Worthy - worthiness; righteousness; and eligible - eligibility; and authority

[Navidad]

Just yesterday, buried on page 18 of another thread, Calm mentioned something that has had me thinking ever since. I want to learn a bit more about it, but don't want to hijack that thread. Calm says many important and wise things in her posts (in my opinion), but this is a humdinger, at least for me in my attempt to understand all-things-LDS. I would simply like to hear more from her and possibly from the rest of you as well.

In a reply to another poster she said, "We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood."  I found these two brief sentences very enlightening and interesting.

I have never thought of equating being worthy with being eligible. I have always thought of worthy in the sense of righteous or having sufficient spiritual weight or righteousness. The word axios is used more than forty times in the New Testament. It is used in both the positive and negative connotation - worthy and not worthy (unworthy).

Now Calm has introduced (to me) a new use of the word worthy, that of being eligible or in the reverse, being ineligible. When a Saint says to me "You are not worthy perform an ordinance" in our church, that says to me, you are not "axios" enough - not weighty enough, don't have the necessary righteousness as does a member of the LDS Church. On the other hand if my LDS priest-holding friend said to me you aren't "eligible" to perform an ordinance, I would say "Of course not, not in an LDS Church . . . . . just like you aren't eligible to perform an ordinance in the Baptist church." In that sense my LDS priesthood holding friend is just as unworthy outside of the LDS church as I am in it. We share unworthiness outside of our respective environments. These past five years, I have apparently been misinterpreting worthiness (weighty enough, or righteous enough) when it has been said in the context or meaning of eligibility.  Because of the eligibility rules in the LDS church, a woman is not "worthy" to perform certain ordinances or to hold the priesthood. That is not because she doesn't have enough weight or righteousness, but because she is a female and females are not worthy in an LDS context  because they are not eligible for the same. 

So, now I am wondering if I have been making the same mistake in understanding the word "authority." Is somehow the concept of authority tied up in the LDS mindset as "eligible" as well? If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment? To that I would simply say OK, of course they are and move on. That makes sense because I understand they have no authority in my church environment either. But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context. I have authority to marry people under state law and under God's law as expressed in the Baptist church. But of course I have no authority in an LDS church, because as a non-member I have no authority therein.  And my LDS friend has no authority (eligibility) in the Lutheran church in the same way. 

So, what else can I learn about worthiness and eligibility and is there any carryover of the learning into authority and eligibility? Thanks so much.

[T-Shirt]

I would use the word "Qualify".

[Pyreaux]

I think you are on the right track with eligibility and recognized authority. Calm was saying it's a mistake to conflate that with the word "worthy". The church's use of "worthy" is used in a temple, priesthood, or calling context which one has reached a minimum threshold to then be authorized to do something, not necessarily being most righteous. Worthiness is what they are required to maintain authority. If one is authorized by ordination and calling, unaddressed sins can undermine that person's authority and calling however it was obtained. If a woman may not baptize, it is not because she is unworthy, she could be far more worthy. Being worthy is needed to be eligible but not the same thing as being eligible.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment?

No, that is not what we are saying.  I think a more accurate way would be to say "it is the only valid priesthood from God".  Does that mean we can walk into a Baptist church and perform their ordinances (using our terminology for ordinance) there?  No, because we don't believe those ordinances are valid and so it doesn't matter whether it has the proper priesthood or not.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context.

What do you mean?

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, webbles said:

Does that mean we can walk into a Baptist church and perform their ordinances (using our terminology for ordinance) there?  No, because we don't believe those ordinances are valid and so it doesn't matter whether it has the proper priesthood or not.

You are looking at it only from your perspective. My thinking is that you can't walk into a Baptist church and perform their ordinances because they would not let you. That is the corollary of why I can't walk into an LDS church and perform baptisms. It doesn't matter what I think about LDS ordinances, or what you think about those of Baptists. . . .you just simply plain would not let me baptize someone under your authority (eligibility) or qualification, and they would not let you do so either. It would not be your or my decision. According to your own definition, your priesthood is not "eligible" or "qualified" in a non-LDS setting. Just as mine is not eligible in your setting. Am I wrong?

