Left Hand

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Which was good and no one disagrees with that.  However, he also taught them something that wasn’t correct.  One does not have to partake of the sacrament only with their right hand with the equal exactness that the sacrament prayer has to be said.

You keep leaving that part out.   He left them believing something that is not true.  It’s totally acceptable to use your left hand to partake of the sacrament even if there is symbolism attached to using your right hand to perform ordinances.

Hopefully, most of those young men discussed this with their parents afterwards and this was clarified.  

Edited February 14, 2019 by JulieM

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

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.

It seems though, that you have not figured it out for yourself. You’re defending how right Elder Oaks is without personal experience on the specific matter at hand (pun intended).

How has taking the sacrament with your right hand improved your experience over times you have taken it with your left?

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

If you don’t know which remarks are mine, do not accuse me of demeaning him. You either can show me what I have said that demeans Elder Oaks or you cannot. This is not an “opinion” statement, Bernard.  Please, show me where I have demeaned him, or take back your emotionally-charged statement.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

In defense of the “unwritten order of things” that are established by those with the keys and prerogative to set them, or correct them as eh case may be, and which do change over time, is that they are part of what makes a “house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119).

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 -- and try to imagine what you would be like without one of any kind; you inescapably belong to an ethos of some kind. 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.”

I agree with your thoughts about ethos and how we are linked through our cultural expectations...BUT... the problem arises when some people choose to mandate obedience to these cultural norms as if they are God's will. It is a good example of how God's will is misunderstood and incorrectly taught. This "unwritten order of things" should not be enforced upon others. Was wearing a white shirt and tie part of my cultural upbringing? Yes. Was taking the sacrament with my right hand part of my cultural upbringing? Yes. That is the ethos created by adhering to the written order of things which is fine. What is not fine, is enforcing that unwritten order as though it comes from the mouth of God, and when prophets and apostles put forward cultural norms as God's will they are doing a huge disservice to the people they serve by taking God's name in vain by attributing to Him what is theirs.

You totally lost me with the statement that the ethos "has its basis in personal testimony". Having a testimony of a cultural norm has nothing to do with religion and seems to have much more to do with boundary maintenance between the in and out groups.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. Even if it did, wouldn't that be better than 9 pages of guesswork, insinuations, searches for more egregious statements by President Oaks, ridicule, marginalizing, and second-guessing? Why not give it a try? If it's kicked back, it could become the motivation for another 9 pages of exposing him as an ogre. Isn't what this is all about?

No, it wouldn't be better. If I question Oaks' teaching and he sends it to my SP to correct me or teach me, what I then have is the SP's assumptions, bias, and guesswork about what Oaks meant. But it's even worse because the SP's guesswork is supposed to be authoritative. It adds a level of gravitas to the guesswork of a man who really has no more knowledge of Oaks' thought process than we have.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 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?” 

Maybe you can start a thread if you feel this would be a good discussion to have?

Quote

 

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.

 

With all due respect Bernard, I do not need you to tell me what I need to reflect on this Sunday during the sacrament portion of our meeting.  I love that part of our worship service and spend it contemplating and pondering things that are on my mind or are of spiritual importance to me at that time (or something I've been reading during the week in the scriptures, etc.).  I certainly do not need to reflect on how sometimes our leaders speak as men, give their opinions and sometimes make mistakes.  I also do not need to reflect on how wrong it is to use my left hand to partake of the sacrament.  I respect that this is Pres. Oak's opinion, but I disagree with him teaching this as if it's doctrine or that it is a definite, exact church teaching.  It is not.

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Which was good and no one disagrees with that.  However, he also taught them something that wasn’t correct.  One does not have to partake of the sacrament only with their right hand with the equal exactness that the sacrament prayer has to be said.

You keep leaving that part out.   He left them believing something that is not true.  It’s totally acceptable to use your left hand to partake of the sacrament even if there is symbolism attached to using your right hand to perform ordinances.

