Scott Lloyd, on 21 March 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:
Well stated, MorningStar.
And I like your new blog, by the way.
And I like your new blog, by the way.
Thanks, Scott!
0
The Unwritten Order Of Things™
Started by
rongo
, Mar 14 2012 11:54 AM
269 replies to this topic
#181
MorningStar
-
- Contributor
-
- 15,321 posts
UMW ..... UMB if you're nasty!
Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:58 PM
Thanks, Scott!
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ~ John 13:34
#182
MorningStar
-
- Contributor
-
- 15,321 posts
UMW ..... UMB if you're nasty!
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:00 PM
mercyngrace, on 21 March 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:
I agree. The prayers are an integral part of the sacrament.
Me either. But if someone else feels differently and the bishop is amenable, I'm not going to condemn them.
Yep. I think the problem in mtomm's story was that there was a misunderstanding about the meaning of the sacrament. I thought mfbukowski's response was perfect - allow the girl to take the sacrament and then gently teach her why doing so wasn't particularly necessary.
Yes, that is a good approach. Not that Heavenly Father wants to deny anyone the sacrament, but He might say, "Church starts at 9, sweetie! Be on time next week so you don't miss out." I will never forget walking into the foyer and seeing my friend who dragged himself to church while he was dying of cancer. I didn't even recognize him because he was losing so much weight. I wondered, "Who is that man wiping his face with the handkerchief?" Then I realized it was him. I cried for about the next hour. I think about him when I have some dumb reason for being late.
Edited by MorningStar, 21 March 2012 - 02:01 PM.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ~ John 13:34
#183
calmoriah
-
- Contributor
-
- 33,074 posts
Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:10 PM
Scott Lloyd, on 21 March 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:
But, of all the people on the board, I find calmoriah to be the most trustworthy and I do believe her.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
#184
mercyngrace
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,170 posts
a witness of His loving kindness
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:12 PM
MorningStar, on 21 March 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:
Yes, that is a good approach. Not that Heavenly Father wants to deny anyone the sacrament, but He might say, "Church starts at 9, sweetie! Be on time next week so you don't miss out." I will never forget walking into the foyer and seeing my friend who dragged himself to church while he was dying of cancer. I didn't even recognize him because he was losing so much weight. I wondered, "Who is that man wiping his face with the handkerchief?" Then I realized it was him. I cried for about the next hour. I think about him when I have some dumb reason for being late.
What came to mind as I was reading this post, MS, was the account of the Lord and the Greek woman.
She came to Him seeking a priesthood blessing and moved by her faith, He violated the explicit order of things and pronounced the blessing based on her faith.
This was not the only time He did such.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
#185
calmoriah
-
- Contributor
-
- 33,074 posts
Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:25 PM
Generically speaking...
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
Edited by calmoriah, 21 March 2012 - 02:26 PM.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
#186
Grundelwalken
-
- Members
-
- 222 posts
Lost but Finding the Light
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:41 PM
calmoriah, on 21 March 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:
Generically speaking...
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
As someone who grew up thinking sacrament meeting started with the sacrament (because my parents were chronically late) I have some compassion for those who can't make it on time. Those who CAN'T get there deserve a chance to partake but those who WON'T get there should expect no such promise from the priesthood. MW
#187
calmoriah
-
- Contributor
-
- 33,074 posts
Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.
Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:44 PM
Grundelwalken, on 21 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:
As someone who grew up thinking sacrament meeting started with the sacrament (because my parents were chronically late) I have some compassion for those who can't make it on time. Those who CAN'T get there deserve a chance to partake but those who WON'T get there should expect no such promise from the priesthood. MW
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
#188
mfbukowski
-
- Contributor
-
- 16,272 posts
Declares a Day of Rest
Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:47 PM
JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 20 March 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:
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.
It is a cold, cruel world.
