Ed Decker

[srm]

"May 2, 1946. Dear Brethren: Inquiries received at the office of the First Presidency disclose the fact that there is a divergence of opinion and varied practices among ward officers with respect to the kind of music, if any, that should be rendered during the administration of the sacrament. Recently, this question came before the First Presidency and the Twelve who unanimously approved the recommendation that the ideal condition is to have absolute quiet during the passing of the sacrament, and that we look with disfavor upon vocal solos, duets, group singing, or instrumental music during the administration of this sacred ordinance. There is no objection to having appropriate music during the preparation of the emblems, but after the prayer is offered, perfect silence should prevail until the bread and the water have been partaken of by the full congregation.

Are you basing you view on this paragraph? It doesn't seem clear that administration means preparation, blessing and passing. It is ambiguous at best. However is we defer to the scriptures it says, "76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this amanner• shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread• to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness• unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit• to be with them. Amen.

78 The manner• of administering the wine—he shall take the cup• also, and say:

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine• to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Notice that this speaks specifically about administering the sacrament yet make no mention of the preparation or passing being a part of the adminitration. It just speaks of the prayer...which we have the priest do. I think we are on good scriptural ground here.

[Jason]

"Are you basing you view on this paragraph?"

No. Actually both Mormon Fundamentalists and the Community of Christ churches believe that administration includes passing the sacrament. The LDS Church also used to believe that, but changed sometime in the early 20th century.

"It doesn't seem clear that administration means preparation, blessing and passing. It is ambiguous at best."

Actually it's pretty clear that the administration of the sacrament includes the blessing and the passing. Obviously music wouldn't be played during the prayer, therefore we're talking about passing.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 17 2004, 11:53 AM

"Are you basing you view on this paragraph?"

No. Actually both Mormon Fundamentalists and the Community of Christ churches believe that administration includes passing the sacrament. The LDS Church also used to believe that, but changed sometime in the early 20th century.

"It doesn't seem clear that administration means preparation, blessing and passing. It is ambiguous at best."

Actually it's pretty clear that the administration of the sacrament includes the blessing and the passing. Obviously music wouldn't be played during the prayer, therefore we're talking about passing.

Can you show me where the LDS church used to believe this? especially when the scritpures refer to the prayer as the administration.

Of course music could be played during the prayer. what would preclude it?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+May 14 2004, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ May 14 2004, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@May 14 2004, 02:56 PM

Lucifer is not the Canaanite god, it is just the latin equivalent.

Well, yea...same guy...different language.

No, not the same guy at all; unless you are referring to Lucifer and Satan being the same guy, not Helel and Lucifier.

I was saying "what if" Satan really is a god named Helel?  It would not contradict Mormon Doctrine.  Just an interesting observation.

I doubt that that idea would be accepted as Mormon doctrine either. In the Canaanite Pantheon Helel, meaning “Shining One”, was the son of Shachar, God of the dawn. In Christianity Satan is an angel created by God, who rebels against God and becomes God’s adversary, hence Satan means “adversary”. In Mormonism Satan is a spirit child of God, known by his pre-rebellious name Lucifer.

I doubt very much that a Canaanite/Pheonician ever confused Helel with Satan or vise versa with a mainstream Christian or Mormon. To say that they could be the same person would mean that Satan was the son of Shachar or that Helel was created as an angel or spirit child by God, who eventually rebelled.

The only thing these two characters have in common is that sometimes they share the same name of Lucifer. Helel because it has the same meaning, it’s just a different language. And Satan, because over time people started to associated the name Lucifier with Satan. Lucifer evolved into Satan and vise versa.

M.

[Jason]

"Can you show me where the LDS church used to believe this?" (srm)

Nothing officially documented other than what ive already shown you. There are some fundamentalist 'testimonies' of older mormon folks who've talked about this, but I doubt that such testimony would sway you.

"especially when the scritpures refer to the prayer as the administration."

What you're ignoring is that the passage doesn't say that passing the bread and water ISNT part of the administration. (That and your scriptures also say that only Elders can bless the sacrament, unless no elder is PRESENT. I've never been to an lds sacrament meeting where at least one elder wasn't present. Have you???)

"Of course music could be played during the prayer. what would preclude it?"

That's beside the point. Playing music during a prayer (especially before microphones) would make it pretty darn hard to hear, don't you think?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@May 17 2004, 02:25 PM

Of course music could be played during the prayer. what would preclude it?

You say some of the most inappropriate things in an effort to prove your point.

I have never been anywhere where music was played during a prayer of any sort. Sheesh!

[Outshined]

I was raised Baptist. You'd have to play Metallica to hear it over the people trying to out-pray one another.........

[srm]

Originally posted by Jenda+May 17 2004, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ May 17 2004, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@May 17 2004, 02:25 PM

Of course music could be played during the prayer.  what would preclude it?

You say some of the most inappropriate things in an effort to prove your point.

I have never been anywhere where music was played during a prayer of any sort. Sheesh!

watch a teleevangelist some time. You will often hear music played during a prayer. BTW...inappropriate?

[Jason]

I never thought of the televangelists before. You've made a point.

[srm]

What you're ignoring is that the passage doesn't say that passing the bread and water ISNT part of the administration.

Since it doesn't say one way or the other...It must be open to interpretation. Ergo; we are on solid scriptural ground.

(That and your scriptures also say that only Elders can bless the sacrament, unless no elder is PRESENT.  I've never been to an lds sacrament meeting where at least one elder wasn't present.  Have you???)

I'm sorry, It doesn't say that.

That's beside the point.  Playing music during a prayer (especially before microphones) would make it pretty darn hard to hear, don't you think?

Not if it is background music played pianisimo

[Jason]

I said: "That and your scriptures also say that only Elders can bless the sacrament, unless no elder is PRESENT. I've never been to an lds sacrament meeting where at least one elder wasn't present. Have you???"

srm replied: "I'm sorry, It doesn't say that."

Have you read it lately? D&C 20 (LDS version)-

46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

50 BUT WHEN THERE IS AN ELDER PRESENT, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, (NOTICE 'ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENT' IS MISSING....)

51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 03:11 PM

I think the theory I was talking about was that if the Mormons have the real truth, then the Canannite story of Helel could be a corrupted version of the "true" story.

I don't want to beat a dead horse Taoist but, could you explain why you would think this?

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 03:35 PM

I was saying that if Mormon doctrine is true, then there really was an angel who betrayed God and was then named "Satan". Adam would have told that story, since he was the first LDS Prophet. So the LDS version of the story would be around first.

If a similar story shows up later (the Canaanite story), then it would be a fair assumption that the story was a misinterpretation of Adam's story. So we find the story of Helel/Lucifer...who would be named after the angel in the LDS story, because the LDS story says clearly that Satan's true name was Lucifer.

Of couse, if Mormon doctrine is not true, then the Christians, and later the LDS probably borrowed the Canaanite story and used the name Lucifer for the name of the angel who would become Satan.

Right?

I would disagree. What are the similarities between Helel, Adam and Satan?

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 03:58 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question. I didn't say Adam was "Helel" or "Satan".

I said that Adam may have been the first to tell the story of Lucifer's rebellion, IF LDS DOCTRINE IS TRUE.

From what I heard of the Helel story it is similar to the story of Satan in that it involves an attempt by Helel to take El's throne...or some kind of rebellion like that, resulting in him being cast down. If I have the story of Helel wrong, let me know...because I was only quoting what that guy said in the article about Ed Decker.

If there is a similarity between the story of Helel and Satan, then I think it is likely that one story influenced the other, and they did not emerge in isolation of each other.

My opinion would be that the Canaanite story existed first, and the Hebrews changed it, and then the LDS changed it again.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

From what I remember, Helel tried to take his Father's throne (Shachar) not El's throne (grandfather). I'm not quite sure if there are similarities between Satan and God's relationship though. Satan rebelled against God, but I'm not sure if he tried to take his throne. The War in Heaven story is myth as far as I'm concerned. Can't really find anything in the Bible to firmly substantiate it.

But now that you have explained your view, I finally see what you mean. Thanks!

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Just a mistunderstanding...that's ok :)

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 05:26 PM

Also, I wonder why the LDS version of the story doesn't mention Lucifer trying to take the throne? Maybe they considered "throne" to be a symbolic term.

It is in my house.........

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Outshined+May 18 2004, 05:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ May 18 2004, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 05:26 PM

Also, I wonder why the LDS version of the story doesn't mention Lucifer trying to take the throne?  Maybe they considered "throne" to be a symbolic term.

It is in my house.........

ROFL!

[Jason]

srm,

Still there?.....

[Jason]

stunned silence......

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 18 2004, 04:26 PM

Isn't it in Isaiah 14?

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:1-13:

The Lord will certainly have compassion on Jacob; he will again choose Israel as his special people and restore them to their land. Resident foreigners will join them and unite with the family of Jacob. Nations will take them and bring them back to their own place. Then the family of Jacob will make foreigners their servants as they settle in the Lord’s land. They will make their captors captives and rule over the ones who oppressed them. When the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and anxiety, and from the hard labor which you were made to perform, you will taunt the king of Babylon with these words:

“Look how the oppressor has met his end!

Hostility has ceased!

The Lord has broken the club of the wicked,

the scepter of rulers.

It furiously struck down nations

with unceasing blows.

It angrily ruled over nations,

oppressing them without restraint.

The whole earth rests and is quiet;

they break into song.

The evergreens also rejoice over your demise,

as do the cedars of Lebanon, singing,

‘Since you fell asleep,

no woodsman comes up to chop us down!’

Sheol below is stirred up about you,

ready to meet you when you arrive.

It rouses the spirits of the dead for you,

all the former leaders of the earth;

it makes all the former kings of the nations

rise from their thrones.

All of them respond to you, saying:

‘You’ve also become weak like us!

You’ve become just like us!

Your splendor has been brought down to Sheol,

as well as the sound of your stringed instruments.

You lie on a bed of maggots,

with a blanket of worms over you.

Look how you have fallen from the sky,

O shining one, son of the dawn!

[The Hebrew text has rjv-/b llyh (“Helel son of Shachar”)]

You’ve been cut down to the ground,

O conqueror of the nations!

You said to yourself,

“I will climb up to the sky.

Above the stars of El

[in Canaanite mythology the stars of El were astral deities under the authority of the high god El.]

I will set up my throne.

I will rule on the mountain of assembly

on the remote slopes of Zaphon…

[Zaphon, the Canaanite version of Olympus, was the “mountain of assembly” where the gods met.]

Isaiah 14:12 could have a double meaning and may be subtlety inferring a similarity to Satan since he was thrown out of heaven. But IMO it is mainly a taunt against the King of Babylon using Canaanite mythology overtones. It is informing the Babylonian king that he has oppressed Israel and will eventually see his downfall, like Helel did. The passage is prophetic, speaking about a future time of the destruction of this wicked king.

M.

Editing to mention this translation is from the NET Bible at bible.org.