Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Converting to the LDS Faith


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

"...choosing to be patient with someone who is making us frustrated."

Cal, hi. So I carpool with this old never married guy who is always full of the latest bad news, fake or not. Today I was unguarded. Our first time together for about two weeks. 

I hate the so called news. Whether from the left or the right. It comes with commentary that makes me upset or angry. And here I am with this old guy who has no children or  grandchildren, who seems to take joy with every bit of bad information that is pointing to the end of civilization as we know it.

"Did you hear about those two banks failing?". Those were either his first words or second. I said I didn't care. "You are going to care." I chose to lose my patience. After I used one vulgarity which is rare for me, he proceeded without any apparent sense of comprehension of my state of mind to make what could only have been a stupid joke about skiers in California who must be happy about all the snow that is causing so many problems. After that he cuts a silent but unmistakable stinky fart. I then chose patience and interacted with his not very interesting comments the rest of the way.

I am happier for my patience than for my impatience. I will be much more on my guard tomorrow. I know he belongs in my life. It is not like God made some mistake putting us together. Our car pooling makes sense, and so does his gas...from whatever orifice. May I be good and charitable to him, an instrument of God for my salvation.

Pray for me Cal.  May God bless you and yours.

Rory

 

I'm sorry you had to put up with that, you done did good Rory! And you certainly made me laugh with the gas you saved and the gas you endured, lol! Hope your car pool buddy cuts cheese before he steps in you car and hopefully he gets a change of heart with looking at the doom and gloom, maybe you could help him out in that department with your humor!! 🤣

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry you had to put up with that, you done did good Rory! And you certainly made me laugh with the gas you saved and the gas you endured, lol! Hope your car pool buddy cuts cheese before he steps in you car and hopefully he gets a change of heart with looking at the doom and gloom, maybe you could help him out in that department with your humor!! 🤣

Tacenda thanks...I am always making unintended puns and missing amusing (to others) things that I say. There were three kinds of gas! I thought I was being clever twice when it was thrice! What a comedian I am...accidentally. I saw the news as gas...the flatulence as gas...I missed the most obvious . Heh.

Thanks for your encouragement Tacenda. God bless you and yours,

Rory

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

"...choosing to be patient with someone who is making us frustrated."

Cal, hi. So I carpool with this old never married guy who is always full of the latest bad news, fake or not. Today I was unguarded. Our first time together for about two weeks. 

I hate the so called news. Whether from the left or the right. It comes with commentary that makes me upset or angry. And here I am with this old guy who has no children or  grandchildren, who seems to take joy with every bit of bad information that is pointing to the end of civilization as we know it.

"Did you hear about those two banks failing?". Those were either his first words or second. I said I didn't care. "You are going to care." I chose to lose my patience. After I used one vulgarity which is rare for me, he proceeded without any apparent sense of comprehension of my state of mind to make what could only have been a stupid joke about skiers in California who must be happy about all the snow that is causing so many problems. After that he cuts a silent but unmistakable stinky fart. I then chose patience and interacted with his not very interesting comments the rest of the way.

I am happier for my patience than for my impatience. I will be much more on my guard tomorrow. I know he belongs in my life. It is not like God made some mistake putting us together. Our car pooling makes sense, and so does his gas...from whatever orifice. May I be good and charitable to him, an instrument of God for my salvation.

Pray for me Cal.  May God bless you and yours.

Rory

 

I could probably block out his commentary, but I would have to put him out on the side of the road for the farting, lol. That is a bridge too far! I’ll pray for you, too:) 

Link to comment
On 3/11/2023 at 5:13 PM, 3DOP said:

finishing...then it means that they had not fully converted to begin with. That priest, who wrote a couple of books about his journey, published by Ignatius Press, always retained his Catholic sensibility about at least one belief. I am of course pleased as a Catholic that He came back to visible communion. But I would have to admit that he was never really LDS. It might be that as your thread implies, "conversions" sometimes have less depth than might be imagined. 

