Stirring the pot at church


Lost Boy
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vort said:

True, but not really relevant. The sacrament is not the appropriate venue to demonstrate respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders.

It's not demonstrating respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders. It's demonstrating respect and appreciation for the priesthood office and keys under which said ordinance is being performed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not demonstrating respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders. It's demonstrating respect and appreciation for the priesthood office and keys under which said ordinance is being performed.

Nah. I don't buy it. That is not the purpose of the sacrament. If there is one ordinance at which we all approach the Lord humbly and as equals in our fallen state, it's the sacrament. Serving the presiding authority first does not -- IMO, cannot -- have anything to do with honoring him or his office. That would be utterly inappropriate, like saving a golden throne for the stake president during an endowment session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of the question here...

But the reason the Bishop gets the sacrament first from my thoughts is because he is the one over the Aaronic Priesthood ordinances.  It's the backup to the back up.  If the sacramental prayer is messed up, he will try to signal it in some way that there needs to be a do-over.

However, if for some reason that they miss his que, he can then tell the individual who brings the sacrament to him that the prayer needs to be redone again before anyone else gets the sacrament.

Is this showing respect and appreciation for him as a mortal leader?  I'm not sure.  I MIGHT be demonstrating respect and appreciation for his priesthood office and the keys of which the ordinance is performed.  Overall, a lot of it is just common sense so that the ordinance is assured to be done properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not demonstrating respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders. It's demonstrating respect and appreciation for the priesthood office and keys under which said ordinance is being performed.

From the Church Handbook, "The presiding officer receives the sacrament first." The individual who receives the sacrament first obviously is correlated with priesthood keys and presiding.  I am not sure why an individual would think this has anything to do with favor, or God loving someone more. Seems to follow established patterns of priesthood keys and presiding.

I know you understand this, was adding to what you have shared.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

That would be utterly inappropriate, like saving a golden throne for the stake president during an endowment session.

The given principle from The Folk Prophet is regarding priesthood keys. The comparison with a stake president in the temple doesn't really work, as the stake president doesn't hold any priesthood keys in the temple, and the stake president doesn't preside at any meeting in the temple. The temple president does.

As temple ordinances are for the living (live endowment) and for the dead (proxy) it wouldn't make any sense to have the temple president perform the ordinance of an endowment before members who are receiving their live endowment or performing the work for the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The given principle from The Folk Prophet is regarding priesthood keys. The comparison with a stake president in the temple doesn't really work, as the stake president doesn't hold any priesthood keys in the temple, and the stake president doesn't preside at any meeting in the temple. The temple president does.

As temple ordinances are for the living (live endowment) and for the dead (proxy) it wouldn't make any sense to have the temple president perform the ordinance of an endowment before members who are receiving their live endowment or performing the work for the dead.

You are mistaken. To remind you what TFP wrote:

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not demonstrating respect and appreciation for our mortal leaders. It's demonstrating respect and appreciation for the priesthood office and keys under which said ordinance is being performed.

It is not "demonstrating respect" for either the Priesthood office or the keys of that office. Rather, it is one way of allowing convenient exercise of those keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are mistaken. To remind you what TFP wrote:

It is not "demonstrating respect" for either the Priesthood office or the keys of that office. Rather, it is one way of allowing convenient exercise of those keys.

Perhaps we understand what demonstrating respect means differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Perhaps we understand what demonstrating respect means differently. 

Perhaps so. For example, when I participate in the endowment ceremony in the temple, receiving various types of information from the officiator, I don't consider that to be an instance of demonstrating respect for that officiator. I consider it an instance of the man acting in his capacity as officiator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

You are mistaken. To remind you what TFP wrote:

It is not "demonstrating respect" for either the Priesthood office or the keys of that office. Rather, it is one way of allowing convenient exercise of those keys.

Correct, thus, I am not mistaken. In the temple it is the temple president who holds the priesthood office and keys by which all temple ordinances are performed. Thus, using the stake president as the leader with priesthood keys and office would be the mistake in any example using the temple and priesthood keys and ordinances.

The analogy provided is the stake president in the temple with a golden chair who doesn't have any priesthood office or keys in the temple by which these ordinances are performed.

The Folk Prophet was relating his thoughts toward the sacrament and would relate to the stake president and bishop.

The analogy you provided is with a stake president in the temple. No, I really don't think I am mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

This is why we can't have nice things gentlemen.  Arguing over who gets the sacrament first? :: sigh :: only on the internet. 

