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

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course. Everyone wears white in the temple and we are called of God as was Aaron.  Callings are just that, a job we are asked to take on, and indeed it is primarily administrative.

All worthy men have the same priesthood, but are asked and called by someone higher on the administrative ladder to take on an assignment.

We do not get paid.

As a bishop we often refer serious counseling issues to professionals, and are encouraged to do so.

We don't suddenly decide that we start our own church as others might.  Being a bishop does NEVER imply that he is more spiritual than others.  In our stake for example it is virtually a requirement to be bilingual now, to be called to leadership which is a major challenge.

Bilingual? Polish and English?  Miłego dnia! 😀

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Do you understand the Catholic priesthood concept?

 

Excellent question. Perhaps I should let our Catholic friends explain the concept of the Catholic priesthood in contrast to that of the LDS. To me that Catholic priesthood takes a bunch of training, and is administrative and more. Its time to hear from our Catholic friends!

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, manol said:

It is not my intention to tear down your unique beliefs. 

It IS my intention to celebrate @Navidad's paradigm, which apparently is inclusive of all full-on participants in this here rodeo, regardless of their unique beliefs.

 

That reduces religion itself to nothing.

Were that the case, all are saved and "accepting Jesus as savior" is irrelevant.   It again, is the circle without edges that includes everyone.  So where is the circle?  It is the vague God that is omni-everything and therefore nothing, who sits on the top of a topless throne whose circle has no edges.

You gotta be an oldster to get that reference now I guess, but yes it makes the point perfectly.

Yes, I am a universalist meaning that yes, all knees will bend to The Christ eventually, no problem.  And all will have a chance to reach their fullest potential, but part of that "ETERNAL LIFE" as opposed to immortality consists of accepting ordinances.   Ordinances are the symbolic and spiritual instruction book to exaltation, you cannot reach your destination without a map.  It's not the ordinance that does it- it is what YOU do with your experience OF the ordinance.

What YOU do with it is what puts you into which of many concentric circles are possible.

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That reduces religion itself to nothing...

Instead of having a conversation about @Navidad's paradigm (and/or my perception thereof), would you like to have a conversation about religion, paradigms, priesthood, ordinances, and so forth? I don't know whether it would be a short or long conversation, and if you'd rather not, no problem.

But if so, be forewarned that I have no background in philosophy and my amateur ideas are in flux, so I will not be able to efficiently present a fully coherent point of view. I'll do my best, but it won't be remotely like you're having a conversation with a peer.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I attended Mass at a very old church in PA in October.  I asked attendants if it would be appropriate and they enthusiastically said yes.  FWIW

But it’s not according to official Catholic doctrine.  Only Catholics in a State of Grace are able to receive Holy Communion.  Everyone can participate in Mass though.  Did you ask about Mass or Holy Communion or the Eucharist?

https://www.catholicenquiry.com/topics-faq/sacraments/eucharist/214-can-non-catholics-take-communion-in-the-catholic-church#:~:text=People of all faiths are,receive Holy Communion during Mass.

I don’t understand how someone who believes the wafer is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ would be okay with someone not consecrated (received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation) partaking of it.  It would be even more inappropriate in my view if I believed that than a nonmember walking off the street into the temple to receive the endowment.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:46 PM, manol said:

Obviously I cannot speak for @Navidad, but my impression is that he draws a very big and very inclusive circle. 

The way he talks about Fundamentalists at times tough makes me wonder.  

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it’s not according to official Catholic doctrine.  Only Catholics in a State of Grace are able to receive Holy Communion.  Everyone can participate in Mass though.  Did you ask about Mass or Holy Communion or the Eucharist?

https://www.catholicenquiry.com/topics-faq/sacraments/eucharist/214-can-non-catholics-take-communion-in-the-catholic-church#:~:text=People of all faiths are,receive Holy Communion during Mass.

I don’t understand how someone who believes the wafer is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ would be okay with someone not consecrated (received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation) partaking of it.  It would be even more inappropriate in my view if I believed that than a nonmember walking off the street into the temple to receive the endowment.

