Left Hand

[SouthernMo]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Therefore, it doesn't. You should let President Oaks know right away so he doesn't make this mistake again.

You seem passionate about this subject. I respect that. I like people who have strong principles.

But, answer for me: what will happen to those of us who continue to use our left and right hands (depending on which side our kids are attacking that day)?

Will we not feel the spirit as much?  Is the atonement less effective?

Or, is the idea for you simply a matter of obedience for obedience’s sake?  What are the consequences of not obeying this message delivered to a group of young men?

Why should I (or anyone) choose the “right?” (pun intended) 😁

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. Yet, if we really feel strongly enough about this to the point of demeaning an apostle, perhaps we should at least try to find out what's what.

 

Please explain to me how I have demeaned an apostle. Find a quote. I implore you - for the sake of your credibility.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. Yet, if we really feel strongly enough about this to the point of demeaning an apostle, perhaps we should at least try to find out what's what.

 

In your opinion, is disagree with an apostle the same as demeaning him?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If we really feel strongly enough about this to the point of demeaning an apostle ...

Some people who are inclined to demean apostles will use this as one more opportunity to do so. I'm not so inclined. At all.

That doesn't mean I don't get to be bothered by 'unwritten rules' as a general concept.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What if it is not pleasing to God that with pierce our bodies and stick inked needles in them? We should seek the Lord's guidance and do what he tells us. In the meantime, he has a few people who might be correct in counseling us. We are free to choose.

I Don’t know what pleases God or what doesn’t please God regarding sticking things in the body but I cannot for the life of me understand why piercings and tattoos are such a focus where plastic surgery( which seems far more invasive ) seems to be not only ignored but rather popular.  For the record, none of it troubles me, I’m live and let live with body altering.  My ears are pierced and right now I’m sporting some pretty fine fake fingernails and some gnarly eyelashes.

Since it doesn’t make any logical sense, it goes in one ear and out the other. I suppose that means that I don’t take as seriously Every word Spoken by and authority. So yes when the authorities speak I pray on it and ponder on it and decide for myself.

Edited February 14, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. Yet, if we really feel strongly enough about this to the point of demeaning an apostle, perhaps we should at least try to find out what's what.

How does this sound?

"Dear President Oaks (or just Oaks, as some here call him),

"I recently read about something you said in a deacons quorum meeting and then I heard a surreptitious recording of your remarks published on YouTube. In your remarks, you appeared to yell at the deacons and reprimand them for taking the sacrament with their right hands. I am not aware of any scripture or handbook instruction that says we have to take the sacrament with our right hands or it has to be done over. You said the Spirit prompted you to give them those instructions, but I think you were talking as a man, because back in your youth when such legalist practices were condemned by former Presidents of the Church and you can't seem to get in touch with the modern sentiments of the Church. Instead of doing this to these poor your people, you should have taken the time to give them positive, uplifting instruction and praise them for their efforts. You don't seem to be aware that there is no revelation commanding us to do this. Do you wish to repudiate this unfortunate misuse of your power as an Apostle?

"Patiently awaiting your answer,

"Bernard Gui."

That should get a quick friendly response.

 

Now Bernard, you have been duly reprimanded here for your flippant, sarcastic remarks. It’s serious business to disparage a First Presidency member, as is being done on this thread, and you ought not to distract from this solemn and important process with your impertinence. 

Stop it. Stop it right now, I say. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Because you can't hold people accountable for a commandment they were never taught.  The article from 1983 is great (thought it doesn't teach that we must take the sacrament with our right hand) but I wasn't even a member of the church in 1983.  

Robert Millet has talked elsewhere about how to tell what the current doctrine of the church is and one of the requirements is that it has been taught lately.  His point is that something that was taught decades ago but hasn't been taught at all since can't logically be considered church doctrine.  I agree with him.  If taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine, then we should have no problem finding recent lessons or sermons where that is taught.

Sure, but whatever symbolism you find in the temple (or in any other place) is not something that you should be teaching to anyone else as how they must see it.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said so I'm guessing you meant it for someone else.

So taking Brother Millet’s quote as our litmus test, wouldn’t President Oaks’s remarks to the deacons amount to it being “taught lately”? Or does the fact that someone secretly and without permission recorded it and posted it on the internet disqualify it as authentic teaching?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

My ears are pierced and right now I’m sporting some pretty fine fake fingernails and some gnarly eyelashes.

Funny, I've always pictured you as a male for some reason ... though I guess the above is not definitive evidence that I've been wrong ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So taking Brother Millet’s quote as our litmus test, wouldn’t President Oaks’s remarks to the deacons amount to it being “taught lately”?

I'm personally fine if the prophets want to teach us to use the right hand to take the sacrament. They have multiple methods for doing so: General Conference, Ensign and Liahona articles, lds.org, lesson manuals, statements read out at church, Church handbooks, and so forth. At this point, I haven't been taught anything authoritatively. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You seem passionate about this subject. I respect that. I like people who have strong principles.

