posted
I'm going to think over a lot of this stuff, it's starting to make a lot more sense. However, it did raise another question.
quote: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.
It seems like if it's all symbolic, then it could be done symbolicly in thr Spirit world. Why can't a properly ordained member of the Priesthood baptize a new convert there? I understand that on earth you need to be immeresed in water, but if it's symbolic...?
posted
I don't agree with Geoffrey on that point - for that exact same reason, Hobbes. If it was just symbolic, it could be done in the spirit world. It wouldn't matter if the person doing the baptizing had the priesthood or not.
I don't know exactly what it is, but it can't be just symbolic.
I think of it like the form and the substance. (I might have said this before. If so, please forgive the repitition.)
For every ordinance, there is a form and a substance. For baptism, there is the inward change of heart and committment, and there is the dunking of the body by someone with the priesthood. For the sacrament, there is the inward repentance and rededication, and there is the actual taking of the bread and water. Even for a temple sealing, there is the inward committment to making one out of two, and there is the ceremony.
Baptism of the body by someone with authority can't be only symbolic, but if it were, then the form wouldn't matter. Since the form does matter (by immersion, by one who is worthy and has the authority), it can't be only symbolic.
I realize that is circular reasoning, but then, there it is. If it were only symbolic, there wouldn't have needed to be a restoration of the Priesthood. I don't know what happens or why it is important, but it is. I just can't explain why.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly, I'm only giving my own impression of the whole issue. If there's something that doesn't ring true to you in what I say, by all means, run with kat, or with someone else
Personally, I wonder exactly what can be done in the Spirit World. I mean, if it's the same as the mortal world, only more spirit-y, then I would be confused as to why flesh and physical reality are necessary at all. I mean, God created us as spirits first. If we could do everything we needed to do in that form, He would have had no reason to give us bodies.
I suspect (though this is speculation, and plenty of people will disagree with me) that Spirits can't physically DO much of anything. The whole purpose of the physical world is to have a place where people can act out their inclinations, and make real choices that they may be judged by. As Spirits, people have those inclinations, perhaps, but not much more. They can learn, they can think, they can perceive, they can communicate ... and nothing beyond that. If anything is to be put into action, then it must be done here, on earth, where all the actions take place.
I do feel like the scriptures fit my point of view, though not necessarily proving it. For one thing, in all the tales of the spirit world (both before mortality and after), the only physical-sounding actions ever mentioned that I can recall are (1) Satan being cast down, and (2) Christ releasing the prisoners, both of which could be symbolic for something far less physically demanding. Otherwise, it's all words, words, and more words. Everyone talks and plans, but never physically DOES anything until they come to Earth.
But again let me say that this is just my personal impression, and has nothing to do with anything anyone else "ought" to believe. In short:
God found us as primitive intelligences — mere embryos in the cosmic scheme. He gave us spirits so that we could think and communicate, but in order to act on any of our thoughts — in order to prove ourselves — we needed a physical form. So God created the earth and placed us upon it with physical bodies to give us that chance. When we die, we return to our impotent spiritual state, helpless to alter the choices we made as physical beings ... unless those still alive on earth offer us their assistance.
As far as symbolism goes, I don't think we should deride its value. An act can be entirely symbolic, yet still have great meaning and power. When you asked if baptism was entirely symbolic, I assumed that you were asking whether or not something about the water or the physical movement or the words spoken had some real, unavoidable effect in the real world, the way heating an egg really does cook it, and the way stabbing a needle into your finger really does make it bleed.
And no, baptism doesn't work that way. The only value of a baptism is its spiritual meaning as an expression of your commitment to the Lord. He has asked that we go through baptism in order to join His people. Therefore, if we want to be His people, we must be baptized, and by receiving baptism, we make a vital spiritual transition in our relationship to the Lord.
But that transition occurs entirely because that act of baptism has a specific symbolic meaning to us and to God. The act itself could have been anything. God could have asked us to dip our feet in honey or hug trees or do the hokey-pokey in the snow, and the same effect could have been achieved.
