Taking The Sacrament With Your Right Hand.

[Stroopwafel]

Edit: was just being silly.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[canard78]

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.

 

I really don't think those examples fit together. It's not more correct to take it with your right hand. There's no comparison between a marriage in the temple (vs not) compared to what hand I take the sacrament with.

 

Not having a celestial married may limit eternal exaltation. Not taking sacrament with my right hand will not.

[canard78]

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.

 

This is a great point. If words of the sacrament prayer are said wrong, it's repeated. If the toe comes up during baptism, it's repeated. We had a case of a convert baptism where the convert had only told them one of his three 'middle' names. They did the baptism again a week later when they realised (I thought it was a bit extreme).

[JLHPROF]

I really don't think those examples fit together. It's not more correct to take it with your right hand. There's no comparison between a marriage in the temple (vs not) compared to what hand I take the sacrament with.

 

Not having a celestial married may limit eternal exaltation. Not taking sacrament with my right hand will not.

 

I would have to disagree, it is more correct to use the right hand.  Just like it's more correct to raise the right arm to the square for Baptism, just like it's more correct to raise your right hand making covenants in other places.

Is it necessary?  No.  Is it a sin to use the left?  No.   Is it more correct to use the right?  I say yes.

[kimpearson]

Just to add my own experience.  We had a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 preside at our stake conference several years ago and he spoke on the subject of traditions versus doctrine in our Saturday night adults meeting.  He specifically mentioned taking the sacrament with your right hand as nothing more than a tradition and not doctrine.  He also had some interesting points on "policy" versus doctrine.  The main point was beware of subsituting tradition and policy in the place of doctrine as that has led to many problems both in administering in the church and members leaving the church.

[cinepro]

Just to add my own experience.  We had a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 preside at our stake conference several years ago and he spoke on the subject of traditions versus doctrine in our Saturday night adults meeting.  He specifically mentioned taking the sacrament with your right hand as nothing more than a tradition and not doctrine.  He also had some interesting points on "policy" versus doctrine.  The main point was beware of subsituting tradition and policy in the place of doctrine as that has led to many problems both in administering in the church and members leaving the church.

 

Wow.  That sounds like a really interesting talk!

[canard78]

I would have to disagree, it is more correct to use the right hand.  Just like it's more correct to raise the right arm to the square for Baptism, just like it's more correct to raise your right hand making covenants in other places.

Is it necessary?  No.  Is it a sin to use the left?  No.   Is it more correct to use the right?  I say yes.

 

But as cinepro pointed out:

 

If I raise my left hand in baptism I'd have to do it again. It would invalidate the ordinance. In fact, left hand would be considered 'incorrect' (not less correct).

 

 

 

20.3.8

Instructions for Performing a Baptism

Under the direction of the presiding authority, a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the ordinance of baptism. To do so, he:

1. 1. 

   Stands in the water with the person to be baptized.

2. 2. 

   Holds the person’s right wrist with his left hand (for convenience and safety); the person who is being baptized holds the priesthood holder’s left wrist with his or her left hand.

3. 3. 

   Raises his right arm to the square.

4. 4. 

   States the person’s full name and says, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” (D&C 20:73).

5. 5. 

   Has the person hold his or her nose with the right hand (for convenience); then the priesthood holder places his right hand high on the person’s back and immerses the person completely, including the person’s clothing.

6. 6. 

   Helps the person come up out of the water.

Convert baptisms are usually performed by a priesthood holder in the ward or by one of the missionaries who taught the person. A convert may also request that another qualified member perform the baptism.

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings#203

The baptismal ordinance has clear instructions on what must be done correctly and other things optional 'for convenience.

 

 

 

20.4.3

Blessing and Passing the Sacrament

Priests and Melchizedek Priesthood holders may bless the sacrament. Deacons, teachers, priests, and Melchizedek Priesthood holders may pass the sacrament.

As the congregation sings the sacrament hymn, the priesthood holders who will bless the sacrament reverently stand, remove the cloth that covers the bread trays, and break the bread into bite-sized pieces. When they finish breaking the bread, they sit down and join in singing the hymn. Vocal solos or instrumental music may not replace this hymn.

Following the hymn, the person who blesses the bread kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the bread. The sacrament prayers were revealed by the Lord (see D&C 20:77, 79; Moroni 4–5). The bishop makes sure they are spoken clearly, accurately, and with dignity. If the person who blesses the sacrament makes an error in the wording but corrects it himself, no further correction is required. If the person does not correct an error, the bishop indicates that he should repeat the prayer correctly. In doing so, the bishop should be careful to avoid causing embarrassment or distracting from the sacred nature of the ordinance.

After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first.

While the presiding officer is receiving the sacrament, others who are passing the sacrament may walk to their designated places.

After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience.

When brethren finish passing the bread, they return the trays to the sacrament table. Those officiating at the sacrament table place the cloth over the bread trays and uncover the water trays. The person who blesses the water then kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the water (seeD&C 20:79), substituting the word water for wine.

After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the water to the congregation. When they finish, they return the trays to the sacrament table, wait for the officiators to cover the trays, then reverently take their seats.

