Comments on: Getting it right

By: Jamie Trwth

Jamie Trwth — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:25:19 +0000

We have to remember this Church was started by . . . . Jesus Christ. Jesus said 'whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart'. This action requires intent.

If I intend to have a snack as Church instead of a covenant with Jesus it doesn't matter if it was blessed correctly.

But the question was:

"Did all 200 of us yesterday actually renew our covenants or did we just have a snack?"

By: JM

JM — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:51:41 +0000

re:18

That's just a silly argment. Substitution of the word wine to water doesn't count. Your simply calling what your drinking by it's name. and modern revelation has made an allowance for that.

It has not made an allowance for changing any of the other words.

re:19 and 20

What does that have to do with the topic?

By: Jamie Trwth

Jamie Trwth — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:35:31 +0000

When you are confirmed don't you receive the Holy Ghost? And if you resign your membership doesn't the Holy Ghost stop residing in you? Or am I just wet behind the ears and getting this all wrong. Someone please correct me.

By: Jamie Trwth

Jamie Trwth — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:30:08 +0000

JM,

In a 'Zen' perspective. If that ship is off course it is exactly where it is. Therefore it not off course it is exactly where it needs to be at that present time fully enjoying the moment.

In an LDS perspective the ship it is off course and needs to be corrected. Not matter if it takes you 7 times to navigate it back to where it â€œNeedsâ€ to be.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:29:17 +0000

The difference, Jamie, is that the ones you listed don't involve covenants. The three JM listed (sacrament, baptism, endowments) involve covenants.

By: Jamie Trwth

Jamie Trwth — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:21:23 +0000

JM,

What about ordaining to an office in the priesthood, Or conferring the Holy Ghost? These ordinances are of those not said exactly as written in scripture. If we know the reasons why they are not said exactly then we can speak more on this subject. If we as a church substituted the word â€˜wineâ€ for the word â€˜water,â€ then the words by virtue of this fact have been altered and hence are not said the same as they are read in the scriptures.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:09:44 +0000

I agree rick.

It seems like a case of not being able to see the trees for the forest.

I find it interesting how at church, I have heard lessons, talks, sermons, etc... that talk about obedience. They use the metaphor of a ship being a fraction of a degree off course and it never getting to it's destination.

I would think this would be a clear cut case of being a fraction of a degree off and "believers" with "testimonies" seeing it that way as well.

By: rick

rick — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:03:58 +0000

Ummm... assuming God is all-knowing, I'm not sure if the intent argument would hold any water, ever. The all-knowing God knows your intent; before you intended it. If He tells you to do something, it probably is an obedience/ritual thing, certainly not to show intent.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:20:46 +0000

Sue, the same could be said of any ordinance we perform where the wording has to be exact.

I'm sure in any of these circumstances, the Lord knows the intent.

What if it were baptism? How about the words we say at the veil?

Why should one set of exact words be treated different than another?

I see it as an all or none issue. Can it be any other way?

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:17:26 +0000

I am so distracted whenever they make the priest repeat the prayer. I start concentrating on how bad I feel for the poor guy. Is exact wording really that crucial? The Lord doesn't understand the intent? I have a hard time with that idea. Is the Sacrament about the experience of the people who are taking it, or is it about the details of the ordinance? I'm not sure.