There is no Christ, in the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Another thing I have observed about those who complain that Christ is neglected in our meetings is that the complainers are often of the mindset of wanting to hear more about Christ's mercy and love, but they don't have much use for or interest in discourse about keeping Christ's commandments. They are apt to throw around the term "Christlike," implying by that descriptor tolerance and love but not so much Christ's requirement of personal righteousness and integrity.

If one wants to hear more about Christ, he should be prepared to receive the whole message, not just portions of it excluding anything in the way of  exhortation to righteousness or calling to repentance.

This is a corollary to the pop-culture "love wins" mentality that Ralph Hancock, one of the speakers at last summer's FairMormon conference, talked about.

James in his epistle defined pure religion as both serving the needy and keeping oneself unspotted from the world. I do believe that both are included in pure Christianity and discipleship. Personal purity is essential to developing true Christlike love.

Edited to add:

When the scriptures are quoted relative to one of the prominent commandments -- Word of Wisdom, tithing, Sabbath observance, law of chastity -- loving and serving God and one's neighbor -- it is apt to be the words of Christ that are quoted, be it Christ as God of the Old Testament, Christ in His mortal ministry or Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of times. When the Doctrine and Covenants is read, it is almost always the direct words of Christ.

When the focus is on family history research and temple work, it is in fulfillment of the commandment of Christ to be saviors on Mount Zion and to bring salvation to the dead, thus fulfilling the plan of salvation.

When there is discussion of Church history and the pioneer heritage in the Church, it is part of the broader context of the restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel in the latter days in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ.

 

 

Not me, on your first paragraph's hypothesis. I want to hear more about His teachings in the Bible, and about His life. I've read that other churches spend a lot of time on specific scriptures about His life and really dissect them. 

[mnn727]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

The problem is that the sacrament is the main purpose for the worship service, yet we worry about the talks not being sufficiently Christ centered?

Then why even have 'talks'? lets have the Sacrament and then close out that meeting and go to Sunday School - at least there we discuss Scripture every week.

And no I am not on my way out, not looking for an excuse, just getting sick of pathetic boring talks about pioneers or family history with no mention of why we do/did what we do/did.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

To me, it is about seeing how people are personalizing their faith and it just works better for me if it is explicit instead of needing me to fill in major gaps.  The primary purpose in life in my understanding is to seek God and help others do the same, it makes sense to me therefore to frame what we speak about in those terms so that others can benefit from our example of seeking out God.

The weekly rituals of the sacrament, prayers and hymns provide a great skeleton on which to flesh out our worship with the muscle of personal connection (can't decide if I am going for a medical analogy or a Halloween one).  Why settle for the bare bones approach when we can have much more.

Valid...I grew up in the home of Baptist Minister, so my father gave me advanced instruction. At the age of 11, I began taking Bible corespondence courses. For many years I read all the scriptures through, over and over. I do fill the gaps, and my hear things differently, as when a scripture is read, I have either looked up or thought of many others during that sermon. But, at others times I wonder if people are seeing or hearing what I do each week. It is true that many talks are difficult to get through, or to even identify the topic, but I just try to remember when it was me doing the same, and I pray for those who are trying to do their best. More importantly, our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ seated on his right hand guiding his Church are doing the same, while the Holy Ghost is trying to aid the speaker and feel in the gaps for those who are listening. It is all a all a common relationship, in an effort to benefit all, so that all my be enlightened. 

I fear that too many are just sitting in judgement thinking they could do better, and as scripture points out, "with what manor (or is it "manner") Ye judge, so shall Ye be judged". This I pray no one endure, let us all be charitable towards those those in our Ward and Stake famIlies. I always forgive any error, as I too wish too wish to be forgiven. 

 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Then why even have 'talks'? lets have the Sacrament and then close out that meeting and go to Sunday School - at least there we discuss Scripture every week.

And no I am not on my way out, not looking for an excuse, just getting sick of pathetic boring talks about pioneers or family history with no mention of why we do/did what we do/did.

The most important is to partake of the Sacrament and have our sins remitted, but the songs are prayers to God. The talks are important, to remind us and draw us closer to Christ. Most importantly, to draw the speaking first closer to Jesus Christ, and then those listening. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

How did you conduct this study, and how far back did you go? According to this article, Jesus shows up in the latter conferences but hardly a mention in the early church. And it may be because of the below remark.

http://religionnews.com/2016/03/04/jesus-less-joseph-changes-mormon-general-conference/

Gordon: We interpret that by saying that the Church is concerned about how it is perceived by others who are not LDS. They want to reinforce the idea that Mormonism is a staunch Christian religion, and the Book of Mormon doesn’t support that with critics. It’s a scripture that they don’t recognize as genuine or valid.

