Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well either that or the Spirit led him to give instructions that are not correct.  

I think he talked to them as a man who was bothered by what he saw and who obviously believes there should be exactness regarding which hand to use when partaking of the sacrament.  He's entitled to his strong opinions, of course....but to teach them as if they are church doctrine was a mistake, IMO.

OK. He made a mistake when he said he was moved by the Spirit when he gave mistaken instructions?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I said "seemingly almost scolding them".....I am just imagining how it must have felt to those boys to hear him come in and talk to them as if they'd been caught doing something wrong.  I think it was a poor choice on Pres. Oak's part when he could have gone in and left a message of acceptance, compassion and love.  Plus he taught them something that was not even correct doctrine. 

Imagining something does not make it reality. Were you there?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. He made a mistake when he said he was moved by the Spirit when he gave mistaken instructions. 

Fair enough.  After all.....we do agree that our leaders make mistakes.  (It's just really hard for some to admit or acknowledge when one has been made :) )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Fair enough.  After all.....we do agree that our leaders make mistakes.  (It's just really hard for some to admit or acknowledge when one has been made :) )

And to seek for further understanding without engaging in speculation and ridiculing, discrediting, or bad-mouthing the leader. ;)

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And to seek for further understanding without engaging in speculation and ridiculing, discrediting, or bad-mouthing the leader. ;)

I haven't seen that done here.  However, when a false doctrine has been taught to a group of young men, I think it's fair game to disagree with what was done.   Most here (from what I've seen) have been charitable about it and just chalked it up to our leaders being human and fallible.  We all make mistakes....even the church leaders.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you not aware of what this thread is about? Perhaps you should start with the OP.

If it's not important, or a "biggie" in Pres. Oaks' mind, why would he use his precious time with youth to correct them for not using their right hand.

If this whole thing stems from the OP, that would explain my unawareness, as I have had the author of that post on ignore for some time now. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/12/2019 at 1:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

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!

To be fair, we first conducted an email courtship for a couple of months before adding Facebook and Messenger to the mix.  By the time we met for the first time (after a 2 month acquaintanceship) the total number of words in this exchange came close to 240,000 words.  I proposed 5 hours after meeting her, and 5 days later...  I was 64 and she was 55, so we figured we shouldn't waste time.  It's been lovely!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

But exactness has never been a requirement of taking the sacrament.  

So as far as the sacrament goes, "no exactness on hand use required and no specified hand commanded" plus "precedent for left hand also being a covenant hand" seems to equal "no implied requirement to use the right hand despite taking part in an ordinance."

Some latter-day saints can expect exactness if they wish.  Teaching that such exactness is required by everyone is another issue altogether though.  

How about just a willingness to take counsel?

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't seen that done here.  However, when a false doctrine has been taught to a group of young men, I think it's fair game to disagree with what was done.   Most here (from what I've seen) have been charitable about it and just chalked it up to our leaders being human and fallible.  We all make mistakes....even the church leaders.

Quote

It is my understanding that in the lost 116 pages not only were the faithful Nephites described as "white and delightsome" they were also all right-handed.

I don’t have any skin in the game anymore, but as a representative of Jesus Christ who only has time for a five minute message, it blows my mind that this is what God and Jesus wanted to teach these young men. 

 When the cat is away the mouse will play by taking the sacrament with the his left hand. But now that I'm here, I'll fix your wrongness. It's as if he feels he's correcting some evil, or at least offended by the wrongness of the action of the AP holders. Correcting a YM for partaking of the sacrament with his left hand is not only petty, and non-doctrinal, it's pretty rude.

 The Book of Mormon teaches a different verbiage for the baptismal prayer. Wonder what Oaks thinks about that.

I want to be charitable, but lately Elder Oaks just seems to be in an entirely different universe from my reality sometimes.

 Yeah, I heard this being discussed last night and some were joking about how he “yelled” at the boys for not doing things “exactly right” and then he gets the prayer wrong (that is supposed to be exact)! That is kind of funny especially with what he was trying to teach.

Perhaps someone could explain the difference between taking the sacrament with the right hand and the Pharisees' limitation on the number of steps taken on the Sabbath?

 Too bad he didn’t feel inspired to get the baptism prayer correct.

 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.

 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.

 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."

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

 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. 

 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?

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

 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.

 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?

 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.

 But I also think it's very possible he doesn't understand or is unable to recognize the difference between what he thinks the spirit is telling him and his own emotional reaction on matters for which he has an opinion.

Etc.

Do you think he mistook the prompting of the Spirit to give those instructions to those boys? Would consider it possible that he taught them correct doctrine, even if it were just for the situation in which they found themselves?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

To be fair, we first conducted an email courtship for a couple of months before adding Facebook and Messenger to the mix.  By the time we met for the first time (after a 2 month acquaintanceship) the total number of words in this exchange came close to 240,000 words.  I proposed 5 hours after meeting her, and 5 days later...  I was 64 and she was 55, so we figured we shouldn't waste time.  It's been lovely!

One of my best friends proposed to his wife at a Single Adult dance after their first dance. She accepted.  After almost 50 wonderful years, he is sadly watching her drift away to dementia and lovingly caring for her in their home. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think he mistook the prompting of the Spirit to give those instructions to those boys?

I already answered that question.  

I'm not sure what all those quotes have to do with your question?  

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

Would any here are so exercised over these incidents involving President Oaks be willing to write his office and ask for clarification and explanation?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I already answered that question.  

I'm not sure what all those quotes have to do with your question?  

 

You said you didn't hear any ridicule or criticism of President Oaks in this thread. I disagree.

Do you think it is possible that his instruction to that small group was inspired and was intended only for them at that time for reasons known to God?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You said you didn't hear any ridicule or criticism of President Oaks in this thread. I disagree.

You said "ridiculing, discrediting, or bad-mouthing" 

I haven't seen that done....but yes, criticism for teaching a false doctrine and the manner in which he taught it.  I have no issue with that and actually see it as mainly disagreeing with him.

I still don't understand what that has to do with the question you asked though (which I already answered earlier in this thread when you asked it):

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think he mistook the prompting of the Spirit to give those instructions to those boys?

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Would any here are so exercised over these incidents involving President Oaks be will to write his office and ask for clarification and explanation?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would any here are so exercised over these incidents involving President Oaks be will to write his office and ask for clarification and explanation?

I would LOVE to do that. But my personal experience with writing to any GA for any clarification is that the letter is forwarded to my stake president with a note telling the stake president to thank me for my letter, and for the stake president to address the issue.

For better or worse, the leaders of the church control access to themselves and their time very tightly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You said you didn't hear any ridicule or criticism of President Oaks in this thread. I disagree.

Do you think it is possible that his instruction to that small group was inspired and was intended only for them at that time for reasons known to God?

For the record- there is a HUGE difference between criticism and ridicule. I have criticized but not ridiculed. Should Pres. Oaks (or any leader) be above criticism? If your answer is "yes" you may be more interested in having a king than an ecclesiastical leader.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it was God's divine will that we wear white shirts and take the sacrament with our right hands, then you would have a point. If it was God's will I wouldn't complain and it wouldn't be a burden. But following a man's personal preference is a burden, especially when he presents his personal preference as God's will. Again, it has been taught that we can be confident that something is God's will when there is consistency in teaching amongst the brethren. There is no consistency on this. Being a prophet, seer, and revelator doesn't entitle the holder of that office to impose his will and desires on others.

Is it expected that a male is expected to wear a white shirt to participate in the Sacrament service? If so, how did that expectation come about? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is it expected that a male is expected to wear a white shirt to participate in the Sacrament service? If so, how did that expectation come about? Thanks.

