Left Hand

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve given my clear recollection from childhood, which I’ve never had occasion or reason to doubt since. 

So you’ve got nothing (no sources or quotes) to back up your claims that what he taught has been taught in the past by church leaders?

Edited February 14, 2019 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/14/2019 at 4:15 AM, SouthernMo said:

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.

IMO this is demeaning...

“When did they change the baptismal prayer?

The Book of Mormon teaches a different verbiage for the baptismal prayer.

Wonder what Oaks thinks about that.

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).”

 

 

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.

Plus the fact that the OP is the reproduction of a surreptitious recording that was posted on the internet to embarrass President Oaks. The question of which hand to use could have legitimately be asked and discussed without including it. Where did you get the transcript?

Edited February 17, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

Bernard and Scott....

No one is claiming that leaders haven't spoken in the past about the symbolism of using your right hand.  What is in question is this part of what President Oaks taught:

Quote

I come to see what happens when I'm not here. But I had an impression from the Spirit of the Lord, to teach something to each of you and particularly the young men of the Aaronic priesthood. Because I saw something, in Sacrament meeting today, that told me that some of you don't understand something. The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism. The Lord taught us, when we are baptized, the priest who officiates raises his right hand, and says, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' and then he immerses the person in the water. And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

Have either of you ever heard that teaching before?  (the need for exactness when partaking of the sacrament with the right hand and that it's "Just like the prayers that the priests offer....")

Do you both believe it would be wrong to partake of the sacrament at times using your left hand?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it’s enough to give me pause. Has President Oaks been consistently teaching the same thing in other settings? Perhaps time will tell. 

Yes, I agree we’ll have to wait and see. 

I do wonder if maybe Pres. Oaks believes that he taught nothing unusual, given the way he described it to the deacons (specifically where he said that the deacons have seen the correct hand usage modeled by mothers holding babies). 

I’ve never seen a mother move a baby to the other hand so she wouldn’t have to take the sacrament with her left. As a mother of four kids I’ve never done that myself. Perhaps Pres. Oaks believes that the membership has been actively teaching use of the right hand for decades and that’s why he called out the deacons for not doing what, in his belief, they have observed should be done?

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you’ve got nothing (no sources or quotes) to back up your claims that what he taught has been taught in the past by church leaders?

I’d be interested in what Scott means by past leaders. Being taught something at sacrament or in Sunday school is different than being taught it at GC. 

I remember being taught that the Catholic Church was the church of the Devil by my leaders at church for example, despite it not actually being church doctrine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I agree we’ll have to wait and see. 

I do wonder if maybe Pres. Oaks believes that he taught nothing unusual, given the way he described it to the deacons (specifically where he said that the deacons have seen the correct hand usage modeled by mothers holding babies). 

I’ve never seen a mother move a baby to the other hand so she wouldn’t have to take the sacrament with her left. As a mother of four kids I’ve never done that myself. Perhaps Pres. Oaks believes that the membership has been actively teaching use of the right hand for decades and that’s why he called out the deacons for not doing what, in his belief, they have observed should be done?

I think he would be in a position to know, given his high station and lengthy experience in Church leadership, if the teaching had ever been authoritatively rescinded. 

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I love Pres. Oaks, he's one of my favorites.  That doesn't mean everything he teaches is without error of course.  But he wasn't speaking to me.  He wasn't speaking to anyone but that group of boys.  And according to Bernard, it's not even right that we should know what he told them.

This source was not meant for the church as a whole.

I'm curious about this. It's true that he was only speaking to a small group but should we expect that teaching to be different to a different group? For example, does the exactness only apply to young men, or priesthood holders, or people living in Chicago? Or are those groups required to live by a different law? I don't understand why his teaching to one group shouldn't be extrapolated to a larger group, or the church as a whole. If it's a true teaching for boys in Chicago, I would expect it to be true for others as well.

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already told you, LDS.org didn’t exist when I was a child. I can tell you what the conventional wisdom was back then, though, and thus why comparable current instruction from a member of the First Presidency rings true to me vs naysaying from a frequent faultfinder. 

But it does exist now. I imagine you could find some quotes and teachings of past leaders requiring exactness in partaking the sacrament with the right hand.

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were members required to take the sacrament again if they were seen using their right hand?

I'd be shocked if this was ever truly taught as Pres. Oaks stated (comparing it to how the sacrament prayer has to be exact or done over).  Are you claiming it's just not been taught recently again until now?

I definitely remember being told that I should take it with my right hand, but I've never heard a general level leader speak about it, nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that if a person takes the sacrament with the left hand the ordinance is nullified.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it’s enough to give me pause. Has President Oaks been consistently teaching the same thing in other settings? Perhaps time will tell. 

Being that he is not the President of the Church, it wouldn't necessarily make a difference if he was teaching the same thing in other settings.  I am thinking of the lesson we learned from the Hiram Page peeping stone incident.  Unless his teachings are from a source of official doctrine/revelation, he can't speak for the church authoritatively.  The question remains, what source is he referencing for it to be considered authoritative?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Steve-o said:

I am not sure I understand you. Deciding to record someone after they've said something wrong wouldn't do much good. It would be too late. Is it not more likely that someone in the audience decided to record it from the beginning because they were excited to listen to an apostle and wanted to remember everything that was said? And is it unreasonable to think that someone would record and share the recording because they liked it? Does there have to be a nefarious intention of the recorder or the person who released it? Do we even know if the person who recorded is also the person who released the recording?

Of course it could have been innocently, but any recording made of a GA in a private meeting is surreptitious. We are asked not to do that. 

Quote

21.1.33
Recording Talks or Addresses of General Authorities and Area Seventies

Church members should not record the talks or addresses that General Authorities and Area Seventies give at stake conferences, missionary meetings, or other meetings. However, members may record broadcasts of general conference on home equipment for personal, noncommercial use.

I have repeatedly asked for the sources of the recording. No one seems to know. It appears to me that reproducing here in the OP was not done because it was something the poster liked.

The YouTube publisher (“PresidentOaks is thicc”) accompanies the audio with this comment. Did he make the original? How did he get it? He also posted a sacrament meeting talk given by President Oaks.

Quote

Published on Feb 3, 2019

Crocodile man comes to youth group and screams about how left hands are evil

I may be wrong, but that doesn’t sound complimentary to me. “Thicc” has some interesting meanings. Only one of the many commenters came to Elder Oaks’ defense. He was not treated well. Most of the comments are so vile I could not repeat them here.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Bernard and Scott....

No one is claiming that leaders haven't spoken in the past about the symbolism of using your right hand.  What is in question is this part of what President Oaks taught:

Have either of you ever heard that teaching before?  (the need for exactness when partaking of the sacrament with the right hand and that it's "Just like the prayers that the priests offer....")

Do you both believe it would be wrong to partake of the sacrament at times using your left hand?

Did President Oaks say that, if the left hand is used, it should be done over again? I didn’t read that in this (unauthorized) quote from him. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course it could have been innocently, but any recording made of a GA in a private meeting is surreptitious. We are asked not to do that. 

I have repeatedly asked for the sources of the recording. No one seems to know. It appears to me that reproducing here in the OP was not done because it was something the poster liked.

The YouTube publisher (“PresidentoOaks is thicc”) accompanies the audio with this comments. How did he get it?

I may be wrong, but that doesn’t sound complimentary to me. Only one of the many commenters came to Elder Oaks’ defense. He was not treated well. Most of the comments are so vile I could not repeat them here.

 I'm sure the Deacons are all well-versed in their CHI.  How dare they not heed it. I think I know what topic Pres. Oaks will address next time  

I don't know who recorded or released the info either, but Steve-o makes a good point. It very well could have been recorded for positive purposes, shared, with positive purpose and then taken from there by someone else to do the whole "crocodile man" thing (super weird).

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did President Oaks say that, if the left hand is used, it should be done over again? 

He certainly said "it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer," and then also compares it to baptism too....

And states: "And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again." 

I'm not sure what else he may have meant by making this very direct comparison and using the words "exactly right" and "Just like".    If partaking of the sacrament "needs to be done exactly right", doesn't that infer it would have to be done again if it was not done exactly right? 

What is your response to my questions:

Quote

 

Have either of you ever heard that teaching before?  (the need for exactness when partaking of the sacrament with the right hand and that it's "Just like the prayers that the priests offer....")

