Left Hand

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why, it will go to our stake presidents. 

OK. Even if it did, wouldn't that be better than 9 pages of guesswork, insinuations, searches for more egregious statements by President Oaks, ridicule, marginalizing, and second-guessing? Why not give it a try? If it's kicked back, it could become the motivation for another 9 pages of exposing him as an ogre. Isn't what this is all about?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I have. That makes it about 50/50. Now that you have read the statements of several General Authorities recommending it, would you now considered yourself counseled?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have. That makes it about 50/50. Now that you have read the statements of several General Authorities recommending it, would you now considered yourself counseled?

No, i really wouldn't.  I can find lots of stuff recommended by GAs that we don't follow in the church.  Can you put up a reference for where a GA taught that we must take the sacrament with only our right hand to the entire church (such as in GC) in the last 10 years?

This might have been something that used to be taught a lot but I came of age in the 1990s and it seems that the teaching has lately been much less prevalent.  I know that it's not something that new converts are taught in either the discussions or in the Gospel Principles manual, for example.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, i really wouldn't.  I can find lots of stuff recommended by GAs that we don't follow in the church.  Can you put up a reference for where a GA taught that we must take the sacrament with only our right hand to the entire church (such as in GC) in the last 10 years?

This might have been something that used to be taught a lot but I came of age in the 1990s and it seems that the teaching has lately been much less prevalent.  I know that it's not something that new converts are taught in either the discussions or in the Gospel Principles manual, for example.

Why limit it to ten years?

This may have been partially quoted earlier, but here is a more complete version...

Quote

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. https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1983/03/i-have-a-question/is-it-necessary-to-take-the-sacrament-with-ones-right-hand?lang=eng

Isn't it possible that there is a higher observance that includes the profound symbolism of the right hand found throughout the ordinances and scriptures? Every time I go to the temple I learn more of the symbolism that complete went over my head in previous sessions. Much of it comes with the use of the right hand in our most sacred of ordinances and ones that bind us to the Father and the Son.

 Once I understand the new revelation, can I move on to more, being taught line by line? What if we determined we would always use the right hand in the ordinance of partaking the sacrament even if it means someone criticizes us for being legalists, formalists, Pharisees? What if we made a conscious choice to just go ahead and do it as an experiment on the word and see if something came of it? What if by doing so we came to a deeper understanding of what it means to be found the right side of God, to be counted among his sheep, to be on the side that is occupied by his Beloved Son? What if we actually considered President Oaks' instructions that tie it in with the right hand of the officiator in baptism and certain temple ceremonies? Might we learn something more profound? What if we didn't have to be commanded in all things, but chose to do good of our own free will? What if we had the proper thoughts of gratitude, reflection, repentance, and renewal and did so as invited to take the emblems of his death with our right hands? Would it really be that onerous?

What if instead we recorded the instructions of a member of the First Presidency in a deacons quorum, posted on the internet with the purpose of embarrassing the man, called into question his knowledge of the gospel, guessed at his real intentions in teaching a principal, ridiculed his correction of something that perhaps needed correction as (he said) he was directed by the Spirit, and then actively sought out more examples where we could marginalize him and make him appear an out-of-touch martinette? Would this put us in a better place?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. Even if it did, wouldn't that be better than 9 pages of guesswork, insinuations, searches for more egregious statements by President Oaks, ridicule, marginalizing, and second-guessing? Why not give it a try? If it's kicked back, it could become the motivation for another 9 pages of exposing him as an ogre. Isn't what this is all about?

I haven't said anything too harsh about it. In fact, my first post about it was that I see that he is probably trying to show the importance of the Sacrament.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I haven't said anything too harsh about it. In fact, my first post about it was that I see that he is probably trying to show the importance of the Sacrament.

I agree. How would taking the sacrament with the right hand as he recommended diminish the importance of the sacrament?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree. How would taking the sacrament with the right hand as he recommended diminish the importance of the sacrament?