When you sign your name to a contract, are you physically bound to do what the contract says? No, of course not. It's symbolic. The signature on the contract has an agreed-upon symbolic meaning to you and to the law. Before you signed, the contract was null, but after you signed, it became a legally binding document, entirely because of symbolism. I feel that baptism works the same way. We perform a symbolic action to seal an agreement between us and the Lord. Before we do it, there is no covenant. After we do it, we are a part of something greater.
As usual, I had to talk myself into my point, so I apologize if this post is long and unwieldy Now I'm on my way to e3, so I hope this all made sense!
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see hobbes there are opinions even within the LDS faith. Thats why it is so important to us that we believe that God direct this church through revelation.
My opinion; Baptism is symbolic, becuase if it was not then we could not do baptism for the dead. As in any ordinance, part of the blessings are for the people who officiate as well as the individual. All are lifted and partake of the feeling of the spirit. Baptism is a nessecary ordinace because it shows our commitment and belief that it is the only way. It's the gateway to starting on the path. But it is all symbolic of your choice. I repeat if it was not symbolic then we would have to use the bodies of the dead to baptise them, instead of doing it by proxy.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Every commandment men are given is tied to a real, physical effect. There are no "temporal only" commandments- every commandment is tied to an objective truth- a spiritual reality. Remember, Mormons believe that there is no such thing as "Immaterial matter". Spirits are matter just as our physical bodies are, just more refined.
This means that commandments such as baptism are not "only" symbolic but also have a real physical effect. We can see this taught in the doctrine. We read that after death there is a real physical separation between the just souls and the unjust souls of men.
The water itself is key in some way which I don't think anyone understands, but it is clear that it is absolutely necessaryPosts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- do you know of any aliens on planets without water?
Though there may be surprises out there as far as I know liquid water is pretty much essential to life.
Also, consider the following:
quote:And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
So if there are aliens on a waterless planet you can rest assured that there are certain laws which they must obey, though not necessarily the same laws as what we must obey.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since artee brought up the “rebaptism” question, I’m going to throw out a few more words on why some of us non-LDS Christians are so twitchy about it. I’m speaking as a member of a particular protestant denomination, but most of this holds true for Catholics and all the denominations descended from magisterial Protestantism.
We believe that baptism is a covenant between the baptizand and God, but that the initiative is God’s. That’s also why we support infant baptism, because the emphasis is on God’s action. The technical term is “prevenient grace.” Prevenient means “to come before,” – grace that is given before we even realize that we need it.
But because we believe baptism is primarily a promise made by God to the person being baptized, rather than the other way around, it’s not repeatable (or necessary to repeat it). God does not break promises, so the covenant is permanently in effect. If a person were to come to me as their pastor and tell me that they were baptized as an infant but never really took it seriously, lived a life of complete sinfulness but had repented and now wanted to be baptized as an adult, I would not re-baptize that person. Because, whether they took it seriously or not, God did. God’s promise to that person and claim on that person’s life was not invalidated by their lack of response to it. The person is still baptized. We do have a service of renewal and remembrance of the baptismal covenant that is appropriate for this situation, but we do not re-baptize. To do so would be to say that God’s promise failed, or that God was unfaithful. Which is obviously something we don’t wish to say.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks dkw!! Now I understand so much better why people get so upset about being "rebaptised" - we are interpreting the act of baptism differently.
From an LDS standpoint, baptism is primarily a promise made to God. It is a covenant with God. The nature of covenants is contractual. God keeps up His end if we keep up ours. If we don't keep up our end, the contract is null and void and God does not have to (or, even stronger, cannot) fulfill his end.
We do not practice infant baptism for this reason (the need to be cognizant of the promises you are making, therefore being responsible for keeping or breaking them) and for one other reason. We do not believe in the inherant sinfulness of a person. Christ's atonement ensures that every child born is already "in God's grace" - in a state of innocence. It is only when they reach the "age of accountability" (which we believe to be at 8 years old), when they become accountable/responsible for their deeds and misdeeds, that they can be eligible for baptism.
Also, there can be re-baptism into the LDS faith. Some sins are severe enough that they require excommunication. Within the LDS church, excommunication is viewed as more than removal of the person from the records of the church, but as a first step to being brought back into the church. It provides the opportunity to repent for your sins and be re-baptised and have all of the blessings you forfeited by your action restored. [FYI - the excommunication and re-baptism of church members is not a public matter - it isn't announced in church or made public in any way.]
quote:The person is still baptized. We do have a service of renewal and remembrance of the baptismal covenant that is appropriate for this situation, but we do not re-baptize.
