What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Sorry to interject, but I saw this comment and have to ask - can you explain what you mean by this?  

I think religious liberty is one of the core founding principles of Mormonism.  In regards to these rights and privileges, it is written in our own canonized articles of faith:

Joseph Smith further stated:

There are dozens more like this.

While you may acknowledge the right of every church to establish its own guidelines etc. you seem to be struggling with our right to establish our own guidelines in relation to the requirements for full-participation and fellowship in the church.  By excluding you from full participating and fellowship because of your non-membership, you seem to be interpreting that as rejecting the rights of other churches.  I don't understand that.  Some may not like our guidelines, but I hope that they will respect and truly acknowledge our right to create them. 

Hi my friend, no I am not suggesting that at all. I do not struggle with your right to establish your own guidelines about anything. We are not looking to "fully participate." For example we don't expect to pass the sacraments, pray the sacrament prayer, bless a baby, perform a baptism, lay hands on someone, serve in a bishopric, etc etc etc. All of that would be "full participation." We just want to know what to expect when we arrive at the ward on a Sunday morning. Or when someone asks for donations for a widow. Or when a stake choir is announced. Or when missionaries need meals, or a ride back to their apartment. Or the Primary needs another adult in the room. Or the primary piano player doesn't show up on a Sunday. Or the ward needs someone to be in charge of the history museum. Or when the ward needs help cleaning - or the lady in charge of cleaning (not the property-calling) quits. Perhaps I did not write something clearly. I was trying to say that because the LDS church generally does not anticipate having full-time faithful (to the ministry and to Christ) non-members in its wards over years, it says very little in its own handbook about them. It basically has no guidelines, except in a very few mentions. I also will add, I believe there is a cultural deeply ingrained concern with the non-member, almost bordering on distrust. Because of that I tend to avoid even casual conversations with the youth. I served for years as a Youth Pastor, so that hurts.

The handbook probably speaks more to investigators than to regular non-members. It mentions a few callings, but that is about it. I have been told that those kinds of questions (like mine) are left to local interpretation. Others say there is no such thing as local interpretation. That leaves so much open to interpretation, including even whether there is anything open to interpretation? For example, when it says a member may pray before or after a service - does that mean it assumes that those who pray will be members, or does it forbid prayers by non-members? When it says only a member may be called as a teacher, does that mean a non-member may not substitute teach for one Sunday when that teacher is absent?

Most, if not all of the things I listed in my OP are open to interpretation, so they therefore are interpreted differently by different local authorities. We end up on a yo-yo string. To be sure, others say if it is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited - no local interpretation needed. Our SP was here in our home a couple of weeks ago. He has been SP since we started in attendance in 2017. He told us, while bringing us a Christmas gift that we may have to prepare not to do anything for several years during the current bishopric. So perhaps we have our answer for the next years. We now have to decide what we should do. We believe that God gives us gifts via the Holy Spirit for the building up of the local assembly.

In that regard, I probably should add for clarification that my faith culture teaches that God brings people to the local church whose gifts are needed in that church. Therefore it is not wise to deny someone participation, because in so doing you are denying what may be a means to build up the congregation in the faith, literally a Godsend! Membership per se is never even a consideration. So that is our faith tradition. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what we are used to, especially during the years I was the pastor or bishop in a church. So, this is all an adjustment for us.

We need to find a way to minister, serve, fellowship, and worship. Perhaps there are online opportunities for all that in a church in the states. We are trying to find peace in a decision. That has not yet come. Thanks for your message and I apologize for not being clearer. It is not the guidelines we struggle with, it is the lack of guidelines with which we struggle! Since our dear GA emeritus friend passed, it has been much harder. I think folks here deferred in a way to him. If he thought something was good and spoke well of it, it seemed to imply it was ok with both God and the Church. I miss him a lot. Sometimes I watch his general conference talks on Youtube just to maintain a connection with him. You may think that silly, but it is true. Best wishes.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Navidad

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/4/2023 at 8:14 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

So that's why I'm single, still, after all of these years!    

