So, the verdict is in: yes, Baptists and Mormons can work together for the greater good without killing each other, can allow each other the pathway to preach to each other's congregations, and do so without bloodshed or hard feelings.
Where has all this killing and bloodshed been experienced in the recent past??? Are we adding in some drama and theatre here for visual effect and why??
A little hyperbole never hurt anyone...
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:Well, that validates it, Simon! If you don't believe, it has to be so.
I was hoping you'd expound on the issue. Why would they ask you to remove it? Do you know how many pictures of the savior adorn the walls of my local wardhouse?
harmony wrote:Well, that validates it, Simon! If you don't believe, it has to be so.
I was hoping you'd expound on the issue. Why would they ask you to remove it? Do you know how many pictures of the savior adorn the walls of my local wardhouse?
It's not in the hallway, Simon. It's in the chapel.
Years ago an edict went out from Ceasar Augustus... I mean SLC... that all pictures were to be removed from the chapel. Something about there was no ability to verify that the personage in the picture was really Christ. Ours still hangs there. Maybe yours does too, but there are no pictures of Christ in any chapel I've been in over the last 15 years or maybe more, except in my home chapel.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:Years ago an edict went out from Ceasar Augustus... I mean Salt Lake City... that all pictures were to be removed from the chapel. Something about there was no ability to verify that the personage in the picture was really Christ. Ours still hangs there. Maybe yours does too, but there are no pictures of Christ in any chapel I've been in over the last 15 years or maybe more, except in my home chapel.
Ah, see, you made it sound like the church asked that pictures of Christ be taken down. This is not the case at all. The church asked that all pictures be taken down from the chapel.
Simon Belmont wrote:Ah, see, you made it sound like the church asked that pictures of Christ be taken down. This is not the case at all. The church asked that all pictures be taken down from the chapel.
Funny how critics can twist things, huh?
Well, we never had any other picture hanging in the chapel. And since the edict referred specificially to pictures of Christ, because of the lack of verifiability, and since we never had any other picture hanging in the chapel, I referred to the picture as what it is: a picture of Christ that still hangs in our chapel.
You may have had pictures of Joseph Smith for all I know. We never did, though.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:You may have had pictures of Joseph Smith for all I know. We never did, though.
Nope. We never have had any pictures in the chapel for as long as I have been there. I am sure the church wants members to meditate and focus on the savior in their minds, without the distractions of pictures or other art on the walls. It has nothing to do with Christ.
Does anyone know why all pictures were asked to be removed from the chapel? This seems a little silly. There is some beautiful Church artwork that would look very tasteful in chapels.
Why would a picture of the Savior be considered out of line?
harmony wrote:You may have had pictures of Joseph Smith for all I know. We never did, though.
Nope. We never have had any pictures in the chapel for as long as I have been there. I am sure the church wants members to meditate and focus on the savior in their minds, without the distractions of pictures or other art on the walls. It has nothing to do with Christ.
Why the double-standard? There are plenty of pictures of the Savior in the temple.
Simon Belmont wrote: I am sure the church wants members to meditate and focus on the savior in their minds, without the distractions of pictures or other art on the walls. It has nothing to do with Christ.
Actually, it's much easier to meditate, and for families to teach their children to be reverent and respectful while in the chapel, if a picture of Christ is there (which is why ours is still there).
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Simon Belmont wrote: It has nothing to do with Christ.
This has me rolling.
Harmony, thanks for expounding on the picture thing becuase I was curious what you meant, too.
I've never seen art in a chapel. I'm sure it would be so, so much more distracting than the screaming children or snoring old people or texting teens. *eye roll*
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~