Do you both believe it would be wrong to partake of the sacrament at times using your left hand?

 

  

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Being that he is not the President of the Church, it wouldn't necessarily make a difference if he was teaching the same thing in other settings.  I am thinking of the lesson we learned from the Hiram Page peeping stone incident.  Unless his teachings are from a source of official doctrine/revelation, he can't speak for the church authoritatively.  The question remains, what source is he referencing for it to be considered authoritative?

We have more careful controls in place today than existed in the time of Hiram Page. That and the fact that President Nelson and President Oaks were called to the Quorum of the Twelve at the same time and have served side by side in that body during the many years since then make me highly dubious that President Oaks would be apt to go rogue, as it were, and say or do something in a formal Church meeting with which President Nelson would not be in full accord. 

Furthermore, it’s my perception that, as implied in the quote from President Oaks, one of the purposes for which the Brethren make these local visits is to observe how things are done and to make corrections where needed. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he would be in a position to know, given his high station and lengthy experience in Church leadership, if the teaching had ever been authoritatively rescinded. 

Can we see the reference(s) where it was authoritatively taught?  You'd have to first prove that it was ever authoritatively taught before you can try to argue that it would need to be authoritatively rescinded.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Bernard and Scott....

No one is claiming that leaders haven't spoken in the past about the symbolism of using your right hand.  What is in question is this part of what President Oaks taught:

Have either of you ever heard that teaching before?  (the need for exactness when partaking of the sacrament with the right hand and that it's "Just like the prayers that the priests offer....")

Do you both believe it would be wrong to partake of the sacrament at times using your left hand?

No, I have not heard this level of instruction before, though I did provide a quote from Elder Nelson. I have opined here that perhaps there may be a higher symbolism involved that President Oaks knows and we don’t, that we might consider his words and seek the guidance of the Spirit, and then act on whatever knowledge we might gain. I see nothing wrong with that.

I have also stated this may have been an instruction intended for this group of boys to teach them something God wanted them to know. PresidentOaks’ comments support that interpretation. I don’t extrapolate that to be a command to the Church as a whole. You and I are free to choose which hand we use after due consideration.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 I'm sure the Deacons are all well-versed in their CHI.  How dare they not heed it. I think I know what topic Pres. Oaks will address next time  

I don't know who recorded or released the info either, but Steve-o makes a good point. It very well could have been recorded for positive purposes, shared, with positive purpose and then taken from there by someone else to do the whole "crocodile man" thing (super weird).

Do you know a deacon recorded it?

The YouTube publisher (“PresidentOaks is thicc”) accompanies the audio with this comment. Did he make the original? How did he get it? He also posted a sacrament meeting talk given by President Oaks.

  Quote

Published on Feb 3, 2019

Crocodile man comes to youth group and screams about how left hands are evil

 I may be wrong, but that doesn’t sound complimentary to me. “Thicc” has some interesting meanings. Only one of the many commenters came to Elder Oaks’ defense. He was not treated well. Most of the comments are so vile I could not repeat them here.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious about this. It's true that he was only speaking to a small group but should we expect that teaching to be different to a different group? For example, does the exactness only apply to young men, or priesthood holders, or people living in Chicago? Or are those groups required to live by a different law? I don't understand why his teaching to one group shouldn't be extrapolated to a larger group, or the church as a whole. If it's a true teaching for boys in Chicago, I would expect it to be true for others as well.

 

I'm not saying it should be, only that things that are taught only to select people do not automatically apply to the whole.

I'm also thinking of the time that Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (IIRC) taught at a regional conference that mankind would never land on the moon because God has decreed that this earth was our sphere and we would never be allowed to leave it?   That was never taught to the church as a whole so the church was no obligated to find out if it was a true teaching (and it obviously wasn't).

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I have not heard this level of instruction before, though I did provide a quote from Elder Nelson. I have opined here that perhaps there may be a higher symbolism involved that President Oaks knows and we don’t, that we might consider his words and seek the guidance of the Spirit, and then act on whatever knowledge we might gain. I see nothing wrong with that.

