Kneeling during sacrament?

[ZionHeart]

This is why we have modern prophets to make sure we do things the right way and do not fall into apostasy. If the Lord says it matters not what you eat or drink when you take the sacrament (D&C 27:2) but that it is done with an eye single to His glory then i really dont think it matters if we kneel or dont kneel. If it did, the brethren would tell us so.

[Vanhin]

In ancient temple worship, the priests and Levites performed their rituals and ordinances under the direction of the Aaronic high priest, who held the keys of that priesthood. The office of high priest belonged to a firstborn direct male descendant of Aaron. Under his direction, the priests and the Levites administered the ritual sacrifices and burnt offerings on behalf of the people who brought their offerings to the tabernacle and later the temple. An offering was made for sins, for example, and the Levitical priesthood officiated over these offerings under the direction of the high priest.

These ordinances and sacrifices pointed towards the coming of the Messiah, who would atone for the sins of the world, and be the great and last sacrifice.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and He did fulfill the law of Moses wherein He atoned for the sins of the world. He instituted the ordinance of the sacrament, which, instead of pointing towards his coming, would be for the remembrance of his sacrifice that had now been completed.

It should be no surprise to us, that the priesthood that officiates and administers the ordinances of sacrifice and repentance after the advent of Christ, would continue to be the Aaronic priesthood. the office of Bishop is the Aaronic high priest, and in the absence of a direct first born male descendant of Aaron, that office can be held by a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, which is the higher priesthood, and has authority over the priesthood of Aaron. The bishop holds the keys necessary to direct the work of priests and Levites in a congregation. It appears that the duties of the Levites were organized into two offices, teacher and deacon, in the ancient Church, which offices continue now in the restored Church.

Under the direction of the Bishop, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons administer the ordinance of the sacrament, where instead of bringing sacrifices that shed the blood of animals, the congregation comes bearing the offering of a broken heart and a contrite spirit before the Lord, and partake of the sacrament in remembrance of Jesus, who is the promised Messiah.

The Aaronic priesthood is alive and well, and it's purpose is the same as it always has been.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Wingnut]

Why argue over it.

You're right. Why argue?

Just do it right the first time and don't change it. I think JS did it right. Why not just follow his lead.

Didn't Joseph teach about continuing revelation and prophets and stewardship?

Since his day, the day the Lord gave him all the answers and the way things should be done.

And the Lord continues to do that with each prophet.

We are not the same church we were then, we are completly different church.

You're right. We aren't six members in the Peter Whitmer home anymore. We're more than 2 million times that many, the world over.

Only time will tell if that is OK or did we do something wrong in changing everything.

You're right, so let time tell. Until then, don't tell those of us who are following the current teachings by the current prophet(s) that we are wrong.

Members in the church, as I am, get up set when we read D&C 85:7 so on. To set in order the house of god in order; if he is to set it in order would you not think that it has to become out-of-order first?

No, I don't believe it has to be out of order. No matter how "in order" the Church and its members may be, it and we still are not perfect. That can only happen with Christ's help. Setting in order refers to teaching, repenting, and preparing. It doesn't mean that the entire Church will be in shambles.

I love this church, but just look at our history and compare with ancient history to see we are not perfect and men make mistakes.

I don't think anyone here has said that men don't make mistakes. What we are saying, however, is that Joseph Smith, in his time and stewardship over a fledgling growing church, was not the be-all-end-all authority on everything. Quite the contrary -- he was the first in a restored line of prophets sent by God to guide us and help resolve arguments and differences created by individual (and often incorrect or inaccurate) interpretations of men.

[john doe]

I just have to ask, Hill-Billy, are you currently a member in good standing of the LDS Church? Do you believe in ongoing revelation through modern LDS Prophets?

[Hill-Billy]

Wow... this is fun. I didn't know we were so easy to get our underwear pulled. I think it is interesting that we jump to defend outselfs. We are so quick to condem without any investigation in the matter. Very interesting to me how we are so proud and how little we are willing to investigate in any matter that might be hard for us to understand.

It is interesting to me how we mirror old Isreal during the time of Lehi. History has a habit of repeating itself. That is why Isaiah is so important to understand. And I might add that Chapter 7 of Isaiah is very important to what I have said. It relates directly to one of the Presidents of the Church. You guys are so smart, you figure it out as to who it refers to.

I might add that this president changed the ordination of priesthood, that no one was given priesthood in the church only an office. The next president changed it right back again. So now we have a possible question as to who or if anyone today has real priesthood. Check that one out in the rare book collection at BYU. Good luck. Oh I am looking forward to your replies.... This Auto to be good. It is all verified and a part of history. Just check it out at the BYU rare books, I will tell you the book later.

It is time to stop thinking we are all that, and start repenting of our lazy attitudes and get out of babylon economic system and stop using the laws of Mahan to defend outselfs.

And to our illustrious head monitor, The answer is yes, since the early 50's and a High Priest for longer than you have been. You deserve the wish crack for your wish crack.

[bytebear]

I might add that this president changed the ordination of priesthood, that no one was given priesthood in the church only an office. The next president changed it right back again. So now we have a possible question as to who or if anyone today has real priesthood. Check that one out in the rare book collection at BYU. Good luck. Oh I am looking forward to your replies.... This Auto to be good. It is all verified and a part of history. Just check it out at the BYU rare books, I will tell you the book later.

The difference is those presidents had authority from God to define procedure and process. You do not.

[Moksha]

Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 1, p.103

For example, let us consider the ordinance of the Sacrament. It became the custom in many wards throughout the church to have the young men who passed the Sacrament all dressed alike with dark coats, white shirts and uniform ties. This could in time lead to the established custom of dressing them in uniform, such as we see done in some sectarian and other churches. Then again as they passed the Sacrament they had to stand with their left hand plastered on their backs in a most awkward manner. The priests or elders who administered these holy emblems had to stand in a certain way as the one officiating in the prayer knelt at the table. In some instances the Bishop stood in the pulpit with raised hands in an attitude of benediction. Other customs among the quorums and in the services of the wards were introduced. Members of the Church were instructed that they must not touch the trays containing the bread and the water with their left hand, but must take it in their right hand after partaking as their neighbor held the tray in his or her right hand. In the Priesthood in the wards, we now have "supervisors" directing the activities of the deacons and the priests. How long will it take before these supervisors are considered as a regular part of the Priesthood and it will be necessary to set them apart or ordain them to this office? So we see that we, if we are not careful, will find ourselves traveling the road that brought the Church of Jesus Christ in the first centuries into disrepute and paved the way for the apostasy.

Wow, I am impressed with Joseph Fielding Smith saying this in 1922.

[john doe]

And to our illustrious head monitor, The answer is yes, since the early 50's and a High Priest for longer than you have been. You deserve the wish crack for your wish crack.

Yes, to what, exactly? Sorry, I speak modern US American English, could you explain more clearly what you mean by a 'wish crack for your wish crack'? Is that meant as an insult toward me for asking you a question?

[john doe]

I might add that this president changed the ordination of priesthood, that no one was given priesthood in the church only an office. The next president changed it right back again. So now we have a possible question as to who or if anyone today has real priesthood. Check that one out in the rare book collection at BYU. Good luck. Oh I am looking forward to your replies.... This Auto to be good. It is all verified and a part of history. Just check it out at the BYU rare books, I will tell you the book later.

Sorry, I don't have time for snipe hunts. Please provide references for these assertions so we can discuss them.

[Vanhin]

Maybe he meant "wise crack". That would make more sense.

Vanhin

[Moksha]

Yes, to what, exactly? Sorry, I speak modern US American English, could you explain more clearly what you mean by a 'wish crack for your wish crack'? Is that meant as an insult toward me for asking you a question?

Yon varlet doth parry at thine modern Americanism with misspelling.

[john doe]

Maybe he meant "wise crack". That would make more sense.

Vanhin

Barely. I wasn't making a wise crack, I was asking him a question, one in which he seems to be vague in answering.

[john doe]

And to our illustrious head monitor, The answer is yes, since the early 50's and a High Priest for longer than you have been.

Just so we're clear, and for the benefit of others here, just because you're an old codger doesn't make your opinion on the gospel more right than another person's opinion. The request for references stands, or your point is taken at face value as your opinion.

[Vanhin]

Barely. I wasn't making a wise crack, I was asking him a question, one in which he seems to be vague in answering.

Yeah, that's true. It's the best I can do. Maybe it's some old hill billy saying. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Maxgreen1]

As we are speaking about respect and humility, I must share something.

A really personal confession. I usually don't eat before sacrament meeting.

This is a mixture of not having breakfast, and a thought at what I was doing...

I mean, look, the water and the bread represent the blood and body of the savior,

Respectfully, I can't stand the thought that the one that loves me most, and suffered for

all of the transgressions of man spends his sacrament meeting every Sunday, sloshing about

in my stomach with other bits of food.

I just can't.

This is why I find Sunday to be the best day to fast.

It is conveniently on a day of rest.

It is my most spiritual day of the week.

My fasts are stronger on Sundays than any day.

Max

[SailorJohn]

I started this thread and asked this question as a way to learn and understand why we adminster the sacrament differently then the directions given in both "the most correct book" and direct and accepted revelation. There may be a good and valuble reason, there may be direct revelation on the subject. For instance the Book of Mormon and Bible both teach that we are to use wine durring the sacrament. We now have, through Joseph Smith, direct revelation telling us that it is acceptable to use watter, why it is acceptable to use watter, and when we should and shouldn't use wine and why. What I was hoping for was to learn if there was direct revelation explaining the need to not kneel durring the sacrament. What I have found instead has been argument and contention. I have noticed a few here who are in deed pure in heart and would also like to learn eternal truths (and I am sure that there have been more vewing who have not posted). I hope that they have not been put off of seaking and learning those truths because of the contention that has abounded here. Now, I see that satan has taken control of this discusion and I do wash my hands and feet of his influance and the influance of those who would folow satan's ways and not the Lord and Savior's. I hope that this thread will be put to rest and that not another post will be made here.

[Hill-Billy]

I could not agree with you more. Trying to have an intellegent discussion in this site is very difficult indeed.

[Misshalfway]

As we are speaking about respect and humility, I must share something.

A really personal confession. I usually don't eat before sacrament meeting.

This is a mixture of not having breakfast, and a thought at what I was doing...

I mean, look, the water and the bread represent the blood and body of the savior,

Respectfully, I can't stand the thought that the one that loves me most, and suffered for

all of the transgressions of man spends his sacrament meeting every Sunday, sloshing about

in my stomach with other bits of food.

I just can't.

This is why I find Sunday to be the best day to fast.

It is conveniently on a day of rest.

It is my most spiritual day of the week.

My fasts are stronger on Sundays than any day.

Max

I think if you find that this practice enhances your worship then that seems fine with me -- not that I see the bread as anything more than a symbol and my thoughts more important to control than the contents of my stomach. I just think it might be important to say that this is not something the church teaches as part of the ritual. We shouldn't inspire any unnecessary guilt or teach that this practice is going the extra mile. :)

[Misshalfway]

I could not agree with you more. Trying to have an intellegent discussion in this site is very difficult indeed.

Or do you just find that not very many people agree with your perspectives and that irks you? Imo, intelligent discussion can happen regardless of whether or not all the people agree.

Personally, I am not concerned that the church changes on occasion. The OT describes it as a stone rolling without hands. The stone is rolling....moving and changing and evolving and traveling thru various circumstances. I think that it may be a trap to think any changes are a mark the stone is corrupted. Clearly the stone can't be corrupted just simply because it is in motion. Even Joseph Smith taught that we shouldn't get so attached to our traditions. Darn it. Give me a minute and I will find the quote. Its a goodie.

[Just_A_Guy]

Even Joseph Smith taught that we shouldn't get so attached to our traditions. Darn it. Give me a minute and I will find the quote. Its a goodie.

Probably not the quote you're looking for, but instructive nonetheless:

“Even in the Church many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday’s prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Instructor, Aug. 1960, p. 257.)

[Wingnut]

I could not agree with you more. Trying to have an intellegent discussion in this site is very difficult indeed.

I completely agree. It drives me crazy when people show any of the following signs of an unintelligent discussion:

• Refusing to provide sources, especially when asked for them repeatedly.
• Having a superior attitude without having yet proved oneself to be superior.
• Thinking that age is an indication of correctness or wisdom.
• Contradicting oneself.
• Misspelling, not checking for typos, and not making any grammatical sense.

[john doe]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have a discussion based on fact rather than hyperbole would we?

[TootsieBlue]

Well to get back to the original posting...

I have often felt the compulsion to kneel during Sacrament. I haven't though as I feel it may make other people taking the Sacrament uneasy and cause controversy unneccesarily.

However I am rethinking. We get out of Sacrament what we put into it and no one elses actions should affect our own spirituality especially during this Holy Ordinance.

So the next time I feel like kneeling I will do so as surely its up to me as long as I'm not disrupting anyone else and surely it would only add to the reverence of a meeting?

[Wingnut]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have a discussion based on fact rather than hyperbole would we?

We would never do that.

So the next time I feel like kneeling I will do so as surely its up to me as long as I'm not disrupting anyone else and surely it would only add to the reverence of a meeting?

I think it would be a distraction and would in fact, detract from, and not add to, the reverence of a meeting.

[beefche]

I might add that this president changed the ordination of priesthood, that no one was given priesthood in the church only an office. The next president changed it right back again. So now we have a possible question as to who or if anyone today has real priesthood. Check that one out in the rare book collection at BYU. Good luck. Oh I am looking forward to your replies.... This Auto to be good. It is all verified and a part of history. Just check it out at the BYU rare books, I will tell you the book later.

Are you saying that the priesthood that President Monson currently holds is corrupt?

It is time to stop thinking we are all that, and start repenting of our lazy attitudes and get out of babylon economic system and stop using the laws of Mahan to defend outselfs.

Thanks for the the judgment on us, the faceless, nameless, you don't know me from Adam, lazy people. I've often wondered what my attitude of following the leaders of the church and trusting them to correct errors could be called. Silly me, I thought it was simply faith or maybe following the prophet. Now I know it's laziness.