Amillia

Maybe it's easier for me because I have been convinced and then reconvinced at two forks of the road in my life. Still I have to occassionally come to peace when I have to put something in it's proper context. You remind me of something Michael Quinn said in a lecture last year about Ruben J. Clark. Quinn put it that Clark, hadn't been convinced by the Spirit either - perhaps like you; and that at some point, he simply willed himself to have the requisite faith to fullfill his calling. It must have worked for him somehow. I wonder hoowww that would be ~ to be without concrete knowledge and still go forward. He had to be very strong. Christ said, "blessed are those who believe after they have seen me, but more blessed are those who believe and never seen me." or something like that.

You sound like you are suffering. Care to share? How old are you? Married? Children? How many? Single? lonely? What is it that is making your flames? Amillia...Can't you remember Mark44's other topic 'I'm In A Hole I Can't Get Out Of..' on which you have posted many responses??? That explains his current 'situation' very well... Sorry. I forget whose who. I must take better care. Mark, You can put your flames out. I know it doesn't feel like it, but you are the only one who can.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :) Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times) Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value. Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum................. I'm sure you get the picture by now. Well, interesting. :) Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion. LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion? That would be quite the rumor to start, wouldn't it??? It definitely would be! aackk!

Are you dying Ray? (This is a sincere question--I'm not joking.) Hope not.

My friend I know this is a subject that you and I have strong disagreement. One reason I personally make reference to various learned reproductive behaviors is because I personally believe that in an intelligent social species like humans that variations in cognitive portions of reproductive behaviors is best explained as an acquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that anyone is a born child molester or someone that will find excitement in rape. I believe all such behavior must be cultivated and developed. In the same manner I do not believe anyone is born to be a devoted husband or wife. I believe that such behaviors must be cultivated, developed and learned. I would think most have been tempted to vary their reproductive behavior at various times and places. To teach that just because someone is tempted to “try” something then they must have that orientation or that is just the way they are is in my mine a grave error. I believe we need to understand that we develop into what we spend our lives becoming. We can become kind or mean, we can become happy or sad we can become someone that gives into various lusts or we can become disciplined. We can take responsibility for what we do or we can attempt to ascribe blame and claim no responsibility. I believe things like kindness, happiness and responsibility require learning and discipline. Meanness, sadness and the morality of a range bull are much more easy and display learning without discipline. I am dumfounded when people like Mark Hacking murder despite social and family efforts to teach discipline of such emotions, especially when the teaching appears to be effective. Though dumfounded I understand that some people feign discipline but I will not blame G-d for such things. I realize that many disagree with my voice but I maintain that humans are intelligent and should and will be held accountable for all or what ever they endeavor to learn and become. Without such accountability no one would be free. The Traveler I think you have made some very good points.

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :) Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times) Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value. Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum................. I'm sure you get the picture by now. Well, interesting. :) Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion. LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion?

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :) Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times) Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value. Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum................. I'm sure you get the picture by now. Well, interesting. :)

That would depend upon whether we faced Him or was to His side. I would like to face Him fi :) rst.

So, can we add bleached blondes, and men with small feet to the group? You always see things differently don't you? :)

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course. Good answer!

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :)

I just think they are all caused by the same thing. Demon possession. Some innocent people are victimized by demons just because they live in an enviroment filled with them.

ROFL! I think that about covers it!

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. When we take with our right hand we are not saying OUR right hand is powerfull. We are recognizing and putting the 'right hand' of the Savior and our hopeful ultimate destiny in our minds. We are saying we want to be on the right hand of Christ. IT IS SYMBOLIC! Not literal. You are confusing and mixing the two together when you argue it isn't our right hand that has the power. It is symbolic of where we want to be through this covenant and ordinance. Could you point me to a more specific verse than just Mosiah 5. You have to remember that my BoM is different from yours, and a whole chapter is kind of vague. Oh sorry, I didn't know. 7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the achildren• of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are bchanged through faith on his name; therefore, ye are cborn• of him and have become his dsons• and his daughters. 8 And under this head ye are made afree•, and there is bno• other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other cname• given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. 9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. 10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some aother• name; therefore, he findeth himself on the bleft• hand of God. 11 And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the aname• that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts. 12 I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to aretain• the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you.

Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used? Russell M. Nelson, Regional Representative, former general president of the Sunday School. As Rachel lay dying in the pain of childbirth, she named her new son Ben-oni, which in Hebrew means “son of my sorrow” or “distress.” But her bereaved husband, Jacob (Israel), changed the name of their newborn son, perhaps to avoid a repeated reference to her travail and death each time his son’s name might be spoken. The name he chose instead was Benjamin, which in Hebrew means “son at the right (hand).” (See Gen. 35:16–19.) Israel’s great love for his beloved Rachel was signified by this special designation given to Benjamin, his twelfth son. That the right hand suggests symbolic favor is suggested again in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: “And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:31–34.) Numerous other scriptural references to the right hand are listed on page 433 of the Topical Guide appended to the new LDS edition of the Bible. These accounts give some background and insight into the symbolic significance of the right hand—a symbolism that appears in the language and other cultural features of the Jewish and Christian world. In Latin, for example, dexter (right) and sinister (left) not only indicated right and left but became the roots for adjectives carrying favorable and unfavorable connotations. The use of the right hand as a symbolic gesture was in time extended to the administration of governmental oaths, and to the courtroom, as witnesses were called to testify under oath. With this background, we may now focus on the question of which hand to use when partaking of the sacrament. The word sacrament comes from two Latin stems: sacr meaning “sacred,” and ment meaning “mind.” It implies sacred thoughts of the mind. Even more compelling is the Latin word sacramentum, which literally means “oath or solemn obligation.” Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world. The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath. For most of us, that would be the right hand. However, sacramental covenants—and other eternal covenants as well—can be and are made by those who have lost the use of the right hand, or who have no hands at all. Much more important than concern over which hand is used in partaking of the sacrament is that the sacrament be partaken with a deep realization of the atoning sacrifice that the sacrament represents. Parents are sometimes concerned about which hand their children use to partake of the sacrament. As a means of education, preparation, and training, unbaptized children in the Church are offered the sacrament “to prefigure the covenant they will take upon themselves when they arrive at the years of accountability.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 660.) Therefore, it is very important that they develop a good feeling and a sacred mental attitude about the symbolism and significance of the sacrament. Parents who wish to teach the importance of this sacred experience might make the topic a part of family home evening instruction. Then, if a reminder becomes necessary in a meeting, it may be given quietly, in patience and love. Partaking of the sacrament is a sacred mental process, and as such it becomes a very personal one for me. I think of the covenants being made between me and Deity as the prayers are pronounced. I think of God offering his Only Begotten Son. I think of the atoning sacrifice of my Savior, Jesus Christ. The sacrament was instituted by him. For all mankind, even me, he offered his flesh and blood and designated the bread and the water as symbolic emblems. Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God. This is a sacred privilege for all faithful Saints each Sabbath day.

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. Just my two cents worth...but, I also have been taught this from my youth and I agree with Amillia that there is symbolism involved in using the right hand. We raise our right hand to the square when we are sustaining someone...as PH when we are performing a Confirmation and standing in the circle (if more than 5 LOL) we place our right hand on the head.....so yes, I agree that "when possible" ie: making sure the 18 mos old isnt grabbing the tray....we should try to use our right hand. HOWEVER, I have never read or heard at anytime from the President of the Church, nor the Twelve or any GA...that we MUST use our right hand to partake of the sacrament. I think the symbolism is there when we do...but, no condemnation or invalidation of the sacrament if we don't. I would venture to say...that was that good Bishop's desire and counsel for his ward...but, IMO..if it was presented as a "thou shalt"...that wasn't quite correct. randy So, what would that symbolism be? IT is explained in the scripture I gave you in Mosiah, and the uses of the right hand in other ordinances.

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. Oh..and just another thought that popped into my head when I reread Jenda's comment that "God's right hand bestows power" which is true of course...and in this light as PH holders we have been called and ordained and given the "power and authority" to act in the name of Jesus Christ....so since God and Christ are our examples in ALL things, it stands to reason, IF God uses his "right hand" to bestow power...we should use our "right hand" also. Just a thought. randy ....now IF I just happened to be a "right handed" amputee...the Lord would accept my "left hand" with love!! Excellent thought. :)

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. Just my two cents worth...but, I also have been taught this from my youth and I agree with Amillia that there is symbolism involved in using the right hand. We raise our right hand to the square when we are sustaining someone...as PH when we are performing a Confirmation and standing in the circle (if more than 5 LOL) we place our right hand on the head.....so yes, I agree that "when possible" ie: making sure the 18 mos old isnt grabbing the tray....we should try to use our right hand. HOWEVER, I have never read or heard at anytime from the President of the Church, nor the Twelve or any GA...that we MUST use our right hand to partake of the sacrament. I think the symbolism is there when we do...but, no condemnation or invalidation of the sacrament if we don't. I would venture to say...that was that good Bishop's desire and counsel for his ward...but, IMO..if it was presented as a "thou shalt"...that wasn't quite correct. randy I agree that our sacrement is still valid, but we lose the opportunity of correlating the symbolic meaning into our submissive, repentive hearts, imaging the right hand of Christ. :)

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. When we take with our right hand we are not saying OUR right hand is powerfull. We are recognizing and putting the 'right hand' of the Savior and our hopeful ultimate destiny in our minds. We are saying we want to be on the right hand of Christ. IT IS SYMBOLIC! Not literal. You are confusing and mixing the two together when you argue it isn't our right hand that has the power. It is symbolic of where we want to be through this covenant and ordinance.

Compare MOSIAH CHAPTER 5 with the sacremental prayers. The requirement to take upon us HIS name has everything to do with being on the right hand. Symbolically this all comes together consistently.

You have my prayers.

You sound like you are suffering. Care to share? How old are you? Married? Children? How many? Single? lonely? What is it that is making your flames?

What movie?

I think my skills 'of debate' are more than adaquate. On the other hand, I will not deny that I sometimes have a hard time getting my point across. This is so, because I am supprised that it is not gotten the first time. I feel that it is pretty clear and straight forward, and am suprised that it is not understood. Because, those that I am conversing with appear to be bright intellects, and I'm shocked that they do not see my point as clearly as I do (whether they agree or not is a different matter). This is something that I still need to work on - obviously. The translation was correct, but the printing was not - those are two separate things. JS did not perform the printing himself, someone(s) else would have. But the fact that he was a prophet, and the Church organization is led by modern revelation, those errors can be/were corrected. But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript. So, that can't be the problem. Jesus Christ is God from one perspective, the Son of God from another perspective, and both perspectives are true in the same way that a man is a man whether he is the son or the father of another man. I believe the language from those scriptures in the Book of Mormon were clarified to show which person was being mentioned. The term “God” is normally used to refer to the father of our spirits, and the person being mentioned was Jesus Christ, so a reference to Mary as the mother of God was ambivalent as to the person being mentioned. And btw, when we are born again through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ becomes our Father and our God without detracting from our relationship with our other Father in heaven, referring to the original father of our spirits. Further, if we are fortunate enough to have our other father go to heaven and become as God, referring to the father who gave birth to our physical body on Earth, we have yet another Father in heaven, multiplied to infinity if we have all our other fathers go to heaven as our grandfather, great grandfather, great, great grandfather, etc. The use of words is seldom adequate to convey ideas, don’t you think? Thanks Ray! You did good!

Thanks Ray! :)