Under What Circumstances Would You Visit a Non-LDS Christian Church?

[The Nehor]

New reason I would visit: If it is a coronavirus vaccine distribution site.

[longview]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Neither would I do that. That brings me to the sacrament in the LDS service. My wife and I participate in that every week. Some on this forum have suggested that we should not "out of respect." I do not understand that. The mode and method are virtually identical. As far as I can tell, the message is the same. We reflect on the covenants we made at our baptisms. We take the elements in remembrance of Christ. It is a sacred part of our worship and sanctification. The church allows, yeh seems to encourage it. I would love to hear your collective thoughts on this. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the mode, method, or message of the LDS sacrament with which we disagree. Where we sit we never pass it through our hands to a member of the church. The elements go straight back to the young priesthood holder. 

It is wonderful that you and your wife demonstrate good will with the membership of the ward.  And you do so in remembrance of our Savior and acknowledge His Great Atoning Sacrifice.  However, the LDS sacrament is also a RENEWAL of the covenants made at your baptism.  Were you baptized in the Catholic Church?  If so, it was under that church's authority.

Baptisms done outside of the LDS Church are not recognized because they were NOT done with the actual priesthood and authority given by God to the Restored Church (you are free to dispute this claim).  Partaking of the sacrament puts you in the position of implied claim of having been baptized in the LDS Church.  Which can cause people not familiar with your circumstance to assume you are a fully active member of the church.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Neither would I do that. That brings me to the sacrament in the LDS service. My wife and I participate in that every week. Some on this forum have suggested that we should not "out of respect." I do not understand that. The mode and method are virtually identical. As far as I can tell, the message is the same. We reflect on the covenants we made at our baptisms. We take the elements in remembrance of Christ. It is a sacred part of our worship and sanctification. The church allows, yeh seems to encourage it. I would love to hear your collective thoughts on this. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the mode, method, or message of the LDS sacrament with which we disagree. Where we sit we never pass it through our hands to a member of the church. The elements go straight back to the young priesthood holder. 

I'm grateful that you feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. Nothing should be done to prevent you or any other nonmember from partaking of the sacrament. 

That being said, the intent behind us administering the sacrament in the first place is to allow Church members an opportunity to renew their baptismal covenants. 

So, while I appreciate that you feel a spiritual benefit from partaking the sacrament, from a theological perspective your participation is not really efficacious in our view. 

There is no harm done in joining, but neither is there any access to the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite. 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Amulek

[Damien the Leper]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not familiar with those abbreviations 

Fraternal Society of St. Peter and Society of St. Pius X. DTPHX is downtown Phoenix.

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, longview said:

It is wonderful that you and your wife demonstrate good will with the membership of the ward.  And you do so in remembrance of our Savior and acknowledge His Great Atoning Sacrifice.  However, the LDS sacrament is also a RENEWAL of the covenants made at your baptism.  Were you baptized in the Catholic Church?  If so, it was under that church's authority.

Baptisms done outside of the LDS Church are not recognized because they were NOT done with the actual priesthood and authority given by God to the Restored Church (you are free to dispute this claim).  Partaking of the sacrament puts you in the position of implied claim of having been baptized in the LDS Church.  Which can cause people not familiar with your circumstance to assume you are a fully active member of the church.

Thanks for your reply. This is one issue we find a bit confusing. We do not want to offend; neither do we want to miss out on a very special and sacred spiritual act while in the ward. I know many non-LDS historians of the LDS faith, but I know no one among their numbers who attends a LDS ward on a regular basis. In an attempt to better understand the LDS doctrine, history, culture, society, etc. we have made the commitment to full-time attendance and engagement in an LDS ward. To the best of my knowledge and research, this is something that is not generally anticipated in Church manuals, policies, etc. This August my wife and I will be speaking in a gathering in SLC (assuming all is well with the virus) about this very issue. Obviously we want and are willing to conform to the practices, requirements, and restrictions placed on us as non-members, even if it means we might have to leave the ward. Every church has some of that; some more than others.

