All Activity

Something like retractable casters would probably be the way to go. I don't see the need to be moving it frequently, but it would be nice to easily accommodate doing so should the need arise. A recessed plate in the floor could also hide the microphone/electrical connections and keep everything nice and clean.

I wanted to add one more thing: The apostle Paul taught that we are all literal offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29 (the Greek word translated as offspring in those verses refers to the "kind" of being, in a literal way), and given the context of his remarks that word cannot be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God (as that would totally destroy Paul's main point about not worshipping gods of gold or silver or stone, which are also created things). Given what Paul was teaching in those verses are you saying you believe he meant that we are all literal Gods right now? And remember, this is a Bible teaching, so if you are mocking and ridiculing Paul's teaching that we are all the offspring of God then you are just mocking and ridiculing this Bible teaching.

My immediate reaction was to invoke the idea of progressive revelation and divine accommodation. In many apologetic discussions around slavery and/or the priesthood and temple ban, the idea gets suggested that God temporarily accommodates our human foibles, progressively revealing higher truths to gradually get us to grow out of evil. In a thread whose starting point is the priesthood and temple ban, my example might be slavery which we practiced for thousands of years, somewhere in the 18th century (or thereabouts), enough people started to become uncomfortable enough with the practice that abolition began to become a thing. In fits and starts, we eventually abolish slavery, and we then become more aware of the racism and tribalism that were often the basis of slavery, and we start to question those and seek to eliminate those injustices. Nowadays, as we've largely suppressed overt racism, some are pointing systemic ways that racism might still exist and we debate what, if anything, we should do about it. The main point being that, as we eliminate social injustices, we find ourselves better able to recognize social injustices adjacent to the eliminated injustices and seek to make society progressively more just. Some might even say that this is how God guides humanity to become better. The flip side might be that, as we eliminate one legitimated social injustice, we might imagine up some new injustice that really doesn't exist rather than just be satisfied with our improved state. On short notice, I don't come up with a ready example, but I'm sure it's just a matter of someone thinking about it long enough. The tricky part is in discerning what alleged injustices are truly unjust, and which ones are hyped up to stir up societal unrest. One possible discussion question, then, would be how do we feel about this kind of "progressive revelation?" How do we feel about the notion that God waits for us to recognize injustice rather than outright tell us about it through prophets or scripture? In a church that tends to be conservative, how do we feel about this model of how God slowly and progressively causes us to grow as a people?

They learn what the older generation teaches them. They are targeted as youth and taught the best way to have fun or to be somebody is through possessions and popularity (also through being the first to have whatever) because the older generation wants to make money off of them. The advertising to promote consumerism by businesses (whose owners are often indeed obsessed with making as much money as possible since it would be difficult to use what they already have) makes it difficult to not have the mindset that more is better when that is all that entertainment and many public figures promote. If you want to see hedonistic, go look at the videos many public figures put out on their homes.

If it’s not elevated, it should be placed on wheels so as to be moved out of the way for other meetings. Or even after the sacrament.

With some gothic organ music playing. We had kids always trying to ride the pull out the very loooong chair dollies that fit under the stage as they got pushed back in…also the problem of hiding in that space….had a few tears when not noticed.

I would like to hear any thoughts you all have about this stuff. The more blessed and prosperous the American Experience grow, the more hedonistic and ungrateful succeeding generations become.

Shoot, I was hoping Box Elder was off the list. And I don't like these others either. Data centers to perform for the help to cure diseases or help humanity, great. But the data centers to create our demise, with Robots or ? coming at us, or hacking our system in order to wipe out our money at our banks etc, will cause us to become helpless and maybe even fight each other for survival. That will be the day I want a little pill and just hopefully meet my maker.

Climate change is real, deal with it. Fossil fuels, not a good idea.

Similar to the more we get the more we want? ETA: I think our world will go backwards and I guess we will not have too much to know what to do with it, our focus will change to survival according to a few YouTubes I've watched.

