posted
do you mean that any man in the church can automatically perform the baptism, or that they can become a priest and thereby be able to perform the baptism? two different things.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband was a decon at 12, a teacher at 14, a priest at 16 and an elder at 18. This is pretty typical for a male LDS. Help me out, guys, priests can baptize, right?
So, yeah, most men in the church could do it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, does the baptism have to take place in a temple? That could be another limiting factor.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. This thread has moved a lot since I last posted this morning, but I want to respond to something Tom said.
quote:Well, assuming the afterlife DOESN'T look like what any other major religion thinks it'll look like, I think it's highly likely that dead people are going to be taking stock of their situations. I'm acting under the assumption that most people, confronted with actual life after death, will have brains.
My question was, how do we know what the afterlife will look like? How do we know if it will be clearly anything? I can't imagine that spirits in the afterlife are going to say, "Hey, this isn't what I imagined. This looks like the Mormon afterlife instead. I guess I'll convert to Mormonism." And even if it were so simple to recognize what was going on and decide what should be done, that doesn't mean that those souls would be willing and able to follow the necessary commandments.
[ April 13, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the most part, in the temples is a necessity. That is why so much of church resources goes into building them all over the world, and especially among high concentrations of LDS. How many temples are in Utah? 8 or more?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explaining growth rates is going to be a decent amount of work, if I have time to do this, chances are I'll just post it as a Cousin Hobbes instead of an add on here. But, if you'll note, the growth rate of the Church is significantly above that of the world population, so you'll probably want to make your estimates as if the Second Coming was coming now.
posted
Sun, the reason his picture is up there is that these are typed recordings of the Annual confrence that the Church holds each year (it's broadcast by satelite and internet all over the world) and one of the "talks" given is the satistical summation of the Church for the preceeding year. Most talks are about bettering your life and important stuff like that, but there's always this summary and auditing report of all Church spending.
posted
Factor in an increasing rate of temple building also
Zal, while I certainly don't think it is a perfect example, it was the first that came to mind. I am curious, acknowledging that the analogy is imperfect, why do you dislike it?
Edit: And for the record, I have a lot of respect for what you in that as far as I know, everything you have written in this thread I agree with and think was very well-put.
posted
I don't know why Zal dislikes it. But it doesn't work for me because the kid doesn't need a bicycle, but we need salvation. And I can't really think of anything we need as much that would help someone understand. Sorry I keep disagreeing with you, by the way, beverly. It's not personal
quote: So these people, if not raised in an LDS family, are not baptized after death?
I'm concerned that folks don't understand that if you are LDS/Mormon in life, you are baptized either at your 8th birthday or when you join the church. If you find the church but your parents don't agree, you have to be 18 to join.
Each baptism takes about 5 seconds, Suneun. And they are all total immersion. It's conceivable this rate could be kept up all day, though I think right now it's probably only 1,000 per day per temple. I don't know for sure, though. I don't know of a temple that has facilities for doing more than one baptism at a time. By contrast (and I don't think this info is classified) most temples have 4 or more rooms for marriages (Sealing rooms), which would obviously take longer.
Only the posthumous baptisms have to occur in the temple. For the living, there are fonts in normal meetinghouses. But if there isn't a meeting house, a stream, pond, or the ocean can be used. But we do believe there has to be total immersion or the baptism is repeated.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think that is a fine reason for the story not to work for you. That is a pretty important difference between bike/salvation. But if it were changed to be something more necessary/urgent, that would take all the cuteness out of it. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And even if it were so simple to recognize what was going on and decide what should be done, that doesn't mean that those souls would be willing and able to follow the necessary commandments."
What do you think would tempt people away from God in the afterlife, exactly?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simple unwillingness to follow the commandments (in other words, pride). I still like to think that many people, if presented the unequivocal truth, would decide to follow it. Of course, we believe that this essentially happened in the pre-mortal world, and a third of the host of heaven rejected the truth outright.