Edited June 19, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

An ordinance performed by an eligible, but unrighteous member is still a valid ordinance.

Quote

If one is authorized by ordination and calling, unaddressed sins can undermine that person's authority and calling 

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

You are looking at it only from your perspective. My thinking is that you can't walk into a Baptist church and perform their ordinances because they would not let you. That is the corollary of why I can't walk into an LDS church and perform baptisms. It doesn't matter what I think about LDS ordinances, or what you think about those of Baptists. . . .you just simply plain would not let me baptize someone under your authority (eligibility) or qualification, and they would not let you do so either. It would not be your or my decision. According to your own definition, your priesthood is not "eligible" or "qualified" in a non-LDS setting. Just as mine is not eligible in your setting. Am I wrong?

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you are asking.  To us, there is only one valid priesthood in the entire world.  And that priesthood must be given by the laying on of hands from one who has the authority and it must be authorized by someone with priesthood keys.  In rare cases, you don't have to be baptized and there doesn't need to be an organized church (see the ordination of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery for an instance of that rare case).  We believe that the current prophet holds all of the priesthood keys that have been delegated to the earth (God holds all keys and has only delegated a subset of them) so the only men that receive the priesthood now would have to be authorized by the prophet or someone who he has authorized (usually, its bishops or stake presidents).

And ordinances don't just require priesthood authority.  They also require specific forms and it requires authorization through priesthood keys.  So, even though I have the authority to perform baptisms, if another Christian asked me to perform one of their baptism, I wouldn't consider it valid (and I highly doubt I'd actually do it).

[MustardSeed]

Interesting. I directed this exact conversation in the 17-18 year old Sunday school class yesterday. The consensus was that the best word would be qualified, to replace “ worthiness to hold temple recommend”

 

it’s all semantics, but words can matter when you are a teenager with half the front of your brain missing.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just yesterday, buried on page 18 of another thread, Calm mentioned something that has had me thinking ever since. I want to learn a bit more about it, but don't want to hijack that thread. Calm says many important and wise things in her posts (in my opinion), but this is a humdinger, at least for me in my attempt to understand all-things-LDS. I would simply like to hear more from her and possibly from the rest of you as well.

In a reply to another poster she said, "We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood."  I found these two brief sentences very enlightening and interesting.

I have never thought of equating being worthy with being eligible. I have always thought of worthy in the sense of righteous or having sufficient spiritual weight or righteousness. The word axios is used more than forty times in the New Testament. It is used in both the positive and negative connotation - worthy and not worthy (unworthy).

Now Calm has introduced (to me) a new use of the word worthy, that of being eligible or in the reverse, being ineligible. When a Saint says to me "You are not worthy perform an ordinance" in our church, that says to me, you are not "axios" enough - not weighty enough, don't have the necessary righteousness as does a member of the LDS Church. On the other hand if my LDS priest-holding friend said to me you aren't "eligible" to perform an ordinance, I would say "Of course not, not in an LDS Church . . . . . just like you aren't eligible to perform an ordinance in the Baptist church." In that sense my LDS priesthood holding friend is just as unworthy outside of the LDS church as I am in it. We share unworthiness outside of our respective environments. These past five years, I have apparently been misinterpreting worthiness (weighty enough, or righteous enough) when it has been said in the context or meaning of eligibility.  Because of the eligibility rules in the LDS church, a woman is not "worthy" to perform certain ordinances or to hold the priesthood. That is not because she doesn't have enough weight or righteousness, but because she is a female and females are not worthy in an LDS context  because they are not eligible for the same. 

