Missionaries and Discernment

[mapman]

On 9/1/2018 at 10:18 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'll connect this with my reply to The Nehor. What exactly do you mean by this? What difference in degree of experiencing the Holy Ghost do you have that I do not?

ETA: saying "I" probably makes this personal. What do you have that other Christians don't, in a specific pragmatic daily way, when it comes to the Holy Ghost?

I was attempting to explain my understanding of what the doctrine of the LDS Church is. It's pretty clear in the Book of Mormon that after you get baptized by someone with authority and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost that the Spirit is supposed to be poured out more fully upon you. As far as I know that about sums up official doctrine on that matter.

I would just add my personal opinion that people naturally come with varying levels of spirituality, and that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost will elevate your gifts from what they would have been otherwise. I don't think that I'm particularly spiritually gifted, so for all I know you might have a closer relationship to the Holy Ghost than me. I don't think I can really compare two individuals in that way. Joseph Smith was certainly close to God and spiritually gifted naturally, as he communed with angels and received a significant portion of the Book of Mormon before he received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Yet he also described how receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost opened his mind and increased his understanding.

[mapman]

I've been thinking a bit more about this matter, and I just wanted to add that I don't think I really have a good understanding of how my personal spiritual experiences compare to someone's outside the church. I remember having a few spiritual experiences before my baptism when I was eight, but I don't remember well enough to say more than I remember receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost being an important stage in my life in feeling close to God and feeling that I could receive revelation to guide me in my life. I've read many accounts and heard people's stories, so I know that spiritual experiences are common to the human experience, but it is hard to know what someone else's experiences are like compared to my own. Perhaps some converts to the LDS Church here could share their experiences.

I'm also curious if anyone knows where the idea that the Gift of the Holy Ghost means a right to a constant companionship comes from. I admit that I'm not familiar with the scriptures behind this doctrine. I'm aware that there are scriptures that talk about the idea that the Spirit can be your constant companion, but are there any that says that you can't have that unless you have the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Edited September 3, 2018 by mapman

[Meerkat]

 

On 9/1/2018 at 9:13 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Also, can you explain the difference between a Mormon's experience of the Holy Ghost and another Christian's experience? What does it mean that the Holy Ghost is continually with Latter-day Saints but not continually with other Christians? What do you have that I don't, in a specific pragmatic daily way, when it comes to the Holy Ghost?

Attending a protestant church regularly growing up including mid week youth activities, I did not receive a spiritual confirmation of Jesus Christ in those meetings.  We didn't speak of Christ at home.  I believe we attended out of tradition.

One Saturday evening, we attended a meeting in our church by an evangelist who had come to Christ while in prison.  I felt the Spirit in a powerful way, walked forward and prayed the sinner's prayer.  Leaving that meeting, I realized I hadn't known Jesus Christ before.  But I did that night.  I wondered "What happens if I forget about this experience tomorrow?"  That is exactly what happened.  Faith in Jesus Christ did not give me the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

I had several similar spiritual experiences from the influence of the Holy Ghost.  The following day, I would forget, and find myself giving in to various temptations spending long periods of time away from faithfulness in Jesus Christ.

When I was baptized into this Church, and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, any interest in smoking, drinking and other vices went away.  I found myself wanting to learn more and more about Him, and share this message with others.  My behavior changed.  And I have felt a constant secure feeling that encourages faith and faithfulness in Jesus Christ and pursuit of a virtue filled life.  That's the difference to me.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The doctrine is that this does not apply to non-members- ie that they can have "visits" from the Holy Ghost but not "constant companionship"

Frankly I have always had some problems with that idea, being a convert and having experienced "both sides" of the question.

I know the "Born Again" experience many denominations refer to is a spiritual witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.  I am sure that consistent faithful activity will result in blessings, and more frequent spiritual experiences.   Having experienced the increased frequency, it still did not compare to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and it's constant encouragement to faithful thought and behavior.  Your comment "Frankly I have always had some problems with that is different from my experience.  If you felt that constant presence in your life, why did you feel the need to leave and convert to the Church of Jesus Christ...?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mapman said:

I was attempting to explain my understanding of what the doctrine of the LDS Church is. It's pretty clear in the Book of Mormon that after you get baptized by someone with authority and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost that the Spirit is supposed to be poured out more fully upon you. As far as I know that about sums up official doctrine on that matter.

I would just add my personal opinion that people naturally come with varying levels of spirituality, and that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost will elevate your gifts from what they would have been otherwise. I don't think that I'm particularly spiritually gifted, so for all I know you might have a closer relationship to the Holy Ghost than me. I don't think I can really compare two individuals in that way. Joseph Smith was certainly close to God and spiritually gifted naturally, as he communed with angels and received a significant portion of the Book of Mormon before he received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Yet he also described how receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost opened his mind and increased his understanding.

I just want to say that after I was confirmed I had an experience that I cannot even begin to describe. Let's just say that I had no doubt that the Lord himself was present.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was on the swim team in high school and I've often looked back on that and realized that one reason I loved it so is because swim practice was a 2 hour (sometimes twice a day) meditative practice. Rhythmic body movements linked to rhythmic breathing without the possibility of speech. Monasteries should install pools  

Absolutely! 

Its western yoga! 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Never got to the point of thinking of anything but how to get enough breath....with a little touch of panic next time it would be a mounthful of water.  I am a sinker by nature and disposition apparently as I love to drop to the bottom of the pool and stay there as long as I can.

I often did the same.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Calm got it. For a baptism (or any of the seven sacraments) to be valid in Catholic eyes, it has to have the correct matter, form, and intention. In the case of baptism, the matter is water, the form is "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and the intention is to initiate into Christianity and the mystical Body of Christ and to wash away original sin.

LDS baptism was declared invalid because of form and intention. While the words of LDS baptism are the same, the Vatican determined that the meaning behind those terms (in other words, non-Trinitarian and the Lorenzo Snow couplet) was enough of a variation from Catholicism to make the form invalid. The intention is also invalid because of the lack of belief in original sin.

The Vatican released a document explaining the reasoning behind this decision, which can be found here.

Some interesting points.

First, they refer to the LDS church by its formal name and then common name for clarification. And this prior to President Nelson's announcement. And they even got the hyphen/capitalization right  

They point out that doctrinal errors do not invalidate baptism. This is why protestant baptisms are considered valid:

The document goes on to reaffirm that as long as the intention is accurate, it doesn't matter who performs the baptism. This is just a reaffirmation that priesthood authority is not necessary for baptism (which is a divergence from Mormonism, I know):

Then the issue of form is discussed and specifically concerns the Trinity:

This seems to me an accurate representation of the LDS view. I appreciate that the document quotes from an LDS source and even uses the formal name for the LDS church. I think this document is trying to be as respectful to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it can while it denies the validity of LDS baptism.

Next, the intention is discussed, particularly about original sin:

I think it is fair that the idea of apostasy is brought up here as concerns infant baptism.

The document ends with this diplomatic conclusion:

We do work together on a range of problems and I, too, hope that through further good will, we can increase understanding and mutual respect.

The decision to consider LDS baptisms invalid doesn't originate from a discriminatory attitude towards Latter-day Saints, but from a reasoned view based on what Catholics believe make baptism valid.

What I find ironic is the fact that any Mormon could baptize a Catholic baby in case of an emergency if the baby was about to die, and it could be a valid Catholic baptism if done with the right form and matter Etc.

[Navidad]

I value the words in the Catholic document: "This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes." "Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes." Amen! The authority isn't in the hands or testimony of the baptizer . . . it is in and from Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What I find ironic is the fact that any Mormon could baptize a Catholic baby in case of an emergency if the baby was about to die, and it could be a valid Catholic baptism if done with the right form and matter Etc.

Very true, but not really ironic, because the same holds for an atheist, Muslim, or any other person who baptizes a baby. While it is possible on paper, so to speak, I very much doubt it happens in practice. If you don't believe in original sin, then why would you intend to baptize a baby to get rid of it? Etc.

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Very true, but not really ironic, because the same holds for an atheist, Muslim, or any other person who baptizes a baby. While it is possible on paper, so to speak, I very much doubt it happens in practice. If you don't believe in original sin, then why would you intend to baptize a baby to get rid of it? Etc.

My aunt is an inactive LDS and works as a labor and delivery nurse.  Sadly, some babies do die in the hospital- it's rare, but it does happen.  As part of her job training she is versed in how to perform a Catholic baby baptism, so if the family requests it she can perform that on their behalf.  And while she herself has never had to enact that duty, several of her atheist co-workers have.  It has zero to do with their personal beliefs, and everything to do with performing a requested service on behalf of the family.  

