Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SouthernMo

Left Hand

Recommended Posts

Ok I know someone who at every social event for work drinks milk in a clear glass so that there’s no question that they are not drinking alcohol.  

Thats not my style but it’s his.  Live and let live. 

I am curious, if Oaks preaches NO TATS and you the disillusioned get upset , whereas I The active shrug my shoulders ...  I wonder if that means that I am less faithful than expected from an active member. 

I really don’t care about tattoos and piercings.  I don’t care much that other people care, nor do I care if someone sports tattoos or piercings.  I don’t have any myself, but it seems to me to be a divider where often the divide is unneeded.  So many righteous people out there with tattoos , I just can’t be accusatory.  We have bigger problems imo. 

Oaks - I really wouldn’t want to hang out with him, but I don’t get particularly concerned with his focus.  He is just a man. Just like everyone else, with his lens affecting his focus.  I respect his leadership but don’t get particularly hung up on the details.  Maybe that makes me a sinner but I’m comfortable in the color. Don’t need black and white. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Are the questions such as using the left hand in taking the sacrament, getting tattoos, or having multiple earrings on the same ear, primary or secondary ones?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But exactness has never been a requirement of taking the sacrament.  

So as far as the sacrament goes, "no exactness on hand use required and no specified hand commanded" plus "precedent for left hand also being a covenant hand" seems to equal "no implied requirement to use the right hand despite taking part in an ordinance."

Some latter-day saints can expect exactness if they wish.  Teaching that such exactness is required by everyone is another issue altogether though.  

Since I never see the subject of which hand to use come up in gospel discussions anymore (haven’t in a long, long time) this whole matter, including deliberate refusal on principle to use the right hand, strikes me as much ado about nothing. 

That said, the article by Russel M. Nelson (if it’s the same one I just looked up) does not forbid or condemn the practice of using the right hand. It even gives some interesting and noteworthy symbolic parallels from scripture and antiquity. He even goes so far as to express his own personal preference for using the right hand, based on his own understanding of the symbolic significance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since I never see the subject of which hand to use come up in gospel discussions anymore (haven’t in a long, long time) this whole matter, including deliberate refusal on principle to use the right hand, strikes me as much ado about nothing. 

That said, the article by Russel M. Nelson (if it’s the same one I just looked up) does not forbid or condemn the practice of using the right hand. It even gives some interesting and noteworthy symbolic parallels from scripture and antiquity. He even goes so far as to express his own personal preference for using the right hand, based on his own understanding of the symbolic significance. 

It seems that Pres. Oaks does not see it as much ado about nothing, but I tend to agree with you.  Has anyone on here (or anywhere) tried to condemn or forbid the use of the right hand?  That seems like an odd thing to point out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well it certainly is a good thing I am still a non-member. I'd rather be a non-member than a "lesser member" for having a thirty year old tattoo of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet on my right shoulder! The color has faded greatly, but I still like it. I always thought of Winnie the Pooh as a true exemplar of Mennonite peace teachings. Pooh may be a bear of little brain, but he is a terrific theologian! My goatee (a nod to my Mennonite roots - and my wife likes it) is probably triggering enough for some in the ward. If they knew I had a tattoo - Oh My! Maybe they would stop asking me when I am going to get baptized! 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, not "awful" people. Just ridiculous people. And it's worse when people pretend like their overzealousness is God's will and teach it as such. So, "awful"? No. But misguided Pharisees taking the name of God in vain (claiming his will when it is not), then, maybe.

Of course. They are raca.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Ok I know someone who at every social event for work drinks milk in a clear glass so that there’s no question that they are not drinking alcohol.  

Thats not my style but it’s his.  Live and let live. 

I am curious, if Oaks preaches NO TATS and you the disillusioned get upset , whereas I The active shrug my shoulders ...  I wonder if that means that I am less faithful than expected from an active member. 

I really don’t care about tattoos and piercings.  I don’t care much that other people care, nor do I care if someone sports tattoos or piercings.  I don’t have any myself, but it seems to me to be a divider where often the divide is unneeded.  So many righteous people out there with tattoos , I just can’t be accusatory.  We have bigger problems imo. 

Oaks - I really wouldn’t want to hang out with him, but I don’t get particularly concerned with his focus.  He is just a man. Just like everyone else, with his lens affecting his focus.  I respect his leadership but don’t get particularly hung up on the details.  Maybe that makes me a sinner but I’m comfortable in the color. Don’t need black and white. 

It's also beneficial to consider the opus of his exemplary lifetime of service, work, writing, and speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which apostle taught “that it is a biggie to a bunch of kids”? It is you who seems spun up over it. 

Are you not aware of what this thread is about? Perhaps you should start with the OP.

If it's not important, or a "biggie" in Pres. Oaks' mind, why would he use his precious time with youth to correct them for not using their right hand.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well it certainly is a good thing I am still a non-member. I'd rather be a non-member than a "lesser member" for having a thirty year old tattoo of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet on my right shoulder! The color has faded greatly, but I still like it. I always thought of Winnie the Pooh as a true exemplar of Mennonite peace teachings. Pooh may be a bear of little brain, but he is a terrific theologian! My goatee (a nod to my Mennonite roots - and my wife likes it) is probably triggering enough for some in the ward. If they knew I had a tattoo - Oh My! Maybe they would stop asking me when I am going to get baptized! 

That is some mighty fine mind reading.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you not aware of what this thread is about? Perhaps you should start with the OP.

If it's not important, or a "biggie" in Pres. Oaks' mind, why would he use his precious time with youth to correct them for not using their right hand.

Because he was instructed to do so by the Spirit. Or maybe he was just confused, delusional, or lying?

Quote

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

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is some mighty fine mind reading.

Not really, just some mighty fine humor!😊

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve taken the sacrament with both my left and right hands.

Guess what - the experience has been the same for me. I still love the esperience, and feel the renewing power of the atonement.

So if my experience has been the same taking the sacrament with both hands, Elder Oaks’ comment is not going to convince me to make a special effort to use my right hand.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

A point I find appealing about the way some other Christian faiths administer the Lord's Supper/Communion:

I've often heard it referenced as "receiving" the emblems of communion. Not "taking" of the emblems. Receiving is more in line with accepting of a gift that is given, not "taken". I'd be curious to hear if any of our catholic friends have thoughts about this. A Catholic does not "take" communion, but rather receives it from God's representative. I've witnessed at the Methodist church that those receiving hold out their palms and the bread is placed into it, after which they say something like "amen" or "thanks be to God". The approach humbly, receive what is given, instead of taking the bread themselves. It's a minor thing, but I like the symbolism of it. Likewise, I can appreciate why some people feel the symbolism of using the right hand is significant, but it bothers me when one person feels his way is God's way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Because he was instructed to do so by the Spirit. Or maybe he was just confused, delusional, or lying?

 

No, but he was mistaken regarding what he taught.  There is no "exactness" when it comes to having to partake of the sacrament with the right hand (or leaders would insist it be re-taken by those using their left hand just as they make sure the sacrament prayer is re-done if stated incorrectly).  Pres. Oaks had a rare opportunity to speak personally to a group of young men and it's unfortunate he used his time to treat them as he did (like he'd caught them doing something wrong and then seemingly almost scolding them):

Quote

"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.

I have to believe there is not one boy there who now doesn't believe something that is not correct to feel or believe.  So yes, Pres. Oaks did treat this like it was a "biggie" when it's the message he chose to leave them with.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think he's lying.

But I also think it's very possible he doesn't understand or is unable to recognize the difference between what he thinks the spirit is telling him and his own emotional reaction on matters for which he has an opinion. I fully accept that left hand sacrament partaking bothers him. He has probably been taught, and has taught "right hand" use for most of his life. But as has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread, that doesn't mean it's God's will. If it were God's will I would expect to see it discussed in the scriptures, perhaps a revelation could be referred to, or maybe even consistency of teaching amongst the prophets and apostles of the restoration. None of those things exist, hence my belief that he is speaking as a man while thinking he's speaking for God.

That leaves delusional or confused.

This from President Nelson is worthy of consideration:

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.

To me this is same thing when folks get heartburn over white shirts in church. There are 168 hours in a week. It is no burden to wear a white shirt for 2 of them. Just like it is no burden to take the sacrament with the right hand if a "man" who is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelatory asks us to. It's no burden to say no to the needles. 

 

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Not really, just some mighty fine humor!😊

Mind reading nevertheless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

That leaves delusional or confused.

Those were your words and your choices of what may have taken place.  How about he was just mistaken?