Imagine a "transformer" podium. After the bishopric announcements are given, the podium recedes backward and downward. Then the ALTAR moves forward and upward. The sacrament hymn begins as the priests get into position to break bread. The bishopric remains visible off to the center left side with a clear view of the proceedings. The ALTAR will be slightly off to the right. The only disadvantage will be wandering little tykes that might get too close to the moving apparatus. Surely kids will want to catch a ride on the rising table. ☠️

Not according to you (posting as theplains): We currently don't have all those attributes, even though we all are (as the Bible says) the same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29). Those are attributes that can be obtained through the cleansing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ and by our willingness to follow and emulate him.

You can’t from the opposite side of the chapel. It sits on the floor and back in a little alcove.

I would say the literal offspring of a God is a literal God, albeit less developed. Congrats. You are a God right now.

I think "activism" these days is often quite susceptible to the March of Dimes Syndrome / Mission Creep phenomenon. This includes activism in the Church. Back to the Tierney article: I wonder if activist calls for an apology from the Church are borne of this "March of Dimes Syndrome" mindset. Any progress/success the Church has made/had relative to condemning racism, fostering goodwill, etc. is a threat. In the minds of some activists, they can never declare "mission accomplished." Mission Creep happens. "So activists have moved the goalposts once again." Yep. If the Church were to issue a formal institutional apology, would self-appointed "activists" accept it and move on? Or would they deem it insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more? Yeah, the SPLC has really had a lot of mission creep. I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature. That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more. And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on. And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc. Additionally or alternatively, I wonder if this is a pretext for calling for women to be ordained to the priesthood. And perhaps disavowals of claims to prophetic/priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and so on. The Tierney article goes on to explain a third label for this phenomenon (in addition to "March of Dimes Syndrome," mentioned in the article, and "Mission Creep," commented on by me) : "'The more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness.'" Might this be said about the Church since 1978? "First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive." Might this be in play relative to how some folks treat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? "As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined." Again, are black people in the Church better off now than they were in 1978? If so, why is it that folks of an "activist" bent seem fixated on characterizing the Church in the worst possible ways? Further to the foregoing evaluation of the "March of Dimes Syndrome" and "Mission Creep" and the seeming paradox in play ("As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined"), I just recently came across another term: The Tocqueville Effect From Wikipedia: I would like to hear any thoughts you all have about this stuff. Thanks, -Smac

Based solely on the diagram: uncertain. But my suspicion is that they wouldn't place it on an elevated platform because then you would have to deal with additional accessibility concerns.

Hi bluebell. Everybody only has their own experience. And sometimes it is minimal, but we don't realize it. I would not dismiss your own experience. My anecdotal experience is very limited. As for the Apostles Creed? You guys could accept that. The communion of saints would be happening in baptisms for the dead. Everybody who is ultimately saved by Jesus' work is intimately connected, even if we don't fully realize it. More than that, through the Incarnation, (this is Catholic because we deny that we are the same species as God), we humans have become united in brotherhood, even if we do not accept Jesus, God made man, a creature, made out of something! We are connected to Adam whether we like it or not. Likewise with "the last Adam". Jesus. Made out of pre-existent matter as a man! How we treat anybody, is how we treat Jesus. St. Augustine, whatever anybody despises about his teachings said, "Love, and do what you will." Who can argue with that? And however much I might doubt John Lennon's theology...or his vocabulary..."All you need is love."? That is a Christian idea that preceded the Beatles by two millenia. It is arguably an Old Testament Mosaic idea that was over 3,500 years before the Lennon-McCartney team. God bless. 3DOP, the long winded, going off on his own reveries at night. May God love us all who love His Son, and may we worship together someday.

Can you see the table from the pews? The ordinance being performed? Our ward the table is a step or two down from the main pulpit area. You can still see it most of it if sitting in the back.

My experience was with nonLDS Protestants and the Apostles Creed.

The sacrament table in my stake center is currently on the floor, not elevated at all. It At my old ward, the pulpit is not in the center, it is off to one side of the room. I think that we sometimes forget the variety in our ward buildings and assume they are all set up similarly.