   

 

On 1/5/2023 at 3:55 PM, Navidad said:

Hi Bernard, perhaps I can clarify in this way . . . when I talk about "the Christian Community" I am speaking of those who in sincerity and truth have named the name of Christ as Savior and Lord, repented, and acknowledge the atonement as the means of the gift of grace, both in word or in deed. I am not talking about every single person who claims to be a Christian or to belong to a Christian group/denomination/sect, etc.  I do not believe every member of a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, LDS, etc etc. church or denomination are part of the Christian community. No church in and of itself is part of the Christian community. Christ did not die for churches, He died for individuals. Every LDS, Lutheran, Brethren, or whatever group comes to the Community of Christ individually. So no, I don't think that community has anything at all to do with denominations, groups, sects, etc. That is why I don't think it matters to God about certain things like the mode and manner of ordinances. What matters to God is the inward witness and testimony. That can be verbalized at an ordinance once in a life, every Sunday at the Sacrament, or never.

That is why I am provisionally certain (there is that phrase again) that no ordinance is in and of itself salvific. I can't believe that every 8 year old who is baptized in the LDS Church receives the gift of the Holy Ghost as if it is some autonomic response. Ditto for every person in any other church who goes through their ordinances, classes, or trainings, but shows very few signs of a commitment to Christ.

Now, how do I Navidad, know who is or is not truly a member of the Christian Community? That's easy, he or she thinks just like me! That is a joke! Just a joke! 🙃The fact of the matter is that I don't know. There is no way I can know! I don't read minds, souls, or spirits. While we are at it, I am not an expert in body language either. Only God knows and He isn't telling. What about those who have never heard, or have rejected? That is where mercy comes in at the judgment seat. I have my views on that, but this isn't the place to go into that. Just let me say that I believe there will be pre-Conquest Aztecs who will come unto the Father by Christ at His (Christ's judgment). That is why Christ is both the way and the judge.

Clearly, not everyone who cries Lord, Lord is part of the Christian Community. Yet there are those who, like the thief on the cross or the women at the well cry out and are accepted sans ordinance, training, confirmation, or a life lived in commitment to Christ. After all salvation is not earned, it is a gift. The Greek in Ephesians 2: 8,9 uses the definite article - the gift. The word dóron is in the superlative culminative (as used by some Greek scholars about the superlative). It is thee gift - the best gift. Of the 19 times the word is used in the New Testament, it is only used in the superlative 9 times, and then in differing ways. It can be translated as a gift, but also as a sacrifice. Our salvation comes at price of the sacrifice which is a gift of God. Those in the Christian Community, to one degree or another recognize that. I hope that helps a bit.

Yes, thank you. I've yet to met someone who thinks Christ died for churches, but there may be some out there. We (LDS) do not believe that every 8 year old who is baptized in the LDS Church receives the gift of the Holy Ghost as if it is come autonomic response. There are at least three expressions used by LDS to describe the communications between man and God....the Light of Christ (given to every person born into the world), the power of the Holy Ghost (which can come on any person periodically, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (bestowed by Priesthood authority after baptism). Here is an explanation of the Gift of the Holy Ghost from Elder Bednar:

Quote

These four words—“Receive the Holy Ghost”—are not a passive pronouncement; rather, they constitute a priesthood injunction—an authoritative admonition to act and not simply to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:26). The Holy Ghost does not become operative in our lives merely because hands are placed upon our heads and those four important words are spoken. As we receive this ordinance, each of us accepts a sacred and ongoing responsibility to desire, to seek, to work, and to so live that we indeed “receive the Holy Ghost” and its attendant spiritual gifts. “For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift” (D&C 88:33).

 

 

 

 

So, in 50 words or less , would you explain "and few there be that find it"?

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Yes, thank you. I've yet to met someone who thinks Christ died for churches, but there may be some out there. We (LDS) do not believe that every 8 year old who is baptized in the LDS Church receives the gift of the Holy Ghost as if it is come autonomic response. There are at least three expressions used by LDS to describe the communications between man and God....the Light of Christ (given to every person born into the world), the power of the Holy Ghost (which can come on any person periodically, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (bestowed by Priesthood authority after baptism). Here is an explanation of the Gift of the Holy Ghost from Elder Bednar:

 

 

 

 

So, in 50 words or less , would you explain "and few there be that find it"?

I am not real sure what you are asking? The entire passage in Matthew 7 is structured with contrasts. It uses words like the splinter and the beam, evil and good. small, narrow, wide, few, and difficult. I suppose these are in contrast to large, wide, many, and easy. The path to faithfulness in Christ is hard, it is smaller, narrower, more difficult, and involves fewer who are willing to meet the challenge. It then goes on from there. Is that fifty words or less?