This is part of the overall de-emphasis of certain kinds of teachings and doctrines that are peculiar to Mormonism. There’s been a decline in mentioning specifically Mormon ideas of salvation, like exaltation and the Celestial Kingdom. Those are core Mormon theological beliefs, but they don’t get referenced very often at General Conference, especially in the last 30 years.

I guess I didn't make it clear, though I thought I had, that it was just one conference I studied (I don't recall which one) and that I went to the lds.org website and counted each occurrence of the name of Christ -- or some variation thereof -- in the conference sermons. l likewise counted each mention of Joseph Smith and compared the two.

I didn't count multiple conferences going back several years; that would have taken more time than I have. I assumed the one I selected would have been typical.

The accusation, as I recall, pertained to contemporary conferences, not to "the early church."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Not me, on your first paragraph's hypothesis. I want to hear more about His teachings in the Bible, and about His life. I've read that other churches spend a lot of time on specific scriptures about His life and really dissect them. 

But other churches don't have what we have in terms of latter-day revelation and the understanding to be derived therefrom. As I mentioned earlier, whether one is willing to recognize it or not, the bulk of the Doctrine and Covenants contains the direct words of Christ as pertaining to establishing His church and kingdom in latter days. When it is read or quoted from, it needs to be viewed with that understanding.

Likewise, family history and temple work, pioneer heritage, etc. all stem from the commandments of Christ specifically to those of us living in latter days.

The Book of Mormon, which came forth in latter days, is "another testament of Jesus Christ" and contains important accounts about and instruction from Him that supplement what's in the Bible.

Christ's teachings in the Bible are important, but so are His teachings given in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The most important is to partake of the Sacrament and have our sins remitted, but the songs are prayers to God. The talks are important, to remind us and draw us closer to Christ. Most importantly, to draw the speaking first closer to Jesus Christ, and then those listening. 

Well said.

The talks are an important element in the spirit of emulating what is in Moroni 6:5-6:

Quote

 

5 And the ^achurch did meet together ^boft, to ^cfast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.

 6 And they did ^ameet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in ^bremembrance of the Lord Jesus.

 

 

[Boanerges]

A couple years ago our stake president said in the Sunday stake conference session that every sacrament meeting talk should be focused on the Savior. He didn't say they all had to be explicitly about Christ but he said whatever topic we are given we should add something like "come closer to the Savior through...." And he gave some examples, such as using times when Christ healed people as examples when giving a talk about priesthood or blessings.

The next conference an area authority came and in his Sunday talk he spoke about a well known person who was a friend of his and whom he had tried to get to come to church for many years. One Sunday the guy agreed, and he and another well known member went with him. He said there were only two talks, a husband and wife, and the topic was preparedness. After the meeting his friend told him he now understood why people say Mormons aren't Christian and his friend never attended LDS church again. Our Area Authority visitor then said that by all means we should be prepared - but that was not an appropriate topic for sacrament meeting and would be better suited to priesthood and Relief Society meetings. He explicitly said, more directly than our stake president had said, that all talks should be about the Savior. He then went on talking for a few minutes about why it's called sacrament meeting, and the whole purpose of the meeting was to remember the Savior, and therefore all talks should point us directly toward Christ. He also counseled bishoprics to only assign topics related to Jesus Christ.

I don't think my stake or ward is all that unusual, and I do travel from time to time and have experienced other wards where mentions of the Savior outside of hymns, prayers, and the sacrament is nonexistent. I'm glad my stake president and this area authority also noticed and are concerned enough that they spoke out about it.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Likewise, family history and temple work, pioneer heritage, etc. all stem from the commandments of Christ specifically to those of us living in latter days.

Exactly, which is why it should be pretty easy to work Him in, right?  And if we forget to work Him in (as can easily happen), then that's something that should be remedied and worked on.  Especially when we consider that nonmembers and less active members don't always make the connection between family history and Christ on their own, for example, and so can very easily leave such a meeting feeling like Christ wasn't as present as He should have been.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

A couple years ago our stake president said in the Sunday stake conference session that every sacrament meeting talk should be focused on the Savior. He didn't say they all had to be explicitly about Christ but he said whatever topic we are given we should add something like "come closer to the Savior through...." And he gave some examples, such as using times when Christ healed people as examples when giving a talk about priesthood or blessings.

The next conference an area authority came and in his Sunday talk he spoke about a well known person who was a friend of his and whom he had tried to get to come to church for many years. One Sunday the guy agreed, and he and another well known member went with him. He said there were only two talks, a husband and wife, and the topic was preparedness. After the meeting his friend told him he now understood why people say Mormons aren't Christian and his friend never attended LDS church again. Our Area Authority visitor then said that by all means we should be prepared - but that was not an appropriate topic for sacrament meeting and would be better suited to priesthood and Relief Society meetings. He explicitly said, more directly than our stake president had said, that all talks should be about the Savior. He then went on talking for a few minutes about why it's called sacrament meeting, and the whole purpose of the meeting was to remember the Savior, and therefore all talks should point us directly toward Christ. He also counseled bishoprics to only assign topics related to Jesus Christ.

I don't think my stake or ward is all that unusual, and I do travel from time to time and have experienced other wards where mentions of the Savior outside of hymns, prayers, and the sacrament is nonexistent. I'm glad my stake president and this area authority also noticed and are concerned enough that they spoke out about it.

It would be interesting if some of the posters on this thread would feel comfortable saying to the Stake president and area authority the same things they have said here to posters who claimed that sometimes our sacrament meetings are not focused on Christ enough.

Would they accuse those men of being complainers or just looking for a way out of the church (or not wanting to hear about keeping the commandments), as they have accused some of the posters here?  

I know you can't answer that, but it's interesting to wonder about.  Thanks for sharing this experience.  I think it will help those who have expressed similar sentiments to see that the problem does not lie with them, as some posters have tried to convince them of.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly, which is why it should be pretty easy to work Him in, right?  And if we forget to work Him in (as can easily happen), then that's something that should be remedied and worked on.  Especially when we consider that nonmembers and less active members don't always make the connection between family history and Christ on their own, for example, and so can very easily leave such a meeting feeling like Christ wasn't as present as He should have been.

I agree the connection should be made clear. In my experience, it usually is -- particularly in general Church gatherings, such as general conferences (and, as I have indicated, this is pretty easy to measure, as the conference proceedings are archived on line). As far as local meetings, I can only speak of my own ward and stake; I presume that's the case with most of us.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As far as local meetings, I can only speak of my own ward and stake; I presume that's the case with most of us.

It is, so it's probably a good idea, when someone does share what happens in their ward, not to think that it not happening in our's has any bearing on whether or not their complaint is valid.

[BlueDreams]

I don't know. When I first read this it was right before stake conference. They had a number of lay member speakers and the stake presidency spoke. It went our stake clerk who has ALS sharing his testimony about the Lord and his blessing in his life through thick and thin. An African covert talking of surrendering his will to the Lord and doing whatever was needed to fill it. And a younger woman who talked of struggling with the ramifications of having an eating disorder and having a dream where she saw her life as a sphere where Christ needed to be at the center or it would all fall apart and that she currently had 2 other concerns fighting for center and needed to choose. So yesterday was plenty Christ-centered in my spot. So are most the meetings I pay attention to. 

I'm sure that there are meetings that focus on specific aspects of the gospel that aren't directly Christ oriented or can miss pointing to Christ. Suh as pioneer lessons, WOW, specific lessons in Sunday school, lessons from the presidents manual, etc. and I'm sure there are wards that consistently don't place Christ as central in our worship. 

But the sense that this is a widespread problem may not be as accurately. And the generalization that Christ isn't in our worship, church, or is replaced by JS are absolutely false IMO. But we are an action oriented people as well. I remember one (or three) lessons talking about patience and the comment that someone would inevitably make that patience doesn't mean we just wait and not do something...when sometimes that is exactly what it means. It always would make me chuckle. Likewise that actions orientation can effect how we talk about Christ. I find that much of the discussion is on immediate application to our lives, the enabling power of the atonement, etc. I think Tacenda's thought about focusing on his earthly life and teachings in mortality would be accurate. That come once every four years. 

I personally don't know if that's what I would want though, personally. I prefer pragmatic application over general history lessons from other lay member. If there's and expert who's studied this out and wants to give a special presentation on the historical Christ - cool! But on a Sunday level, I like having a diverse focus because everything travels in a circle and ties back into the central point of Christ. 

I also don't know if I just lucked out. I don't remember church much before 14. And by then I was in a ward that was in the midst of the Bible Belt. Plenty was Christ centered and it was probably in part because you HAD to know who we worshipped or others would tell us for you. It also does give me a vicseral reaction because it takes me back to those days where there was sometimes no way to prove you really did believe in the Christ of the NT and not a false Christ. In college I don't remember feeling such as well In whatever ward I was in. So though the critique may have some veracity I do feel that it's overused at times as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting if some of the posters on this thread would feel comfortable saying to the Stake president and area authority the same things they have said here to posters who claimed that sometimes our sacrament meetings are not focused on Christ enough.

 

If you're referring to me, I would feel perfectly comfortable having my stake president or Area Seventy see any one of the posts i have made in this thread on this publicly accessible message board. And I would point out that I'm one of the few here who post under their real names.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It is, so it's probably a good idea, when someone does share what happens in their ward, not to think that it not happening in our's has any bearing on whether or not their complaint is valid.