I have reviewed with great interest the new handbook. The Sacrament is listed under 18.2 "Other Ordinances and Blessings," not under "Ordinances of Salvation and Exaltation." Other things like "Dedicating Graves" are similarly listed under 18.2. LDS leaders "dedicate graves" of non-members. I have seen that happen here. The table or chart in the new handbook indicates that the keys to give approval to "perform" or "receive" the sacrament are in the bishop's authority. Therefore, perhaps what I simply need to do to make sure about taking the sacrament in our particular ward is to have a deliberate discussion with the bishop (the one with the keys for this event)  to ensure we have his permission. Would that settle it then? We have talked about many many things with him, and him with us, but never that specifically. I assume a bishop in one ward might decide something differently than a bishop in another ward. Or, that a successive bishop might decide something different than the one in place now. In any case, I would assume he would decide based on what he sees in us as spiritual individuals, not on a generic basis since Church policy seems to give him prerogative? Am I missing something? 

In 18.9.3 there is an ambiguous statement "Although the sacrament is for members of the Church, nothing should be done to prevent others from partaking of it." Some here on the forum have suggested that is for the investigator or infrequent visitor to ensure their comfort. They have maintained that it does not anticipate a faithful non-member over years of attendance in the ward. There is nothing in D&C 20:77 with which we would in any way disagree. I know the LDS Church does not recognize our baptisms in the Baptist church. However, that in no way negatively impacts our sincerity in remembering and recommitting to the covenants that we did make individually as a prerequisite for that baptismal experience. Would you suggest that our personal promises (covenants) to and with God are not valid because they came in the context of another church group? We think we can just as genuinely recommit to them during the sacrament as can our LDS friends commit to theirs. It is the covenants that we recommit to, which were individual. Baptism in the LDS church is clearly not a prerequisite for taking the sacrament in the LDS Church, or the LDS Sacrament service would be "closed" to non-members. Isn't that correct?  The sacrament is indeed a Church ordinance (across Christianity), yet it is partaken of by individuals who must assure they themselves are in conformity with the scriptural requirements in the New Testament so that they don't take unworthily (I Cor 11:29). The fact that the LDS Church does not recognize our baptism doesn't negate the covenants we made to the Lord as individuals, does it? There are churches that don't recognize LDS baptisms. That fact doesn't negate the covenants each of you made in your own hearts to the Lord either, does it? 

I am really trying to pore through and ponder on this issue. I don't mean to debate or disagree on anything. I simply don't want to offend or to miss out on one of the most special times of a Christian worship service. I do think if the bishop decides we should not or may not take the sacrament, we may have to give up our journey in the ward. I cannot comprehend not taking the sacrament for years at a time. That is how important it is to us. Thanks for posting and not criticizing me for discussing this very important issue with you all. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm grateful that you feel welcome and comfortable in our meetings. Nothing should be done to prevent you or any other nonmember from partaking of the sacrament. 

That being said, the intent behind us administering the sacrament in the first place is to allow Church members an opportunity to renew their baptismal covenants. 

So, while I appreciate that you feel a spiritual benefit from partaking the sacrament, from a theological perspective your participation is not really efficacious in our view. 

There is no harm done in joining, but neither is there any access to the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite. 

Thanks for the kind reply. I am simply unsure what you mean by the term "access to the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite." What is the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite? I understand if you prefer not to reply. Again, I am not trying to debate; simply to understand what you are saying. This is relatively new turf for me to be considering. Thanks. 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the kind reply.

I'm only capable of kindness on rare occasion. We'll see if it lasts.  

 

Quote

I am simply unsure what you mean by the term "access to the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite." What is the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite?

The unique benefit which comes with participating in the sacrament is the opportunity to renew the covenant that you entered with God at baptism. A covenant which (and you may disagree with this next bit) can only be considered valid when it is administered by one who has been authorized by God to do so. We believe such authority exists only within the Church, so all other baptisms are of no effect. They may symbolize one's personal commitment to Jesus Christ, but without proper authority that is all they are - symbols of individual commitment but not an actual covenant.

