Stargazer

Easy to do. Ritual magic is like computer programming. Make an error in the code, and it may not compile, but even if it does compile it might produce a completely contrary result. One of my favorite SF/Fantasy mashups was the Wizardry series by Rick Cook. It envisions a universe where magic was accomplished by incantations properly recited along with certain hand and arm motions. Make a mistake and instead of heating up your food you might turn yourself into a gibbon. Silicon Valley computer geek Wiz Zumwalt gets "summoned" against his will to this world of magic, and ends up finding a way to revolutionize magic through the use of computer-style algorithms. In his first attempt to demonstrate, or "run" a magic program to elevate an object he makes an error in the incantation and manages instead to summon a whirlwind that destroys a number of trees. Once he figures out how to do things correctly, he is able to take down the Dark League in one day, and in the process he rescues his kidnapped girlfriend from torture and certain death. It's quite a read! But the point in ritual magic is that it is the words, gestures, and sometimes the clothing that hold the power. All else is irrelevant. On the other hand, religious ordinances are symbolic actions signifying obedience to divine principles and commandments. In themselves they are meaningless actions. If you are baptized without faith in Jesus Christ and repentance all you achieve is getting wet. But with faith and repentance you make yourself eligible for forgiveness of your sins. The baptism itself does nothing without the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is not dispensed like a vending machine (because it's not ritual magic). The same applies for all ordinances. Even blessings that do cause physical results, such as a blessing of healing. When Jesus healed the sick, for example, he was not performing magic. No incantations, no complex hand motions. "Pick up your bed and walk." "Be clean!" The woman with the issue of blood simply touched him with faith and was healed instantly. In the feeding of the 5,000 he simply took the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, gave thanks and broke them. As for the Apostles, in Acts the lame man asking for alms at the gate of the temple is simply told: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." After Saul of Tarsus is struck blind in the aftermath of his vision of Christ, the Lord sends Ananias to him to restore his sight. He says "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." And bang he can see again. This is not ritual magic; this is power, stemming both from faith and from true authority. And every ordinance performed by priesthood power must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise -- not for whether the baptizee went all the way under, not for whether every word of the sealing ordinance was pronounced correctly, but for whether the person involved is held worthy by God of the blessings in question. We hew to the rules of how these ordinances are performed, not because of ritual magic, but because if we get all loosey goodsey about how they're done, eventually we're going to get highly complex and involved rituals that go way past the original intent of the ordinance. If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church. Is this how John the Baptist, or the Apostle Paul did it? Is this the ordinance that Paul delivered to the Corinthian saints? No, but this is what happens when the original intent of the ordinance is forgotten, and is enhanced with more and more ritual, until it becomes almost impossible for a lay priesthood to perform, and leads to a professional clergy that intentionally violates the law given to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Or, at least, it leads to a professional clergy. If the ordinances were ritual magic, all ordinances would have to be spoken in the the same language, the divine language (whatever that is). So when Paul wrote "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you," did he mean that the baptismal ordinance has to be pronounced in Koine Greek to be effective? This may be part of the reason many Catholics were scandalized that Mass was no longer celebrated in Latin. Do those who prefer Latin feel that the magic or divine language is what made it effective? Probably not. It's probably just that Latin sounds more impressive and celebratory. I find it strange to be arguing about this with a Latter-day Saint. Oh, and you might find video this amusing. It's a scene from the UK's "Yes, Prime Minister" series where the Prime Minister is discussing whom to appoint to a bishopric in the Church of England. Of course, the Monarch is technically the one who makes the appointments, but only upon the advice of the government.

Apology accepted. But you think this fixes it. It doesn't. Mentioning climate change has become nothing more than a meaningless incantation. It's like Cato the Elder ending every speech he gave in the Roman senate with: "Furthermore, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed." Or Billie Eilish: "No-one is illegal on stolen land." Nothing has changed, and Billie Eilish's mansion still sits on land taken from the Tongva people. And although Carthage was finally destroyed and its people enslaved, it wasn't because of Cato's incantation. By the same token, what would mentioning climate change in the article have accomplished? It would only have prevented the climate-obsessed from complaining about its omission. Nothing more.

English isn't arguing with me. You are. This isn't Army of Darkness with the final word of the incantation "Klaatu Barad Nikto" being pronounced incorrectly and then all hell breaks out.

I didn't miss the point. You're just trying to belabor some point, and I'm not entire sure which one, to be honest. I know it's synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual". The Catholics call several things "sacraments," including baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, and so on. We just use the word to mean that one thing, what others call the Eurcharist. Are you going to argue that it's wrong? You want more precision or something? I thought you were denigrating things taken too precisely as "incantations." Shall we exchange pedantry over all this? I was simply explaining where that came from. Like you asked in your little parenthetical. But it appears it was a rhetorical question, and you weren't interested in an answer.

