, but I’m not sure I fully understand/embrace why it’s so important.

Edited February 9, 2019 by SouthernMo

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This term “avoid the appearance of evil” is one that I hear often in Mormonism.  Is it really a commandment?  Where did it come from?  Why is that important?

I appreciate your suggestion as to why he would do what he does in this instance, but I’m not sure I fully understand/embrace why it’s so important.

In Catholicism, we use the phrase "the near occasion of sin." To me, that seems more helpful than "avoiding the appearance of evil." A near occasion of sin isn't focused on what other people think, but is focused on ourselves -- we shouldn't put ourselves into a position where we are likely to sin. It's a way of protection.

Perhaps LDS friends here can clarify, but appearance of evil seems to have us judge a situation based on what others may think. I think it is far more useful to judge a situation based on what we know about ourselves.

[CV75]

I think things like this, the simple practices, not the embellished ones; things not in the handbooks but what Elder Packer once called the "unwritten order of things" established and supported by those with the keys and responsibility to do so in the Church; and things that don't even qualify as "appendages"* are still part of the ethos. While they may be on a par with myth, having no direct basis in revelation that we know of, myths can still serve a practical purpose in advancing our spirituality (and the ability to receive revelation) when handled in the right spirit... and that's the kicker, or the rub for some!

Do we have to do them? No. Are they a reflection of our morals or worthiness? No. Will they change over decades or centuries? Probably, and even yes, just as the ethos does. Will they be replaced with some other practice? Certainly.

I think it important to recognize that our ethos has its basis in personal testimony of the fundamental principles and appendages of our religion.

* Referencing Joseph Smith, "“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

It's not the woman who is suspicious, per se, it's the behavior: spending time, alone, with someone other than your spouse. 

And I don't know about you, but I get along quite well with my sisters - we're really good friends, in fact.

If we were to take a walk around BYU, we would likely walk closer to each other than I would with, say, a co-worker or an employee.

We would smile and laugh a lot more as well. And we would probably make physical contact more often as well. 

To an outside observer, do you know what that sort of behavior resembles? It looks quite a bit like flirting. 

It isn't, obviously, but that's what it looks like to someone who doesn't know better...which would be pretty much everyone

In Oaks example they weren't spending time alone. It was portrayed as a public walk through a campus at which he was president, a man who is chosen by the 12 (or at least part of them) whose reputation was impeccable even at that time. Did the nice people you know who cheated on their spouses walk around publicly with the other woman/man? If so, at that point I suspect they were past caring what other's thought when they saw them.

If this same story had surfaced but was told from a slightly different perspective, that of an anonymous observer or even a known critic, who here would believe that observer if he/she implied something untoward was going on with Elder Oaks? No one. The problem here isn't that the advise isn't timely, to avoid the appearance of wrong doing, the problem is that the example he gave is just not believable and, in fact one that I think is not possible to actually observe. As someone else pointed out, we have local leadership doing one on one interviews in private all the time with women. Are we at a point where every time that is going on we should be suspicious?

It is simply not possible for most of us to avoid encounters where we are talking or interacting in some way in one on one situations. Given the #metoo movement I am sure most of us men are a lot more aware of when we might find ourselves in a situation that could potentially be misconstrued. But I hope we are not living in a society where every innocent hug between two people is seen as a potential Lewinsky hugging Clinton affair sort of thing.

 

Of course if this were 1842 Nauvoo, he may have had a better point.

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by CA Steve

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps LDS friends here can clarify, but appearance of evil seems to have us judge a situation based on what others may think. I think it is far more useful to judge a situation based on what we know about ourselves.

Both principles are true. I don't think one excludes the other. It's just that as baptized members of the church we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ and to be representatives of Him and His Gospel to others and we don't want others to judge God and His gospel based on what others see us do. 

[SouthernMo]

49 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Both principles are true. I don't think one excludes the other. It's just that as baptized members of the church we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ and to be representatives of Him and His Gospel to others and we don't want others to judge God and His gospel based on what others see us do. 

I’m not sure I see this. Christ did not seem to be concerned with how he was viewed. So if I’m trying to be like Christ, why should I take care of how others view me?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This term “avoid the appearance of evil” is one that I hear often in Mormonism.  Is it really a commandment?  Where did it come from?  Why is that important?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+5%3A22&version=KJV

It is part of a list of counsel to a community, on how they are to work together and support each other, imo.

In general the Saints I know use it in the sense of not becoming stumbling blocks for others.

Quote

 

5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;

13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

16 Rejoice evermore.

17 Pray without ceasing.

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

25 Brethren, pray for us.

26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.