Comments on: Are rules are made to be broken?

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:53:01 +0000

Hey Rick,

Do you have a reference for this blog?? I have the same question asked of me but they need a reference.

Thanks,

Ross

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:50:48 +0000

Johnna has a good point. After all, Adam and Eve were given a rule that Mormons believe God expected to be broken.

By: Johnna Cornett

Johnna Cornett — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:48:15 +0000

The difference between an unworthy priesthood holder blessing the sacrament and a non-member blessing the sacrament is that the unworthy priesthood holder would be authorized--he represents God and the church, not himself. Of course, it's the church's job to make sure it does not use unworthy men as its instrument.

Heaven may withdraw and grieve over the unworthy priesthood holder, but the faithful receiving ordinances at his hand are not punished.

It does seem to me that rules were made to be broken. Life under the Fall guarantees you will break some rules. None of us is perfect. It seems to me the unwritten LDS idea about obedience is that we are in training or learning to be perfect like God. Personally, I've given up on this idea because it doesn't square with my experience. What is relevant to me is living with hope and joy and earnestness while perpetually falling short.

By: JM

JM — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:52:26 +0000

First,

I use to be a strong believer in the "unwritten order of things". I'm glad I woke up. If it's unwritten, it's "out of order". If they want it to be "in order" then they should get off their lazy arse and write it down. The one thing we need less of in the gospel is all the "secret knowledge" floating around out there.

Second, I don't buy it. We are told, scripturally, that authority, worthiness, and proper procedures matter. Dismissing them like you mentioned above means that any baptism, marriage, or other gospel ordinance (regardless of who performs and regardless of authority) is acceptable because the Lord will sort it out in the end. If we accept that, then we should accept that "true religion" doesn't matter. I can be a Baptist, Anglican, Catholic, Hindu, etc... and it will all get sorted out later.

There aren't degrees of doing it wrong. It's either done correctly or it isn't.

How is having an unworthy priesthood holder bless the sacrament any different than letting a non-member bless the sacrament? Neither of them have, or are acting under the authority of the priesthood (at least according to D&C 121:37 in the case of the unworthy priesthood holder).