It's easy enough. Sort of. The English word "sacrament" comes from church Latin sacramentum, which ultimately derives from the Latin sacer, meaning 'sacred' or 'holy'. In Ancient Rome it was the term for a soldier's oath of allegiance. 3rd-century Christian writer Tertullian suggested that the word was also a sign of initiation into the Christian community, through baptism and the Eucharist. Seems reasonable to me.

The "incantation"? You're equating priesthood ordinances to magic rituals now? And who is this weird cosmic reality you speak of?

Well, now I'm jealous! That is an awesome piece of machinery! I'm more into cinematic stuff, so it's a bit more than I need, but it would definitely be fun. If you do, make sure to post them here. Thanks!

The guy who called it "magical sacramentalism" was all "who cares, it doesn't matter" about the act of baptism itself. This is called taking Ephesians 2:8,9 and using it to throw out the baby of John 3:3-5 along with the bath water of Matthew 3:15. If you Google the phrase "christians who say baptism isn't necessary" you will find all kinds of claims that say baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Along with a few that say otherwise. This is why the term "magical sacramentalism" came into play. In the view of these folks, when Peter proclaimed in response to "Men and brethren what should we do?" that they should "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," he was being descriptive and not prescriptive. And you can get into the kingdom of God with or without it. It's just a useless symbol to some Christians and it is highly suspect. Ask a Quaker. Is it magic that baptism saves you? No, it isn't. All baptism achieves is getting wet. What saves you is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does He give you His grace if you refuse to keep His commandments? No. Did He not say you can't enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized. Indeed He did say you can't. But who cares what He said? We know better.

Oh, dang it. It was @the narrator who said that. Not you. I must have been hitting that pipe myself or something.

Heard about that. Sad. Risky sport. He's not the first one, of course. And the video above had the wingsuiter passing between the tops of trees, close enough to almost pick a twig or two. Could just as well slammed into it. You wouldn't catch me doing these things! But people die on the roads every day. People die while parachuting. And while snow skiing. Car racing. Spelunking. One of my sons was severely injured while working as a roofer. What drone is it? I have a DJI Mini 2 that I have enjoyed immensely. Used it last week to check my roof for a possible missing tile. Here's a drone footage video that I put together from various flights in England.

I think they intend the "remnant" to refer to the remnant Lamanites/Nephites.

And I fear it will continue to get less and less. Unfortunately. I still remember the days when Teancum was a defender of the faith. Sigh. But you can always come back, brother. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to say it anyway. We'd be happy to have you back. As Joseph Smith once wrote to W.W. Phelps: "Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”

Yes, much ado, but there are those with questions, and sometimes serious questions. Some questions should be answered. You could characterize it that way. It isn't, but so what, a reminder of the covenants and my commitment to keeping them is definitely in order and very appropriate. I was in the London temple yesterday, and felt a strong desire to just stay there. A refuge from the world is of great value, and that is what it is. It wasn't being viewed as new or controversial that there was a renewal of covenants. The original Quora questioner was viewing a supposed giving up of the supposed principle of temple covenant renewal as new or controversial. Again, this was on the Ex-Mormon Quora Space, so the complaint was more an attack on the church than anything else. One that I felt needed a response. I just wanted to see what others thought of the question, and possibly my response to it.

The same thought once occurred to me, as well, but I stopped worrying about it after taking on board a sentiment a Protestant once expressed to me about baptism (or, any ordinance whatsoever) as being just "magical sacramentalism." Earlier this year (2026) I flew to the US to spend some time in my house there, but managed to come down sick with something my wife and stepson had caught but I thought I had escaped. I was housebound for three weeks (lost 20 pounds!) until I flew back to the UK, and wasn't able to attend church (I didn't want to infect anyone with it). On the airplane heading back I was still not doing very well, but was not worried about the airplane going down without having been able to partake of the sacrament for three whole weeks -- actually four, because I was still sick as a dog the next Sunday as well.

There are plenty of things that are harmless in that way, I think. Including the false notion that the Book of Mormon lands are in the Heartland. Yuck, yuck, don't anyone derail the thread, please, I just couldn't help myself. 🤪 The original question was that the church was no longer teaching it, and wondering why (implying the church was changing its teachings again, dang them!). When the Apostle Paul strongly suggests that the sacrament should not be partaken of by the unworthy, and the Lord says that the unworthy need to repent before partaking, I take it that the sacrament has something to do with repentance and forgiveness, just as baptism does. When @Notatbm said that he used to worry about dying between sinning and partaking of the sacrament, it reminded me that I have thought similarly in the past. But it ought to be clear that partaking of the sacrament is not a saving ordinance, in itself. The dead who are baptized by proxy have no opportunity to partake of the sacrament after that ordinance is performed, but the baptism alone suffices for their repentance, whenever it occurred in the spirit world. I feel that the sacrament is more of an opportunity to express our continuing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and our willingness to strive to keep His commandments, rather than a touchpoint for forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from His grace, not an outward ordinance. He still desires us to partake it as opportunity occurs (D&C 20:75), and so we should strive to do so as often as possible. The sacrament prayers themselves promise only "that they may have his Spirit to be with them," not that last week's sins be forgiven.

Odd, isn't it? On the one hand, the church isn't true, and maybe God isn't even real, but on the other hand it's terrible that now somehow they won't be with their spouse, qua spouse, in the afterlife? Which is either nonexistent (according to an atheist), or there is no marriage there anyway (according to mainstream Christianity)? "How dare they kick me out of a church I don't even believe in! How dare they declare I won't be with my wife in an afterlife I have stopped believing in!"

I do spend a bit of time on Quora, which is a Q&A website. I answer a lot of questions pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are "Spaces" for particular topics, among with are a "Latter-day Saints" and an "Ex-Mormon" space. I get pinged for questions by both, though oddly enough, more Ex-Mormon than the other. And I learn some things even from the Exes. A case in point was this question: Did anyone else notice the LDS church quietly shifting the doctrine about ‘renewing covenants’? For decades they taught the sacrament renews all covenants, baptismal, temple, marriage, everything. Now leaders seem to be implying you have to go to the temple to ‘renew’ those. If doctrine is supposed to be eternal, what do you make of this change? Is it just another example of the church retrofitting theology to match current priorities, or am I missing something? Does anyone here recall this being taught before, that the Sacrament renews all other covenants? The question certainly surprised me; in my 60 years of membershipI had never heard such a thing. But while answering I picked up on something I had never thought of before. So, I'll present it, and invite comments upon it. My answer: Ah, you are definitely missing something! I don’t know where you heard that the Sacrament renews “all covenants,” because in my 60 years of membership I never heard it taught even once that the sacrament renews temple covenants. But the question does teach me something that had never entered my mind, and I thank you for it! The temple covenants are not saving ordinances, they are exalting ordinances, and they have no need of renewal, per se. On the other hand, the sacrament is a reflection of the saving ordinance called baptism, which by Christ’s atonement saves us from the consequences of our sins. For it to be continuously valid, it must be renewed because we will still sin after baptism, and must repent. This is why the Apostle Paul made it clear that if we are guilty of sin, we must not partake of it until we have repented: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. [1 Cor 11:27–29] This principle was re-emphasized to the Prophet Joseph Smith: Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation. [D&C 46:4] Now, all that being said, it is nevertheless true that without repentance, one’s baptism is invalid, and if one’s baptism is invalid, then one’s endowment is likewise invalid, because exaltation stands on the foundation of salvation, and you can’t have the building without the foundation. So, in a sense, partaking worthily of the sacrament would seem to validate our endowment in a certain sense. But as for renewing it, no. It does not do so.

Sweet! I did 8 years from 1975 to 1983, but got out as the family had expanded and we wanted a bit more stability. There were times when I wished I had stayed in. I would have retired five years or so before 9/11. My brother did 10 years in the Chair Force, but retired medically due to a service-connected disability.

I imagine you're all aware of wingsuit flying. I love watching the videos of such flights, and thought I would share. This one's from a very daring flight done in the South Tyrol. He comes insanely close to trees, the ground, and stone castles. Amazing! I hope he continues to survive these adventures!

MS has occasionally had faithful members on. As I recall, Dan Peterson was once the guest, long ago. I think the main problem is that the appearance of being official may attract someone who is investigating the church, like being taught by the missionaries, and then goes to the internet to find more information. And then gets handed information that causes confusion. There's a verse in D&C 76 that describes this... These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. (D&C 76:75) I can attest to this personally, in fact. I often assist the missionaries by participating in online lessons, where they invite me to contribute my own thoughts about what they are teaching, and to bear testimony. In one instance a couple of months ago the investigator in question said that he was going to check out a video about the church he had found but not yet watched. He named the channel, which I immediately recognized (sorry, can't remember which one it was), and cautioned him that the person behind the channel was opposed to the church and he wouldn't learn anything good. He immediately noped out of visiting that channel. The missionaries had no clue about the channel, but fortunately I did. But the point is, he thought that someone who was claiming to provide information about the church was doing so honestly. There are a number of channels on YouTube whose channel names suggest they are faithful, but they are most decidedly are not. For example, "Mormon News Roundup."

Well... Hershey's is evil chocolate. Wouldn't touch it, myself.

I wish I could be there to hear you!

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords! ROFL! I don't think there's much reason for the church to get into it, actually. What aspect of relationships with robots is worrying you?

I never paid any attention to the podcast; never watched even one of the episodes. I only said what I said because the attorney in the video stated this. I take him at his word.

I found a new LDS-related YouTube channel! Not unusual, since I hunt for these. But this one is just MUSIC! It's called Mormon Tube. Unfortunately, it is moribund -- all 26 videos were uploaded 6 years ago, but nothing since. But it's got some nice music on there. Here's the most recently uploaded, which is an hour of LDS hymn arrangements.