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. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, 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. 

There are priests who do it from what I have heard, but it is against official canon law as I understand it. It would be like a bishop giving a temple recommend to a nonmember, it might look okay if you didn’t know better, but they don’t have actual authority to do that. 
 

I will try and find the info on the Vatican site, but they do not have a great search function. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There are priests who do it from what I have heard, but it is against official canon law as I understand it. It would be like a bishop giving a temple recommend to a nonmember, it might look okay if you didn’t know better, but they don’t have actual authority to do that. 
 

I will try and find the info on the Vatican site, but they do not have a great search function. 

Interesting.  
this was the church I visited, in Lancaster 

I was pleasantly surprised to sing 2 or 3 hymns that our book has.  Different words, mostly. 
 

Edited December 30, 2022 by MustardSeed

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, 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. 

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. 

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Excellent question. Perhaps I should let our Catholic friends explain the concept of the Catholic priesthood in contrast to that of the LDS. To me that Catholic priesthood takes a bunch of training, and is administrative and more. Its time to hear from our Catholic friends!

Hi Navidad. God bless. I mean that. You and yours are good people. But there are incompatibilities that cannot be overcome by merely being nice and helpful to each other.

On the necessity of valid priestly orders, as a Catholic/LDS, I am in agreement with Bukowski, LDS/Catholic.

Until just recently, Mustard Seed would have been kindly asked to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, without believing in Holy Communion. Even in 2022, there are Catholic churches where at weddings and funerals, the visitors are admonished not to receive Holy Communion, unless they believe in it as a Catholic, and are to the best of their knowledge, in a state of grace. The Christian world is deluded, and whether it be the LDS or Catholic that is one and true, almost everybody is afraid of the exclusivism that you find to be a source of evil. Whatever the true church is, it is affected by this spiritual virus that fears to pronounce the truth that Christ founded one visible Church.

Knowledgeable Catholics and LDS  have a shared understanding that it is unbelievable that Christ doesn't care where we go to church.

Among the thousands of churches, almost any church, and certainly not the Catholic or LDS churches, would be more suitable for one who is ideologically opposed to what you call "onlyism".

Regards,

3DOP   

Edited December 30, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, and accepting baptism IS accepting the net. How can you accept ordinances and their purposes without first accepting priesthood authority?

If everyone has authority and a universal priesthood then nobody has priesthood authority. It is an illusion and does not exist functionally. That is the bottom line; no priesthood, then no reason for a church to exist.  Anyone can start a church on every corner, if it even gets called a "denomination", as if it is an organization unto itself, with something unique to offer.

No apostasy, no restoration, no ordinances, like so many churches today, a different "denomination" on every corner, like the 4 corners in Manchester.

I am sorry, but I think it is important to support priesthood authority boldly if needed.

Perhaps that's the Catholic in me, but the only paradigm that makes sense to me. And yet we also know that everyone will eventually accept it AS THE " Church of Jesus Christ".

Without the differention of our priesthood, we have nothing, our entire paradigm is based on unique beliefs.  It has nothing to do with "exclusivity"; it is what holds the paradigm together as a fully coherent point of view.

 

 

Mark...Thanks. Amen. It is the Catholic in you, and the Mormon in me. What in the ________ is an apostasy, where everybody can do everything anyway? The only apostates would be Mormons and Catholics and a few others. Just be Protestant if you are a Christian with a wide circle and you don't believe in a valid priestly order. Let a ten year old lay hands on you. Who cares if there is any link to any apostles?

I think this was a consistent answer to a question I had before I started a church. I was unordained, in any way shape or form. Not on purpose, I decided late to become a pastor and start a church. I asked a couple of prominent fellow ministers in the region where I was intending to "set up shop". Ordinarily, the group I was with did have this ceremony, where some college profs lay their hands on your head and pray. But I was in a pinch. is this necessary I asked. Should I wait until I can do that ceremony. Nah. Its just a ceremony with some symbolism. Start your church! 

