269 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

Scott Lloyd, on 19 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I suppose, once started, we could carry this thinking to logical extremes. Why bother showing up to the meeting at all? Just sleep in that day or do other more appealing things, trusting that the sacrament prayers will be said many times that day in thousands of locales. I'll just consider one or more of them as applying to the bread I have at home in my cupboard and the water that streams out of my faucet and take a bite and a drink whenever I get around to it. Much more convenient that way.

To be effective, ordinances must be seen as being authoritative, and if we allow the forms to decay according to personal whim, they soon cease to carry that authoritativeness. The simple thing, it seems to me, is to set some reasonable boundaries, such as the requirement to be in attendance while the sacrament prayers are being said and to participate in the ordinance along with the rest of the congregation.

Of course, we would ultimately have to ask what the nature of the Sacrament promises are, and under what circumstances they would not be in effect.

In other words, if a baptized member of the Church missed Sacrament Meeting but still make the conscious commitment to always remember God and to keep his commandments, would they not be worthy of always having "his Spirit to be with them", in spite of their having missed the Sacrament?

[Scott Lloyd]

cinepro, on 20 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Of course, we would ultimately have to ask what the nature of the Sacrament promises are, and under what circumstances they would not be in effect.

In other words, if a baptized member of the Church missed Sacrament Meeting but still make the conscious commitment to always remember God and to keep his commandments, would they not be worthy of always having "his Spirit to be with them", in spite of their having missed the Sacrament?

I can't judge the intents of someone's heart. But if it's deliberate, It occurs to me that they run the very real risk of missing the blessings -- and possibly incurring the consequences, whatever they might be -- of disobeying this commandment from God:

Quote

And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day.

(Doctrine and Covenants 59:9)

By the way, that "rep point" that you just got was from me. It was in error; I meant to hit the "Quote" button. But hey, enjoy it for what it's worth.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 20 March 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 19 March 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Pahoran,

If you go back and read through the thread, you will see that I clearly agreed it was the bishop's discretion how to handle the sacrament.

In the one ward I attended where the sacrament was offered to latecomers after the meeting, I believe prayers were offered again and the sacrament was conducted a second time.

Regarding my comparison of two sinners taking the sacrament, the point of that example was not to compare those two partakers but to suggest that the value of the ordinance is in what we bring to it not where we sit when we take it. This is precisely why some bishops allow it to be distributed in the halls and why we can take it to members homes.

Another point, taking the Lord's Supper outside the "unwritten order or some other culturally dictated stipulation" does not inherently make it syrupy sentiment. That's a false dichotomy.

As for taking the sacrament too seriously, I refer you back to the post which mentioned lighted candles on the sacrament table. I doubt the "well-meaning leader" (those are Pres. Monson's words) intended to undermine the seriousness of the ordinance. On the contrary, he likely felt he was adding to the serious and sacred nature of it. Reminds me of another story I heard years ago about a bishop who would lower the screen in the chapel and project a huge image of the Savior onto it during the sacrament. That got nixed according to the story also, and you can bet that bishop felt he was respecting the seriousness of the ordinance - probably thought he was helping his ward take the ordinance more seriously also.

Which points out another aspect of this discussion.

The "unwritten order of things" usually refers to the traditional way in which things are done.  But it could just as easily refer to the extent to which some people consider themselves permitted to introduce unauthorised innovations.

Those innovations can be like the candles and slideshow you mentioned, or they can be like those who want to eat the rice cakes they carry in instead of the sacrament bread, or those who turn up late and demand that they receive the Sacrament at their convenience.  Perhaps those individuals might imagine they are taking the Sacrament seriously too, but they're not taking it as seriously as they take their own sense of entitlement.

It seems rather blindingly obvious to me that if the (apparently regular) latecomers at the ward you mentioned took the Sacrament seriously, they could be bothered getting there on time.

And I maintain and hold to the view that if showing respect for a sacred ordinance is less important to us than making people feel good about not showing such respect, then we have reduced the sacredness thereof to mere syrupy sentiment.

I like your screen name; really I do.  But please note that mercy is meaningless unless justice is real, and grace is something no-one is ever entitled to.  It is up to the Lord to dispense mercy and grace; for us to imagine we are being gracious and merciful by getting slack about sacred matters is at best like being generous with someone else's money.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

If God is going to let individuals into the Celestial Kingdom based on the mere fact that they would have accepted the gospel  (i.e. their intent), it's preposterous to think he would keep someone out based on a technicality regardless of their sincere and righteous intent.

The rigidity with which some members interpret the gospel, church policies, and practices makes me wonder how they must perceive God.

Perhaps they perceive God as being uniquely qualified to dispense mercy and grace, and themselves as having no authority to change the rules at their whim.

Let us remember that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be our judge.  I have great hope that He will judge more mercifully, wisely and even justly than we frequently do.

Regards,
Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Perhaps they perceive God as being uniquely qualified to dispense mercy and grace, and themselves as having no authority to change the rules at their whim.

What rules? We're talking about unwritten cultural norms, not commandments.  What bearing does this excuse to insult have on the discussion?

Quote

Let us remember that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be our judge.  I have great hope that He will judge more mercifully, wisely and even justly than we frequently do.

Regards,
Pahoran

I see justice and mercy as inherently linked rather than at odds.

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Which points out another aspect of this discussion.

The "unwritten order of things" usually refers to the traditional way in which things are done.  But it could just as easily refer to the extent to which some people consider themselves permitted to introduce unauthorised innovations.

Those innovations can be like the candles and slideshow you mentioned, or they can be like those who want to eat the rice cakes they carry in instead of the sacrament bread, or those who turn up late and demand that they receive the Sacrament at their convenience.  Perhaps those individuals might imagine they are taking the Sacrament seriously too, but they're not taking it as seriously as they take their own sense of entitlement.

It seems rather blindingly obvious to me that if the (apparently regular) latecomers at the ward you mentioned took the Sacrament seriously, they could be bothered getting there on time.

First, I never suggested that it was the same people showing up late week after week. Second, I never mentioned anything about being demanding.  All I said was that the sacrament was offered a second time.

You have characterized these individuals out of your own preconceptions. It was the bishop who offered the sacrament to latecomers, not latecomers who demanded it.

Quote

And I maintain and hold to the view that if showing respect for a sacred ordinance is less important to us than making people feel good about not showing such respect, then we have reduced the sacredness thereof to mere syrupy sentiment.

Again, you presume that respect wasn't being shown. Where did I say anything to indicate that?

Quote

I like your screen name; really I do.

It's just my opinions that drive you insane

Quote

But please note that mercy is meaningless unless justice is real, and grace is something no-one is ever entitled to.  It is up to the Lord to dispense mercy and grace; for us to imagine we are being gracious and merciful by getting slack about sacred matters is at best like being generous with someone else's money.

Regards,
Pahoran

So noted.  Please note that I never said anything about taking the sacrament lightly, in vain, or otherwise.  I only said that refusing to offer it based solely on tradition was more profane than offering it to those who worthily desire it.  And I further said that it was the bishop's discretion and I would sustain HIM.

Are you calling me to repentance for sustaining the bishop or for suggesting that God cares more about a broken heart and contrite spirit than the blood of bulls?

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

What rules? We're talking about unwritten cultural norms, not commandments.

Rules about the Sacrament being administered in Sacrament Meeting.  (Guess why it's called that?)

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

What bearing does this excuse to insult have on the discussion?

What "excuse to insult" are you referring to?

Regards,
Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Rules about the Sacrament being administered in Sacrament Meeting.  (Guess why it's called that?)

Guess what they call the Lord's supper when offered at home during a snow storm, at the home of an invalid, or across a soldier's cot in combat? It's still called the Sacrament, lack of meeting notwithstanding.

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

First, I never suggested that it was the same people showing up late week after week. Second, I never mentioned anything about being demanding.  All I said was that the sacrament was offered a second time.

You have characterized these individuals out of your own preconceptions. It was the bishop who offered the sacrament to latecomers, not latecomers who demanded it.

I was referring to the post that spun off this particular strand, namely mtomm's description of a lady who showed up late, asked for the Sacrament, and argued the point when she was told no, we don't do that.

I don't know what you call that if it isn't "demanding."

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Again, you presume that respect wasn't being shown. Where did I say anything to indicate that?

If you had an invitation to dine with the President of the United States, do you think you'd just come dripping in whenever you felt like it, or would you make some sort of effort to get there on time?

We are invited to sup at the Lord's table.  Last time I checked, the Lord was more important than the POTUS, the Prime Minister of New Zealand or even the Queen.  Showing up late is profoundly disrespectful.

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

So noted.  Please note that I never said anything about taking the sacrament lightly, in vain, or otherwise.  I only said that refusing to offer it based solely on tradition was more profane than offering it to those who worthily desire it.

In which case we appear to be talking past each other.  We must be different genders.

I never said there was anything wrong with offering the Sacrament to those who worthily desire it.  I simply pointed out that the Sacrament isn't just chewing and swallowing, but involves participating in the entire ordinance.