Everyone who attends the meeting should be reverent during the entire ordinance of blessing and passing the sacrament.

No music should be played during the prayer, while the sacrament is being passed, or as a postlude after the sacrament is passed.

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings#20.4.3

The only thing mentioned that must be correct in the sacrament is the prayer. There is no mention at all of the need for the right hand while passing or while partaking.

 

If there were a 'more correct' way of doing it, wouldn't the church handbook ensure it was mentioned?

[canard78]

Wow.  That sounds like a really interesting talk!

 

Indeed. Makes me sad they don't record them. Sounds like I'd love to add some of that talk to my quotes bank.

 

This one will have to do:

 

“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

[Flyonthewall]

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

I have always taught my kids to use their right hand, even my left handed kids, but never said it was sinful not to.

To me, the right hand does have some significance, but not a make or break significance.

[Tacenda]

Indeed. Makes me sad they don't record them. Sounds like I'd love to add some of that talk to my quotes bank.

This one will have to do:

Elder Ronald Poelman, 1984 General Conference

Was this quote changed/deleted in the do over ?

[canard78]

Was this quote changed/deleted in the do over ?

 

Possibly. I don't mind. It's still an accurate quote

[Stargazer]

This is a great point. If words of the sacrament prayer are said wrong, it's repeated. If the toe comes up during baptism, it's repeated. We had a case of a convert baptism where the convert had only told them one of his three 'middle' names. They did the baptism again a week later when they realised (I thought it was a bit extreme).

 

What date did they use for his baptism?  And did they confirm him a second time, too?

 

I recall a time when a convert was confirmed in front of the congregation and the person acting as mouth for the ordinance confirmed him as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (without the LDS).  This was noticed, and they reconfirmed him privately after the meeting. 

[Stargazer]

This is a great point. If words of the sacrament prayer are said wrong, it's repeated. If the toe comes up during baptism, it's repeated. We had a case of a convert baptism where the convert had only told them one of his three 'middle' names. They did the baptism again a week later when they realised (I thought it was a bit extreme).

 

I suspect that it was unnecessary to do it over.  When I baptized my stepchildren, whose legal surnames were not mine, I used my surname in the ordinance.  Their "Preferred Names" in church records at that time included my surname, not theirs.  Yet this did not invalidate the baptisms -- in fact, I was shown the passage in the Handbook where it specifically said this was permissible, to use the stepfather's surname in this manner.  Yet the person was still baptized -- it is the person who is baptized, and not the name, which is only a label, after all.

 

I suspect I have a "true name", the one I was given in the pre-existence, and it isn't my current legal name and it isn't my screen name, either.  Although I might legally change my name to Stargazer one of these days, it's a thought!

 

Oh, yes, another thing.  When a woman in the West tradition gets married she takes her husband's surname.  Does she suddenly have to get rebaptized in that new name?  Nope.  So it is a matter of whether YOU got baptized, not necessarily what label is currently being used to designate YOU.

 

That was easy!

[canard78]

What date did they use for his baptism?  And did they confirm him a second time, too?

 

I recall a time when a convert was confirmed in front of the congregation and the person acting as mouth for the ordinance confirmed him as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (without the LDS).  This was noticed, and they reconfirmed him privately after the meeting. 

 

Memory fades - not sure. I would agree with your follow-up post that it was excessive an not needed.

[Cobalt-70]

That, and the tradition that you have to raise your right hand when voting someone into a calling, are just magical folklore traditions. They ultimately arise from the very old idea that the left hand (the "sinister" hand) was evil and that left-handedness was unnatural.

[JLHPROF]

That, and the tradition that you have to raise your right hand when voting someone into a calling, are just magical folklore traditions. They ultimately arise from the very old idea that the left hand (the "sinister" hand) was evil and that left-handedness was unnatural.

 

Yet, when we enter into covenants we are specifically told to use the right hand raised to the square (barring an issue with it).  If it didn't matter why would God specify in covenant making (or promise to reward us by setting us on his right hand)?  I certainly don't think God chose the right hand based on our traditions and I don't see why we wouldn't use the same hand to renew our covenants that we used to make them.

Edited October 17, 2013 by JLHPROF

[canard78]

Yet, when we enter into covenants we are specifically told to use the right hand raised to the square (barring an issue with it).  If it didn't matter why would God specify in covenant making (or promise to reward us by setting us on his right hand)?  I certainly don't think God chose the right hand based on our traditions and I don't see why we wouldn't use the same hand to renew our covenants that we used to make them.

 

Did you reply to my citation of the church handbook? There's a need to use a right hand in certain moments. But not in sacrament.

[JLHPROF]

Did you reply to my citation of the church handbook? There's a need to use a right hand in certain moments. But not in sacrament.

 

I never said it was necessary - I just think it makes more sense given other doctrines concerning the right hand.  And when it comes to doing things correctly, I prefer to err on the side of caution.  I don't consider using the left a sin or anything.  But I think it's better to use the right.

