Taking The Sacrament

[Amillia]

Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used?

Russell M. Nelson, Regional Representative, former general president of the Sunday School. As Rachel lay dying in the pain of childbirth, she named her new son Ben-oni, which in Hebrew means “son of my sorrow” or “distress.” But her bereaved husband, Jacob (Israel), changed the name of their newborn son, perhaps to avoid a repeated reference to her travail and death each time his son’s name might be spoken. The name he chose instead was Benjamin, which in Hebrew means “son at the right (hand).” (See Gen. 35:16–19.) Israel’s great love for his beloved Rachel was signified by this special designation given to Benjamin, his twelfth son.

That the right hand suggests symbolic favor is suggested again in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said:

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:31–34.)

Numerous other scriptural references to the right hand are listed on page 433 of the Topical Guide appended to the new LDS edition of the Bible. These accounts give some background and insight into the symbolic significance of the right hand—a symbolism that appears in the language and other cultural features of the Jewish and Christian world. In Latin, for example, dexter (right) and sinister (left) not only indicated right and left but became the roots for adjectives carrying favorable and unfavorable connotations. The use of the right hand as a symbolic gesture was in time extended to the administration of governmental oaths, and to the courtroom, as witnesses were called to testify under oath.

With this background, we may now focus on the question of which hand to use when partaking of the sacrament.

The word sacrament comes from two Latin stems: sacr meaning “sacred,” and ment meaning “mind.” It implies sacred thoughts of the mind. Even more compelling is the Latin word sacramentum, which literally means “oath or solemn obligation.” Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world.

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.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 02:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 10:51 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 12:16 AM

Compare MOSIAH CHAPTER 5 with the sacremental prayers. The requirement to take upon us HIS name has everything to do with being on the right hand. Symbolically this all comes together consistently.

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important.

Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power.

When we take with our right hand we are not saying OUR right hand is powerfull. We are recognizing and putting the 'right hand' of the Savior and our hopeful ultimate destiny in our minds.

We are saying we want to be on the right hand of Christ. IT IS SYMBOLIC! Not literal. You are confusing and mixing the two together when you argue it isn't our right hand that has the power. It is symbolic of where we want to be through this covenant and ordinance.

Could you point me to a more specific verse than just Mosiah 5. You have to remember that my BoM is different from yours, and a whole chapter is kind of vague.

Oh sorry, I didn't know.

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the achildren• of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are bchanged through faith on his name; therefore, ye are cborn• of him and have become his dsons• and his daughters.

8 And under this head ye are made afree•, and there is bno• other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other cname• given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some aother• name; therefore, he findeth himself on the bleft• hand of God.

11 And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the aname• that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.

12 I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to aretain• the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you.

[Jenda]

Thanks. Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

[Guest curvette]

Hey, I have a good idea! Let's strain at a gnat and swallow a CAMEL!!!!!!!!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks. Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

[Guest curvette]

If we were to reach out to Jesus with our right hand and touch him, we would find ourselves on His LEFT side!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone (actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone") at the base of the spine) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 03:04 PM

If we were to reach out to Jesus with our right hand and touch him, we would find ourselves on His LEFT side!

That would depend upon whether we faced Him or was to His side. I would like to face Him fi :) rst.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion.

LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion.

LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion?

That would be quite the rumor to start, wouldn't it???

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 04:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion.

LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion?

That would be quite the rumor to start, wouldn't it???

It definitely would be! aackk!

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 04:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 1 2005, 02:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 02:56 PM

Thanks.  Although I am flashing back to a sermon I heard almost a year ago (Easter, to be exact), and it talked, in part, about covenants, and the word sacrament.................

Oh, nevermind.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times)

Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value.

Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum.................

I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Well, interesting. :)

Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion.

LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion?

That would be quite the rumor to start, wouldn't it???

Dawn,

I did have something real profound to offer, but....I am all flustered now and cant think. Who would thunk this topic would have turned down this road!! LOL!

It does however, remind of what happened in a Gospel Doctrine class one time. We were studying the OT...and the discussion was about the meaning of the word Gentiles....well, this good sister kept saying "Genitals" and never caught her slip up. It was most humorous!! Needless to say...the spirit took a "break" from our class for a bit! LOL!

Just goes to show...we just can never miss a Sunday....we never know what fun things are gonna happen!

randy

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Feb 1 2005, 04:45 PM

Who would thunk this topic would have turned down this road!! LOL!

It does however, remind of what happened in a Gospel Doctrine class one time. We were studying the OT...and the discussion was about the meaning of the word Gentiles....well, this good sister kept saying "Genitals" and never caught her slip up. It was most humorous!! Needless to say...the spirit took a "break" from our class for a bit! LOL!

Just goes to show...we just can never miss a Sunday....we never know what fun things are gonna happen!

randy

In my old ward, there was a woman who was teaching a concept about the whole world becoming circumscribed and she raised both arms in front of her and proceeded to make two huge circles. She exclaimed that "The whole world became circumcised, circumcised!" Sister Burns, never caught on to what she was saying either. My guess is that nobody had the heart to tell her.

[Jenda]

Dawn,

I did have something real profound to offer, but....I am all flustered now and cant think. Who would thunk this topic would have turned down this road!! LOL!

Bet you never find anything this good on that other board, do you? Maybe you'll hang around here more often, now.

[Blessed]

Amilla brought up bread and wine...

I have been in other countries where rice cake and green tea was used because in their culture they did not have bread or grape juice... it isn't used.

What of their Scarament of the Lord's Supper... I guess it isn't seen in the Lord's eyes as worthy unto Him?

What about a person who was born with no right hand or got it cut off?

I disagree with Randy and Amilia for the sake of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

God is bigger than doctrine and looks on the inward where man looks on the outward.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Blessed@Feb 2 2005, 11:52 AM

Amilla brought up bread and wine...

