posted
*laugh* I do think it is funny that after all the doctrine and scriptures in this thread, the biggest controversey has been over the clothes. Then again, maybe it's just the only safe topic.
I don't think it is a regional difference. I have been in church all over the south, and I have a dear friend who served a mission in Alabama. The general dress is the same as explained above. There are regional differences in terms of countries - I mean, best dress is very different in India and Polynesia than it is in the US - but mostly I think its funny because no one actually pays attention to what people are wearing.
The whole white shirt thing is less a dress code for male members than it is for those priesthood holders who will be performing ordinances. It ends up being most male members since most of the teenage boys will be blessing or passing the sacrament, most college guys are still wearing their missionary outfits which are required to consist of white shirts, and most adult men end up dressing conservatively as a function of age. I can promise that this thread contains more anguish over the dress code than any given Sunday would.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about obsessing over the shirt-color tangent. In penance, I offer these thoughts on fasting:
We live in a culture that teaches us how to be consumers, as if that were our highest calling. Any need, or even want, should be satisfied immediately. After all (says the hair color commercial) “we’re worth it.” Fasting, a time when we don’t “consume,” can be a time to reflect that humanity’s first call, from God, is not to be consumers, but to be stewards. Giving away the money that would have been spent on our own consumption further emphasizes this. It can be a time to look at how we manage the resources that are entrusted to us.
Going without something, even going hungry for a time, can also help us to reflect on the differences between “need” and “want” and the fact that we actually have an overabundance. It cultivates an attitude of gratefulness for all that we have, a reminder of our blessings.
Fasting and other spiritual disciplines also help us clear space in our lives. Sometimes when we feel a deep longing we try to fill it immediately rather than taking the time to identify what it is we’re really longing for. Disciplines of abstinence, of which fasting is the most common, help us to stop and identify the source and object of our desires. Too often we try to fill a longing for God with things other than God. Fasting can help us avoid that mistake.
Marjorie Thompson’s book Soul Feast has an excellent chapter on fasting. In fact, I recommend the whole book to anyone looking for ways to deepen their spiritual life.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me tell ya—the minute that stupid piece of cloth we call a "tie" even shows a glimmer of going out of style, mine's coming off. The only possible use for a tie that I can see is so my 2-year-old daughter can strangle me.
I wear one to Church on Sunday, but it comes off the minute I step through our front door. Jeans and a t-shirt are my preferred garb for Sunday afternoon.
I'd probably go for the "alternative" styles at Church, like the different colored shirts and the tie substitutes, but alas I am the Ward Chorister.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, fasting is a recently acquired principle.
I didn't do it for a long time because I got headaches from not eating, and I also didn't like putting off gratification. I didn't see the spiritual benefits of it.
In terms of fasting for something, it didn't seem to work. I had a Huckleberry Finn experience. The first two times I fasted sincerely and desperately for something, my grandmother and my mother died anyway. That was irritating, and fasting seemed like a wash.
However, I tried again - this time without the bravado and flippant undercurrant, and I can tell you that fasting works. I felt closer to the Lord, and I found the courage and wisdom that I didn't possess of myself to deal with a situation that left on my own I was fouling up badly. What Isaiah says is true.
My favorite fasting scriptures:
quote:Isa 58:5-7
5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the bpoor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
posted
A little late on the white shirt issue, a quote from Elder Holland, "This do in Remembrance of Me," Ensign November 1995, page 67:
quote:
May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.
That simple suggestion is not intended to be pharisaic or formalistic. We do not want deacons or priests in uniforms or unduly concerned about anything but the purity of their lives. But how our young people dress can teach a holy principle to us all, and it certainly can convey sanctity. As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).
posted
Emily (or anyone else), is the "Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89" that he quotes available online? I'm fascinated to read how a white shirt contributes to the sanctity of the sacrament.
(Note, I am not belittling. I wear an alb and vestments, so I'm hardly one to make fun of other people's ritual clothing.)
posted
I'd just like to point out that the recommendation only extends to those who are handling the Sacrement, not to the general congregation.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wendybird, no offense taken. And the Gospel Principles book is great advice.
I too think it is funny that it is clothes that has become the most controversial.