[canard78]

I never said it was necessary - I just think it makes more sense given other doctrines concerning the right hand.  And when it comes to doing things correctly, I prefer to err on the side of caution.  I don't consider using the left a sin or anything.  But I think it's better to use the right.

 

Even though it's not taught by the church? Aren't you perpetuating a myth?

[bluebell]

Yet, when we enter into covenants we are specifically told to use the right hand raised to the square (barring an issue with it). If it didn't matter why would God specify in covenant making (or promise to reward us by setting us on his right hand)? I certainly don't think God chose the right hand based on our traditions and I don't see why we wouldn't use the same hand to renew our covenants that we used to make them.

There are times the left hand is used specifically when making covenants though.

And we don't use either hand when making our baptismal covenants. The person performing the baptism does, but the person actually making the covenant doesn't.

[JLHPROF]

Even though it's not taught by the church? Aren't you perpetuating a myth?

I didn't realize I was required to agree 100% with the official church teachings on every point of gospel doctrine, teaching, ordinances or practices.

[canard78]

I didn't realize I was required to agree 100% with the official church teachings on every point of gospel doctrine, teaching, ordinances or practices.

 

You're not. Good point. If it works for you and it adds meaning to the ordinance then it shouldn't bother me. But if you're telling other people that right hand is more correct for them then I would disagree.

[bluebell]

I didn't realize I was required to agree 100% with the official church teachings on every point of gospel doctrine, teaching, ordinances or practices.

 

Canard already spoke to this, and like he said, I don't think it's so much an issue of how you personally view using your right hand.  It only becomes an issue when you attempt to teach others that it is more correct for everyone to use their right hand, and less correct if they don't.

 

That's when you cross the line into perpetuating myth as doctrine.

[Stargazer]

Canard already spoke to this, and like he said, I don't think it's so much an issue of how you personally view using your right hand.  It only becomes an issue when you attempt to teach others that it is more correct for everyone to use their right hand, and less correct if they don't.

 

That's when you cross the line into perpetuating myth as doctrine.

 

I am reminded of how we baptize people.  The common practice is for the baptizer to place his arm in front of the person being baptized for them to grip with one of their hands, typically the left, while leaving the right free to hold their nose if they desire.  Then after pronouncing the words of the ordinance, the right hand goes onto the back of the person being baptized for support and to help them come out of the water.  The baptizer's left hand is then used to push the person back into the water, while they bend their knees so that they effectively lie down under water.

 

Now, nothing is said or written anywhere that this is the "correct" form of baptism.  But I just bet that there is someone, somewhere, who having seen only this format being used, is going to object to any other way as "less correct".  If I baptize someone, and I say the words but then lay them out face-down in the water, or push them straight down as if they were doing a deep knee bend, have I done it wrong?  Are they any less baptized?  Nope!  As long as the words are correct, and they went all the way under, we're good to go.  Yet there is bound to be that overly precise and fastidious person out there who just can't handle it any other way.

 

In another thread, jkwilliams quoted from his book about a small branch on his mission whose branch president wouldn't let a young man bless the sacrament because he didn't own a white shirt and a tie, and would not listen to protestations that there is no dress code.

 

The common method of performing a baptism as I described above is used because it has been found to be the most efficient.  Or something.  But we need to get it in our minds that some of our practices are done that way because of convenience, or practicality.  Not because they are the holier way to do things.

 

And I think I am going to take the sacrament this coming Sunday with my left hand.  Just to shake things up.

[canard78]

I am reminded of how we baptize people.  The common practice is for the baptizer to place his arm in front of the person being baptized for them to grip with one of their hands, typically the left, while leaving the right free to hold their nose if they desire.  Then after pronouncing the words of the ordinance, the right hand goes onto the back of the person being baptized for support and to help them come out of the water.  The baptizer's left hand is then used to push the person back into the water, while they bend their knees so that they effectively lie down under water.

 

Now, nothing is said or written anywhere that this is the "correct" form of baptism.  But I just bet that there is someone, somewhere, who having seen only this format being used, is going to object to any other way as "less correct".  If I baptize someone, and I say the words but then lay them out face-down in the water, or push them straight down as if they were doing a deep knee bend, have I done it wrong?  Are they any less baptized?  Nope!  As long as the words are correct, and they went all the way under, we're good to go.  Yet there is bound to be that overly precise and fastidious person out there who just can't handle it any other way.

 

In another thread, jkwilliams quoted from his book about a small branch on his mission whose branch president wouldn't let a young man bless the sacrament because he didn't own a white shirt and a tie, and would not listen to protestations that there is no dress code.

 

The common method of performing a baptism as I described above is used because it has been found to be the most efficient.  Or something.  But we need to get it in our minds that some of our practices are done that way because of convenience, or practicality.  Not because they are the holier way to do things.

 

And I think I am going to take the sacrament this coming Sunday with my left hand.  Just to shake things up.

 

Very good point. When doing baptisms at the temple I've had a few variations. One person got me to kneel while they baptised me as it meant they had less body above water to lift. Another occasion I was asked to do a 'bob' where I went directly down (like a squat). No-one minded.