Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doctrine 612

Sacrament prayer

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- No. I am at a very different place regarding literal belief in foundational truth claims of the church. I view the restoration as the attempt of men to restore God's original teachings and practice. But I don't believe they got it all correct. I don't believe God spoke to them with any precision in Joseph's day and I don't think He speaks with precision today. I think he inspires good people to do their best. Sometimes they will do good, sometimes they won't. I think God is patient and open to a high degree of error and inaccuracy in the church and among the leaders so long as their hearts are good and truly seeking to worship Him.

2- In my view God is distant and doesn't interact regularly. I think he gives us enough tools to try to seek him by being good to each other. I don't believe in the one true church narrative.

Oh, a Deist.  An odd choice for a Church member, but to each their own.

Certainly allows us to do anything we want without accountability.  I can see the appeal.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I purport to believe the gospel as restored by revelation through Joseph Smith and systematized but not changed under Brigham and John etc.
I purport to believe that later prophets changed this gospel without providing any corresponding revelations primarily by the will of the members.
I purport to believe that this occurrence was prophesied in scripture along with a course correction return to the restored principles and practices.

This has nothing to do with me claiming any prophetic knowledge.

This would seem to be a challenge to the authority of those in whom the Lord has entrusted priesthood keys.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This would seem to be a challenge to the authority of those in whom the Lord has entrusted priesthood keys.

No - they hold the keys.  No challenge to that.
Doesn't make every action the will of God.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

We are taught to not say set prayers, but we have the sacrament that we say every time with exactness no room for error, why?

i know that the word sacrament means sacred oath, so is the prayer not a prayer but a oath?

kind of like the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the lord says the oath and we make the covenant.

I think it is as simple as the wording, order, practice, etc. being what the Prophet says they should be, and our sustaining his authority to do so. For example, awhile ago, "wine" was changed to "water." The first words of the baptismal ordinance vary with each individual's name. Both of these are in our canon by common consent. The confirmation ordinance also involves set wording, but is not in our canon, and any set wording for any formal ministration (oil consecration, temple ordinances, for example) changes by language. Changes involving the use of the keys are in proper order simply when the Prophet makes them. The evidence: the saints testify of the Lord's blessings by making and keeping the covenants in the authorized manner of ordinance, whether there have been changes made in them over the years, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No - they hold the keys.  No challenge to that.
Doesn't make every action the will of God.

Yet the saints testify of the Lord's blessings by making and keeping the covenants in the authorized manner of ordinance, whether there have been changes made in them over the years, or not, which is in fulfillment of the Lord's will and His purpose in revealing any ordinance changes (or lack thereof) through His servants.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yet the saints testify of the Lord's blessings by making and keeping the covenants in the authorized manner of ordinance, whether there have been changes made in them over the years, or not, which is in fulfillment of the Lord's will and His purpose in revealing any ordinance changes (or lack thereof) through His servants.

As did the Catholic Church membership in the Middle Ages.  The fact that we receive blessings despite our weaknesses shows the mercy of God, not the correctness of our actions.
Have you never been blessed in your imperfections?  I know I have.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As did the Catholic Church membership in the Middle Ages.  The fact that we receive blessings despite our weaknesses shows the mercy of God, not the correctness of our actions.
Have you never been blessed in your imperfections?  I know I have.

The restored ordinances are perfect because they accomplish their purpose under proper authority, attitudes toward their fitness notwithstanding. Prior to the restoration, they did not. People were blessed for the light they held to, not for the ordinances that were performed without authority. That kind of blessing is not the "fulness" we point to.

Condemnation for changing God's ordinances is found in Isaiah 24:5-6. This is the only scriptural reference about changing them from what God reveals to His servants. Everywhere else, we are commanded to take upon, obey, keep and observe the ordinances, with curses to follow polluting, going away from, straying from them. The pollution takes place when we lack faith in both the ordinances as He reveals them to His servants, or that what we have has been revealed through His servants.

D&C 124:45-46 describes pollution in this way, and states that He gives these ordinances to His living oracles: “And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.”