I don't see that I have done that. I have done what others have done, which is to give personal observation.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're referring to me, I would feel perfectly comfortable having my stake president or Area Seventy see any one of the posts i have made in this thread. And I would point out that I'm one of the few here who post under their real names.

I don't doubt that, but that wasn't my question.  My question was whether or not you would feel comfortable telling Boanerges Area Seventy that he is a complainer, etc. because he expressed the idea that our sacrament meetings can sometimes improve in their focus on Christ.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see that I have done that. I have done what others have done, which is to give personal observation.

 

A few of your words-

"Another thing I have observed about those who complain that Christ is neglected in our meetings is that the complainers are often of the mindset of wanting to hear more about Christ's mercy and love, but they don't have much use for or interest in discourse about keeping Christ's commandments. They are apt to throw around the term "Christlike," implying by that descriptor tolerance and love but not so much Christ's requirement of personal righteousness and integrity."

Those are not the words of someone who sees the 'complainers' issues as valid.  They are instead examples of why the complaint likely isn't valid.

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess I didn't make it clear, though I thought I had, that it was just one conference I studied (I don't recall which one) and that I went to the lds.org website and counted each occurrence of the name of Christ -- or some variation thereof -- in the conference sermons. l likewise counted each mention of Joseph Smith and compared the two.

I didn't count multiple conferences going back several years; that would have taken more time than I have. I assumed the one I selected would have been typical.

The accusation, as I recall, pertained to contemporary conferences, not to "the early church."

You're right!

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't doubt that, but that wasn't my question.  My question was whether or not you would feel comfortable telling Boanerges Area Seventy that he is a complainer, etc. because he expressed the idea that our sacrament meetings can sometimes improve in their focus on Christ.

Of course not. I don't know anything about his sacrament meetings or their content. I don't even know Boanerges.

What an odd question.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A few of your words-

"Another thing I have observed about those who complain that Christ is neglected in our meetings is that the complainers are often of the mindset of wanting to hear more about Christ's mercy and love, but they don't have much use for or interest in discourse about keeping Christ's commandments. They are apt to throw around the term "Christlike," implying by that descriptor tolerance and love but not so much Christ's requirement of personal righteousness and integrity."

Those are not the words of someone who sees the 'complainers' issues as valid.  They are instead examples of why the complaint likely isn't valid.

Then you have misunderstood me. I didn't mean this observation to apply universally. That's why I used the word "often," meaning that it isn't always the case.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you have misunderstood me. I didn't mean this observation to apply universally. That's why I used the word "often," meaning that it isn't always the case.

I'm glad that i have misunderstood you.  I don't think i'm the only one who has.  It might help if you say something like 'sometimes the complaints are completely warranted though' so you're more easily understood as not trying to make it seem like they never are.

I hope that i've misunderstood other posters who have made similar-sounding claims. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm glad that i have misunderstood you.  I don't think i'm the only one who has.  It might help if you say something like 'sometimes the complaints are completely warranted though' so you're more easily understood as not trying to make it seem like they never are. 

As a show of good faith, I have added the following sentence to the post to which you refer:

Quote

I acknowledge that in some instances the complaints may have been completely warranted.

I slightly altered your wording, substituting the phrase "may have been" for the word "are," to reflect the fact that in instances outside my personal observation, I have no way of knowing whether the complaint was warranted or not.

Quote

I hope that i've misunderstood other posters who have made similar-sounding claims.

I, of course, can't speak for others.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Church talks can follow waves of influence. For a while there may be undue influence with pioneers. Then there may be a switch to prophets. Then there may be an emphasis on the WoW or tithing or some other doctrine. An outsider attending during one of these waves could be forgiven if he assumed that was all the church ever talked about.

 Short of the Bishop standing at the beginning of each sacrament meeting and shouting the name of Christ three times, some will always say we don't speak of the Savior enough.

As for the closing phrase of our prayers, sure it can be automatic just like partaking of the sacrament. We are supposed to be thinking about Christ and our covenant renewal. I'm going out on a limb here and say, such is not always the case. The problem is that the sacrament is the main purpose for the worship service, yet we worry about the talks not being sufficiently Christ centered?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me WHY Christ is supposed to be mentioned more than he already is and WHERE Christ required this of us?
The sacrament fulfills his requirements from scripture to remember him.
I don't see any requirement to spend our Sundays praising Christ.  He seemed much more concerned about our praying to the Father, and keeping his commandments.

[Gray]

I guess it depends on what you're used to. I think some people who come from other traditions are used to the focal point of just about every sermon being Jesus. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I guess it depends on what you're used to. I think some people who come from other traditions are used to the focal point of just about every sermon being Jesus.

This is it exactly.

But that is not the Mormon tradition.  And why should it be?