Left Hand

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

 

You are absolutely right, therefore it is part of the shared heritage of all Christians. 

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2019 at 11:08 PM, 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.

You know, I keep saying something that's pretty darned important, and you keep ignoring it.  Why would this be?  Because it doesn't conform with your narrative?

I will try again: If everyone knew it was his sister, he wouldn't have a reason to worry about rumor-mongers playing up "unknown woman" angles.  It isn't that he is avoiding being seen with his own sister, it's avoiding looking like he's with some woman not his wife, because virtually nobody knows who his sister is.  Are you going to ignore this one more time?

How about another example that might make this more clear: President Trump walks down the sidewalk with Ivanka Trump.  Nobody comments about the pretty woman, who is not his wife, that he's walking with.  Because everyone knows it's his daughter.  But what do you suppose would happen if he were seen walking down the sidewalk with a very pretty young woman not his wife, who was unknown?  That's right, it would become the talk of the town, hints about Melania getting riled up about it would show up in the National Enquirer, and so on.  I'm not dragging Trump into this in order to get political -- he's just the most egregious example of the point I'm trying to make.

On 2/8/2019 at 11:08 PM, SouthernMo said:

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?

You just don't get it.  YOU don't care, because you're NOBODY.  I wouldn't care, either, because I'm NOBODY.  Do either you or I care if some witless dimwit wants to think that we're walking with some bimbo?  Heck no!  But President Oaks is neither YOU nor ME.  He has not only his reputation to worry about -- and under different circumstances (such as him being a nameless Schmo like you or me) he probably wouldn't care either.  But he has the reputation of the CHURCH to worry about.  Do you really think he should just shrug his shoulders and say "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes"?  Maybe you do.  Maybe he should.  But what he's decided to do is a rational position to take and a reasonable decision to make.  Clearly we are in one of those damned if you and damned if you don't situations.  This is a textbook example, with you providing the damned if you do side of the equation.

And I am not comparing Trump to President Oaks, just in case you want to misunderstand me.  I'm comparing the similar situations.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You know, I keep saying something that's pretty darned important, and you keep ignoring it.  Why would this be?  Because it doesn't conform with your narrative?

You are a hoot! I don’t ignore you; I just see it differently. You gotta relax, man.

Not everyone will share your perspective in life, and just because they don’t doesn’t mean they are ignoring you.

I get the idea that you’re sharing - that people in celebrity positions are under the limelight more than you and me. I just think that taking that principle so far that a leader won’t walk with his own sister is taking it too far.

You disagree - and that’s fine. But, I’m not ignoring you just because I don’t share your viewpoint.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You know, I keep saying something that's pretty darned important, and you keep ignoring it.  Why would this be?  Because it doesn't conform with your narrative?

I will try again: If everyone knew it was his sister, he wouldn't have a reason to worry about rumor-mongers playing up "unknown woman" angles.  It isn't that he is avoiding being seen with his own sister, it's avoiding looking like he's with some woman not his wife, because virtually nobody knows who his sister is.  Are you going to ignore this one more time?

How about another example that might make this more clear: President Trump walks down the sidewalk with Ivanka Trump.  Nobody comments about the pretty woman, who is not his wife, that he's walking with.  Because everyone knows it's his daughter.  But what do you suppose would happen if he were seen walking down the sidewalk with a very pretty young woman not his wife, who was unknown?  That's right, it would become the talk of the town, hints about Melania getting riled up about it would show up in the National Enquirer, and so on.  I'm not dragging Trump into this in order to get political -- he's just the most egregious example of the point I'm trying to make.

 

As long as the sister is ugly, there shouldn’t be an issue. 

We the good looking have such limits, it’s quite unfair. 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You are a hoot! I don’t ignore you; I just see it differently. You gotta relax, man.

Not everyone will share your perspective in life, and just because they don’t doesn’t mean they are ignoring you.

I get the idea that you’re sharing - that people in celebrity positions are under the limelight more than you and me. I just think that taking that principle so far that a leader won’t walk with his own sister is taking it too far.

You disagree - and that’s fine. But, I’m not ignoring you just because I don’t share your viewpoint.

Well, thank you. 

In his place I might have chosen differently. But I'm not in his place, and I  prefer to respect his decision. I've done things that others might have regarded as eye-opening (such as marrying a woman I'd only met 5 days previously), and I'd've liked to hope that others would just shrug their shoulders about it and move on.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/9/2019 at 8:17 AM, MiserereNobis said:

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.

This is the way I still think of it and it is a great phrase in my opinion--  It might be doing something which no one would ever see as "the appearance of evil" which nevertheless could be an "occasion of sin"- or a totally private act like going to a website one should not which no one knows about.

Any circumstance that may lead to any private temptation which could result in sin is an "occasion of sin" whether it APPEARS evil or totally innocent.

So if no one sees the transgression is it still an "appearance" of evil?  Debatable at best.  But it might very well be an "occasion of sin"

[Thinking]

I listened to the recording. It seems so Law of Moses.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/10/2019 at 4:02 AM, Stargazer said:

Well, thank you. 

In his place I might have chosen differently. But I'm not in his place, and I  prefer to respect his decision. I've done things that others might have regarded as eye-opening (such as marrying a woman I'd only met 5 days previously), and I'd've liked to hope that others would just shrug their shoulders about it and move on.

 

For what it is worth, I could have done that easily. But she had more sense and made us wait a year. But at least I was right.

Now 40 years together and I've never been happier. It happens!

Edited February 12, 2019 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 10:47 PM, Thinking said:

I listened to the recording. It seems so Law of Moses.

Over the weekend in Arizona Pres. Oaks spoke. This time it wasn't about law of a Moses issue like using the right hand instead of the left when partaking of the sacrament. This time it was about a law of Moses issue like piercings and tattoos. I'm glad Pres. Oaks is focusing on these salvific issues  

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Over the weekend in Arizona Pres. Oaks spoke. This time it wasn't about law of a Moses issue like using the right hand instead of the left when partaking of the sacrament. This time it was about a law of Moses issue like piercings and tattoos. I'm glad Pres. Oaks is focusing on these salvific issues  

Doesn't this create a codependency between the leader that is always denouncing some petty offense and the parishioner who believes the leader and then feels remorse because the parishioner is forever seeking approval from the leader but always falls short?

https://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-codependency/

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:30 PM, SouthernMo said:

But if you had been bishop, you would avoid being alone with your own sister?  Is that an expected level of morality for bishops (and above)?

You are right. This is totally absurd. It's hard to wrap my mind around how twisted it is to suggest that it is inappropriate to walk with his sister. I've walked alone with my sister. Never thought anything of it. Why should I? I even walked alone with her when...gasp...I was bishop. NEVER crossed my mind that it was inappropriate or that I should care if someone else saw me. If they asked me, "Who was that lady you walking with. It wasn't your wife." I'd simply respond with, "No, it was my sister." End of story. Mic drop.  

Being concerned about such things, or worse, holding up such rigid silliness as an example of proper behavior is sad.

[Thinking]

Quote

Much more important than concern over which hand is used in partaking of the sacrament is that the sacrament be partaken with a deep realization of the atoning sacrifice that the sacrament represents. Russell M. Nelson

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are right. This is totally absurd. It's hard to wrap my mind around how twisted it is to suggest that it is inappropriate to walk with his sister. I've walked alone with my sister. Never thought anything of it. Why should I? I even walked alone with her when...gasp...I was bishop. NEVER crossed my mind that it was inappropriate or that I should care if someone else saw me. If they asked me, "Who was that lady you walking with. It wasn't your wife." I'd simply respond with, "No, it was my sister." End of story. Mic drop.  

Being concerned about such things, or worse, holding up such rigid silliness as an example of proper behavior is sad.