I was all for that...because laying on of hands, from somebody who doesn't have a link to the Apostles, can't be terribly important. I knew those professors didn't have any historical connection to the Apostolic Succession. I knew it wasn't an efficacious ceremony. Like our baptismal belief, it imparted nothing except symbolism. In a pinch, you can wait to get your symbol until when it is convenient. I understood that from the start...and was happy to put it aside for the time being, but it was eventually part of my path out of that movement and in to one that at least claimed to have a link to the Apostles of Christ.

Edited December 30, 2022 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Navidad. God bless. I mean that. You and yours are good people. But there are incompatibilities that cannot be overcome by merely being nice and helpful to each other.

On the necessity of valid priestly orders, as a Catholic/LDS, I am in agreement with Bukowski, LDS/Catholic.

Until just recently, Mustard Seed would have been kindly asked to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, without believing in Holy Communion. Even in 2022, there are Catholic churches where at weddings and funerals, the visitors are admonished not to receive Holy Communion, unless they believe in it as a Catholic, and are to the best of their knowledge, in a state of grace. The Christian world is deluded, and whether it be the LDS or Catholic that is one and true, almost everybody is afraid of the exclusivism that you find to be a source of evil. Whatever the true church is, it is affected by this spiritual virus that fears to pronounce the truth that Christ founded one visible Church.

Knowledgeable Catholics and LDS  have a shared understanding that it is unbelievable that Christ doesn't care where we go to church.

Among the thousands of churches, almost any church, and certainly not the Catholic or LDS churches, would be more suitable for one who is ideologically opposed to what you call "onlyism".

Regards,

3DOP   

Good early morning my friend. I have to head out for the day, but I look forward to responding more completely to your "reductio ad absurdum" portrayal of my beliefs. "Let a ten year old lay hands on you?" You must have been a bit out of sorts when you wrote that. By calling on "our Catholics" to explain the Catholic concept of priesthood I was hoping for something more than what you have offered so far.

Having said that and needing to go, I would ask if you would give us an explanation of today's Catholic church's position on and distinctions between Christ as the one eternal priest, the priesthood as held by an ordained Catholic priest who holds holy orders in a ministerial or administrative (ordinances) sense, and the priesthood of believers which is available in a wider sense to believers (whoever the "you" are in I Peter 2)? If Catholics don't believe in all three forms of priesthood, then please tell us that too. Perhaps Mark or someone else would do the same on the LDS side? When we dialogue and discuss it is important to understand the meaning behind each others use of words, especially something as important to many as "the priesthood" and the source of its authority. Thanks. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

What in the ________ is an apostasy, where everybody can do everything anyway? The only apostates would be Mormons and Catholics and a few others. Just be Protestant if you are a Christian with a wide circle and you don't believe in a valid priestly order. Let a ten year old lay hands on you.

A few years ago, one of my Evangelical mates invited me to his baptism. It was on a Sunday and at the lake. The start time meant that I would be able to attend and still make it to church (I thought!), so off I went. Despite being present for more than an hour, I almost missed the actual baptism. What I found when I arrived was a barbecue in process; everyone seemed far more concerned about grilling meat or sharing the recipe for the delicious salad she had brought. Kids were running around playing tag or throwing frisbees. Some were splashing at the water's edge.

My mate introduced me to his pastor and some other families as his 'Mormon' friend. Mostly I just stood around waiting for a baptism to happen. Finally, I heard the pastor say, 'Well, I guess we should get this show on the road. Who wants to do the deed today?' There followed a discussion about who was prepared to wade into the lake, who had access to a towel (no one, it seems, had access to dry clothing), who did it last time, etc.

I piped up and said, 'I'm happy to  do it'. That was the one option that wasn't tolerable, but it spurred the dithering along, and eventually some random man waded into the lake with my mate, and the men manning the barbecue held their tongs still just long enough for an actual immersion to take place.

I know we (inclusive) are viewed as intolerant and exclusionary because we won't accept the Protestant God of Nothing Really Matters, but I just can't find that God anywhere in scripture ... or in my own experiences with the Divine.

[Saint Bonaventure]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Excellent question. Perhaps I should let our Catholic friends explain the concept of the Catholic priesthood in contrast to that of the LDS. To me that Catholic priesthood takes a bunch of training, and is administrative and more. Its time to hear from our Catholic friends!

I'll try to briefly explain the Catholic priesthood and in relation to the LDS priesthood. I'll encourage others to jump in as they see fit.

Not surprisingly, I think that the points of contrast have more than a little to do with distinct notions of history, and how God's purposes are accomplished in history. I believe that LDS see patterns of apostasy and restoration, and with apostasy so thorough that priesthood authority can be lost, and, according to LDS thinking, was lost after the death of the New Testament apostles (what LDS think of as the "Great Apostasy"). I don't quite know how this pattern of apostasy and restoration fits with the accounts and authority in the Book of Mormon, but Joseph Smith did say that priesthood authority was given to him by Peter and others. I've been interested in this topic, as there seems to be at least one important point of connection between LDS and Catholics, specifically agreement that Peter was given authoritative "keys."

Catholics believe that while there can be apostasy from the Church, there is not a wholesale, disqualifying apostasy by the Church. This means that where LDS want to discuss a historical pattern where priesthood authority is lost and restored, Catholics want to discuss a historical pattern where priesthood authority is in continuity. I've said a little about this in other threads, but the Catholic notion of continuity is infused in the Catholic notion of procession. If someone thinks of continuity and procession in the actual procession of the Mass, of the procession of the priest and altar servers as gesturing to the procession of the Church through time, they are on the right track. For Catholics, this idea of continuity is also present in the Litany of the Saints (a prayer which is offered during Mass, and which indicates the foundation and subsequent history of the Church; the Litany of the Saints is a prayer that presents in language the procession that works alongside the actual, physical procession of the priest and altar servers).

Catholics assert that in the Old Testament there was a kingdom of priests and a three-tiered ministerial priesthood, and that this structure prefigures and parallels the priesthood in Christ's Church. The relationship looks like this:

• A Kingdom of Priests--This is comprised of God's people as a whole. It means that God's people are priests because, through their holiness, they intercede on behalf of an unbelieving world. In the Old Testament this notion of priesthood is referenced in Exodus 19. In the New Testament it is referenced in 1 Peter 2:5. 
• A Three-Tiered Ministerial Priesthood--This is outlined at Sinai in the Old Testament with the High Priest, Sons of Aaron, and Levites (Exodus 28 and elsewhere). The ministerial priesthood offers sacrifices/intercedes on behalf of God's people. These Old Testament ministries are seen as prefiguring the ministerial priesthood of the New Testament in this way:
  • Levites --> Deacons (1 Tim. 3)
  • Sons of Aaron --> Priests and Bishops (1 Tim. 3 and 5; James 5; the English word "priest" is derived from the greek word, presbyteros). Catholics believe that the Apostles were the first Bishops, as described in Acts 1: 20 when Judas was being replaced, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." [emphasis mine]
  • High Priest --> Jesus is our new High Priest (Hebrews 4 and 14) 

I haven't the slightest idea if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a concept of "a kingdom of priests" alongside it's Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, but the "kingdom of priests" seems consistent with the inclusive love and service that you offer. I don't doubt that many who have met you have felt and benefitted from your love of God and neighbor.

SB

Edited December 30, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[MustardSeed]

I was lucky then to have the experience. ❤️

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A few years ago, one of my Evangelical mates invited me to his baptism. It was on a Sunday and at the lake. The start time meant that I would be able to attend and still make it to church (I thought!), so off I went. Despite being present for more than an hour, I almost missed the actual baptism. What I found when I arrived was a barbecue in process; everyone seemed far more concerned about grilling meat or sharing the recipe for the delicious salad she had brought. Kids were running around playing tag or throwing frisbees. Some were splashing at the water's edge.

My mate introduced me to his pastor and some other families as his 'Mormon' friend. Mostly I just stood around waiting for a baptism to happen. Finally, I heard the pastor say, 'Well, I guess we should get this show on the road. Who wants to do the deed today?' There followed a discussion about who was prepared to wade into the lake, who had access to a towel (no one, it seems, had access to dry clothing), who did it last time, etc.

I piped up and said, 'I'm happy to  do it'. That was the one option that wasn't tolerable, but it spurred the dithering along, and eventually some random man waded into the lake with my mate, and the men manning the barbecue held their tongs still just long enough for an actual immersion to take place.

I know we (inclusive) are viewed as intolerant and exclusionary because we won't accept the Protestant God of Nothing Really Matters, but I just can't find that God anywhere in scripture ... or in my own experiences with the Divine.

I am sorry you experienced such a disconcerting event. Might you know with what Evangelical group your friend was connected? I have performed at least one hundred baptisms and seen hundreds more in my long life. I have never witnessed an occasion as you described it, especially with just anyone doing the baptizing. So, I would only offer you an encouragement that what you experienced is most likely not normative.

To offer another perspective, I have been to several baptisms of eight year olds in our ward. There was also food there - cookies, punch, and such. I can assure you that I watched the children as soon as the clothes were changed and confirmation completed, the baptized ones and all the other kids went running for the cookies!  Members of the ward stood around the cookie table to congratulate the child and help themselves to some snickerdoodles (is that the official LDS cookie?) I have been to many Catholic baptisms of little ones. New clothes for mom, new hat and/or boots for dad, terrific white clothes for the child or baby, and always . . . . . . a big festive meal afterwards!

Maybe food and baptisms are inevitably linked, regardless of the mode or meaning of the ordinance!

Oh, and I don't think I have ever met "the Protestant God of nothing really matters!" I will accept that as a dismissal of Protestantism and not of God. I am pretty sure that was your message.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'll try to briefly explain the Catholic priesthood and in relation to the LDS priesthood. I'll encourage others to jump in as they see fit.

Not surprisingly, I think that the points of contrast have more than a little to do with distinct notions of history, and how God's purposes are accomplished in history. I believe that LDS see patterns of apostasy and restoration, and with apostasy so thorough that priesthood authority can be lost, and, according to LDS thinking, was lost after the death of the New Testament apostles (what LDS think of as the "Great Apostasy"). I don't quite know how this pattern of apostasy and restoration fits with the accounts and authority in the Book of Mormon, but Joseph Smith did say that priesthood authority was given to him by Peter and others. I've been interested in this topic, as there seems to be at least one important point of connection between LDS and Catholics, specifically agreement that Peter was given authoritative "keys."

Catholics believe that while there can be apostasy from the Church, there is not a wholesale, disqualifying apostasy by the Church. This means that where LDS want to discuss a historical pattern where priesthood authority is lost and restored, Catholics want to discuss a historical pattern where priesthood authority is in continuity. I've said a little about this in other threads, but the Catholic notion of continuity is infused in the Catholic notion of procession. If someone thinks of continuity and procession in the actual procession of the Mass, of the procession of the priest and altar servers as gesturing to the procession of the Church through time, they are on the right track. For Catholics, this idea of continuity is also present in the Litany of the Saints (a prayer which is offered during Mass, and which indicates the foundation and subsequent history of the Church; the Litany of the Saints is a prayer that presents in language the procession that works alongside the actual, physical procession of the priest and altar servers).

Catholics assert that in the Old Testament there was a kingdom of priests and a three-tiered ministerial priesthood, and that this structure prefigures and parallels the priesthood in Christ's Church. The relationship looks like this:

• A Kingdom of Priests--This is comprised of God's people as a whole. It means that God's people are priests because, through their holiness, they intercede on behalf of an unbelieving world. In the Old Testament this notion of priesthood is referenced in Exodus 19. In the New Testament it is referenced in 1 Peter 2:5. 
• A Three-Tiered Ministerial Priesthood--This is outlined at Sinai in the Old Testament with the High Priest, Sons of Aaron, and Levites (Exodus 28 and elsewhere). The ministerial priesthood offers sacrifices/intercedes on behalf of God's people. These Old Testament ministries are seen as prefiguring the ministerial priesthood of the New Testament in this way:
  • Levites --> Deacons (1 Tim. 3)
  • Sons of Aaron --> Priests and Bishops (1 Tim. 3 and 5; James 5; the English word "priest" is derived from the greek word, presbyteros). Catholics believe that the Apostles were the first Bishops, as described in Acts 1: 20 when Judas was being replaced, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." [emphasis mine]
  • High Priest --> Jesus is our new High Priest (Hebrews 4 and 14) 

I haven't the slightest idea if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a concept of "a kingdom of priests" alongside it's Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, but the "kingdom of priests" seems consistent with the inclusive love and service that you offer. I don't doubt that many who have met you have felt and benefitted from your love of God and neighbor.

SB

What you have described is exactly what I believe and as far as I know so do the vast majority of Protestants and non-Protestant non-Catholic Christians. There might be varying descriptive words used, but they mean the same office. The Mennonites for example have deacons or elders, pastors, and bishops. I described in an earlier post what I see to be the threefold priesthood of the New Testament. You explained it in a much more articulate and careful manner, but with the same basic structure. I will join with you in awaiting an LDS Christian response to what you said. Thanks so much.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There might be varying descriptive words used, but they mean the same office.

Where did the authority to ordain to these offices come from in your tradition?  As in the line of authority?

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

What you have described is exactly what I believe and as far as I know so do the vast majority of Protestants and non-Protestant non-Catholic Christians. There might be varying descriptive words used, but they mean the same office. The Mennonites for example have deacons or elders, pastors, and bishops. I described in an earlier post what I see to be the threefold priesthood of the New Testament. You explained it in a much more articulate and careful manner, but with the same basic structure. I will join with you in awaiting an LDS Christian response to what you said. Thanks so much.

I didn't realize that you believe in ministerial priesthood which is distinct from that of a general  "kingdom of Priests".   Saint Bonaventure can correct me if I am wrong, but the general kingdom of Priests do not act in administrative/ministerial roles in relation to sacred ordinances of baptism, etc., which requires a ministerial priesthood officer with direct line of authority from Peter. 

My understanding of Protestant priesthood is that it is basically just a general priesthood of believers or "kingdom of Priests", with no administrative branch that requires a line of authority. 

For LDS, the idea of "kingdom of priests" is most closely related to what we would simply call "the body of saints" who all act under and within the authority of the priesthood in their respective roles.  We don't recognize them all as priesthood holders per se, but as authorized by the priesthood.   

Only two tiers of ministerial priesthood in our church.  We view the priesthood of the "sons of Aaron" and the "Levites" as the same priesthood, which we call the "Aaronic priesthood" also called the "Levitical priesthood".   Everything else is under the Melchizedek priesthood.   

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[manol]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know we (inclusive) are viewed as intolerant and exclusionary because we won't accept the Protestant God of Nothing Really Matters...

Actually what I said is that I think the Latter-day Saints draw a smaller circle of inclusion than @Navidad does, as an explanation for why he would desire to serve a congregation which rejects his beliefs. If you think this is inaccurate, please let me know.

And I understand that the topic of “inclusion versus exclusion” is far more complicated than merely picking which of these terms is the more politically correct at the moment.

But consider this: Christ not only teaches inclusiveness (the Second Great Commandment; the Golden Rule; parable of the Good Samaritan; parable of the Net mentioned previously; parable of the King disguised as the least among us), but also practices it:

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

And if what Navidad can contribute to his LDS congregation is demonstrably acceptable to God the Holy Spirit, why shouldn't it be acceptable to the Church?  I'm not telling you to change Church policy, but just consider that the handbook might not out-rank God the Holy Spirit.

Also consider whether, as a general principle, inclusiveness or exclusiveness is the greater force for good in the world, today as well as throughout history. 

I haven't been Protestant for five decades, though I've attended several Protestant churches since then. At the risk of over-generalizing, I would say the Protestant churches I attended have a different idea of What Matters Most to God than the Latter-day Saints do. 

“What Matters Most to God” might be an interesting topic for a thread, assuming it hasn't been done yet.

Edited December 31, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

We typically reject the concept of “priesthood of all believers” as an innovation of Martin Luther’s.  This article from 1986 is pretty much the standard I was taught, with the assumption that Catholics don’t believe the pope is a seer, that he doesn’t receive revelation from Christ….which isn’t an accurate interpretation of Catholic belief, imo.  We make a lot of leaps from the idea of a closed canon as well.

I don’t know the author’s credentials, save he was an institute teacher in Seattle and wrote a response to Ed Decker.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1986/10/questions-and-answers/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

This address is a typical treatment of the contrast of beliefs, which is very brief.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/that-ye-may-believe/part-2?lang=eng

I don’t remember coming across a more in-depth study comparing beliefs about priesthood.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Where did the authority to ordain to these offices come from in your tradition?  As in the line of authority?

Straight from Christ via the Holy Spirit. My tradition teaches the line of authority did and always will flow from Christ to the supplicant. The first century or the twenty-first century church makes no difference. Christ gave the original apostles, evangelists, and deacons authority while He was with them. He still gives it to us today via the Holy Spirit. The elders, whether in the LDS church or the Pentecostal church are only the instrument - the Holy Spirit with hands. It is always the Holy Spirit acting on behalf of the eternal high priest and king (after Melchizedek) who completes the action. The hands are his tools, whether Peter's in the first century or Mark's or Navidad's in the twenty-first. As the only eternal high priest He (Christ) is the source of all authority and will be forever. That is why He is the way, the truth, and the life and the only way to ultimately go to the Father. The authority doesn't lie in the apostle, but in the Savior, the eternal High Priest. I hope that answers your question.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I didn't realize that you believe in ministerial priesthood which is distinct from that of a general  "kingdom of Priests".   Saint Bonaventure can correct me if I am wrong, but the general kingdom of Priests do not act in administrative/ministerial roles in relation to sacred ordinances of baptism, etc., which requires a ministerial priesthood officer with direct line of authority from Peter. 

My understanding of Protestant priesthood is that it is basically just a general priesthood of believers or "kingdom of Priests", with no administrative branch that requires a line of authority. 

For LDS, the idea of "kingdom of priests" is most closely related to what we would simply call "the body of saints" who all act under and within the authority of the priesthood in their respective roles.  We don't recognize them all as priesthood holders per se, but as authorized by the priesthood.   

Only two tiers of ministerial priesthood in our church.  We view the priesthood of the "sons of Aaron" and the "Levites" as the same priesthood, which we call the "Aaronic priesthood" also called the "Levitical priesthood".   Everything else is under the Melchizedek priesthood.   

I am a member of the royal priesthood by my commitment to Christ and His atonement. I am a member of the ministerial priesthood by my ordination in the Baptist tradition; I was licensed - a lower level of authority in both the Baptist and Mennonite traditions - a long elaborate six month examination that at its culmination included some food! Of course my ministerial authority is only good in the the groups that accept Baptist and Mennonite ordinations, of which there are many. When I was ordained, the authority behind it was the Holy Spirit - humans examined me, my life, my training and gifts. The power (authority) came from the Holy Spirit via them as His instruments. Administratively it was their hands on my head - but the authority was that of the Holy Spirit. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:03 AM, MustardSeed said:

I attended Mass at a very old church in PA in October.  I asked attendants if it would be appropriate and they enthusiastically said yes.  FWIW

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.