(just playing guys) 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Correct, thus, I am not mistaken. In the temple it is the temple president who holds the priesthood office and keys by which all temple ordinances are performed. Thus, using the stake president as the leader with priesthood keys and office would be the mistake in any example using the temple and priesthood keys and ordinances.

The analogy provided is the stake president in the temple with a golden chair who doesn't have any priesthood office or keys in the temple by which these ordinances are performed.

The Folk Prophet was relating his thoughts toward the sacrament and would relate to the stake president and bishop.

The analogy you provided is with a stake president in the temple. No, I really don't think I am mistaken.

So, then, you think it would be perfectly appropriate to "honor" the office and keys of  the temple president by seating him on a golden throne for an endowment session?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

So, then, you think it would be perfectly appropriate to "honor" the office and keys of  the temple president by seating him on a golden throne for an endowment session?

This is irrelevant to what I responded to. I responded to analogy that appeared inaccurate in relation to what TFP provided.

Honestly, I am not sure how my response toward what appeared to me as an inaccurate analogy now implies that I think it is "perfectly appropriate" to give a golden throne to the temple president in an endowment session (as to "honor" him); although, this would be more accurate with what you were specifying.

The sacrament being passed to the presiding authority (which in a stake could be six individuals, at least, and could be more if the stake president determined the EQP were to preside at a ward sacrament in the absence of the bishopric) isn't a golden throne, so I am not sure why a golden throne is even provided in correlation with serving the presiding authority first with the sacrament.

To answer the question bluntly, I don't even think the prophet deserves a golden throne in the endowment session  (nor does a stake president and bishop deserve a golden throne in our wards); although, if he (the prophet) were to come into the endowment session (and I was already seated) I would stand in respect to his office, priesthood keys, and to whom he is before the Lord, my Master.

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought provoking question for the day...looking at infant mortality rates over the course of history and applying those to the number of people who have lived on the earth, a conservative estimate is that 10 to 15 billion children have died in infancy.

Thus there are about a thousand of our brothers and sisters in the Celestial Kingdom for every member of the Church alive today.

How did so many of our brothers and sisters qualify for the Celestial Kingdom in our premortal life?  Can mortality be properly described as a form of repetrage for the rest of us?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My thought provoking question for the day...looking at infant mortality rates over the course of history and applying those to the number of people who have lived on the earth, a conservative estimate is that 10 to 15 billion children have died in infancy.

Thus there are about a thousand of our brothers and sisters in the Celestial Kingdom for every member of the Church alive today.

How did so many of our brothers and sisters qualify for the Celestial Kingdom in our premortal life?  Can mortality be properly described as a form of repetrage for the rest of us?

 

It depends on which era of the church you are talking about.

Previously, the idea was that children who died went to the Celestial Kingdom...HOWEVER...as they were not married in this life, they would inherit the lowest degree of that kingdom.  They were automatically going to the Celestial Kingdom.  They would have thrones and rule there, however, they would not be married. 

A later vision by Joseph also changed a little, for previously he had thought they would be small and little for eternity, and had seen them on such thrones as such, but found that Parents would be able to raise these children to adulthood and as fully developed adults they would also be in the Celestial Kingdom.  Brigham Young furthered this thought.  However, the idea, at least up until Joseph Fielding Smith (and we see some deviation prior to this, but he was prophet up till 72) was that they would inherit the lowest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, or third degree.

This was justice as it was seen.  All little children would live with their heavenly Parents and return to live with them.  This was available to them under the justice and mercy of the atonement.  However, as they had chosen this course of action rather than to make certain mortal choices and consequences, the rewards of having eternal progeny were reserved to those who had participated in the correct marriage ordinances in this life as authorized under Priesthood authority.

Today, there is a folk belief among members that little children that die will be able to not just go to the Celestial Kingdom, but eventually be sealed and have eternal marriages there.  This is different than what was originally revealed and believed in the earlier years of the church.  This can seem mystifying to those who wonder about this.  With this belief it is seen that there is no real benefit to going through this life.  There is no purpose nor reason unless we were so terrible and unvaliant as to merit punishment to needs be tested while others are not.

However, the belief that those who die before the age of 8 go onwards and are able to receive an eternal marriage is the prevalent belief in the LDS church today.  I suppose this gives grieving parents greater comfort. 

In either belief, children under the age of 8 who die all go to the Celestial Kingdom.  What state they have in the life hereafter (whether Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's through Joseph Fielding where little children are not sealed together in marriage, but will be raised by parents in a celestial state and inherit thrones and kingdoms as such) or whether we go with the popular and widespread belief that is prevalent today is more of where the question seems to lie.

I think it depends on what you consider the justice of the Lord and the purpose and design of this life.

 

PS: I SHOULD NOTE one other item.  Though there IS NO advancement between Kingdoms (Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial) there is no indication that there is no advancement within kingdoms themselves (so one could gain glory in the Telestial from one point to the next, just not rise from the Telestial to the Terrestrial).

Hence it could be that one could have both beliefs, both that little children are not sealed or married in the Celestial Kingdom, but are raised by their parents.  However, it is possible that there may be a way provided that they thence, could rise up to higher degrees of glory within the Celestial Kingdom itself.

This could also go hand in hand with an more crazy and wierd idea (so far out there that it isn't even really a Mormon belief, more what a few speculated) that Peter, James and John and maybe Adam were already Celestial Beings.  Peter, James and John thus would have had physical bodies already prior to the creation of this earth, but could come down for specific purpose such as teachers and supporters to set up a church for the Lord in multiple eras.  It also goes with the  very odd and different idea that if such happens, as there is NO CHANGES able to be done in the Celestial Kingdom as the Lord is unchanging and the same yesterday, today, and forever, that any changes in the status quo NEED to occur in some sort of mortality.  Hence any advancements in such would require a mortal experience of some sort.  Note, this is rather unorthodox idea, but is another one of those that arose with the entire idea of children advancing and being sealed together in eternal marriages.  The reason is it was quite explicit the state of the children after death by the Prophets to that point.  However, there is nothing specifically that states one cannot go between degrees of glory within a singular kingdom itself.  Hence, speculation on how that would happen, and how children might eventually be able to be sealed and have eternal marriages).

The ideas have changed over the years, until now, people don't wonder how such a thing would happen but instead just accept that little children that die will go up to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom (which means they must be sealed to another).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

With this belief it is seen that there is no real benefit to going through this life.  There is no purpose nor reason unless we were so terrible and unvaliant as to merit punishment to needs be tested while others are not.

I do not comprehend people who think these things.

1) An undeniable benefit and technical necessity is obtaining a body, so clearly there's a purpose, even for infants who die.

2) We don't know what experiences we or any other had or will have outside mortality.  Regardless of what it was or will be, why is it so awful to believe that those who only experienced a small amount of mortality were better than the rest of us?  (Not saying I believe this, necessarily, just that I don't understand why it's so terrible.)  Every person in this life is at a different point in their progression, so why not pre-mortal and post-mortal spirits?  Why should envy, resentment, self-loathing, or whatever other negative emotions these people seem to feel play a part?  We should rejoice if some managed in pre-mortality to master themselves to the point of not needing to go through what we are going through.

How is it not obvious that each of us has a journey and each journey is designed for the individual and we mortals are woefully unqualified to determine whose journey is "better" from an eternal perspective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil said:

I do not comprehend people who think these things.

1) An undeniable benefit and technical necessity is obtaining a body, so clearly there's a purpose, even for infants who die.

2) We don't know what experiences we or any other had or will have outside mortality.  Regardless of what it was or will be, why is it so awful to believe that those who only experienced a small amount of mortality were better than the rest of us?  (Not saying I believe this, necessarily, just that I don't understand why it's so terrible.)  Every person in this life is at a different point in their progression, so why not pre-mortal and post-mortal spirits?  Why should envy, resentment, self-loathing, or whatever other negative emotions these people seem to feel play a part?  We should rejoice if some managed in pre-mortality to master themselves to the point of not needing to go through what we are going through.

How is it not obvious that each of us has a journey and each journey is designed for the individual and we mortals are woefully unqualified to determine whose journey is "better" from an eternal perspective?

It automatically suggests that the chosen and elect of the Lord are actually NOT the chosen and elect of the Lord.  The true chosen and elect of the Lord never get trials or tribulations, they simply get to go to the Celestial Kingdom with no accountability on their heads for their mortality without ever having temptation in their secondary state.  It automatically assumes that those who are in this life are lesser than those who are not.  It means that reward is NOT equal to the trial or learning. (and just to be clear, we do NOT EARN our reward, but if one believes in choice, under the current belief, we don't fully choose our reward either in this idea, as mortality really has no purpose if all one has to do is come here, die, and receive exaltation.  We might as well all die.  If it is a time for us to prove ourselves, than that by default means that those who die without having to prove themselves in mortality and thus the mortal temptation are better and the chosen and elect, while those who have to go through trials were not as true and faithful, thus have to prove themselves further).

However, that said, the main belief among Mormons I know today is that children who die before the age of 8 are automatically saved, not just into the Celestial Kingdom, but into the highest degree of glory thereof (meaning that they also, somehow are sealed to another child or individual in eternal marriage and into the patriarchal order).

This IS a current popular belief among Mormons though, there is NO revelation or doctrine to back this up.

In fact, the former belief had no doctrine to back it up, only revelation and statements made by Joseph Smith - Joseph Fielding Smith in conferences and talks.

Neither is actually the doctrine of the church, but the idea that children go to the Celestial Kingdom (aka...heaven) IS doctrine in and of itself.  However, where they go within their kingdom is NOT defined in doctrine itself.  If you refer to the prophets, the prophets up until JFS actually say something quite different than what a majority of Mormons (at least in my anecdotal experience) feel and believe today (saying, when they did specify that children go to the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest being reserved for those who meet the requirements under the priesthood in this life).

With children going to the celestial kingdom it is NOT to say that this thwarts the designs of the plan of Salvation.  ALL ordinances are still necessary.  The children in and of themselves have not earned such a reward in this life, but are also innocent having been caught up in justice and mercy.  Thus, they also merit no punishment. 

As I said, there were different beliefs depending on the era of Mormonism you are from.  Mormons today overwhelmingly seem to believe that children who die will be married for all eternity. 

This does not exactly mesh with other beliefs (beyond this life, no one is married, as it is this life that we choose.  Once in the afterlife, things are as they are for eternity, thus it is here where we choose our eternal reward).  Little children are unaccountable before the age of eight, but they are not sealed in the temple in marriage.  They may be sealed to parents, but NOT to others into the Patriarchal order.  They do not have the free agency to choose and once we have passed this life, and the earth has ceased to exist, OR they have already received their eternal reward (and we have no reason to think little children do not receive their eternal reward, why would they need to wait until all others receive it?) they cannot choose.

Going to the Celestial Kingdom is NOT a punishment.  The Lower degrees still mean you are have a throne and glory.  It means that you simply were not married in this life and thus do not have eternal progeny.  You still have greater glory and power than anyone here can imagine.

Still, as I said, most Mormons today disagree with earlier prophets in what they said.  The common belief today is that children who die receive eternal marriage and will go to the highest degree of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom.  It is very common, and even normal for many Mormons who believe this to find it crazy that anyone would believe otherwise or that it would be otherwise.

Thus, as I said, this is what Our era of the church believes, but earlier eras did not believe the same thing we do today.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

It automatically suggests that the chosen and elect of the Lord are actually NOT the chosen and elect of the Lord.

Nonsense.  Absurd.  Just because some are ahead of others does not mean that (some of) those who aren't "there yet" are not also chosen.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The true chosen and elect of the Lord never get trials or tribulations, they simply get to go to the Celestial Kingdom with no accountability on their heads

Assumption galore there.  The "mortality" bit that I left out might be accurate, but the rest is pure assumption.

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It automatically assumes that those who are in this life are lesser than those who are not.

Assume being the operative word there - pure speculation (and to make a complaint out of it is to be prideful and covetous).  And so what if we are?

Quote

Conspicuously lacking in the divine hierarchy is any sense of rank or class. Obedience and subordination in nowise jeopardize individual freedom and leadership and command, and in no way impose dictatorship as long as the whole concern of those above is to reach down in love to those below, and those below strive to rise in love to those above. (Moses 1:38-39.)

--Old Testament and Related Studies, Chapter 6, Hugh Nibley

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This IS a current popular belief among Mormons though, there is NO revelation or doctrine to back this up.

I don't much care which interpretation / understanding is true, if either; neither justifies getting all upset over the salvation of other people.  The Plan of Salvation is for all of God's children and on the same conditions.  That is all that matters, not our relative rates of exaltation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

Nonsense.  Absurd.  Just because some are ahead of others does not mean that (some of) those who aren't "there yet" are not also chosen.

Assumption galore there.  The "mortality" bit that I left out might be accurate, but the rest is pure assumption.

Assume being the operative word there - pure speculation (and to make a complaint out of it is to be prideful and covetous).  And so what if we are?

I don't much care which interpretation / understanding is true, if either; neither justifies getting all upset over the salvation of other people.  The Plan of Salvation is for all of God's children and on the same conditions.  That is all that matters, not our relative rates of exaltation.

This is true, I was merely stating the reasons WHY our current belief was basically stated outright to be incorrect by earlier Latter-day Prophets.  There were those who believed as we do today in the early church, but were corrected on this idea. 

However, today, we believe many things differently than what the early Saints did.  Some of it is due to revelation, and some of it is simply because over time enough people felt one way that this is how it has become.

This is why, when someone reads Doctrines of Salvation or even earlier works, sometimes what they read does not seem to be in compliance with what we currently believe in the church.

Journal of Discourses is another where we can see very different interpretations on things that we assume today, from what they assumed in Brigham Youngs time or elsewise.

The main core beliefs stay the same, but many minor ideas and beliefs seem to differ between different eras of the church.  Most of these are NOT reliant on actual Doctrine, but are interpretations or extensions of that doctrine themselves, so as such, even if a prophet had revelation or claimed revelation on it, are not official or stringent to our doctrine then or today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I few thoughts.

I trust that all of the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom will be overjoyed regarding the presence of each and every other inhabitant of the Celestial Kingdom.  Such are the attributes of a refined soul.

There will not be second guessers in other kingdoms regarding the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom, as the Book of Mormon teaches in several places that ALL will confess God’s judgements are just.

Those here in mortality questioning the fairness of infants and adults who don’t achieve accountability inheriting the Celestial Kingdom might benefit from the message of Matthew 20.

Finally, It seems to me that the same love that motivated Jesus to give options to his Apostles regarding how their salvation would unfold and to honor the unique desires of John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, might have motivated analogous options for those whose faithfulness in our premortal Life qualified them for the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited by let’s roll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO coming back to the original topic.......

 

If we dont ask the awkward questions in Sunday School where do we ask them?  If members can't probe and question sincerely they will look to other sources.

 

Personally when I am teaching I am quick to say "I don't know" or usually "great question, I have never thought of it that way".  I find it much harder to lead discussion that just ends with the "standard" Sunday school answers and probes no further.  Probably why I much prefer teaching in primary ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2018 at 12:55 PM, Lost Boy said:

Another practice I don't get is the need to shake a general authorities hand.

Here again, a general authority is a man.  The spirit he has is the same that is in you and me.  Shaking his hand is not going to infuse testimony power into you.  I would venture that there are plenty of members that are more saintly than some general authorities.  They hold the same priesthood as most males in the church.

It's not about their spirit or priesthood or anything else like that.  It is that us common folk fancy the idea of meeting someone famous.  And shaking hands is one of those rituals that officially says,"I met him".  That experience is amplified when it is with someone we respect and admire.

I'd have the same reaction if I were to have met and shaken hands with C.S. Lewis or Ralph Moody or Gary Sinise or Billy Joel or Steve Martin.

You can try to deny this impulse all you want.  But if you're a fan of anyone famous, then you have that impulse as well (no matter how well suppressed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2018 at 11:24 AM, MarginOfError said:

it strikes me as overly redundant 

On 9/17/2018 at 12:00 PM, Vort said:

On the other hand, I have witnessed a couple of times in my life when the bishop has whispered something to the deacon passing the sacrament, who then returned to the sacrament table and set things aright. So perhaps that redundancy exists for a good reason.

On 9/17/2018 at 12:45 PM, Lost Boy said:

I attended a BYU ward where the bishop instructed us not to pass him the sacrament first.  He claimed to have a letter from the first presidency stating that it was not required to do so.

I don't buy into the notion of doing things because of tradition. 

I believe you are all correct and incorrect.  It's really about a shift in methodology.  People say that the bishop being served first is "just a tradition".  Yet the priest looking over at the bishop is not???  They're both traditions.  They both serve the same purpose.  It may be that one is gaining favor as the "official" method of today. But they are both simply practices with the same purpose.

I find it interesting that the older generation sees the importance of serving the bishop first as more important than the newer generation because they see the different shift from the old to the new.  In days before I was born, the bishop being served was indeed the standard method.  The younger generation is so used to the priest looking over that they don't see the need to serve the bishop first.  I believe that we have both in place because of tradition.  As the newer generation grows older, the serving the bishop method will wane and eventually be forgotten.

We do have that redundancy built in.  But the bishop has the discretion to not require that he be served first -- because he feels it to be redundant.  In the ward growing up, I had three bishops.  One went along with it. One did not.  I forget what the third one did.  The point being that even when I was a child the beginnings of shifting away from the practice was begun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share