As such, when a non-member participates in the sacrament, all they are capable of doing (from our perspective) is renewing a personal promise to follow Christ - which is perfectly fine, but it's kind of like recommitting to a contract that has only been signed by one party. There's no harm in doing so, but there's no real benefit either.

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Amulek

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm only capable of kindness on rare occasion. We'll see if it lasts.  

 

The unique benefit which comes with participating in the sacrament is the opportunity to renew the covenant that you entered with God at baptism. A covenant which (and you may disagree with this next bit) can only be considered valid when it is administered by one who has been authorized by God to do so. We believe such authority exists only within the Church, so all other baptisms are of no effect. They may symbolize one's personal commitment to Jesus Christ, but without proper authority that is all they are - symbols of individual commitment but not an actual covenant.

As such, when a non-member participates in the sacrament, all they are capable of doing (from our perspective) is renewing a personal promise to follow Christ - which is perfectly fine, but it's kind of like recommitting to a contract that has only been signed by one party. There's no harm in doing so, but there's no real benefit either.

 

 I  know I am the OP on this thread, but I don't want to hijack it so I will start a new thread on this subject. It is extremely important to me. Thanks

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the kind reply. I am simply unsure what you mean by the term "access to the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite." What is the unique benefit which comes with participating in the rite? I understand if you prefer not to reply. Again, I am not trying to debate; simply to understand what you are saying. This is relatively new turf for me to be considering. Thanks. 

I don’t think there is any problem with a nonmember using the rite to symbolize whatever they find meaningful on an ongoing basis. It may symbolize for them many of the same things that it does for us, especially if they view as I believe you do their baptism as effective as we view our own. 
 

However, for Saints the Sacrament fully ‘works’ in the way intended only for those baptized by those authorized according to our doctrinal standards. 
 

I see others partaking whether nonmember or a child of record or investigators as a learning experience, meaningful and useful, but not our covenantal ordinance for them. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 I  know I am the OP on this thread, but I don't want to hijack it so I will start a new thread on this subject. It is extremely important to me. Thanks

Certainly. Bringing the conversation back to the OP, a Cliff's Notes summary of my earlier response to the question, "Under what circumstances would you visit a non-LDS Christian church?" would probably be something like this:

I would personally be willing to attend under a wide variety (if not most) circumstances, provided time and scheduling allowed me to do so.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Therefore, perhaps what I simply need to do to make sure about taking the sacrament in our particular ward is to have a deliberate discussion with the bishop (the one with the keys for this event)  to ensure we have his permission. Would that settle it then?

I personally have no discomfort with what you want to do, in consultation with your friendly bishop or anonymously.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

However, that in no way negatively impacts our sincerity in remembering and recommitting to the covenants that we did make individually as a prerequisite for that baptismal experience. Would you suggest that our personal promises (covenants) to and with God are not valid because they came in the context of another church group? We think we can just as genuinely recommit to them during the sacrament as can our LDS friends commit to theirs. It is the covenants that we recommit to, which were individual.

Of course not.  You certainly can commune with the Savior over your personal walk with Him.

The Church considers the Sacrament to be an ordinance to be administered in the priesthood.  As such, we believe that partaking of the Sacrament actually enables each of us to incrementally obtain the power and refinements of the Atonement week by week.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The fact that the LDS Church does not recognize our baptism doesn't negate the covenants we made to the Lord as individuals, does it? There are churches that don't recognize LDS baptisms. That fact doesn't negate the covenants each of you made in your own hearts to the Lord either, does it?

You are implying that God makes covenants with people within His One True Church AND He also makes covenants with people outside of His Church?  You might believe it does not matter how the different denominations teach Bible inconsistently?

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't mean to debate or disagree on anything. I simply don't want to offend or to miss out on one of the most special times of a Christian worship service. I do think if the bishop decides we should not or may not take the sacrament, we may have to give up our journey in the ward.

