All Activity

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?

Thanks Amulek. Not your fault. I figured I had to have misunderstood.

I had gone six years to a Baptist Bible College, and pastored churches for another seven years. I think Navidad might have preached there once! But I wasn't taught about creedal issues, nor did I teach any. After that we visited at Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran churches which had been historically creedal. I wanted doctrinal clarity for about three more years before becoming Catholic. It was and still is striking to me, that there is such a heavy emphasis on the Trinity in the Catholic Church. Until I became Catholic I would not have believed with confidence in any creed. I was consistently sola scriptura. I possessed a 66 book creed. I still don't believe that the Scripture alone clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, the filioque, the hypostatic union, papal infallibilty, the Marian doctrines, or any other defined Catholic teachings that have become obligatory to Catholics over the centuries.

Sorry. In talking about the changes, I was operating under the assumption that people had seen a mock-up of the proposed layout. I could have been more clear about what I meant. When I said, "[m]oving the sacrament table to the center," I meant moving it to the center of the room, in front of the podium. And when I said "two rows of benches," I should have said two sections of pews (as opposed to the three section layout commonly used in meetinghouses today). Here's an image that might make it more clear. While still different from other Catholic buildings I have attended, I think this kind of layout would seem more familiar to you should you happen to visit an LDS chapel that was organized in this manner. Conceptually, I'm not opposed to using architecture to symbolically communicate whatever we want it to communicate (e.g., the primacy of the sacrament). But, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, I think there's something symbolically meaningful about having the pulpit at the front as well. Currently, I would say that it symbolizes the living Word of God continuing to be proclaimed through his children through revelation, through testimony, through scripture, etc. Just like the table isn't Christ himself, but is supposed to point us toward Christ, so to is the current configuration - only with the emphasis being on Christ's continuing work in the Church.

It is something that I have never been familiar with attending Church on a regular basis since childhood. The Liverpool RC Cathedral is a post Vatican 2 build, to the best of my knowledge. Although there were plans for a Cathedral long before. I suppose I am a bit of what some people would refer to has being Traditional. I like my altar area to be on a prominent area with the people looking towards, rather than at each other. However, everyone will have their own opinion on the matter.

Interesting. I had heard of that positioning. I think the idea comes from reflection on the fact that the Mass is a community meal. I have not experienced Mass in that setting. What do you think of it?

Yesterday's doctrine and direct commandment from God became tomorrow's theory. Which does not speak to Theory 3, which I think is the most accurate summary of where things actually stand. Well, that becomes regressive pretty quickly. And yet, there is no recorded revelation substantiating these characterizations. Hence the relevance of Edward Kimball observation: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" I think the same must be said about the 1969 item. I'm not sure I understand your position. I have repeatedly acknowledged the 1949 and 1969 statements, as well as their "beyond the evidence" status. I more or less agree with the historical point. For a long time it was not taught as a tentative theory. Presidents and apostles taught the restriction and the supporting explanations as the mind of the Lord. Relabeling those explanations “theories” in 2013 does not change how they landed in 1852 or 1949. What I don’t grant is that “it was taught as doctrine” freezes the explanations in place or makes the later disavowal a kind of fraud (is that where you are going?). In the Church, “taught as doctrine” has never been the same thing as “canonized and closed.” A great deal has been taught with prophetic certainty and later limited or discarded when further light came. The Church is not claiming Brigham and McConkie never spoke that way. It is saying those reasons—curse-as-skin, premortal failure, racial inferiority—are not doctrine now and were wrong. McConkie himself said to forget what he and earlier brethren had said that contradicted the 1978 revelation. That is not a cover-up of the teaching. It is a repudiation of the explanations by someone who had taught them as doctrine. If the argument is simply “leaders used to teach this authoritatively,” that is true. If the argument is “therefore the current Church cannot honestly disavow the explanations, and every essay is just PR,” that only follows if you have already decided that once a prophet teaches something as doctrine, later prophets cannot correct the reasons. That is a rule this faith has never actually lived by. 1978 is the correction of the practice. The essay is the correction of the folklore that grew up around it. You can think both should have come earlier and still not treat “it was taught as doctrine” as the end of the discussion. I take the priesthood-restriction discussion seriously when the aim is to tell the truth about what was taught, to reject the old racial explanations, and to refuse to treat Black Saints as a problem to be managed. I can respect a call for apology if it is really about repairing a moral wound. When the next move is, “Then what about Cannon and the Red Men—has the Church disavowed those truths as theories too?” I start to hear a different project. That question can be asked in good faith. It can also function as a test that no institution can ever pass. There will always be another chapter, another Journal of Discourses paragraph, another introduction that used to say “principal ancestors.” If the standard is “every authoritative-sounding sentence from the nineteenth century must be individually recanted in the same genre as the 2013 essay, or the Church is still 'hiding skeletons,'” the list will never end. Faultfinding of that kind is not a path to burial. It is a path that requires the grave to stay open. I am not interested in chasing that carrot. Not because the history of LDS teaching about Native peoples is tidy—it is not—but because I can tell the difference between “help us tell the truth and treat people as children of God” and “keep producing exhibits until confidence in the Restoration collapses.” The first I will work at. The second I will not treat as the same kind of conversation. If your concern is specific harm in how the Church has spoken about Indigenous people, please say that, and we can talk about that. If the point is that once a prophet taught something as “gospel truth,” the only moral option is an endless sequence of institutional confessions and apologies and retractions and grovelings, we do not share a theory of repentance, accountability, or what the Church even is. I would rather be clear about that than keep moving the goalposts and calling it peacemaking. On 16 March 1862 in Dundee, while serving in the European Mission presidency, Amasa Lyman preached “Nature of the Mission of Jesus.” The Millennial Star printed it. The sermon treated Jesus as teacher and exemplar and denied that His death was a necessary, predetermined atonement. Man, being innately good, could redeem himself by stopping sin. That was a doctrinal claim, delivered by an apostle, in a Church publication. By your reasoning, then, the Church is locked into this. Forever. It's etched in stone. It cannot be denied or revoked or disavowed. I don't think the Church is locked in. I don't understand your reasoning here. I actually anticipate the opposite: I think the Proclamation will eventually be canonized. I hope so, anyway. Erring in teachings sounds more appropriate as some people don't consider all teachings to be doctrines. "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians that someone can present a different Jesus while still using Christian-sounding language. Not sure how we went from the priesthood ban to "a different Jesus." Thanks, -Smac