Jump to content

Bernard Gui

Contributor
  • Content Count

    9,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernard Gui

  1. You’ve all missed the headlined mockery of our belief in the Atonement....that’s what most offended me.
  2. Yep. Perhaps having had a few previous experiences with God would prove helpful. Or, if one knows God and angels, the words of the angel might bear some weight.
  3. With all the current emphasis on not offending anyone, The Salt Lake Tribune continues it’s historic role as enthusiastic offender of the Saints....for any reason whatsoever.... by partnering up with Jana Riess on an article about the shocking number of young LDS who are (gasp) drinking coffee. OK. But the headline crosses the line separating respect for religious beliefs and mockery of sacred beliefs. I don’t believe the Trib would do this to anyone else This week in Mormon Land: Let this (coffee) cup pass, a surprising stake leader, and the sounds of music https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/08/22/this-week-mormon-land-let/
  4. According to WWI British poet Wilfred Owen, Abraham failed the test in another way.... The Parable of the old Man and the Young So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went, And took the fire with him, and a knife. And as they sojourned both of them together, Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father, Behold the preparations, fire and iron, But where the lamb for this burnt-offering? Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps, and builded parapets and trenches there, And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son. When lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. But the old man would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one.
  5. I’ve observed it several times. Some were up close and personal. I don’t minimize the pain. One can choose the public declarations one makes. I have had my own faith crises but I refrained from telling Sunday School classes about them.
  6. Those in Bountiful were not faithless at all. When they saw him descending from heaven, “they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.” They believed this was an angel - they simply did know who he was until he said, “I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.” Each of those in Jerusalem and in Bountiful who became witnesses of the resurrection heard a voice in their ears, saw him with their eyes, and felt him with their hands. Being a foundational witness of the resurrection involved these three basic senses: hearing, seeing, and touching in addition to the witness of the Spirit. There’s the old adage “your eyes can deceive you.” For this reason I believe it is reasonable to conclude Thomas also felt his wounds when Jesus commanded him to do so. Jesus had given the same invitation to the 10 when he appeared to them earlier. The Lehites received the additional witness of the voice of the Father. If Thomas became a witness after only seeing, wouldn’t he then have displayed greater faith than the other witnesses who touched? Even less reason to call him Doubting Thomas.
  7. We agree to disagree, then, when it comes to Thomas. See my response below.
  8. The implication is often there, though. “It can be difficult to believe that something is true without seeing physical proof. You may at times feel like Thomas, who said, “Except I shall see … I will not believe” (John 20:25). In response, the Savior said to Thomas, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).” Come Follow Me June 24-30 “Thomas: In the New Testament, one of the original Twelve Apostles chosen by the Savior during His mortal ministry (Matt. 10:2–3; John 14:5). In Greek the name is Didymus (John 20:24–29; 21:2). Though Thomas doubted Jesus’ Resurrection until he personally saw the Savior, his strength of character made him willing to face persecution and death with his Lord (John 11:16; 20:19–25).” Guide to the Scriptures. My point is that except for one occasion with the resurrected Lord, the other witnesses are never mentioned as doubters. None of the them believed until they saw him and touched him either.
  9. Were you at the FAIR conference that he attended? I got the same impression when I met him there. He seemed genuinely surprised that there were answers to his questions. I think he was a nice fellow, but a bit naive.
  10. The question was, has he made any corrections to his letter as a result of those criticisms as Richard Abanes did with his book? Some of the same people responded to both the CES letter and ONUG.
  11. As is often the case, what at first seems a serious problem on further study ceases to vex, and sometimes even bolsters the target of the critic. But when the damage is done, it’s difficult to undo. I’m reminded of our experience here with One Nation Under Gods by Richard Abanes. A weak member or an uninformed non-member could come away from that book abhorring the Restoration and looking for a rope with which to hang some Mormons. But a closer look revealed it to contain a plethora of misinformation and disinformation. After some careful checking, I came to the conclusion that one could randomly open the book and find at least one howler on the page. That proved to be true. To Abanes’ credit, he came here to defend his work and received many well-deserved lumps. He even showed up at a FAIR conference! His second edition was cleaned up a bit, but it was still dismal. He should have paid some residuals for all the free editing and fact checking. So, has the author of the CES Letter made corrections when confronted by criticism such as this excellent presentation by Scott Gordon (and many others)?