Hopefully, most of those young men discussed this with their parents afterwards and this was clarified.  

Exactly right. The problem isn't really about left/right hand. It's really about an apostle, a member of the 1st Presidency, teaching something as doctrine, that isn't. That should be concerning to people IMO because it accomplishes nothing positive but rather erodes trust.

[bluebell]

9 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?

For the deacons, sure.  For the rest of the church?  No.

[ALarson]

9 hours 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. 

It will be interesting to see if Pres. Oaks becomes the Prophet in his lifetime, if he makes this a hard, fast rule or teaching (only take the sacrament with the right hand) since this does appear to be a pet peeve of his or something that really bothers him.  Many have believed the same happened with Pres. Nelson regarding the name of the church.  That this had been a pet peeve of his for years and an issue he'd had and he wanted to make the change.

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

So, no one on this thread has demeaned anyone then, since no one on this thread has done the bolded part above?  If no one here has demeaned him then why keep focusing on that?  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

It will be interesting to see if Pres. Oaks becomes the Prophet in his lifetime, if he makes this a hard, fast rule or teaching (only take the sacrament with the right hand) since this does appear to be a pet peeve of his or something that really bothers him.  Many have believed the same happened with Pres. Nelson regarding the name of the church and that had been a pet peeve of his for years and an issue he's had and had wanted to make the change.

Let's pretend that either a Pres. Nelson or a Pres. Oaks officially codifies right hand usage for the sacrament. Would that really make it a doctrine? I don't think so. It would still be their opinion. Now, if that teaching managed to stick through multiple prophets and apostles over the next hundred years so that there is consistency to the teaching as doctrine, then yeah, it would be a church doctrine. But does that mean it's God's will? Nope.  #priesthoodban

[JulieM]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exactly right. The problem isn't really about left/right hand. It's really about an apostle, a member of the 1st Presidency, teaching something as doctrine, that isn't. That should be concerning to people IMO because it accomplishes nothing positive but rather erodes trust.

It would concern me if my son had been one of these deacons.  I would actually be pretty sad (after being thrilled he was personally going to hear from an Apostle!).  It would be disappointing to hear his report of what was said (at least some of it).  I would make sure to read to him what President Nelson taught about this and what are actually the church teachings.  I would be respectful, but let my son know these are men who express their own opinions sometimes and it’s not wrong to partake of the sacrament with your left hand at times.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

This thread was probably started when I posted something about the recording on another thread, sorry Bernard. So I take the blame for that. But my intention was to ask about whether it was true or not, because I vaguely remember reading another thread a few years ago on the MDDB and people discussing whether it was needed to only use the right hand. That's why I brought it up, but not to demean Pres. Oaks. 

I got to thinking about the times we use our right hand in church. And thought about how we're told to raise our hand when sustaining people in callings. Is that spoken as using the right hand? My memory is fading on this, since my inactivity. 

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, no one on this thread has demeaned anyone then, since no one on this thread has done the bolded part above?  If no one here has demeaned him then why keep focusing on that?  

Fruit of the poisoned tree. Because IMO, he has been demeaned. I have provided two posts with examples. You may notagree, and that’s fine. We all see things differently.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This thread was probably started when I posted something about the recording on another thread, sorry Bernard. So I take the blame for that. But my intention was to ask about whether it was true or not, because I vaguely remember reading another thread a few years ago on the MDDB and people discussing whether it was needed to only use the right hand. That's why I brought it up, but not to demean Pres. Oaks. 

I got to thinking about the times we use our right hand in church. And thought about how we're told to raise our hand when sustaining people in callings. Is that spoken as using the right hand? My memory is fading on this, since my inactivity. 