But, answer for me: what will happen to those of us who continue to use our left and right hands (depending on which side our kids are attacking that day)?

Will we not feel the spirit as much?  Is the atonement less effective?

Or, is the idea for you simply a matter of obedience for obedience’s sake?  What are the consequences of not obeying this message delivered to a group of young men?

Why should I (or anyone) choose the “right?” (pun intended) 😁

I've been told on here that the WoW is all about obedience, as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm personally fine if the prophets want to teach us to use the right hand to take the sacrament. They have multiple methods for doing so: General Conference, Ensign and Liahona articles, lds.org, lesson manuals, statements read out at church, Church handbooks, and so forth. At this point, I haven't been taught anything authoritatively. 

What if you attended a region conference next week at which President Oaks presided and he taught this there. Would you regard it as authoritative then?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I Don’t know what pleases God or what doesn’t please God regarding sticking things in the body but I cannot for the life of me understand why piercings and tattoos are such a focus where plastic surgery( which seems far more invasive ) seems to be not only ignored but rather popular.  For the record, none of it troubles me, I’m live and let live with body altering.  My ears are pierced and right now I’m sporting some pretty fine fake fingernails and some gnarly eyelashes.

Since it doesn’t make any logical sense, it goes in one ear and out the other. I suppose that means that I don’t take as seriously Every word Spoken by and authority. So yes when the authorities speak I pray on it and ponder on it and decide for myself.

You should use "purely for cosmetic purposes plastic surgery" when comparing to piercings and tattoos .  I had plastic surgery to get help with head, back, and neck pain  My husband had it to fix a muscle in his finger.  A friend had it repair her stomach muscles in hopes that her lower  back pain could be controlled.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2 problems with that:

-1- Membership is discouraged from directly contacting or writing to General Authorities

-2- The likelihood of getting a response is somewhere between running into Pres. Oaks at Golden Coral and winning the Powerball Jackpot.

-Bonus reason why one shouldn't bother writing to Pres. Oaks-  It is more likely that your letter will be forwarded to your Stake President so he can sit down with you to answer your questions and try to determine how much of a problem you are.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. It’s so easy to stand back and take potshots from a safe distance.

1) Membership is also discouraged from surreptitiously recording General Authorities and demeaning them on the internet, but that hasn’t discouraged some here and elsewhere.

2) Yet some lucky few do both. You could win the jackpot.

3) CFR. Even then, if one really were serious about calling out a member of the First Presidency this would be a great opportunity to show some integrity. Would we say to his face or in a signed letter what we post anonymously on the internet?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I Don’t know what pleases God or what doesn’t please God regarding sticking things in the body but I cannot for the life of me understand why piercings and tattoos are such a focus where plastic surgery( which seems far more invasive ) seems to be not only ignored but rather popular.  For the record, none of it troubles me, I’m live and let live with body altering.  My ears are pierced and right now I’m sporting some pretty fine fake fingernails and some gnarly eyelashes.

Since it doesn’t make any logical sense, it goes in one ear and out the other. I suppose that means that I don’t take as seriously Every word Spoken by and authority. So yes when the authorities speak I pray on it and ponder on it and decide for myself.

As we all should. I believe that is what I said, so we agree.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Some people who are inclined to demean apostles will use this as one more opportunity to do so. I'm not so inclined. At all.

That doesn't mean I don't get to be bothered by 'unwritten rules' as a general concept.

Indeed. One can be bothered without bothering to bother.

Does President Oaks citing (with some doctrinal support and stating he was directed by the Spirit) this apparently “unwritten rule” bother you? I do not mean that disrespectfully.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You seem passionate about this subject. I respect that. I like people who have strong principles.

I am not passionate about which hand has the chocolate. Do as you wish, but at least consider what the man has to say. Rather, it does bother me that members would deceitfully record a General Authority for the purpose of holding him up to public ridicule and discrediting his calling. Then others pile on seeking other ways to marginalize him. I’ve witnessed several generations of members who single out particular apostles and prophets for this kind of treatment. 

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But, answer for me: what will happen to those of us who continue to use our left and right hands (depending on which side our kids are attacking that day)?

You are more than capable of figuring that one out for yourself.

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Will we not feel the spirit as much?  Is the atonement less effective?

Or, is the idea for you simply a matter of obedience for obedience’s sake?  What are the consequences of not obeying this message delivered to a group of young men?

I feel no compelling need to push against their counsel. How would we know it is wrong if we don’t try it? Alma gave us the sure-fire  method. Why not put this to the test?

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Why should I (or anyone) choose the “right?” (pun intended) 😁

The reasons given by Elders Oaks and Nelson and others have been presented several times. You can judge their efficacy, ask the Lord to confirm your judgement, and then act accordingly.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

In your opinion, is disagree with an apostle the same as demeaning him?  