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- No. I am at a very different place regarding literal belief in foundational truth claims of the church. I view the restoration as the attempt of men to restore God's original teachings and practice. But I don't believe they got it all correct. I don't believe God spoke to them with any precision in Joseph's day and I don't think He speaks with precision today. I think he inspires good people to do their best. Sometimes they will do good, sometimes they won't. I think God is patient and open to a high degree of error and inaccuracy in the church and among the leaders so long as their hearts are good and truly seeking to worship Him.

2- In my view God is distant and doesn't interact regularly. I think he gives us enough tools to try to seek him by being good to each other. I don't believe in the one true church narrative.

Point 1 says they didn't get it "correct" and point 2 says there IS no "correct".

Rather confusing AND conflicting

I suggest that your point 2 says all you needed to say to express your point.

If that is the case, that's all you have to say and your opinions of Mormon doctrine then become irrelevant because that one claim- that Mormonism is "true"- is the basic point of being a Mormon in the first place.

Any church is as good as any other if none are "true".

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The restored ordinances are perfect because they accomplish their purpose under proper authority, attitudes toward their fitness notwithstanding. Prior to the restoration, they did not. People were blessed for the light they held to, not for the ordinances that were performed without authority. That kind of blessing is not the "fulness" we point to.

Condemnation for changing God's ordinances is found in Isaiah 24:5-6. This is the only scriptural reference about changing them from what God reveals to His servants. Everywhere else, we are commanded to take upon, obey, keep and observe the ordinances, with curses to follow polluting, going away from, straying from them. The pollution takes place when we lack faith in both the ordinances as He reveals them to His servants, or that what we have has been revealed through His servants.

D&C 124:45-46 describes pollution in this way, and states that He gives these ordinances to His living oracles: “And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.”

I agree with everything you say here.  100%.

What I cannot agree with is the idea that we haven't done exactly the same thing.

Isaiah 24:5 is directed to our day just prior to the second coming.  And the only people in possession of the ordinances and the new and everlasting covenant is the Church.  And we HAVE changed them.  We are fulfilling Isaiah 24  and D&C 124 right now.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I purport to believe the gospel as restored by revelation through Joseph Smith and systematized but not changed under Brigham and John etc.
I purport to believe that later prophets changed this gospel without providing any corresponding revelations primarily by the will of the members.
I purport to believe that this occurrence was prophesied in scripture along with a course correction return to the restored principles and practices.

This has nothing to do with me claiming any prophetic knowledge.

What then is your basis for thinking you are right?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, a Deist.  An odd choice for a Church member, but to each their own.

Certainly allows us to do anything we want without accountability.  I can see the appeal.

How is what you believe NOT "to each their own"?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- No. I am at a very different place regarding literal belief in foundational truth claims of the church. I view the restoration as the attempt of men to restore God's original teachings and practice. But I don't believe they got it all correct. I don't believe God spoke to them with any precision in Joseph's day and I don't think He speaks with precision today. I think he inspires good people to do their best. Sometimes they will do good, sometimes they won't. I think God is patient and open to a high degree of error and inaccuracy in the church and among the leaders so long as their hearts are good and truly seeking to worship Him.

2- In my view God is distant and doesn't interact regularly. I think he gives us enough tools to try to seek him by being good to each other. I don't believe in the one true church narrative.

Just trying to get this straight as a coherent theological position.

So God is personal- you refer to him as a "He".

He is distant and doesn't interact regularly, and does not "speak with precision" today, yet "he" "gives us enough tools to try to seek him by being good to each other" AND "inspires good people to do their best" which implies some kind of regular interaction with individuals.

Do you see that all as consistent?  Could you fill in the blanks a little?  Like how a "distant" God could interact with people on a seemingly regular basis?

And if he is both "distant" and personal, why does he care about us at all?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What then is your basis for thinking you are right?

My testimony (and the spiritual witnesses) I have received of Joseph and his revelations.  Not to mention the consistency I see with them and the patterns in scripture.

And if I believe them from God I can hardly expect to readily accept contradictory teachings, even if they are claimed to be inspired without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, a Deist.  An odd choice for a Church member, but to each their own.