Associating with a religion is not necessarily CONVERSION.

Associating with a religion is not necessarily CONVERSION - well said. I would also add that it does not necessarily imply membership.

Link to comment

I think that there are institutions that primarily focus on and consider it a privilege for a new person to be allowed to affiliate with it (them). Various church groups come to mind. . . perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - the LDS. I think that perhaps (please note my "thinks" and "perhaps's") the Biblical concept is the opposite. It is a privilege for the organization when new members affiliate with it. New attendees affiliating/joining  is how a church is endowed with the gifts for it to exercise its ministry privilege and obligation. New members provide the lifeblood for the organization - the dynamism, growth, new concepts of service, new ways of thinking about doctrines, practices, polity, etc. I think when an organization posits the new person as the beneficiary, it distorts this Biblical reality.

How often do we talk about the responsibility of the organization to the seeker? For example, a certain seeker of spiritual things may not be a good fit for one particular institution based on a variety of reasons. Perhaps the best thing an institution can do is refer a seeker to another place or organization that would be a better "fit" for the individual or family.  I would simply suggest that it goes both ways. Some individuals are not, for a variety of reasons a good fit for a particular organization, while some organizations are not, for a variety of reasons a good fit for a particular person.

This is a fundamental (no pun intended) reason why we have a variety of churches! They exist to minister most effectively to a variety of people! It is a privilege for any church when a new person or family joins, attends, or is willing to serve in it in an Ephesians 4 sense - to help "build it up" . . . just as it is a privilege for a church to in turn serve new affiliates.

The word "building up" in Ephesians 4:12 is the word oikodomen. It is used 18 times in the NT and has its direct root in the sense of an edifice, a building/structure/house or a building of the same. Notice the focus is on the gifted (by the Spirit) individual, building up (edifying in most places) the church, not the other way around. I simply think (there is that uncertainty again) that churches often have it backwards when they emphasize "If you want to join us, you must . . . ." I think the more important concept is "If we want you to join us, we must . . . " I know I am now butting in, speaking from my own experience, and will most likely be chastised - but I sure think the LDS church has a lot more "you musts" than "we musts . . . " What is required of any church for it to be worthy of the honor of new members affiliating and remaining with it?

Just my two cents. Thanks for reading.

Link to comment

This thread reminds of years ago when I was in school and there was a Transcendental Meditation center a block or so off campus. Around the time of final exams, the TM folks, usually very attractive, would hand out invitations for stress-busting sessions. There probably were some who went for it and became long-term TM practitioners, but it was hard to miss that it was different TM recruiting folks during different semesters. No one was staying around the TM center very long.

Finding a balance between ease of availability and strength of commitment is not an easy task, and even when you're a TM center with a creepy photo of your yogi in the classic pose of the Buddha. 

As I understand it, Latter-day Saint missionaries have lessons and some training. They ask for commitments. How much can 18-year-olds know? Not that much. They are not going to be theologians or textual critics, and many won't have a ton of life experience to draw on. Converts who were drinkers, smokers, coffee aficionados, etc. are going to back slide despite their and others best intentions. They will probably need more empathy and patience than most 18-year-olds have to offer. Paul's letter to the Corinthians may have some applicability here.

It sounds to me like a lot is asked of the local LDS members to support, nurture, and maybe even inform converts. If the local community doesn't have time, resources, or willingness, folks will leave out the back door almost as quickly as they came in the front door. It doesn't have to be as obvious or as crass as with the TM center, of course, but the effect can be the same.

The Catholic approach is to hold classes and advertise those classes. Everywhere I've seen, the classes start in August and there can be a baptism at Easter, if a person is ready. Many people take the classes year after year, asking questions and studying at their pace. The teacher of these classes is usually well-informed, and might even be a priest or deacon with formal training. This approach probably brings fewer people in the door, but Catholic converts tend to be some of the most devout believers. My parish has 3-7 of these converts most years.

Catholic street evangelism is almost always low-key. No 'burn in hell' posters, bull horns, or shouting at people. We'll set up a table with a sign that says we'll pray for you, or we will give you information about the Catholic Church. We'll hand out rosaries, and maybe take donations for a cause. That's it.

I find this topic interesting, as I've heard Catholics criticize the classes approach as it can be difficult for people to just walk into a church. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is a privilege for the organization when new members affiliate with it.

Can it not be both privilege for the organization and privilege for the individual?  Win-wins are best in my view.

There is great joy when someone is baptized in my experience, both for our community and for the person joining our faith because they are bringing their gifts, their faith and devotion and their love to help build God’s kingdom and because we believe they will benefit from their commitment to Christ through joining his church, which is his gift to all who would seek him, either through encountering the Church in this lifetime or having access to ordinances in the next through proxy temple work.

Quote

How often do we talk about the responsibility of the organization to the seeker?

A lot in my experience in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is why everyone is assigned ministers and if a woman two sets, why there are frequent ward counsels, why we have the fast and the gathering of fast offerings every month, why the Church invests a massive amount into the welfare program and the education of its people and sends out its youth and older couples to seek the seekers as well as quite a few other efforts for the benefit of its people.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I simply think (there is that uncertainty again) that churches often have it backwards when they emphasize "If you want to join us, you must . . . ." I think the more important concept is "If we want you to join us, we must . . . " I know I am now butting in, speaking from my own experience, and will most likely be chastised - but I sure think the LDS church has a lot more "you musts" than "we musts . . . " What is required of any church for it to be worthy of the honor of new members affiliating and remaining with it?

I don't think those two approaches should be viewed as mutually exclusive.  In any relationship there is always give and take.  If the church is doing all the giving and bending with no sacrifice or conformity required of the members, then that imbalance will lead an unhealthy relationship for the church to be in.  On the other hand, the opposite would be unhealthy for the member.  Finding the right balance is difficult for a church that believes it is for everybody.  I think it is important to stick to core principles/doctrines but embrace Joseph Smith's anti-creed/anti-dogma approach where people are "not to be trammeled because of their beliefs" - a very un-orthodox approach.   

But I will note that there was more openness to this idea of different churches being of the same Kingdom in the early church:

Quote

 

“The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. … Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.”

— Smith, History of the Church, 5:499

 

Quote

 

 George Q. Cannon, one of Smith’s successors in the LDS Church, stated:

“It has been proclaimed by Joseph Smith; it has been proclaimed by Brigham Young; it has been proclaimed by John Taylor; it has been proclaimed by Wilford Woodruff, and all the leading Elders associated with them, that God intended to organize a Kingdom on the earth that should not be composed of Latter-day Saints alone, but that members of that Kingdom should belong to other religious denominations, as well as to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This has been a cardinal doctrine of this Church.”

— Gospel Truth (Deseret Book, 1987), 325

 

Despite it being declared as a "cardinal doctrine" and emphasized in 1 Nephi 14 where it speaks of only 2 churches,  I don't think that idea really stuck.  
 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think those two approaches should be viewed as mutually exclusive.

I completely agree with this. I tried to word my comment in that way, but it must not have come across right. Yes, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I do believe however that some groups tilt much too far in terms of one or the other. It is my observation that the LDS church goes too far in terms of seeing the one who affiliates as benefiting more from the church than the church from the one who affiliates, in spite of Biblical suggestions to the contrary. Just my experience and observation. In six years of affiliation, I have never had a member of the church suggest that our joining would be a positive for the church. It has always and inevitably been the opposite, in the sense that if we join we can bring all we have and the church will add to it. 

Now, the pastor of the local (1/2 hour away) Baptist church thinks we would be great for his church! He has offered us rides! Ha!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Despite it being declared as a "cardinal doctrine" and emphasized in 1 Nephi 14 where it speaks of only 2 churches,  I don't think that idea really stuck.  

That is a fascinating quote you provided. George Q Cannon was very active here in the colonies, especially in the post-Manifesto plural marriage situation here. I wonder if he is referring to the Council of Fifty and the political kingdom the Saints? I know there were non-LDS members in that group when it was actually organized. It really wasn't intended to be a spiritual kingdom per se.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
On 3/12/2023 at 11:22 PM, Tacenda said:

I always thought it would have been better to have been a convert than baptized at eight years old, because I really didn't know the BoM was true, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And don't know if I had a witness of the Holy Spirit, I wasn't really taught these things as a child. And was it a thing back in the late 60's to even read the BoM like we're told to now? 

Yes, it was a thing to read the Book of Mormon. It was the seminary course of study in 1963 when I was a junior in high school. They even provided a cool hard-back edition for seminary students. I was baptized at age 8, too, but I had to obtain my own witness just like everyone else. It took a long time. 

Link to comment

"...it can be difficult for people to just walk into a church."

I was 21 or 22, from a no church family, had started reading the Bible, and I met this nice girl who was willing to go to church with me. The trouble was, I had never been to one before. I picked her up at her house on a Sunday morning, and we drove and drove until we were almost to where I lived around 15 miles away. We had passed many churches and I always chickened out. We finally went into the last one that would have been before you start going back into the country. For Navidad, the church was pastored by a young Hyles-Anderson grad! We are in the late 70's now.

Years later, late 80's, we were co-pastors and changed the name of the church from Victory Baptist to Berean Bible. That change attracted a lot of "loose cannons", but I still see them as good, well-meaning people who were just trying to find their way without wanting to be nailed down to Lutheran or Baptist or Church of Christ. Berean Bible let them express their views with respect. They assuredly brought their backgrounds with them. But it was for a brief time, a seemingly robust and charitable community which believed in a lot of the same important things. Eventually, there lacked agreement on practical issues. It eventually fizzled out like a 4th of July sparkler, even faster than most non-Catholic things. But I think it was a good thing for me, and hopefully for a few others while it lasted.

The other pastor, not me, became my brother's father-in-law. The family still thinks they are against the Catholic Church, except for my niece and her husband, who joined the Catholic Church in the Fall. What a blessing...what an amazing, almost unbelievably happy happening, from my perspective. I do not know if my brother knows yet, that his daughter is now Catholic. I have been praying for him. They (my niece and her husband) were waiting to tell them until the first baby came which was last week. I think they thought that might soften him up a little. All because..."it can be difficult for people just to walk into a church".

Anyway...thoughts prompted from it being "difficult for people to just walk into a church". I know the feeling very well...but glad I overcame it at last by God's grace.  

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
On 3/14/2023 at 5:48 PM, 3DOP said:

"...it can be difficult for people to just walk into a church."

I was 21 or 22, from a no church family, had started reading the Bible, and I met this nice girl who was willing to go to church with me. The trouble was, I had never been to one before. I picked her up at her house on a Sunday morning, and we drove and drove until we were almost to where I lived around 15 miles away. We had passed many churches and I always chickened out. We finally went into the last one that would have been before you start going back into the country. For Navidad, the church was pastored by a young Hyles-Anderson grad! We are in the late 70's now.

Years later, late 80's, we were co-pastors and changed the name of the church from Victory Baptist to Berean Bible. That change attracted a lot of "loose cannons", but I still see them as good, well-meaning people who were just trying to find their way without wanting to be nailed down to Lutheran or Baptist or Church of Christ. Berean Bible let them express their views with respect. They assuredly brought their backgrounds with them. But it was for a brief time, a seemingly robust and charitable community which believed in a lot of the same important things. Eventually, there lacked agreement on practical issues. It eventually fizzled out like a 4th of July sparkler, even faster than most non-Catholic things. But I think it was a good thing for me, and hopefully for a few others while it lasted.