AFR, The front door? My hubby has it off in the car.
Also, I'd like to say that a white shirt and tie doesn't necessarily mean an entire suit. Even the missionaries often wear only short sleeved white shirts during the hot seasons and in tropical areas. Heck, I know of a missionary that wore his white shirt, tie, and a Kikepa. The Kikepa is a colorful, often floral, wrap around skirt for both men and women.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, et.al. - what makes you say that the shirt issue has been controversial?
Interesting, most likely to catch the attention, easiest to talk about, maybe, but I haven’t seen any actual disagreement about it. More like curiosity than controversy, really. The inner sociologist in all of us, poking at why we do the things we do. Doctrinal questions have, in comparison, obvious answers – “this is what we believe and this is why.” But how customs become formalized . . .that’s a fascinating question that LDS and non-LDS can all relate to.
Or maybe that’s just me. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it is just one of the few issues that hasn't been
Hobbes: question Horde: answer
I think there was a flurry of discussion over something earlier, and it was asked to be moved to another thread so this thread would be still be a safe place to discuss beliefs. The flurry of discussion over the clothes has been fine because I don't think anyone is wildly attached to the dress code enough to be hurt or wary if their faith in it is questioned.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think we can both agree though, that cultural traditions have to be kept in check, or they can run the risk of becoming pseudo-doctrinally based.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Ah yes,” says the pastor who has spent the last three years trying to convince a congregation that children do not have to wait until after they are confirmed to receive communion.
Sometimes local customs can even be in direct contradiction to doctrine.
posted
Sigh. I have to say that the thing about women having to wear dresses to church has always really bothered me. I don't like them. I'm not comfortable in them. Ever since I hit eighth grade and wasn't required to wear them to school every day anymore, I have only worn dresses when absolutely required to do so. To me, the real issue is that when I have to wear one, I'm always worried about things being pulled up and pulled down and whether I'm sitting so that nothing is showing that shouldn't be. That leaves me with less time to think about the things I should be thinking about in church. I honestly think it is cultural and has very little to do with faith or respect or anything else. Just my opinion.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
JonBoy--you're welcome . dkw--what katharina said. I think to find an Conference Report that old you'd have to go to a library in Utah to find it--my first stop would be the BYU library if I were trying to find anything.
posted
First and Foremost, the Ensign only goes to 1971 when The Friend, and The New Era were also first printed to coordinate all LDS Church Publications. You would have to find an old edition of The Instructor or Deseret News. But, it is easier than that as I have the copy of all the General Conferences since about 1898 on my Infobase. If I find the time I will look for it.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not going to say much about the dress. We are not a people who look to formality, certainly we do not believe in phylacteries, in uniforms, on sacred occasions, but I do think that the Lord will be pleased with a bishopric if they will instruct the young men who are invited to administer the sacrament to dress properly. He will not be displeased if they come with a white shirt instead of a colored one, and we are not so poor that we cannot afford clean, white shirts for the boys who administer the sacrament. If they do not have them, at least they will come with clean hands, and especially with a pure heart.
I have seen deacons not all dressed alike, but they have a special tie or a special shirt as evidence that those young men have been instructed that "you have a special calling this morning. Come in your best." And when they are all in white I think it contributes to the sacredness of it. Anything that will make the young boys feel that they have been called upon to officiate in the Priesthood in one of the most sacred ordinances in the Church, and they too should remain quiet, even before the opening of the meeting.
That is just preliminary. I said I saw these two boys leave the building this afternoon, and it reminded me that in some of our wards, these young men who have been appointed to administer the sacrament, and who have officiated in the order of the Priesthood, start for the door and leave the worshiping assembly. I will not say it is sacrilege, but I will say that it is not in keeping with the order and sacredness of the service which they have rendered by virtue of the Priesthood.
Instruct them, bishops. When they accept that duty, they accept the responsibility of remaining throughout that entire meeting hour. They are part of it. A bishop would not think of leaving. His counselors would not. Neither should your representatives who administer the sacrament. (David O. McKay, General Conference Report, 1956, pg. 89)
posted
Thank you Jettboy. I still don't understand why a white shirt is better than a colored one, but at least we can see that the idea has been around for a while. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
White clothing represents purity. This is especially the case with Latter-day Saints. That a person who does ordinances and blessings should wear white shouldn't be surprising. As for the tie, it just represents a formal dressing standard.
quote:The Laodiceans were proudly independent of Roman reconstruction finances, and some felt spiritually self-sufficient, sensing no need for the help of God. They were now encouraged to seek assistance from the Source of lasting treasure and richness. As Jesus had earlier taught, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal [and where earthquakes destroy and bury], but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” (Matt. 6:19-20.)
“I counsel you to buy from me . . . white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen.” (Rev. 3:18.) White garments are here contrasted to the celebrated soft, raven-black wool for which Laodicea was famous in John’s day. White garments were symbolic of cleanliness and purity, as revealed in the Lord’s words to the church at Sardis: “He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments . . . and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.” (Rev. 3:5, 4.) (D. Kelly Ogden, "Spiritual Lessons in Physical Settings," LDS Church News, Jan. 7, 1995)
also . . .
quote:a symbol of purity (2 Chr. 5:12; Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:18; 7:14). Our Lord, at his transfiguration, appeared in raiment "white as the light" (Matt. 17:2, etc.). (Easton's Bible Dictionary, "White")
posted
I know that you should "respect The Sabbath" however you feel fit, but what does that mean to you guys? What would you feel comfortbale doing, or not feel comofortable doing on Sunday?
posted
I've noticed that many people have different personal interpretations of this. I'm probably more strict than some and less strict than others. Here's a list of what I like to do and don't feel comfortable doing on Sunday.
Like to do: read the scriptures, visit with my family, play games with my family (Scrabble is a tradition almost), pray, go to church (of course), prepare lessons/ talks if appropriate, think, write letters, look through photo albums, visit with friends and neighbors, go on walks, play the piano, etc.
Don't feel comfortable doing: homework, going to work, watching TV or movies, going to the store, preparing extravagant meals, doing housework
Posts: 537 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Like to do: take a nap, read, spend time with my husband (since it is the only day both he and I have off), cook (not necessarily extravagent things, but good things that may take longer than I usually have), play the piano, play with the kitties, visit my parents, etc.
Don't like to do: listen to my usual music (rock), shop, do housework (beyond the normal stuff like dishes), do work-related things, do things I would normally do any other day, etc.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I've seen a quote from, I think President Kimball, about appropriate Sabbath activities... I'll see if I can dig it up.
I try (not always successfully) to stay away from the computer, to read my scriptures and other good books, take a nap, spend time with family, take a walk or do other quiet fun activities with the kids and rest before my week starts again. I try to remember the reason for the day, a day of rest, a day to focus our thoughts on the Savior and his sacrifice. If an activity enhances that then I think it is appropriate. Because strengthening families is so important we often go to my mom's house and visit and eat and have fun.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly want to hear more on the Sunday topic (though this thread will probably close down tomorrow because of it ), but I have another question you can answer.
I know that you'll eventually have a chance to accept Mormonism, but if you are given that chance and don't, what happens (when you are judged)?
posted
Some people take a more stringent view of it, but I think the scriptures indicate that God judges us all individually, based on our true motives and understanding. If, for instance, you rejected the Church because you wanted to live as a drunk, whoring bastard, then you'd be in trouble. If you rejected the Church because all you ever saw of it was its worst members, I think God would understand. If you rejected the Church because you just plain weren't all that sure about it ... who knows? But ultimately, I don't think that fear of judgment should play an important role in anyone's choice of religion. God knows your heart, and if you mean well and are honest, you really can't do too badly.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The consequences of not converting are irrelevent to me. Because if I don't convert it will be because I think it's not true, and if it's not true then the consequences of it are meaningless. I asked the question not to worry about what would happen if I didn't convert, but to get a better feel for Mormonism in general.
quote: if you have to choose between joining the church of the community you live in and a Mormon church which is too far away to be able to join in ward's activities and all other social things, what would you do?
This was the first 13 years of my life, ginette. I'm not sure how far away you are, but we were 45 miles away from our Church. There were no other Mormon kids in our town, the next town over, or anywhere near us. What did we do? The same thing everyone else does. . . made friends with those around us.