So, now I am wondering if I have been making the same mistake in understanding the word "authority." Is somehow the concept of authority tied up in the LDS mindset as "eligible" as well? If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment? To that I would simply say OK, of course they are and move on. That makes sense because I understand they have no authority in my church environment either. But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context. I have authority to marry people under state law and under God's law as expressed in the Baptist church. But of course I have no authority in an LDS church, because as a non-member I have no authority therein.  And my LDS friend has no authority (eligibility) in the Lutheran church in the same way. 

So, what else can I learn about worthiness and eligibility and is there any carryover of the learning into authority and eligibility? Thanks so much.

Not having seen this thread, I responded to this topic in that other thread you mention. I guess I will post my post there, here. Just a heads-up.

 

[Stargazer]

As to the use of "worthy", it's not a special LDS use of it, but an older meaning of the word, and perhaps less used in that sense in our day. You can find it being used as "eligible" in older English writings. For example, the Book of Revelation, chapter 5:

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

Not even a "strong angel" was worthy to open the book.

And one of my favorite parts of The Messiah, Worthy is the Lamb Which Was Slain:

 

"worthy" is a more complicated word than many believe. From Wiktionary:

worthy 

1. Having worth, merit or value. 
2. Admirable or honourable.
3. Deserving, or having sufficient worth. 
4. Suited; suitable; befitting. 

It is in sense 4 that worthy is frequently used in LDS usage. A better example in the neutral sense of the word might be: "That is a worthy saddle!" said of a very suitable saddle for horseback riding. But calling a saddle unworthy says nothing about its righteousness, only that it isn't suitable for the purpose.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

So, now I am wondering if I have been making the same mistake in understanding the word "authority." Is somehow the concept of authority tied up in the LDS mindset as "eligible" as well? If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment? To that I would simply say OK, of course they are and move on. That makes sense because I understand they have no authority in my church environment either. But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context. I have authority to marry people under state law and under God's law as expressed in the Baptist church. But of course I have no authority in an LDS church, because as a non-member I have no authority therein.  And my LDS friend has no authority (eligibility) in the Lutheran church in the same way. 

In this case, of course LDS priesthood holders do not have the authority to administer ordinances in other church. 

But authority is a narrower topic in a gospel sense.

I direct your attention to Acts 19, where Peter encountered certain disciples and he asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost, though they claimed they had been baptized.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Stating that they would have been told about the Holy Ghost if John had baptized them, he then proceeded to baptize them and then confer the Holy Ghost. Why did he baptize them again? Evidently because he felt they had not been baptized by one holding authority -- since they had not been instructed correctly -- so he corrected the oversight. 

If authority is not necessary -- as some Christian bodies believe -- then there was no reason to rebaptize them. 

The authority claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one conferred upon us by divine messengers sent from the presence of God. In the case of all other churches, we aver that they do not have authority to perform true efficacious ordinances of the Gospel, because their line of authority was broken long, long ago. Thus, someone may be baptized into the Catholic or Baptist churches, and while this makes them members of those churches, those baptisms are not efficacious as to salvation from sin. Because they were performed by one lacking authority from God.

Authority from God is not the same as authority from men. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Because they were performed by one lacking authority from God.

I would add “for that purpose” for more precision.

There are different types of authority from God.  For example, parents have authority over their children given to them by God…or so I believe.  I think we should be careful about limiting others’ God given authority since we accept others can receive inspiration from God to act. I think it possible sincere ministers in other faiths who pursued their calling because they were inspired to help others may have been given some form of authority to minister to their people.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just yesterday, buried on page 18 of another thread, Calm mentioned something that has had me thinking ever since. I want to learn a bit more about it, but don't want to hijack that thread. Calm says many important and wise things in her posts (in my opinion), but this is a humdinger, at least for me in my attempt to understand all-things-LDS. I would simply like to hear more from her and possibly from the rest of you as well.

In a reply to another poster she said, "We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood."  I found these two brief sentences very enlightening and interesting.