Nor was I advocating "refusing to offer it based solely on tradition."  You are beating up a straw man.

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Are you calling me to repentance for sustaining the bishop or for suggesting that God cares more about a broken heart and contrite spirit than the blood of bulls?

Actually it's the fat of rams, not the blood of bulls.  The blood of bulls was used to propitiate Artemis (Diana) the goddess of the hunt, worshipped especially at Ephesus.

My point is that someone whose heart is broken and whose spirit is contrite really should, except in unusual circumstances, be able to get to Sacrament Meeting on time.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Guess what they call the Lord's supper when offered at home during a snow storm, at the home of an invalid, or across a soldier's cot in combat? It's still called the Sacrament, lack of meeting notwithstanding.

Believe it or not, I've heard of that.  I've even done it.

Being too unmotivated to get to Sacrament Meeting on time, or too happy socialising in the foyer to come into the meeting, is not quite the same as being in combat, snowed in or bedfast though, is it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Actually it's the fat of rams, not the blood of bulls.  The blood of bulls was used to propitiate Artemis (Diana) the goddess of the hunt, worshipped especially at Ephesus.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

edit: Numbers 29 indicates bulls were offered for the Feast of Tabernacles.

Edited by mercyngrace, 20 March 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Believe it or not, I've heard of that.  I've even done it.

Being too unmotivated to get to Sacrament Meeting on time, or too happy socialising in the foyer to come into the meeting, is not quite the same as being in combat, snowed in or bedfast though, is it?

Regards,
Pahoran

And yet, those weren't descriptions I posed. They were your interpretations based on your preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things.

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

And yet, those weren't descriptions I posed. They were your interpretations based on your preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things.

You are relying upon mind-reading skills that have yet to be demonstrated.

You have not the slightest inkling of what my "preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things" might be; if, indeed, I have one.

I have not been talking about any "preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things."  I have been talking about the Sacrament as a sacred ordinance and not a casual thing to be worked in wherever convenient.  If I have any "preconceived idea about" any subject at all, it is the "preconceived idea" that people show what matters most to them by how they order their priorities.

This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it.

And so we are back to this: if a ward has a continuous problem of members showing up late for Sacrament Meeting, then that is most likely explained by the hypothesis that partaking of the Sacrament is not a priority for those members.

Yes, emergencies will arise, and it is altogether appropriate for the bishop to make provision for them.  But it would be a highly unusual ward in which such emergencies were so routine as to require a weekly "second round" on the Sacrament.

Or to put it another way: I doubt very much that this situation is really caused by emergencies.

Now if you can manage to reply without presuming to tell me about my "preconceived idea" on a subject I have actually not thought much about, or casting aspersions upon how I view God, then please do so.

Regards,
Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

As a convert what if I just did stuff and only worried about what was written as opposed to what is unwritten?

I have kind of struggled with that for the last 32 years.

How am I supposed to know about what nobody cares enough about to write down?

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Now if you can manage to reply without presuming to tell me about my "preconceived idea" on a subject I have actually not thought much about, or casting aspersions upon how I view God, then please do so.

Regards,
Pahoran

In the first place, I haven't made any comments about how you see God. You jumped into a conversation late and retroactively applied that comment to yourself. You put that shoe on, Pahoran, it's up to you to determine if it fits.

In the second place, I'm not attempting clairvoyance. I'm reading your posts. You've decided that people were demanding. You've decided they don't care about the sacrament. You've decided it was the same bunch week after week. You've been doling out judgment without facts ever since you arrived in the thread. What are you basing that judgment on? Since, you didn't ask for any more information, you can only be basing it on your ideas, as you have expressed them about (1) people who arrive late for church and (1) how the sacrament ought to be administered. Those are "preconceived" as in conceived before you started reading this thread.

You admitted so yourself in your latest comment when you said "This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it."

For someone who hasn't given this much thought, you still came in with a preconceived notion and are convinced that it is right based on your experiences. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion formed by your experiences. So why are you so annoyed that I point it out?

Edited by mercyngrace, 20 March 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Pahoran]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

In the first place, I haven't made any comments about how you see God. You jumped into a conversation late and retroactively applied that comment to yourself. You put that shoe on, Pahoran, it's up to you to determine if it fits.

I'm sorry, but wasn't this judgemental little throwaway line yours?

mercyngrace, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

The rigidity with which some members interpret the gospel, church policies, and practices makes me wonder how they must perceive God.

Or were you talking about something else?

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

In the second place, I'm not attempting clairvoyance. I'm reading your posts.