It took some doing to get to the Church's social activities, but we managed.
quote:My parents were atheists and didn't approve when the missionaries wanted me to come over to the church.
This made me grin. Usually, it's the religious folk who don't want their loved ones going to the Mormon church.
quote:if someone wants to be baptized, are there any questions being asked about motives
No-- I think the questions are mostly about belief and desire. Things like, do you believe in God, in Christ, that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel, that there are prophets guiding the Mormon church. . . They may ask some dedication type questions to see if you will pay tithing or accept callings in the church.
quote: is it ever refused?
I'm not sure. I've heard that those who have murdered must get approval by the Church's leaders before they can be baptized. And if a person is mentally handicapped and unable to consciously sin, they may not baptize him. But I have never heard of anyone flat-out refusing to baptize someone who is repentant.
Of course, if you walk into the Q&A smoking a cigarette, cursing and kicking a puppy, you might be delayed. . .
quote:If you are married, does the Church expect your husband to also get baptized?
We expect everyone to get baptized, sooner or later. . . that why we have baptisms for the dead. Maybe you missed that thread.
Seriously, no. However, in order for the wife to be baptized, she must have the husband's approval. I'm not sure if there's a vice-versa to this-- but the idea is to make sure that a family isn't broken apart by one member joining the Mormons.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very new to this forum, in fact this is my first posting (as you can see). I have been reading through several threads and I figured that I could pretty much ask questions and get questions. Here goes. I am pondering D&C 88:28-33 and I am wondering who are the people mentioned in verses 32-33? Is this outer darkness or more kingdoms of glory? Verses 28-31 talk of the three kingdoms and the quickening of those who receive a portion of the glories of those kingdoms. However, verses 32-33 talk of those who "remain" and how they shell return to "their own place". This is a serious question for me because I have been reading the automatic writings of James Padgett who received pure revelation from Christ and other spirits from the spirit world. These writings are amazing, enlightening, and refreshing. However, they deny the atonement of Christ as is taught by the LDS (and much of Christianity). Any clarification on the above verses would be appreciated.
Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is a serious question for me because I have been reading the automatic writings of James Padgett who received pure revelation from Christ and other spirits from the spirit world."
posted
It is stated that they are revelations received and from what is said in them as to the kind of life that they are experiencing, it makes sense. I am not specifically saying that I believe them to be, however, I find them to be very interesting. I also find very little difference in them to the revelations of Joseph Smith found in the D&C. My concern is not whether Padgett received them as he states through his psychic abilities or whether he just pondered them through his own intelligence. I am more concerned that what these writings state make more clear the revelations of Joseph Smith rather than the accepted interpretations of the Church (or Sunday School doctrine). Hence, my question regarding D&C 88.
Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also find very little difference in them to the revelations of Joseph Smith found in the D&C.
I find a lot of difference. Doctrinal considerations aside, the literary merits of the Doctrine and Covenants greatly surpass those of James Padgett's writings, which are self-aggrandizing, prosaic, and like the writings of many of the other self-proclaimed prophets on the Internet (Mormon-related or otherwise) reveal nothing of intelligence.
But this thread is for Hobbes.
If you'd like to start a new thread on this subject WedgeAntilles, then do so (assuming the moderators are comfortable with this topic of discussion).
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I guess it's perfectly OK to start a new thread with your question about D&C 88. As long as you ask and not try to discuss it with counterproof from what is regarded as false scripture by the Mormon Church.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, go ahead and discuss it using what's regarded as "false scripture." It's not like any one scripture is empirically more trustworthy than another.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason why Mormons don't accept James Padgett's writings as scripture-- thus, discussing them as being valid to the Mormon experience as inspired work is impossible.
It'd be like trying to discuss the validity of Christianity by using the Vedas.
But, hey-- in other context, discuss away. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not like any one scripture is empirically more trustworthy than another.