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not real sure what you are asking? The entire passage in Matthew 7 is structured with contrasts. It uses words like the splinter and the beam, evil and good. small, narrow, wide, few, and difficult. I suppose these are in contrast to large, wide, many, and easy. The path to faithfulness in Christ is hard, it is smaller, narrower, more difficult, and involves fewer who are willing to meet the challenge. It then goes on from there. Is that fifty words or less?

Well, it is under 100, thank you! 😉 What is the narrow gate? What is the challenge that fewer are willing to meet?

Edited January 7, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, it is under 100, thank you! 😉 What is the narrow gate? What is the challenge that fewer are willing to meet?

The narrow gate is the judgment seat of Christ. There will be multitudes who will pass through, but one at a time. In that way the gate is narrow. The road is difficult because it requires a rejection of all things "mine." Not many folks like that road at all. I tend to be very self-reliant. That is the broad road. That is close to sixty. I am doing better! I never saw any value in saying in 50 words what I can say in 500! 😃

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

The narrow gate is the judgment seat of Christ. There will be multitudes who will pass through, but one at a time. In that way the gate is narrow. The road is difficult because it requires a rejection of all things "mine." Not many folks like that road at all. I tend to be very self-reliant. That is the broad road. That is close to sixty. I am doing better! I never saw any value in saying in 50 words what I can say in 500! 😃

In Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose,” the Franciscans and Dominicans get into a heated debate over the question whether or not Jesus had any personal possessions - did he even own his own cloak? It appears you side with the Franciscans. 🙂

What is your view of the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Quote

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

 Compare Moroni 2 for the LDS doctrine.

Quote

Chapter 2
Jesus gave the twelve Nephite disciples power to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. About A.D. 401–21.
  1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.
3 Now Christ spake these words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose,” the Franciscans and Dominicans get into a heated debate over the question whether or not Jesus had any personal possessions - did he even own his own cloak? It appears you side with the Franciscans. 🙂

What is your view of the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

 Compare Moroni 2 for the LDS doctrine.

 

Most of my knowledge about the Franciscans and Dominicans deals with their missionary work here in Mexico during and after the conquest - de las Casas was my favorite and he was Dominican. The Franciscans also at various times tried to protect the Indians. So I side with both of them when they were humane in their dealings with the indigenous peoples.

The passage you mentions deals with the first time the apostles went into Samaria. I believe that the laying on of hands was a sign of identification, consecration to a task, and approval. The hands were seen as and indeed are an instrument of the Holy Spirit. For example, all who were present would know who were the ones being blessed by the Holy Spirit. The hands were instrumental - in a symbolic way. They were not the means by which the Holy Spirit was bestowed. Nothing was transferred to the person from the hands.

It is similar to healing. All healers of every tradition lay hands on the sick person. It is not the laying of hands that transmits wellness. The hands are like the mechanic's tools. They have no efficacy in and of themselves. It is all about the Holy Spirit. Surely when I was ordained, the elders laid hands on me. That has been a tradition and a symbol for millennia. It is like greeting someone on the cheek with a kiss - well not quite like that, but hopefully you get the connection! 

One doesn't lay hands on someone "for" the Gift of the Holy Spirit. One lays hands on someone "because" of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Hands transmit nothing salvific. I know - too many words. Sorry. I am trying to do better, but you see my hands just keep keyboarding! Ha!

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Most of my knowledge about the Franciscans and Dominicans deals with their missionary work here in Mexico during and after the conquest - de las Casas was my favorite and he was Dominican. The Franciscans also at various times tried to protect the Indians. So I side with both of them when they were humane in their dealings with the indigenous peoples.

The passage you mentions deals with the first time the apostles went into Samaria. I believe that the laying on of hands was a sign of identification, consecration to a task, and approval. The hands were seen as and indeed are an instrument of the Holy Spirit. For example, all who were present would know who were the ones being blessed by the Holy Spirit. The hands were instrumental - in a symbolic way. They were not the means by which the Holy Spirit was bestowed. Nothing was transferred to the person from the hands.

It is similar to healing. All healers of every tradition lay hands on the sick person. It is not the laying of hands that transmits wellness. The hands are like the mechanic's tools. They have no efficacy in and of themselves. It is all about the Holy Spirit. Surely when I was ordained, the elders laid hands on me. That has been a tradition and a symbol for millennia. It is like greeting someone on the cheek with a kiss - well not quite like that, but hopefully you get the connection! 

