Left Hand

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please try to keep up. 

This comment makes you seem so small, Scott. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes it's therapy for me to go on the exmormon reddit board. I pick threads that are helpful or when I can be helpful. One thread is about Pres. Eyring and it was very positive. I guess they were wondering why he hasn't spoken as often as Oaks and Nelson. I shared an article of him and his art. And his wife having memory loss and how his watercolor paintings have been of his memories of her. Sorry for that long explanation. But I guess I don't want people to think I'm an anti, because I'm not. 

So that's where I saw the recording and transcript of Pres. Oaks. It was submitted by, who I thought was a young man. And it was taken down soon after because someone probably outed him to people in his ward or something when they saw his post. 

There sure is a lot of stuff out there. Thanks for the information. If it was put up by a deacon or young man he knew, I wonder what he was doing on an anti-Mormon Reddit board. We lost two of our sons to that stuff, but they were in their late teens. 

After seeing and hearing Pres Eyring at the Seattle gathering, we became concerned about his health, but what do we know? He is a good man!

Edited February 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

But, he was addressing something different (specific to bluebell's comment):  

(At least that's how I interpreted his questions)

Of course. Dead horses everywhere. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Unless Pres. Oaks made a disclaimer that what he was sharing was just his opinion and advice, not God's will, then it would be quite reasonable to expect the deacons to believe he was speaking with God's authority.

He said he spoke up because he was prompted by the Spirit and because of his sense of duty. There’s only one way I know of to determine for ourselves if he spoke the truth. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If he taught it over the pulpit at GC I would but in this kind of venue, no. Like I said before I think it’s a reminder that not everything that a prophet or apostle says in a random meeting is the Word of God. 

What do you make of his statement that he was faithfully following a prompting of the Spirit? 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, amo said:

So then, what with elder Bednard'statement declaring at GC that Christ's BD is on April 6th &  basing this "knowledge" on  "revelation"...? 

You could ask him how he knows that. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I suspect this will all be cleared up this April at General Conference when in another stroke of bold leadership, President Nelson will summarily forbid all Mollydookers from taking the sacrament until sincere repentance and change is shown.

Maybe not. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 2/14/2019 at 12:28 PM, ALarson said:

Good grief, Bernard!  We can at least narrow it down to one of the deacons or one of the leaders who were present.  From there, we have no way of knowing (right now) how it ended up on youtube or why the person recorded it (and if it was them or someone different who put it on youtube).

(Where's that beating a dead horse emoji when you need it???)

The recording was made by a disaffected teenage boy who posts on r/exmormon. He is mentally out of the church but attends because his parents force him to go. He posted about the experience on reddit, but has since removed his write up because someone outed him.

[JulieM]

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The recording was made by a disaffected teenage boy who posts on r/exmormon. He is mentally out of the church but attends because his parents force him to go. He posted about the experience on reddit, but has since removed his write up because someone outed him. His reddit user name is AlfredoSlime. For those interested, you can find the threads on reddit with just the username.

Oh wow!  Thanks for the info, seeking.

I wish we knew more about how planned this was with Pres. Oaks.  Like was he scheduled to teach the Deacons or did he just pop in unexpectedly to give this correction and message?  

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by JulieM

[CV75]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with your thoughts about ethos and how we are linked through our cultural expectations...BUT... the problem arises when some people choose to mandate obedience to these cultural norms as if they are God's will. It is a good example of how God's will is misunderstood and incorrectly taught. This "unwritten order of things" should not be enforced upon others. Was wearing a white shirt and tie part of my cultural upbringing? Yes. Was taking the sacrament with my right hand part of my cultural upbringing? Yes. That is the ethos created by adhering to the written order of things which is fine. What is not fine, is enforcing that unwritten order as though it comes from the mouth of God, and when prophets and apostles put forward cultural norms as God's will they are doing a huge disservice to the people they serve by taking God's name in vain by attributing to Him what is theirs.

You totally lost me with the statement that the ethos "has its basis in personal testimony". Having a testimony of a cultural norm has nothing to do with religion and seems to have much more to do with boundary maintenance between the in and out groups.

I don't see President Oaks committing the offense you describe above ( taking God's name in vain).

When people recognize and share the same spiritual underpinnings of their faith community (e.g. a testimony), that contributes to the ethos, which in turn is expressed, in part, through the unwritten order of things. I am not talking about a testimony of cultural norms any more than President Oaks is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Boundary maintenance does not apply here; there is no "in or out" with regards to the unwritten order, only personal responses to it which have no bearing on membership in the community. All continue to be welcome and appreciate the higher intent of the unwritten order and none are rejected for not doing so.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

You are framing this wrong.  It is not that they "can't even teach truth about God and His will", of course they can...and do. 

They are more than sage old men.  They are prophets, seers, and revelators.  Yes, we should accept their limitations, but that does not necessarily mean that we should not "pay much heed to the specificity of their words."   We absolutely should pay heed.  We are to prayerful heed all of their words and counsel.  

The inability to grasp what prophets are (simultaneously men and divine oracles) has, from what I can tell, always been one of the principal stumbling blocks across all dispensations, and possibly never more so than in our own. This one principle, it seems, often determines if one will stand or fall -- perhaps, in my opinion, because it can only be properly understood by one personally and intimately familiar with the processes of revelation him- or herself.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The recording was made by a disaffected teenage boy who posts on r/exmormon. He is mentally out of the church but attends because his parents force him to go. He posted about the experience on reddit, but has since removed his write up because someone outed him. His reddit user name is AlfredoSlime. For those interested, you can find the threads on reddit with just the username.

 

Just dumb luck that the kid was there to out President Oaks? [edit] According to the website, apparently it was serendipity. He knew Pres Oaks was going to visit his ward and planned the recording. 

Is he also PresidentOaks is Thicc on YouTube? [edit] Apparently not. One of his followers offered to edit and transcribe it.

The page is filled with vicious hate directed at parents, Church members, General Authorities, and President Oaks in particular. Amazing stuff. What a world we live in. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:45 AM, SouthernMo said:

Recently, Elder Oaks was recorded talking about the importance of taking the sacrament with one’s right hand.  What struck me is his teaching that because it is an ordinance, it must be done with exactness.  This begs questions in my mind:

Where else has this been taught?  How are we members supposed to know?

When sacrament prayers and baptisms are done incorrectly, they are redone.  Elder Oaks emphasizes that it has to be done again.  Why is the precision of those two parts of an ordinance taught, overseen, and enforced regularly when I’ve never seen nor heard of any presiding authority have someone re-take the sacrament because they used their left hand?

If the baptismal ordinance is done incorrectly, would it be true that the baptism is not valid?  So then if I take the sacrament with my left hand is that ordinance not valid?

Any thoughts on how we can healthily view the precision required in the sacrament ordinance?

Transcription from the recording:

"I come to see what happens when I'm not here. But I had an impression from the Spirit of the Lord, to teach something to each of you and particularly the young men of the Aaronic priesthood. Because I saw something, in Sacrament meeting today, that told me that some of you don't understand something. The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism. The Lord taught us, when we are baptized, the priest who officiates raises his right hand, and says, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' and then he immerses the person in the water. And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

Now. When we partake of the sacrament, young men and young women, we are renewing the act of baptism. We're promising the Lord again, what we promised in baptism, that we'd keep his commandments. And also, he promises to renew the effect of our baptism, so that we're cleansed, from our sins, when we partake of the sacrament, if we've repented of them. But now there's something about the right hand. When we're baptized the priest raises his right hand, not his left hand, but his right hand. And when we partake of the sacrament, we partake with our right hand, not our left hand. And today, I saw quite a few of the deacons take the sacrament with their left hands. Don't do that. Because you set the wrong example for the congregation if you do that.

I know why you did that, because the sacrament tray was coming up on this side, and it was easiest to do that way. But a mother who's holding a baby, probably changes the baby, so she can use her right hand. And all of us should partake of the right hand, when we participate in that great ordinance of the gospel. That's what I felt impressed to share with you, and I've often mentioned that in other meetings, but I've never seen so many deacons take the sacrament with their left hand, so I thought I'd better perform my responsibility to share that with you. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."  

Here read this:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Why-Members-Told-to-Take-the-Sacrament-by-the-Right-Hand-and-Whether-or-Not-It-Matters/s/89029

The use of the right hand and making covenants is pretty well established in tradition and in the Bible.

Why is it good to be at the "right hand of God?'

Why do we have a "right hand man" who is always there to be depended upon?

Why does the first counselor sit on the right hand of the leader and the second counselor sit on the left hand side?

Raise your left arm to the square in a court and see what happens.

And of course then we should change the name of a right angle to a left angle.

Let's use the left arm to sustain people.

In fact then we should also stop calling people who are correct " right."

But I think it is left to call them that.

And then there is the Latin term "Dexter" from which we get the term "dexterity", which means "right", while the word for left is "sinister."

And in political movements why is one side called the right-wing on the other left-wing?

I think they should make the Democrats sit on the right side of Congress.

I mean nowadays it is politically correct to think of Republicans as  "sinister" anyway, right?

Oops, I mean "left"?

And then we have the Brits who clearly drive on the sinister side. We have to teach them to choose the right.

But of course that is only meant as a left-handed compliment.

If it doesn't matter what hand we use, then this thread should be over because after all it doesn't matter.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Here read this:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Why-Members-Told-to-Take-the-Sacrament-by-the-Right-Hand-and-Whether-or-Not-It-Matters/s/89029

The use of the right hand and making covenants is pretty well established in tradition and in the Bible.

Why is it good to be at the "right hand of God?'

Why do we have a "right hand man" who is always there to be depended upon?

Why does the first counselor sit on the right hand of the leader and the second counselor sit on the left hand side?

Raise your left arm to the square in a court and see what happens.

And of course then we should change the name of a right angle to a left angle.

Let's use the left arm to sustain people.

In fact then we should also stop calling people who are correct " right."

But I think it is left to call them that.

And then there is the Latin term "Dexter" from which we get the term "dexterity", which means "right", while the word for left is "sinister."

And in political movements why is one side called the right-wing on the other left-wing?

I think they should make the Democrats sit on the right side of Congress.

I mean nowadays it is politically correct to think of Republicans as  "sinister" anyway, right?

Oops, I mean "left"?

And then we have the Brits who clearly drive on the sinister side. We have to teach them to choose the right.

But of course that is only meant as a left-handed compliment.

If it doesn't matter what hand we use, then this thread should be over because after all it doesn't matter.

 

 

You are probably right. Not much left to say, right?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are probably right. Not much left to say, right?

Well, what did you think about Elder Bednar's statement about Jesus's birth set as April 6th? Another thread go around?

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here read this:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Why-Members-Told-to-Take-the-Sacrament-by-the-Right-Hand-and-Whether-or-Not-It-Matters/s/89029

 

Thanks for posting that link, mfbukowski.  I know that lds.living is not an official publication of the church (I think it's a division of Deseret Book, isn't it?), but that was interesting to read through and a good overview of what has been taught and what current church teachings are on this topic:

Quote

In The Church Handbook 2, there is no indication that members should take or pass the sacrament with their right hands. In fact, there's nothing in the handbook that says the Deacons should pass it with their right hands, either. However, some members firmly believe that the left hand should never be used to partake of the sacrament. 

Quote

 

In a 1983 Ensign article, President Russell M. Nelson said:

"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" (President Russell M. Nelson, "Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used?" Ensign, March 1983). 

So although using the right hand to receive the sacrament does add symbolic meaning to the ordinance, it is not required by members. As President Nelson says, it is more important to focus on the Atonement and what the sacrament represents than which hand we take it with. 

 

 

The history this article gives is interesting to read too.....

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you make of his statement that he was faithfully following a prompting of the Spirit? 

I actually mentioned that a couple days ago.  I believe him. Many of us, especially teens, take the sacrament without thinking, without truly considering what we are doing.  Thinking about what you are doing, how you are doing it, and why, would be incredibly beneficial to everyone when taking the sacrament.  

But I also think that the Spirit can tell us to do something and that we can be mistaken on why we are supposed to do it, even though we know we are.  As I also said earlier, I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching the significance of the right hand.    I like how Pres. Nelson taught it in 1983.  

Could the Spirit have told Pres. Oaks that he needed to teach the significance of the right hand to this set of Deacons?  I absolutely believe it could.  Could Pres. Oaks have added emphasis on only using the right hand that came from his personal beliefs and not from the Spirit.  I think that could happen too.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still say there is a difference between this and gjving instructions about ordinances. 

And I disagree that he didn’t believe he was giving his opinion. He had to have realized that. No one else among the Brethren was publicly agreeing with him. His opinion on that was quite quirky, both inside and outside of the Church. 

This is a dissimilar comparison. It’s like saying a prophet giving the standard procedure for performing a baptism is merely expressing his own opinion. 

I'm sure he realized that his beliefs were not held by everyone in the quorum, but I think we can assume that he believed he was teaching 'fact' and not merely opinion when he said that people could write down what he said in their books because it was never going to happen.  

But I'm not saying that it's a straight across comparison.  I'm saying that not everything that is said by a prophet or apostles turns out to be true, even when they firmly believe that they are speaking fact and not opinion.  

Pres. Oaks wasn't giving the standard procedure for taking the sacrament, he was teaching a standard that you can't find taught anywhere else in any authoritative source.  Comparing what he taught to teaching procedure for performing a baptism is also a dissimilar comparison.  How to perform a baptism is taught in many authoritative sources.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are probably right. Not much left to say, right?

I don't know. To me it is part of the language and connotations of English and probably most other languages. It's like asking why the word for "tree" is not "shlup".

Why should those particular sounds make us think of that big beautiful thing growing over there?

Why is  "right" the right word anyway.? and why for heaven's sake do we spell it with a g?

But then I have always been kind of a shlup lover.

Linguistic connotations have been around for a long time.  they are part of communication and why people who write will sit and ponder for the right word with the right nuance.

I mean the left nuance.

It really doesn't make much sense to try to change the connotation of a word, unless it is actually offensive to a class of people, but this case is entirely different.

And for we LDS folks, I don't think we even need to question the importance of the "right angle" while all that symbolism is pretty well explained in the temple anyway.

Sorry I just don't get it.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, what did you think about Elder Bednar's statement about Jesus's birth set as April 6th? Another thread go around?

In all honesty, I think that would be pointless. We can’t read his mind.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In all honesty, I think that would be pointless. We can’t read his mind.

We don't need to "read his mind"....we have his words and where he states that "we know by revelation...":

Quote

Today is April 6. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth. 

I feel this is just another example of an Apostle giving his belief or opinion.  It is too bad he stated it the way he did instead of just "I personally believe this is the date of Christ's birth" or something like that.  Instead he said it in a very precise, specific manner just as Pres. Oaks did with his statements to the Deacons.

Edited February 15, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure he realized that his beliefs were not held by everyone in the quorum, but I think we can assume that he believed he was teaching 'fact' and not merely opinion when he said that people could write down what he said in their books because it was never going to happen.  

But I'm not saying that it's a straight across comparison.  I'm saying that not everything that is said by a prophet or apostles turns out to be true, even when they firmly believe that they are speaking fact and not opinion.  

Pres. Oaks wasn't giving the standard procedure for taking the sacrament, he was teaching a standard that you can't find taught anywhere else in any authoritative source.  Comparing what he taught to teaching procedure for performing a baptism is also a dissimilar comparison.  How to perform a baptism is taught in many authoritative sources.

By virtue of his position as first counselor in the First Presidency giving instruction to priesthood holders on the performance of an ordinance, President Oaks is inherently an authoritative source. 

Suppose arguendo his words were to be printed tomorrow in the Church handbook. Would you then regard them as authoritative? If not, why not? If yes, what would have made the difference? (Before you answer, consider that, as a member of the First Presidency, President Oaks would have had a hand in their being included in the handbook.)

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By virtue of his position as first counselor in the First Presidency giving instruction to priesthood holders on the performance of an ordinance, President Oaks is inherently an authoritative source. 

Suppose arguendo his words were to be printed tomorrow in the Church handbook. Would you then regard them as authoritative? If not, why not?

That instruction is not authoritative for the entire church though, is it.  And yes of course, if his words were printed in the handbook they would be considered authoritative.  

Quote

If yes, what would have made the difference? (Before you answer, consider that, as a member of the First Presidency, President Oaks would have had a hand in their being included in the handbook.)

The difference seems incredibly obvious.  Think of all the things that have ever been taught by a first counselor to different groups in the church in the past decades.  Now think about what makes them different than something that is printed in the handbook.  Viola!  You've answered your question.

When something is printed in the handbook, we can assume that all of the apostles, including the Prophet, have agreed that it should be in there.  That's obviously very different than a teaching that one apostle teaches that no other apostle or prophet has ever taught and that we have no evidence agrees with.

[CA Steve]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 9:32 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Plus the fact that the OP is the reproduction of a surreptitious recording that was posted on the internet to embarrass President Oaks. The question of which hand to use could have legitimately be asked and discussed without including it. Where did you get the transcript?

If you are going to quote me please do so accurately. Most of the text in your post ascribed to me was from another poster. Only a single line "When did they change the baptismal prayer?" was mine. Please edit your post to accurately reflect who said what.

See here.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

That instruction is not authoritative for the entire church though, is it.  And yes of course, if his words were printed in the handbook they would be considered authoritative.  

The difference seems incredibly obvious.  Think of all the things that have ever been taught by a first counselor to different groups in the church in the past decades.  Now think about what makes them different than something that is printed in the handbook.  Viola!  You've answered your question.

When something is printed in the handbook, we can assume that all of the apostles, including the Prophet, have agreed that it should be in there.  That's obviously very different than a teaching that one apostle teaches that no other apostle or prophet has ever taught and that we have no evidence agrees with.

And even the Handbooks allow for exceptions, accommodations and flexibility. This “written order of things” is as malleable as the “unwritten order of things.” I think our response to them, and our response to how others respond to them, is an indicator of how well we are learning to become Christlike, not by prescription but by invitation. I think the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost can be very beneficial in how we do that.