Sacrament prayer

[halconero]

I think one of the difficulties with regards to the temple is that unlike the sacrament, the fundamental parts of the ordinances (Priesthood level, prayer, kneeling, and broken bread) of the House of the Lord were not entirely sorted out Joseph's day. Not only that, but there was indications from Joseph that it would continue to be organized. Anyone who has done any research on the temple can see the evolution of the ordinance from Nauvoo through to Utah and beyond. Not only that, but the particular portions we saw in 1990 (I'm treading carefully here, both out of respect for talking about the temple on an online forum and because of board rules) are in their fundamentals still there along with the associated covenants, despite a verbal expression explaining their meaning not being present. That raises the question of whether or not the explanation is part of the ordinance, or simply that, and explanation. The sacrament prayers are exactly that, the verbal intonation and ceremony over the symbols of Christ's body. I'm less certain about portions of the temple, wherein the endowment is a collection of ordinances accompanied by explanations, rather than one continuous ordinance. If its an explanation of the meanings of ordinances, I don't mind so much.

From what I've come to understand of previous iterations of the temple endowment, there are certainly parts that I miss despite never having participated in them, especially as I've come to adopt what some might call a more "fundamentalist" view on some doctrines. At the same time, I also don't view some all aspects of the ceremony as inherently connected to the ordinances thereof.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I'll refer to you this as a perfectly good response: Posted 3 hours ago

Isaiah 24 covers a period of some 2,000 years, and verse 5 is part of the description of the Apostasy which in timing comes prior to the Restoration described in mid-chapter which in turn prepares the world (and the saints) for the tribulations to preceded the Second Coming (as described in part in the rest of the chapter). D&C 124:45-46 is a principle that has always been in effect for "my people," and the Lord is reiterating it in these verses.

Edited August 17, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Are his hands up as he is saying the prayer?

very fun 

Yes, they are.  Both of them in fact.
And for some of the Church history the right arm to the square as in baptism was used when blessing the sacrament.  Various sources say it ended in either the 1930s or the late 1950s.  Bit before my time.

Edit to note that this picture was on public display in the Church History Museum exhibit for decades.  That's where I first saw it and asked my Dad why he had his hands up.  My Dad didn't know. 
 

Edited August 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

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. 

The Church is still God's Church as restored through Joseph.
The authority for the ordinances such as baptism still reside with the Church and only the Church.
That is why despite the places I suspect it to have gone off course I maintain my membership and association.  God can right his own ship.
And we have 1000 years to fix anything done incorrectly on the ordinance side.

[Eek!]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church is still God's Church as restored through Joseph.
The authority for the ordinances such as baptism still reside with the Church and only the Church.
That is why despite the places I suspect it to have gone off course I maintain my membership and association.  God can right his own ship.
And we have 1000 years to fix anything done incorrectly on the ordinance side.

I totally respect your point of view. 

I could easily see an aware late 2nd century AD Christian saying essentially the same thing,  And he probably would have been right to do so. 

I would have to lie about sustaining the Church's leadership as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in order to be rebaptized, and have decided against it. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I totally respect your point of view. 

I could easily see an aware late 2nd century AD Christian saying essentially the same thing,  And he probably would have been right to do so. 

I would have to lie about sustaining the Church's leadership as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in order to be rebaptized, and have decided against it. 

So you believe in Mormonism but cannot sustain or accept the Church and its current leadership because of the ways in which they are out of order?

Is that correct?

Doctrinally, do you know what that means if the "church that Joseph restored" were not on the earth with or without the pure form?
If you believe in Mormonism but that the true church is lost, you should be absolutely terrified.

[Eek!]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So you believe in Mormonism but cannot sustain or accept the Church and its current leadership because of the ways in which they are out of order?

Yes.

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Doctrinally, do you know what that means if the "church that Joseph restored" were not on the earth with or without the pure form?

No, I don't know what that means, doctrinally.  You've studied this in much more depth than I have, so please fill me in.

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If you believe in Mormonism but that the true church is lost, you should be absolutely terrified.