I have never thought of equating being worthy with being eligible. I have always thought of worthy in the sense of righteous or having sufficient spiritual weight or righteousness. The word axios is used more than forty times in the New Testament. It is used in both the positive and negative connotation - worthy and not worthy (unworthy).

Now Calm has introduced (to me) a new use of the word worthy, that of being eligible or in the reverse, being ineligible. When a Saint says to me "You are not worthy perform an ordinance" in our church, that says to me, you are not "axios" enough - not weighty enough, don't have the necessary righteousness as does a member of the LDS Church. On the other hand if my LDS priest-holding friend said to me you aren't "eligible" to perform an ordinance, I would say "Of course not, not in an LDS Church . . . . . just like you aren't eligible to perform an ordinance in the Baptist church." In that sense my LDS priesthood holding friend is just as unworthy outside of the LDS church as I am in it. We share unworthiness outside of our respective environments. These past five years, I have apparently been misinterpreting worthiness (weighty enough, or righteous enough) when it has been said in the context or meaning of eligibility.  Because of the eligibility rules in the LDS church, a woman is not "worthy" to perform certain ordinances or to hold the priesthood. That is not because she doesn't have enough weight or righteousness, but because she is a female and females are not worthy in an LDS context  because they are not eligible for the same. 

So, now I am wondering if I have been making the same mistake in understanding the word "authority." Is somehow the concept of authority tied up in the LDS mindset as "eligible" as well? If an LDS church member says their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, are they saying it is the only priesthood on earth eligible  to do certain things in an LDS environment? To that I would simply say OK, of course they are and move on. That makes sense because I understand they have no authority in my church environment either. But if they are saying their priesthood is the only priesthood with authority on earth, in all Christian environments to do certain things, then we are back to a different meaning than "eligible" specifically in an LDS context. I have authority to marry people under state law and under God's law as expressed in the Baptist church. But of course I have no authority in an LDS church, because as a non-member I have no authority therein.  And my LDS friend has no authority (eligibility) in the Lutheran church in the same way. 

So, what else can I learn about worthiness and eligibility and is there any carryover of the learning into authority and eligibility? Thanks so much.

Praise God, yes this it, as it has been from the beginning.

That's all it is. It's never been about personal righteousness. You can't lead the club if you are not a member and taken on yourself the name of the club.

Goes back to our discussion about baptism and the sacrament. You are not eligible to call yourself by the club name if you are not a member of the club and so can't renew your club joining.

[Sara H]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not eligible to call yourself by the club name if you are not a member of the club and so can't renew your club joining.

You don't know that the statement "YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO CALL YOURSELF" is true. Is it possible for someone who has attended the same Baptist church for half a century but has never been baptised to identify as a Baptist? And not just a "Christian"? Also, what are the steps to become a Christian? Is baptism a prerequisite for Christian membership?

[Anakin7]

http://www.bebaptized.org

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As to the use of "worthy", it's not a special LDS use of it, but an older meaning of the word, and perhaps less used in that sense in our day. You can find it being used as "eligible" in older English writings. For example, the Book of Revelation, chapter 5:

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

Not even a "strong angel" was worthy to open the book.

And one of my favorite parts of The Messiah, Worthy is the Lamb Which Was Slain:

 

"worthy" is a more complicated word than many believe. From Wiktionary:

worthy 

1. Having worth, merit or value. 
2. Admirable or honourable.
3. Deserving, or having sufficient worth. 
4. Suited; suitable; befitting. 

It is in sense 4 that worthy is frequently used in LDS usage. A better example in the neutral sense of the word might be: "That is a worthy saddle!" said of a very suitable saddle for horseback riding. But calling a saddle unworthy says nothing about its righteousness, only that it isn't suitable for the purpose.