It matters not what you feel like doing.  You are showing good will and engaging in the fellowship.  I suppose it is just a question if you are content to dip your toes in the waters of baptism or if you were to decide to fully immerse yourself into it someday.  But in any case, Jesus does emphatically state that baptism is necessary for entrance into His Kingdom.  And it is the truth claim of the LDS Church that it can only be done by proper priesthood authority by the One True Church.  You decide.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

symbols of individual commitment but not an actual covenant.

I see no reason that people can’t make personal covenants with God just as Jacob of Israel and Hannah, Samuel’s mother did. So the Sacrament may be for nonmembers a covenantal experience if that is how they approach it. It is not the covenant of our baptismal ordinance, however.  
 

I have and see no issue if someone gives it the meaning of partaking for them is a symbol of their covenant with God. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Calm

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I love the Mass at Mater Misericordiae (FSSP) in DTPHX. Our Lady of Sorrows (SSPX) has a beautiful Mass but some teachings there stop me from attending as often.

Valentinus...hey. I have not found reason to post lately. Thanks, and good to see you. I am with the Society instead of the Fraternity for reasons going back to 1976. Like you, I am in proximity to both. I have a number of Fraternity friends here in Kansas. Among them is the father of a young priest who was murdered in Phoenix a few years ago, a break-in, horrible. It has to be the church you are talking about. We are also friends with the parents of one of the Society fathers at Our Lady of Sorrows who was a seminarian with our son. I can private you his name if you ever want to tell him you met Mr. ______, on the internet. He would no know me as 3DOP. He would be good to you I know, and try to answer any concerns you might have.

What teachings from the Society side trouble you? 1988? Too late. The Fraternity can't complain about so-called "disobedience" in 1988. The priests who started the Fraternity were ordained by a bishop whose faculties were "suspended" in 1976! Without the consecration of the bishops in '88, there would be no Fraternity. The Fraternity has to agree to an emergency in the Church from '76 to '88, that canonically allows priests without jurisdiction to be active in a diocese without episcopal permission. Upon the establishment of the Fraternity by John Paul II, did they go back to confess their sins to Novus Ordo priests who had valid faculties from '76 to '88? I have never heard of such a thing. This implies that they believed in supplied jurisdiction from '76 to '88 contrary to every bishop in the world that wasn't ordained by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. Do they say that the emergency which allowed supplied jurisdiction in '76 ended in '88? That would seem impolitic. Rather, they act as though they were never associated with the SSPX. They act like their origins come from bishops who love the New Mass and the reforms of Vatican II. They have to play footsie with bishops who deny that there has been such an emergency in recent memory. I haven't mentioned it to my Fraternity friends yet, but this is one of the problems I have with the Fraternity. I think they are inconsistent in that respect. I think they sometimes forget their origins with the Society, pretending they disagree with us when they don't, and especially regarding the period from 1976 to 1988.

It seems to me that they let bishops hostile to them and us to use them against us when the Fraternity and the Society should have always remained together. 

I fear you are not entirely familiar with what I am talking about. But I am curious. There is still a lot of tension over 1988. Is there anything else? Other than that, what do you think distinguishes the Fraternity from the Society doctrinally?

Regardless of your position on '88, welcome to Tradition young man.

Its kind of interesting that Novus Ordo people outnumber us by a crazy amount. But we outnumber them in the way we CARE about the faith. Just anecdotal, but at this time and for a few years, here at a Mormon internet sight there are three who are partisan Catholics, who speak up for things Catholic. You, Miserere Nobis, and me. Nobody else. All three of us go to the Traditional Latin Mass.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

However, for Saints the Sacrament fully ‘works’ in the way intended only for those baptized by those authorized according to our doctrinal standards. 

 

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have and see no issue if someone gives it the meaning of partaking for them is a symbol of their covenant with God. 