It's telling, the LDS mindset sometimes. We've been trained to believe that we don't have enough self control apparently. Just like the advice in church not to ride alone with a male or female in a car that we're not married to. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are right. This is totally absurd. It's hard to wrap my mind around how twisted it is to suggest that it is inappropriate to walk with his sister. I've walked alone with my sister. Never thought anything of it. Why should I? I even walked alone with her when...gasp...I was bishop. NEVER crossed my mind that it was inappropriate or that I should care if someone else saw me. If they asked me, "Who was that lady you walking with. It wasn't your wife." I'd simply respond with, "No, it was my sister." End of story. Mic drop.  

Being concerned about such things, or worse, holding up such rigid silliness as an example of proper behavior is sad.

I think one can care too much about what other people are thinking.  If he was walking with his sister, he knew he was doing nothing wrong.  If you limit yourself to this type of control, things can be read into almost anything.

We have a couple in our ward who were fighting over whether or not they should put their Keurig machine away after each time they used it.  Their kids love using the machine to make their hot chocolate in the morning (or anytime....using the little k-cups).  None of them drink coffee and it's never been used for making coffee.  The wife wanted to just leave it out on the counter all the time (it's a hassle putting it away and having the kids pull it out for each use) and the husband was adamant that it needed to be out of sight in case a leader from the ward (or just any ward member) came over and saw it out on the counter.  The wife won the argument in the end (and I agree with her).  She said, "WE know we're not drinking coffee and we have never used it for that....it's used for us to make our hot chocolate and it's easy for the kids to use it without any help.  It's nobodies business and it's staying out."  I thought....good for her! 

Edited February 13, 2019 by ALarson

[Rock_N_Roll]

I had a neighbor who wouldn’t let his children drink root beer from a bottle because it looked too much like a beer.  Avoiding the appearance of evil and all.  I wonder if that neighbor realized that beer comes in cans as well?  That same ward had the deacons pass the sacrament with their left hand behind their back for the first few years I was there.  They kept white shirts and ties in a closet, so deacons had no excuse to pass the sacrament in anything but a white shirt and tie.  (tennis shoes were ok for some reason).  

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I had a neighbor who wouldn’t let his children drink root beer from a bottle because it looked too much like a beer.  Avoiding the appearance of evil and all.  I wonder if that neighbor realized that beer comes in cans as well?  That same ward had the deacons pass the sacrament with their left hand behind their back for the first few years I was there.  They kept white shirts and ties in a closet, so deacons had no excuse to pass the sacrament in anything but a white shirt and tie.  (tennis shoes were ok for some reason).  

Wow! Such awful people!

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:22 AM, bluebell said:

I admit I don't' understand the idea that the sacrament should be taken with the right hand because ordinances must be done with the right hand, considering that we have ordinances which require the use of the left hand.  I get the symbolism behind the use of the right hand (and I think it's valid) but there is precedent for using both hands for sacred ordinances as well.

But in those ordinances, use of the specified hand (be it right or left) is not optional. Where exactness is so often required (as, for example, in the wording of the sacramental prayers), I think it is understandable that some Latter-day Saints would expect such exactness even where it appears no hard-and-fast rule is given. 

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Wow! Such awful people!

No, not "awful" people. Just ridiculous people. And it's worse when people pretend like their overzealousness is God's will and teach it as such. So, "awful"? No. But misguided Pharisees taking the name of God in vain (claiming his will when it is not), then, maybe.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Doesn't this create a codependency between the leader that is always denouncing some petty offense and the parishioner who believes the leader and then feels remorse because the parishioner is forever seeking approval from the leader but always falls short?

https://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-codependency/

This is not a petty offense. It pertains to defilement of the human body, which Paul the apostle called a temple. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But in those ordinances, use of the specified hand (be it right or left) is not optional. Where exactness is so often required (as, for example, in the wording of the sacramental prayers), I think it is understandable that some Latter-day Saints would expect such exactness even where it appears no hard-and-fast rule is given. 