While reading this post, something struck me that differentiates between LDS Christian and the non LDS Christian and it rests on the Adam and Eve story. In the LDS faith Eve did a good thing, and not so much in the non-LDS community. I remember in the Manti Mormon Miracle Pageant or if mistaken another LDS pageant in Nauvoo or Palmyra. it states at the beginning that children are not born bad or something to that affect, or cursed because of what Eve did, by partaking of the forbidden fruit. 

I need some help on remembering better, it's early. 

So that could be where this worthy comes in or not. 

[Sara H]

7 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

http://www.bebaptized.org

 

7 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

http://www.bebaptized.org

Perhaps it's because I'm too old for the new age mentality of wanting to be more Christian than LDS, but I'm still not sure what your link is supposed to teach me. So you're suggesting that baptism is a prerequisite to Christian faith? 

 

Repent and be baptised, and the Holy Spirit will be given to you, as it says in Acts 2:38-41, which you linked to. Latter-day Saints believe this verse to be true when it comes to learning and joining our church, but it is untrue when it comes to the baptising of members of other Christian religions. Our belief holds that a Christian who was baptised by someone other than a man with priesthood power and authority does not receive the Holy Spirit. Is it necessary to be baptised into Christianity, and if so, does a baptism done by an unauthoritative man still count? 

 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

No, that is not what we are saying.  I think a more accurate way would be to say "it is the only valid priesthood from God".  Does that mean we can walk into a Baptist church and perform their ordinances (using our terminology for ordinance) there?  No, because we don't believe those ordinances are valid and so it doesn't matter whether it has the proper priesthood or not.

What do you mean?

I am responding to your statement in the paragraph that starts with "No,".   You are presenting a self-imposed lack of desire to perform an ordinance in a Baptist church because you don't think those ordinances are valid. I am suggesting an unworthiness on your part to perform an ordinance in a Baptist church because they would not allow you to do so, regardless of your approval or not. In the sense of eligibility you are just as unworthy in a Baptist church (for example) as I am in an LDS church - to perform an ordinance. I personally personal devotion to the savior is a different matter - praying, singing, leading worship, even teaching the basics of the gospel as known in all Christianity. But that isn't the point of this thread.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you are asking.  To us, there is only one valid priesthood in the entire world.  And that priesthood must be given by the laying on of hands from one who has the authority and it must be authorized by someone with priesthood keys.  In rare cases, you don't have to be baptized and there doesn't need to be an organized church (see the ordination of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery for an instance of that rare case).  We believe that the current prophet holds all of the priesthood keys that have been delegated to the earth (God holds all keys and has only delegated a subset of them) so the only men that receive the priesthood now would have to be authorized by the prophet or someone who he has authorized (usually, its bishops or stake presidents).

And ordinances don't just require priesthood authority.  They also require specific forms and it requires authorization through priesthood keys.  So, even though I have the authority to perform baptisms, if another Christian asked me to perform one of their baptism, I wouldn't consider it valid (and I highly doubt I'd actually do it).

OK. but in the context of this discussion you would also be unworthy to do it. Can you agree with that?

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Interesting. I directed this exact conversation in the 17-18 year old Sunday school class yesterday. The consensus was that the best word would be qualified, to replace “ worthiness to hold temple recommend”

 

it’s all semantics, but words can matter when you are a teenager with half the front of your brain missing.

Or when you are an old 😀timer and half the front of your brain has run away!

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In this case, of course LDS priesthood holders do not have the authority to administer ordinances in other church. 

But authority is a narrower topic in a gospel sense.

I direct your attention to Acts 19, where Peter encountered certain disciples and he asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost, though they claimed they had been baptized.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Stating that they would have been told about the Holy Ghost if John had baptized them, he then proceeded to baptize them and then confer the Holy Ghost. Why did he baptize them again? Evidently because he felt they had not been baptized by one holding authority -- since they had not been instructed correctly -- so he corrected the oversight. 

If authority is not necessary -- as some Christian bodies believe -- then there was no reason to rebaptize them. 