Certainly allows us to do anything we want without accountability.  I can see the appeal.

It's not about appeal. In fact I think it would be much more appealing to believe God interacts in our lives on a daily basis and speaks directly to prophets so we know exactly what His will is. I just don't see that happening. So I am left to believe that either God isn't involved in the lives of His children or that he just isn't involved in my life. This is definitely 180 degrees from where I was 2 years ago.

Quote

MF- How is what you believe NOT "to each their own"?

That's true for everyone. Me. JLHProf. MF. To each their own means that we all live with and accept those things that we can believe and/or justify.

Quote

MF- Point 1 says they didn't get it "correct" and point 2 says there IS no "correct".

Rather confusing AND conflicting

I suggest that your point 2 says all you needed to say to express your point.

If that is the case, that's all you have to say and your opinions of Mormon doctrine then become irrelevant because that one claim- that Mormonism is "true"- is the basic point of being a Mormon in the first place.

Any church is as good as any other if none are "true".

Not at all. The only mention of "correct" was in reference to JLHPROF's claim about the absolute correctness of the early restoration doctrines and truth claims. Perhaps it would have been more correct if I had started a new paragraph after that, but that's getting a little nitpicky.

I don't believe my opinions about Mormon doctrine become irrelevant any more than yours. I think it's odd you would suggest it.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

We are taught to not say set prayers, but we have the sacrament that we say every time with exactness no room for error, why?

i know that the word sacrament means sacred oath, so is the prayer not a prayer but a oath?

kind of like the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the lord says the oath and we make the covenant.

Honestly, I'm sure there are an infinite variety of Sacrament Prayers that would be acceptable to God. 

But the reality is that the scriptures only give us one version of those prayers, and given the choice between training Bishops in all the ways that it might be acceptable for a prayer to be altered vs. all the ways it wouldn't be acceptable, it's easier (and safer) to just say "use the exact words" and be done with it.

The difference between the Sacrament Prayers and other ordinances that might have been changed is that the Sacrament Prayers aren't very long, and they don't have any content that would be objectionable to the congregation.  If the prayer took 20 minutes to read, or had two minutes of graphic description about Jesus' suffering and agony on the cross, then I could see a situation where it would be updated to make it shorter and more enjoyable.  But as it is, it's short and unobjectionable, so no changes needed.

Edited by cinepro

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The restored ordinances are perfect because they accomplish their purpose under proper authority, attitudes toward their fitness notwithstanding. Prior to the restoration, they did not. People were blessed for the light they held to, not for the ordinances that were performed without authority. That kind of blessing is not the "fulness" we point to.

Condemnation for changing God's ordinances is found in Isaiah 24:5-6. This is the only scriptural reference about changing them from what God reveals to His servants. Everywhere else, we are commanded to take upon, obey, keep and observe the ordinances, with curses to follow polluting, going away from, straying from them. The pollution takes place when we lack faith in both the ordinances as He reveals them to His servants, or that what we have has been revealed through His servants.

D&C 124:45-46 describes pollution in this way, and states that He gives these ordinances to His living oracles: “And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.”

I am willing to assume- based on personal revelation- that these ordinances are defined by the brethren, as custodians of the ordinances and under their authority, as "correct" interpretations of what God wants revealed to his children at this point.

I also think that Joseph's using a Masonic presentation which has since been modified, was doing what was perfectly appropriate for his time.

I also have the nerve to suggest that the brethren actually know more about these issues than we do and are not concerned with changing the presentation of the endowment- because clearly they do not do so in secret.

Everyone knows they have been changed- so everyone who thinks they should not have been changed has to think that through for themselves.

The mere fact that they have so OBVIOUSLY been changed sends a message from the brethren that "it's ok to change them"!!!

I mean if it is NOT ok to change them did they really think no one would notice?  :lol:

"OH NO! The brethren are in apostasy!  The sky is falling!  They changed the ordinances?"   Do you think maybe the fact that they DID change them might teach us something about the nature of the ordinances themselves??

That is what I always think when someone brings this up, OR when the subject of the endowment and masonry comes up.  