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
My Blog: Theomorphic Man http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/
My Blog: Theomorphic Man http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/
#189
juliann
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,715 posts
Suffers from McCog-dis
Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:56 PM
Pahoran, on 21 March 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:
.
If you want to lend some credibility to your pose of enlightened superiority, you might want to re-think some of your tactics; especially the one where you flat-out misrepresent the positions of your ideological opponents.
Just a suggestion.
If you want to lend some credibility to your pose of enlightened superiority, you might want to re-think some of your tactics; especially the one where you flat-out misrepresent the positions of your ideological opponents.
Just a suggestion.
Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
#190
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,840 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:55 AM
juliann, on 21 March 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:
Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.
In a post yesterday, I indicated I had no clear memory of past interactions with mercyngrace on this board. Through the magic of Google, I have refreshed my memory of some past interactions and can now say that had I remembered those interactions earlier, I would not have suspected her of being Serenity/Harmony/Wazing.
In my defense, I can only mention that women sometimes complain of men that they won't ask directions. I have often reflected that an inherent difference seems to be that men are more inclined to look stuff up while women are more apt to ask questions. In this instance, I went against my male nature by asking the question first.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#191
mercyngrace
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,170 posts
a witness of His loving kindness
Posted 22 March 2012 - 04:51 AM
Getting back to Rongo's OP...
If anything, the last few pages have unintentionally demonstrated the danger of the unwritten order. I've been getting my chops busted for suggesting that there are alternate ways to do things. You'd think I suggested something totally radical like accepting gentile converts without circumcision....
PS I suppose I am more willing to part with tradition because I remember (with the sting of regret) a time when I beat someone up over an issue that seemed to me to go against the Unwritten Order. A sister in our ward was trying to do put together a very Christlike ward project and I spoke firmly against it because I felt her suggestion went against the Unwritten Order and the spirit of some CHI directives. I made my voice heard and later, in a more respectful and quiet way, the Lord made His voice heard in my heart. It was a pointed chastisement with a lasting impact.
Quote
I am wary of the UOoT. I accept it in the spirit President Packer spoke about in his talk about it, but have seen too many pet beliefs insisted on as UOoT when there hasn’t been (in my opinion) compelling reasons for it. Sometimes it is downright silly. One major problem with UOoT is that it is by definition unwritten and arbitrary. This was how I found many of the items insisted on by some in the closed thread: an insistence that if things (not so stated in the handbooks) were or were not done a certain way, then it would be on the heads of the presiding authorities who allowed these things to be.
If anything, the last few pages have unintentionally demonstrated the danger of the unwritten order. I've been getting my chops busted for suggesting that there are alternate ways to do things. You'd think I suggested something totally radical like accepting gentile converts without circumcision....
PS I suppose I am more willing to part with tradition because I remember (with the sting of regret) a time when I beat someone up over an issue that seemed to me to go against the Unwritten Order. A sister in our ward was trying to do put together a very Christlike ward project and I spoke firmly against it because I felt her suggestion went against the Unwritten Order and the spirit of some CHI directives. I made my voice heard and later, in a more respectful and quiet way, the Lord made His voice heard in my heart. It was a pointed chastisement with a lasting impact.
Edited by mercyngrace, 22 March 2012 - 05:00 AM.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
#192
bluebell
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,525 posts
Creates Man & Woman
Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:48 AM
juliann, on 21 March 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:
Pahoran, you really do have the wrong idea about MG. I consider her a good online friend and I think you are being unfair to her. We are all on the same side.
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."
UMW always and forever.
UMW always and forever.
#193
Duncan
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,639 posts
Canadian Jester and Knowledge Navigator
Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:15 AM
calmoriah, on 21 March 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:
Generically speaking...
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
I can see people who through no fault of their own are consistently late for the Sacrament, such as having a job that currently cuts into church time that they can't get out of (and if they are working on finding another one to replace it but have to keep going to take care of their family, I don't see anyone being condemned for that) or being dependent on someone else for a ride, someone who is less concerned with getting to church on time. I take medication at night that sometimes is not worn off soon enough for me to make it on time to sacrament (causes dizziness so I cannot walk or drive) and I cannot take it early enough when SM starts at 9 AM either so often go late. Thankfully in my ward building there is always a 1 PM meeting I can attend so I just slip out of other meetings for a few minutes to receive the Sacrament, but not every member has the same option. In those cases, I can see them being treated like those who are homebound and given the sacrament in a special ceremony after church with prayers and if there are others that are late who want to join with them, that makes it more of a community ritual, but it should not be done in such a way to encourage lateness due to carelessness or laziness.
I look on the case of the person with rice cakes in her purse not wanting to draw notice to herself IIRC being more concerned with appearances than with the covenant and would suggest that the bishop teach the principle of her allowing others to serve her needs without concern for the self or some such concept.
Overall though, it is the bishop who knows his ward the best, their circumstances and what they need for personal growth and in real situations I would not feel the least inclined to tell him how to do things.
kids can make you late as well!
me-"Put your pants and shirt on and let's go"
kid extraordinaire-"no"
me-"c.mon, we are going to be late"
kid-"good!"
me-"Darth Vader might be giving out free lego star wars stuff"
kid-"you said that last time and you also said he wasn't there because he was robbed in Calgary"
me-"yeah... oh yeah..."!
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
#194
mercyngrace
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,170 posts
a witness of His loving kindness
Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:25 AM
Duncan, on 22 March 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:
kids can make you late as well!
me-"Put your pants and shirt on and let's go"
kid extraordinaire-"no"
me-"c.mon, we are going to be late"
kid-"good!"
me-"Darth Vader might be giving out free lego star wars stuff"
kid-"you said that last time and you also said he wasn't there because he was robbed in Calgary"
me-"yeah... oh yeah..."!
LOL!I love the way your mind works, Duncan
We actually took one of our sons to church in a bright orange Spiderman shirt every Sunday for almost a year because it was easier than fighting with him and showing up late and with the wrong frame of heart and mind. He was 2 or 3 years old as I recall. I was mortified at the time but it's actually quite funny now. And sometimes, when I see parents marching oddly dressed little ones into the chapel, I bite my lip so as not to giggle audibly. Stubborn sons of Ephraim, Brother Brigham would say....
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
#195
Duncan
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,639 posts
Canadian Jester and Knowledge Navigator
Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:39 AM
mercyngrace, on 22 March 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:
LOL!I love the way your mind works, Duncan
We actually took one of our sons to church in a bright orange Spiderman shirt every Sunday for almost a year because it was easier than fighting with him and showing up late and with the wrong frame of heart and mind. He was 2 or 3 years old as I recall. I was mortified at the time but it's actually quite funny now. And sometimes, when I see parents marching oddly dressed little ones into the chapel, I bite my lip so as not to giggle audibly. Stubborn sons of Ephraim, Brother Brigham would say....
haha! My son has a favourite green shirt he likes to wear but no spiderman!
Edited by Duncan, 22 March 2012 - 07:40 AM.
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
#196
JDave
-
- Members
-
- 1,111 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:34 AM
Sunday clothes and tennis shoes. That's my boys.
And that's why...
And that's why...
You keep using that verse. I do not think it means what you think it means.
#197
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,840 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:31 AM
I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.
So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."
For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.
I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:
So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."
For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.
I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:
Quote
The things that I shall tell you are not explained in the scriptures, although they conform to the principles taught in the scriptures.
A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.
A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 22 March 2012 - 11:00 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#198
Grundelwalken
-
- Members
-
- 222 posts
Lost but Finding the Light
Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:55 AM
Quote
The things that I shall tell you are not explained in the scriptures, although they conform to the principles taught in the scriptures.
A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.
A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to help you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to adapt and to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as an anchor.
