Taking The Sacrament With Your Right Hand.

[Rivers]

Is this really doctrinal? I've never read anywhere that it is.

[Hamba Tuhan]

No. In fact, Church materials instruct us to not to teach it.

[Rivers]

No. In fact, Church materials instruct us to not to teach it.

Really? Where?

[Scott Lloyd]

No. In fact, Church materials instruct us to not to teach it.

That's what I had heard. But then somebody else who seemed to be in a position to know contradicted it.

 

So now, I don't know what to think.

[JLHPROF]

Is this really doctrinal? I've never read anywhere that it is.

 

Is it "current official" doctrine would be a better question.  Maybe not, but there is a great deal of tradition and symbolism in using the right hand, especially in covenants, agreements, and ordinances.  It's presence in every major culture, religion, and tradition speaks to the ancient origin of using the right hand over the left hand.

 

So while it may not be "official" church doctrine, it is simply a more correct way to partake of the sacrament.  Since we are renewing our covenants, and it is doctrine that covenants be made by the right hand, then we should keep that tradition.

 

 

Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used?

Russell M. Nelson, Regional Representative, former general president of the Sunday School. As Rachel lay dying in the pain of childbirth, she named her new son Ben-oni, which in Hebrew means “son of my sorrow” or “distress.” But her bereaved husband, Jacob (Israel), changed the name of their newborn son, perhaps to avoid a repeated reference to her travail and death each time his son’s name might be spoken. The name he chose instead was Benjamin, which in Hebrew means “son at the right (hand).” (See Gen. 35:16–19.) Israel’s great love for his beloved Rachel was signified by this special designation given to Benjamin, his twelfth son.

That the right hand suggests symbolic favor is suggested again in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said:

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:31–34.)

Numerous other scriptural references to the right hand are listed on page 433 of the Topical Guide appended to the new LDS edition of the Bible. These accounts give some background and insight into the symbolic significance of the right hand—a symbolism that appears in the language and other cultural features of the Jewish and Christian world. In Latin, for example, dexter (right) and sinister (left) not only indicated right and left but became the roots for adjectives carrying favorable and unfavorable connotations. The use of the right hand as a symbolic gesture was in time extended to the administration of governmental oaths, and to the courtroom, as witnesses were called to testify under oath.

With this background, we may now focus on the question of which hand to use when partaking of the sacrament.

The word sacrament comes from two Latin stems: sacr meaning “sacred,” and ment meaning “mind.” It implies sacred thoughts of the mind. Even more compelling is the Latin word sacramentum, which literally means “oath or solemn obligation.” Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world.

The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath. For most of us, that would be the right hand. However, sacramental covenants—and other eternal covenants as well—can be and are made by those who have lost the use of the right hand, or who have no hands at all. 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.

Parents are sometimes concerned about which hand their children use to partake of the sacrament. As a means of education, preparation, and training, unbaptized children in the Church are offered the sacrament “to prefigure the covenant they will take upon themselves when they arrive at the years of accountability.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 660.) Therefore, it is very important that they develop a good feeling and a sacred mental attitude about the symbolism and significance of the sacrament. Parents who wish to teach the importance of this sacred experience might make the topic a part of family home evening instruction. Then, if a reminder becomes necessary in a meeting, it may be given quietly, in patience and love.

Partaking of the sacrament is a sacred mental process, and as such it becomes a very personal one for me. I think of the covenants being made between me and Deity as the prayers are pronounced. I think of God offering his Only Begotten Son. I think of the atoning sacrifice of my Savior, Jesus Christ. The sacrament was instituted by him. For all mankind, even me, he offered his flesh and blood and designated the bread and the water as symbolic emblems. Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God.

This is a sacred privilege for all faithful Saints each Sabbath day.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/i-have-a-question

[Buckeye]

Without naming specifics, I've made covenants in the lds church with both right and left hands. Neither is better than the other. I intentionally take the sacrament with the left hand every month or so in order to ensure my children know this.