True (at least empirically scientifically). But, Tom, would you dispute the idea that some sacred writing is more interesting, well-written and imparts more potential wisdom than other sacred writings---regardless of the purported source?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ginette--I taught a girl on my mission who wanted to get baptized to have a fresh start, and because she felt there was truth in some of the things that we taught. However, as we spent more time with her, it became clear that she had no intention of attending our church regularly. She wanted the ordinance--baptism--but did not intend to keep the covenants or commitments that go along with it. She did not end up getting baptized. I hope that she will one day. Part of baptism is entering into the kingdom of God--she wanted entrance, but didn't want to become a participating citizen. That was not the only reason she didn't end up getting baptized, but I think her problem with surrendering was at the heart of other issues she had.
That story may not relate with your experience at all; it's just what your question reminded me of. I hope you find more of the answers you are looking for . And (hey, I just talked to my twin brothers on their missions yesterday for Mother's Day, so I'm feeling the missionary spirit ) I also hope baptism when you are ready is one of them.
posted
Thanks Scott and Emily for answering my questions.
Emily, that's what I meant when I asked 'is it ever refused?' Sure I understand that baptism also means participating. I am reading some stuff about baptism right now. I have to find an answer to this: Somehow I think baptism should be unconditional providing someone has the right heart, or motives, strange idea something like house rules from a wordly organization can be a stumbling block. On the other hand I guess some consequences follow naturally from the wish to be baptized, so these things you recognize in your heart and you'll be willing to do them even if there were no rules. But I'll find the way sooner or later, at least I am sure of that and thanks for the encouragement .
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I met a lady on my mission who was refused baptism, but I don't exactly why. However, during the course of the conversation, we discovered she believed in reincarnation, so that provided an inkling. I would say that not actually believing the doctrine would probably disqualify.
posted
Ginette--in my experience baptism is only refused if 1-it's clear that a person has not completely repented of a past major sin--adultery and abortion are two examples. I taught a man who had three baptismal interviews before he was able to fully repent of his previous adultery. Or if 2-a person who desires baptism has no intention of keeping an important, basic commandment. I taught a woman who was not able to be baptized because she would not commit to closing her spiced-milk stand on Sunday mornings. Sunday was her most profitable day, and she did not think it was a fair thing to ask... the missionary who interviewed her, though, felt that her lack of willingness demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance of the Sabbath.
Also, children under 18 need their parents' permission, and spouses should seek each others' permission before baptism.
One more thing--before a person is officially a member, they must be confirmed and receive the Holy Ghost. This happens in Sacrament Meeting, two or three weeks after the actual baptism. If you are not confirmed within a few weeks after your baptism, you will have to get rebaptized. (My brother has this particular situation on his mission right now.) If you don't get confirmed, your baptism doesn't count on church records.
posted
I think that I have only one sizable issue left, one that I’ve been milling over for a few weeks now. Not to say that this is the last question, good gracious no! However, this is the one thing that has been really bugging me, the one aspect of Mormonism that I can’t seem to get a grip on. I’ve brought it up in a small part before but it’s (clearly ) still here, my question is about baptism. I’m basically going to just list off the questions I have with it… so here we go!
Why is the choice alone not enough?
Why is a proper authority needed (why can’t a decent person without authority baptize someone)?
What about the baptism isn’t symbolic?
Anything else anyone wants to say about baptism, or about similar procedures is also welcome.
Two more things (not questions, just side notes ). The first is that I think everyone realizes this, but I want to make it clear that I ask these questions to find answers, not to challenge their validity. The second is that those who have asked questions in this thread are more than welcome to it, and if anyone has questions they haven’t asked because they felt that it wasn’t a good place, I hereby welcome all of you to ask your questions! (Not debate over it, but questions about beliefs ).
posted
Emily (and anyone else)...Is confirming "two or three weeks" after baptism a new thing? When I was baptized, there were several other baptisms at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, and all of us were confirmed directly after baptism. Was that an aberration, have things changed, or is there discretion from stake to stake or region to region? I was baptized in Southern California, by the way. As I recall, my mother, who was baptized a few years after I was in a different stake but also in Southern California, was also confirmed directly after baptism.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Little miss--yes, it is relatively new. Towards the end of my mission five years ago they were just starting to implement it. It's standard policy today, I'm pretty sure.