I have also stated this may have been an instruction intended for this group of boys to teach them something God wanted them to know. President Oaks’ comments support that interpretation. I don’t extrapolate that to be a command to the Church as a whole. You and I are free to choose which hand we use after due consideration.

And members here are free to discuss his statements and agree or disagree with them.  Your "may be a higher symbolism" is interesting, but speculative of course.  I have an issue with something being given to just one, small, specific group and treating it as doctrine just for them.  That sounds a bit secretive and if it's important for these young boys to do, why not all young men in the church?  Or all members?  

What we do know is that what he taught does not agree with what the leaders as a whole have taught on this topic.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

We don't know if the person who recorded him, posted it on the internet.  I would bet that one of the kids pushed their record button on their phone because they were so excited that an Apostle was actually coming into their deacon's quorum to talk to them and they wanted to record his words so they could share it later with their parents or family (or friends).  You have no idea that there was something sinister behind the recording.  

What we do know is that someone he shared it with, either posted it or shared it with someone who did.  

We also now know what was taught by Pres. Oaks and that is what we are discussing.

ETA:

Ha...just saw your post above, Steve-O!  Great minds and all that 

The YouTube publisher (“PresidentoOaks is thicc”) accompanies the audio with this comment. Did he make the original? How did he get it? He also posted a sacrament meeting talk given by President Oaks.

  Quote

Published on Feb 3, 2019

Crocodile man comes to youth group and screams about how left hands are evil

 I may be wrong, but that doesn’t sound complimentary to me. “Thicc” has some interesting meanings. Only one of the many commenters came to Elder Oaks’ defense. He was not treated well. Most of the comments are so vile I could not repeat them here.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you know a deacon recorded it?

No one seems to know WHO recorded it (here at least)....everything is speculation that I've read (from you and from others here).

You need to move on from that unless we have more information.

What we do know is what was taught and that's what this discussion is about.  If you want to discuss the sins of recording, maybe start a new thread on that? 

Are you disputing that Pres. Oaks taught something that has not been taught before by our leaders?

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Your "fruit of the poisoned tree" answer was not at all clear then.  Could you clarify what you meant by saying it?

We have glommed onto a YouTube audio that appears to have been posted to demean President Oaks. The results have been that some of us followed suit in that treatment of an apostle. That’s what I mean.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He certainly said "it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer," and then also compares it to baptism too....

And states: "And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again." 

I'm not sure what else he may have meant by making this very direct comparison and using the words "exactly right" and "Just like".    If partaking of the sacrament "needs to be done exactly right", doesn't that infer it would have to be done again if it was not done exactly right? 

What is your response to my questions:

  

First a point of word usage. “Infer” and “imply” are not synonyms. They are opposite in meaning, in fact. To infer means to draw a supposition or conclusion in one’s own understanding.  To imply means to hint at something not directly expressed. In this instance, you should have used imply, not infer. 

And no, I don’t believe President Oaks necessarily implied it would have to be done over again. I think he directly expressed his point, which is is that every effort should be made to do it exactly right the first time. But it could be the sort of thing for which no individual reprimand or correction is given if the left hand is used, but for which it is appropriate to issue a timely and well-placed reminder, as President Oaks seems to have done in this instance. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

But what he taught is not correct.  Why aren't you able to see that?  One can personally believe they should use their right hand to partake of the sacrament, but it is not a church teaching that it is wrong to use your left hand and there is not a commandment or doctrine which states it has to be done with the same exactness as the sacrament prayer.  That is what he taught those boys though.

You can post all kinds of statements, but none of them state that (other than the recording we have of Pres. Oaks stating precisely that).  Yes, there is symbolism behind the use of the right hand when performing ordinances.....but it is not wrong to use your left hand when partaking of the sacrament (not yet anyway....Pres. Oaks can change that when he's the Prophet  ).

All well and good, but you cannot ignore the fact that he said he did what he did by the direction of the Spirit in this specific occasion. That is the problem with surreptitious recordings. They are only a snapshot.

I’m sure some dread the day he might seize control. The same was said of Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce McConkie, Boyd Packer, and others. We will survive,

.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I would like to hear Bernard's answer to those questions....Bernard?

You rang?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What if one hasn't heard it at all?  How is someone supposed to know that it's doctrine under that circumstance?

One can decide how to respond when presented with new information.