Maybe I'm missing something?

[Calm]

That it is all a lie because it was promised the true church would survive until Christ came again.

Or so I am guessing that is what he means.

 

[halconero]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, they are.  Both of them in fact.
And for some of the Church history the right arm to the square as in baptism was used when blessing the sacrament.  Various sources say it ended in either the 1930s or the late 1950s.  Bit before my time.

 

Reminds me of the Priestly blessing from the Kohanim, or the Sons of Aaron. Adapted by Leonard Nimoy for the Vulcan salute interestingly enough:

 

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That it is all a lie because it was promised the true church would survive until Christ came again.

I am aware of that assumption. Would you show me where that promise is actually made?  I think "CFR" is the term that's used around here. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Definitely some true origins in that religion.  If you take a look at their Sudreh and Kusti clothing and compare to Mormonism they are definitely from the same school of thought.  No surprise considering it is one of the oldest religions.  (But I'm sure Joseph just borrowed from them like he borrowed from the masons...not).

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I am aware of that assumption.  Can you show me where such a promise is actually made?  I think "CFR" is the term that's used around here. 

Last time the sealing keys and apostleship will be restored to earth

D&C 112 -30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,
31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;
32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you.

What happens if they are lost

D&C 2:1 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

So yeah, if the priesthood authority and ordinances that were restored through Joseph Smith are no longer with the Church we are doomed.  Fortunately that is not going to happen.  The Church may be out of order in a few things but there will never be another restoration - just a course correction prior to the Savior's return.
 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That it is all a lie because it was promised the true church would survive until Christ came again.

Or so I am guessing that is what he means.

Not familiar with any promise that the organization called the  "Church" will survive till the second coming, but the priesthood authority held by the Apostles will.  Another restoration will not happen but a setting in order will. 

D&C 112:24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
 

[Eek!]

51 minutes ago, Eek! said:

oops... "quoted" when I meant to "edit".

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Definitely some true origins in that religion.  If you take a look at their Sudreh and Kusti clothing and compare to Mormonism they are definitely from the same school of thought.  No surprise considering it is one of the oldest religions.  (But I'm sure Joseph just borrowed from them like he borrowed from the masons...not).

I am pretty certain that it represents an apostasy from an older dispensation we do not yet know about.

They are very close on certain temple topics.

The Magi of the NT were- arguably- Zoroastrian wise men who know of prophecies about the savior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

AND as you allude, jokingly there are those who believe that the religion was the origin of Christianity.

"The SUN of righteousness with healing in His wings" coheres very nicely with Zoroastrianism and their understanding of Ahura Mazda, their God of the Sun.

[Eek!]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Last time the sealing keys and apostleship will be restored to earth

D&C 112 -30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,
31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;
32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you.

This is not an explicit promise that the Church is sufficiently infallible that all we need do is follow the Brethren.  Not trying to put words into your mouth, those are my words. 

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What happens if they are lost

D&C 2:1 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

The way I read it, it is the turning of the hearts of the children to the fathers that saves the whole earth from being utterly wasted at his coming.  But even if it is the Priesthood that saves the whole earth, I still see no guarantee here that the Church is sufficiently infallible that all we need do is follow the Brethren. 

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not familiar with any promise that the organization called the  "Church" will survive till the second coming, but the priesthood authority held by the Apostles will.  Another restoration will not happen but a setting in order will. 

I don't have a problem with that.   

Joseph Smith said, "Truth is Mormonism. God is the author of it.”  That is the version of Mormonism I would subscribe to.  And I think a lot of it has been rejected by the current Church leadership, either officially or unofficially.  

Edited August 18, 2016 by Eek!

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Joseph Smith said, "Truth is Mormonism. God is the author of it.”  That is the version of Mormonism I would subscribe to.

Careful...you'll end up joining a fundamentalist group.  (I've been warned on occasion I sound too fundamentalist myself).
Authority matters - without the ordinances our progress is halted.

Quote

This is not an explicit promise that the Church is sufficiently infallible that all we need do is follow the Brethren. 

But even if it is the Priesthood that saves the whole earth, I still see no guarantee here that the Church is sufficiently infallible that all we need do is follow the Brethren. 

Nobody is arguing infallibility (least of all me).  My point is that to leave the restored Church for nothing is a path to nowhere.  There can be no new restoration or dispensation of authority.  Without the restored priesthood and ordinances we cannot be saved.
To me that leaves only one option - wait for God to fix his Church and have faith.

Edited August 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Eek!]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Careful...you'll end up joining a fundamentalist group.  (I've been warned on occasion I sound too fundamentalist myself).
Authority matters - without the ordinances our progress is halted.

I do want to thank you for your in-depth reply above.

As for joining a fundamentalist group, I have briefly lived among two such groups but did not join either of them.  The people I encountered had a lot on the ball for the most part, but each group had some tenets that went against my soul and so I thanked them for their time and hospitality and moved on.  

In one of the groups, the two highest-ranking Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the room were the ones who blessed the Sacrament, standing with palms up, faces upturned, powerfully reciting from memory rather than stumbling through reading from a card, and the Sacrament was passed by High Priests. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody is arguing infallibility (least of all me).  My point is that to leave the restored Church for nothing is a path to nowhere.  There can be no new restoration or dispensation of authority.  Without the restored priesthood and ordinances we cannot be saved.
To me that leaves only one option - wait for God to fix his Church and have faith.

So much opens up to you when Truth is your Mormonism, rather than the other way around!  God has not been virtually silent these past hundred seventy-something years since Joseph Smith.  He has spoken to many people in many places, as He said He would in the Book of Mormon.  Armed with a background in Alma Chapter 32, and knowing how to follow the Spirit, go see what's out there!   This is not against your religion:  "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”  Joseph Smith.

As to whether the ordinances are necessary, I can understand your perspective.  It is pretty much exactly what I used to believe.  And you may well be right.  I am attempting to follow the highest that I know, and at this time, the highest that I know does not tell me that it's all about the ordinances.   At this time, I believe it's more about what kind of person I am becoming than about what kind of ordinances I have received.  "A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."  But I could be wrong. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Eek!

[halconero]

I think where the ordinances come into play as they pertain to knowledge is their connection to mysteries. The Mysteries of Heaven have always been associated with the rites, rituals, vows, covenants, and ceremonies of the Kingdom, having their root in the New Testament Greek word for "initiated doctrines." We know that Brigham Young taught that the endowment is what Jesus was talking about when he said that these were the mysteries of godliness, and the means whereby we come to know (to know personally, not just to know of) God the Father and Jesus, and thereby have eternal life. Ordinances are how knowledge/mysteries are both communicated and solemnized by covenant. I agree with JLHPROF in that without the keys in their proper order, with the majority of the Twelve and the Records of the Church as Joseph taught, we are lost. As for why we have been more reticent to teach certain doctrines prevalent in the early portion of the Church, I do not fault the Church leadership for that. Reading on the transition in doctrine and public teaching that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries I believe the fault to lie with the Church members in general in their inability to live up fully and righteously to both demanding doctrines and demanding covenants. 

Some myight equate that to full blown apostasy, wherein the keys have been lost, but I do not. That entails a rejection of the priesthood keys. In all other instances where the people have rejected the doctrines and practices of the Kingdom, without necessarily rejecting its prophets, the Lord hasn't withdrawn his keys, but instead obscured his plainer doctrines and given the people lesser laws. Examples would include of course the Law of Moses, but also the Nephite rule by kings and the prohibition against plural marriage, the introduction of the law of tithing in Joseph's day, etc. In a very simplistic way it looks something like this:

1) Acceptance of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Acceptance and Righteous living of Laws and Doctrines = Wide access to higher covenants and principles

2) Acceptance of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Rejection or Unrighteous living of Laws and Doctrines = Giving of lesser/more easily kept covenants and principles (an act of mercy really)

3) Rejection of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Rejection or Unrighteous Living of Laws and Doctrines = General Apostasy of the Church

Edited August 18, 2016 by halconero

[halconero]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am pretty certain that it represents an apostasy from an older dispensation we do not yet know about.

They are very close on certain temple topics.

The Magi of the NT were- arguably- Zoroastrian wise men who know of prophecies about the savior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

AND as you allude, jokingly there are those who believe that the religion was the origin of Christianity.

"The SUN of righteousness with healing in His wings" coheres very nicely with Zoroastrianism and their understanding of Ahura Mazda, their God of the Sun.

I would agree. We know that the Melchezidek Priesthood continued outside the Israelite line for a time, both with Balaam, Jethro, the Jaredites, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there were pockets around the world that all eventually fell into apostasy.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

 As for why we have been more reticent to teach certain doctrines prevalent in the early portion of the Church, I do not fault the Church leadership for that. Reading on the transition in doctrine and public teaching that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries I believe the fault to lie with the Church members in general in their inability to live up fully and righteously to both demanding doctrines and demanding covenants.

Dingdingding...exactly right!
Although given that most of the current leadership were called long after many of these transitions occurred I am not sure how much is being withheld and how much is no longer studied and understood at all.  Some of each I would think.

Quote

1) Acceptance of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Acceptance and Righteous living of Laws and Doctrines = Wide access to higher covenants and principles

2) Acceptance of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Rejection or Unrighteous living of Laws and Doctrines = Giving of lesser/more easily kept covenants and principles (an act of mercy really)

3) Rejection of the Priesthood keys and leadership of the Prophets + Rejection or Unrighteous Living of Laws and Doctrines = General Apostasy of the Church

I like this, and believe we are firmly entrenched in #2.  And personally I don't believe #3 will ever happen.

[halconero]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Dingdingding...exactly right!
Although given that most of the current leadership were called long after many of these transitions occurred I am not sure how much is being withheld and how much is no longer studied and understood at all.  Some of each I would think.

I like this, and believe we are firmly entrenched in #2.  And personally I don't believe #3 will ever happen.

I would expect the same, a mix of both. I've had private and intimate conversations with church leadership that would indicate an acceptance of currently withheld doctrines (if not their practice...I'm not going to go around making up untrue speculation on the secret polygamous scandals of General Authorities), though not necessarily a universal acceptance. Nothing particularly new really, look at the discussions and councils of the Primitive Church. I mean...look at what Gordon B. Hinckley said about Brigham's remarks regarding Adam in the 90's. It wasn't exactly a rabid condemnation of Brigham. In fact, I suspect that many of the strongest condemnations of doctrine are more indicative of the Lord prohibiting his servants from sharing it.

I would agree with you on #2, and that #3 will never happen again on the earth. I suspect that in the coming years and times we will see the Church membership put through a variety of pressures which will polarize them to both ends of the spectrum. I'm one of those who believes that the reintroduction of certain principles and doctrines isn't a feature of the Millennium, but actually necessary as a prelude to it. Not that I don't have difficulties my personal acceptance of certain doctrines, but certainly not with their truthfulness and necessity.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm not going to go around making up untrue speculation on the secret polygamous scandals of General Authorities

Well...maybe untrue. 

Quote

 I'm one of those who believes that the reintroduction of certain principles and doctrines isn't a feature of the Millennium, but actually necessary as a prelude to it.

Me too!
 

Quote

...look at what Gordon B. Hinckley said about Brigham's remarks regarding Adam in the 90's. It wasn't exactly a rabid condemnation of Brigham. In fact, I suspect that many of the strongest condemnations of doctrine are more indicative of the Lord prohibiting his servants from sharing it.

Whoa.  Suggesting GBH was secretly a believer in Adam-God.  Now THAT'S speculation.

[halconero]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Well...maybe untrue. 

Me too!
 

Whoa.  Suggesting GBH was secretly a believer in Adam-God.  Now THAT'S speculation.

"Suggesting" is probably a bit strong. Just not as opposed as some authorities (I'm sure we can think of a few):

"We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that." Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he (Gordon B. Hinckley) said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about what he said about those things." - Interview with the New Yorker