Hi Calm: Thanks so very much for your kind words. I so want to understand in a way that does not offend. My failure to understand what my LDS say is in no way a criticism. We really are in some ways a people divided by a common language. I am in no way thrusting this request on you, but I wish in some way you or someone could operationally define for me what is meant by "the Sacrament fully 'works' in the way intended only for those baptized by those authorized according to our doctrinal standards." I look around every Sunday morning and wonder what, if anything is different for my LDS brothers and sisters in the taking of the Sacrament than it is for me.

I think I can operationally define how it "works" for me. For me the sacrament is a time for me to ponder my need to repent anew for my sins of the past week. I pray, asking God to forgive me and cleanse me anew for the times I have failed him. Quite often a peace settles over me from the assurance that He is "faithful and just" to forgive me my sins and cleanse me from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9). So the Sacrament is a cleansing time for me. I do this before I partake of the elements, the water and bread. If I do not feel cleansed, I don't partake. 

Second it is a time of remembrance and looking forward. I reflect hard on the sacrifice Christ made for us. I think of all he did for me: his suffering, death, and future return in clouds of glory. This is the new covenant in His blood shed for me - a non-LDS Christian sinner. This is the new testament (covenant) between Him and me. I read in my Bible I Cor 11 every Sacrament so I have a reassurance of Him via the Holy Spirit in my life. I have absolute faith and confidence in that covenant being vital and real in my life. That renews and refreshes me every sacrament.

Third, I recommit to Him as my Lord and Savior. When I was a lad I made covenants that I have understood to be two-way "if-then" agreements between God and myself my entire life (I am now 71). I recite those covenants I made with God 65 years ago and recommit to them every Sacrament Service. I reflect, pray, read scripture, and renew my covenants made as a boy. In my church those covenants were not the same as everyone else's. They were specific to me and were approved by our pastor, which in my case was my father. He made sure I recited them to all the church members in attendance. I remember it well. I then come away from the sacrament service refreshed, recommitted, cleansed, appreciative of Christ's sacrifice, and awaiting His return for His own.

This is how the Sacrament "fully works" for me each week. How and in what ways does it work differently or more fully for you? It would really help me to know what I am missing. I offer the same question to anyone else on this forum who cares to answer. How is the Sacrament different for you from what I have described? How would I experience the sacrament differently the week or month or year or decade after I am baptized and confirmed in the LDS church than what I have described to you in this post? How would it then be operationally different in my life? How is the broken body and shed blood of Christ different for you than for me? In real life! As I type this? As you type your response? How is Christ via the Holy Spirit more real or more fully operational to you than to me in the Sacrament Service? Please don't be offended. You are the ones stating there is a difference, something more fully working in you than in me; you have the covenant, I only, at best have a symbol of that covenant - not the reality of it. I am not the one saying that. Thanks so much for trying to help me understand. 
 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wish in some way you or someone could operationally define for me what is meant by "the Sacrament fully 'works' in the way intended only for those baptized by those authorized according to our doctrinal standards." I look around every Sunday morning and wonder what, if anything is different for my LDS brothers and sisters in the taking of the Sacrament than it is for me.

What that generally means is we have made a covenant when we were baptized, a specific covenant made under the authority of the Priesthood that is solely available through our Church at this time.  We are participating in that covenant as well as remembering Christ and engaging in symbolic learning during the ordinance.  Nonmembers are not participating in that specific covenant even if they see it as participating in their own version.  The Sacrament is an ordinance that is also only available through the Church that is an extension of our baptismal covenant.

Because of your particular beliefs, you may see no difference in the sacramental experience if you are broader in your definition of Priesthood and authorized by God.  We do, however, because we define authorized and membership as directly tied to our specific faith/Church and both membership and authorized Priesthood holders blessing the Sacrament are required parts of our ordinance.

Bottomline for us is while there are many things we can share including beliefs and experiences, we cannot share in the covenant with someone who has not made that specific covenant under the specified requirements.  Someone who has not undertaken the specific covenant, but believes their own covenant is sufficient, simply does not understand the baptismal covenant in the same way that we do, though there may be a lot of overlap.

