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

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Just curious. Communion is the remembrance of Christ's death and suffering for us. It is a time to renew covenants (if-then promises which we have all made), and perhaps most importantly a time to self-examine. Why would you not want to experience that since it is a wonderful experience between yourself and the Holy Spirit who is within you? Sincere question. Is it your view that one can only have that experience in an LDS sacrament service? Would you be being disloyal or unfaithful to your church if you did that? I am sincerely trying to understand your hesitancy to participate in what is a wonderful experience across all Christianity. Thanks.

Like Calm said, I would refrain mostly as a sign of respect (or like MS, ask if it's ok to proceed and happily do as they say).  I believe religions have the right to gate-keep their sacred or holy experiences/places.

But also, because I do believe that priesthood authority is necessary for some sacred experiences to be meaningful, I might refrain from partaking in something that I didn't personally believe had the authority to do what an adherent to that religion believes it can do.

But it would depend on what the act was and what was specifically believed about it.

[MustardSeed]

I wonder how participants here feel when visitors come to sacrament meeting and take bread or water? 
 

We recently attended a wedding in a family who is inactive completely. The mother approached Mike and asked him to be involved in a priesthood blessing for the bride before the ceremony. Mike agreed and when he went to the room the family patriarch who is active asked Mike to show his temple recommend. Mike refused because he knows the man is a control freak and he was insulted.  That’s mike.  Mike is in the bishopric anyway and was asked to participate in good faith, this man didn’t have authority to ask for the recommend.  Interestingly all the men in the family joined in the circle, including the non member men.  Oh well. 
 

 

[manol]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 I believe it is just a misunderstanding of a possible category mistake.

My apologies for misunderstanding you, and I was hoping to have a conversation with you because I learn from you.   I guess we're having it in this thread; I was thinking it might be a de-rail but apparently not.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I'll try to speak in terms of sets.  (THANK YOU for bringing this up - you are causing me to expand my thinking in directions I would never have normally even considered.  You see, THIS is why I like having conversations with you, regardless of whether we end up in agreement or not!)

Suppose someone does not draw their "membership in the primary set I belong to and identify with" boundary in the same place that you do.  (Let's call this an "us" set for the sake of brevity.)

Suppose this person's "us" set is "the set of all followers of Christ", such that said set includes multiple sub-sets; that is, it includes members of multiple religions who may be defined as "followers of Christ" in that person's estimation.  And suppose one or more of these multiple religions claims a DIFFERENT "us" set which they define as "the set of members of my religion". 

In this situation, a person might theoretically include an entire congregation of people within his or her "us" set, while simultaneously that same congregation might theoretically exclude that person from their "us" set.  I'm not saying either one is right or wrong - just describing a theoretical situation in terms of sets.

Now let's look at another hypothetical set.  Suppose God has an "us" set which is defined as "the set of I AM and all family and creations of I AM".  This would be a pretty big set, and would include many smaller and mutually-exclusive sub-sets.  Could this hypothetical set exist? 

*  *  *  *

Making a general comment now...

I get the impression that some people oppose the idea of "drawing a bigger circle" because they think it implies "lowering your personal standards".  No, but it often DOES imply a paradigm shift and/or re-drawing of one's road map.  For instance @Navidad seems to draw a big circle (please Navidad correct me if I'm wrong!), and I cannot imagine anyone here questioning his personal standards.  My guess is that Navidad's paradigm shifted at some point, with one (perhaps unexpected) result being that his "us-circle" grew.

Edited December 31, 2022 by manol

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I wonder how participants here feel when visitors come to sacrament meeting and take bread or water? 
 

We recently attended a wedding in a family who is inactive completely. The mother approached Mike and asked him to be involved in a priesthood blessing for the bride before the ceremony. Mike agreed and when he went to the room the family patriarch who is active asked Mike to show his temple recommend. Mike refused because he knows the man is a control freak and he was insulted.  That’s mike.  Mike is in the bishopric anyway and was asked to participate in good faith, this man didn’t have authority to ask for the recommend.  Interestingly all the men in the family joined in the circle, including the non member men.  Oh well. 
 

 

I know that visiting member who participate in ordinances usually have to show a temple recommend, but just for a blessing?  That is crazy.  Good for mike.

[manol]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Interestingly all the men in the family joined in the circle, including the non member men.

In my opinion THIS is brotherhood!

Now if only they'd invited the women to join in too... [ducks and runs out the door]

Edited December 31, 2022 by manol

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

My apologies for misunderstanding you, and I was hoping to have a conversation with you because I learn from you.   I guess we're having it in this thread; I was thinking it might be a de-rail but apparently not.

I'll try to speak in terms of sets.  (THANK YOU for bringing this up - you are causing me to expand my thinking in directions I would never have normally even considered.  You see, THIS is why I like having conversations with you, regardless of whether we end up in agree or not!)

Suppose someone does not draw their "membership in the primary set I belong to and identify with" boundary in the same place that you do.  (Let's call this an "us" set for the sake of brevity.)

Suppose this person's "us" set is "the set of all followers of Christ", such that said set includes multiple sub-sets; that is, it includes those members of multiple religions who may be defined as "followers of Christ" in that person's estimation.  And suppose one or more of these multiple religions claims a DIFFERENT "us" set which they define as "the set of members of my religion". 

In this situation, a person might theoretically include an entire congregation of people within his or her "us" set, while simultaneously that same congregation might theoretically exclude that person from their "us" set.  I'm not saying either one is right or wrong - just describing a theoretical situation in terms of sets.

Now let's look at another hypothetical set.  Suppose God has an "us" set which is defined as "the set of I Am and all family and creations of I AM".  This would be a pretty big set, and would include many smaller and mutually-exclusive sub-sets.  Could this hypothetical set exist? 

*  *  *  *

Making a general comment now...

I get the impression that some people oppose the idea of "drawing a bigger circle" because they think it implies "lowering your personal standards".  No, but it often DOES imply undergoing a paradigm shift and/or re-drawing one's road map.  For instance @Navidad seems to draw a big circle (please Navidad correct me if I'm wrong!), and I cannot imagine anyone here questioning his personal standards.  My guess is that Navidad's paradigm shifted at some point, with one result being that his "us-circle" grew.

Not sure I see the problem.

We might disagree as to whom is in our out of a set, so what?

Why is this important?

As to God's set, who is in or out is unknowable to us except possibly IF we are in perfect communion with Him, which we cannot know for sure except by the answers we have received from Him.

Yes, our knowledge is imperfect- that should be no surprise! 

Our beliefs / paradigm either accounts for that or we burn in hell forever 😇😱

But my paradigm rules that out: a loving Father would not do that to one who is genuinely doing their absolute best to seek the "truth".

So the only answer which gives me peace is that doing our best with what we believe God is trying to tell us IS ITSELF what puts one "in God's circle".

Yes, that is relativism.

So what?  😉 An open Canon justifies that.

But if Fundamentalism is correct, then at least we have had joy here for a few years, even if God is unjust! 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, manol said:

In my opinion THIS is brotherhood!

Now if only they'd invited the women to join in too... [ducks and runs out the door]

I have asked my wife to join in father's blessings but she refuses.

Can't win for losing!

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I wonder how participants here feel when visitors come to sacrament meeting and take bread or water? 
 

We recently attended a wedding in a family who is inactive completely. The mother approached Mike and asked him to be involved in a priesthood blessing for the bride before the ceremony. Mike agreed and when he went to the room the family patriarch who is active asked Mike to show his temple recommend. Mike refused because he knows the man is a control freak and he was insulted.  That’s mike.  Mike is in the bishopric anyway and was asked to participate in good faith, this man didn’t have authority to ask for the recommend.  Interestingly all the men in the family joined in the circle, including the non member men.  Oh well. 
 