[canard78]

It's all too easy for traditions to morph into doctrine in some eyes.

“Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices, and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal principles.”

Elder Ronald Poelman, 1984 General Conference

[altersteve]

I've never even heard of this until I read it on here a few weeks ago...

[Scott Lloyd]

Without naming specifics, I've made covenants in the lds church with both right and left hands. Neither is better than the other. I intentionally take the sacrament with the left hand every month or so in order to ensure my children know this.

By making such an issue of it, aren't you being just as silly as you think people are who insist that it should be taken with the right hand?

[Brian 2.0]

when I was a kid, my dad taught me which knob was hot water and which was cold water by saying, "You take the sacrament with the right and the sacrament is cold."

 

No joke.  

 

I never forgot it and laugh sometimes about it when I turn the knobs on a faucet.  

[ERayR]

If one is going to worry over the trivialities you have a lot more problems than which hand you are using.

[Damien the Leper]

A bishop once told me that it was important to take Communion with my right hand. I thought it trivial considering that all of Communion had been properly blessed and the hand which one uses does not void the petition. Left hand, right hand, both hands...get a good workout at church!

Edited October 15, 2013 by Valentinus

[CV75]

Is this really doctrinal? I've never read anywhere that it is.

It is a custom/tradition/symbol that is also reflected in scripture as post #5 points out. So I think the rightness of Spirit with which we keep (or break with) tradition and symbols is what matters. My experience is that the Spirit prompts us to have a peacable attitude and some acceptance of (or at least tolerance toward) those traditions that are reflected in scripture. The Spirit also prompts us to have a peacable attitude in explaining or exemplifying our break from non-scripturally based traditions when we are asked why we do things differently.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Really? Where?

 

Once when my mum was teaching primary (which she did for about 50 years, beginning long before I was born), she mentioned that the manual had a note on the sacrament lesson encouraging teachers not to confuse children by mandating a sacrament hand. I just tried to do an online search of primary manuals but found nothing, so either (a) my mum lied, (b) the advice is no longer included, or © I just couldn't find it.

 

One of my favourite quotes on this topic comes from Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

It is a very interesting study to discover how ordinances and doctrines became changed in the first centuries of the Christian era. These changes date back even to the days of the apostles. Paul frequently had to rebuke, warn and counsel with the members in the several branches which he was instrumental in organizing when on his missionary journeys. He severely rebuked the saints at Corinth for desecrating the holy ordinance of the Sacrament and turning it into a feast where the [page 104] Spirit of the Lord could not be present.

The first changes that came, evidently came innocently because some enterprising bishop or other officer endeavored to introduce into his meetings, or among his congregation something new—just a little different, in advancement of that which was practiced elsewhere. This tendency is very apparent in the wards and stakes of the Church today.

For example, let us consider the ordinance of the Sacrament. It became the custom in many wards throughout the church to have the young men who passed the Sacrament all dressed alike with dark coats, white shirts and uniform ties. This could in time lead to the established custom of dressing them in uniform, such as we see done in some sectarian and other churches. Then again as they passed the Sacrament they had to stand with their left hand plastered on their backs in a most awkward manner. The priests or elders who administered these holy emblems had to stand in a certain way as the one officiating in the prayer knelt at the table. In some instances the Bishop stood in the pulpit with raised hands in an attitude of benediction. Other customs among the quorums and in the services of the wards were introduced. Members of the Church were instructed that they must not touch the trays containing the bread and the water with their left hand, but must take it in their right hand after partaking as their neighbor held the tray in his or her right hand. In the Priesthood in the wards, we now have "supervisors" directing the activities of the deacons and the priests. How long will it take before these supervisors are considered as a regular part of the Priesthood and it will be necessary to set them apart or ordain them to this office? So we see that we, if we are not careful, will find ourselves traveling the road that brought the Church of Jesus Christ in the first centuries into disrepute and paved the way for the apostasy.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Brant Gardner]

I remember having an official letter read about that and a few other things. In addition to the declaration that the hand didn't matter, they instructed Deacons that they not put the left hand in the small of the back when they pass the sacrament. I have seen that particular practice relatively recently.