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful words. You are not responsible for what the rest of us choose to do. I think we are all learning some valuable things here. We sustain with an “uplifted” hand. That could be the subject of another exciting thread! 😊

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

You’ll have to clarify your reasoning for me/us. I don’t follow your response.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This thread was probably started when I posted something about the recording on another thread, sorry Bernard. So I take the blame for that. But my intention was to ask about whether it was true or not, because I vaguely remember reading another thread a few years ago on the MDDB and people discussing whether it was needed to only use the right hand. That's why I brought it up, but not to demean Pres. Oaks. 

I got to thinking about the times we use our right hand in church. And thought about how we're told to raise our hand when sustaining people in callings. Is that spoken as using the right hand? My memory is fading on this, since my inactivity. 

It's a legit issue. Just because Bernard claims people are demeaning Pres. Oaks when they are merely disagreeing with him and noting why his words are a problem, doesn't mean it's true. You don't need to apologize for bringing up a valid concern or question.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This thread was probably started when I posted something about the recording on another thread, sorry Bernard.

You do not owe anyone an apology, Tacenda.  This is a good discussion and I've seen no one demean an Apostle.  There's been disagreement (for good reason) with what Pres. Oaks stated, but most that I've seen have been respectful.  

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

Is the "poisoned tree" the teaching of false doctrine?  Or just what exactly?

I don't get your point (being honest here).

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You’ll have to clarify your reasoning for me/us. I don’t follow your response.

I think he's suggesting that because someone recorded Pres. Oaks' words without his permission, then we really shouldn't be able to discuss or criticize what he said. In court, fruit of the poisonous tree would relate to something like an illegal search and seizure and therefore any evidence found from the illegal search would be inadmissible. That's what he's suggesting...I think.

IOW- we shouldn't be able to criticize Oaks because we shouldn't even know what he said. Except, we do know what he said, so it seems like a fair discussion to me. This isn't a legal court.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fruit of the poisoned tree.

We are demeaning Pres. Oaks, just by posting in this thread and disagreeing with him.  Is that what you are saying?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think he's suggesting that because someone recorded Pres. Oaks' words without his permission, then we really shouldn't be able to discuss or criticize what he said. In court, fruit of the poisonous tree would relate to something like an illegal search and seizure and therefore any evidence found from the illegal search would be inadmissible. That's what he's suggesting...I think.

IOW- we shouldn't be able to criticize Oaks because we shouldn't even know what he said. Except, we do know what he said, so it seems like a fair discussion to me. This isn't a legal court.

Yes, I knew the legal meaning.  I don't see it applying here though.  He was not recorded illegally, was he?

The fact remains, that we do know what he stated and this is a discussion forum where we are free to discuss and disagree (as long as we follow board rules).

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It would concern me if my son had been one of these deacons.  I would actually be pretty sad (after being thrilled he was personally going to hear from an Apostle!).  It would be disappointing to hear his report of what was said (at least some of it).  I would make sure to read to him what President Nelson taught about this and what are actually the church teachings.  I would be respectful, but let my son know these are men who express their own opinions sometimes and it’s not wrong to partake of the sacrament with your left hand at times.

Do you have evidence that they were offended or traumatized? Are you aware of any other interactions they might have had that weren’t recorded? 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have evidence that they were offended or traumatized?

Where did I state that?

I can only relate what me feelings would be and what I would do (which is what I posted).

 

“Are you aware of any other interactions they might have had that weren’t recorded?”

If you listen to the recording, he starts right out with why he came in to speak to them and then immediately closes after he discusses this specific topic.  

But either way, he was very clear about his belief on this.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We are demeaning Pres. Oaks, just by posting in this thread and disagreeing with him.  Is that what you are saying?

I thought I made that clear with the words, “absolutely  not.” I said there are different ways to disagree and gave a hypothetical example of a bad and good way using Sister Gui and myself to illustrate. If I were in an intimate meeting with an apostle and he said something with which I found fault, I would think it amiss to secretly record his words and post them on the internet. I can think of no reason to do that other than to put him to shame. That is not the Savior’s way, IMO  

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui