Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
As a matter of fact, I had some business in the church office building just yesterday.Craig Johnson wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 2:32 pm Investigator, have you got your transportation to SLC squared away yet so you can go there and straighten them folks out?
investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 12:36 pmI said nothing of Denver Snuffer. This has nothing to do with him. The Lord commanded through Joseph Smith to Kneel with the Church. Until you have a more recent revelation on how the sacrament is to be administered, we should take council at Joseph's Hand as the Lord has commanded us to do. If the Brethren have a revelation to superseded what was provided by Joseph publish it. I will gladly take it to the Lord and submit to HIS council.AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 11:36 amOh? Does that make the ordinance okay, if they 'would' then it's okay? Well, then, if the whole congregation would kneel if it were feasible, then, I guess it's the same thing and there's nothing for you to complain about, is there. I don't need an outward showing of how I feel taking the emblems of my Savior's sacrifice for me--if it's not a custom to kneel today, it's fine with me.investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:12 am Section 20 is the word of Christ to the Church in this day. He is the one that said to kneel with the church. Until someone receives a revelation to say otherwise we should honor HIS words.
ai2 said this...
I'm sure Jesus will be happy to know your opinion of HIS word.You know, this insistence that kneeling is required by the congregation as part of the ordinance and MUST BE followed just smacks of pharisee thinking to me.
The Lord looketh upon the heart. Those who would kneel if they could will be rewarded as if they did. Search your heart. Do you not feel like kneeling before your maker as you partake of those holy emblems of His sacrifice?
It's much like in the temple. If you don't have a right hand then you use the left. If you have no hands then you think it in your mind. You said feasible, I said if they could kneel. There is a difference. You do the best you can and are able to, to comply with the Lords commands. He knows your intent. If you are intent on sitting on your @$$ when he has commanded you to kneel then, he knows your intent.
But, you haven't proven that he commanded the congregation to kneel--Contemplator showed that above. Frankly, I don't think he cares if the congregation sits (he didn't care when the Apostles sat on their rear ends , or when he explicitly told the Nephites to sit on their rear ends; the only thing you've established is that he wants the one praying to kneel, and LDS agree and we do that.
But it seems like you want to have this both ways. You are complaining that's it's vital that it be done 'properly', but then excuse those who aren't able to do it properly--which is it going to be?
You also ignored in my post that Jesus himself told the congregation to 'sit' for the Sacrament in 3 Nephi 18. I gave you the reference. I do care about jesus' 'word' and in this instance--and it was a large congregation too, he told them to sit. Seems that kneeling was not necessary.
When Christ is with you you do what he tells you to do. He told them to pray to Him because he was with them. When he is not with you, you obey what he has commanded you to do in his revelations to your dispensation. "And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do. "
If you are so sure we must kneel during the sacrament, why would Jesus tell them to sit? It's just more evidence that it is not necessary for the Congregation to kneel.
This instance was even pointed out by James Allen in that explanation which eddie shared. Here it is again;
You conveniently left out this part... "The practice of having the whole congregation kneel during the sacrament prayer was not uncommon during the nineteenth century, though it was not required, either."At the same time, we can recognize with interest some of the changes that have taken place in the external patterns. When the sacrament was first introduced by the Savior, he was seated with his apostles. He simply blessed the bread and wine, explained their meaning, and passed them around the table. (See Luke 22:14–20.) When the Savior appeared among the Nephites, he taught them about the sacrament by having them “sit themselves down upon the earth,” then blessing and distributing the sacred emblems. (See 3 Ne. 18:1–4.) It became the practice, however, for those administering the sacrament in Book of Mormon times to “kneel down with the church” as they said the prayer. (Moro. 1:2.)
I left out a lot, I wasn't trying to quote the whole thing, and the part you are quoting...it supports my position--so why are you bringing it up?
This to me is one of Denver Snuffer's obvious 'fails' which should have been seen through by his readers. It is not required that the congregation kneel for the sacrament ordinance to be effective, it was a custom--one which was NOT implemented when the Savior himself offered the Sacrament to his apostles at the last supper and when he instituted it with the Nephites/Lamanites.
Uh, it has everything to do with Snuffer. This is one of his complaints and you are aligning yourself with him on this. To be honest, you've aligned yourself with Snuffer many times on this forum, don't think it has gone unnoticed.
And I'm not the one who needs to find a recent revelation or something on this, because I already showed where the Lord himself had the congregation NOT kneel during the sacrament. You are the one who has to prove this, and what you offered so far, hasn't cut it. You even tried to use Section 20, which the instigator of this complaint about LDS congregations not kneeling, threw out of the scriptures, because he deemed it not worthy to be considered 'scripture'. Others have given you plenty of evidence to show that kneeling by the congregation was not a requirement for proper performance of this ordinance--I think that's the conclusion you should come to.