[ April 13, 2004, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- The drive to be independent is a fairly strong one, one that exists in tension with our need for nurture and protection throughout childhood. The drive to be independent underlies most of our growth and development. I think. I don't know. But I think it goes beyond Pride, since pride is generally considered a sin. I think maybe this drive for independence is like the drive to reproduce. It's essential to accomplishing God's purpose, but can also frustrate our ability to be part of those purposes.
Anyway, I don't know if that helps since I don't know if you really understand my perspective on the necessity, power, and danger of sex. Odd that sex/marriage keeps getting referred to by analogy in this baptism discussion. But I don't think it's a superficial resemblance.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you guys planning on taking over the world?
That was half a joke. Seriously, though: do you really think the world would be a better place if the whole world were the same religion? Or, is the goal to just become like the Catholic Church, and be the biggest one? I don't get it. What is the point of worrying about size at all? (those last two questions go out to all faiths)
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all religions think that, Suneun. In fact, some even think that it's necessary for different faiths to exist.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the point of worrying about size at all?
I'm not worried about it.
In fact, if the current pattern holds, in a next few years the whole LDS is the fastest growing religion stat will no longer be true as the rate of new converts has slowed down and the birth rate of members has plateaued.
Our worry is not size -- it is rather to give as many as possible the chance to hear the message. We know that most will reject the message. We want to gather those who want to join us.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. But you can see that it would be a motivating goal for many religions, yes?
That's an unsavory goal, no different than imperialism of old.
And yeah, it can be done with the most lovely of justification and still be a bad goal. Kinda like what I mean about the baptisms. There's a point where it just becomes just another manifest destiny, and there's nothing justifiable about that. No bickering about who did it first and what groups have done what to whom will justify it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the missionary work to help others' lives physically, or convert them spiritually? If the latter or "both," then yes: it's spiritual imperialism. Lots of faiths do it, and it's just as unacceptable in each.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
The problem with the boy and the bicycle story is that it doesn't really say anything about Christ. It's a fine example of parent-child relationships. But that's all. None of the imagery really fits in with the atonement. It's completely reductive -- and not in a helpful way. It's something anyone would do who loves a kid. What Christ did is so much more than that. A few coins isn't a really good stand-in for a humble heart and a contrite spirit. A bicycle isn't a great analog for salvation and exaltation. While Christ wants us to give our all to him -- that *all* isn't, say, 1.5% of the price of salvation (like the little boys coins would be for the price of the bike). This reduces his grace to a transaction. I suppose you could view it like that. But I don't. I don't see why you need to view it like that. And then there's that part of his gift -- immortality -- comes to us even if we aren't willing to give up our coins.
This isn't to say that all parables are worthless.
True parables -- the ones in the New Testament, for example -- resist easy interpretation, indeed they cause an overflow, an abundance even of interpretation. They don't try to sum up like the modern ones I have heard/read do. Nor do they rely on sentimentality. While it's true that they have a 'message,' that message is always a little slippery, the imagery doesn't quite fit.
And the parables are better at relating to our practice of living the gospel -- not something as awesome and mysterious as the workings of the atonement.
Think for instance of the parable of the sower. One can try and extrapolate what each of the seeds and the ground they are cast on mean in some didactic way. But the parable works best as a suggestion of the difficulty and variation to reception of the gospel. Or the parable of the ten virgins. The imagery of the oil and the lamps and the virgins and the bridegroom and the wedding feast is much richer than that of the boy and the bicycle. This is not to say that just because the imagery is of that time it's superior and that one couldn't come up with a modern parable using 'modern' imagery that would be suggestive. But every one that I've read [outside of Kafka] fails. Of course, I plan to remedy that .
Part of this is probably a question of taste. But there you have it.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
All 'work' that is not done in a bubble is ideological, tries to perpetuate itself and gain converts. Whether that be a corporation, a non-profit, a government, a charismatic cult, a religion, a cultural phenomenon.
