Ed Decker

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Interesting...that makes alot of sense.

[Jason]

srm,

Are you too busy to discuss, or have you decided that it's futile to argue with the facts?

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 19 2004, 11:24 PM

srm,

Are you too busy to discuss, or have you decided that it's futile to argue with the facts?

Sheesh Jason...maybe you need to go to mass again, the kinder gentler jason is gone again. I've been pretty busy. However the facts here are easy. The scritpures refer to the prayer on the sacrament as the administration. Your point about elders, while interesting and worthy of discussion, is a red hering. you are diverting attention from the issue of what is considered the administration of the sacrament. I can see why the CofC feels the way they do but I can also see pretty solid ground for our view. if you want to discuss the elder/priest issue, great. But to try to confuse it with the issue at hand. What is most interesting is your lack of patience especially when back in march you were shown to be wrong (right before you got kinder/gentler...hmmm.) yet you refused to admit it.

[Jason]

"Sheesh Jason...maybe you need to go to mass again, the kinder gentler jason is gone again." (srm)

My religious activities are none of your concern. Thanks.

"I've been pretty busy."

That's why I baited you. I wanted to make sure you didn't forget our little conversation here...

"However the facts here are easy. The scritpures refer to the prayer on the sacrament as the administration."

I thought we already came to the same conclusion on this: that the passage in question doesn't specifically state one way or the other.

"Your point about elders, while interesting and worthy of discussion, is a red hering."

I don't think so. It's all part and parcel of the paradigm shift the LDS church has taken on this passage.

"What is most interesting is your lack of patience especially when back in march you were shown to be wrong (right before you got kinder/gentler...hmmm.) yet you refused to admit it."

That's possible. What was I wrong about? (I don't remember.)

[srm]

"Sheesh Jason...maybe you need to go to mass again, the kinder gentler jason is gone again." (srm)

My religious activities are none of your concern.  Thanks.

My, you really are testy. I am concerned, thank you.

When you said, "My Friends,

This morning I had a very humbling experience. I attended Mass this morning, and the lector read a few passages from Isaiah and Matthew. The ones in Matthew got to me the most, because I felt like God was condemning me. If I might paraphrase, It was the passage where Christ condemned the priests, scribes, etc for their inability to practice what they preach.

I've often prided myself in my knowledge of scripture. But it seems that that pride is what is preventing me from knowing God. Bragging and showing off and telling others what they should be doing is not bringing me closer to Christ. While I will not turn away any one who has a question for me personally, I don't think that I should attempt to persuade others to follow me until I have "been converted".

I hope that God will help you all in your spiritual journeys. I will occasionally lurk around, but I will be signing off for now.

May God Forgive Us For Our Contentions. "

and, "Maybe Im becomming more of a "feeling" type person, but as much as I enjoy our "discussions" I don't normally feel better when I walk away from my computer. (Unless I feel I've demolished the competition.) But that is not a lasting sensation. It is not from God, but from my own conceit.

I want to continue our discussions, but I think I need a "time out" before I resume. I also need to stop being such an arrogant jerk at times. I only want to participate in discussions that stick to the topic, and will not necessarily require one to forsake their faith to concede a point. That way, I need not offend anyone. I'll let Christ offend if He will, and I'll just watch.

Jason"

I thought you were trying to do things differently...well, I was concerned that you might be backsliding. I firmly believe that we can discuss and even disagree without being disagreeable.

"I've been pretty busy."

That's why I baited you.  I wanted to make sure you didn't forget our little conversation here...

Baited me? well see above.

"However the facts here are easy. The scritpures refer to the prayer on the sacrament as the administration."

I thought we already came to the same conclusion on this: that the passage in question doesn't specifically state one way or the other.

You mean because it does not specifically preclude the preparation and passing of the sacrament...it could also mean to include it? OK...I'll buy that (although I don't agree).

"Your point about elders, while interesting and worthy of discussion, is a red hering."

I don't think so.  It's all part and parcel of the paradigm shift the LDS church has taken on this passage.

Have you established that there has been a 'paradigm shift'? where?

"What is most interesting is your lack of patience especially when back in march you were shown to be wrong (right before you got kinder/gentler...hmmm.) yet you refused to admit it."

That's possible.  What was I wrong about?  (I don't remember.)

I'll refresh your memory...refreshement/restitution.

[Jason]

"I thought you were trying to do things differently...well, I was concerned that you might be backsliding. I firmly believe that we can discuss and even disagree without being disagreeable."

Point taken and conceded.

"Baited me? well see above."

Hmm..nobody's perfect.

"You mean because it does not specifically preclude the preparation and passing of the sacrament...it could also mean to include it? OK...I'll buy that (although I don't agree)."

That's what I thought we agreed on. We'll move on then...

"Have you established that there has been a 'paradigm shift'? where?"

Overall, the LDS church has shifted the way they view their scriptures (specifically the D&C) where things no longer fit the current mold. The duties and methods of the priesthood are one shining example of this shift.

"I'll refresh your memory...refreshement/restitution."

As I recall, that was your missaplication of my interpretation. Did that mean I was wrong?

[srm]

"Have you established that there has been a 'paradigm shift'? where?"

Overall, the LDS church has shifted the way they view their scriptures (specifically the D&C) where things no longer fit the current mold.  The duties and methods of the priesthood are one shining example of this shift. 

let's look at the elder/priest issue then. We can your defense of the preparation & passing of the sacrament not being specifically precluded. Neither does it specifically preclude the blessing of the sacrament by a priest when there is an elder present.

"I'll refresh your memory...refreshement/restitution."

As I recall, that was your missaplication of my interpretation.  Did that mean I was wrong?

You presented one verse as if it were another. It was desceptive of an honest error that you failed to own up to.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I'm still interested in hearing more about BY's greatness...

Anyone?

[Jason]

"let's look at the elder/priest issue then." (srm)

Okay.

"Neither does it specifically preclude the blessing of the sacrament by a priest when there is an elder present."

That's where I must disagree. Because the passage in question omits in the list 'administration of the sacrament' when an elder is present. Why would only omit that one ordinance?

On "refreshement/restitution."

"You presented one verse as if it were another. It was desceptive of an honest error that you failed to own up to." (srm)

No. We were thinking of different verses. I had nothing to apologize for. I wasn't intentionally trying to misquote, and you assumed I was.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 20 2004, 01:00 PM

I'm still interested in hearing more about BY's greatness...

Anyone?

If you're really interested Taoist, I recommend finding some books to read. Here are some suggestions from:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/

Brigham Young

The New York Years

RICHARD F. PALMER and

KARL D. BUTLER

Charles Redd Monographs in Western History Series No. 14

Paperback. 116 Pages. / 0-941214-07-9 / $11.95

The Essential Brigham Young

EUGENE E. CAMPBELL, FOREWORD

Classics in Mormon Thought Series No. 3

Hardback. 280 Pages. / 1-56085-010-8 / $22.95

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Would those be unbiased books? I want to find something that is pretty objective.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 20 2004, 03:26 PM

Would those be unbiased books? I want to find something that is pretty objective.

I think Signaturebooks offers good, reliable information with their historical or biographical collection. I would trust them.

M.

[srm]

"Neither does it specifically preclude the blessing of the sacrament by a priest when there is an elder present."

That's where I must disagree. Because the passage in question omits in the list 'administration of the sacrament' when an elder is present.  Why would only omit that one ordinance? 

I do see your point but it seems we're in the same boat. You claim that the administration of the sacrament includes the preparation and passing based on the fact that it does not specifically preclude it can be used here too. Id does not say that a priest can not bless the sacrament rather it does not mention it one way or the other. But I can see your point. It does not pose a problem because the way the the two priesthoods are used has changed. if we believe in a living church with inpired leaders...it can change.

On "refreshement/restitution."

"You presented one verse as if it were another. It was desceptive of an honest error that you failed to own up to." (srm)

No.  We were thinking of different verses.  I had nothing to apologize for.  I wasn't intentionally trying to misquote, and you assumed I was.

OK, I can live w/ that.

[Jason]

"It does not pose a problem because the way the the two priesthoods are used has changed. if we believe in a living church with inpired leaders...it can change." (srm)

Well if you're going to use that argument, then we've really got nothing to discuss! What the heck?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM

"It does not pose a problem because the way the the two priesthoods are used has changed. if we believe in a living church with inpired leaders...it can change." (srm)

Well if you're going to use that argument, then we've really got nothing to discuss! What the heck?