This statement actually applies perfectly in an LDS context. People are not baptized a second time into the LDS Church unless their original baptism has been made null through excommunication.
So why do we baptize people who have already been baptized into another faith? Ludosti described baptism as a covenant or a 2-way promise: it must involve both the individual and God.
Who represents the individual? The individual himself, or, if the individual is dead, a proxy. If the baptism is performed by proxy the individual must still give his or her seal of approval to the ordinance.
Who can represent God? The answer to this question explains why we have to re-baptize someone who has been baptized into another faith: only an authorized holder of the Priesthood can represent God in the performing of ordinances. To us the baptisms that occur in other organizations are nothing more than expressions of good intentions by the individual and of hopes by the performer of the ordinance. There is no ratification from Heaven, and so the covenant has not been made.
Thus it is not that we consider baptism to be primarily the act of an individual that directs our policy, but that we consider it to be an act of God through the channels that He has chosen as well as an act of the individual.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom makes an interesting point. Sorta.
What happens when the symbolism of an act is not culturally understood? I think many Christians take for granted the idea of vicarious sacrifice because they've been raised knowing it all along. But missionary work in China and other Buddhist countries where (I presume) vicarious sacrifice for sin is greatly hindered because there is no cultural connection as far as symbols go.
[shamelessSelfPromotion] Heh. This is actually the premise of a short story I'm devising. What happens to the Mormon law of chastity (no sexual relations outside of marriage), when it is discovered that alien converts must have intercourse with multiple partners in order to procreate? [/shamelessSelfPromotion]
I believe that the Lord will always work things out-- in Tom's example, let's suppose the aliens don't have water. The Lord will find some other method to symbolize cleansing, burial and resurrection. He's omniscient, after all-- coming up with allegories ain't all that tough when you know all that can be known. The question is whether or not His people will listen when He tells them the New Story. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catholics don't recognize LDS baptism. There was a ruling about it in the past couple of years since I've joined the church. Just thought I'd mention that.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes BebeChouette, I realize that to you everything I hold sacred is merely wishful thinking. I hope you understand that I don’t agree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry dkw. I didn't mean to make it sound quite like that if it did. The phrase 'merely wishful thinking' sounds much more pejorative and dismissive than one I would want attributed to me as a description of your most sacredly held beliefs.
In defense of the doctrine if you take out the dismissive and pejorative tone you could make the same charge to anyone who doesn't hold your creed. I can certainly make the same charge to any who don't hold mine.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, every other religion thinks we are nothing more than wishful thinking -- and worse. Such is expressions of religious belief.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BebeChouette -- Thank you. I was, in fact, trying to point out how the tone of your post sounded to me. I'm glad to know you didn't mean it to sound that way.
Jettboy -- that is probably true. But you haven't seen anyone saying it on this thread, have you?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ginette, I enjoyed your sincerity and can tell by what you are reading and how you feel that you are truly searching and desiring to do the will of our Father. I have been there and keep my heart in that same place at all times. I was reading in the New Testament in Luke 9:49-50 which tells of how the Apostles saw a man casting out devils in the name of Christ and they wanted to stop him because he didn't follow the Apostles. Christ told them to stop because He said "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us". Eventhough this man did not have the authority of Christ, as He had given to His Apostles, Christ still appreciated his help. That, however, did not stop Christ from either empowering His Apostles or organizing His Church (Kingdom) according to the principle of authority. The man was actually helping people to come unto Christ by searching for truth. All, eventually, will have ALL truth taught to them whether in this world or the next as Christ did when He went into the spirit world. I,for one, am very happy for that.
Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate--I'm due on labor day ! It's a girl. I am trying to convince my husband to name her after my mom--Norah--but he's not quite sure of it yet.