Absolutely not. But there is disagreement and then there is disagreement.

I can disagree with Sister Gui over some large or small thing, but how I treat her while disagreeing makes all the difference. If I secretly record her in a disagreement and then post it on YouTube hoping to shame her into changing her position to suit my wishes, or simply to embarrass and marginalize her, and then invite others to join my efforts, I have demeaned her.

If we work out our differences in privacy and love, I have respected her.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Please explain to me how I have demeaned an apostle. Find a quote. I implore you - for the sake of your credibility.

I already posted a list of what In my opinion are disrespectful remarks about President Oaks. Some may be yours. I don’t know. You may disagree with my opinion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if you attended a region conference next week at which President Oaks presided and he taught this there. Would you regard it as authoritative then?

Probably not. The Church has used its authoritative organ to make a pretty strong statement about how to recognise what is authoritative:

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

This seems to be a pretty clear guide on this and other similar matters. The idea that one should take the sacrament with her/his right hand has not been 'consistently proclaimed in official publications', from what I can see. But I'm open to the possibility that the Spirit might guide me otherwise. I'm also totally cool if the First Presidency and the Twelve counsel together, establish this practice as authoritative, and then proclaim it, consistently, in Church publications.

Importantly, the statement above on what is authoritative is also why I'm not fussed by Pres Oaks's words to a handful of Saints in Chicago. We should actually expect Church leaders to have and share their well-considered personal opinions when they feel comfortable doing so. Either (a) howling in protest or (b) turning this into some litmus test used to determine that other Saints don't respect the apostles enough is unseemly, in my opinion, and contrary to our doctrine.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does President Oaks citing (with some doctrinal support and stating he was directed by the Spirit) this apparently “unwritten rule” bother you?

Not at all ... if people understand the Church's clear teaching that I quoted above. If I'm honest, it's the reaction of some on this thread who need to turn 'a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion' into either doctrine or a cause for offence that bothers me.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re a hoot, Bernie!

Always aim to please.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I would, however, be concerned if, after following these exact rules, someone asked me, 'Why didn't you look heavenward when you spoke the words of the ordinance?'

'I didn't see that in the instructions'.

 'No, it's one of the unwritten rules. It's clearly symbolic and important. I can show you heaps of scriptures where other people looked heavenward whilst praying to show you just how silly you are if you want'.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I apologize for causing you to think I am being silly. It certainly was not my intention. 🙁.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I haven't said anything too harsh about it. In fact, my first post about it was that I see that he is probably trying to show the importance of the Sacrament.

Yes, you did! And thank you. I agree with you that is what he was trying to teach  those kids, and to encourage them to be good examples to their ward.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's not true, Bernard.  It's that we ONLY take it with the right hand and that this is to be done with the exactness that the sacrament prayer is done.  That is not accurate and that is what is being discussed here.  No one has stated that we don't take the sacrament with the right hand....just that it's ok to also partake of it with our left hand too.

 Perhaps the OP could have better been asked as a simple question such as, “Why do we take the sacrament with our right hand?” Or “why do men remove their hats when a prayer is said?” Or “Why do we tell children to fold there arms and bow their heads and listen while the prayer is said?” IMO, posting a surreptitious recording and transcript of a private meeting in which an apostle is cast in an unfavorable light is the bigger issue.

Which hand takes the sacrament was a springboard into a lengthy discussion in which President Oaks came under negative scrutiny. Some of words or descriptions used about him and his comments include legalistic, makes people jump through unreasonable hoops, Pharisaic, fanatical, unhealthy, uninformed, angry, petty, rude, Victorian, waste of time, judgemental, arrogant, letter of the law....and more. Then other examples of his supposed non-doctrinal rigidity and error are trotted out. This is unfortunate, but predictable.

One can take the sacrament however one wishes. it is our choice. Personally, if what Elder Oaks said gave me heartburn, I would consider what he, President Nelson, and other authorities have said, take it to the Lord in prayer, and then act according to what the Spirit instructs. If it’s that big a deal to raise 10 pages of discussion, then perhaps I should make that effort if I think they are wrong, misled, or delusional..

Maybe this Sunday would be a good time to do some sincere reflection while participating in the ordinance.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So taking Brother Millet’s quote as our litmus test, wouldn’t President Oaks’s remarks to the deacons amount to it being “taught lately”? Or does the fact that someone secretly and without permission recorded it and posted it on the internet disqualify it as authentic teaching?

I admire Brother Millet, but is he quoting the scriptures or the Handbook? Or is he speaking as a man?

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I admire Brother Millet, but is he quoting the scriptures or the Handbook? Or is he speaking as a man?

I think the statement from the Church's newsroom, which I quoted above, is a more authoritative option.