Thanks Scott. Focusing on Doctrines and Principles will eliminate much of the struggle we have with the UOoT. The Lord has given each of us minds and hearts that are capable of discerning truth. If we listen to the Spirit, we will seldom find ourselves on the wrong side of what God wants. I think our biggest challenge is to overcome the "internal prompter" that wants to modify the message we have received for selfish purposes. At least that's how it works for me. MW
#199
cinepro
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,533 posts
It's pronounced "cinepro"
Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:25 AM
Scott Lloyd, on 22 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I've contributed to this thread, but haven't really followed it from the beginning. So I just now went back to the first and glanced at the posts. What we have is Rongo initially saying he accepts President Packer's address in the "spirit" in which it was given. But what follows in the thread is several pages of commentary with authors largely complaining about the "unwritten order of things," as though they objected to the very existence of that concept.
So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."
For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.
I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:
So, I found President Packer's talk online. Here it is. I'm wondering what, if anything, folks here find objectionable about President Packer's remarks and the "spirit in which they were given."
For the record, I will affirm here, for my own part, that I assent to President Packer's discourse and believe it to be inspired.
I'll get things started by saying I particularly like this passage:
Here are the "unwritten" things the Elder Packer specifically mentions in the talk:
Quote
- The one who presides in a meeting should sit on the stand and sit close to the one conducting.
- the first counselor always sits on the right of the president; the second counselor on the left.
- if the presiding officer speaks, it will be at the end of the meeting.
- We do not aspire to calls in the Church, nor do we ask to be released.
- There is an order of things as to where we go for counsel or blessings. It is simple—we go to our parents. When they are no longer available, if it is a blessing, then we may go to our home teacher. For counsel, you go to your bishop. He may choose to send you to his file leader—the stake president. But we do not go to the General Authorities.
- Revelation in the Church is vertical. It generally confines itself to the administrative or geographic boundaries or limitations assigned to the one who is called.
- Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members. They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families.
- Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive. They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members. Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things. When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it’s all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.
- It bothers me to see on a sacrament meeting program that Liz and Bill and Dave will participate. Ought it not be Elizabeth and William and David? It bothers me more to be asked to sustain Buck or Butch or Chuck to the high council. I just say, Can’t we have the full names on that important record? There is a formality, a dignity, that we are losing—and it is at great cost. There is something to what Paul said about doing things “decently and in order.”
- the first counselor always sits on the right of the president; the second counselor on the left.
- if the presiding officer speaks, it will be at the end of the meeting.
- We do not aspire to calls in the Church, nor do we ask to be released.
- There is an order of things as to where we go for counsel or blessings. It is simple—we go to our parents. When they are no longer available, if it is a blessing, then we may go to our home teacher. For counsel, you go to your bishop. He may choose to send you to his file leader—the stake president. But we do not go to the General Authorities.
- Revelation in the Church is vertical. It generally confines itself to the administrative or geographic boundaries or limitations assigned to the one who is called.
- Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members. They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families.
- Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive. They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members. Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things. When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it’s all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.
- It bothers me to see on a sacrament meeting program that Liz and Bill and Dave will participate. Ought it not be Elizabeth and William and David? It bothers me more to be asked to sustain Buck or Butch or Chuck to the high council. I just say, Can’t we have the full names on that important record? There is a formality, a dignity, that we are losing—and it is at great cost. There is something to what Paul said about doing things “decently and in order.”
That last one is really odd. Obviously, they shouldn't use a blatant nickname, but if someone goes by "Chuck" instead of "Charles", then it may cause confusion if people don't recognize the name. If God isn't bothered by weird Utah baby names like Qwayde, Treygon or DeizelI don't see how He can be bothered by Bill, Chuck or Liz.
Edited by cinepro, 22 March 2012 - 11:37 AM.
The LDS Stake Medium Council Blog
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
#200
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,840 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:34 AM
cinepro, on 22 March 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:
Here are the "unwritten" things the Elder Packer specifically mentions in the talk:
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