So if no hard-fast rule is given, you think it is understandable that people would expect exactness? Exactness to what? Someone's opinion? There is no rule so how can a non-rule be followed with exactness? Seems like a great example of looking beyond the mark.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think one can care too much about what other people are thinking.  If he was walking with his sister, he knew he was doing nothing wrong.  If you limit yourself to this type of control, things can be read into almost anything.

We have a couple in our ward who were fighting over whether or not they should put their Keurig machine away after each time they used it.  Their kids love using the machine to make their hot chocolate in the morning (or anytime....using the little k-cups).  None of them drink coffee and it's never been used for making coffee.  The wife wanted to just leave it out on the counter all the time (it's a hassle putting it away and having the kids pull it out for each use) and the husband was adamant that it needed to be out of sight in case a leader from the ward (or just any ward member) came over and saw it out on the counter.  The wife won the argument in the end (and I agree with her).  She said, "WE know we're not drinking coffee and we have never used it for that....it's used for us to make our hot chocolate and it's easy for the kids to use it without any help.  It's nobodies business and it's staying out."  I thought....good for her! 

We use a Cocomotion machine to make our hot chocolate. I don’t think they manufacture them anymore, but we have laid in a supply of three or four so we will never be without them. 

It says on the label that Cocomotion is made “by Mr.Coffee,” but that has never bothered me. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if no hard-fast rule is given, you think it is understandable that people would expect exactness? Exactness to what? Someone's opinion? There is no rule so how can a non-rule be followed with exactness? Seems like a great example of looking beyond the mark.

I think what has emerged from this discussion is that there is good reason for using the right hand, even though no requirement is in placeregarding it.  Good enough that I’m not going to refuse to do it out of some sense of benign rebellion against convention. To me, that seems just as silly as insisting everybody follow the right-hand custom. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not a petty offense. It pertains to defilement of the human body, which Paul the apostle called a temple. 

Mere opinion designed to have something to condemn.  Church leaders need something to point at otherwise their relevance diminishes. Also, these are all minor things. Meanwhile real issues are put aside. When will Pres. Oaks or Nelson attack real issues like the endless wars or the real causes of poverty, etc? MLK tackled racism and was about to go after the unjustness of Vietnam prior to being gunned down. Pres. Oaks worries which hand to use and shames young ladies. Pres. Nelson is too busy being caught up with semantics. Do you really think Satan wins when I use the word Mormon?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what has emerged from this discussion is that there is good reason for using the right hand, even though no requirement is in placeregarding it.  Good enough that I’m not going to refuse to do it out of some sense of benign rebellion against convention. To me, that seems just as silly as insisting everybody follow the right-hand custom. 

Did I say I was going to refuse to use my right hand?

You continue to miss the point. There is no problem with a person using their right hand, or their left hand to partake of the sacrament. But it is a problem when people try to impose their personal belief or opinion onto others, even going so far as to "teach" them the proper way of doing it, when it really isn't God's will at all. Expecting that others follow with exactness a non-rule is a problem.

Personally, I usually take it with my right hand, most likely because I'm right handed. But if the tray is passed in such a way that I can only really reach well with my left, guess what? I'll take it with my left. No biggie. But having an apostle teach that it is a biggie to a bunch of kids is quite unimpressive.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did I say I was going to refuse to use my right hand?

You continue to miss the point. There is no problem with a person using their right hand, or their left hand to partake of the sacrament. But it is a problem when people try to impose their personal belief or opinion onto others, even going so far as to "teach" them the proper way of doing it, when it really isn't God's will at all. Expecting that others follow with exactness a non-rule is a problem.

Personally, I usually take it with my right hand, most likely because I'm right handed. But if the tray is passed in such a way that I can only really reach well with my left, guess what? I'll take it with my left. No biggie. But having an apostle teach that it is a biggie to a bunch of kids is quite unimpressive.

Which apostle taught “that it is a biggie to a bunch of kids”? It is you who seems spun up over it. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd