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

[MiserereNobis]

23 hours 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. 

Here is the Canon:

Quote

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here is the Canon:

 

Thanks, I got tired and quit after one page of hits on the wrong topic.  Taking it easy today.

[MiserereNobis]

21 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 
 

So I found that church online: St. Mary's Church

The website has a section on the Eucharist (under Sacraments). On that page there is a link to a document about the reception of Holy Communion during weddings and funerals. Weddings and funerals are when the most non-Catholic people will be in a Catholic church, so the bishop of the diocese wanted to make sure everyone understood who can and cannot receive communion. Here's the 3rd sentence of that document:

Quote

While our brothers and sisters of other faiths and religious traditions must be made to feel welcomed as they join with us in prayer, it needs to made clear that members of churches or ecclesial communions with whom we are not yet fully united cannot ordinarily be invited to receive Holy Communion.

Seems like the parish you went to needs to read their own website! (and the Code of Canon Law, and every teaching since forever that says non-Catholics cannot receive communion)

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 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.

My limited experience teaches me that there may be today two Catholic orthodoxies. One belongs to those who reject, minimize, or ignore the changes brought about in the church beginning with the Vatican Council of the 1960s. The sixties were indeed a turbulent time, weren't they? The second belongs to those who adhere to the "liberal" changes brought about in today's Catholicism. I believe it is possible that our Catholics on our forum here are representative of the former, not the latter. Is that fair? Is it accurate? - he asks to the Catholics here. There may be similarities in acceptance and rejection of the clarifications and innovations brought about after the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century - what we know as the Counter-Reformation - a form of restoration from within. The Council of Trent was hard on the heretic Protestants, but also found it necessary to clarify some core Catholic beliefs. The very process of clarification initiated some new ideas and practices.

There was also a First Vatican Council in the 19th century, which I would guess again clarified some things, bringing about changes, but I am not knowledgeable enough to comment any more on that. I am simply voicing my thoughts. I am eager to hear from our Catholic friends to validate or invalidate my thoughts. I 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, manol said:

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

Sounds like a great topic. You see, the God the vast majority of all the folks here on this forum worship was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that same God is the God of LDS Christian, non-LDS Christian, and many more folks who we don't even know how to categorize. I would also like to add a suggestion for a topic about the denizens of the Spirit World and of the kingdom(s) of Eternity. I would like to know more about the LDS beliefs about the denizens of those worlds and the nomenclature to accurately describe them. So much to dialogue about and so little time!

Edited December 30, 2022 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My limited experience teaches me that there may be today two Catholic orthodoxies. One belongs to those who reject, minimize, or ignore the changes brought about in the church beginning with the Vatican Council of the 1960s. The sixties were indeed a turbulent time, weren't they? The second belongs to those who adhere to the "liberal" changes brought about in today's Catholicism.

Yes, there are these divisions within the Church.

One way to understand what is going on is the term "the Spirit of Vatican II." The second Vatican council published official documents. These contain the teachings of the council. After the council, some Catholics advocated and implemented changes that go much further than what is contained in the documents and in some cases outright contradict the documents. These excesses were excused as following the "Spirit of Vatican II," meaning that some believed the council gave some sort of implicit approval of changes not actually outlined in the documents.

I accept the documents of Vatican II as official declarations of a valid ecumenical council (it's important to note that the council called itself a pastoral council as opposed to a "dogmatic" council -- so no new dogmas and anathemas were declared).

I do not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II." Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

"Let a ten year old lay hands on you?" You [3DOP] must have been a bit out of sorts when you wrote that.

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Quote

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.

So if authority is invested directly via the Holy Spirit and not tied to any sort of literal, apostolic authority then why, exactly, is it the case that a ten year old couldn't lay hands on someone?

I mean, other than the pragmatic difficulties associated with ten year olds baptizing adults, what's the theological limitation in your mind that would preclude such a thing?

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

So if authority is invested directly via the Holy Spirit and not tied to any sort of literal, apostolic authority then why, exactly, is it the case that a ten year old couldn't lay hands on someone?

I mean, other than the pragmatic difficulties associated with ten year olds baptizing adults, what's the theological limitation in your mind that would preclude such a thing?

 

Because it is tied in each church to ministerial and thus, administrative priesthood authority directly from Christ (the holder of all authority) via the Holy Spirit. No apostolic authority needed, when Christ is alive and well, active and able to grant it directly via the other person of the Godhead, in this case the Holy Spirit. No 10 year old I know of would qualify for ministerial authority via the Holy Spirit in any church I know of.

I embrace authority directly from the only High Priest living today which is Christ. He administers His authority since Pentecost directly via the Holy Spirit. I once had a visiting teacher who proudly showed me his certificate of priesthood authority. I wanted to show him Matt 28:18, one of the post-resurrection Christ's first statements, but he was so proud and was a guest in our home. BTW, he ended up sending me a letter that I had used my agency to reject the gospel, so he was washing his hands of me (literally). He never came back to our home.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

I have only heard of "the royal priesthood", or the "priesthood of the believers".   I didn't know there was a distinct "ministerial priesthood".  So, the ministerial priesthood is passed from the Holy Spirit to the individual, and not from person to person?  Am I understanding that correct?  Why are hands laid on the head for the ministerial priesthood but not for the royal priesthood?   What is the functional purpose/role of the Royal priesthood, if not ministerial?  If all evangelicals are equally Christian with equal Royal priesthood regardless of denomination, why is the ministerial priesthood, which is authorized by Holy Spirit, not recognized in all denominations?   In other words, why is the Royal priesthood universally recognized within Evangelism, but the ministerial priesthood is not?   If the ministerial priesthood authority "is only good" in certain groups, why are the baptisms which were performed by said limited authority, not also "only good" in certain groups?   Why can't the Holy Spirit authorize a more universal ministerial priesthood?

Sorry for the rapid bullet questions.  Just trying to learn. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[Saint Bonaventure]

57 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, there are these divisions within the Church.

One way to understand what is going on is the term "the Spirit of Vatican II." The second Vatican council published official documents. These contain the teachings of the council. After the council, some Catholics advocated and implemented changes that go much further than what is contained in the documents and in some cases outright contradict the documents. These excesses were excused as following the "Spirit of Vatican II," meaning that some believed the council gave some sort of implicit approval of changes not actually outlined in the documents.

I accept the documents of Vatican II as official declarations of a valid ecumenical council (it's important to note that the council called itself a pastoral council as opposed to a "dogmatic" council -- so no new dogmas and anathemas were declared).

I do not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II." Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy.

This seems exactly right to me.

Also, I think that MustardSeed was exercising due diligence by asking and that there's room for misunderstanding and confusion in these matters. 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No 10 year old I know of would qualify for ministerial authority via the Holy Spirit in any church I know of.

Why not?

 

[Amulek]

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Because it is tied in each church to ministerial and thus, administrative priesthood authority directly from Christ (the holder of all authority) via the Holy Spirit. [...] No 10 year old I know of would qualify for ministerial authority via the Holy Spirit in any church I know of.

So why can't a 10 year old just start his own church? Then, as the ministerial authority of his own church, wouldn't he be able to baptize without constraint? 

 

[Navidad]

Ok, I am not going to respond to any more 10 year old ministerial priesthood holder questions. Those are all either strawman or red herring questions (I never know which is which). Why doesn't the LDS Church grant Melchizedek priesthood to 10 year olds, or make them apostles or even president of the church? This is a serious discussion and those aren't serious questions. The ministerial priesthood (holy orders, the role of pastor, bishop, whatever) is a tremendous responsibility. I know. I have been there. If, as I believe the Holy Spirit superintends the process, don't you think that person of the Godhead understands the limitation of a 10 year old in doing the work of the ministry?

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I have only heard of "the royal priesthood", or the "priesthood of the believers".   I didn't know there was a distinct "ministerial priesthood".  So, the ministerial priesthood is passed from the Holy Spirit to the individual, and not from person to person?  Am I understanding that correct?  Why are hands laid on the head for the ministerial priesthood but not for the royal priesthood?   What is the functional purpose/role of the Royal priesthood, if not ministerial?  If all evangelicals are equally Christian with equal Royal priesthood regardless of denomination, why is the ministerial priesthood, which is authorized by Holy Spirit, not recognized in all denominations?   In other words, why is the Royal priesthood universally recognized within Evangelism, but the ministerial priesthood is not?   If the ministerial priesthood authority "is only good" in certain groups, why are the baptisms which were performed by said limited authority, not also "only good" in certain groups?   Why can't the Holy Spirit authorize a more universal ministerial priesthood?

Sorry for the rapid bullet questions.  Just trying to learn. 

The ministerial priesthood is in no way passed from person to person. That is my belief. I am not sure what your use of the word "passed" means. I believe it is granted to a person . . . I believe male or female who is chosen by the Holy Spirit to receive it. It is administratively granted that person by humans, working under the inspiration of the Spirit.

The royal priesthood is granted by the Holy Spirit as a sign of salvation and the gift of eternal life. It is completely different from the ministerial priesthood which is granted a person as a role, a ministry, or a vocation. Many Mennonite pastors aren't paid; they earn their living by their work. We call them bi-vocational. The functional role of the Royal priesthood is to testify of the truth of the gospel, that you have obtained mercy through the grace of the atonement of Christ. It has nothing to do with performing ordinances. Those are a function of the ministerial priesthood who also hold the Royal priesthood as a Christian.

I don't understand your use of the word Evangelical in the next sentence. Being Christian or having the Royal Priesthood has nothing to do with being an Evangelical. All Christians, LDS, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Orthodox, Catholic - whatever hold the Royal Priesthood. The ministerial and the royal are two completely and totally separate things.

In this day and age of Christian groups, sub-groups, denominations, etc. ministerial priesthood is granted by the leaders of groups under the influence and leading of the Holy Spirits. I wish it wasn't so divided, but it is. The 19th century LDS church is now divided. I am sure many of you wish it wasn't, but it is. The Methodists are divided. As we have read a few posts ago the Catholics are divided as are the Orthodox. Humans are imperfect. I wouldn't object to saying that the groups, subgroups, and denominations exist, not because of God's will, but because of human agency. The early church over time fragmented. The modern church today is still fragmenting. I read the other day there are now 400 different Mormon groups on earth. That is the evidence of fragmentation and imperfection as well. Is it not?

In the same way, many groups refuse to acknowledge the efficacy of baptisms by other groups. There are certainly different understandings and interpretations of the meaning, mode, method, and significance of baptisms among the different groups. The New Testament is not very clear on those questions when it comes to baptism; therefore there are wide-ranging differences among groups on that question. Some churches, like the Catholic church have lists of other groups (churches) whose baptisms they will accept for membership without the person having to be baptized again. That is not uncommon.

The Holy Spirit can do many things, but allows agency to human beings. With agency comes free will. With free will comes all human frailties, envies, biases and needs. God didn't create robots; He created humans. Having a universal ministerial priesthood is a nice thought . . . one baptism, correctly understood, administered and accepted by all Christians everywhere. That would be terrific, but it will never be this side of paradise. Anthropologists are finding earlier and earlier evidence of human violence and conflict across the globe. We seem to inherently need to divide into groups and subgroups.

Why doesn't God stop all that? Because He doesn't. I don't know what else to answer.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Navidad

[manol]

I haven't heard back from @mfbukowskiabout having a dedicated conversation, so I'll just respond to a couple of things he posted.

On 12/29/2022 at 1:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

That [an inclusive paradigm] reduces religion itself to nothing.  Were that the case, all are saved and "accepting Jesus as savior" is irrelevant. 

It seems to me that you are attributing something to me that I never said, and then arguing against it.  So let me clarify:

I believe very literally that we are to become “the same manner of men (and women!) that Christ is.”  I do not believe this will be an "honorary degree".   I do not believe we get to take anything less than our fully Christ-like, or Christed, nature into the Kingdom of God, aka the Celestial Kingdom.  We don't get to take our grievances, our resentments, our fears, our outrages, our sins, our weaknesses, our discouragements, our shrinking from our potential.  Imo all we take with us into the Kingdom of God is that which is authentic, and none of our baggage qualifies, and all of our wounds will have been healed.  I do not think we make the journey alone, nor do I think it is made in the relative blink of an eye that we spend on earth; I subscribe to Joseph Smith's concept of "eternal progression."

On 12/29/2022 at 3:03 AM, mfbukowski said:

If everyone has authority and a universal priesthood then nobody has priesthood authority. 

This kind of reasoning seems to me to be based in the concept of scarcity, as if the priesthood is a precious commodity which would no longer be precious if everyone possessed it in abundance. Earthly things are like that, but heavenly things are not!

Would you say that if God loves everyone then God loves no one?  Would you say that if everyone has the Light of Christ then no one has the Light of Christ?

Speaking of which, is the Light of Christ insufficiently “special” because it is universal?  Is the Light of Christ somehow “less than” the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or the Melchizedek Priesthood?  It certainly gets less attention than the other two, but is something that is literally “of Christ” any less because all are born with it?  Maybe these three are all essentially the same thing, just seen through different lenses. Maybe priesthood (including temple) ordinances are outward acts of confirmation of something Christlike about our very nature that we would otherwise probably not even consider possible.  "Christ is all, and in all." - Colossians 3:11

(In case you can't tell, I also believe women are priestesses even if the LDS Church does not recognize them as such at this time... but that's another topic for another thread.)

Edited December 31, 2022 by manol

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Protestant God of Nothing Really Matters,

What a fair, charitable and kind description of someone else’s faith. You’re quite a guy!

Edited December 31, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok, I am not going to respond to any more 10 year old ministerial priesthood holder questions. Those are all either strawman or red herring questions (I never know which is which). Why doesn't the LDS Church grant Melchizedek priesthood to 10 year olds, or make them apostles or even president of the church? This is a serious discussion and those aren't serious questions. The ministerial priesthood (holy orders, the role of pastor, bishop, whatever) is a tremendous responsibility. I know. I have been there. If, as I believe the Holy Spirit superintends the process, don't you think that person of the Godhead understands the limitation of a 10 year old in doing the work of the ministry?

Because it hasn’t been revealed that we should. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, manol said:

2 hours ago, manol said:

I haven't heard back from @mfbukowskiabout having a dedicated conversation, so I'll just respond to a couple of things he posted.

It seems to me that you are attributing something to me that I never said, and then arguing against it.  So let me clarify:

 

Sorry I did not get back to you but honestly I got caught in the Southwest Airlines meltdown, had flights cancelled and a Christmas spent with my grandkids evaporate before my eyes- in short I still don't remember promising to get back to you.  Sorry about that.

I certainly did not mean to offend you.   I will probably have some time tomorrow or Sunday to answer you.   I believe it is just a misunderstanding of a posible catetory mistake.

Defining a set requires a definition of who/what is IN the set and who/what is OUT.  If there are no boundaries to define who is in the set and who is out- it is not a "set"- it has no boundaries.

The entire purpose of defining a set is to set apart a section of that which is being described- if there is nothing that distinguishes members of a set from those who are not members- or those who are "in the circle" or NOT "in the circle" the idea that such a set or "circle" exists or doesn't.

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by mfbukowski

[manol]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry I did not get back to you but honestly I got caught in the Southwest Airlines meltdown, had flights cancelled and a Christmas spent with my grandkids evaporate before my eyes- in short I still don't remember promising to get back to you.  Sorry about that.

Sorry you got Southwested!

And no you didn't promise me anything!  Yesterday afternoon I had posted an invitation:   "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."

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Sorry you got Southwested!

And no you didn't promise me anything!  Yesterday afternoon I had posted an invitation:   "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."

 

Sure! Isn't that kinda what we do every day  ?

 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Because it hasn’t been revealed that we should. 

It seems my  response to this line of posting was offensive. I am sorry for that. I was in no way thinking of what the male children in the ward do when they serve the sacrament. I was thinking of the bishopric and Melchizedek priesthood kinds of ministry things. I wasn't thinking like an LDS person does. Sorry.

Folks were asking me what I believe; I have no concept of the Aaronic priesthood in my ecclesiology at all. I am sorry if I offended. The specific post I reacted to was about baptizing and starting one's own church. I don't quite understand the negative reaction in that context. In the same context as your reply to me, I would suggest that it hasn't been revealed to you that 10 year olds should baptize or serve in the Melchizedek priesthood or as bishops, stake presidents, area, seventies, or apostles where they impact human lives by their counsel, actions, etc. I was thinking of those adult ministerial roles as I see them in my and your faith. Again, I apologize to anyone I offended with my sharp concepts. I also will confess that, now that I think about it, I do not understand the entire concept of the Aaronic priesthood and children serving, unless it is meant to be a training, apprentice-like program - a Catholic altar boy type of a learning opportunity. I am all for learning!

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry I did not get back to you but honestly I got caught in the Southwest Airlines meltdown, had flights cancelled and a Christmas spent with my grandkids evaporate before my eyes- in short I still don't remember promising to get back to you.  Sorry about that.

I certainly did not mean to offend you.   I will probably have some time tomorrow or Sunday to answer you.   I believe it is just a misunderstanding of a posible catetory mistake.

Defining a set requires a definition of who/what is IN the set and who/what is OUT.  If there are no boundaries to define who is in the set and who is out- it is not a "set"- it has no boundaries.

The entire purpose of defining a set is to set apart a section of that which is being described- if there is nothing that distinguishes members of a set from those who are not members- or those who are "in the circle" or NOT "in the circle" the idea that such a set or "circle" exists or doesn't.

 

Certainly member and non-member is one way to define a set. There are also many others, especially in churches. I grew up with cultural and life-style boundaries as delimiting. I understand doctrinal beliefs limitations. I certainly don't think anyone who dances or plays cards should be in the circle! 😀(He says in jest).  I grew up with those limitations and lots more. I now reject most of them. Should women in slacks be allowed to pray? Are they in "the circle?" Should married men without beards be allowed to pray? Are they in the circle?

Please know I am not advocating for no boundaries. I have no interest in attending the temple. Limiting such to members is of no concern to me at all. I was a Mason; I understand such things, even if I don't and didn't agree with them. The exclusionary practices in the Masonic Temple are one reason I am no longer a Mason. Making men sit on one side of the church and women on the other is a boundary set, is it not? In your reply you moved rather quickly to "no boundaries" as the example of defining a set. You reject that. Please know that so do I.

Please understand I am simply trying to figure out how to be comfortable and effective in ministry in a house of God. I view the LDS chapel as the house of God, nothing more or less. It is He who is the one we worship, praise, sing to, and learn about therein. The ward offers my wife the opportunity to do that in English - the only place for that within 3.5 hours of where I am sitting right now. She doesn't do well with learning languages. That is not her fault; it is simply a reality. Perhaps we shouldn't even be living here. It is hard to describe, on the other hand how much we love it here.

We have never lived anywhere without a place to freely and without "barriers" worship our Lord. I know you won't agree, but it is my belief that the boundaries and barriers to worship, fellowship, and service ministries, once an attendee is known and evaluated by "someone in authority" should be as few as possible.That is what Ephesians 4: 11-16 is all about. Jumping to desiring "no boundaries" is an overstatement of where we are at. We also understand that it is not the chapel's sole role to meet our needs. So we are trying to reconcile all of that. We are no threat to the LDS church, ward, youth, missionaries, basses in the choir, ladies in the relief society or men in the elder's quorum. It seems like we are however, regularly confronted with "go away closer" hugs.

The LDS church draws a very tight knit "circle," wouldn't you agree? Some of you don't even think there is such a thing as a faithful non-member. If that is an oxymoron for you or for those in our chapel, then we will probably have to leave, but we will do so with a sigh! Thanks to all who read another too-long post. Blessings on your all. 

[Calm]

I don’t believe you offended and it didn’t occur to me you were saying anything in regard to our conferring on 12 year olds. We just approach questions of priesthood differently.  Tell me if I understand you correctly…

Since it is the Spirit who confers the priesthood on a person, there is no technical reason a mortal should say ‘this person can’t have the priesthood’, even ten year olds since it is not their choice to decide.  But the Spirit only confers the priesthood on those who are ready for it and therefore would never give it to a ten year old because any ten year old would not be ready.

——

Out of curiosity, how do you view John the Baptist’s priesthood?  Was it something special or just received from his father?  I ask because some Saints see John the Baptist as receiving the priesthood as an infant.  I can’t remember if it is just interpretation of our scriptures or something more though.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am sorry you experienced such a disconcerting event.

No need to be sorry! No one was hurt or even offended, least of all me.

Quote

Might you know with what Evangelical group your friend was connected?

None. That's the genius of Protestantism for many Protestants, it seems to me. Literally anyone who feels called/inclined has the 'authority' to start up his/her own church.

Quote

... some snickerdoodles (is that the official LDS cookie?) ....

I have literally no idea what a 'snickerdoodle' is ...

Quote

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

It makes perfect sense to me to celebrate the sacred by enjoying food together! Two of my favourite things.

Quote

I don't think I have ever met "the Protestant God of nothing really matters!"

Does 'the mode or meaning' of baptism matter to God, do you think?

Edited December 31, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have literally no idea what a 'snickerdoodle' is ...

I am so sorry for you that you are not familiar with snickerdoodles. I would advise to learn more because it is highly likely that the sacrament wafer of choice in eternity yet to come will be the snickerdoodle - they are heavenly! I am not sure I have ever been to a Mennonite or an LDS pot-luck that has not included snickerdoodles. I prefer recipes that include the soft kind! 😀

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Does 'the mode or meaning' of baptism matter to God, do you think?

Before I answer this question, I would like to suggest that jumping from the "Protestant God of nothing really matters" to asking about the mode and meaning of Baptism mattering to God is a tremendous leap. One of many definitions of "matter" in Merriam-Webster is "to be of importance." I will limit my reply to that one. It seems to be adequate.
Is the mode and meaning of baptism a matter (pun intended) of importance to God? I would split my answer in two. Baptism is a metaphor for several things. It is a metaphor first and foremost for the burial and resurrection of Christ. In that sense it is like the sacrament - "this do ye in remembrance of me." Baptism is a metaphor and a symbol of Christ, identification with Him and the atonement. A number of times in the New Testament, baptism is connected with an apriori faith. It seems to be a symbol of a person acknowledging and asserting his or her faith in Christ. Colossians 2: 11, 12 make it clear that both circumcision and baptism were metaphors in the early church and in Judaism, from which the early church sprang up. Circumcision  seems to have dropped off in importance early in the NT church. Baptism has stuck in importance. So is baptism important to God? It speaks to His son's death and defeat of death. So yes, I believe baptism is important to God because the incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of His son are all important to Him.

Is the mode important to Him? No, I don't think so. If it were, we would have more about the mode in the New Testament. Do I think immersion is most likely the way it was practiced in the New Testament church? Yes, for several reasons. Having said that, I can't be certain about the mode of immersion used in the New Testament! that is a whole different question.

There are churches (groups) who baptize by immersion by putting the supplicant once into the water backwards. There are those who immerse once forward. There are those who immerse backwards three times, once each for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There are those who immerse forwards three times once each for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I once spoke at Grace College, a Brethren college in Indiana in the town where I was born. I was told (kiddingly - sort of) that I just needed to be dunked two more times for my baptism to be official! (I was immersed once backwards). Mennonites pour (from a pitcher) or immerse (once backwards). Other churches sprinkle. Once in Niger I witnessed a dry baptism because of paucity of water. BTW it was a beautiful ceremony lacking only the matter - the water. It had all the meaning. Other groups emphasize what is called "spiritual baptism." Others baptize little ones. Does the mode matter in that "is it important to Him?" I will ask Him some day, maybe you and I can go together to do that. Some folks believe there are seven different baptisms in the Bible for seven differing purposes. Do they all "matter" to God? I don't know. I am skeptical that there will be baptisms in the eternal kingdoms. I am also very skeptical that there will be earthly groups, sub-groups in the eternal kingdoms. All those differing modes will be history. Will there be sacrament in Heaven? Ah, that is a question for another thread!

Of course that brings us to the meaning of baptism. Obviously that is probably the biggest difference between Christians. Is it a means or part of the salvific process, or is it a testimony of an already established faith and commitment? Obviously the Christian world is divided on that. Does that matter to God? Is mercy important to God? Is faithfulness and commitment important to God? Is doing or being more important to God? My understanding of Scripture, both Old Testament and New is that baptism is important, perhaps even commanded as a testimony of an apriori faith and as a public witness to the same. It is also important as a metaphor for Christ's burial and resurrection. It is connected in some ways to Jewish cleansing ceremonies, especially those connected with "living water." I do not believe it is salvific. Will that impact my future destiny because of its importance to God? I don't know, but I am more than willing to submit to a merciful God for my eternal destiny. If there are no Mennonites, Mormons, or Methodists in the heavens, as I believe - there will be no Mennonite, Mormon, or Methodist baptisms or sacraments in heaven. We will see, won't we?

In most Christian groups baptism is an ordinance conducted by one with ministerial position and authority in that group. As an ordinance it is important, regardless of the specific meaning. Christian groups are all over the barn (a Mennonite colloquialism) about whose and which baptisms they accept as valid and/or valid for membership in their group. It is a boundary for many.

I can't think of any group other than the LDS who insist that their baptism is the only valid baptism because it is the only baptism performed by a male with the right kind of authority from God. In that sense truly the LDS church is unique. Perhaps the Oneness Pentecostals believe theirs is the only - I am simply not sure. It is a powerful boundary. I don't reject being baptized again as a membership requirement in a different group, even if the form is different from what I had as a child. I object to being baptized again if the reason is because the group insists my baptism is not satisfactory to God because it was performed by my father, a non-LDS priesthood holding Christian. That is a bridge too far for me. Oh, and my own son was baptized by pouring, because immersion was an impossibility for him because of his autism. Our Mennonite bishop graciously accommodated his disability. Do I think God will reject my son's baptism? Absolutely not. Do you? Is form more important than faith to God? Does baptism matter to God Yes!