Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Dravin... it could be that Leah doesn't know what you mean by a "straw man" so she's completely missing your point. Maybe you can use a different phrase than a straw man. I don't know... Just trying to help...
Dravin Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Dravin... it could be that Leah doesn't know what you mean by a "straw man" so she's completely missing your point. Maybe you can use a different phrase than a straw man. I don't know... Just trying to help...If she's unfamiliar with the term she can look it up, and there is also the act of asking, "What do you mean by a straw-man?"But here, I'll answer the question even though it hasn't been asked:Straw-man:1) (less formal) A position attributed to someone that they do not hold or have not expressed.2) (more formal) A false position (but usually similar to one actually held) attributed to someone so that one can rebut or respond to the false position instead of the actually held position. Edited February 10, 2012 by Dravin
RipplecutBuddha Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Okay, here's my bit, take it for what it is.-The sacrament is for a renewal of baptismal covenants, therefore when baptized members partake worthily (ie. they are truly still repentant of their sins and striving to overcome them) then they are blessed as though they had just been baptized again. For serious and consistently difficult sins, they would have been in contact with the bishop for help and direction.-If someone who has been baptized partakes of the sacrament and is not truly repentant (ie. they aren't concerned with overcoming the sins in their life) then they are partaking of the sacrament unworthily, and instead of being blessed, stand condemned until they repent.-If someone who has not been baptized partakes of the sacrament, the action is of no effect at all, whether the person is righteous or unrighteous, because they have not entered into a covenant with Heavenly Father through baptism. Remember the ordinance is to renew a covenant, not to make one.The verse quoted in Mormon about preventing people from partaking unworthily pertains to baptized members only, because only baptized members have a covenant to maintain. Non-members do not. Stated another way, how can a non-member be condemned for failing to live up to a covenant they have not made? How can a little child be condemned for failing to live up to a covenant that Heavenly Father says they have no need to make?The sacrament is the most important ordinance in the church IMHO because we participate in it weekly. At the same time, it is a very public ordinance because we all need to participate regularly. People outside the Church could use this as a way to explain how we view ourselves in relation to the Atonement. That could cut both ways if we insist that "Only member should partake".A paraphrase, then, of the policy from the handbook that is perfectly backed up in scripture is this; "The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a renewal of covenants made at baptism. Those who are baptized must see to it that they partake of the sacrament worthily, or that they are repentant of their sins. Those who are not baptized are not under a covenant, and thus may decide for themselves if they partake or not. Partaking of the sacrament prior to baptism has no spiritual consequence upon one's standing before Heavenly Father." Edited February 10, 2012 by RipplecutBuddha
Blackmarch Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 It seems you're reading too much into it. It's unworthily, not unworthy and/or non-member. I've met so many people who are not members who are a whole lot more worthy than me. Besides, one time my grandma came to church with us. She's was Catholic. So when she saw the sacrament, she naturally partook of it. There was a prayer, and the passing of the emblems. Nothing out of the ordinary about that with her and I suspect others not of the LDS faith.Worthiness is a personal thing. I wouldn't tell anyone to not take the sacrament. I figure that job ultimately belongs to the Bishop, who is their Judge in Israel.IMO as long as mnembers of other faiths were being respectful, if they partook of the sacrament i don't think it wouild affect them in any way: they have not made the same covenants bound by the priesthood that the LDS membership does starting when they are baptised.
pam Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 It has been quoted from the handbook and that is what we are to go by. If you disagree with what the First Presidency has put out, please talk to your local leaders.Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it. (Handbook II: Administering the Church, Section 20.4.1) Thread is now closed.
Recommended Posts