Edited March 17, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

In 18.9.3 there is an ambiguous statement "Although the sacrament is for members of the Church, nothing should be done to prevent others from partaking of it." Some here on the forum have suggested that is for the investigator or infrequent visitor to ensure their comfort. They have maintained that it does not anticipate a faithful non-member over years of attendance in the ward.

It's no biggie

If you want to participate, do so as often as you like.

We are not Catholic

 That is a huge, huge deal for them 

 

[Damien the Leper]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Valentinus...hey. I have not found reason to post lately. Thanks, and good to see you. I am with the Society instead of the Fraternity for reasons going back to 1976. Like you, I am in proximity to both. I have a number of Fraternity friends here in Kansas. Among them is the father of a young priest who was murdered in Phoenix a few years ago, a break-in, horrible. It has to be the church you are talking about. We are also friends with the parents of one of the Society fathers at Our Lady of Sorrows who was a seminarian with our son. I can private you his name if you ever want to tell him you met Mr. ______, on the internet. He would no know me as 3DOP. He would be good to you I know, and try to answer any concerns you might have.

What teachings from the Society side trouble you? 1988? Too late. The Fraternity can't complain about so-called "disobedience" in 1988. The priests who started the Fraternity were ordained by a bishop whose faculties were "suspended" in 1976! Without the consecration of the bishops in '88, there would be no Fraternity. The Fraternity has to agree to an emergency in the Church from '76 to '88, that canonically allows priests without jurisdiction to be active in a diocese without episcopal permission. Upon the establishment of the Fraternity by John Paul II, did they go back to confess their sins to Novus Ordo priests who had valid faculties from '76 to '88? I have never heard of such a thing. This implies that they believed in supplied jurisdiction from '76 to '88 contrary to every bishop in the world that wasn't ordained by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. Do they say that the emergency which allowed supplied jurisdiction in '76 ended in '88? That would seem impolitic. Rather, they act as though they were never associated with the SSPX. They act like their origins come from bishops who love the New Mass and the reforms of Vatican II. They have to play footsie with bishops who deny that there has been such an emergency in recent memory. I haven't mentioned it to my Fraternity friends yet, but this is one of the problems I have with the Fraternity. I think they are inconsistent in that respect. I think they sometimes forget their origins with the Society, pretending they disagree with us when they don't, and especially regarding the period from 1976 to 1988.

It seems to me that they let bishops hostile to them and us to use them against us when the Fraternity and the Society should have always remained together. 

I fear you are not entirely familiar with what I am talking about. But I am curious. There is still a lot of tension over 1988. Is there anything else? Other than that, what do you think distinguishes the Fraternity from the Society doctrinally?

Regardless of your position on '88, welcome to Tradition young man.

Its kind of interesting that Novus Ordo people outnumber us by a crazy amount. But we outnumber them in the way we CARE about the faith. Just anecdotal, but at this time and for a few years, here at a Mormon internet sight there are three who are partisan Catholics, who speak up for things Catholic. You, Miserere Nobis, and me. Nobody else. All three of us go to the Traditional Latin Mass.

I'm not fully informed. I can admit that. However, my RCIA instructor introduced me to both groups and my bias is clear. Still not well informed. It would be interesting to sit with you and Miserere Nobis. I'd love it.

I don't always go to Mater Misericordiae. I'm saddened by Fr. Walker's death. I don't attend a Novus Ordo Mass. It makes me antsy and uncomfortable. 

Edited March 18, 2020 by Valentinus

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm not fully informed. I can admit that. However, my RCIA instructor introduced me to both groups and my bias is clear. Still not well informed. It would be interesting to sit with you and Miserere Nobis. I'd love it.

I don't always go to Mater Misericordiae. I'm saddened by Fr. Walker's death. I don't attend a Novus Ordo Mass. It makes me antsy and uncomfortable. 

I would like to meet the both of you in real life too. If it is not be...let it be the next life. Please God, let it be so.

