Scriptural Support of Worthiness Interviews

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Yes there are no there aren't LOL

Agreed

[Tacenda]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I understand the author's discomfort with the public nature of non-participation in the sacrament, and I agree with that problem.  But I disagree that we are all unworthy and I find that characterization of our inherent position with respect to God antithetical a core principle of the nature of us as humans and the universe that we are a part of.  

I personally like to think that we are all worthy, that there is inherent good, and life within everyone.  

The unworthy comment is probably stemming from the EV stance. I think compared to Jesus, we're all unworthy, thanks for your comment and helping me to clarify my meaning. 

[smac97]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Quote

Personal revelation that conflicts with the scriptures and those in authority.

I've said my piece.  You must do what you think it right.  I hope you grant the same dispensation to others.

I do Smac, I'm just in this place right now, that I'm very suspcious with mortals right now. Thanks for being patient and not getting too sick of me and still replying.

I think I understand.  I have spent the last fourteen years as a litigation attorney in Utah and Salt Lake counties.  I have also spent many years in a bishopric and, before that, on the stake High Council.  I've been involved in dozens of disciplinary counsels.  I regularly see Mormons at their worst.  Dishonesty.  Infidelity.  Neglect.  Abuse.  Pride.  

But then, I often see them at their best, too.  Faith.  Love.  Selfless service.  Hard work.  Humor.  Decency.  Everyday kindness.  Honesty.  Humility.  Penitence.

In the end, I take great comfort in Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

We are all of us sinners.  I am grateful that we have the Restored Gospel in our lives.

I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quite right.  But then, there are times when there is not enough "judging" in Mormonism, wouldn't you say?  Witness the recent scandal involving Joseph Bishop, which includes a bishop to whom allegations of abuse was reported, but who failed to report those allegations to law enforcement or to the Church.  There are also allegations that Elder Asay knew, but did nothing.  There are also allegations and Elder Wells knew, and did nothing. 

The second biggest grievance in the Joseph Bishop matter (second to the alleged misconduct itself) is that ecclesiastical leaders failed to act when made aware of the allegations.  In other words, a lack of "judging."

Great counter point, I couldn't agree more.  Thanks for pointing this out.  

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That is what I am trying to understand.  I'd like to "honestly examine" this with you.  Perhaps we could start with my question: What, in your view, are bishops supposed to "judge?"

Its a good question.  In the early church Edward Partridge and early bishops were responsible for temporal welfare only.  Perhaps, they could judge the needs of people in the ward from a temporal perspective and judge who's needs are greatest and prioritize the resources accordingly.  I think from a spiritual welfare perspective perhaps judgement about when to attempt assistance and what other talents and skills within the spiritual reservoir of the ward might be of help to unique needs of the members.  Both temporal and spiritual judgement of this kind would require a great deal of discernment and wisdom.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

What about people who are in the midst of some great sin, and unrepentantly so?  A man in the midst of adulterous affair?  A woman who has been coercing her infirm grandmother into signing over money and property?  A former missionary who, prior to serving his mission, got a girl pregnant and then pressured her into getting an abortion?

Do you approve of these people doing what you propose for yourself?  Taking the Sacrament, even when instructed not to by the bishop?

Thanks,

-Smac

To me, I believe it can be especially needed for people that have sinned.

I quite agree.  The same goes for attending the temple.  This is why we aspire to these things.  This is why these things have value.  Because we have taken steps to sanctify ourselves, through repentance and participating in sacred ordinances.

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As Elder Uchtdorf has mentioned, everyone sins differently. I believe the Sacrament is about the Atonement. The guy pressuring someone to get an abortion, and isn't after forgiveness may be a different story, many variables I guess. I'm just feeling for those that need the sacrament in their lives I guess.