Sorry, I agree with Jason. And there are a host of restoration scriptures that indicate that God does not change.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is aunchangeable• from ball• eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:19 And behold, I say unto you he bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

D&C 20:12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

[Guest Starsky]

People all the time confuse the change of doctrine/application/laws with God....God is God and He never changes...He is always filled with Love and caring for us. He is always all wise and going to do what is best for us even if we can't see it.

He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God.

[Jason]

"He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God." (Starsky)

Your proof, madam?

[srm]

Originally posted by Jenda+May 21 2004, 11:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ May 21 2004, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 21 2004, 10:37 AM

"It does not pose a problem because the way the the two priesthoods are used has changed. if we believe in a living church with inpired leaders...it can change." (srm)

Well if you're going to use that argument, then we've really got nothing to discuss!  What the heck?

Sorry, I agree with Jason. And there are a host of restoration scriptures that indicate that God does not change.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is aunchangeable• from ball• eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:19 And behold, I say unto you he bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

D&C 20:12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

I guess we would have to define terms here. What does unchangeable mean? Does it mean that something he reveals can never be changed? For example:

Jesus commanded his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles...then later they were sent to the Gentiles.

anciently every male was circumcised...in NT times is was not required.

Or in your case, The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS to the Community of Christ.

However, God doesn't change in his atributes or goals...

[Jason]

"Jesus commanded his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles...then later they were sent to the Gentiles."

The Gospel didn't change for this. It was a directive on who was to receive the message first. It didn't change....

"anciently every male was circumcised...in NT times is was not required."

As Jesus said: He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 21 2004, 11:24 AM

People all the time confuse the change of doctrine/application/laws with God....God is God and He never changes...He is always filled with Love and caring for us. He is always all wise and going to do what is best for us even if we can't see it.

He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God.

I do not confuse them, they are intrinsically entwined.

If God doesn't change, then His laws don't change. If His laws don't change, then His doctrine doesn't change.

God is not a respecter of persons. However, if he added different things (laws, etc.) to what He has revealed, then what he requires of us changes. If God really did reveal those things through Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets of the LDS church, then those people who lived for thousands of years before those revelations happened would not be eligible for the benefits of those blessings. And that would make God a respecter of persons.

I don't believe that that can, or does, happen. What God required of Adam and Enoch and John the Baptist and Peter is the same thing he requires of us. Not one thing more, or one thing less.

When God reveals things to man, he reveals deeper insights. Not different insights or laws. He reveals ways in which man can come to understand Him better, not different requirements that place one man higher on the ladder than another simply because of the time he was born in. That is not my idea of a just God.

[Jason]

Jenda,

Well said.

[Maureen]

I'm neither LDS or RLDS and I agree with Jenda.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Jenda+May 21 2004, 01:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ May 21 2004, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@May 21 2004, 11:24 AM

People all the time confuse the change of doctrine/application/laws with God....God is God and He never changes...He is always filled with Love and caring for us. He is always all wise and going to do what is best for us even if we can't see it.

He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God.

I do not confuse them, they are intrinsically entwined.

If God doesn't change, then His laws don't change. If His laws don't change, then His doctrine doesn't change.

God is not a respecter of persons. However, if he added different things (laws, etc.) to what He has revealed, then what he requires of us changes. If God really did reveal those things through Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets of the LDS church, then those people who lived for thousands of years before those revelations happened would not be eligible for the benefits of those blessings. And that would make God a respecter of persons.

I don't believe that that can, or does, happen. What God required of Adam and Enoch and John the Baptist and Peter is the same thing he requires of us. Not one thing more, or one thing less.

When God reveals things to man, he reveals deeper insights. Not different insights or laws. He reveals ways in which man can come to understand Him better, not different requirements that place one man higher on the ladder than another simply because of the time he was born in. That is not my idea of a just God.

Well you totally missed the point...

I do not see God as a respector of persons in my post at all...yet that was the basis of your whole post.

God will love all, and give them what HE KNOWS they need...and HE KNOWS the agenda HE has for each one of us...and He will never change.

He may give us different things....as parent deal with small children differently than they do with teens and older married children....but the parents do not change...only what they are doing and how they are doing it according to the needs and situations of their children....

