My Friendly Friday Questions

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Converts from England in the 1830's-40's brought with them music and the musical style of Church of England services of the time.  It became dominant.  Before that, if I recall correctly, the music was a little more lively.

I had no idea you were that old! 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Converts from England in the 1830's-40's brought with them music and the musical style of Church of England services of the time.  It became dominant.  Before that, if I recall correctly, the music was a little more lively.

That sounds like a hymn book full of numbers set to folk melodies and such. There are worse things.

 

 

[Calm]

Our current Hymnbook (Depending on your browser, you may be able to listen to them)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/music/library/hymns?lang=eng
 

They are in the process of compiling a more global version.  It will be smaller, iirc about 200 songs, but there will be a digital library which may include local favorites including patriotic songs for everyone to access as desire, so my guess is we won’t lose many, if any, we will just have to print them up.

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Calm

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I had no idea you were that old! 

 

I wear it well.

[RevTestament]

On 7/16/2022 at 8:12 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't doubt miracles or the Holy Spirit--not in the least. Without sufficient learning, though, I could see problems with either schismatics or people who are in the record book but who don't participate at all.

I think that kind of happens like this... a potential convert feels the spirit, and gets excited so they agree to get baptized. After joining they learn a few new things that don't sit so well with them, and they begin to have doubts. Those doubts turn in to insurmountable mountains in their mind, and they begin to lose faith in the restored gospel. I have seen and heard about it many times. I recall one fellow who said he heard a voice when he was taking the lessons and attending the church - a voice which told him "it is true." So he joined, but later learned things about Joseph Smith he didn't like so eventually, he ended up leaving the Church and becoming a critic. I would think Catholics have to reconcile plenty of negative things about plenty of the Roman pontiffs though, so should be used to this. I personally tend to be kind of cerebral, so I demand some evidence before I will continue. But, when I began to learn about the Church, unlike many others, I was basically converted by the Bible. The missionaries just showed me again and again how the Church teachings comported with the Bible, and I had faith in the Bible.... much moreso than in the Book of Mormon at the time. I became excited, and just felt spiritually that the Church was true in the sense that it has the restored gospel. I do not believe it is true in the sense that all its leaders are infallible. I find them not to be, and that can cause a lot of discordant feelings and issues for some... including my wife for awhile.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

That sounds like a hymn book full of numbers set to folk melodies and such. There are worse things.

 

 

I have been in rather large Protestant and non-denominational choirs, and miss those days. The wards of the Church are typically just too small to support such, so we honestly don't get a lot of professionally written music in our meetings. However, there are the occassional "special" numbers often with piano or violin accompaniment, instrumental solos etc. I may  have seen guitar one time in all my years of attendance, and instruments like this are going to probably have to be approved by the bishop of the ward. For large Church assemblies, the tabernacle choir and/or a musical guest will usually  perform more "professional" music like Handel's Messiah, etc.

Edited July 19, 2022 by RevTestament

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I would think Catholics have to reconcile plenty of negative things about plenty of the Roman pontiffs though, so should be used to this.

There seems to be a different attitude between Catholics and LDS regarding a church leader saying or doing something wrong, and their being implications for leading the sheep astray. The lines are quite clear for when the pope is speaking/teaching ex cathedra. The most recent time a pope spoke ex cathedra was 1950. Also, popes are not thought of as sinless. They go to confession--or at least they are supposed to do so!

Francis agrees with his critics: A pope can be wrong | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

I don't think my fellow Catholics experience a lot of joy in hearing of the exploits of John XII, Stephen VI, Alexander VI, etc., but there isn't any central theology being subjected to cognitive dissonance.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Teancum]

On 6/10/2022 at 11:52 AM, bluebell said:

At that time, the Doctrine and Covenants was published as a book of revelations but I don't think most really saw it as scripture yet in the same way that the BOM and Bible was considered scripture.  It wasn't canonized until 1880.

I believe the Doctrine and Covenants was accepted as scriptura in 1835 ( when it included the Lectures on Faith).

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I believe the Doctrine and Covenants was accepted as scriptura in 1835 ( when it included the Lectures on Faith).

I stand corrected. 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There seems to be a different attitude between Catholics and LDS regarding a church leader saying or doing something wrong, and their being implications for leading the sheep astray. The lines are quite clear for when the pope is speaking/teaching ex cathedra. The most recent time a pope spoke ex cathedra was 1950. Also, popes are not thought of as sinless. They go to confession--or at least they are supposed to do so!

Francis agrees with his critics: A pope can be wrong | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

I don't think my fellow Catholics experience a lot of joy in hearing of the exploits of John XII, Stephen VI, Alexander VI, etc., but there isn't any central theology being subjected to cognitive dissonance.  

When I was Catholic that stuff never bothered me and now I am not bothered when someone brings up something viewed as "unfavorable" about a prophet.

Prophets and Popes are still human- not sure why that can be such a shock to some.   I just don't get it.

I guess it is because I was trained in philosophy, a discipline in which one's personal behavior and the quality of one's philosophy have no expected relationship

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'm interacting with a member of the Community of Christ. There seem to be important differences between the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm interacting with a member of the Community of Christ. There seem to be important differences between the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I have been looking into them more recently after listening to a podcase with one of their apostles about the Joseph Smith photo. 

Really interesting group trying to discover who or what they are, it seems. 

They are basically another trinitarian protestant sect now, of the very liberal nature, abandoning their restorationist roots.   They do still believe in revelation and an open cannon.  Their D&C is added to much more regularly that our church - with sections included by every President in their history. 

If they improved their missionary efforts in the Salt Lake area, I could see that group growing significantly from disaffected Latter-day Saints.   They get to keep Joseph Smith (minus much of his later teachings - Nauvoo period) and the Book of Mormon, without the baggage of polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, mountain meadows, Adam/God doctrine, Blood atonement, and the Book of Abraham, and historicity of the Book of Mormon.  With all of those stumbling blocks (for many) gone, and with the benefit (as perceived by some) of female priesthood, and full gospel blessings and priesthood for LGBTQ+ members, I could see that group really growing rapidly in SLC.  I just don't think many people know who or what they are and believe (possibly including themselves). 

They also use the words "pragmatic", "post-modern", and "relativistic" in their approach to scripture and doctrine which also may be appealing to many (we all know who I have in mind). 

Interesting group indeed. 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

They also use the words "pragmatic", "post-modern", and "relativistic" in their approach to scripture and doctrine which also may be appealing to many (we all know who I have in mind). 

Nah you are just looking through that dark MIRROR again.    We look out at the world and just see ourselves looking back.

Ain't nothin out there 'cept what we see and the way we see it.   There can't be til we crawl out of this skin and take off the blinders! 

 

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nah you are just looking through that dark MIRROR again.    We look out at the world and just see ourselves looking back.

Ain't nothin out there 'cept what we see and the way we see it.   There can't be til we crawl out of this skin and take off the blinders! 

 

“Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world”

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nah you are just looking through that dark MIRROR again.    We look out at the world and just see ourselves looking back.

That sounds about right, I was talking about me...who'd ya think? 

I actually do like that about them. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That sounds about right, I was talking about me...who'd ya think? 

I actually do like that about them. 

Well I am too addicted to our temple.

I read some stuff about other groups ancient rites that blew what's left of my mind. but suddenly got busy on other stuff.  I did check them out years ago and liked a lot but there was other stuff that was just too facile, slick and seemed created for good press, for me.

If they drop exaltation or our temple rites- and as I thought about their views 40 years ago, they did- I am pretty sure those beliefs are gonners for them.  There are symbols in the temple that many miss that go back a LONG LONG way, which are old enough and obscure enough to just explain away as something "Joseph copied"

But I do see the appeal there.

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am too addicted to our temple.

I read some stuff about other groups ancient rites that blew what's left of my mind. but suddenly got busy on other stuff.  I did check them out years ago and liked a lot but there was other stuff that was just too facile, slick and seemed created for good press, for me.

If they drop exaltation or our temple rites- and as I thought about their views 40 years ago, they did- I am pretty sure those beliefs are gonners for them.  There are symbols in the temple that many miss that go back a LONG LONG way, which are old enough and obscure enough to just explain away as something "Joseph copied"

But I do see the appeal there.

 

Yep.  Not for me either, but I do like their philosophy and approach to scripture (thought you probably would too).  They seem to be a boat in search of an anchor, and a tree who has severed its roots of restoration.  In Utah at least, it is mostly comprised of disaffected Latter-day Saints who have left over Kate Kelly, or Prop 8, etc.  I don't think people are ending up there because they are drawn to it, as much as they are ending up there because they are running from something else.  It is a rebound for most in the Salt Lake branch.  In other words, I don't see it as much as an intentional destination for people as much as it is a place where people happen to land after a fall.   I don't find that terribly inspiring.  It all feels rather milk toast to me. 

The temple, the Godhead, the plan of salvation/exaltation - those are things I couldn't leave behind. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by pogi

[Saint Bonaventure]

So for Latter-day Saints, baptism is by immersion, and not by any other form.

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So for Latter-day Saints, baptism is by immersion, and not by any other form.

That's correct.  The Gospel Principles manual puts it this way:

Quote

The Correct Mode of Baptism

How should we be baptized?

There is only one correct mode of baptism. Jesus revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that a person having the proper priesthood authority to baptize “shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism. … Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water” (D&C 20:73–74). Immersion is necessary. The Apostle Paul taught that being immersed in water and coming out again is symbolic of death, burial, and resurrection. After baptism we start a new life. Paul said:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

“For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:3–5).

Baptism by immersion by a person having the proper authority is the only acceptable way of being baptized.

I would also add (as a reason we believe this) is from when Jesus taught Nicodemus that we must be "born again" of water and of the Spirit (John 3), that the immersion and coming up out of the waters of baptism symbolizes that re-birth.   This is also illustrated in this passage from the book of Moses:

"Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying: That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified." (Moses 6:58-60).

[Saint Bonaventure]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's correct.  The Gospel Principles manual puts it this way:

I would also add (as a reason we believe this) is from when Jesus taught Nicodemus that we must be "born again" of water and of the Spirit (John 3), that the immersion and coming up out of the waters of baptism symbolizes that re-birth.   This is also illustrated in this passage from the book of Moses:

"Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying: That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified." (Moses 6:58-60).

 

Thank you so much, InCognitus, for your response. You confirmed the necessity of immersion baptism for Latter-day Saints, and have me exploring a few other ideas:

• So the person performing the baptism goes down into the water. Is there meaning attributed to the person performing the baptism also going down into the water? What about the person performing the baptism coming up out of the water?
• Is the water of baptism Christ's blood in any sense? 
• Is there a connection in Latter-day Saint thought between immersion being the only acceptable form of baptism and a belief in a worldwide, immersive flood in Noah's day?

Maybe I'm out in left field, and I'm perfectly fine with you (or anyone here) correcting my misunderstanding.

Again, thanks for your helpful response.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

 

Thank you so much, InCognitus, for your response. You confirmed the necessity of immersion baptism for Latter-day Saints, and have me exploring a few other ideas:

• So the person performing the baptism goes down into the water. Is there meaning attributed to the person performing the baptism also going down into the water? What about the person performing the baptism coming up out of the water?
• Is the water of baptism Christ's blood in any sense? 
• Is there a connection in Latter-day Saint thought between immersion being the only acceptable form of baptism and a belief in a worldwide, immersive flood in Noah's day?

Maybe I'm out in left field, and I'm perfectly fine with you (or anyone here) correcting my misunderstanding.

Again, thanks for your helpful response.

I think Chris-centered symbolism can be found in any of the bullets you listed. Christ descended and raises us up; He walks with us through every step and phase of spiritual and physical death and life by virtue of His Atonement; His blood -- His death and punishment for our sins -- cleanses us; yes, some take the Flood to be literal baptism or cleansing of the planet; at least of sorts, or for some, figurative and symbolic, but that is not a doctrinal tenet.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So the person performing the baptism goes down into the water. Is there meaning attributed to the person performing the baptism also going down into the water? What about the person performing the baptism coming up out of the water?

As CV75 said above, I think there is symbolism and meaning in the person doing the baptizing going down into the water and back up out of the water together with the person being baptized.  We are to follow our Lord and Savior "down into the water" by doing the things we have seen him do (2 Nephi 31:12-13), as when Jesus was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness.  The person doing the baptizing has been "commissioned by Jesus Christ" to do so, and therefore is his representative. 

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is the water of baptism Christ's blood in any sense? 

Baptism is for the "remission of sins", so yes, there can be some symbolism in water baptism of the blood of Christ. 

"And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end." (3 Nephi 27:19.) 

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is there a connection in Latter-day Saint thought between immersion being the only acceptable form of baptism and a belief in a worldwide, immersive flood in Noah's day?

I think the fact that we believe in the necessity of full immersion water baptism is why some people tend to hang on to the idea of a worldwide immersive flood in Noah's day.  That, connected with the doctrine that the wicked will be burned at the second coming of Jesus brings to mind the symbolism of the earth having a baptism by water and baptism by fire.  

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Again, thanks for your helpful response.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think Chris-centered symbolism can be found in any of the bullets you listed. Christ descended and raises us up; He walks with us through every step and phase of spiritual and physical death and life by virtue of His Atonement; His blood -- His death and punishment for our sins -- cleanses us; yes, some take the Flood to be literal baptism or cleansing of the planet; at least of sorts, or for some, figurative and symbolic, but that is not a doctrinal tenet.

The Plan of Salvation is also demonstrated; we all descend from our pre-mortal existence to experience being fully human, with its trials, sin, and repentance which eventually can become an ascension back to God in a new life of glory, after being cleansed by the blood of the lamb.

Incidentally this is also enacted as all play the part of Adam/Eve/Everyperson in the temple drama. Both are closely related.

Once one sees the Plan, it is replicated in everything. This is one of the amazing points of the gospel, no one could replicate this theme repeatedly in so many ways from Job to baptism, to the BOM pride cycle, to the temple, especially not an uneducated child like Joseph S.

It is simultaneously infinitely complex and the most simple story that can be explained in a few words.

It can be the highest intellectual mystery and experience, or the simplest principle one can teach a Child. 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'm still trying to understand baptism for Latter-day Saints. I've done some searching, including on the LDS site, and am stuck on:

If Latter-day Saints see baptism of equal necessity and sacredness for the living and the dead, why are the living baptized in chapels or the ocean, and the dead baptized in LDS temples?

Clearly there's an element of "baptism is baptism," but something else must be important here too.

[Saint Bonaventure]

A bonus question today:

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever boycott businesses? Perhaps groups of LDS unofficially boycott businesses? Maybe Latter-day Saints in Utah don't watch MSNBC or something?

My question is prompted by the part the Catholic League played in the cancellation of Samantha Bee's "Full Frontal."