 

Thanks for the example. Just to be very clear. I would never, and am not asking for the ability to join into things that I know involve specific and unique LDS events such as a blessing for a baby, a wife or whatever. I just don't want folks to misunderstand my position. I never expect to enter a temple, serve the sacrament, or bless a baby. There are many other things that involve ministry that are ubiquitous across Christianity like praying, singing, testifying, asking questions, and making comments in a classroom situation. Or helping the sick, infirm, the missionaries, and those in need. Thanks.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But my paradigm rules that out: a loving Father would not do that to one who is genuinely doing their absolute best to seek the "truth".

So the only answer which gives me peace is that doing our best with what we believe God is trying to tell us IS ITSELF what puts one "in God's circle".

Yes, that is relativism.

So what?  😉 An open Canon justifies that.

Amen!

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Conversely, I am unaware of any other Christian entity that recognizes LDS baptisms or LDS authority. Perhaps it is the only invalid baptism and priesthood?

Taking my cues from ancient and authoritative Catholic sources on the requirements of a minister of baptism...

I have stated many times over the last almost twenty years, that I regret the decision of the Vatican to baptize formerly LDS converts unconditionally. I am sure there are others, but I am the only non-LDS I know who has voiced disagreement with Rome's fallible disciplinary decision to declare every LDS baptism to be invalid and to baptize unconditionally. It has nothing to do with LDS priesthood. Rome fears that the meaning of the words (the form), is different for LDS and other Christian communities. I accept that. But I have doubt that every LDS baptism is performed with a positively heretical view of the Godhead. Conditional baptisms cover any doubtful circumstances without declaring positive certainty of validity/invalidity. Let Catholics increase the conditional baptisms at least as much as new churches get started for no very good reason. I think we should examine on a case by case basis, or if that is too difficult practically, there is no harm or disrespect to God or the Sacraments to do conditional baptisms.

[manol]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But my paradigm rules that out: a loving Father would not do that [burn us in hell forever] to one who is genuinely doing their absolute best to seek the "truth".

So the only answer which gives me peace is that doing our best with what we believe God is trying to tell us IS ITSELF what puts one "in God's circle".

... An open Canon justifies that.

Yeah, I had to play the "open Canon" card too, in order to arrive at essentially that same conclusion.  The fact that there even is an "open Canon card" is one of the things I like about Mormonism.  Not saying one cannot arrive at the same conclusion (which obviously @Navidad has done) via a different road map! 

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. It’s interesting that many here do not allow this privilege to the LDS Church.

In this quote, you seem to be wishing that the LDS Church could be allowed to say what Miserere Nobis says:

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

You aren't using enough words Bernard. What you say in response to Miserere Nobis seems incomprehensible. Maybe the LDS will get it?

The LDS Church is allowed to not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II" just as Catholics are. LDS are not bound to any "Spirit of Vatican II". As for whether Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy? I am completely missing your difficulty as a Latter-day Saint.

Surely I am dense. I know I am. I am sorry, but please use more words. I can't believe that I am the only one who can't put this puzzle together.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Rome fears that the meaning of the words (the form), is different for LDS and other Christian communities. I accept that. But I have doubt that every LDS baptism is performed with a positively heretical view of the Godhead.

Thanks for that.!

No one thinks deeply about that possibility while baptizing, ever.  Virtually no one even understands what those differences MIGHT mean, and I can guarantee that that is not what one is thinking about when one raises an arm to the square and says "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," you are thinking of.... wait for it... The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," NOT Catholic Doctrine!!     !

The words are simple and direct, they mean what they mean!

 

 

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please explain…

 

Please use more words.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Please use more words.

Why is it wrong to call it a wafer? That is what I have heard all my life.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

In this quote, you seem to be wishing that the LDS Church could be allowed to say what Miserere Nobis says:

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

You aren't using enough words Bernard. What you say in response to Miserere Nobis seems incomprehensible. Maybe the LDS will get it?

The LDS Church is allowed to not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II" just as Catholics are. LDS are not bound to any "Spirit of Vatican II". As for whether Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy? I am completely missing your difficulty as a Latter-day Saint.

Surely I am dense. I know I am. I am sorry, but please use more words. I can't believe that I am the only one who can't put this puzzle together.

It was directed at some LDS who do not allow our Church this same consideration.

 

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I wonder how participants here feel when visitors come to sacrament meeting and take bread or water? 

We recently attended a wedding in a family who is inactive completely. The mother approached Mike and asked him to be involved in a priesthood blessing for the bride before the ceremony. Mike agreed and when he went to the room the family patriarch who is active asked Mike to show his temple recommend. Mike refused because he knows the man is a control freak and he was insulted.  That’s mike.  Mike is in the bishopric anyway and was asked to participate in good faith, this man didn’t have authority to ask for the recommend.  Interestingly all the men in the family joined in the circle, including the non member men.  Oh well. 

 

Quote

Here are the Lord’s instruction regarding who should partake of the sacrament:

D&C 46:Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world.
4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.
5 And again I say unto you, ye shall not cast any out of your sacrament meetings who are earnestly seeking the kingdom—I speak this concerning those who are not of the church.

3 Nephi 18:28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.
32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

Mormon 9:29 See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out.

Regarding blessings:

General Handbook 18: Generally, only priesthood leaders and other priesthood holders who are close family members and friends participate in an ordinance or blessing. The person receiving the ordinance, family members, and priesthood leaders counsel together to determine who and how many will participate. This decision should be made well before the ordinance is performed.

“Blessings of comfort and counsel, including father’s blessings-[Bishop] Approval not needed.” (My insertion)

Some ordinances and blessings require bishop approval or temple recommends. IMO that brother overstepped his authority (the bishop makes that decision) or was not aware of the policy. Such blessings do not require authorization by a bishop or stake President, but maybe the invitation should have been extended earlier to avoid problems.

 

 

[3DOP]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why is it wrong to call it a wafer? That is what I have heard all my life.

It would not be wrong to call the Body and Blood of Christ a wafer, innocently, as a non Catholic, unless one was receiving it in a Catholic Church as though it was the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Mustard Seed is unblamable for believing what appears to be a mere wafer, cracker, or cookie, is only what it appears to be. I was thinking that it might have been better if the Catholic person had found out that Mustard Seed believed it was a mere wafer, before encouraging Mustard Seed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, as we Catholics supposedly believe.

No blame to you, no blame to Mustard Seed. Probable over-emphasis on the part of a misinformed Catholic, on whether, out of a welcoming and loving spirit, Catholics should encourage those who have doubts about our faith claims to receive the Holy Eucharist.

And I am always happy for welcoming enthusiasm, even misguided, from love of God and neighbor. Any imprudence is mitigated if that were the motive. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

It would not be wrong to call the Body and Blood of Christ a wafer, innocently, as a non Catholic, unless one was receiving it in a Catholic Church as though it was the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Mustard Seed is unblamable for believing what appears to be a mere wafer, cracker, or cookie, is only what it appears to be. I was thinking that it might have been better if the Catholic person had found out that Mustard Seed believed it was a mere wafer, before encouraging Mustard Seed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, as we Catholics supposedly believe.

Xxx…No blame to you, no blame to Mustard Seed. Probable over-emphasis on the part of a misinformed Catholic, on whether, out of a welcoming and loving spirit, Catholics should encourage those who have doubts about our faith claims to receive the Holy Eucharist. 

Google “wafer Catholic” and find a plethora of Catholics using the word “wafer.” One can order wafers from various commercial sources on line, including Walmart and Etsy. Would I be correct to say the wafer (do you prefer host?) is just a wafer until it is consecrated for the Eucharist by the priest?
 

Xxx…This would be contrary to the official doctrine, right?

Edited January 1, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

I just want to interrupt to be clear that I don’t feel bad, or picked on, or even guilty about participating and being discussed here- no need to be careful for my benefit.   Feel free to speak openly. I’d likely follow similar protocol in future visits to cultural and religious events that have invited me in if I’m looking for understanding and connection. Carry on. 

[mfbukowski]

I think this is presumed, hereabouts,  fyi.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Google “wafer Catholic” and find a plethora of Catholics using the word “wafer.” One can order wafers from various commercial sources on line, including Walmart and Etsy. Would I be correct to say the wafer (do you prefer host?) is just a wafer until it is consecrated for the Eucharist by the priest?
 

Xxx…This would be contrary to the official doctrine, right?

"Host" was commonly used for both the consecrated and unconsecrated Eucharist iirc.  Fifty years ago?

 

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just curious. Communion is the remembrance of Christ's death and suffering for us. It is a time to renew covenants (if-then promises which we have all made), and perhaps most importantly a time to self-examine. Why would you not want to experience that since it is a wonderful experience between yourself and the Holy Spirit who is within you? Sincere question. Is it your view that one can only have that experience in an LDS sacrament service? Would you be being disloyal or unfaithful to your church if you did that? I am sincerely trying to understand your hesitancy to participate in what is a wonderful experience across all Christianity. Thanks.

I understand your enthusiasm for your definition of ecumenism, but I have a personal red line when it comes to ordinances, covenants, and Priesthood authority. I am bound by the New and Everlasting Covenant. This is fundamental to the Restored Gospel. You and others are free to do as you wish, and I absolutely respect your choices…”We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Here is the reason for this red line. I hope you can understand it.

Quote

D&C 132:6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was directed at some LDS who do not allow our Church this same consideration.

 

 

Bernard, hi. 

I so don't understand how your fellow religionists fail to allow the LDS Church to deny the Spirit of Vatican II. How does Vatican II have an iota of significance to the Restored Church of the Latter-day Saints?

I am trying to appreciate your apparent acceptance of the comment of Miserere Nobis about the Second Vatican Council and his rejection of a so-called spirit of the Council. There is tension among Catholics about this. But I am not seeing any similar tension among LDS. It cannot be about Vatican II. Are you saying that LDS have a comparable tension about something?

 

 

 

 

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Google “wafer Catholic” and find a plethora of Catholics using the word “wafer.” One can order wafers from various commercial sources on line, including Walmart and Etsy. Would I be correct to say the wafer (do you prefer host?) is just a wafer until it is consecrated for the Eucharist by the priest?
 

Xxx…This would be contrary to the official doctrine, right?

Assuredly, Catholics have always believed in wafers, unconsecrated bread products that are not worthy of being worshipped as the Creator of all things including ourselves out of nothing.

But Mustard Seed, (no third person disrespect intended) was invited to receive a so called consecrated wafer, (I speak as an unbeliever, not begging the question). 

When the consecrated "wafer" is exposed in our churches and chapels, it is customary to offer the most profound sign of reverence possible to our beloved Savior, present on the altar. At some point, which will come all too soon I fear, I will, without guilt, be unable to bow down on both knees before my good Lord and God. 

It is a joy to know that I have a body that can show a reverence that the angels lack...though they have love Him with a clearer and less restricted way. Alas...our bodies are at once a blessing and a hindrance! I accept my pitiful condition with joy. It is good always and everywhere to give thanks. And I do...sometimes.

I am lost in reverie in these last hours of the year of our Blessed Lord, 2022. I will review in 2023 whether I have been answering correctly to concerns and misgivings about the Catholic faith. 

I think it is summarized in this, from St. Augustine: "Love, and do what you will." God help us all. Happy New Year. God bless. God help us.

Rory

 

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Google “wafer Catholic” and find a plethora of Catholics using the word “wafer.” One can order wafers from various commercial sources on line, including Walmart and Etsy. Would I be correct to say the wafer (do you prefer host?) is just a wafer until it is consecrated for the Eucharist by the priest?
 

Xxx…This would be contrary to the official doctrine, right?

Yes. "Host" would be the more  usual nomenclature among those who believe in the Real Presence. But hearing some speak of a consecrated host as a wafer reveals a lack of the requisite belief or understanding to receive Holy Communion.

Catholics cannot be offended that non Catholics are unfamiliar with our beliefs or our nomenclature. The reason I took note of the language in question was because it seemed to me to be a sign of the perfectly understandable lack of Catholic belief on the part of a well meaning visitor. 

 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Host" was commonly used for both the consecrated and unconsecrated Eucharist iirc.  Fifty years ago?

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by 3DOP