I quite agree with you.  We all need it.  It's part of the Atonement.  But then, so is repentance.  And obedience.  And humility.  And - to some extent - worthiness.  I think there can be circumstances when a person is not, (an unrepentant and ongoing adulterer, or thief, or fornicator-who-pressured-someone-into-getting-an-abortion-to-cover-up-his-sin, etc.).  The scriptures plainly contemplate such a situation, and expressly forbid the taking of the Sacrament under those circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

@Dando, so we have scriptures that refer to the Lord’s servants (‘judges” which has been translated for the Bible from the Hebrew words for ruler, governor, presiding authority, official, military official etc.) 1) receiving confessions for baptism, 2) determining what is clean and unclean for entering the temple, 3) determining worthiness for the sacrament, 4) using recommends and certificates to vouch for “good standing” in Church jurisdictions, 5) conducting group interviews, 6) establish regulations for determining worthiness and membership; and that show the different contexts of the word “worthiness” in relation to what falls solely under God’s purview and what falls within the stewardship of His servants.

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Quote

What about people who are in the midst of some great sin, and unrepentantly so?  A man in the midst of adulterous affair?  A woman who has been coercing her infirm grandmother into signing over money and property?  A former missionary who, prior to serving his mission, got a girl pregnant and then pressured her into getting an abortion?

Do you approve of these people doing what you propose for yourself?  Taking the Sacrament, even when instructed not to by the bishop?

It is neither yours or Tacenda's call...it is between these people and God..

But that's my point.  It's not exclusively "between these people and God."  See 3 Nephi 18 and Mormon 9.  

I agree that it's not my "call."  I was speaking in the abstract, and not presuming to judge anyone not within my stewardship.

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

and they understand the perils of their sins in your religion as taught..so let them drink damnation to their souls..

With respect, I disagree.  You are not accounting for Mormon 9:31:

Quote

See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out.

And 3 Nephi 18 (emphases added):

Quote

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

I hope you take these passages into account.

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

it is still...not your call.  Unless it has to do with the laws of the land..it is not your call.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

What, in your view, are bishops supposed to "judge?"

It's a good question.  In the early church Edward Partridge and early bishops were responsible for temporal welfare only. 

Yes.  And now, nearly 200 years later, circumstances have changed a bit.  But temporal welfare is still a big part of our mandate.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps, they could judge the needs of people in the ward from a temporal perspective and judge who's needs are greatest and prioritize the resources accordingly. 

Don't bishops already do that?  Bishops regularly authorize distribution of church funds (for rent, utilities, car repairs, etc.), food orders (Bishop's Storehouse), commodities orders (Deserest Industries), employment assistance, and so on.

Bishops must exercise discretion and judgment in handling such temporal affairs.  I agree with you.

But what I'm not following is why bishops are simultaneously precluded from exercising discretion and judgment in handling spiritual matters.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think from a spiritual welfare perspective perhaps judgement about when to attempt assistance and what other talents and skills within the spiritual reservoir of the ward might be of help to unique needs of the members.  Both temporal and spiritual judgement of this kind would require a great deal of discernment and wisdom.  

Indeed.  And the Church is working hard to facilitate both.  Our ward's bishop went to a training with Elder Andersen a few months ago, during which Elder Anderson gave some good guidelines about providing assistance.  I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that our bishop came out of the meeting with a great desire to be generous, to err on the side of generosity and kindness, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Honest question, why does there need to be a gatekeeper to judge things for temple attendance?  What is the reasoning behind that.  I'm questioning the assumptions that you're starting with.  

Anciently, the temple gatekeepers guarded the treasures, ensured order and reverence for God’s house, and ensured the proper conduct of all temple business. This is found in several Old Testament references*. There is temporal and spiritual significance in this role, as there is today in the Restored Church.

*EDIT: David and Samuel appointed 212 gatekeepers for “positions of trust” in guarding the temple (1 Chronicles 9:22) with week-long assignments (verse 25). Verses 26–29 speak of the four principal gatekeepers, “who . . . were entrusted with the responsibility for the rooms and treasuries in the house of God, the articles used in the temple service and furnishings of the sanctuary, the special flour and wine, olive oil, incense, spices, etc. They oversaw access and ensured order and reverence for God’s house. Ezra 2:42 mentions 139 gatekeepers. Nehemiah appointed them early on (Nehemiah 7:1) to conduct God’s business (Exodus 25:8–9; cf. Hebrews 9:1–7). As a sacred trust (1 Chronicles 9:26; Nehemiah 12:47).

Edited April 6, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And now, nearly 200 years later, circumstances have changed a bit.  But temporal welfare is still a big part of our mandate.

Don't bishops already do that?  Bishops regularly authorize distribution of church funds (for rent, utilities, car repairs, etc.), food orders (Bishop's Storehouse), commodities orders (Deserest Industries), employment assistance, and so on.

Bishops must exercise discretion and judgment in handling such temporal affairs.  I agree with you.

But what I'm not following is why bishops are simultaneously precluded from exercising discretion and judgment in handling spiritual matters.

Indeed.  And the Church is working hard to facilitate both.  Our ward's bishop went to a training with Elder Andersen a few months ago, during which Elder Anderson gave some good guidelines about providing assistance.  I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that our bishop came out of the meeting with a great desire to be generous, to err on the side of generosity and kindness, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree and I think these things are being done with various levels of success in the church today.  I think my point is more of a matter of emphasis and change of rhetoric around the worthiness concept.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Anciently, the temple gatekeepers guarded the treasures, ensured order and reverence for God’s house, and ensured the proper conduct of all temple business. This is found in several Old Testament references*. There is temporal and spiritual significance in this role, as there is today in the Restored Church.

*EDIT: David and Samuel appointed 212 gatekeepers for “positions of trust” in guarding the temple (1 Chronicles 9:22) with week-long assignments (verse 25). Verses 26–29 speak of the four principal gatekeepers, “who . . . were entrusted with the responsibility for the rooms and treasuries in the house of God, the articles used in the temple service and furnishings of the sanctuary, the special flour and wine, olive oil, incense, spices, etc. They oversaw access and ensured order and reverence for God’s house. Ezra 2:42 mentions 139 gatekeepers. Nehemiah appointed them early on (Nehemiah 7:1) to conduct God’s business (Exodus 25:8–9; cf. Hebrews 9:1–7). As a sacred trust (1 Chronicles 9:26; Nehemiah 12:47).

There are certainly some similarities with ancient temple practice but many differences also.  Finding an ancient parallel isn't a compelling reason to justify a practice today from my perspective.  I think many ancient religious practices have thankfully been discarded in the modern church.  I can't imagine people actually taking the laws in Leviticus or other parts of the OT very seriously today.  

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are certainly some similarities with ancient temple practice but many differences also.  Finding an ancient parallel isn't a compelling reason to justify a practice today from my perspective.  I think many ancient religious practices have thankfully been discarded in the modern church.  I can't imagine people actually taking the laws in Leviticus or other parts of the OT very seriously today.  

When not inclined to share a perspective, that is easy to say. But you must admit most of what you practice in your everyday life is traced to and even justified by ancient parallels. Even the most casual observer can see that a Church designed with an eye on the restoration of ancient religion will perfectly justify her modern-day practices in the same way. You don't buy it?

But remember, in not buying it you're also taking a parallel and making literal comparison, which I am not doing. I am talking about the need for a gatekeeper in an ecclesiastical setting because you asked about the need for a gatekeeper n an ecclesiastical setting. I explained what the need is, and in line with the OP tracing it back to scripture, ancient practice and a restored parallel practice. And I never mentioned the laws in Leviticus, but the OT scriptures about gatekeepers that show the principle in action. Which specific laws of Leviticus are you saying are part of the Restoration and LDS practice?

Edited April 6, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

When not inclined to share a perspective, that is easy to say. But you must admit most of what you practice in your everyday life is traced to and even justified by ancient parallels. Even the most casual observer can see that a Church designed with an eye on the restoration of ancient religion will perfectly justify her modern-day practices in the same way. You don't buy it?

I would say there are some ancient antecedents that we can tie some level of mordern practices too, but many of these practices are dramatic departures from their ancient predecessors.  

Joseph certainly made the theological claims that he was restoring ancient pure practices and used these claims to bolster perceptions of authority. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But remember, in not buying it you're also taking a parallel and making literal comparison, which I am not doing. I am talking about the need for a gatekeeper in an ecclesiastical setting because you asked about the need for a gatekeeper n an ecclesiastical setting. I explained what the need is, and in line with the OP tracing it back to scripture, ancient practice and a restored parallel practice. And I never mentioned the laws in Leviticus, but the OT scriptures about gatekeepers that show the principle in action. Which specific laws of Leviticus are you saying are part of the Restoration and LDS practice?

Edited 47 minutes ago by CV75

You make an assumption that there is a need, but didn’t explain why or the reasoning/justification for having a gatekeeper.  The appeal to ancient precedent isn’t an argument using reason. 

My use of Leviticus isn’t a direct tie to temple practice, just an example of discarded ancient religious rules.  

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The second biggest grievance in the Joseph Bishop matter (second to the alleged misconduct itself) is that ecclesiastical leaders failed to act when made aware of the allegations.  In other words, a lack of "judging."

It is the first, primary grievance as far as Denson is presenting it.  She says the suit is not about her, not about Bishop, but about the Church and how a predator gets into positions of power, stays there, there is no punishment, instead coverup...my paraphrase.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[BillyandJane]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope.  There's no such thing as "equally sinful."  Saying that everyone sins isn't the same thing as saying that everyone commits the same sins.  And someone who says, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner," is in a far different boat than someone who, failing to acknowledge his sins (no matter how seemingly insignificant compared to those of those he condemns), says, "Lord, I thank the that I am not as other men."

And as one of my Judges in Israel once told me, "If I'm going to err, I want to err on the side of mercy."

Thanks for engaging.   I used the words 'equally sinful' in the context of we all sin.  However, I understand that you probably subscribe to a hierarchy of sins, which I no longer do, given that one "tiny" sin will keep you from the presence of God as quickly as a 'big' sin.  I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ atones for ALL sin and washes them all away upon the sinner coming to him and saying, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."  I am really truly glad that you had a merciful bishop.  I sincerely believe most bishops are merciful and kind.  But there are some who are not and who are not right in their hearts and therefore should not be 'judges in Israel' for anyone.  And since only God can look on the heart is it really wise or prudent that we employ men to judge our worthiness, which really means they are judging our outward appearances? 

[BillyandJane]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

What "worthy" and "worthiness" mean depends on context. Arbitrary rules, the vipers and snakes, weird practices, abstract ideas and any determination falling under the sole purview of God do not describe LDS worthiness interviews. You are taking the conversation into the realm of what constitutes legitimate priesthood keys, authority and stewardship, not scriptural support for the LDS practice of worthiness interviews, which is off-topic for this thread.

Well, can you truly divided the two - the need for worthiness interviews and the legitimacy of authority?  They are cut from the same cloth, no?  Here are a few more scriptures: 

2 Nephi 9:41 "O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name."

Jesus employs no one as guardian of the gate that leads to the straight course before him.  He doesn't take a hiatus and stand bishops in his place to judge on his behalf whether or not someone can enter into the gate.  

And 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 - 27) 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. 28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29)For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30)For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

This Biblical passage is different than 3rd Nephi 18 in that 3rd Nephi tells men to judge other men of their worthiness and the biblical passage tells men to judge themselves and if they don't, and they partake with an incorrect heart, then God will judge them and chastise them accordingly.  Wouldn't we all prefer to be left as judges of ourselves, trusting that God will deal personally with us if we do fail in any area?  God is the only that can see our hearts. I for one would prefer any and all judgement coming my way to come from a benevolent, loving, all knowing God.  Why do we have to put our trust in men above putting our trust in God?  

Jeremiah 17:5 says "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  

And 2 Nephi 4:34 echos Jeremiah: O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

D&C 1:19  The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, BillyandJane said:

Thanks for engaging.   I used the words 'equally sinful' in the context of we all sin.  However, I understand that you probably subscribe to a hierarchy of sins, which I no longer do, given that one "tiny" sin will keep you from the presence of God as quickly as a 'big' sin.  I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ atones for ALL sin and washes them all away upon the sinner coming to him and saying, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."  I am really truly glad that you had a merciful bishop.  I sincerely believe most bishops are merciful and kind.  But there are some who are not and who are not right in their hearts and therefore should not be 'judges in Israel' for anyone.  And since only God can look on the heart is it really wise or prudent that we employ men to judge our worthiness, which really means they are judging our outward appearances? 

Here's a clue.  Don't try to put words in your potential interlocutors' mouths if you're interested in having good-faith dialogue with them.  It's also a bad idea to try to judge the hearts of bishops when, because of the obligation of confidentiality that they are under, you're only going to get one side of the story (and chances are very good that that "one side" is going to omit certain very salient facts).  You might want to tone down the faux pious, Oh-So-Holier-Than-Thou Act, too.  Just sayin'!  And yes, while all sin separates us from God, I think it's probably a little easier to repent from saying Damn than it is for killing somebody ... though I might not know: since I've never done the latter, perhaps it's easier to repent of that than I realize.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[BillyandJane]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Here's a clue.  Don't try to put words in your potential interlocutors' mouths if you're interested in having good-faith dialogue with them.  It's also a bad idea to try to judge the hearts of bishops when, because of the obligation of confidentiality that they are under, you're only going to get one side of the story (and chances are very good that that "one side" is going to omit certain very salient facts).  You might want to tone down the faux pious, Oh-So-Holier-Than-Thou Act, too.  Just sayin'!  And yes, while all sin separates us from God, I think it's probably a little easier to repent from saying Damn than it is for killing somebody ... though I might not know: since I've never done the latter, perhaps it's easier to repent of that than I realize.

Huh - I sincerely wasn't feeling or thinking a 'faux pious, holier than thou act'.  I was sincerely trying to convey my opinion that one little sin will keep one out of the presence of God just as easily as a big sin if both go unchanged, or unrepented of.  And I was expressing a belief that only God can see the heart and because of that, is it a good idea to put fellow humans in a position of judging another person and granting or denying them access to the straight and narrow?  Which feeds into your asking me to not judge a bishop's heart because I  don't know the full story, which I TOTALLY agree, and that's my point about having any ecclesiastical leader judge other human beings, we cannot know their hearts or their full stories. And if you could show me where I offended you so I can watch myself in the future I'd appreciate it.  Really, no sarcasm implied, no nothing, except wanting to fix what you saw that I did wrong. I would hate to think I've been offending people online all this time, when absolutely no offense was meant in my brain or the message I was trying to share,  and no one has told me I could fix something.  Thanks.  

[CV75]

4 hours ago, BillyandJane said:

Well, can you truly divided the two - the need for worthiness interviews and the legitimacy of authority?  They are cut from the same cloth, no? 

Yes, because whether one’s authority to conduct worthiness interviews is legitimate or not, there remains the scripturally recognized and supported need for them. Your scriptures only show that God possesses all power and authority. But He also has delegated a portion of it to His servants to use within a lesser scope of stewardship, and does not in any way counter the scriptures that explain or support the need for worthiness interviews. See: Posted yesterday at 03:01 PM

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say there are some ancient antecedents that we can tie some level of mordern practices too, but many of these practices are dramatic departures from their ancient predecessors.  

Joseph certainly made the theological claims that he was restoring ancient pure practices and used these claims to bolster perceptions of authority. 

You make an assumption that there is a need, but didn’t explain why or the reasoning/justification for having a gatekeeper.  The appeal to ancient precedent isn’t an argument using reason. 

My use of Leviticus isn’t a direct tie to temple practice, just an example of discarded ancient religious rules.  

And “some” are not departures. You dress up for special occasions. You pay taxes. You bury / cremate your dead. Your genes are virtually the same as others’ from thousands of years ago. Those practices that are particularly more akin to “gatekeepers” worthiness interviews include: college admission, club membership and naturalization/citizenship, parole, medical discharge, library reference interviews, etc. Surely you’ve had significant exposure to some of these; that is my only assumption (that you recognize and understand the need). If you don’t recognize or understand the need for a gatekeeper, I recommend rereading my posts.

You make an assumption that there is a need, but didn’t explain why or the reasoning/justification for having a gatekeeper.  The appeal to ancient precedent isn’t an argument using reason.

...and only "some" of Leviticus religious rules have been discarded, but I'll that for for another thread.

[Gray]

On 4/6/2018 at 10:50 AM, carbon dioxide said:

God apparently has set some standards for worthiness and uses the interview process to a way to enforce them.  Some may lie there way through the process but that is just more sin on their head.  I just don't see how your method of doing NOTHING accomplishes anything.

Either that or it's just a longstanding church tradition..

[Gray]

On 4/6/2018 at 10:10 AM, smac97 said:

You don't know that.  Not all revelations are published.

Thanks,

-Smac

Potato, potato. If there are such revelations, it's an irregularity that has crept into church practice, contrary to canonized revelation. The polygamists have their own unpublished revelation that authorized them to continue living in polygamy in perpetuity

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Potato, potato. If there are such revelations, it's an irregularity that has crept into church practice, contrary to canonized revelation. The polygamists have their own unpublished revelation that authorized them to continue living in polygamy in perpetuity

Contrary to what canonized revelation? Could you specify? Thank you.

[Gray]

On 4/7/2018 at 8:06 PM, smac97 said:

Contrary to what canonized revelation? Could you specify? Thank you.

D&C 26:2

 

Quote

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

The church can't consent to revelation that is kept secret from it.

[hope_for_things]

On 4/7/2018 at 2:33 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, because whether one’s authority to conduct worthiness interviews is legitimate or not, there remains the scripturally recognized and supported need for them. Your scriptures only show that God possesses all power and authority. But He also has delegated a portion of it to His servants to use within a lesser scope of stewardship, and does not in any way counter the scriptures that explain or support the need for worthiness interviews. See: Posted yesterday at 03:01 PM

And “some” are not departures. You dress up for special occasions. You pay taxes. You bury / cremate your dead. Your genes are virtually the same as others’ from thousands of years ago. Those practices that are particularly more akin to “gatekeepers” worthiness interviews include: college admission, club membership and naturalization/citizenship, parole, medical discharge, library reference interviews, etc. Surely you’ve had significant exposure to some of these; that is my only assumption (that you recognize and understand the need). If you don’t recognize or understand the need for a gatekeeper, I recommend rereading my posts.

...and only "some" of Leviticus religious rules have been discarded, but I'll that for for another thread.

All these examples are fine, but don't give support for there being a NEED.  There are countless other places and examples that don't require a gatekeeper.  Why not have a gatekeeper for regular church attendance?  Or to attend a historic site or museum?  

Surely you think this is a need, but you haven't made the case for why. 

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

All these examples are fine, but don't give support for there being a NEED.  There are countless other places and examples that don't require a gatekeeper.  Why not have a gatekeeper for regular church attendance?  Or to attend a historic site or museum?  

Surely you think this is a need, but you haven't made the case for why. 

"Mormons worship in meetinghouses around the world, and non-Mormons are always welcome to participate. These buildings might be a neighborhood chapel or even a space in a busy city building. It’s in these meetinghouses that members of the Church gather for various meetings, including Sunday services and weekly activities.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has temples. Temples are different than meetinghouses. Even from the exterior, it’s apparent that a temple is intended to stand apart from the world. Literally a house of God, the temple is where members of the Church go to commune with Heavenly Father, feel His presence, and make covenants with Him that have eternal significance.

The temple is designated as a holy place, a site of beauty, peace, and purpose, worthy of God’s presence. As such, people who enter the temple are asked to be pure in heart and spiritually prepared for this sacred venue. That does not mean that those who attend the temple are perfect. Rather, they are striving to keep God’s commandments and the promises they made at baptism. Going to the temple is a demonstration of personal faith and a deep, ongoing commitment to God’s plan."

https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/temples

Edited April 10, 2018 by ksfisher