On baptism... I really like what Geoff talked about, the importance of actions... After that, I just skimmed . I am not sure I have anything new to add, except to say that there's something powerful about baptism as such a physical experience. The total immersion is also a symbol of complete submission to God, body and spirit. Sometimes I don't think about the physicalness of baptism, just the spiritual aspects, but I think that's a mistake: God created our bodies and he wants us to covenant with them, as well as with our hearts.
posted
I’ve been looking for some other sources online to do research on. Mormon.org was certainly the first place I went for this search. However, I found that just about everything on it was pretty basic doctrine, stuff that I already knew. So I kept searching. Mostly I wanted to find a summary of what each discussion was so that I would feel more prepared when going to these discussions (like I didn’t have to learn everything for the first time, so I could focus on other things). No Mormon sites had this. I suppose I should have realized that this was because they don’t think that you should know exactly what is going to be said. Obviously though, I didn’t realize this and decided that getting the information was worth getting it from a non believer.
The place I found was www.lds4u.com. The author of this site is clearly an ex-Mormon, and his writing influences that. His tone is certainly negative about the Church but I found that he had a lot of information and he at least tried to mention the Church’s view. I found that some of the things he said were wrong, and so I always kept that in mind; however what happened at the actual discussions was what he had written, and I think it did help me to be experiencing this information for a second time instead of a first.
However, I began to realize that reading this site wasn’t having a completely positive impact on me. First off, his general tone was rather demeaning, I disagreed with a lot of it. Number two was that not all he said was completely correct and I was afraid that despite my trying to differentiate fact from fiction, I would screw up believe something negative about the Church that just plain wasn’t true. And third was I began to realize that I was reading some stuff that I really just plain should not have had access to.
The Church’s (apparent) position of not having a basic outline of the discussions is not something that I really agree with, and I think not something that is that big a deal to them. It helped me understand better what the Missionaries where trying to tell me, and better prepared me for what they asked of me. However, their policy of not telling anyone what happens say at an endowment is not the same thing. This site I was reading happened to post a rather detailed outline of what happens at an endowment when you visit the Temple for the first time.
What do you think I should do about that fact that I have read what is held sacred and secret by members?
Most importantly, I’ve spent a lot of time reading semi-anti Mormon literature trying to find out more about the Church. I don’t think that’s fair to the Church or to my understanding of it, so I was hoping to read some general statements from believing members. I tried to find sites like this but didn’t really find anything that went beyond basic doctrine. Certainly reading the Scriptures is something, and I’m of course going to continue to do that, but I wanted to hear from some members. I’ve been to five discussions and read everything posted in this thread, so knowing that, what is it that you would want to tell me? Anything you want to say or discuss or some piece of information you felt should be presented would be very welcome.
I’m leaving in about 1 and 1/2 hours from now and I’ll be gone until Monday night, so if you want some sort of time scale..I guess that’s it. Thank-you for all that you’re done for me.
posted
Here's my feelings on anti-Mormon literature:
One of my best friends lost his faith towards the end of high school. He started reading anti-Mormon stuff and stuff about the endowment. Before getting into this stuff, he had had a strong testimony. He had some personal struggles, but he was still a good kid, and he knew what was right. He knew that the Church was true.
After reading this stuff, he started to question it. He started to get involved in a break-off group called the United Apostolic Brotherhood. They say they follow the prophet, but the very fact that they exist shows that they don't. They still practice polygamy, and they have many other beliefs that don't coincide with the Church. As he kept reading this stuff, he lost his faith in the Church altogether. He started looking to other Christian religions, and he decided that if any church was true, it had to be Catholicism. He was baptized Catholic just over two years ago.
My friend is still a good guy. He is very devout, and he has high standards. But I know that his research led him away from the truth that he had. He couldn't accept it anymore, so he found something that he could accept. He's happy where he is, but I feel that he lost something precious and beautiful.
Here's my advice to you, Hobbes: Talk to an LDS bishop. Tell him about what you've read, and tell him how you feel. He can give you counsel. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do if you find out about the endowment ceremony before you're supposed to, but I'm sure a bishop could tell you what to do.
Pray a lot. Pray unceasingly for the Lord's guidance. Pray to be able to recognize the truth.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This anti-Mormon literature didn't change any of my opinions on Mormon beliefs, mostly I'm just worried about the Endowment thing. Acually, the website isn't really anti-Mormon, but it does lean closer to that than pro-Mormon so I guess that's why I called it semi-anti Mormon.
posted
On anti-Mormon info: I would hesitate to try to get accurate and reliable information about any group from its detractors. That said, I am glad that you are able to differentiate between some of the correct and incorrect statements made by non or anti Mormons. However, I do not think that you will get the information that you are looking for from such sources.
About the discussions: I do not think that anything that is covered in the discussions will be new to you. I would send you my Engish discussions, if they were not in my younger brother's possession. In some sense, widely publishing the information from the discussions (in the same format) on the web would be silly and possibly counter-productive. The whole point of the discussions is to give the missionaries a reference point for introducing people to the church. They are *very* basic. People might possibly rely on the non-missionary discussion info in leiu of seeking any contact with the missionaries, meaning no opportunity for them to get answers to other question. Also, it may make carrying on a "discussion", difficult if you already know everything they're going to say and in the order they are going to say it. But, since you seem so terribly concerned with what they say (rather than waiting to hear it from any missionaries), I will try to recall (from 2.5 year old memory) what they cover. 1st discussion: basic introduction to God, and our identity as his children, basic mention of Christ. 2nd discussion: the mission and purpose of Jesus Christ. 3rd discussion: the apostacy of the early Church (that Christ set up while He was on earth) and its restoration through Joseph Smith. 4th discussion: the plan of salvation - what God expects of us, "where do we come from? why are we here? where do we go when we die?", basic laws, such as the Word of Wisdom and the law of chastity. 5th discussion: the principle of sacrifice, introduction to fasting and tithing. 6th discussion: (I'm having a difficult time remembering this one) the idea of needing to endure to the end, the "three-fold mission of the Church" - 1. perfect the Saints 2. redeem the dead 3. preach the gospel. I am sure that nothing that is discussed in these 6 brief lessons will come as a surprise to you. From what I can remember of this thread, you have already covered all of this ground. So, don't sweat it, it's not like the discussions are some massive initiation into some secret realm of knowledge.
posted
Hobbes, it sounds like you have a better attitude than many who read anti-Mormon literature You're keeping a measured distance from what you're reading, you're not letting it freak you out, and you're recognizing that being labelled as an "exposé" doesn't automatically make something true
E-mail me if you have questions about the endowment. This isn't really the place to discuss it. Thanks!
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, I would like to add something that very few people either understand or accept outside the LDS Church. The reason you might be hearing just the basics when you search for discussions both from Mormons here and other places, is that the basics are the most important and critical parts of our religion. Everything else, to half-quote Joseph Smith, "are only apendages." In fact, sometimes members inside the LDS Church forget this and go off on several inconsiquential tangents. It happens to most of us. On the other hand, I am still not sure what you are looking for as it sounds like you already have some great sources (especially this thread).
This is not to say there isn't really deep stuff to learn. But, like so much of life and history, the more isoteric you go the more open to interpretation and misunderstanding. I have to agree with everyone here and praise your willingness to understand that just because something declairs an opposing viewpoint doesn't automatically mean its true by virtue of being different or "objective."
If there was anything I would say to you it would be to remind you that you are dealing with the nebulous subject of Religion. What this means is that the ultimate authority on anything is God and You. No matter how much things make sense either from a Mormon or a non-Mormon, it is your conversation with God that is the most important in identifying truth and your personal path.
As for the Temple question, I wouldn't worry about it in any way. Theologically speaking the problem resides in the person who gave away the information and not those who read it. On the other hand, dwelling on it after having read it might represent a disrespect for the Mormon's beliefs in its sacred nature. My guess is that even if you did pay attention to it you can never know exactly how truthful the version is you found or even what it means.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
I spent a lot of time thinking about the Endowment (that I read it, not the specifics of the procedure) and I decided that it's one of those things I would've rather not known but doesn't really change anything. I guess you guys kind of re-affirmed that, so... .
As for the anti-Mormon literature, it was pretty easy to tell what was actual fact and what was the presenter putting on spin or even lying, I'm glad I have the information he gave there (besides the endowment of course) so it wasn't a total loss; but reading something that you have to spend so much time disserning fact from fiction is a little tiring.
I like to know what's coming up in the discussions since the first time they completely caught me off gaurd and asked me to baptizied. I didn't mind the question (to which I responded that if I thought it was true I would be), but I like to know in advance that it's going to happen so I have time to think about it before giving an answer. I certainly understand why the Church doesn't publish this online, but for me I think it was a help to know what was going to happen (in kind of a broad outline, not the specifics).
I knew that this was just the basics, but I've been curious, if I do join the Church, will the missionaries keep teaching me, or am I supposed to learn just by going to Church on Sunday (and other functions for members)?
posted
Hobbes- Unless the Spirit prompted us otherwise, we generally invited everyone to baptism after our second discussion.
Go figure-- the people who I taught who wound up getting baptised were invited the first time I met them.
Some other things the missionaries will (or should) ask you to commit to before baptism (during the discussions)-- abstaining from all sexual activity before marriage; paying tithing after your baptism; following the word of wisdom by not drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, and by not smoking; and committing to be an active member of the church, which, at it's simplest level, means coming to church every week.
After baptism, the missionaries may still come by and visit every now and then. Ideally, though, prospective members already have made friends with other members. These other members should take over the instruction of the new member (and indeed, should have done most of the teaching anyway).
Urghh. Looking back on what I've written, I realize how. . . I don't know, stolid it sounds. Programmed.
Anyway, there is another set of six discussions after baptism (or WAS anyway, back when I was a missionary), called the new member discussions. In a nutshell, they are the six missionary discussions all over again, but a little deeper.
In addition, after baptism, there is a Sunday School class called Principles of the Gospel. You can get the manual (I think) off of one of the elders-- it's very well laid out, and goes into the topics the six discussions address a little deeper as well. If the elders can't get you a copy, you can find it online at www.lds.org.
I'm not sure of the exact URL, and I'm on dial up here-- the Church's website is atrocious when trying to load on 56k.
posted
I thought asking me on the first discussion to be baptizied was a bit quick, but I was more taken by surprise than upset. The comitments about chastity, the word of wisdom and such I certainly apreciated and had no problem with (I was already planning on following them even before any of this Mormon stuff;) ). Mostly I wanted to have an idea of what was going to happen in a vague and general sense because I felt a lot more comfortable knowing the outline of what was going to happen. That's just me I guess. Today I;m going to the 6th discussion, and I assume they'll asked me to get baptizied again (they said last time they hoped I would do it on my birthday, but I think I'm going to have to tell them no). When do most people committ? Not that I plan on doing it because and when other have, but I'm curious if there's a ceratin discussion or time period that most people convert durring.
posted
Actually, I think the New Member Discussions take the sixth discussion and develop each of its six points in much more detail. They're about the life and responsibility of a member of the church.
Hobbes, I'm impressed with the way you're handling the Endowment Even I looked a little askance at it the first time I went through. Then I remembered that baptism is actually kind of weird. So is the sacrament/communion. So is every ritual in which people participate. Some are simpler and quicker than others, and are easier to digest, but ultimately, all rituals really demand that you look past some of the surface aspects and recognize the inner meaning.
I'd still like to discuss it with you over e-mail if you have the time, mostly just to see if you heard the most recent version The ritual has changed over the decades, and sometimes the Church's detractors quote older versions to make it look weirder than it is.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People commit to be baptized at completely different times. There is no "standard" schedule Some people get into it all very quickly, like they've been looking for it their whole lives and suddenly, here it is! Other people take a very long time, studying it out and making absolutely certain before they are baptized — and such people often make the strongest and most committed members of the Church. So do things at your own pace, and don't feel bad about it. This is your baptism, so it's your timing that matters.
I think one of the reasons the missionaries invite to baptism early is to make it clear why they're there. They aren't an information service, they're proselytizers, and it's in everyone's best interest for them to say so from the outset You're always free to say no, and I'm glad that you are saying no until you're ready. Faith and spiritual commitments shouldn't be trifled with Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was taking the discussions, I was rather surprised by the invitation to baptism after the second discussion. I knew that I wasn't ready, and I felt sort of panicky. Then I learned that Brigham Young took two whole YEARS to decide to get baptised. I decided that whatever period of time I needed to take to decide was OK. I was baptized about eight months after taking the discussions. By then, I had been attending my ward so long that most people thought I already WAS a member. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had talked about the doctrine in great detail with my friends from hatrack and then sort of decided I would definitely join when I was ready. After that I waited about a year before I made the decision that it was time for me to join. Then I called the missionaries and took all six discussions as quickly as possible and was baptised.
I guess there's no set schedule. I also wanted to study the discussions more intently, so I got the missionaries to get me copies of the brochures. I think they are available from the Mormon catalog. I'll go look for them. Also there are wonderful books and videos available from the same source for nearly nothing. One of my very favorites is "Jesus the Christ", which is like an in-depth scholarly immersion in the gospels.
I had a roommate who was a committed and dedicated anti-Mormon who had been raised in the church. I've never thought it was dangerous to entertain ideas that contain doubts. I'm just a highly skeptical type, a scientist type, and if there is any danger of changing my mind from seeing other information then I want to explore that information completely and THEN make up my mind.
I didn't see any light of truth in any of the anti-Mormon information she brought forward. To me it seemed the problem was that she lacked the ability to feel the spirit. I don't know why this should be. It's a grievous thing. But without the spirit, the church would be empty and that's how she perceived it. As empty. If it's empty of the spirit of God then it's just a group of people like any other social group... like a sorority or a country club, with personalities and politics and so on. And indeed if it were only that, I would not be interested in being a member either.
I AM saddened by the bitterness and the vituperative nature of much of the anti-Mormon stuff she showed to me. But I think studying people whom we have lost is a valuable exercise, if only to understand our mistakes and try to learn what not to do.
But I was given a light in my life which I followed to find the church. In reading the anti-Mormon stuff I never saw any light there. So I concluded that they for some sad reason are simply unable to see to the heart of what the church is about. Lacking that central unity of love and purpose that brings the rest of us together, they naturally fall away.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'm so glad you asked for these, Hobbes, cause I explored the site and ordered some new stuff for myself.
Go to lds.org and on the far left hand side near the bottom is a link Order Church Materials. On the middle bottom, under the heading "Missionary Work" is a link for Missionary discussions and study guide. About halfway down is the link for Missionary discussions, large, complete set, printed for $7.25. Below it is the Missionary discussions, Large, instruction booklet, in which you also might be interested. You can order them there, or ask your missionaries nicely and they will get you a copy, I'm sure.
I told them how I was a print media person, and liked to be able to read back over things to fully absorb them, so they were very glad to oblige me in that way. I studied for my baptism interview as though it were a test, though they laughed at me for being that way and said I didn't have to make an A+ to be baptized but I said I just wanted to. <laughs>
[ May 27, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, You want to know the content of the discussions, those prior to your baptism and after, read Gosple Principles. You can find them online at lds.org. under the gosple library both in HTML and PDF. Though they do not follow the discussion word for word they do discuse the basic belief in detail of the LDS faith. Also, depending on the ward you should be attending a class each sunday that uses this book as the manual.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Howdy--I have been out of town, so I haven't kept up, but I just wanted to mention (if someone's already said this, I apologize) that the way the discussions are being taught has changed dramatically. Missionaries are still supposed to follow the basic outline, but instead of reciting or reading the text word for word, they are encouraged to add their own favorite scriptures or insights. They are also encouraged to teach the discussions out of order if the Spirit indicates that to them. To this I say YAY! It's nice that the Church is endorsing greater flexibility... however, it does place a greater burden on the missionaries, and I think some of them will probably do better with it than others.
I also would like to add that the temple is the greatest place of light and insight I know. Thank you for treating the things we hold sacred with the respect they deserve, and not allowing the anti-slant with which you read them to cloud your spirit.
posted
I've only read bits and pieces of this thread, but I have a question about LDS, and this seems like the most appropriate place to ask it. My apologies if this has already been addressed, or if thiss is derailing.
Does the LDS church, take communion, and if so, do is it regarded as purely symbolic, does it fall under one of the headings that I know from my background in mainstream Protestantism, or is it entirely different, and unique to the LDS church?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the LDS church, take communion, and if so, do is it regarded as purely symbolic, does it fall under one of the headings that I know from my background in mainstream Protestantism, or is it entirely different, and unique to the LDS church?
Every Sunday, at church, the sacrament is offered, which is akin to communion. It consists of bread and water over which specific prayers are said. Taking the sacrament is a more symbolic act (meaning we do not believe in transubstantiation). The taking of the sacrament is seen as a weekly renewal of the covenant made at baptism.
[Sorry this is kind of a short answer, if you'd like further clarification I'd be happy to help - or someone else, I'm sure will]
posted
Note – transubstantiation is only one very specific form of belief in “real presence.” My understanding (from folks on this board) is that LDS don’t believe in any of the others, either.
Blacwolve, if you’ve studied the full spectrum of mainline Protestantism, on this issue the LDS are probably closest to Zwingli.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't, I'm seventeen, I just have a basic idea of what Luther and Calvin believed on the issue. However, I'm always open to reading suggestions that don't take several years at seminary to understand. Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say the biggest difference between Zwingli's ideas and LDS Theology on the Last Supper/Communion/Sacrament is that Mormons believe there is a real vehicle for grace tied to the bread and "water" blessing. It is seen as part of the process of Atonement. This has nothing to do with any "presence" issue (either physical Luther's or Catholic Tran or Con-substantiation, or Calvin's Spiritual). Rather, it is a spiritual change in each individual as Christ accepts our actions according to our faith (as opposed to Zwingli's post-grace memorialism).
posted
Hey Hobbes- just a couple of quick ideas: here is a website put together by a member of the church which contains a whole lotta info on just about any question you could ever want to ask. Many of his answers are his own opinion rather than official church doctrine, but I haven't found anything that I disagree with completely on his site: http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml#religion
As far as the endowment goes- knowing what it is and how it works shouldn't make a huge difference since pretty much everything which occurs in the ceremony can be found with a careful reading of the Bible and pearl of great price. It is only the bringing together of the information which makes it different. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any specific questions
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a former Baha'i and friend of many Mormons (and someone who knows pretty much what the Endowment Ceremony involves), I found this link hysterically amusing, especially since the author apparently knows next to nothing about Masonry and consequently completely misses the point. *grin*
But Zwingli did believe that the Eucharist was a vehicle for grace, just that the grace was given by God as a result of the faith and obedience of the person receiving, as opposed to the real presence of Christ specifically in the elements.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is how Zwingli saw it than I suppose it is the same as LDS Theology. I suppose that it is only a minor quibble, but what I read didn't seem exactly the same.
Where Zwingli saw Communion as a Memorial of Christ and a sign of a Grace already performed on a believer, Mormons see it as a Memorial of Christ and an actual part of the Grace process necessary for the full Atonement. Christ isn't "present" in the Eucarist/Communion/Sacrament, but his Grace enters the ceremony as an active force. Minor as this might be, it is important to understand this point because its exactly how LDS Theology understands Baptism that the Eucarist/Communion/Sacrament is considered directly related.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I didn't know this was here! Thanks for the bump, kath.
quote: If the baptism is performed by proxy the individual must still give his or her seal of approval to the ordinance.
*looks vaguely confused* Is "the individual" the living person or the dead one? If the latter, why not give the seal of approval? I understand that you believe very few people go to hell, but this "telestial salvation" doesn't sound very appealing. I seem to remember someone saying (about a different proposed means of salvation for the dead) "It would be a short sermon and a universal response."
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why don't people do what they know is right, right now?
A key part of the Mormon afterlife is the idea that when we die, our character does not significantly change.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* I would not expect a person's character to change, but their circumstances obviously do (unless I'm missing something completely). Like the difference between my attitude toward menial work when I thought I was on a fast track toward a high-paying research job and later, when I was trapped out of college by a lack of money. My character didn't change, at least not immediately, but I buckled down and started searching for any job I could find.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
However, it did raise another question.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
. I am not sure I have anything new to add, except to say that there's something powerful about baptism as such a physical experience. The total immersion is also a symbol of complete submission to God, body and spirit. Sometimes I don't think about the physicalness of baptism, just the spiritual aspects, but I think that's a mistake: God created our bodies and he wants us to covenant with them, as well as with our hearts.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
.
