Woot woot! Let's go get our Ashes!!

[Damien the Leper]

Happy and Blessed Ash Wednesday to everyone! May your Lenten season be blessed and fruitful!

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Happy and Blessed Ash Wednesday to everyone! May your Lenten season be blessed and fruitful!

Yours, too.

Are you planning a traditional or contemporary fast and abstinence? I'm 99% vegetarian anyways, so traditional abstinence comes naturally

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yours, too.

Are you planning a traditional or contemporary fast and abstinence? I'm 99% vegetarian anyways, so traditional abstinence comes naturally

Traditional. I don't like cooked fish. lol

[2BizE]

Why don’t Mormons participate in Christian celebrations such as Ash Wednesday, etc?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why don’t Mormons participate in Christian celebrations such as Ash Wednesday, etc?

It is not our policy to be ecumenical.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yours, too.

Are you planning a traditional or contemporary fast and abstinence? I'm 99% vegetarian anyways, so traditional abstinence comes naturally

Uh sorry then. You gotta go the hard way.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why don’t Mormons participate in Christian celebrations such as Ash Wednesday, etc?

Where is Ash wednesday in the NT?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why don’t Mormons participate in Christian celebrations such as Ash Wednesday, etc?

Should they? Should other Christians participate in LDS celebrations?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Happy and Blessed Ash Wednesday to everyone! May your Lenten season be blessed and fruitful!

Many Roman Catholics are being advised by their Church to either put the ash on their forehead at home, or for the priests just to make ashes available.  It isn't only the LDS communion which as been affected by the pandemic.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where is Ash wednesday in the NT?

We're not sola scriptura and neither are you, so this isn't much of an answer to the question why you don't participate in Lent  

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Should they? Should other Christians participate in LDS celebrations?

Well, if you'd let us in your temples, perhaps we would  

On a serious note, what LDS celebrations could/should other Christians participate in?

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, if you'd let us in your temples, perhaps we would  

On a serious note, what LDS celebrations could/should other Christians participate in?

Pioneer Day? Smithmas? Second Coming Day (pending)?

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We're not sola scriptura and neither are you, so this isn't much of an answer to the question why you don't participate in Lent  

I had to look it up to find out what it is:

Ash Wednesday is a Christian holy day of prayer and fasting. ... Ash Wednesday derives its name from the placing of repentance ashes on the foreheads of participants to either the words "Repent, and believe in the Gospel" or the dictum "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Prayer and fasting = talking with God and going without food, in my perspective.  I talk with God every day and go without food at least some of the every day too because I understand that eating nonstop while I am awake is supposedly not good for my health.  Is there a specified time of day or certain amount of time that people are expected to fast when they fast on Ash Wednesday?  If not I've got the fasting and prayer part covered because I already do that as a usual thing every day.

The ashes thing, though, no, I do not do that and I wonder why anyone would think they should.  How long do people who do that usually leave the ashes on their body?  And where do they get the ashes?  Will any ashes do?  If I did decide to put ashes on me on Ash Wednesday I wouldn't want to leave them on for very long before taking a shower and if possible... and I don't see why it wouldn't be... I would prefer to just skip the ashes part.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We're not sola scriptura and neither are you, so this isn't much of an answer to the question why you don't participate in Lent  

The answer is that most Mormons don't know anything about Catholic traditions.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The answer is that most Mormons don't know anything about Catholic traditions.

By "Mormons" I suspect you are referring to latter-day saints... and speaking for myself No I don't know much about Catholic traditions, but I do know some things, I think.

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

By "Mormons" I suspect you are referring to latter-day saints... and speaking for myself No I don't know much about Catholic traditions, but I do know some things, I think.

"Latter-day Saints" is a religious term, whereas "Mormons" describes a culture.  Moreover, I was speaking with a non-Mormon who believes in a whole litany of different kinds of Saints.  When sociologist Thomas F. O'Dea of Harvard wrote his book The Mormons about his (and his team's) research on Mormon people in the West, it would have been silly to entitle it The Latter-day Saints  because he was describing a culture.  That Mormonism is a way of life as much as it is a religion makes this approach necessary.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Latter-day Saints" is a religious term, whereas "Mormons" describes a culture.  Moreover, I was speaking with a non-Mormon who believes in a whole litany of different kinds of Saints.  When sociologist Thomas F. O'Dea of Harvard wrote his book The Mormons about his (and his team's) research on Mormon people in the West, it would have been silly to entitle it The Latter-day Saints  because he was describing a culture.  That Mormonism is a way of life as much as it is a religion makes this approach necessary.

That culture you're referring to is the culture of latter-day saints, or at least some of them/us, so there would have been nothing silly about calling it that. 

In fact, it may have helped even back then if we and others referred to us/ourselves as latter-day saints rather than "Mormons".  

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That culture you're referring to is the culture of latter-day saints, or at least some of them/us, so there would have been nothing silly about calling it that. 

In fact, it may have helped even back then if we and others referred to us/ourselves as latter-day saints rather than "Mormons".  

You are confusing religion with culture or vice-versa.  Not all Mormons are saintly, and other religions have saints of another kind entirely, and even seek the intercession of the saints.  It is absurd to ignore those contexts.  And highly misleading.  Terminology is more than just a frivolous exercise -- like being told by the woke crowd which pronouns will or will not be acceptable according to the self-identification of some group based on gender reassignment.  To the extent that the New York Times is now attacking people for having "unfettered conversations."  Sounds Orwellian to me.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I had to look it up to find out what it is:

Ash Wednesday is a Christian holy day of prayer and fasting. ... Ash Wednesday derives its name from the placing of repentance ashes on the foreheads of participants to either the words "Repent, and believe in the Gospel" or the dictum "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Prayer and fasting = talking with God and going without food, in my perspective.  I talk with God every day and go without food at least some of the every day too because I understand that eating nonstop while I am awake is supposedly not good for my health.  Is there a specified time of day or certain amount of time that people are expected to fast when they fast on Ash Wednesday?  If not I've got the fasting and prayer part covered because I already do that as a usual thing every day.

The ashes thing, though, no, I do not do that and I wonder why anyone would think they should.  How long do people who do that usually leave the ashes on their body?  And where do they get the ashes?  Will any ashes do?  If I did decide to put ashes on me on Ash Wednesday I wouldn't want to leave them on for very long before taking a shower and if possible... and I don't see why it wouldn't be... I would prefer to just skip the ashes part.

I find it odd that you say you fast everyday because you don't eat continually. I know your church has fast Sunday, where you intentionally go without food for a religious purpose. That is very different than just not eating. Fasting during Lent is similar (Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent). We intentionally go without food for a religious reason. Giving up food, meat (that is the abstinence part of Lent), and other things is a way to prepare ourselves for Easter. Lent lasts 40 days, like Jesus's 40 day fast.

The ashes come from burning the palm leaves that were used during Palm Sunday the previous year. The priest places the ashes on your forehead in the sign of a cross. Some people take the ashes off quickly, others keep them on all day. When you live in a heavily Catholic area like I do, it is super common to see people with the ashes on their forehead all day. It is also super common for restaurants to advertise Lenten specials (usually fish, since fish isn't considered meat for the purposes of abstinence).

I think there is great power in seasonal liturgical rituals and celebrations. It makes time sacred. Easter isn't just about remembering/celebrating the resurrection. Going from Lent, to Holy Week, to Easter takes the crucifixion and resurrection and brings it into our time, into our lives.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are confusing religion with culture or vice-versa.  Not all Mormons are saintly, and other religions have saints of another kind entirely, and even seek the intercession of the saints.  It is absurd to ignore those contexts.  And highly misleading.  Terminology is more than just a frivolous exercise -- like being told by the woke crowd which pronouns will or will not be acceptable according to the self-identification of some group based on gender reassignment.  To the extent that the New York Times is now attacking people for having "unfettered conversations."  Sounds Orwellian to me.

Members of our Church have cultural practices and distinctions... things that distinguish us/them from other cultures or societies of people... and whatever you want to call us/them we are all members of our Church and we still have all of those same practices and distinctions.  What you seem to be talking about now is how everyone who is or can be called a Christian doesn't necessarily act like how we think Christ would act or acted, and while I agree and understand that sentiment I take great care not to say someone is not a Christian or a saint because for all I know they may be trying their best, to the best of their knowledge, to be one.

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Members of our Church have cultural practices and distinctions... things that distinguish us/them from other cultures or societies of people... and whatever you want to call us/them we are all members of our Church and we still have all of those same practices and distinctions.  What you seem to be talking about now is how everyone who is or can be called a Christian doesn't necessarily act like how we think Christ would act or acted, and while I agree and understand that sentiment I take great care not to say someone is not a Christian or a saint because for all I know they may be trying their best, to the best of their knowledge, to be one.

On the contrary, being a member of Mormon culture does not even require membership in the LDS Church, or observance of LDS beliefs and standards.  In the case, of Dr O'Dea's study of Mormons, i was limited to particular communities in New Mexico and nearby areas.  It was not an analysis of the LDS Church but rather of the socio-cultural norms of those communities, thus making it absurd to refer to them as Latter-day Saints -- which carries connotations not amenable to the study.

There are likewise some rather extreme Mormon groups in Nevada who have been in the news in the recent past and which have been at loggerheads with the Federal Govt.  We do not need to call them Latter-day Saints, even if they are actually members of the Church, because their behavior is so obstreperous and violent that it would be likely to bring discredit and embarrassment to the LDS Church.  That is even more true of the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saint) Church members.  We just don't need the confusion.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, being a member of Mormon culture does not even require membership in the LDS Church, or observance of LDS beliefs and standards.  In the case, of Dr O'Dea's study of Mormons, i was limited to particular communities in New Mexico and nearby areas.  It was not an analysis of the LDS Church but rather of the socio-cultural norms of those communities, thus making it absurd to refer to them as Latter-day Saints -- which carries connotations not amenable to the study.

There are likewise some rather extreme Mormon groups in Nevada who have been in the news in the recent past and which have been at loggerheads with the Federal Govt.  We do not need to call them Latter-day Saints, even if they are actually members of the Church, because their behavior is so obstreperous and violent that it would be likely to bring discredit and embarrassment to the LDS Church.  That is even more true of the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saint) Church members.  We just don't need the confusion.

Sounds to me like you're just trying to differentiate between people who are members of our Church] and people who are not.  And if you'd rather refer to members of our Church as latter-day saints, instead of Mormons, I think President Nelson would approve.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Sounds to me like you're just trying to differentiate between people who are members of our Church] and people who are not.  And if you'd rather refer to members of our Church as latter-day saints, instead of Mormons, I think President Nelson would approve.

When I write about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church, I always refer to it as such, but (contrary to your assumption) those who are actually members of that Church who are violent extremists (I mentioned the ones in Nevada), I see no advantage to claiming them as Latter-day Saints -- since they are obviously not Saints, except in a nominal, non-factual sense.  Your inability to distinguish the one from the other is a problem for you, I can see, since you falsely suggest that they are not members of our Church.  It is probably also not wise to try to speak for Pres Nelson.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When I write about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church, I always refer to it as such, but (contrary to your assumption) those who are actually members of that Church who are violent extremists (I mentioned the ones in Nevada), I see no advantage to claiming them as Latter-day Saints -- since they are obviously not Saints, except in a nominal, non-factual sense.  Your inability to distinguish the one from the other is a problem for you, I can see, since you falsely suggest that they are not members of our Church.  It is probably also not wise to try to speak for Pres Nelson.

Just to try to make sure you understand me correctly, I will say again that anyone who is a member of our Church... which is our Lord's church... is someone I would call a latter-day saint because the term latter-day saint is a term that is used to refer to anyone who is member of our Church.  So even if some who are called latter-day saints (or LDS, as an abbreviation) are not sanctified by the blood of our Savior... which I believe is for Him to determine, not me... and even if they do some bad things... for whatever reason, maybe because they don't really know any better... I would still refer to them as latter-day saints or LDS or members of our Lord's true church because that is what those terms signify. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just to try to make sure you understand me correctly, I will say again that anyone who is a member of our Church... which is our Lord's church... is someone I would call a latter-day saint because the term latter-day saint is a term that is used to refer to anyone who is member of our Church.  So even if some who are called latter-day saints (or LDS, as an abbreviation) are not sanctified by the blood of our Savior... which I believe is for Him to determine, not me... and even if they do some bad things... for whatever reason, maybe because they don't really know any better... I would still refer to them as latter-day saints or LDS or members of our Lord's true church because that is what those terms signify. 

 

No argument from me here, just an observation that it does sound strange in the ears to hear someone called a saint just because they are a member of a church. A violent murderer on the run from the law, for example, and someone says, "oh him? he's a saint." Huh? "Yeah, he's a Mormon, so he's a saint."

Again, you can call members of your church what you want. I'm just giving you an outsider's view. I think it's just another example of LDS definitions of words not matching the traditional Christian definition.