  12. Perhaps we are expected to consider the WoW as it is and draw conclusions for how we live it?
  13. Would someone please volunteer to give the closing prayer?
  14. Scriptures, quotes, and the handbook are all we have to work with at this point. Doing the best with what we got. Warning duly noted.
  15. Yes, I work very hard at being ridiculous. Thanks for noticing!
  16. Well, for my part I have been talking about keys that are being used here in God's earthly kingdom. What lies beyond this life is kind of irrelevant at this point other than the notion that there are other keys that exist that have not been revealed. If and when that happens, I reckon it will be as before....those who have them will pass them to those who authorized to receive them and it will be by the laying of hands. But maybe I'm assuming too much. Up until the present, it has involved Priesthood holders. I listed all the references to priesthood keys from LDS.org, what they were, and how and to whom they were transmitted. They didn't include those of creation and resurrection, I suppose, because those are pertinent to other realms of existence. Wouldn't it be grand to hold them? In the meantime, we set about the business of baptisms, sacraments, healings, temple ordinances, etc.
  17. If we are talking about sacrament meeting, the person presiding oversees the administration of the sacrament. That would require a member of the bishopric, or in their absence, the stake presidency. Conducting a meeting is not the same as presiding over the meeting. For example, in a joint RS/EQ meeting the RS president could conduct the meeting, but the bishop would be presiding. As I understand it, the EQ president can preside in the absence of the bishopric with authorization from the Stake President because of his calling and the keys he holds in the ward. A bishop could not preside at a stake conference. Above his key grade. The SP holds those keys for his stake so he makes the call. "Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth." Handbook 2: 2.1. "Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function." (Pres. Oaks) The only people holding keys in the stake are the SP, bishops, and EQ presidents. Keys make priesthood holders presidents. No priesthood, no keys. Maybe we are confusing "presiding" with "conducting" or "mc-ing"? If I understand your question correctly, because keys function from top down, not bottom up. Jesus-First Presidency/Quorum of the Twelve-Stake Presidents-Bishops. A stake president could ask a bishop or someone else to conduct a stake meeting. That happens all the time. But not to preside at the meeting.
  18. Could you rephrase it? Clarify what you are asking about? That certainly was not my intention. Does this definition of keys help answer the question? I guess I don't understand what you are asking. Sorry for being so dense.
  19. Presidents are set apart to preside over a specific entity be it a quorum or an auxiliary organization. I don't know that they can cross-preside. For example, it would make no sense for the RS president to preside in YW or Primary when their presidencies are unavailable or the teachers quorum president to preside over the MIA Maids. Whoever would do the asking would have to be in a position of authority to ask such as a member of the stake presidency. In the case I cited from our ward, a member of the stake presidency was assigned to preside at our sacrament meeting. It would be really odd if all the bishopric, the EQ president, and all the stake presidency were unavailable at the same time, but I suppose it could happen. That might trigger the Apocalypse. Thinking further along these lines, when the original 12 apostles passed on, we LDS would say the priesthood keys were lost and the Church went into apostasy. No one could just walk in, pick them up, and take control of the Church. Our Catholic friends would have some comments about that. To me, the clear principle is that the Church is governed by ordained priesthood holders who are given keys to validate their ministry. They can't assume the keys of another. A person asked to temporarily preside in a sacrament meeting cannot then issue temple recommends after the meeting, authorize baptisms and ordinations, call the next Primary president, or perform a legal marriage waiting for the the bishop to return. That person has no keys, just an assignment to sit in a chair. Whoever presides in a sacrament meeting must be in a position to validate the ordinance of the sacrament which is the duty of the bishopric. Although this is not spelled out in the handbook, so far as I know, he has to be someone who has been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. A priest perhaps? I doubt it, but what do I know?
  20. That's an odd take on priesthood keys. Never heard it before.
  21. The auxiliary presidents serve and preside “at the pleasure of the bishop,” so to speak. They could not serve without his authorization which he gives because of the keys he possesses. Ordinances do play a roll in sacrament meetings.
×
×
  • Create New...