The other pastor, not me, became my brother's father-in-law. The family still thinks they are against the Catholic Church, except for my niece and her husband, who joined the Catholic Church in the Fall. What a blessing...what an amazing, almost unbelievably happy happening, from my perspective. I do not know if my brother knows yet, that his daughter is now Catholic. I have been praying for him. They (my niece and her husband) were waiting to tell them until the first baby came which was last week. I think they thought that might soften him up a little. All because..."it can be difficult for people just to walk into a church".

Anyway...thoughts prompted from it being "difficult for people to just walk into a church". I know the feeling very well...but glad I overcame it at last by God's grace.  

Thanks for sharing this. It is a powerful journey!

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/11/2023 at 7:52 PM, bluebell said:

I think the hard part in finding a good model for conversion is that everyone is different.  For some, the current model works great.  For others, not so much.  And like MS said, most of us are members for decades before we become fully converted.  It's hard to always know when someone is ready to make covenants and be responsible for them.

Especially if we look at the issue from the perspective of the parable of the sower (or rather, the parable of the different types of soil).

I would support prospective members needing to come to church and stay for the entire time more than just once (unless there were extenuating circumstances).  I feel like most of the time, if someone is praying, reading the BOM, and consistently coming to church then they are ready.

In the ancient church there was a period following Holy  Baptism called mystagogy during which the neophyte continued to study, especially St John's gospel, which according to Father Ezra Ham, is the mystagogic gospel. During their catechising period which I believe was over two years they learned the synoptics, so they thoroughly knew the life of Christ before Baptism. The deeper teachings of Saint John came after as the neophyte continued his journey into the church. This kind of thing might provide a solution, however it would take commitment on the part of the convert and whoever was taking the classes. I think it is unwise to encourage the belief that you have arrived at Baptism, you know, half a dozen pre-baptism classes, then the big moment and you are in. I think that is likely to lead to disillusionment. 

Edited by Orthodox Christian
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

In the ancient church there was a period following Holy  Baptism called mystagogy during which the neophyte continued to study, especially St John's gospel, which according to Father Ezra Ham, is the mystagogic gospel. During their catechising period which I believe was over two years they learned the synoptics, so they thoroughly knew the life of Christ before Baptism. The deeper teachings of Saint John came after as the neophyte continued his journey into the church. This kind of thing might provide a solution, however it would take commitment on the part of the convert and whoever was taking the classes. I think it is unwise to encourage the belief that you have arrived at Baptism, you know, half a dozen pre-baptism classes, then the big moment and you are in. I think that is likely to lead to disillusionment. 

I can see why some churches did or do it this way, and I can see why others don’t.

If we’re just talking scriptural precedent then there isn’t a need for somebody to completely understand everything and be completely committed, and have shown that commitment, before they are baptized.

But a little more ready and prepared wouldn’t seem to hurt. 

Link to comment

It's the parable of the sower.

Jesus tells of a farmer who sows seed indiscriminately. Some seed falls on the path (wayside) with no soil, some on rocky ground with little soil, some on soil which contains thorns, and some on good soil. In the first case, the seed is taken away; in the second and third soils, the seed fails to produce a crop; but when it falls on good soil, it grows and yields thirty-, sixty-, or a hundred-fold. Jesus later explains to his disciples that the seed represents the Gospel, the sower represents anyone who proclaims it, and the various soils represent people's responses to it.

There are some who take forever to join the church. It took me a year, and I'm not sure why, because I believed in the church almost instantly. And I'm still here. Then there are some, like my younger brother, who joined at around the same age I did (due to my influence), but stayed active for only about a year. Later he came back for a time, very active, then fell away for a time, and after a couple of decades of inactivity now more active than ever before. 

I've known "quickie" converts who have fallen away, "quickies" who stayed forever, born-in-the-covenant long-time active types who have fallen away after years in the church, and everything in between. 

I don't think there's a single policy that could be applied to be sure there are a minimum number of "slackers." It is highly individualistic.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...