Taking the sacrament

[Justice]

Then I sit between you and the Stake President. :)

[beefche]

To me, covenants are made symbolically with the right hand because Christ is on the right hand of the Father, and we must go through Christ to get to the Father. So, when I make or renew covenants I use my right hand.

When I see people use their left hand I figure it's their business.

However, when we are discussing what is proper, we are allowed to say what we think without condemning people who disagree, correct?

You assume that I lose something in the covenant process by intentionally taking the sacrament with my right hand. It seems to me you are losing something by thinking I am losing something by taking the sacrament with the right hand. All I'm interested in when I take the sacrament is renewing my baptismal covenants. The person who baptized me raised their right arm to the square, so I use my right arm. It's really not a distraction for me. In fact, it helps me feel I am renewing my covenant. That doesn't mean I look down in the slightest on anyone who takes with their left hand, or that I lose something by taking with my right hand.

Thank you, justice. You've stated what I believe very well.

I will add one thing. I've been taught that the sacrament is the most sacred and holy ordinance we have in our church. If I make my covenants with my right hand in the temple (the Lord's House), then participating in the Lord's Supper and most holy ordinance with my right hand makes sense to me.

[beefche]

What if I'm the Bishop?

Umm, move to another ward?

[Guest Believer_1829]

Umm, move to another ward?

I thought you were visiting?

[Moksha]

Have you guys ever watched a full Mass and seen the Priest fiddle around the altar with so very many symbolic gestures? Took a long time for each of those gestures to become cemented into place. They were each built one by one to symbolize their devotion.

We are well underway in working on our own symbolic gestures (have you heard that the latest and most reverential way to take the Sacrament is by the right hand only with the pinkie finger extended high into the air so as to point to God! Pass it on.).

We might wish to skip the formative steps in our new gesture creating process and so straight to the Ministry of Silly Walks, for up-to-date happenings in neurotic pseudo-reverential stylings. They have enough ideas in there to satisfy the most compulsive among us.

Monty Python's Silly Walks Generator

[beefche]

I thought you were visiting?

But I was wearing pants, so I wasn't welcomed to the fold--I left.

[Misshalfway]

Have you guys ever watched a full Mass and seen the Priest fiddle around the altar with so very many symbolic gestures? Took a long time for each of those gestures to become cemented into place. They were each built one by one to symbolize their devotion.

We are well underway in working on our own symbolic gestures (have you heard that the latest and most reverential way to take the Sacrament is by the right hand only with the pinkie finger extended high into the air so as to point to God! Pass it on.).

We might wish to skip the formative steps in our new gesture creating process and so straight to the Ministry of Silly Walks, for up-to-date happenings in neurotic pseudo-reverential stylings. They have enough ideas in there to satisfy the most compulsive among us.

Monty Python's Silly Walks Generator

Are you calling me compulsive? I might have to be offended and stomp off in a huff....or perhaps I stay and beat you with a wet noodle. I definitely think a nice pillow to the face may be in order.

[Wingnut]

However, when we are discussing what is proper, we are allowed to say what we think without condemning people who disagree, correct?

Agreed. My beef (sorry beefche) is with people saying "let's all just agree to do it with the right hand." If you want to, that's fine, but don't push that on others.

You assume that I lose something in the covenant process by intentionally taking the sacrament with my right hand.

No I don't.

It seems to me you are losing something by thinking I am losing something by taking the sacrament with the right hand.

That would be true if the above was true.

It's really not a distraction for me.

Good. I think that's the key. The rest of my beef (again, sorry beefche :)) is when people are so focused on making sure they are using the right hand that they aren't focused on the ordinance itself.

[MarginOfError]

You assume that I lose something in the covenant process by intentionally taking the sacrament with my right hand. It seems to me you are losing something by thinking I am losing something by taking the sacrament with the right hand. All I'm interested in when I take the sacrament is renewing my baptismal covenants. The person who baptized me raised their right arm to the square, so I use my right arm. It's really not a distraction for me. In fact, it helps me feel I am renewing my covenant. That doesn't mean I look down in the slightest on anyone who takes with their left hand, or that I lose something by taking with my right hand.

That isn't what she said at all, actually. What she said was that those people that are intent that the only proper way to take the Sacrament is with the right hand--ie, those who look down on using the left hand. She's never once said that you shouldn't use your right hand, just that it shouldn't matter which hand you use.

[Guest missingsomething]

Thank you, justice. You've stated what I believe very well.

I will add one thing. I've been taught that the sacrament is the most sacred and holy ordinance we have in our church. If I make my covenants with my right hand in the temple (the Lord's House), then participating in the Lord's Supper and most holy ordinance with my right hand makes sense to me.

More so than baptism?

[MarginOfError]

So there's been all this talk about symbols and symbolism and blah blah blah. To which I can only ask one question: What good is a symbol if it has no common meaning.

Symbols are a surrogate for meaning. Their purpose is to convey a body of meaning larger than what the symbol actually is. It's a convenient way to communicate a lot of information without having to say much at all. There's one catch to this: symbols only work when people agree on their meaning.

Symbols are also largely cultural constructs. They aren't always timeless either. Symbols can take on different meanings between generations or between geographic areas. Show a rainbow to a group of Baptists in Alabama and they will associate it with God's covenant to never destroy all life on earth again. Show it to a poetry club in San Francisco and it becomes a statement for gay rights. Which meaning is correct? That depends on context.

Some of the arguments given for why we should use the right hand as the covenant hand seem fundamentally logically flawed. Chiefly, the argument that the latin word for left and right are sinister and dextrous, respectively. Use that argument assumes that the left hand is evil because Latin said so. But it wasn't the language that made that distinction. The distinction was made in the language by people who already had developed that understanding. In other words, the language was a manifestation of the custom, not the cause of it.

The reasonable thing to do would be to determine why those who created the language felt that the left and right should be designated as they were. As far as I know, there are really only two plausible explanations for this. 1) Most people are right handed, and 2) that was the custom that had developed in earlier civilizations, having developed from the sanitation customs I discussed earlier.

The first case explains why the right hand is called the dextrous hand. More people have better coordination in their right hand. It doesn't explain why the left hand would be called sinister or evil though, unless anything that is difficult is going to be sinister as well.

The second case offers a more complete explanation by associating the unclean with evil. This is often referenced in the scriptures and, for a long time in history, was an effective way of conveying message about right and wrong, good and evil, clean and unclean. It was a tangible, everyday message that made sense and that people related to.

But as we've progressed in history, it's become a less relevant symbol. We're able to keep our hands clean with great ease now, and we can do anything with either hand without being unsanitary, if we so choose. As this has happened, the symbol has gotten less potent. It becomes less tangible, and primarily academic. So again, I ask, what good is a symbol if more and more people are not understanding it?

The next question we have to ask is if God created the symbol as a way of teaching a lesson or if he used the culture of the time and chose a symbol that people would grasp. In other words, did God create the symbol, or did he exploit the symbol? I'm inclined to think that he exploited it, and I'm inclined to think so because we have a record of the use of different symbols in the Old and New Testament to teach different cultures.

In the Old Testament, the Tabernacle of the Congregation was built to symbolize our journey back into God's presence. God first planted a garden Eastward in Eden, and according to Hebrew legend, Adam and Eve were driven further west when they were cast out of the Garden. The further east they went, the further from God's presence they found themselves. If they could only head west, they might find themselves back in God's presence. The Tabernacle of the Congregation was built with it's door facing the east, and the Holy of Holies--the place that represented entering God's presence--was on the west most side of the Tabernacle. As you moved deeper into the Tabernacle, you went further west or closer to God.

This symbolism worked for the Hebrews because they knew the legends. However, it wouldn't have worked for the Greeks. This is why Paul introduced the symbolism of bodies Celestial and bodies Terrestrial. The Greeks viewed the heavens as the dwelling of the gods, and so to get closer to God, one would need to go up. It was a symbol that the Greeks would understand because of how it fit in their culture. Paul didn't create the symbolism, but he exploited the symbols of the culture in which he was teaching in order to make a point.

I suspect the Lord did much the same thing with the symbolism of the right hand. It was a cultural aspect that lent itself nicely to teaching about the Gospel, and so He and His prophets exploited it. It conveyed a great deal of information quickly, so it was an effective way of teaching a principle.

However, it wouldn't work in just any culture. If you had sent LDS missionaries to Native American tribes in the 1700's (ignore the time discrepancy there and just go with the hypothetical), and if those missionaries taught the Native Americans that you must take the Sacrament with your right hand, the Native Americans wouldn't understand. For the Native Americans, the honored placed to sit was on the left of a person. They greeted with left hands. That's just how their culture did it. And so to insist that it be done with the right hand, for them, would mean you wanted them to do something sacred with the dishonorable hand. Imagine how confused they would be.

The problem I see with applying the right hand symbolism to our time is that the right hand symbolism isn't a part of our culture. As I said before, it's an academic symbol, and not a tangible one. Thus, to understand the symbol requires a fair amount of explanation. But the point of a symbol is to convey information quickly, and in few words. The right hand doesn't do that for our culture, so it makes a rather ineffective symbol. I suspect that's why you're seeing it become less and less of an issue and why we really haven't heard much about it since Joseph Fielding Smith (whom we all know was never opinionated).

If a person has an understanding of the cultural significance of the right hand, and why it was considered the honorable hand in Biblical cultures, that's great. They can take the Sacrament with their right hand and I really don't care. But it is an entirely unnecessary part of the ordinance and a relic of an older culture. The only symbols that truly matter are the broken body, the spilled blood, and that we literally make these a part of ourselves. Those are the symbols that are emphasized by revelation, and everything else is just corollary.

[beefche]

MOE, is that why we make covenants with our right hand? Because old tradition says our left hand is unclean?

Now that you've expounded on your explanation of the historical significance of the right hand vs. the left hand, I ask again: Is it your opinion that we made covenants with our right hand based on historical factors?

[beefche]

More so than baptism?

In my opinion, yes.

When we take the sacrament, we are participating in the most glorious and sacred event in the history of man--Christ's atonement. We partake of the emblems of His body and blood in remembrance of His sacrifice and we take upon ourselves His name.

And how blessed are we that we can participate every Sunday?

[beefche]

Agreed. My beef (sorry beefche) is with people saying "let's all just agree to do it with the right hand." If you want to, that's fine, but don't push that on others.

No I don't.

That would be true if the above was true.

Good. I think that's the key. The rest of my beef (again, sorry beefche :)) is when people are so focused on making sure they are using the right hand that they aren't focused on the ordinance itself.

Just admit it, Wingy--you're obsessed with my slobbery tongue--you love me cleaning your monitor! I'm just afraid that Mr. Wingy may get jealous if you keep referring to me as "my beef"--I'm sure he wants to be your sole hunk of meat.

[Wingnut]

In the Old Testament, the Tabernacle of the Congregation was built to symbolize our journey back into God's presence. God first planted a garden Eastward in Eden, and according to Hebrew legend, Adam and Eve were driven further west when they were cast out of the Garden. The further east they went, the further from God's presence they found themselves. If they could only head west, they might find themselves back in God's presence. The Tabernacle of the Congregation was built with it's door facing the east, and the Holy of Holies--the place that represented entering God's presence--was on the west most side of the Tabernacle. As you moved deeper into the Tabernacle, you went further west or closer to God.

Your geography doesn't quite add up -- do you mean they were driven further east?

Just admit it, Wingy--you're obsessed with my slobbery tongue--you love me cleaning your monitor! I'm just afraid that Mr. Wingy may get jealous if you keep referring to me as "my beef"--I'm sure he wants to be your sole hunk of meat.

Mr. Wing probably would mind not being my sole hunk of meat, as long as I was willing to not be his sole hunk of meat. TMI? You'd have to know him to really "get" it.

[Vort]

So there's been all this talk about symbols and symbolism and blah blah blah. To which I can only ask one question: What good is a symbol if it has no common meaning?

You can assign meaning to it, I suppose. In any case, the symbolism of the covenant hand is well enough known in Mormonism that I don't think it's a particularly obscure symbol.

Some of the arguments given for why we should use the right hand as the covenant hand seem fundamentally logically flawed. Chiefly, the argument that the latin word for left and right are sinister and dextrous, respectively.

I have seen no one use this argument. Can you point to that argument being used? Because this looks like a straw man, though I assume you would not intentionally use such an argument.

In any case, I agree with your larger point about symbols, but I also think it's not overly relevant to this discussion.

[Wingnut]

You can assign meaning to it, I suppose. In any case, the symbolism of the covenant hand is well enough known in Mormonism that I don't think it's a particularly obscure symbol.

I think MOE's point is why is the right-hand symbolic in the first place? It's "well enough known in Mormonism" that the right hand is the covenant-making hand, but why is it the covenant-making hand to begin with? I think that's the point that MOE was driving at.

[lattelady]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Jewish law--but God gave laws to His people and then they took those laws and ran with them and interpreted them in their own way until they ended up with a supplemental book called the Mishnah which had 6 divisions and contained oral traditions (not God-given laws but ones they made up and added to His)--hundreds upon hundreds of laws. micromanaging to the enth degree. I have to admit, as someone who is not a member of the Church, I view this post and am suprised at how y'all split hairs over what seems small in light of the gospel. I'm also REALLY appalled at the way some of you joke and speak in a crude way of the sacrament (jokes about wiping butts, the ancients wiping their butts, etc). You're speaking of one of the holiest of practices we take part in in our church (remembering our Savior's sacrifice), and doing so with crude terms. Is it not as important a thing in the LDS church?

Edited August 19, 2009 by lattelady

[Carl62]

Until the I read anywhere in the scriptures or the First Presidency comes out with an official statement regarding which hand to partake of the sacrament, then I'm not going to give it 2 seconds worth of thought. Do people really think that which hand you use is seriously going to make or break their exaltation? IMHO, this whole debate is getting absolutely ridiculous! So what's next? Are we going to then start debating which fingers to use when partaking of the water? or the bread? What if I use my right hand to pick up the bread but I use my middle and ring fingers? Is this going to matter? What if I use my right hand to pick up the bread but I throw it a foot up in the air and try to catch it in my mouth like I would popcorn? Disrespectful, right? My point is is that instead of concerning ourselves with the outward appearances of living by the letter of the law and, as a result, end up straining at a gnat, why don't we focus more on the spirit of what partaking the sacrament is about and what the meaning is behind the bread and water we take. It's how we feel in our hearts when we take the sacrament that our Heavenly Father will be ultimately judging us by and not something as idiotic as to which hand we use to show our thankfulness and remembrance of him.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Carl62

[pam]

I think the Deacons should just put it in our mouth..with his right hand of course. Saves a lot of problems.

[Snow]

I think we should take the bread and water with our right hands and not with our left. If you consider the hand with which we make covenants, this makes sense.

What think ya'll?

Is there anyone who takes the sacrament with their left hand? Mormons?

[Justice]

That isn't what she said at all, actually. What she said was that those people that are intent that the only proper way to take the Sacrament is with the right hand--ie, those who look down on using the left hand. She's never once said that you shouldn't use your right hand, just that it shouldn't matter which hand you use.

But, I do think the proper way is with the right hand.

That doesn't mean I look down on others who do it differently.

That was my point. :)

And, the quote I was commenting on was:

I see the focus on using the right as removing the focus on the ordinance.

I disagree. I'm allowed to. :) I think one can focus on the ordinance while intentionally taking the sacrament with their right hand because that's how they feel it should be done... without removing any focus on the ordinance. In fact, taking with the right hand becomes a natural part of the ordinance if you believe covenant making happens (generally) with the right hand. So, by intentionally taking with the right hand it can actually add to the significance of the symbol.

Someone posted a quote from Elder Nelson on this thread about which hand we should use. He said we should use the right hand, unless there is a reason we cannot. Someone else posted a video from the church web site that answered it the same way. I have seen these same type of answers my entire life. I have never seen or heard the answer that we should take the sarament with our left hand. Nor have I ever read or heard it said that it doesn't matter (not to be confused with it being of lesser significance than the bread and water themselves).

Your frame of mind when taking the sacrament is a more important issue, but the answer as to which hand we should use is clear.

[Misshalfway]

Again, Thank you justice.

I think I will perhaps let you comment for me and throw you a quarter when you speak my brain better than I do. :)

And just a side comment.....how can one compare baptism to the sacrament in significance anyway? They are both so connected. What is one without the other?

I think Beefche's point was that the sacrament is the most sacred part of the three hour block. It is the whole reason we go and should be considered highly sacred. Laying out such a comparison misses the point, imo.

I have been taught to take the sacrament with my right hand since I started breathing. I take wings point that perhaps the hand isn't the most important part of the ordinance. But I also feel the significance of historical meanings and I see value in partaking with the right hand. I think it enhances my experience as, in the words of Moe, it teaches deeper concepts without saying much. I also feel the spirit in my heart when I do. Why? maybe that is because it helps elevate my expression of reverence and the Spirit answers that. Maybe it is because their might be something right about doing it this way. I will tell you that when I don't use my right hand, I feel more sloppy or casual about the whole thing.

Not making any judgements by saying that. Just explaining why I choose what I choose and why I see that the right hand does have significance for me personally.

[Wingnut]

Someone posted a quote from Elder Nelson on this thread about which hand we should use. He said we should use the right hand, unless there is a reason we cannot.

That would be me. And that's not what the quote said. Allow me to report it:

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.

He said that logically the right hand would be the one to use for most people, But read the last sentence as well: 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.

[Misshalfway]

So wing....do you use the left hand just to make a political statement?

I mean if you have a functioning right hand, why not use it? Sounds like to me that Elder Nelson supports the use of the right hand for many of the reasons stated by posters.

Not that I am trying to break you into submission, just that I am trying to understand why defending the left hand is so important.

Why not just say....use the right hand unless that doesn't make sense for you and get on with the meaning of things? I guess I am not seeing anything in that quote that says which hand we pick is irrelevant, which I think is the point you are making.