We can quibble about how one goes about it, but to make that sort of blanket statement is frankly hilarious.
My personal take:
I won't defend other missionary efforts. But considering the barriers for entry to Mormonism and the way in which most LDS missionary work is carried out [there are always people who don't do things correctly], it is not imperialism. There is no forcing of ideas down people's throats. There is not taking of local resources. There is no elmination of competing ideas. Etc. Etc.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will freely agree that it is reducive. I would never use it in a talk or in a Sunday School lesson. The story doesn't do much for me personally. And perhaps "parable" was a completely inaccurate word to use. How about "weak analogy"?
But for someone who doesn't believe in the necessity of offering up works along with faith, I think it can be helpful to explain another way of looking at it.
The boy in the story gave up all the money he had in the world. *sniff* Kinda like the widow with the mites.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
especially since the LDS church makes every possible effort to proselize in countries with the full support of the government. I've had friends who cheer the efforts of the illicit christian churches in China, but I can't help thinking that that's not the right way to go about it.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easy, tigers. I'm not just saying it's LDS in this case. And as far as trying to convince others to what you believe, that's different than going out with the express purpose of gaining converts. After all, how much of a percentage of any faith do you really think have taken the time to test themselves and see if their faith is what they really want or choose to believe? I can think of a few that actually promote this kind of self-testing, but for the most part, just about all faiths don't convert with the intent to test and see if others actually want or choose to convert, they go out to convince and coerce others to agree with them. With some (LDS, Born Agains, JW, some Hindu sects), it's outright proselytizing; with others (Catholicism, Islam, Shinto), it's a matter of ingraining the belief at a young age.
Are you willing to admit that it's the same type of techniques that corporations and governments and the like use? Are you willing to accept that it's not some benign, divine purpose? If so, why is it done in the guise of righteousness, and if not, why not?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is cool that LDS missionaries go out, and ask people if they want to hear their message. They share with them what they believe, ask what the individuals believe. They are encouraged not to be contentious or bash another person's beliefs. They introduce the Book of Mormon and ask people to read it. They give you one for free, no strings attached. They ask you to pray about what you are reading and about what they are telling you and try and find out for yourself if it is true. They invite you to be baptized if you believe it is true. They do all this, and they never ask for a penny from anyone, nor do they (personally) require anything else. If the person says, "We aren't interested" they say, "OK". They may request that you hear them out, but they will take "no" for an answer.
There are exceptions to the above example, but this is what they are *taught* to do. If they don't do it, that is an individual issue.
I did this for 18 months. It was a wonderful, life-changing experience. I don't think it is anything like imperialism.
quote:Easy, tigers. I'm not just saying it's LDS in this case.
That just means that your statement is offensive to a larger audience.
quote:I can think of a few that actually promote this kind of self-testing, but for the most part, just about all faiths don't convert with the intent to test and see if others actually want or choose to convert, they go out to convince and coerce others to agree with them.
I see nothing wrong with convincing someone, and I would say that if anyone is coerced into joining a church, that's unjust. The LDS Church does not coerce anyone to join, though individual members or missionaries might.
quote:Are you willing to admit that it's the same type of techniques that corporations and governments and the like use?
So? Does that make something automatically bad?
quote:Are you willing to accept that it's not some benign, divine purpose?
Are you willing to accept that you might not understand the whole picture and that your statements are incorrect and patently offensive?
[ April 13, 2004, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a lot of friends in France that wanted nothing to do with my message. Most of them were Muslims from Syria, Palestine, Morroco, Ghana, Zaire, Congo, Ivory Coast.
I became very good friends with the former defense minister to the former president of Zaire.
I learned a fair amount of Arabic. I learned even more Swahili and Lingala.
Oh yeah. I paid for the whole thing myself. I spent a winter without a warm enough coat cause I didn't have much in the way of funds.
I learned to get along with guys I couldn't stand. I learned a lot about myself. It gave me direction in life.
I guess what I'm saying is that the act of missionary work, while the first and foremost reason why you serve a mission, is not the only benefit of those you interact with.
You ask. They say no, you stay and talk awhile. No one is threatened. No one is harmed.
I'm having trouble seeing the problem with it, John. Honestly.
[ April 13, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you willing to accept that you might not understand the whole picture and that your statements are incorrect and patently offensive?
It's not offensive from my point of view, Jon. In fact, I'm just letting you know what I feel in my heart and mind and soul to be the truth. I'm not forcing you to believe it, but I have to offer it to you as an option, because if I didn't point it out to you, how would I know you ever became aware and made a proper decision on the matter?
Mind you, I'm only being partially facetious about that. I seriously do believe it's true, and I seriously am asking it because I don't think it's something that is given much thought in any faith who feels the need to "spread the good news." I'm also pointing out to you that the very same things you find about my thinking—thinking that I truly believe and have seriously put forth as honest questions—that are offending to you are put forth in the same manner in which most proselytizing, and definitely these proxy baptisms, are put forth to people of other faiths. Just like you're not going to stop believing what you do because I find it incredibly offensive, I'm not going to stop believing what I do just because you find it offensive, and I see no reason to change it because I don't mean it to offend. If people take offense with it, that's because they aren't looking at it from my perspective.
So, what do we do now? Where do we go from here, Jon? Is it just going to be a constant stalemate of hard feelings? Is there no other way to provide a solution to the matter?
In other words, I think that kind of pride is at the heart of both the problem I have with "spread the word" approaches, and with most problems between different beliefs in general. There is nothing righteous about an institution's ecumenical pride getting in the way of not offending their brother or sister. Ever.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm having trouble seeing the problem with it, John. Honestly.
Because you're looking at the after effects, not the reason you went over there. Why did you go over there, Pat?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and just to give you guys a quick anecdote: I actually asked about six years ago if there was some possible way I could go on a mission without joining the church. I told the people I was asking that I would do everything but lie and say I was part of the church. I understand and endorse a lot of what is done. There is just one major part of it I can't stomach.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I went over there with the express idea of getting in touch with those who wanted to come unto Christ through the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Even in France, there were close to 35-40 souls who found out through a sacred manifestation of the Spirit, that the message I taught was true. I helped them in their quest to change their lives.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not offensive from my point of view, Jon. In fact, I'm just letting you know what I feel in my heart and mind and soul to be the truth. I'm not forcing you to believe it, but I have to offer it to you as an option, because if I didn't point it out to you, how would I know you ever became aware and made a proper decision on the matter?
Actually, if you spoke this way more often, I think a lot less people would get upset at what you say. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying "This is God's true church" always sounds arrogant to someone not of that church. Is it wrong to believe that? And what if it is true?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, everything I say is how I feel and not just made up in some "what's the worst way I can put it?" mentality. Some people here get that, and some people here have issues with it. Are you saying that because some people find what I say offensive, I should change how I say it?
Careful, that's a logical trap I just set.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just letting you know what I feel in my heart and mind and soul to be the truth.
And I'm asking you what reason you have to believe it. What reason do you have to believe that the LDS Church's missionary work is a coercive part of a campaign to build a spiritual empire? Do you have a good reason to believe that our missionary work is not motivated by love and service, but rather by power and pride?
quote:There is nothing righteous about an institution's ecumenical pride getting in the way of not offending their brother or sister.
And who are you to judge who's proud and who's righteous? Who are you to decide that it's "ecumenical pride" and not something else?
quote:Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?
But this is exactly what you're doing! Don't you realize that? You know what attitudes and activities are appropriate for our church, and you're going to tell us what they all are.
[ April 13, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my last interjection of the night, I just want to say there's a reason both Pat and John are on the List of Permanent Affection.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