[pogi]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The decision to consider LDS baptisms invalid doesn't originate from a discriminatory attitude towards Latter-day Saints, but from a reasoned view based on what Catholics believe make baptism valid.

I agree with that.  However, a valid baptism does ultimately boil down to authority, even in the Catholic view of things.  Granted, one does not need authority to baptize in the Catholic church, but one does need authority to dictate what is acceptable and what is not.  In the Catholic view, members of the restored church don't have authority, therefore, they don't have a say; and on the flip side of things, we claim the same thing about the Catholic Church - It is ultimately all about who holds the authority.  But for some reason that I can't figure out yet, Catholicism tries to say that it is not about authority, or doctrine, when it is really both. 

Quote

... errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism.

Yet, the argument is then made that Mormon baptism should be rejected on doctrinal grounds (Trinity and original sin).

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Very true, but not really ironic, because the same holds for an atheist, Muslim, or any other person who baptizes a baby. While it is possible on paper, so to speak, I very much doubt it happens in practice. If you don't believe in original sin, then why would you intend to baptize a baby to get rid of it? Etc.

I would do it to give comfort to the parents

[Navidad]

I would provide a Catholic baby a baptism to minister to the family. And I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. And I'm an Anabaptist. Many of us - thousands were killed for not baptizing babies and for not believing in baptismal regeneration. Its a ministry thing. I would rather be kind than be right.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 But for some reason that I can't figure out yet, Catholicism tries to say that it is not about authority, or doctrine, when it is really both. 

I see what you are saying, but the distinction about authority is this. The person performing the baptism does not need any authority to do so. Yes, the Catholic Church's authority determines the rules for baptism, but the person performing does not need any special authority. In the LDS church, there is the authority that determines the rules for baptism, part of which is that the person performing the baptism must have specific authority to do so (priest in Aaronic priesthood, right?). There is no such second part for the Catholics; hence, saying that authority isn't needed is referring to that, not to the overall authority that governs the Church.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Yet, the argument is then made that Mormon baptism should be rejected on doctrinal grounds (Trinity and original sin).

Good point, here's some clarification. The passage I quoted that doctrinal errors are sufficient to invalidate a baptism has to do with doctrinal errors outside of baptism. In other words, if a protestant believes in the priesthood of all believers, sola scriptura, etc, those beliefs do not invalidate the baptism because the doctrinal beliefs surrounding the baptism are still correct: Trinity and original sin. However, if the doctrinal errors change the form, matter, or intention of baptism, then the baptism is invalid. Someone could have the intention of washing away original sin, say the proper words and mean the Trinity with them (form), but if they use tomato juice instead of water (matter) the baptism is invalid.

The form, intention, and matter rules apply to all 7 sacraments, varying of course with the sacraments themselves.

[Jane_Doe]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Good point, here's some clarification. The passage I quoted that doctrinal errors are sufficient to invalidate a baptism has to do with doctrinal errors outside of baptism. In other words, if a protestant believes in the priesthood of all believers, sola scriptura, etc, those beliefs do not invalidate the baptism because the doctrinal beliefs surrounding the baptism are still correct: Trinity and original sin. However, if the doctrinal errors change the form, matter, or intention of baptism, then the baptism is invalid. Someone could have the intention of washing away original sin, say the proper words and mean the Trinity with them (form), but if they use tomato juice instead of water (matter) the baptism is invalid.

The form, intention, and matter rules apply to all 7 sacraments, varying of course with the sacraments themselves.

This was very useful.  Thank you for it.

[Jane_Doe]

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Good point, here's some clarification. The passage I quoted that doctrinal errors are sufficient to invalidate a baptism has to do with doctrinal errors outside of baptism. In other words, if a protestant believes in the priesthood of all believers, sola scriptura, etc, those beliefs do not invalidate the baptism because the doctrinal beliefs surrounding the baptism are still correct: Trinity and original sin. However, if the doctrinal errors change the form, matter, or intention of baptism, then the baptism is invalid. Someone could have the intention of washing away original sin, say the proper words and mean the Trinity with them (form), but if they use tomato juice instead of water (matter) the baptism is invalid.

The form, intention, and matter rules apply to all 7 sacraments, varying of course with the sacraments themselves.

Actually, upon thinking about this, I do have a follow up question to this---

If a certain group/person does not believe baptism is required for salvation nor any affect on salvation, how does that work with proper intent from the RCC perspective?  