Hey Val. You seem to be doing pretty well for "not fully informed". Go FSSP. Go SSPX. Save your soul young man. Stay in a state of grace. Or...Get in a state of grace. Priests of either side will help you. And pray for me, and our priests.

Fr. Walker's grave used to be here, because of his family being here...a mile or so away. Appropriately, they moved him to a Fraternity cemetery on the grounds of the U.S. Seminary in Nebraska a couple of hours away. There is still a nice monument here in St. Marys where he used to lay.

Fr. Walker, ora pro nobis.

Edited March 18, 2020 by 3DOP

[JamesBYoung]

Brothers and sisters, do not worry about others baptismal covenants when taking the sacrament.

Concentrate on your own baptism, your covenants, and your connection with Christ.

Edited March 19, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JamesBYoung said:

do worry 

Left out a "not"?

[Tacenda]

I like watching Al Fox Carraway aka "the tattooed Mormon" on YouTube. She just posted this one about attending Ash Wednesday! Cut to around the 6:00 min mark if you want. I like that she shared this, I didn't know non Catholics were able to do this! 

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Tacenda

[2BizE]

There used to be (maybe still exists) a Sunday when you are asked to visit other churches.  I have done this a few times and found it very rewarding. Several years ago, I took my family to a Easter egg hunt at a large non-denominational church. After the hunt, we had a very nice message presented by a pastor about The true meaning of Easter.  I’ll be honest, Mormons don’t do Easter very well.  It is a huge celebration around the world that somehow stops in Utah.  If you haven’t experienced Easter outside of Mormonism, I highly recommend it.  It will truly bring you closer to the Savior.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

There used to be (maybe still exists) a Sunday when you are asked to visit other churches.  I have done this a few times and found it very rewarding. Several years ago, I took my family to a Easter egg hunt at a large non-denominational church. After the hunt, we had a very nice message presented by a pastor about The true meaning of Easter.  I’ll be honest, Mormons don’t do Easter very well.  It is a huge celebration around the world that somehow stops in Utah.  If you haven’t experienced Easter outside of Mormonism, I highly recommend it.  It will truly bring you closer to the Savior.

I'm with you on Easter getting the shaft (my words) in the LDS church. I posted the YouTube above of Al Fox Carraway, she talks about having done Ash Wednesday, at the end of the video at 16:00 min. she said how much she loved celebrating Easter this way. I hope the church would do it a little better too. 

[Stargazer]

Keeping in mind that I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, baptized at age 14, and that I attended a few other Christian churches in my youth...

It is asked: "Under what circumstances and/or situation would you attend a service or event or perhaps allow your child to visit the same in a non-LDS church or private school? Under what circumstances would you not?"

I guess the answer to this is: "Under almost all circumstances."

The only church that I think that I would not visit is perhaps the Church of Satan, or the various other Satanist organizations. Although, given that Satanists don't actually "believe in" nor worship Satan (Satanists are actually atheists, to the best of my understanding), it might be interesting to attend one of their meetings. However, as I understand it, they don't have public gatherings, so that's moot.

I like attending other Christian churches from time to time. On my mission in Germany my companion and I attended a Catholic high mass for Christmas, and in another town we attended a New Apostolic Church meeting. The Catholic service was very impressive and worshipful, but the NAC meeting was boring and uninspiring. The one interesting thing to happen in the NAC meeting was when the person leading the meeting gave "greetings from the Head Apostle", whereupon everyone stood up for about a second and then sat down. We were not prepared, and being caught by surprise we failed to stand up. 

Since being here in England I've been wanting to attend a Church of England service, but since they happen at the same time as ours, it hasn't been convenient. I don't currently have regular duties during the 2 hour meeting block, since I have a stake calling, but my wife has a ward calling (in the Primary) and so it's hard to miss church to attend a CofE service instead.  The church buildings are beautiful, I have to say, and quite ancient.  Here's St Mary's Church in Rye, a building whose origins go back about 900 years (we visited there just a few days ago, on a Monday): 

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Stargazer