I've had a few thoughts about the sentiment, occasionally expressed in this thread and elsewhere, that opposition to "trans" ideology and efforts is a fabricated and politically-motivated panic advanced by some sort of cabal. I don't think I exaggerate, as evidenced by how Analytics put it: "Wing Grievance Industrial Complex." "{A} made-up non-issue." "{M}ade-up target of the Right Wing Grievance Industrial Complex." I responded: Two more: Analytics: What actually is recent is culture warriors deciding this is a winning issue and constantly throwing it in your face. Smac: Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. Dylan Mulvaney. Drag Queen Story Hours and drag shows with children in attendance. All very public. All really trying to garner attention. Analytics: The only reason you know who Lily Tino or Lily Thomas are is because the people who curate your news want this to be an issue. Smac: Lily Tino and Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney and marchers in parades, and demonstrators/protesters, and so on are all actively courting public attention, and they are getting some. I recently came across a troubling news article that, in my view, illustrates just how aggressive trans activists have been in recent years: Parents Can’t Escape Washington’s Transgender Policies by Changing Schools, Supreme Court Brief Argues A Grok summary: Troubling stuff. Thanks, -Smac

Will the sacrament table be on the floor or still elevated?

Height isn't a requirement, but I suspect it will likely need to be at least high enough to try and discourage all the littles from climbing on it.

Don't you believe Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain and you are real adams? But not the one true Adam? A 'god' (elohim) describes kinship with El and executive authority from El. Satan or the Prince of Persia, or even a human executive commissioned with divine authority like Moses to Pharaoh can function in an elohim capacity. Thus even archangels, lesser foreign nation gods or even Satan, could be called a "god", as he has dominion and "his angels" under him. Yes, if you define "god" using the Bible’s own vocabulary (elohim), rather than your modern post-Enlightenment definition, there are "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5). If by "real god" you mean an omnipotent being equal to Yahweh, then NO. None of them are "gods" in that sense. But if by "real god" you mean real, non-human, supernatural spiritual entities operating in the heavenly hierarchy, then the Bible's answer is an emphatic YES. Baal (whose name means Lord, a lord is a noble governing a territory) is called an elohim of a nation (1 Kings 18:27), a shed / territorial spirit (Deut 32:17), and Beelzebul, the prince of demons, which in ancient Greek, meant a "divine power," or "lesser deity" rather than an evil entity (Matt 12:24–27). By elohim, it is acknowledging their real spiritual existence and authority over pagan nations. The clearest explanation I ever read is a first century, Jewish-Christian, document by Pseudo-Clement (not Clement the Bishop of Rome). In which, Peter debates with Simon Magus. Simon makes a claim that in Jewish scriptures that there are many gods, "There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced by the law, not only obscure but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be God of the Jews [Deuteronomy 32:9]. But it is not him that I speak, but the God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves do not know. For he is not their God, but of those who know him." (Clementine Recognitions 2:39). Peter explains that Elyon, the Most High God is the God of the Jews, but there are also several divine intermediaries that are called "gods", "For every nation has an angel to whom God committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet being asked he does not give such testimony of himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds power of all things had divided the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts and over these he hath appointed angels as princes [Deuteronomy 32:8]. But to one among the archangels who is greatest, has committed the government of those who before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High." (Clementine Recognitions 2:42). Whether or not Peter said this, it proves 1st and 2nd-century Jewish-Christians explicitly held the exact Divine Council framework I am arguing for. Jewish-Christians who spoke the language and lived in the ancient Near Eastern culture understood Deuteronomy 32 as literal territorial administration by non-human spiritual beings. Peter says they are real, non-human heavenly beings (archangels/princes) assigned over geographical nations. And "real" gods denotes their real power and heavenly presence. Acknowledging the real existence of these lower territorial elohim did not diminish the ultimate supremacy of the Most High God (El Elyon). Then there is you. Your insistence that foreign "gods" were non-existent or mere human magistrates is completely alien to early Jewish-Christian theology. You are trying to force a 21st-century philosophical assumption onto ancient texts that clearly taught a populated, hierarchically ordered spiritual realm.

I hadn't thought of the table being in the way of caskets. Or performances etc. Another thing, shouldn't the Sacrament table be up high like it is now?