On the rest of the questions... I am a tired pregnant woman so I'm going to bed. But I will mull them over and post something tomorrow (unless everything I think of has already been mentioned ). --Emily
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Hobbes for inviting us all to ask questions
I know you want answers from the LDS people on this forum, but as I just happened to read something about baptism, I'll tell you what follows from the Bible, hope you don't mind. If I say something wrong, I am sure I'll get corrected by someone:
Even Jesus himself got baptized by John. At the end of Marcus and Matthew, the disciples are commanded to baptize those who believe. The baptism in water itself is to wash away sins while repenting, the confirmation is to receive the Holy Ghost. I don't know WHY baptism is needed. My book didn't answer that question, other than 'It's a matter of obidience'. I only know that I feel the need, but I have no rationalization. It's like (this comes also from the book I read) without the baptism you can see and know and feel about the Kingdom, but only through baptism you can enter it.
About the proper authorization to baptize another, I don't know. My book says everyone who is able to pass the power on, that is another person who has received the Holy Ghost, may baptize another. I just wish I could go to my neighbour, and ask her to go down to the river with me and baptize and confirm me. I feel sure she has the proper authority to do so. But it's not that easy anymore in these times nowadays.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
The choice alone IS the important thing, to you. The baptism is like the paperwork surrounding the choice. If you and your wife decide on your own to stop being married, but never get a legal divorce, are you married, or are you divorced? Or, to look at it another way, if you decide that you belong to a political party, but never register with them, do you get to vote in their primary?
People spend their lives deciding to do things, but only actually DO a small fraction of them. Baptism — and all ordinances — mark moments in your life when you truly DO something to commit yourself to what you believe.
Someone can imagine themselves stealing as much as they want. They can even be seriously tempted to do so. But they do not become guilty of thievery until they actually take something that isn't theirs. We face many temptations in life, but we are judged only on those temptations that we follow through with. God is fair with us when it comes to sin, but He is also fair when it comes to righteousness. We can have all the good intentions in the world, but if we always manage to avoid DOING anything about them at the last minute, it's not going to avail us much.
So, to sum it up, baptism is important because while things like faith and belief can be fleeting and fickle, actions always have permanent meaning, for good or ill. Does that make sense?
quote:Why is a proper authority needed (why can’t a decent person without authority baptize someone)?
For the same reason that I can't give you a speeding ticket. I can write all the tickets I want, but without the backing of the police department, they are meaningless pieces of paper. Similarly, in order for a baptism to have any meaning, there must be some assurance that the ritual is recognized by the Lord. Barring apparitions of doves and voices from the heavens, we must rely on the knowledge that the performer of the baptism has been ordained with God's authority.
Besides, how would you define "decent person"? I suppose we'd all agree that someone like, say, Johnny Knoxville, shouldn't be going around performing baptisms — at least, not serious ones. And there are a lot of decent people who we'd imagine might qualify just fine for the job. But there's got to be a way to draw a line between those two extremes, and when you're running an ecclesistical organization, it's essential to know exactly where that line is. Priesthood ordination is where the Church draws that line. It isn't always perfect (not all priests are decent), but at least it's clear.
quote:What about the baptism isn’t symbolic?
None of it. It's all symbolic. The act of going through this symbolic ritual is what marks you as a member of the Church, and is the point at which you turn your inner yearnings into outward actions. It is the moment when you turn from being a casual dabbler in the faith to being a full and active participant. So it has definite meaning to you and to the Church in the real world. But the actual act, the water, the prayer — all of it is symbolic.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Edit: Dang it, Geoff, some of us had to go put crying babies back to sleep. I'm still going to let the post stand, just as I wrote it, just so everybody can see you were copying off my paper.]
Okay, to answer some of the questions about baptism:
We believe the choice alone isn't enough for the same reason that, were you and I to enter into a business transaction, my telling you what's what wouldn't be enough. You would want to have things in writing, signed, notarized, witnessed, etc, etc, etc.
Same thing with baptism. We believe that baptism is a covenant. It's a binding covenant where you make certain promises to God, and God makes certain promises to you. Rather than using a pen and paper contract, God deals in symbolic ordinances for making these covenants. Symbols that represent aspects of the covenant (death and rebirth, in the case of baptism) and help clairify and solidify them in our minds.
This is why someone with authority must perform the ordinance. Imagine if I were to enter into a contract with you by having someone sign for you who claims to know you really well. You wouldn't consider that binding at all. You would only want someone who you had designated as your representative to do that.
It's the same way with baptism. Not every baptism is valid because not every person has authority to baptize. "No man taketh this honor (meaning the priesthood) unto himself, except he is called of God, as was Aaron." It's not a matter of how much you know or how bad you want to. A lawyer might know every traffic law on the books in your state, but he can't hand out traffic tickets. Even though the policeman might know less about the law, he's the one with the authority, so he's the one who gets to do it.
Same thing with priesthood. We can't claim to have authority from God just because we want it, or just because we've read a lot of scriptures. The only way to get authority from God is to get it from someone who already has enough authority to be able to give it to us.
So the part about baptism that isn't symbolic is the covenant--the promise that, as we try to obey the comandments and repent when we've done wrong, he'll forgive us our sins. We believe those promises are very real.
So it's more than just a simple decision to live a different sort of life. We're promising that we'll do it in a very specific way. And just as we want to be bound by that promise, we want God to bound to keep his promise as well.
This is why we believe you have to be baptized to get to heaven. It's not because God only likes Mormons. It's because baptism is when God is making the promise to you that he will forgive your sins, since that is the point when you've definitively and publicly demonstrated that you want to be rid of them.
And the public part is important. Just like a legal document or a marriage (another covenant) there are also witnesses present for baptism.
So I guess you can see that in our view, there's a lot of difference between making a simple choice in your mind that you want to live a certain way, and publicly entering into a covenant with God under the hand of someone with proper authority.
-----------------------------------------
On the white shirt issue--
From my understanding, the only reason we're encouraged to wear white shirts and ties to pass the sacrament is because it shows respect for what you're doing to be dressed as nicely as possible (hence the shirt and tie) without being too flashy to distract from the sacred nature of the ordinance (hence the lack of color).
Now we're not insane about this. People pass sacrament in colored shirts or no ties all the time. Generally these are people who are new to the church or don't have white shirts and ties. But generally within a few weeks somebody will pick up a shirt and tie for these people, more to help them feel comfortable than anything else.
-----------------------------------------
And as for your disclaimer about asking not for purpouses of arguement, in the same way our posts (including this one) aren't meant to "tell you how it is" but are meant to "tell you how we see it." If something seems too strongly worded, just add the phrase "As we see it," in front of the sentance to make it less preachy.
----------------------------------- About the "two to three weeks" thing--it's not new. In fact, it's kind of old. More and more they're trying to shorten the amount of time between when a person is baptized and when they receive the gift of the holy ghost. They're even often giving men the Aaronic Priesthood immediately as well. But usually it either happens at the baptism or the next day in sacrament meeting.
The two to three weeks thing usually happened when the ward would only give the gift of the holy ghost on fast sunday (the first sunday of the month). Most wards still only bless babies that day.
posted
Hobbes, as you know, these people know so much more about doctrine than me, and they explain things so much better, that I haven't felt the need to do anything in this thread besides throw in my love and support and to express my joy for you, for the step that you are about to take. But I want to say one thing here. It's good that you want things explained, and these people are doing a wonderful job explaining, but realize that there's much more to it than anything that can be put into words. In some ways you just have to experience it to know.
For instance, the authority of the priesthood. I knew it was true and I believed it, but until I was confirmed and actually felt it, I didn't truly know. I didn't understand that I would really exude light and happiness out of every pore for three weeks afterwards so that strangers would turn and smile at me in crowded elevators. <laughs>
I don't know if everyone has that same experience but the holy spirit is real and the priesthood has the authority to give it to you. So don't quit asking for explanations but do realize that words are inadequate to convey the totality of the answers.
If God weren't higher and better than we could understand, something would be wrong, neh?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Hobbes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ May 14, 2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, what those guys said. I'd also like to add the LDS believe that God's house is a house of order. (D&C 132:8) To keep that order He has designated those who may use His authority on earth. This is the "proper authority." (If you follow the link, read verse 7 as well)
This question was something that was very difficult for me when I first joined the church, not only to understand, but to explain to my catholic mother who was quite offended that I was "RE-baptised".
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but I have another question you can answer.