ALL the original brethren were Masons-  do we think THEY did not notice the similarities to Masonry??  Why were THEY not upset by what was plainly obvious to them??

Because they understood that the endowment was different than the presentation of the endowment

The presentation is a "temple play" as some think other scriptural stories are as well, like the Book of Job.   The play gets re-written by the brethren as needed, but the endowment as a treasure trove of blessings remains.

The signs and tokens are symbolic representations of the covenants themselves which should be obvious to anyone who studies them.  We come as beggars before the Lord who encircles us in his arms and teaches us the right path to truth and through the veil of death while being our compass through the spirit's direction.

In pre-literate societies a "token" was an object to be held as a memory device marking an occasion or agreement between two parties.  It could be anything- a carved stone, a piece of metal, a pillar of stones etc.

"With this token as a remembrance of this day,  I, hereby transfer this field marked at the four corners by these stones, to my cousin Joshua forever".

Today we record a deed- before that was possible, something tangible was the token of the transfer and everyone in the village knew that that carved stone was the token proving that Joshua now owned the field, because they had witnessed the transfer.

Today the Lord also gives us tokens of our covenants and blessings which symbolize the blessings given.  The tokens could be anything as long as we remember them and obey the covenants and then receive the blessings.

This is not Harry Potter.  The symbols do not have power in themselves- the covenants and blessings are shown by our lives in the fleshy tablets of the heart- not carved in stone- are where the endowment and the power lies.   Without obedience to the covenants, the blessings will not come

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My testimony (and the spiritual witnesses) I have received of Joseph and his revelations.  Not to mention the consistency I see with them and the patterns in scripture.

And if I believe them from God I can hardly expect to readily accept contradictory teachings, even if they are claimed to be inspired without evidence.

Well OK I have to honor that.

We disagree on interpretation but I cannot argue with your source.  We must all be true to the path God reveals to us personally.  Every one and every path is different.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not about appeal. In fact I think it would be much more appealing to believe God interacts in our lives on a daily basis and speaks directly to prophets so we know exactly what His will is. I just don't see that happening. So I am left to believe that either God isn't involved in the lives of His children or that he just isn't involved in my life. This is definitely 180 degrees from where I was 2 years ago.

That's true for everyone. Me. JLHProf. MF. To each their own means that we all live with and accept those things that we can believe and/or justify.

Not at all. The only mention of "correct" was in reference to JLHPROF's claim about the absolute correctness of the early restoration doctrines and truth claims. Perhaps it would have been more correct if I had started a new paragraph after that, but that's getting a little nitpicky.

I don't believe my opinions about Mormon doctrine become irrelevant any more than yours. I think it's odd you would suggest it.

Quote

1- No. I am at a very different place regarding literal belief in foundational truth claims of the church. I view the restoration as the attempt of men to restore God's original teachings and practice. But I don't believe they got it all correct

Sounds to me like you are saying they didn't get it correct.  Period.  That's nitpicky?  That means you know what IS correct, and they missed it

But I believe the Mormon perspective is true, and it is the truest church on the earth

In fact I know it.  I spent years looking for it and then found it.

 I also know it is the only "living" church on earth because I believe the prophet receives revelation from God- and I think others who might claim that are mistaken.  Of course prophets are not infallible, but they are clearly inspired.  I reserve the right to confirm each principle for myself but have not seen any errors yet in what the church now teaches since my baptism nearly 

Overall, I am in complete accord with the church- AS I SEE the church.

Others may understand it differently, but that's their business.  If I did not believe in the church I would not be here.   I do not post on any Zorastrian boards though I also have opinions about their beliefs.  

It just seems weird to me to do that.  But as you say "to each his own"

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds to me like you are saying they didn't get it correct.  Period.  That's nitpicky?  That means you know what IS correct, and they missed it

But I believe the Mormon perspective is true, and it is the truest church on the earth

In fact I know it.  I spent years looking for it and then found it.