It certainly wouldn't, I think the problem some are having is that it sounds too legalistic, or others may feel he should be talking about something else, or not be so picky or not make them feel like they've not done it well enough, I dunno. But just went back and found what I said that wasn't too harsh but it was on another thread, I brought it up on the "President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago", thread.:

 

"I thought that as well at first, and then I realized in his mind he is teaching or helping build testimonies as to how important it is to teach the proper way of taking the Sacrament." 

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree. How would taking the sacrament with the right hand as he recommended diminish the importance of the sacrament?

Who has made that claim?

A better question (for you to answer) is how does taking the sacrament with your left hand diminish the importance of the sacrament?

It’s the exactness part of his opinion that doesn’t match what has been taught to members.  You seem to be going to a lot of work and through hoops to avoid just simply admitting he could have been speaking as a man and was wrong.  There’s no shame in making mistakes and we know they are not perfect.

Edited February 14, 2019 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's one of those "unwritten order of things" kind of rules.

My personal approach to 'unwritten' rules:

If Church leaders can carefully write out instructions regarding the use of Christmas trees in meetinghouses -- 'If Christmas trees are used, they should be artificial or properly fireproofed and displayed without electric lights or candles' -- then they can write out any rule they actually want me to follow. I don't do secret rules that only some people know and that get passed around by word of mouth. (Apologies to Pres Packer.)

That's precisely how apostasy occurs.

It's also how we damage and alienate converts -- who make up the large majority of the Church:

Member A: Stop taking the sacrament with your left hand. That's wrong.

Member B: Oh, sorry. I didn't know. I don't remember anyone ever telling me. Where I can read more about this?

Member A: You can't. It's one of the unwritten rules you're just supposed to know.

Member B: How many more of these unwritten rules are there, and how can I learn them all?

Member A: Don't worry about that: I'll just keep pointing out to you everything you get wrong.

Member B: OK. How do I know you're not just making some of this up though?

Member A: What's wrong with you? Can't you take counsel?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why limit it to ten years?

This may have been partially quoted earlier, but here is a more complete version...

Because you can't hold people accountable for a commandment they were never taught.  The article from 1983 is great (thought it doesn't teach that we must take the sacrament with our right hand) but I wasn't even a member of the church in 1983.  

Robert Millet has talked elsewhere about how to tell what the current doctrine of the church is and one of the requirements is that it has been taught lately.  His point is that something that was taught decades ago but hasn't been taught at all since can't logically be considered church doctrine.  I agree with him.  If taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine, then we should have no problem finding recent lessons or sermons where that is taught.

Quote

 

Isn't it possible that there is a higher observance that includes the profound symbolism of the right hand found throughout the ordinances and scriptures? Every time I go to the temple I learn more of the symbolism that complete went over my head in previous sessions. Much of it comes with the use of the right hand in our most sacred of ordinances and ones that bind us to the Father and the Son.

 Once I understand the new revelation, can I move on to more, being taught line by line? What if we determined we would always use the right hand in the ordinance of partaking the sacrament even if it means someone criticizes us for being legalists, formalists, Pharisees? What if we made a conscious choice to just go ahead and do it as an experiment on the word and see if something came of it? What if by doing so we came to a deeper understanding of what it means to be found the right side of God, to be counted among his sheep, to be on the side that is occupied by his Beloved Son? What if we actually considered President Oaks' instructions that tie it in with the right hand of the officiator in baptism and certain temple ceremonies? Might we learn something more profound? What if we didn't have to be commanded in all things, but chose to do good of our own free will? What if we had the proper thoughts of gratitude, reflection, repentance, and renewal and did so as invited to take the emblems of his death with our right hands? Would it really be that onerous?

 

Sure, but whatever symbolism you find in the temple (or in any other place) is not something that you should be teaching to anyone else as how they must see it.

Quote

What if instead we recorded the instructions of a member of the First Presidency in a deacons quorum, posted on the internet with the purpose of embarrassing the man, calling into question his knowledge of the gospel, guessing at his real intentions in teaching a principal, ridiculing his correction of something that perhaps needed correction as he was direc by the Spirit, and then sought actively out more examples where we could marginalize him and make him appear an out-of-touch martinette? Would this put us in a better place?

This has nothing to do with anything I have said so I'm guessing you meant it for someone else.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. Even if it did, wouldn't that be better than 9 pages of guesswork, insinuations, searches for more egregious statements by President Oaks, ridicule, marginalizing, and second-guessing? Why not give it a try? If it's kicked back, it could become the motivation for another 9 pages of exposing him as an ogre. Isn't what this is all about?

I have tried. To me, using my left hand or right hand makes no difference in my sacrament experience.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I’ve had it happen. Twice. 

[bluebell]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

I’ve had it happen. Twice. 

I'm not surprised.  I'm just saying that it's not a given.  

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Who has made that claim?

A better question (for you to answer) is how does taking the sacrament with your left hand diminish the importance of the sacrament?

It’s the exactness part of his opinion that doesn’t match what has been taught to members.  You seem to be going to a lot of work and through hoops to avoid just simply admitting he could have been speaking as a man and was wrong.  There’s no shame in making mistakes and we know they are not perfect.

The whole premise of this thread is that it is ridiculous, undoctrinal, legalistic, and unkind to suggest we take the sacrament with the right hand. This in the face of all the other references to the right hand in various doctrines and ordinances, including the position the Son occupies in relation to the Father. It is clearly symbolic and important.

For me to answer? Why? I'm not the one taking issue with President Oaks. My answer is two part: 1) the right hand is symbolic in doctrine and practice, and 2) it has been recommended by two current members of the First Presidency. It's a simple matter of saying, "OK. I can do that. It can't hurt me."

I don't think he was speaking as a man nor that he made a mistake. I'm willing to believe him when he said he was inspired to give that instruction to those young men in the deacons quorum for whatever reason the Spirit might have had. Neither you nor I know what that reason might be, nor are we in a position to judge him as being mislead, mistaken, or delusional.

On the other hand (left hand), we can choose to call him out, demean him, search out his words for more offenses, and reject his counsel because it isn't spelled out for us in scripture or a handbook and because he is an out-of-touch old man desperately holding to the past. We are free to do that, too. Perhaps there is more in store for us if we choose not to go down that path.

Why not consciously take the sacrament with he right hand this Sunday, contemplating the meaning of the right hand, why it is used in ordinances, if President Oaks had some insight we idon'thave, and see if the Lord says, "Meh. It doesn't mean anything. Whatever you want. He's wrong. It's worth a try, don't you think?

Then, go with what you were instructed by the Spirit and let President Oaks go his way in peace.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It certainly wouldn't, I think the problem some are having is that it sounds too legalistic, or others may feel he should be talking about something else, or not be so picky or not make them feel like they've not done it well enough, I dunno. But just went back and found what I said that wasn't too harsh but it was on another thread, I brought it up on the "President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago", thread.:

 

"I thought that as well at first, and then I realized in his mind he is teaching or helping build testimonies as to how important it is to teach the proper way of taking the Sacrament." 

Does raising the right hand, exactly repeating and set prayer, and completely immersing a person in the water sound too legalistic? What right do people have to tell him what he is allowed to talk about when the Spirit directs him or to judge that the Spirit did not direct him, that he just spouted off his old-fashioned biases? If it's all in his mind, then that makes him........"

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I have tried. To me, using my left hand or right hand makes no difference in my sacrament experience.

Therefore, it doesn't. You should let President Oaks know right away so he doesn't make this mistake again.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Therefore, it doesn't. You should let President Oaks know right away so he doesn't make this mistake again.

I don't think that responding to people's sincere feelings with flippant sarcasm is serving your purpose they way you think it is. 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The whole premise of this thread is that it is ridiculous, undoctrinal, legalistic, and unkind to suggest we take the sacrament with the right hand.

That's not true, Bernard.  It's that we ONLY take it with the right hand and that this is to be done with the exactness that the sacrament prayer is done.  That is not accurate and that is what is being discussed here.  No one has stated that we don't take the sacrament with the right hand....just that it's ok to also partake of it with our left hand too.

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does raising the right hand, exactly repeating and set prayer, and completely immersing a person in the water sound too legalistic?

Not to me, it doesn't. I actually like how clearly instructions for baptism are spelt out all over Church publications:

Quote

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.

I would, however, be concerned if, after following these exact rules, someone asked me, 'Why didn't you look heavenward when you spoke the words of the ordinance?'

'I didn't see that in the instructions'.

'No, it's one of the unwritten rules. It's clearly symbolic and important. I can show you heaps of scriptures where other people looked heavenward whilst praying to show you just how silly you are if you want'.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Therefore, it doesn't. You should let President Oaks know right away so he doesn't make this mistake again.

You’re a hoot, Bernie!

[SouthernMo]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not surprised.  I'm just saying that it's not a given.  

It’s confusing. Sometimes, we hear in general conference apostles talking about letters they receive and read from members around the world.  Other times, those letters are sent back in a way that often feels cold.

Not sure how those men decide what to read and respond to, and what to return to the stake president.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does raising the right hand, exactly repeating and set prayer, and completely immersing a person in the water sound too legalistic? What right do people have to tell him what he is allowed to talk about when the Spirit directs him or to judge that the Spirit did not direct him, that he just spouted off his old-fashioned biases? If it's all in his mind, then that makes him........"

Now that you put it that way! I guess we are nitpickers to the max. It is just his style that may rub people the wrong way. And did I hear right that he mentioned tattoos and earrings at the Arizona fireside? Or that could have been someone on the reddit's page that are being little brats. 

If he did speak out against these things, it's time to let it go, IMO. But sure, let him speak on using the right hand, I've no big problem with it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure how those men decide what to read and respond to, and what to return to the stake president.

I serve as senior adviser to a member of our parliament. We are inundated every day with both email and posted communications. The junior advisers handle all of this, and the member only sees a little of what gets through. I sincerely doubt apostles are making these judgement calls themselves.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Now that you put it that way! I guess we are nitpickers to the max. It is just his style that may rub people the wrong way. And did I hear right that he mentioned tattoos and earrings at the Arizona fireside? Or that could have been someone on the reddit's page that are being little brats. 

If he did speak out against these things, it's time to let it go, IMO. But sure, let him speak on using the right hand, I've no big problem with it.

What if it is not pleasing to God that with pierce our bodies and stick inked needles in them? We should seek the Lord's guidance and do what he tells us. In the meantime, he has a few people who might be correct in counseling us. We are free to choose.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I serve as senior adviser to a member of our parliament. We are inundated every day with both email and posted communications. The junior advisers handle all of this, and the member only sees a little of what gets through. I sincerely doubt apostles are making these judgement calls themselves.

Of course. Yet, if we really feel strongly enough about this to the point of demeaning an apostle, perhaps we should at least try to find out what's what.

How does this sound?

"Dear President Oaks (or just Oaks, as some here call him),

"I recently read about something you said in a deacons quorum meeting and then I heard a surreptitious recording of your remarks published on YouTube. In your remarks, you appeared to yell at the deacons and reprimand them for taking the sacrament with their right hands. I am not aware of any scripture or handbook instruction that says we have to take the sacrament with our right hands or it has to be done over. You said the Spirit prompted you to give them those instructions, but I think you were talking as a man, because back in your youth when such legalist practices were condemned by former Presidents of the Church and you can't seem to get in touch with the modern sentiments of the Church. Instead of doing this to these poor your people, you should have taken the time to give them positive, uplifting instruction and praise them for their efforts. You don't seem to be aware that there is no revelation commanding us to do this. Do you wish to repudiate this unfortunate misuse of your power as an Apostle?

"Patiently awaiting your answer,

"Bernard Gui."

That should get a quick friendly response.

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui