Damien the Leper Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 However, the Last Supper was held in a closed meeting, not among the crowds that normally followed Christ. If it was to be fully open, then why did he choose instead to limit those he was sharing it with both then and when he visited them after his death?Jesus was teaching at the Last Supper and not instituting an exclusionary rite. Communion was to be taught and shared with the body of believers who believed in Jesus and his mission of redemption.
SamIam Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 I appreciate very much your kind and eloquent observations. Indeed, today in my High Priest Group meeting I used you as an example of the kindness which was the topic of chapter 21 or our George Albert Smith manual. Thank you.My view of the General Authorities is always tempered by the realization that they are "earthen vessels" just like you and me. I hark back constantly to a day when we said "Brother Joseph" and "Brother Brigham." A day in which disagreements among the Brethren themselves were frequent and sometimes quite heated.As with the notion that the cup is half full or half empty, I realize that there are plenty of people who emphasize the hierarchical and centralized nature of the Church, while I always tend to emphasize the local and decentralized nature of that same Church. I like to call attention to the official direction we get from the Church to put families first, Church activity second. Of course I realize that they go together, and that atomism is not our objective, but I also realize that we are not to be automatons. Like Hugh Nibley, who once asked the Brethren whether he should stop writing some of his more radical, socially critical essays (they said keep on keeping on), I think we need to be more willing to speak our minds. Judiciously, of course.Thank you as well for your thoughtful observations.It is always interesting to observe how after a bit of discussion we can wade through the nuances of our particular styles of communication and actually amass sufficient sense of the others intent to grasp the commonalities of our thoughts. In your statement, "My view of the General Authorities is always tempered by the realization that they are "earthen vessels" just like you and me." you are conveying the a similar sentiment to what I intended in this statement that I made earlier: " It is not that we have to "obey" per se, but very much that our hearts, to be sincere, must at least consider upon their wisdom." Our emphasis and choice of words reflects our diverse means of perceiving the issues we discuss. I believe that were it not for a conciliatory spirit in both of our efforts the two quotes that I see as similar might remain for ever entirely void of comparative value. I, like you, am not encouraging blind obedience and an insistence to fall in line acquiescence. It is simply that that same conciliatory spirit is of value when considering upon all the council of the leaders of the Church and profitable to us in formulating our own paths of obediance. Always one who is willing to speak my mind, I must acknowledge that my observance of your more refined ability over the past year or so has exampled a better form to follow. 1
Calm Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Communion was to be taught and shared with the body of believers who believed in Jesus and his mission of redemption.And who are those believers depends on how a faith community defines them.
Damien the Leper Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 And who are those believers depends on how a faith community defines them.Legalism in faith communities should be rejected from the very beginning. Jesus dealing with the Pharisees is a prime example of his absolute rejection of any kind of legalism. Whether or not an "orthodox" Christian considers a Gnostic, an Ebionite or Patripassian to actually be "Christian" is irrelevant. If I were a Christian, I would invite anyone from the three groups of other groups to celebrate Communion.
Calm Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Is there anyone at all you would not invite to celebrate Communion? What about nonChristians who were interested in experiencing it to see what it was like?
Damien the Leper Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Is there anyone at all you would not invite to celebrate Communion? What about nonChristians who were interested in experiencing it to see what it was like?Probably not. If I were a believer, I would try my hardest to provide positive ways for individuals, believers and non-believers alike, to experience God and Jesus. If celebrating Communion was the means that drew others into deeper faith and communion with God then I would use that sacrament to help others along. Community of Christ has open Communion because for them it isn't about legalism or condition. Its about relationship and the covenant that that relationship is. Communion isn't just about renewing covenant. In fact, that is further down the line. Communion is about covenanting. I should probably stop...I don't want people thinking I'm a Christian. That would be disingenuous of me.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Why then would that BYU professor be fired from his job if he attempted to promulgate your version of the Word of Wisdom? If he taught that in class, and had made the statements you claim he made, he would have been called in for a conference with his dean. You know very well that your non-standard interpretation (though it would have been acceptable at one time) would result in loss of temple recommend.Well, obviously, it didn't. Nobody gives you a breathalyzer test during a temple recommend interview. You have to judge and make the call yourself, whether you think you have followed the Word of Wisdom. The more Pharisaic among us might answer the question differently than the rest. 1
volgadon Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Well, obviously, it didn't. Nobody gives you a breathalyzer test during a temple recommend interview. You have to judge and make the call yourself, whether you think you have followed the Word of Wisdom. The more Pharisaic among us might answer the question differently than the rest.Yes, the bolded part is very judgmental and "Pharisaic."
Robert F. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Well, obviously, it didn't. Nobody gives you a breathalyzer test during a temple recommend interview. You have to judge and make the call yourself, whether you think you have followed the Word of Wisdom. The more Pharisaic among us might answer the question differently than the rest.Can we spell heresy?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Valentinus said:Legalism in faith communities should be rejected from the very beginning. Jesus dealing with the Pharisees is a prime example of his absolute rejection of any kind of legalism. Whether or not an "orthodox" Christian considers a Gnostic, an Ebionite or Patripassian to actually be "Christian" is irrelevant. If I were a Christian, I would invite anyone from the three groups of other groups to celebrate Communion.Probably not. If I were a believer, I would try my hardest to provide positive ways for individuals, believers and non-believers alike, to experience God and Jesus. If celebrating Communion was the means that drew others into deeper faith and communion with God then I would use that sacrament to help others along. Community of Christ has open Communion because for them it isn't about legalism or condition. Its about relationship and the covenant that that relationship is. Communion isn't just about renewing covenant. In fact, that is further down the line. Communion is about covenanting.I should probably stop...I don't want people thinking I'm a Christian. That would be disingenuous of me.I don't like legalism either, and some have attempted to impose their own personal views in place of God's law -- like attempting to keep the little children away from Jesus, or treating young Joseph with contempt simply because he had the innocent temerity to pray to God.However, the existence of a covenant community (I notice that you like the word "covenant") implies some sort of boundaries, and the LDS Church is a covenant community with a well-focused purpose and tight organization dedicated to the redemption of everyone who will listen and the preparation for the Messiah's triumphant return in glory. No small matter. 1
mrmandias Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Yeah, i'd be ok with that.It would be a break down in the system and people would have made mistakes, but no one should get angry about it. It certainly wouldn't be your fault. If you go to a church and the person in charge of taking you there asks you to do something and you confirm that you have understood them correctly there is no condemnation. If you get corrected by someone else there you just change your involvement in the way that allows you to show appropriate respect.I honestly don't know if i was offered a consecrated host, though it was during mass and there were catholics and non-catholics present. We were also in New Zealand where people have a very different sensibility about this stuff.No harm no foul. God is simply not that up tight.But this person knows he's not supposed to, just as you know you that you are disrespecting institutional norms if you take communion at a Catholic or Orthodox church. Its not sinning in ignorance.
Deardorff Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Since you don't believe they actually have any authority, what does it matter? Except maybe the Catholics who believe the stuff actually becomes the flesh and blood of Christ - Holy Cannibals. Always laughed about that screwy belief.Deardorff has left the building.
Calm Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 I get from your posts that this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but some of us actually respect others' religious beliefs and that is why treating them properly matters. 2
bluebell Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Since you don't believe they actually have any authority, what does it matter? Except maybe the Catholics who believe the stuff actually becomes the flesh and blood of Christ - Holy Cannibals. Always laughed about that screwy belief.If we truly believe that Christ wants us to treat others how we want to be treated, then we cannot disrespect the holy beliefs of different religions without becoming hypocrites ourselves. 2
Calm Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Since you don't believe they actually have any authority, what does it matter? Except maybe the Catholics who believe the stuff actually becomes the flesh and blood of Christ - Holy Cannibals. Always laughed about that screwy belief.Deardorff has left the building.Thank you. 3 posts out of 13 that weren't offensive to someone did not bode well for a long time relationship, especially when there is such eagerness to ridicule someone's sacred sacraments. Edited November 17, 2012 by calmoriah
Bikeemikey Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) But this person knows he's not supposed to, just as you know you that you are disrespecting institutional norms if you take communion at a Catholic or Orthodox church. Its not sinning in ignorance.If the priest in charge says its ok then what I think I know is likely incorrect.I will ways preference the request of the officiating priest's authority over what I have heard and read in other places. I would certainly not attempt to correct or debate the priest during the ceremony. If I was asked to participate in a certain way I would. Why would I assume that my knowledge as an outsider trumps the priests credentials? Edited November 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Recommended Posts