 I also know it is the only "living" church on earth because I believe the prophet receives revelation from God- and I think others who might claim that are mistaken.  Of course prophets are not infallible, but they are clearly inspired.  I reserve the right to confirm each principle for myself but have not seen any errors yet in what the church now teaches since my baptism nearly 

Overall, I am in complete accord with the church- AS I SEE the church.

Others may understand it differently, but that's their business.  If I did not believe in the church I would not be here.   I do not post on any Zorastrian boards though I also have opinions about their beliefs.  

It just seems weird to me to do that.  But as you say "to each his own"

I've noticed that people often bear testimony when they don't have a good argument to make. It's the trump card that can't be disputed, or so they think. I seem to recall Elder Ballard commenting on that recently. Something about..."Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue" or something like that :)

Your example about Zorastiranism is pretty lame. You seem to be equating me, a lifelong Mormon commenting on a Mormon themed board, to a non-zorastiranist posting about zorastiranism.

"Weird" is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've noticed that people often bear testimony when they don't have a good argument to make. It's the trump card that can't be disputed, or so they think. I seem to recall Elder Ballard commenting on that recently. Something about..."Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue" or something like that :)

Your example about Zorastiranism is pretty lame. You seem to be equating me, a lifelong Mormon commenting on a Mormon themed board, to a non-zorastiranist posting about zorastiranism.

"Weird" is in the eye of the beholder.

You are the one who brought up "to each his own"

THAT is the logical equivalent to the testimony argument killer, and it should be in religious matters.

God is ineffable and cannot really be discussed anyway.  If you are not good I will post that Rorty video again.   Religious questions are all subjective.  There is nothing to argue about.

I spend a lot of time arguing that there is nothing to argue about.  Sometimes people get it sometimes not.

It's all mental states.   I just posted this on the other board and now I will do it here too.  It is the universal answer to all religious questions.

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Truth is in how you describe something, not "in the world" and descriptions are ambiguous statements how we see things, in personal perspectives

"To each his own" is about all there is to say about religion really.

And no, if you do not believe in Mormonism you are not a "Mormon".

This is not a racial thing you know- it's an IDEA.  If you do not accept the idea, you do not accept it.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am willing to assume- based on personal revelation- that these ordinances are defined by the brethren, as custodians of the ordinances and under their authority, as "correct" interpretations of what God wants revealed to his children at this point.

I also think that Joseph's using a Masonic presentation which has since been modified, was doing what was perfectly appropriate for his time.

I also have the nerve to suggest that the brethren actually know more about these issues than we do and are not concerned with changing the presentation of the endowment- because clearly they do not do so in secret.

Everyone knows they have been changed- so everyone who thinks they should not have been changed has to think that through for themselves.

The mere fact that they have so OBVIOUSLY been changed sends a message from the brethren that "it's ok to change them"!!!

I mean if it is NOT ok to change them did they really think no one would notice?  :lol:

"OH NO! The brethren are in apostasy!  The sky is falling!  They changed the ordinances?"   Do you think maybe the fact that they DID change them might teach us something about the nature of the ordinances themselves??

That is what I always think when someone brings this up, OR when the subject of the endowment and masonry comes up.  

ALL the original brethren were Masons-  do we think THEY did not notice the similarities to Masonry??  Why were THEY not upset by what was plainly obvious to them??

Because they understood that the endowment was different than the presentation of the endowment

The presentation is a "temple play" as some think other scriptural stories are as well, like the Book of Job.   The play gets re-written by the brethren as needed, but the endowment as a treasure trove of blessings remains.

The signs and tokens are symbolic representations of the covenants themselves which should be obvious to anyone who studies them.  We come as beggars before the Lord who encircles us in his arms and teaches us the right path to truth and through the veil of death while being our compass through the spirit's direction.

In pre-literate societies a "token" was an object to be held as a memory device marking an occasion or agreement between two parties.  It could be anything- a carved stone, a piece of metal, a pillar of stones etc.

"With this token as a remembrance of this day,  I, hereby transfer this field marked at the four corners by these stones, to my cousin Joshua forever".

Today we record a deed- before that was possible, something tangible was the token of the transfer and everyone in the village knew that that carved stone was the token proving that Joshua now owned the field, because they had witnessed the transfer.

Today the Lord also gives us tokens of our covenants and blessings which symbolize the blessings given.  The tokens could be anything as long as we remember them and obey the covenants and then receive the blessings.

This is not Harry Potter.  The symbols do not have power in themselves- the covenants and blessings are shown by our lives in the fleshy tablets of the heart- not carved in stone- are where the endowment and the power lies.   Without obedience to the covenants, the blessings will not come

Very well done. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Bluebell said "There is no room for adding or subtracting words of a sacred covenant given by God."
And I pointed out that is exactly what happened in 1990 referring to the temple.

But wording aside, many changes have been made to the sacrament too.  Just not the prayer.
8a56010b7d58a1757a469e83f35f00e9.jpg

Are his hands up as he is saying the prayer?

very fun 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are the one who brought up "to each his own"

Wrong. I'm not the one who brought it up. Try again.

God is ineffable and cannot really be discussed anyway.  If you are not good I will post that Rorty video again.   Religious questions are all subjective.  There is nothing to argue about.

What are we doing in church if God cannot really be discussed? And if he is so beyond understanding why are you so certain you have Him and His will, and His church all figured out? Seems a little inconsistent.

I spend a lot of time arguing that there is nothing to argue about.  Sometimes people get it sometimes not.

It's all mental states.   I just posted this on the other board and now I will do it here too.  It is the universal answer to all religious questions.

Truth is in how you describe something, not "in the world" and descriptions are ambiguous statements how we see things, in personal perspectives

"To each his own" is about all there is to say about religion really. It's unfortunate your argument here is based on my bringing up "to each his own" when I didn't. The argument kind of falls flat at that point.

And no, if you do not believe in Mormonism you are not a "Mormon".

Correction- I do not believe in your idea of Mormonism. But since God is ineffable and we really can't describe Him or His will anyway, and we are all infantile in our understanding, then why should I accept your version of religion is better than mine? I could just as easily say you're not a Mormon because you don't agree with me. But that would be absurd, and offensive. So I won't.

This is not a racial thing you know- it's an IDEA.  If you do not accept the idea, you do not accept it.

Mormonism is only an idea, and a subjective one at that? That's interesting. I could have sworn it is also a practice, and a faith, and a culture, and a community. So if I don't understand the subjective "idea" that IS Mormonism, according to you, I do not accept any of these things and am therefore not Mormon? MF- your arguments have become very weak as of late.

Honestly, your comments about me not being Mormon are offensive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

We are taught to not say set prayers, but we have the sacrament that we say every time with exactness no room for error, why?

Just my opinion, of course...

The things we agree to when we take the sacrament are quite specific, and it would be far too easy for someone ad-libbing the sacrament prayers to make changes that are not what the Lord intended.

Let me explain:  The blessing on the bread says that the partakers are WILLING to do these three things: 

1. Take upon themselves the name of the Son;,

2.  Always remember Him and,

3. Keep His commandments which He has given them.

Then, the blessing on the water changes gears and says what the partakers DO, which is:  Always remember Him.

There is a reason for the different wording in the two prayers. If we were to witness every week that we DO keep his commandments, we'd be lying very week... but if our hearts are in the right place, we CAN witness that we are WILLING to keep them, and we CAN witness that we DO always remember Him.

Notice that the phrase "always remember Him" shows up in both prayers.  This is brilliant.  Behavior arises from our thoughts, and so if we want to change our behavior, we have to change our thoughts.  There is no short-cut around this. 

Anyway, do you see how easy it would be for someone ad-libbing their own Sacrament prayers to make seemingly small changes that would turn them into either more or less than what the Lord had in mind?

Edited by Eek!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My testimony (and the spiritual witnesses) I have received of Joseph and his revelations.  Not to mention the consistency I see with them and the patterns in scripture.

And if I believe them from God I can hardly expect to readily accept contradictory teachings, even if they are claimed to be inspired without evidence.

Beautifully stated.

If the church that Joseph restored were on the earth today in its pure form, I would be a member of that church.  Until then, I will abstain from formal association with any religion. 

Edited by Eek!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...