I have been in other countries where rice cake and green tea was used because in their culture they did not have bread or grape juice... it isn't used.

What of their Scarament of the Lord's Supper... I guess it isn't seen in the Lord's eyes as worthy unto Him?

What about a person who was born with no right hand or got it cut off?

I disagree with Randy and Amilia for the sake of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

God is bigger than doctrine and looks on the inward where man looks on the outward.

I agree with everything Blessed said.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Blessed@Feb 2 2005, 12:52 PM

Amilla brought up bread and wine...

I have been in other countries where rice cake and green tea was used because in their culture they did not have bread or grape juice... it isn't used.

What of their Scarament of the Lord's Supper... I guess it isn't seen in the Lord's eyes as worthy unto Him?

What about a person who was born with no right hand or got it cut off?

I disagree with Randy and Amilia for the sake of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

God is bigger than doctrine and looks on the inward where man looks on the outward.

Well I guess if the Lord puts up all of his doctrines and ordinances up to random interpretations and applications and doesn't care. Neither do I.

But why would the Lord even bother to give any instructions at all? Why doesn't He just put out the idea and tell everyone to take it from there?

Can there be a spirit of a law without a law? And is there such a thing as a spiritual law which is left to any interpreation or application?

[Lindy]

Outshined:

I've never heard it described as doctrinal, just traditional. Many consider it to be disrespectful to ude the left hand for the sacrament. When I was in the Middle East, it was considered rude to touch another person with your left hand.

More discrimination against the left-handers, I suppose. It's handism!

randy:

It does however, remind of what happened in a Gospel Doctrine class one time. We were studying the OT...and the discussion was about the meaning of the word Gentiles....well, this good sister kept saying "Genitals" and never caught her slip up. It was most humorous!! Needless to say...the spirit took a "break" from our class for a bit! LOL!

Just goes to show...we just can never miss a Sunday....we never know what fun things are gonna happen!

SF:

In my old ward, there was a woman who was teaching a concept about the whole world becoming circumscribed and she raised both arms in front of her and proceeded to make two huge circles. She exclaimed that "The whole world became circumcised, circumcised!" Sister Burns, never caught on to what she was saying either. My guess is that nobody had the heart to tell her.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 11:59 AM

But why would the Lord even bother to give any instructions at all? Why doesn't He just put out the idea and tell everyone to take it from there?

Can there be a spirit of a law without a law? And is there such a thing as a spiritual law which is left to any interpreation or application?

It's a good question. Did the Lord give any specific instructions on the right hand thing? I've only heard conflicting opinions of various priesthood holders.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 03:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 11:59 AM

But why would the Lord even bother to give any instructions at all? Why doesn't He just put out the idea and tell everyone to take it from there?

Can there be a spirit of a law without a law? And is there such a thing as a spiritual law which is left to any interpreation or application?

It's a good question. Did the Lord give any specific instructions on the right hand thing? I've only heard conflicting opinions of various priesthood holders.

Do you believe our leaders are the servants of the Lord? Or do they just make up stuff arbitrarily on important ordinance performances?

D&C 1: 38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my aword• shall not pass away, but shall all be bfulfilled, whether by mine own cvoice• or by the dvoice• of my eservants•, it is the fsame.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 03:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 11:59 AM

But why would the Lord even bother to give any instructions at all? Why doesn't He just put out the idea and tell everyone to take it from there?

Can there be a spirit of a law without a law? And is there such a thing as a spiritual law which is left to any interpreation or application?

It's a good question. Did the Lord give any specific instructions on the right hand thing? I've only heard conflicting opinions of various priesthood holders.

Did you notice the talk given by Elder Nelson I posted?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Blessed@Feb 2 2005, 12:52 PM

Amilla brought up bread and wine...

I have been in other countries where rice cake and green tea was used because in their culture they did not have bread or grape juice... it isn't used.

What of their Scarament of the Lord's Supper... I guess it isn't seen in the Lord's eyes as worthy unto Him?

What about a person who was born with no right hand or got it cut off?

I disagree with Randy and Amilia for the sake of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

God is bigger than doctrine and looks on the inward where man looks on the outward.

Hi Tamara,

I guess I am not understanding in just exactly you are disagreeing with me about.

I think it has been shown clearly that there is much symbolism in the scriptures about the use of the "right hand".

I mentioned that when possible, a person is further acknowledging the sacredness and the importance of the sacrament when they partake using their "right hand", this is of course they are conversant with the symbolism already discussed. If they are not conversant with them...then they are simply partaking with whichever hand is most convenient.

I also, mentioned that I have never read anywhere from a President of the Church, Apostle or any other GA..that has expressed the idea that this practice is a "thou shalt".

I also said...that IMO...that Bishop was expressing his own point of view.

Also...that partaking with the left hand in no way invalidates or makes the sacrament "less than" because they partook that way.

...also...that the Lord would not hold "right handed" amputee's accountable in any way because they had to partake with the left hand. (this one is silly to even talk about....we all know this). I mentioned it before "tongue in cheek".

I think we all probably agree that the most important part of the sacrament is whether we are bringing a "broken heart and contrite spirit" to the Lord when we partake....and if we are striving with all our might to be obedient to what the Lord has commanded.

IMO...although I agree with the very articulate post from Amillia that illustrated very clearly the symbolism connected with the use of the right hand....I am kinda thinking that at the end of the day....it's not going to matter which hand we partook of the sacrament with as long as we were sincerely repentant and striving to be obedient.

randy

[Guest curvette]

Which, I think, says that you should take the sacrament with the right hand if you deem it to be important, and doing so makes it more meaningful to you. If not, either hand will do. (although sticking your face in the tray and wolfing down all the bread would clearly be inappropriate.)