"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Northwestcoug]

A woman can be sealed to any man to whom she was married in life. This is a recent change, and one that struck home for my family.

My great-grandparents were both sealed to their first spouses. The spouses died, and great grandparents married each other and had my grandmother. While grandma was therefore BIC, it bothered her that she wasn't sealed to her parents.

After her death, we noticed the change. Her parents were sealed, and she was then sealed to them.

Actually, now I'm really confused. I haven't had time to think through this, but this is a huge difference for women, depending on if they're dead or not:

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorces him, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see 38.5.1.4).

Deceased Women. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before a deceased woman may be sealed to other men to whom she was married. This includes former husbands from whom she was divorced.

[LVAllen]

Also, apparently it's now proscribed that the sacrament be taken with the left hand.

18.9.4:

6. After the prayer, priesthood holders reverently pass the bread to the members. The presiding leader receives it first, after which there is no set order. Once a tray is handed to members, they may pass it to one another.

7.Members partake with their right hand when possible.


8.When the bread has been passed to all members, those passing the sacrament return the trays to the sacrament table. Those blessing the sacrament place a cloth over the bread trays and uncover the water trays.

[smokymountainrain]

oh brother.

i'll take comfort in the fact they didn't say anything about left hand sustaining.

[Bo Diddley]

oh brother.

i'll take comfort in the fact they didn't say anything about left hand sustaining.

Ha! I think of that almost every time I read out a name for a sustaining vote now.

[BigPiney]

Ha! I think of that almost every time I read out a name for a sustaining vote now.

I always ask for the uplifted hand. I don't want to discriminate against those of the lefty persuasion.

[Bo Diddley]

I always ask for the uplifted hand. I don't want to discriminate against those of the lefty persuasion.

That's what I say too.

[Donuthole]

18.9.4:

6. After the prayer, priesthood holders reverently pass the bread to the members. The presiding leader receives it first, after which there is no set order. Once a tray is handed to members, they may pass it to one another.

7.Members partake with their right hand when possible.

What is the doctrine behind this? I’d really like to know. Because this feels like Mormon lore that has worked its way into the handbook.

[BigFatMeanie]

What is the doctrine behind this? I’d really like to know. Because this feels like Mormon lore that has worked its way into the handbook.

I think that's exactly what it is. As far as I'm aware, there is zero doctrine to support it. I'm convinced it's nothing more than BKP-style "unwritten order of things" stuff.

I'm sure someone out there is going to peddle a thought about making covenants with our right hand so that's why we should partake of the sacrament with our right hand. Claptrap.

[LVAllen]

Back in 1983, a Regional Representative wrote an article that was published in the New Era. In it, he referred to a number of instances in the Bible where the right hand was referred to, and claimed there was symbolism there that ran into the common era of using the right hand to swear oaths in a courtroom. He concluded "The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath."

That Regional Rep's name?

Russell M. Nelson.

[BigFatMeanie]

Back in 1983, a Regional Representative wrote an article that was published in the New Era. In it, he referred to a number of instances in the Bible where the right hand was referred to, and claimed there was symbolism there that ran into the common era of using the right hand to swear oaths in a courtroom. He concluded "The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath."

That Regional Rep's name?

Russell M. Nelson.

And yet I remain unconvinced.

[falafel]

I think that's exactly what it is. As far as I'm aware, there is zero doctrine to support it. I'm convinced it's nothing more than BKP-style "unwritten order of things" stuff.

I'm sure someone out there is going to peddle a thought about making covenants with our right hand so that's why we should partake of the sacrament with our right hand. Claptrap.

Back in 1983, a Regional Representative wrote an article that was published in the New Era. In it, he referred to a number of instances in the Bible where the right hand was referred to, and claimed there was symbolism there that ran into the common era of using the right hand to swear oaths in a courtroom. He concluded "The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath."

That Regional Rep's name?

Russell M. Nelson.

Haha. Claptrap!

[Northwestcoug]

Back in 1983, a Regional Representative wrote an article that was published in the New Era. In it, he referred to a number of instances in the Bible where the right hand was referred to, and claimed there was symbolism there that ran into the common era of using the right hand to swear oaths in a courtroom. He concluded "The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath."

That Regional Rep's name?

Russell M. Nelson.

That's funny. That does sound like him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The right hand thing is kind of silly but nothing to get worked up about. I doubt most members will even know of the change.

[Pelado]

The right hand thing is kind of silly but nothing to get worked up about. I doubt most members will even know of the change.

They will know about it after it gets emphasized in the next General Conference of the Mormon Church LDS Church CoJCoLDS.

[LVAllen]

And yet I remain unconvinced.

I didn't say it to convince you. If you'll note, I didn't say that he actually quoted anything in the doctrine of the church that would provide support for his inferences. Nor is he the only GA to ride this particular hobby horse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqPEKy2FpE