One doesn't lay hands on someone "for" the Gift of the Holy Spirit. One lays hands on someone "because" of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Hands transmit nothing salvific. I know - too many words. Sorry. I am trying to do better, but you see my hands just keep keyboarding! Ha!

Thank you. On the contrary, in the Book of Mormon we learn that the laying on of hands is the form Jesus established to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism and to ordain men to the priesthood, both in Jerusalem and in Zerahemla. This clarifies and reinforces the procedures described in the New Testament. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

On 12/29/2022 at 2:46 PM, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know.  I attended a session be hour 4:00 mass on a Saturday afternoon, and when everyone lined up to take a wafer I asked an attendant if I, a non catholic visitor, should participate and she said “absolutely “.  The priest who administered the wafer recognized me as the visitor who spoke to him before the service and he still offered it to me.  We had a nice chat afterward. 

On 12/29/2022 at 7:42 PM, 3DOP said:

Mustard Seed...not your fault...but you even call it a "wafer". Thank you for asking if it was okay. It was not wrong for you to accept their invitation. If it is only a wafer, then fine, and presumably the priest agrees with you that it was a wafer. But if it was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is an act of charity to tell those who doubt that it is really Jesus' flesh and blood to refrain. I am not at all calling your experience into question. In 1741, the priest and your extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist might likely have answered differently...and in my opinion...better, if they had any care that you might someday want to be Catholic. 

On 12/30/2022 at 2:19 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm just adding to the other voices that pointed out that this goes against Catholic teachings. Catholicism has a closed communion -- one must be in communion to receive communion, especially with the idea that the Host (wafer) is truly the Blood, Body, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I watched this touching documentary last night that made me think about this conversation:

 

There is a scene in the documentary where the Dalai Lama invites Archbishop Tutu into his inner-most meditation room that I guess very few people are privileged to see.  In that room Archbishop Tutu blessed and gave the Eucharist to the Dalai Lama, which he accepted.   It states how Bishop Tutu was troubled because of the controversial nature of giving it to non-Catholics, in the end, he felt that it was right anyway and he administered the sacrament to the Dalai Lama.  

What made it even more interesting is that it is a big no-no for the Dalai Lama to drink wine.  He accepted the sacrament anyway by dipping his finger in the wine and putting the drop in his mouth. 

Overall, I was really touched by the documentary, their relationship, and have a deep respect for these two spiritual giants. 

  

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I watched this touching documentary last night that made me think about this conversation:

 

There is a scene in the documentary where the Dalai Lama invites Archbishop Tutu into his inner-most meditation room that I guess very few people are privileged to see.  In that room Archbishop Tutu blessed and gave the Eucharist to the Dalai Lama, which he accepted.   It states how Bishop Tutu was troubled because of the controversial nature of giving it to non-Catholics, in the end, he felt that it was right anyway and he administered the sacrament to the Dalai Lama.  

What made it even more interesting is that it is a big no-no for the Dalai Lama to drink wine.  He accepted the sacrament anyway by dipping his finger in the wine and putting the drop in his mouth. 

Overall, I was really touched by the documentary, their relationship, and have a deep respect for these two spiritual giants. 

  

This is how I want to be when I grow up, even if I have been dead for a century or two.

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

 It states how Bishop Tutu was troubled because of the controversial nature of giving it to non-Catholics, in the end, he felt that it was right anyway and he administered the sacrament to the Dalai Lama.  

I haven't watched the video yet, but Tutu was Anglican, not Catholic.

Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk, was highly influential in my conversion to Catholicism, as he was the introduction of Catholic mysticism to me. He met with the Dalai Lama in 1968. I used to have this picture in my meditation space, as Merton was the link for me between Buddhism and Catholicism:

The Dalai Lama said it was Merton who showed him that Christianity contained great spiritual depths.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I haven't watched the video yet, but Tutu was Anglican, not Catholic.

My bad!  It is so hard for me to tell the difference when they look the same, sound the same, and consider themselves to be Catholic. 

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

My bad!  It is so hard for me to tell the difference when they look the same, sound the same, and consider themselves to be Catholic. 

Yeah, they wanna be us so bad. It's like Phish Phans in the early 90s