It's one of those "unwritten order of things" kind of rules. There's no actual rule, in fact, there are even statements in the handbook and from leaders stating that there shouldn't be any kind of required "uniform" for participating in the sacrament. BUT that doesn't stop people from treating it like a requirement, similar to the non-requirement to partake of the sacrament with the right hand. It's a thing because people make it a thing and try to enforce it upon others. IMO it has developed over time as a cultural expectation that is often confused with a  doctrinal expectation. It's easy to see how that happens when prophets, seers, and revelators share their personal opinions on such things and treat them as if they are God's will.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's one of those "unwritten order of things" kind of rules. There's no actual rule, in fact, there are even statements in the handbook and from leaders stating that there shouldn't be any kind of required "uniform" for participating in the sacrament. BUT that doesn't stop people from treating it like a requirement, similar to the non-requirement to partake of the sacrament with the right hand. It's a thing because people make it a thing and try to enforce it upon others. IMO it has developed over time as a cultural expectation that is often confused with a  doctrinal expectation. It's easy to see how that happens when prophets, seers, and revelators share their personal opinions on such things and treat them as if they are God's will.

Thanks. We Mennonites have been confusing custom and culture with doctrine for many years. I think it is especially an issue in faiths like ours where your faith shapes culture in very significant ways. When I was a boy no self-respecting Mennonite male would smoke a cigarette. Many smoked cigars. Why the difference? It was because Mennonites in our area grew Connecticut shade wrapper tobacco for cigars (they still do). I remember when the very conservative River Brethren (the group the Whitmer family helped start after they left Mennonitism) first began driving cars. They only bought black cars and painted out the chrome. They were trying to get places faster without being worldly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How about just a willingness to take counsel?

I haven’t been counseled about it though. As I said earlier, I’ve never been taught, in my whole life, that I should take the sacrament only with my right hand.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ve taken the sacrament with both my left and right hands.

Guess what - the experience has been the same for me. I still love the esperience, and feel the renewing power of the atonement.

So if my experience has been the same taking the sacrament with both hands, Elder Oaks’ comment is not going to convince me to make a special effort to use my right hand.

I highly doubt Pres. Oaks sees using the right hand as some automatic/magical movement that will endow the person with a spiritual experience no matter what they are thinking or if they are thinking at all.

I see his approach as more likely 'if one carefully and prayerfully focuses on how one is performing the sacramental rite, understanding one is making a covenant with God and using their right hand with thought and understanding for this purpose, the rite will become deeper and more meaningful to them and therefore open them up to the Spirit in new ways'.

It is possible due to the repetition of the act that we can stop actually thinking about what we are doing and let our minds wander.  I find it difficult to concentrate myself at times.  I tend to read scriptures or the hymnbook to try and keep my focus.  In the future this conversation will pop into my head at times and make me more aware of how my hand moves and takes the bread, of the hand of the deacon who is passing it and therefore the deacon himself, perhaps the Priesthood by which he and others perform the work...and hopefully on into other things that may lead me to a greater bond with God and my community.

By thinking about what we are doing in little ways, it may help us better focus on the bigger context of the covenant and Atonement.

Otoh, hyperfocusing to the point of worry rather than wonder on details of a rite in and of themselves rather than in the context of the entire experience, physical and spiritual, might lead to distraction and less understanding and thus closing off from the Spirit, so I think one can take this too far.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's one of those "unwritten order of things" kind of rules. There's no actual rule, in fact, there are even statements in the handbook and from leaders stating that there shouldn't be any kind of required "uniform" for participating in the sacrament. BUT that doesn't stop people from treating it like a requirement, similar to the non-requirement to partake of the sacrament with the right hand. It's a thing because people make it a thing and try to enforce it upon others. IMO it has developed over time as a cultural expectation that is often confused with a  doctrinal expectation. It's easy to see how that happens when prophets, seers, and revelators share their personal opinions on such things and treat them as if they are God's will.

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.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would any here are so exercised over these incidents involving President Oaks be will to write his office and ask for clarification and explanation?

Why, it will go to our stake presidents. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Why, it will go to our stake presidents. 

Not necessarily.  It wouldn't make sense for someone to redirect a letter requesting clarification on something that they personally taught to someone who didn't teach it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...