Taking The Sacrament With Your Right Hand.

[jkwilliams]

I have an uncle who is 88 years old and a lifelong member. He said that he always takes the sacrament with his left hand because he's annoyed that people would be so pharisaical about such a trivial matter.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think this is a mortal sin, but I am surprised at the number of people with a stubborn "go against the flow" mentality on this.  Not rebellion, but anti-status quo, the "I will do this just to spite tradition" idea.  It's a very Laman & Lemuel way of thinking, although the opposite is very pharasaical as has been pointed out.

Still when it comes to anything like this, I will always prefer to err on the side of caution.  It may actually be ok to do certain things in the gospel but I don't see the point in going against tradition when we don't know for absolute certain the Lord's perspective.

 

I have seen the same attitude with priesthood ordinations or blessings, dedications, wearing of garments, the discussion of temple things, and I don't like to fall on that side of the line being walked by this attitude.

It may be kind of wimpy to say, but better to be safe and as correct as possible, even if it's not official policy.

[jkwilliams]

The first time I ever heard you were supposed to take the sacrament with your right hand was when my uncle told me about his left-handed habit. I was in my twenties, IIRC. And lest you think he's some Laman wannabe, he said it with a smile and a twinkle in his eye. I'm really surprised that some people think this is important. I figured if it was, I'd have heard it sometime growing up. Maybe I just attended a ward full of Lamans and Lemuels.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am reminded of how we baptize people ... Now, nothing is said or written anywhere that this is the "correct" form of baptism.

And in fact Church materials make it very clear that this recommended way of performing baptisms is for the sake of convenience, not correctness:

 

Baptism

The ordinance of baptism is performed only by a worthy priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder under the direction of the presiding authority. The priesthood holder:

1.Stands in the water with the person to be baptized.

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

3.Raises his right arm to the square.

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.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.Helps the person come up out of the water.

And then further make it clear what sorts of things have to be done a certain way and, if they aren't, will require correction:

 

Each baptism must be witnessed by two priests or Melchizedek Priesthood holders, who make sure it is performed properly. The baptism must be repeated if the prayer was not stated accurately or if part of the body or clothing of the person being baptized was not immersed completely.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am surprised at the number of people with a stubborn "go against the flow" mentality on this.

 

I suspect that may be because we Latter-day Saints have an inbuilt sense of where the 'flow' of introduced tradition tends to lead, regardless of how well-intentioned.

 

As I earlier indicated, Joseph Fielding Smith seems to have shared our stubborn mentality on this point: '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'.

 

[JLHPROF]

I suspect that may be because we Latter-day Saints have an inbuilt sense of where the 'flow' of introduced tradition tends to lead, regardless of how well-intentioned.

 

As I earlier indicated, Joseph Fielding Smith seems to have shared our stubborn mentality on this point: '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'.

 

I like that quote you posted earlier too, but it is the first part I like better:

"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."

Turning administrative details into doctrine is wrong, but so is reducing doctrine to merely administrative details.  (To be clear, that's NOT what I think is going on with the sacrement).  And I think apostasy hit the early Church of Christ, not because they clung to details and traditions, but because they changed the ordinances from the way Christ restored them - Isaiah 24:5, and thereby lost the power of God despite keeping their belief and faith.

[EllenMaksoud]

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

I have never been instructed to use the right hand. After all America is not one place where using the left hand in place of toilet paper is done. Now, I do not know what Missionaries run into.

 

And if you have a baby in your right hand ...

Edited October 19, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[sdc999]

I don't think this is a mortal sin, but I am surprised at the number of people with a stubborn "go against the flow" mentality on this.  Not rebellion, but anti-status quo, the "I will do this just to spite tradition" idea.  It's a very Laman & Lemuel way of thinking, although the opposite is very pharasaical as has been pointed out.

Still when it comes to anything like this, I will always prefer to err on the side of caution.  It may actually be ok to do certain things in the gospel but I don't see the point in going against tradition when we don't know for absolute certain the Lord's perspective.

 

I have seen the same attitude with priesthood ordinations or blessings, dedications, wearing of garments, the discussion of temple things, and I don't like to fall on that side of the line being walked by this attitude.

It may be kind of wimpy to say, but better to be safe and as correct as possible, even if it's not official policy.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.  Galileo   

 

Do things because you want to do them, not because you are too scared to make a decision.  I am not advocating going against a religious rule that you adhere to but to trivial things.   I am reminded of the age old question,  WHY?    And yes, there is a right answer and there is a wrong answer.

[ERayR]

My shoulder hurt so bad today I partook of the sacrament with my left hand.  The bishop did not rush down and correct me and the building was still standing when sacrament meeting was over.