That is my point and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that could remotely be considered a change in God or Him being a respector of persons....

[Ray]

Consider this:

One man has access to all the scriptures that were available during his lifetime and eventually comes to accept Jesus as the Christ and Lord of his life.

Another man doesn’t have access to any scriptures and never hears anything about a person named Jesus.

Is God then a respecter of persons? How so?

Now suppose that one man has access to the Bible, but not the Book of Mormon. He has heard about all of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, but not about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any of the other latter-day prophets that lived after them.

Is God then a respecter of persons? How so?

Everyone who has ever lived on this Earth will have the same opportunities to know and learn everything about the gospel, and nobody will be left out. If they don’t come to know certain things here, during this mortal existence, they will come to know those things later. They will then be judged based on their choices relative to the knowledge they have been given. Did they accept it, or reject it. If they didn’t accept it, was it because God arbitrarily decided that certain persons didn’t deserve to learn about certain things, or did certain people decide that they didn't want to accept certain things as being true.

What in your mind makes God a respecter of persons?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky+May 21 2004, 03:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ May 21 2004, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@May 21 2004, 01:24 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@May 21 2004, 11:24 AM

People all the time confuse the change of doctrine/application/laws with God....God is God and He never changes...He is always filled with Love and caring for us. He is always all wise and going to do what is best for us even if we can't see it.

He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God.

I do not confuse them, they are intrinsically entwined.

If God doesn't change, then His laws don't change. If His laws don't change, then His doctrine doesn't change.

God is not a respecter of persons. However, if he added different things (laws, etc.) to what He has revealed, then what he requires of us changes. If God really did reveal those things through Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets of the LDS church, then those people who lived for thousands of years before those revelations happened would not be eligible for the benefits of those blessings. And that would make God a respecter of persons.

I don't believe that that can, or does, happen. What God required of Adam and Enoch and John the Baptist and Peter is the same thing he requires of us. Not one thing more, or one thing less.

When God reveals things to man, he reveals deeper insights. Not different insights or laws. He reveals ways in which man can come to understand Him better, not different requirements that place one man higher on the ladder than another simply because of the time he was born in. That is not my idea of a just God.

Well you totally missed the point...

I do not see God as a respector of persons in my post at all...yet that was the basis of your whole post.

God will love all, and give them what HE KNOWS they need...and HE KNOWS the agenda HE has for each one of us...and He will never change.

He may give us different things....as parent deal with small children differently than they do with teens and older married children....but the parents do not change...only what they are doing and how they are doing it according to the needs and situations of their children....

That is my point and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that could remotely be considered a change in God or Him being a respector of persons....

This is the part of your post that I was responding to.

He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God.

You stated that God changes the laws and the doctrines according to man's righteousness/wickedness. I will go half-agreement with you. Once, He did change the laws for a group of people because of their wickedness. When Moses went up Mt. Sinai to receive the law, and after he descended the first time, he saw the wickedness of the people and broke the tablets with the law inscribed thereon. He went back up on the Mount, and when God gave the law a second time, he gave a lesser law. A law that was full of rules, lacking in the spirit. This new law, however, still had the potential to get the people to go where they needed to go if they were extremely diligent. It had all the pieces incorporated into it. It just was extremely demanding.

Fast forward to the 20th century (or 19th century, whatever the case may be). A "new" law was given through the prophet. A law that only certain people could follow. A law that was not available to everyone. A law that was exclusive. Following this law meant that you were destined for exhaltation. For the highest level of the highest glory. A blessing and a promise that had never been offered before to anyone in any dispensation of time. Given to a select people in a select time, not even available for everyone else to even know about. Therefore, only good, temple-going LDS could hope to attain this promise.

These illustrations are an example between the times when laws were changed. In the first example, even though the law was changed due to wickedness, the people still had hope. In the second example, a new law was given to only a select few, and it was hoarded among themselves so others couldn't have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. This is an example of a God who would be a respecter of persons. Setting a new law for a small select group that he wouldn't offer to all.

I don't buy it. If it is a true law, it is for everyone of every age. If it was a true law, it would have been revealed to Adam, and again to Enoch, and again to Moses, and again to Peter, James and John. Every dispensation would have had access to this law. And they didn't. That is what causes me to believe that it is not true.