Or do you believe our leaders are infallible and don't make mistakes?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, but he was mistaken regarding what he taught.  There is no "exactness" when it comes to having to partake of the sacrament with the right hand (or leaders would insist it be re-taken by those using their left hand just as they make sure the sacrament prayer is re-done if stated incorrectly).  Pres. Oaks had a rare opportunity to speak personally to a group of young men and it's unfortunate he used his time to treat them as he did (like he'd caught them doing something wrong and then seemingly almost scolding them):

I have to believe there is not one boy there who now doesn't believe something that is not correct to feel or believe.  So yes, Pres. Oaks did treat this like it was a "biggie" when it's the message he chose to leave them with.

Were you there? How do you know what those young people believe? Do you know what was said in the previous meeting or if there were other interactions with them that were not recorded?

If you listened to the recording, you will know he was not scolding them.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those were your words and your choices of what may have taken place.  How about he was just mistaken?

Or do you believe our leaders are infallible and don't make mistakes?

I am not referring to his instructions on using the right hand. I am referring to him saying he was led by the Spirit to give the instruction.

He was mistaken about that? How do you know that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Were you there? How do you know what those young people believe? Do you know what was said in the previous meeting or if there were other interactions with them that were not recorded?

If you listened to the recording, you will know he was not scolding them.

I said "seemingly almost scolding them".....I am just imagining how it must have felt to those boys to hear him come in and talk to them as if they'd been caught doing something wrong.  I think it was a poor choice on Pres. Oak's part when he could have gone in and left a message of acceptance, compassion and love.  Plus he taught them something that was not even correct doctrine. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A point I find appealing about the way some other Christian faiths administer the Lord's Supper/Communion:

I've often heard it referenced as "receiving" the emblems of communion. Not "taking" of the emblems. Receiving is more in line with accepting of a gift that is given, not "taken". I'd be curious to hear if any of our catholic friends have thoughts about this. A Catholic does not "take" communion, but rather receives it from God's representative. I've witnessed at the Methodist church that those receiving hold out their palms and the bread is placed into it, after which they say something like "amen" or "thanks be to God". The approach humbly, receive what is given, instead of taking the bread themselves. It's a minor thing, but I like the symbolism of it. Likewise, I can appreciate why some people feel the symbolism of using the right hand is significant, but it bothers me when one person feels his way is God's way.

Yet when offered, they still have to be taken. To me, offering and taking are tokens of our agency.

Would it be possible that some Mormons say "amen" or "thanks be to God" in the silence of prayer while partaking of the sacrament? I think so.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am not referring to his instructions on using the right hand. I am referring to him saying he was led by the Spirit to give the instruction.

He was mistaken about that?

Well either that or the Spirit led him to give instructions that are not correct.  

I think he talked to them as a man who was bothered by what he saw and who obviously believes there should be exactness regarding which hand to use when partaking of the sacrament.  He's entitled to his strong opinions, of course....but to teach them as if they are church doctrine was a mistake, IMO.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That leaves delusional or confused.

This from President Nelson is worthy of consideration:

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.

To me this is same thing when folks get heartburn over white shirts in church. There are 168 hours in a week. It is no burden to wear a white shirt for 2 of them. Just like it is no burden to take the sacrament with the right hand if a "man" who is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelatory asks us to. It's no burden to say no to the needles. 

 

Mind reading nevertheless.

 

If it was God's divine will that we wear white shirts and take the sacrament with our right hands, then you would have a point. If it was God's will I wouldn't complain and it wouldn't be a burden. But following a man's personal preference is a burden, especially when he presents his personal preference as God's will. Again, it has been taught that we can be confident that something is God's will when there is consistency in teaching amongst the brethren. There is no consistency on this. Being a prophet, seer, and revelator doesn't entitle the holder of that office to impose his will and desires on others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it was God's divine will that we wear white shirts and take the sacrament with our right hands, then you would have a point. If it was God's will I wouldn't complain and it wouldn't be a burden. But following a man's personal preference is a burden, especially when he presents his personal preference as God's will. Again, it has been taught that we can be confident that something is God's will when there is consistency in teaching amongst the brethren. There is no consistency on this. Being a prophet, seer, and revelator doesn't entitle the holder of that office to impose his will and desires on others.

Then he was not moved by the Spirit to give the instruction?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...