And you did not spontaneously combust, hey, you can't be all bad.investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 4:56 pmAs a matter of fact, I had some business in the church office building just yesterday.Craig Johnson wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 2:32 pm Investigator, have you got your transportation to SLC squared away yet so you can go there and straighten them folks out?
If they publish something they claim is a revelation from God, how do you know they aren't making the change out of convenience or biased on the philosophies of men?investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:22 amIf they receive a revelation from God that HE wants the ordinance changed let the publish the revelation. Otherwise, how do we know they aren't making the change out of convenience or biased on the philosophies of men?DesertWonderer2 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 9:57 am Animal sacrifices are no longer offered. That is a change in an ordinance-quite a big change in fact. Replacing animal flesh and blood is bread and (wine) water. Those with the keys and authority under the direction of Christ can authorize changes to ordinances. What’s the problem?
And it is amazing to me that some get so caught up in the outward performances they completely miss that which is most important...in this case that would be the renewal of baptismal covenants.investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:55 amIt is amazing to me to think that people trivialize what the Lord has commanded us to do. We have become a law unto ourselves, thinking we can do what ever we want. The Lord took the time to reveal how he wanted things done and we feel like we can just ignore it or change it without HIS permission. Yes, there are much more grievous changes to ordinances that I could have used to make this point, however, this is none the less important. It is this lackadaisical attitude toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ that put the church under condemnation.
44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
So the question - is "Mormon" the last new "splinter group" to form? In this graphic it is all who have a new prophet and new books. Well we believe in new scriptures to come in the last days as well as important leadership figures. Will there be yet another critical change, a more narrowed-down version of God's truth?
Not to mention all the other changes that have been made since, oh, the restoration.investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 8:52 am
And you all wonder why the church is under condemnation, which has not been removed. All is well, all is well.
That chart does not make any sense at all. If the star represents a new prophet and new scripture, then it is not an offshoot. We didn't "break off" from the Methodists any more than Christianity broke off from the Jew. In the beginning it was among the Jews that Christianity was taught, but they didn't say, "we want to do Judaism our own way." The converted to a new religion entirely. Joseph Smith did not "break off" from the Methodists the way Snuffer broke off from the Mormons. Joseph started an entirely new religion. This chart is whack.
That chart does not make any sense at all. If the star represents a new prophet and new scripture, then it is not an offshoot. We didn't "break off" from the Methodists any more than Christianity broke off from the Jew. In the beginning it was among the Jews that Christianity was taught, but they didn't say, "we want to do Judaism our own way." The converted to a new religion entirely. Joseph Smith did not "break off" from the Methodists the way Snuffer broke off from the Mormons. Joseph started an entirely new religion. This chart is whack.
I will also point out that Islam didn't spawn from Pauline Christianity. The dominant religious belief on the Arab peninsula was a polytheistic belief system. Nobody is going to convince me that Hubal, al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, or Manāt were derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs.The Airbender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2018, 8:19 am That chart does not make any sense at all. If the star represents a new prophet and new scripture, then it is not an offshoot. We didn't "break off" from the Methodists any more than Christianity broke off from the Jew. In the beginning it was among the Jews that Christianity was taught, but they didn't say, "we want to do Judaism our own way." The converted to a new religion entirely. Joseph Smith did not "break off" from the Methodists the way Snuffer broke off from the Mormons. Joseph started an entirely new religion. This chart is whack.
I was looking for a post from you that made sense. And I found this one. I guess we just disagree on some things!brianj wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 8:29 pmIf they publish something they claim is a revelation from God, how do you know they aren't making the change out of convenience or biased on the philosophies of men?investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:22 amIf they receive a revelation from God that HE wants the ordinance changed let the publish the revelation. Otherwise, how do we know they aren't making the change out of convenience or biased on the philosophies of men?DesertWonderer2 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 9:57 am Animal sacrifices are no longer offered. That is a change in an ordinance-quite a big change in fact. Replacing animal flesh and blood is bread and (wine) water. Those with the keys and authority under the direction of Christ can authorize changes to ordinances. What’s the problem?
I know several people who believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon all by himself, then followed the example of Muhammad by claiming new revelations when helpful for him. How can you know that D&C 20, the Book of Mormon, or even the Bible are really the word of God and not of man? If you can answer that question, then you will be able to understand that I know that Russell M Nelson is God's prophet on the Earth today, that the church is directed by Jesus Christ through revelation, and that ordinances from sacrament to sealing are being performed as God intends.
Muhammad was fairly educated on Christianity and Judaism. The Koran mentions hosts of Judaic figures, as well as a lot of mention of Jesus. But is it based/derived from Judaism/Christianity? That's more gray area.brianj wrote: ↑March 8th, 2018, 9:44 am
I will also point out that Islam didn't spawn from Pauline Christianity. The dominant religious belief on the Arab peninsula was a polytheistic belief system. Nobody is going to convince me that Hubal, al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, or Manāt were derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs.