Sacrament symbolism

[Spaced_Out]

In fact if there is anything in the sacrament that represents temporal it would the blood. It is blood that makes us temporal and gives us our telestrial state. There is no blood in heaven likewise when Adam and Eve ate the fruit their blood was changed to temporal.
But it is all confusion there is not temporal nature or symbols in the Sacrament.

[Alaris]

In fact if there is anything in the sacrament that represents temporal it would the blood. It is blood that makes us temporal and gives us our telestrial state. There is no blood in heaven likewise when Adam and Eve ate the fruit their blood was changed to temporal.
But it is all confusion there is not temporal nature or symbols in the Sacrament.

If I were to simply type "last word" would you just keep going? There are no temporal symbols in the Sacrament? BLOOD is eternal? OK Spaced_Out. Thanks for yet again providing the bounds and limits of interpretation of things.

[Spaced_Out]

The sacrament is not temporal. Is baptism temporal? No. Then why does it have the symbol of a death? Isn't death temporal? The symbol is temporal. Likewise the symbols of the bread are temporal. Someone awesomely pointed out the shroud over the emblems. There's another temporal symbol. Yes. The law is eternal. You can keep bolding and coloring the same scripture but it does not constradict what I'm saying.

The promises and rewards of the bread symbolize the lesser reward of resurrection to the greater reward of eternal life that can only be accomplished through the blood. It is a symbol of progression from the lesser to the greater. That's why we promise less in the second prayer. As we progress spiritually we need fewer commands as our minds become one with Christ.

The bread does not symbolise lesser - Jesus death, body and works are not a lesser part of the atonement. There is no celestial spirit without a celestial body. It is two purposes of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man. Eternal life is to have the same life and existence that God has, the resurrection is not a lesser work but as with first and last -
Jesus first did the spiritual salvation through the atonement then the physical though the resurrection.

[Spaced_Out]

In fact if there is anything in the sacrament that represents temporal it would the blood. It is blood that makes us temporal and gives us our telestrial state. There is no blood in heaven likewise when Adam and Eve ate the fruit their blood was changed to temporal.
But it is all confusion there is not temporal nature or symbols in the Sacrament.

If I were to simply type "last word" would you just keep going? There are no temporal symbols in the Sacrament? BLOOD is eternal? OK Spaced_Out. Thanks for yet again providing the bounds and limits of interpretation of things.

There is no blood in heaven. It is the act of shedding of the blood that saves us. The shedding of the blood was not a temporal act but spiritual, an act for overcoming sin.

The atonement was worked out prior to the creation of the earth etc.. and it's effects reverberate thought out all eternity - God's do not shed that which is good - it is a perfect example of giving that which is mortal and temporal - it is the act of shedding that gives power to the atonement.

Doctrine and Covenants 27:2
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

[Alaris]

There is no blood in heaven so it's temporal. And yes resurrection is the lesser reward.

Doctrine and Covenants 14:7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

So if eternal life is the greatest gift then all other gifts are lesser. We can go on and on like this.

Resurrection is the reward for raising our hands to follow Jesus. Did you know that the first sign may be indicative of this? Is keeping the first estate easier or harder than the second. Is the reward for keeping the second estate greater?

I feel like you just want to argue. This is hardly the place. If you want to argue scriptures fruitlessly might I suggest donning a shirt and tie and wandering the Bible belt with a Book of Mormon in hand?

[Spaced_Out]

There is no blood in heaven so it's temporal. And yes resurrection is the lesser reward.

Doctrine and Covenants 14:7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

So if eternal life is the greatest gift then all other gifts are lesser. We can go on and on like this.

Resurrection is the reward for raising our hands to follow Jesus. Did you know that the first sign may be indicative of this? Is keeping the first estate easier or harder than the second. Is the reward for keeping the second estate greater?

I feel like you just want to argue. This is hardly the place. If you want to argue scriptures fruitlessly might I suggest donning a shirt and tie and wandering the Bible belt with a Book of Mormon in hand?

Having a celestial body and is part of eternal life.
Resurrection is a right we obtained prior to coming to earth. The sacrament is for doing works (bread) and forgiveness of sin (water/blood) nothing really to do with the resurrection - it is not something we need to do.
Sacrament is in remembrance of Jesus Body/ works, and that the shedding of blood. An ordinance with symbols telling us to do works and overcome sin - One is not greater than the other without doing good works we can't be saved neither can we be saved if we don't overcome sin.

[Alaris]

The Last Word

[Jeremy]

One other point that I am not sure anyone has shared yet. We learn line upon line. Here a little and there a little - just as the Savior did. When we partake, we only take one little bit and one little sip at a time.

It is true that we "take one little bit and one little sip" but this isn't how its always been. I wonder if the difference has any symbolic significance.

And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples...

[brlenox]

One other point that I am not sure anyone has shared yet. We learn line upon line. Here a little and there a little - just as the Savior did. When we partake, we only take one little bit and one little sip at a time.

It is true that we "take one little bit and one little sip" but this isn't how its always been. I wonder if the difference has any symbolic significance.

And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples...

I think we would all benefit from observing the nature of Jeremy's post. He has suggested an alternative interpretation and he has backed it up with a scriptural resource. This adds weight to the observation and moves it from the realms of opinion.

When we make claims for which we provide nothing more than our opinion without providing anything else to provide the reader with a sense of connectivity to an agreed upon source of legitimacy, such as apostles or scripture, it remains as nothing more than our opinion and thus of very limited value. This is what truly invites contention because every one has an opinion but not everyone recognizes the holder of he opinion as a reliable source. If we don't agree that the source is legitimate, ie apostles and scripture, then I guess we are back to square one.

[Alaris]

One other point that I am not sure anyone has shared yet. We learn line upon line. Here a little and there a little - just as the Savior did. When we partake, we only take one little bit and one little sip at a time.

It is true that we "take one little bit and one little sip" but this isn't how its always been. I wonder if the difference has any symbolic significance.

And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples...

I think we would all benefit from observing the nature of Jeremy's post. He has suggested an alternative interpretation and he has backed it up with a scriptural resource. This adds weight to the observation and moves it from the realms of opinion.

When we make claims for which we provide nothing more than our opinion without providing anything else to provide the reader with a sense of connectivity to an agreed upon source of legitimacy, such as apostles or scripture, it remains as nothing more than our opinion and thus of very limited value. This is what truly invites contention because every one has an opinion but not everyone recognizes the holder of he opinion as a reliable source. If we don't agree that the source is legitimate, ie apostles and scripture, then I guess we are back to square one.

I too enjoyed Jeremy's post! Being filled ... fantastic scripture! Thanks Jeremy! What do you think it means? Were they filled spiritually? Did they eat / drink until their bellies were full? If so, does that have something to do with them being in the presence of Christ? If so, I wonder if that adds another layer of understanding as to why we take smaller bites / sips in sacrament meeting?

Great point about providing scriptural references Brlenox. However, opinions do not invite contention but the manner in which such is delivered. You seem to be indicating that the spirit of contention is invited by offering opinions without having scriptures delineated. The symbols of the sacrament are not all spelled out for us, as the poster who pointed out the shroud over the bread / water is a clear example. That poster (sorry for being too lazy to look up the name) did not need to have a scripture or a prophet or an apostle spell it out for the spirit to witness it to him and to you and to me.

Discussing this important, sacred topic can be done with differing opinions and without contention. One can disagree without disrespect...without inviting contention.

Likewise, contention can be invited with scriptures in hand reading straight from them between two parties as anyone whose served in the Bible Belt can tell you. I better back this up ;)

3 Nephi 11:29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

I submit that verses 37 and 38 are the answer to verse 29 and 30. Becoming as children - Easy to be entreated. Willing to admit when we are wrong. Never saying "We have enough."

Moreover, note how the Lord in verse 29 does not say "he who inviteth the spirit of contention." He says, "He that hath the spirit of contention." Do those who invite contention not seem like they are addicted to such? They "have" the spirit of contention. It could very well be possession of sorts!

Alma 30:42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

Alma 30 is a very special chapter of scripture as it is where I gained a clear witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Was Korihor possessed? Or is possession with a lying spirit a lesser problem? No evil spirits were cast of Korihor as I recall (but if I am wrong, I will be happy to admit it.)

Being unable to admit when someone is wrong is a clear indicator - or being unable to admit that someone learned something new is another - for is this not what the Lord commands us? To be teachable? To be humble?

[Finrock]

Is it better to misunderstand the sacrament and love thy neighbor or to understand the breadth, width, depth, and scope of its "simplicity" and insult thy neighbor?

In order to love mankind or another being one has to first love themselves first, I do neither and am incapable of such a strange concept of love...
So I am now more confused than in your original posting..

I'm assuming you mean exactly what you wrote. Given that, I empathize with you, Spaced_Out and I've felt the same before in the past. I'm sincerely sorry you feel the way you do. It is true that we can't love others if we don't love ourselves. I hope that this changes for you one day soon.

Sincerely,
Finrock

[brlenox]

One other point that I am not sure anyone has shared yet. We learn line upon line. Here a little and there a little - just as the Savior did. When we partake, we only take one little bit and one little sip at a time.

It is true that we "take one little bit and one little sip" but this isn't how its always been. I wonder if the difference has any symbolic significance.

And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples...

I think we would all benefit from observing the nature of Jeremy's post. He has suggested an alternative interpretation and he has backed it up with a scriptural resource. This adds weight to the observation and moves it from the realms of opinion.

When we make claims for which we provide nothing more than our opinion without providing anything else to provide the reader with a sense of connectivity to an agreed upon source of legitimacy, such as apostles or scripture, it remains as nothing more than our opinion and thus of very limited value. This is what truly invites contention because every one has an opinion but not everyone recognizes the holder of he opinion as a reliable source. If we don't agree that the source is legitimate, ie apostles and scripture, then I guess we are back to square one.

I too enjoyed Jeremy's post! Being filled ... fantastic scripture! Thanks Jeremy! What do you think it means? Were they filled spiritually? Did they eat / drink until their bellies were full? If so, does that have something to do with them being in the presence of Christ? If so, I wonder if that adds another layer of understanding as to why we take smaller bites / sips in sacrament meeting?

Great point about providing scriptural references Brlenox. However, opinions do not invite contention but the manner in which such is delivered. You seem to be indicating that I invited the spirit of contention by offering my opinion on the symbols without having scriptures in my post. One can disagree without disrespect...without inviting contention. The symbols of the sacrament are not all spelled out for us, as the poster who pointed out the shroud over the bread / water is a clear example. Discussing this important, sacred topic can be done with differing opinions and without contention.

It kind of depends on how you want to look at it. When you provided your observations, I chose not to respond to them as to veracity but instead chose to see them as your point of view and thus perfectly acceptable for your perspective. However, had I wanted to discuss, I would have negated your observations and attempted to supplant your observations with my own. Which is precisely what Spaced_Out did. However, and the point of absolute hilarity, is that he tries to trump opinion with more opinion when opinions are inherently weak venues for establishing truth.

So your point is well made that people can agree to disagree and do so in respectable fashion. However, my point is that when we align our observations with the recognized authorities we are limiting the speculative standard of opinion to the standard of an informed observer. If the conversation remains intellectually honest then this alone will reduce the back and forth abuse that opinions alone seem to encourage. Of course if a participant wants to be negative and condescending then that is the risk of forum participation.

As one who documents virtually everything I say, I do realize that there are some that simply wish to push their opinion as superior without adequate sustaining with substance.

[Alaris]

It kind of depends on how you want to look at it. When you provided your observations, I chose not to respond to them as to veracity but instead chose to see them as your point of view and thus perfectly acceptable for your perspective. However, had I wanted to discuss, I would have negated your observations and attempted to supplant your observations with my own. Which is precisely what Spaced_Out did. However, and the point of absolute hilarity, is that he tries to trump opinion with more opinion when opinions are inherently weak venues for establishing truth.

So your point is well made that people can agree to disagree and do so in respectable fashion. However, my point is that when we align our observations with the recognized authorities we are limiting the speculative standard of opinion to the standard of an informed observer. If the conversation remains intellectually honest then this alone will reduce the back and forth abuse that opinions alone seem to encourage. Of course if a participant wants to be negative and condescending then that is the risk of forum participation.

Agreed with one caveat. You would have tried to negate my obersvations! Haha JK.

In all seriousness, when two or more are gathered in the name of the Lord there he is also.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

See! You've already influenced me to post more scriptures along with my opinions. That is a good thing as you are correct - the scriptures and the apostles & prophets are the anchors of our doctrine that we should rely on while venturing into the realms of opinion.

I edited my post a bit above, and I attempted to address Spaced_Out's accusations, for lack of a better word, while attempting to point out the folly in thwarting this discussion to where "accusations" is the best word I can describe for his tone. Finrock picked up on something I did not. I did not give Spaced_Out's words about loving himself proper attention as it seems to be a cry for help. For that I apologize to Spaced_Out and everyone in this thread.

Spaced_Out, dear brother. Feel free to PM me anytime if you need an ear. We love you. You can lean on us for support. You obviously have a testimony of the gospel and of Jesus Christ. He is the source of love:

Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

Charity never faileth. Pray for it if you long for it or even have the smallest desire for it. I will pray for you as well.

[brlenox]

It kind of depends on how you want to look at it. When you provided your observations, I chose not to respond to them as to veracity but instead chose to see them as your point of view and thus perfectly acceptable for your perspective. However, had I wanted to discuss, I would have negated your observations and attempted to supplant your observations with my own. Which is precisely what Spaced_Out did. However, and the point of absolute hilarity, is that he tries to trump opinion with more opinion when opinions are inherently weak venues for establishing truth.

So your point is well made that people can agree to disagree and do so in respectable fashion. However, my point is that when we align our observations with the recognized authorities we are limiting the speculative standard of opinion to the standard of an informed observer. If the conversation remains intellectually honest then this alone will reduce the back and forth abuse that opinions alone seem to encourage. Of course if a participant wants to be negative and condescending then that is the risk of forum participation.

Agreed with one caveat. You would have tried to negate my obersvations! Haha JK.

In all seriousness, when two or more are gathered in the name of the Lord there he is also.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

See! You've already influenced me to post more scriptures along with my opinions. That is a good thing as you are correct - the scriptures and the apostles & prophets are the anchors of our doctrine that we should rely on while venturing into the realms of opinion.

I edited my post a bit above, and I attempted to address Spaced_Out's accusations, for lack of a better word, while attempting to point out the folly in thwarting this discussion to where "accusations" is the best word I can describe for his tone. Finrock picked up on something I did not. I did not give Spaced_Out's words about loving himself proper attention as it seems to be a cry for help. For that I apologize to Spaced_Out and everyone in this thread.

Spaced_Out, dear brother. Feel free to PM me anytime if you need an ear. We love you. You can lean on us for support. You obviously have a testimony of the gospel and of Jesus Christ. He is the source of love:

Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

Charity never faileth. Pray for it if you long for it or even have the smallest desire for it. I will pray for you as well.

All is well.

As far as negating, it did occur to me to have you provide more resources for how you came to your conclusions. If I had thought the matter merited such I would have then engaged in the process of providing valid resources and such for clarification. Where this sacrament conversation was going did not warrant my type of involvement in the least.

However, you indicated you looked at my sacrament document. That was born from a discussion in High Priest group where there was some question on when it was appropriate to not partake of the sacrament. The tendency was to emphasize the significance of not partaking unworthily which I agree is a very important issue. However, it became clear that there was a misapplication taking place from my perspective. SO What you see is how I get correct answers for understanding doctrine. I prayerfully take all sides of the argument and then weigh them. I write as I am pondering through the material to organize my thoughts. When I am done, and that one took a few weeks, I have acquired a sound understanding AND I have all of my resources for why I think as I do. I can illustrate precisely through scripture and prophetic utterance how I came to my conclusions. Practically everything I say related to doctrine is born from this very tedious, time consuming process, but when I am done I know I have done my part for the Lord to properly direct my understandings.

Some time later the opportunity came up again in High Priests group to discuss this same subject again and also one other time in Gospel doctrine class. Each time the discussion was much more balanced, than the first, and led to proper understanding as I could use the words of the prophets and apostles and scripture to illustrate correct non-opinioned based information. Distinctly different meetings with far less gentle contention simply because we were no longer just popping everyone's favorite interpretation and instead were using valid resources.

[Alaris]

All is well.

As far as negating, it did occur to me to have you provide more resources for how you came to your conclusions. If I had thought the matter merited such I would have then engaged in the process of providing valid resources and such for clarification. Where this sacrament conversation was going did not warrant my type of involvement in the least.

However, you indicated you looked at my sacrament document. That was born from a discussion in High Priest group where there was some question on when it was appropriate to not partake of the sacrament. The tendency was to emphasize the significance of not partaking unworthily which I agree is a very important issue. However, it became clear that there was a misapplication taking place from my perspective. SO What you see is how I get correct answers for understanding doctrine. I prayerfully take all sides of the argument and then weigh them. I write as I am pondering through the material to organize my thoughts. When I am done, and that one took a few weeks, I have acquired a sound understanding AND I have all of my resources for why I think as I do. I can illustrate precisely through scripture and prophetic utterance how I came to my conclusions. Practically everything I say related to doctrine is born from this very tedious, time consuming process, but when I am done I know I have done my part for the Lord to properly direct my understandings.

Some time later the opportunity came up again in High Priests group to discuss this same subject again and also one other time in Gospel doctrine class. Each time the discussion was much more balanced, than the first, and led to proper understanding as I could use the words of the prophets and apostles and scripture to illustrate correct non-opinioned based information. Distinctly different meetings with far less gentle contention simply because we were no longer just popping everyone's favorite interpretation and instead were using valid resources.

That is certainly a solid model as long as the time and effort that's being placed into study does not leave one unteachable and closed to being wrong. For example, I have been studying, and praying, and pondering a great deal on the Davidic servant and the sign in Revelation 12. I am excited to post my findings, but in my zeal I still have to be open to take direction from the Lord and His Spirit.

1 Nephi 10: 19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

The church is a vehicle to get us to the Temple and the Temple is a vehicle to get us to the Celestial Kingdom. Mysteries can be unfolded that are not - and in some cases - should not be shared openly. There are other ongoing threads about the dangers of venturing outside of the bounds presented - and though there is truth to that, it is not all-encompassing. The desire and motivation of the individual is key - Are you seeking truth or are you seeking to gratify your pride? Are you willing to bend to God's will or are you looking to bend your "revelations" to your own will and desires?

The point I am making is that God commands us to seek out his mysteries until we know them in full. I reject those who say, "these are the bounds of knowledge that God wants us to stay within to be safe." I reject those who act as though they are the stewards of that line. There is no line. You should be learning and receiving or you will be losing:

2 Nephi 28: 30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

And those who attack or accuse or demean or belittle those who are seeking the truth are not the shepherds of saftey but of the spirit of the devil. For anyone who persuades you to not seek, to not learn, to not unlock the mysterious of the gospel, you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil.

Moroni 7: 15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

We are encouraged - by the Lord - to seek learning outside the scriptures:

D&C 88: 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

We are counseled by the Lord to use the Spirit:

D&C 91: 3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

The only point I am building up to, is that here on LDSFF we should be fostering a spirit of learning and not try to dissuade others through fear or belittling. Someone can be dead wrong and if we but speak truth, the Spirit will be there also. No disrespect, no fear, no belittling needed. I disagree that the spirit of the LDSFF is that we should have thorough references on everything we say or on everything we present or on which we opine. I think we would all run our own forums differently if we were as blessed as BrianM to attract such membership. I would tolerate contention at lot less for better or worse. Brlenox, you may tolerate the lack of good footnotes less than I. Perhaps we both should police at little less or start our own forums.

[Finrock]

It kind of depends on how you want to look at it. When you provided your observations, I chose not to respond to them as to veracity but instead chose to see them as your point of view and thus perfectly acceptable for your perspective. However, had I wanted to discuss, I would have negated your observations and attempted to supplant your observations with my own. Which is precisely what Spaced_Out did. However, and the point of absolute hilarity, is that he tries to trump opinion with more opinion when opinions are inherently weak venues for establishing truth.

So your point is well made that people can agree to disagree and do so in respectable fashion. However, my point is that when we align our observations with the recognized authorities we are limiting the speculative standard of opinion to the standard of an informed observer. If the conversation remains intellectually honest then this alone will reduce the back and forth abuse that opinions alone seem to encourage. Of course if a participant wants to be negative and condescending then that is the risk of forum participation.

Agreed with one caveat. You would have tried to negate my obersvations! Haha JK.

In all seriousness, when two or more are gathered in the name of the Lord there he is also.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

See! You've already influenced me to post more scriptures along with my opinions. That is a good thing as you are correct - the scriptures and the apostles & prophets are the anchors of our doctrine that we should rely on while venturing into the realms of opinion.

I edited my post a bit above, and I attempted to address Spaced_Out's accusations, for lack of a better word, while attempting to point out the folly in thwarting this discussion to where "accusations" is the best word I can describe for his tone. Finrock picked up on something I did not. I did not give Spaced_Out's words about loving himself proper attention as it seems to be a cry for help. For that I apologize to Spaced_Out and everyone in this thread.

Spaced_Out, dear brother. Feel free to PM me anytime if you need an ear. We love you. You can lean on us for support. You obviously have a testimony of the gospel and of Jesus Christ. He is the source of love:

Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

Charity never faileth. Pray for it if you long for it or even have the smallest desire for it. I will pray for you as well.

All is well.

As far as negating, it did occur to me to have you provide more resources for how you came to your conclusions. If I had thought the matter merited such I would have then engaged in the process of providing valid resources and such for clarification. Where this sacrament conversation was going did not warrant my type of involvement in the least.

However, you indicated you looked at my sacrament document. That was born from a discussion in High Priest group where there was some question on when it was appropriate to not partake of the sacrament. The tendency was to emphasize the significance of not partaking unworthily which I agree is a very important issue. However, it became clear that there was a misapplication taking place from my perspective. SO What you see is how I get correct answers for understanding doctrine. I prayerfully take all sides of the argument and then weigh them. I write as I am pondering through the material to organize my thoughts. When I am done, and that one took a few weeks, I have acquired a sound understanding AND I have all of my resources for why I think as I do. I can illustrate precisely through scripture and prophetic utterance how I came to my conclusions. Practically everything I say related to doctrine is born from this very tedious, time consuming process, but when I am done I know I have done my part for the Lord to properly direct my understandings.

Some time later the opportunity came up again in High Priests group to discuss this same subject again and also one other time in Gospel doctrine class. Each time the discussion was much more balanced, than the first, and led to proper understanding as I could use the words of the prophets and apostles and scripture to illustrate correct non-opinioned based information. Distinctly different meetings with far less gentle contention simply because we were no longer just popping everyone's favorite interpretation and instead were using valid resources.

All truth comes from God. We understand the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. The authority we should be paying attention to is the Holy Ghost. If someone is an "authority" when it pertains to gospel truth or eternal truth, it is only so if they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost or if they are speaking things that have been revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.

People who seemingly have no position of authority can speak by the power of the Holy Ghost and if they do then their words are truth and ought to be accepted.

We can't rely simply on positions and titles in the Church to find authoritative utterances. Sometimes those with the right title, right position, and in the right place, say the wrong thing. Also, by appealing to authority in our arguments to demonstrate that they are "true", which can sometimes be appropriate, one commits a logical fallacy.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

All truth comes from God. We understand the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. The authority we should be paying attention to is the Holy Ghost. If someone is an "authority" when it pertains to gospel truth or eternal truth, it is only so if they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost or if they are speaking things that have been revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.

People who seemingly have no position of authority can speak by the power of the Holy Ghost and if they do then their words are truth and ought to be accepted.

We can't rely simply on positions and titles in the Church to find authoritative utterances. Sometimes those with the right title, right position, and in the right place, say the wrong thing. Also, by appealing to authority in our arguments to demonstrate that they are "true", which can sometimes be appropriate, one commits a logical fallacy.

-Finrock

Until you can provide a valid resource that confirms this is a tenant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then it is just FINrocK's opinion. I have already been down the road of FINrocK's opinion and he just winds up disagreeing with himself. Not a place I feel like going to again.

[Finrock]

All truth comes from God. We understand the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. The authority we should be paying attention to is the Holy Ghost. If someone is an "authority" when it pertains to gospel truth or eternal truth, it is only so if they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost or if they are speaking things that have been revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.

People who seemingly have no position of authority can speak by the power of the Holy Ghost and if they do then their words are truth and ought to be accepted.

We can't rely simply on positions and titles in the Church to find authoritative utterances. Sometimes those with the right title, right position, and in the right place, say the wrong thing. Also, by appealing to authority in our arguments to demonstrate that they are "true", which can sometimes be appropriate, one commits a logical fallacy.

-Finrock

Until you can provide a valid resource that confirms this is a tenant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then it is just FINrocK's opinion. I have already been down the road of FINrocK's opinion and he just winds up disagreeing with himself. Not a place I feel like going to again.

You are free to believe and do as you wish.

Ad hominem is another form of fallacious reasoning.

-Finrock

[Spaced_Out]

LOL, you guys are too easily offended. You guys are all my victims - it is impossible to offend a person unless they allow themselves to be offended. There was not even an intent to offend - just a challenge on some very weird doctrine about the sacrament.

http://philosophtly.blogspot.com.au/200 ... hoice.html
"Offended" is a choice you make
We'll start with an epiphanette[1] vouchsafed to me by an insightful friend:

Offence can never be given, only taken.
In other words, before you can offend me, I have to allow you to do so.



The language in the article below is very bad
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-ev ... -offended/
5 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Being Offended

• You Can't Talk Someone Out of Being Offended
• You Can't Force Someone to Be Offended (And You Shouldn't Try)
• It's Pretty Rude to Get Offended for Someone Else
• Being Offended Doesn't Always Matter
• It's Really Good for Us

Good to see the discussion on the symbols of the sacrament have ceased to last word -1. Many scriptures were given and many hundreds can still be given if need beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...............................Heeee

[Alaris]

You need help buddy. Recognize as that is an essential first step. PM any time.

[Spaced_Out]

You need help buddy. Recognize as that is an essential first step. PM any time.

Progression is about choices we make.

http://philosophtly.blogspot.com.au/200 ... hoice.html
"Offended" is a choice you make
We'll start with an epiphanette[1] vouchsafed to me by an insightful friend:

Offence can never be given, only taken.
In other words, before you can offend me, I have to allow you to do so.