 

In the church we learn more by the grapevine than we do official communications. The official communications might be read over the pulpit once, but our habits have been around for a long time and they are hard to break. They can become truer that anything that might contradict them.

 

Of course, there is a tremendous amount of symbolism related to the right hand that supports the practice, so it is easy to find the "reason" we use the right hand.

[Buckeye]

By making such an issue of it, aren't you being just as silly as you think people are who insist that it should be taken with the right hand?

The issue exists regardless of me. I have every expectation my kids will hear this and many other traditions taught as doctrine. It's my job to show them what is gospel and what is not. Even silly traditions can grow to be taken seriously if not corrected.

[thesometimesaint]

It is just tradition. Must people are right handed so that hand leads on most ocassions. A person that can't use or doesn't have a right hand makes the exact same covenants as everyone else.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't see anything official about mandatory use of the right hand, but if it means something to the individual, what is the harm?

[Hamba Tuhan]

f it means something to the individual, what is the harm?

Zero harm ... unless someone starts telling another s/he is wrong/sinful for doing differently.

[ttg1]

I use my right hand because I'm right handed.  

[JLHPROF]

Zero harm ... unless someone starts telling another s/he is wrong/sinful for doing differently.

 

Nobody is saying it is wrong or sinful to use the left hand, especially if there is a problem with the right.

However, I would argue that it is correct to take the sacrament, and it is more correct to use the right hand.  It is correct to pray, it is more correct to kneel and pray.  It is correct to marry, it is more correct to marry in the temple.  It is correct to read the scriptures, it is more correct to study the scriptures.

There is no sin but don't we want to try and be more correct.

[JAHS]

The scriptures provide some hints about the significance of the right hand. One of the earliest incidents recorded is the blessing Jacob gave his grandsons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Manasseh was the elder, and as Joseph presented his sons to their grandfather, he presented Manasseh towards Jacob's right hand and Ephraim towards his left hand. The record states that Jacob "guiding his hands wittingly" placed his right hand on the head of Ephraim and his left hand on the head of Manasseh. Joseph protested, saying, "Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head." "I know it, my son, I know it:" said Jacob, "he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations."(Gen. 48:13-19)

When Stephen was slain, he looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.(Acts 7:55, See also Luke 22:69, Mark 14: 62)

God's children are promised that they will sit on the right hand of God in heaven(1 Pet 3: 22, Eph 1:20, Matt 25: 34, Mosiah 5:9)

It is customary to extend the right hand in token of friendship. The right hand is called the dexter, and the left, the sinister. Dexter, or right, means favorable or propitious. Sinister is associated with evil, rather than good. I suppose because of all this the custom from the very earliest time, has been to associate the right hand with the taking of oaths, and in witnessing or acknowledging obligations and has carried over into priesthood ordinances.

The right hand has been used, in preference to the left hand, in officiating in sacred ordinances where only one hand is used. We sustain the general authorities and local leaders with the right hand. We raise our right hand to the square during temple ordinances and when performing baptisms. In like manner we take the sacrament with the right hand to renew our baptismal covenant and the related obligations and promises.

Here's a few interesting quotes from earlier church leaders on this subject which reflects a little of the culture of the time:

"The ones who officiate at the board (Sacrament table) should do so with humble dignity, acting with precision and unity of movement, so that, all eyes being centered upon them, they may proceed without manifest embarrassment to perform their duties. Certain rules generally observed in the passing of the sacrament have come to be law, and these are based upon the idea of uniformity, perhaps, more than upon any other inherent reason—such as, for instance, that the deacon, or other officer passing the cup, shall carry it in his right hand, and that the communicant shall receive it in like manner; and these and other rules, not necessary to mention, are for the good order of the congregation. In addition to these things, the Saints owe a duty to each other that they should studiously discharge—that is to be so clean and sweet that their presence at the Holy Supper shall not offend any." (The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. BY WILLIAM A. HYDE, Improvement Era, 1911)

"Our people have been taught to take the sacrament with the right hand; we believe that is appropriate, and proper, and acceptable to our Father. The sacrament should not be accepted with a gloved hand; nobody should receive it in that irreverent manner. We should partake of it in humility, with preparation of clean hands and pure hearts, and with a desire to be acceptable to our Father; then we will receive it worth fly and rejoice in the blessing that comes to us by reason of it." (George Albert Smith, Conference Reports, p. 36, April, 1908)

There's room for one to be practical with this. Obviously an amputee is going to have to use his left hand and it won't invalidate the ordinance. Even a mother holding a sleeping baby in her right arm might not want to risk waking the baby to switch hands to take the sacrament.

I think more important than taking the sacrament with the right hand is whether or not your heart and spirit are right at the time you take it. The reason why we take it is much more important than how we take it.
 

[JLHPROF]

Here's a few interesting quotes from earlier church leaders on this subject which reflects a little of the culture of the time:

"The ones who officiate at the board (Sacrament table) should do so with humble dignity, acting with precision and unity of movement, so that, all eyes being centered upon them, they may proceed without manifest embarrassment to perform their duties. Certain rules generally observed in the passing of the sacrament have come to be law, and these are based upon the idea of uniformity, perhaps, more than upon any other inherent reason—such as, for instance, that the deacon, or other officer passing the cup, shall carry it in his right hand, and that the communicant shall receive it in like manner; and these and other rules, not necessary to mention, are for the good order of the congregation. In addition to these things, the Saints owe a duty to each other that they should studiously discharge—that is to be so clean and sweet that their presence at the Holy Supper shall not offend any." (The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. BY WILLIAM A. HYDE, Improvement Era, 1911)

"Our people have been taught to take the sacrament with the right hand; we believe that is appropriate, and proper, and acceptable to our Father. The sacrament should not be accepted with a gloved hand; nobody should receive it in that irreverent manner. We should partake of it in humility, with preparation of clean hands and pure hearts, and with a desire to be acceptable to our Father; then we will receive it worth fly and rejoice in the blessing that comes to us by reason of it." (George Albert Smith, Conference Reports, p. 36, April, 1908)

 

Hmm...General authorities, Conference, Church publications...does this make this official Church doctrine, at least back then?  I know it's no longer official church doctrine.

[cinepro]

I've never even heard of this until I read it on here a few weeks ago...

Every time I hear this brought up, my main point is that there doesn't appear to be any mechanism for teaching about "taking the Sacrament with the right hand" in the Church. Meaning, when someone joins the Church there is no way for them to find out about it other than browsing deep on the Church website, or by chance having someone else mention it to them.

So if the only way someone can find out about it is by accident, I have to suspect it's about as unimportant as something can get.

The second point is that there is no consequence for taking the sacrament with the left hand. You don't have to retake it, and we don't teach that it makes the ordinance ineffectual for that person. The Sacrament is an ordinance, and if there's one thing LDS take very, very seriously, it's doing ordinances correctly.

So ultimately it's just something someone made up, and has become a tradition.  There are certainly lots of reasons people come up with for how it could make a difference, but in the end, those reasons appear to be more a function of our culture and imaginations than anything God cares about.

 

 

Edit to add: It occurs to me as I re-read my post that my criteria could also be applied to Polygamy and the Second Anointing, so it could be that it is a very, very big deal but we just don't talk about it anymore.

Edited October 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Rivers]

So would it be out of line for somebody to rebuke me if I use my left hand one week?

Edited October 16, 2013 by Rivers