In which I've said nothing about "the unwritten order of things."

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You've decided that people were demanding.

That's false.  Mtomm described someone demanding something.

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You've decided they don't care about the sacrament. You've decided it was the same bunch week after week.

No, you described a ward that administered a second round of the Sacrament, in the chapel, week after week.

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You've been doling out judgment without facts ever since you arrived in the thread. What are you basing that judgment on? Since, you didn't ask for any more information, you can only be basing it on your ideas, as you have expressed them about (1) people who arrive late for church and (1) how the sacrament ought to be administered. Those are "preconceived" as in conceived before you started reading this thread.

Two list items numbered one and one?  You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

I point out that yet again you are engaged in mind-reading.  The conclusions I reached are entirely reasonable based upon the information provided in this thread.

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You admitted so yourself in your latest comment when you said "This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it."

For someone who hasn't given this much thought, you still came in with a preconceived notion and are convinced that it is right based on your experiences. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion formed by your experiences. So why are you so annoyed that I point it out?

As you really ought to know, Mercy, the fact that I have a "preconceived" idea on one subject does not mean that I have "preconceived" ideas on any other.

Now: is it just my imagination, or are your posts looking increasingly Harmonious?  And Serene?

And if so, should we start expecting some WAZingers from you soon?

Regards,
Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran, on 20 March 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but wasn't this judgemental little throwaway line yours?
Or were you talking about something else?

It wasn't judgmental. It was sincere. I wonder how people who are so rigid about the gospel perceive God.

Quote

In which I've said nothing about "the unwritten order of things."

Are you aware of the thread title?

Quote

That's false.  Mtomm described someone demanding something.

No, Pahoran, you are misstating again.  Mtomm did not use the word demanding at all. Here are her exact words:

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

Mtomm doesn't say she demanded it.  She says she wanted to partake. She could have just asked if it were possible.  You were the one who negatively described this situation. That was your bias coming through.

Quote

No, you described a ward that administered a second round of the Sacrament, in the chapel, week after week.

And you assumed that the same ward members were regularly showing up late, which was not the case. For the record, it was a huge ward and people were not socializing in the foyer per your description, they were typically tending to small children.

Quote

Two list items numbered one and one?  You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

Flustered? Not even a bit. Disracted? Definitely. It's almost 1 a.m. here and that's a little late for me.  The better question is why you are pointing out a typo instead of addressing the the mislabeled points. You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

Quote

I point out that yet again you are engaged in mind-reading.  The conclusions I reached are entirely reasonable based upon the information provided in this thread.

I disagree. I read Mtomm's post and did not immediately presume the young woman described therein marched into the chapel demanding to have the sacrament.  I read it as the young woman wanted to partake and the bishop was caught off guard by the request.

Quote

As you really ought to know, Mercy, the fact that I have a "preconceived" idea on one subject does not mean that I have "preconceived" ideas on any other.

I don't even know what you are referring to here, Pahoran. What other subjects are we discussing now?

Quote

Now: is it just my imagination, or are your posts looking increasingly Harmonious?  And Serene?

If you are being sarcastic and implying that I'm getting annoyed, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only am I not bothered, I'm wondering why you are. I don't know why you are so offended by me but we seem unable to agree on anything and y'know what? I'm okay with that. I usually opt not to respond to your posts because I believe that experience has shown we don't communicate well with one another or bring out the best in one another.

Quote

And if so, should we start expecting some WAZingers from you soon?

Regards,
Pahoran

I don't know what a WAZinger is.  But if it has caffeine I should probably wait until morning.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I find it rather frustrating that mercyngrace says everything I would have said, except in such a way that she proves she is a nicer and more patient person than I am. And as if that wasn't enough, I'm outta rep points for the day!

It is a cold, cruel world.

[Senator]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 20 March 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

I'm outta rep points for the day!

Well, I'm not!

I could sit and sup with M&G all day long!

[Scott Lloyd]

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

No, Pahoran, you are misstating again.  Mtomm did not use the word demanding at all. Here are her exact words:

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

Mtomm doesn't say she demanded it.  She says she wanted to partake. She could have just asked if it were possible.  You were the one who negatively described this situation. That was your bias coming through.

Perhaps you missed Mtomm's subsequent post wherein he described the woman as being "put out" when the bishop hesitated. And she argued the point, saying what had been done in other wards she attended. Sounds rather demanding to me.

It was at that point when I made my post linking to the Eagles' song "Get Over It" and the YouTube video about the woman who called the police because Burger King got her order wrong.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 21 March 2012 - 12:22 PM.