[MiserereNobis]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actually, upon thinking about this, I do have a follow up question to this---

If a certain group/person does not believe baptism is required for salvation nor any affect on salvation, how does that work with proper intent from the RCC perspective?

My understanding, which of course could be mistaken, is as long as that person is doing what they believe the RCC wants, then the baptism is valid. The actual beliefs of the person don't really matter, as long as they are intending to do what the Church wants. So yes, technically, the baptism would be valid. This is why atheists, etc, can perform baptisms that are valid.

When it came down to specifics, though, the Church might investigate what was going on just to make sure. There is the precedent of "conditional baptism" which means that there is some doubt as to the validity of the original baptism so it is performed again just to make sure, without passing complete judgement on the original baptism.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Swimming in an Olympic pool is great for meditation. Just you and watching the dots on the lane markers going by...

You must be watching all the Mark Phelps commercials as of late ...

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was on the swim team in high school and I've often looked back on that and realized that one reason I loved it so is because swim practice was a 2 hour (sometimes twice a day) meditative practice. Rhythmic body movements linked to rhythmic breathing without the possibility of speech. Monasteries should install pools  

Great exercise for the otherwise sedentary lifestyle of a monastery. In cool water it is probably the highest calorie burning exercise readily available. However, I particularly like the backstroke - so watching the lane tiles go by wasn't a meditative option.

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Great exercise for the otherwise sedentary lifestyle of a monastery.

Oh, you haven't been to the two monasteries I retreat at. They take seriously Benedict's command of "ora et labora": prayer and work (which is where the word laboratory comes from). When I stay I commit myself to live the schedule of the monks (you know, starting with prayer at 3:30 AM). And then, after breakfast, we've laid bricks, oiled wooden support posts, poured concrete for a foundation (complete with monastic concrete graffiti: they put all these Catholic symbols and Latin phrases into the concrete before it dried, ha), etc etc.

My experience at a Catholic Benedictine monastery is quite the opposite of sedentary. I've done some hard construction work that I didn't know how to do prior during my retreats. Someone has to build these buildings, and the two monasteries I visit, it is the monks (wearing grey monastic habits that are work clothes, like ****ies).

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oh, you haven't been to the two monasteries I retreat at. They take seriously Benedict's command of "ora et labora": prayer and work (which is where the word laboratory comes from). When I stay I commit myself to live the schedule of the monks (you know, starting with prayer at 3:30 AM). And then, after breakfast, we've laid bricks, oiled wooden support posts, poured concrete for a foundation (complete with monastic concrete graffiti: they put all these Catholic symbols and Latin phrases into the concrete before it dried, ha), etc etc.

My experience at a Catholic Benedictine monastery is quite the opposite of sedentary. I've done some hard construction work that I didn't know how to do prior during my retreats. Someone has to build these buildings, and the two monasteries I visit, it is the monks (wearing grey monastic habits that are work clothes, like ****ies).

The inner workings of a Benedictine monastery are fascinating...

Are Franciscan monasteries similar?

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

The inner workings of a Benedictine monastery are fascinating...

Are Franciscan monasteries similar?

Honesty, I don't know. Franciscans are a different spirituality from what I've experienced with the Benedictines. I think this is a great strength in the Catholic Church and one that could be used in the LDS church without contradicting doctrine. The different religious orders are aimed at helping different types of people come to Christ based on that individual's spiritual interests and aptitudes.

There really is no one mold that fits all. Catholicism has accepted this with all these different religious orders and spiritualities. I posit that the LDS church could really gain from such a set up.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The inner workings of a Benedictine monastery are fascinating...

Are Franciscan monasteries similar?

I think the Benedictines are more austere. But I might be wrong 

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honesty, I don't know. Franciscans are a different spirituality from what I've experienced with the Benedictines. I think this is a great strength in the Catholic Church and one that could be used in the LDS church without contradicting doctrine. The different religious orders are aimed at helping different types of people come to Christ based on that individual's spiritual interests and aptitudes.

There really is no one mold that fits all. Catholicism has accepted this with all these different religious orders and spiritualities. I posit that the LDS church could really gain from such a set up.

Might you be the former Benedictine Monk who sometimes attends MHA meetings?

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Might you be the former Benedictine Monk who sometimes attends MHA meetings?

No, I've never been a monk (and I don't know what MHA meetings are). I've only spent time at 2 Benedictine monasteries over the past decade or so. I love monasteries...