The authority claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one conferred upon us by divine messengers sent from the presence of God. In the case of all other churches, we aver that they do not have authority to perform true efficacious ordinances of the Gospel, because their line of authority was broken long, long ago. Thus, someone may be baptized into the Catholic or Baptist churches, and while this makes them members of those churches, those baptisms are not efficacious as to salvation from sin. Because they were performed by one lacking authority from God.

Authority from God is not the same as authority from men. 

And the authority I claim was one conferred upon me directly by the Holy Spirit sent from the presence of God when I was ordained. You do realize that I believe that as fervently as you believe the tenets of your faith.  Can I prove my belief to you? I can't, so I don't even try. Can you prove your belief to me? You can't, can you? So we are both in the same place - faith and trust. I am willing to receive your belief; are you willing to receive mine? Perhaps the concept of receiving another's belief is as foreign to the LDS as worthy meaning eligible was foreign to me? 

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In this case, of course LDS priesthood holders do not have the authority to administer ordinances in other church. 

But authority is a narrower topic in a gospel sense.

I direct your attention to Acts 19, where Peter encountered certain disciples and he asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They said they hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost, though they claimed they had been baptized.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Stating that they would have been told about the Holy Ghost if John had baptized them, he then proceeded to baptize them and then confer the Holy Ghost. Why did he baptize them again? Evidently because he felt they had not been baptized by one holding authority -- since they had not been instructed correctly -- so he corrected the oversight. 

If authority is not necessary -- as some Christian bodies believe -- then there was no reason to rebaptize them. 

The authority claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one conferred upon us by divine messengers sent from the presence of God. In the case of all other churches, we aver that they do not have authority to perform true efficacious ordinances of the Gospel, because their line of authority was broken long, long ago. Thus, someone may be baptized into the Catholic or Baptist churches, and while this makes them members of those churches, those baptisms are not efficacious as to salvation from sin. Because they were performed by one lacking authority from God.

Authority from God is not the same as authority from men. 

Of course not. I never claimed any authority from men. I don't know of any Christian minister (ministerial priesthood holder) who would claim that, do you?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

You don't know that the statement "YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO CALL YOURSELF" is true. Is it possible for someone who has attended the same Baptist church for half a century but has never been baptised to identify as a Baptist? And not just a "Christian"? Also, what are the steps to become a Christian? Is baptism a prerequisite for Christian membership?

Ask a Baptist, not me.  If I could think like a Protestant, I'd be one.

There is no way anyone could know that, one would have to be God to know the contents of someone else's heart.

It's a waste of time to even bother with it

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

You don't know that the statement "YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO CALL YOURSELF" is true. Is it possible for someone who has attended the same Baptist church for half a century but has never been baptised to identify as a Baptist? And not just a "Christian"? Also, what are the steps to become a Christian? Is baptism a prerequisite for Christian membership?

Hi. I can answer your questions. Of course it is possible to be a member of and identify as a member of a church without ever having been baptized in it. Yes, that is not only possible. But often is the case. I was a member of a Mennonite church, chair of its congregation, and was licensed as a Mennonite minister, all without ever having been baptized in a Mennonite church. I was baptized in a Baptist church. Every other church I have ever attended, joined, ministered in, Baptist or not (up until the LDS ward) has accepted by Baptist baptism as valid. I served on pastoral staffs of Baptist churches and never once eliminated a person from joining because they had not been baptized in a Baptist church.

Is baptism a prerequisite for Christian membership? I am not sure what that means. It is a requirement to join some churches and not in others. That is probably the best answer I can give. There is no such thing as "Christian membership." I am not sure what that would be or what it means. Take care.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Navidad

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am responding to your statement in the paragraph that starts with "No,".   You are presenting a self-imposed lack of desire to perform an ordinance in a Baptist church because you don't think those ordinances are valid. I am suggesting an unworthiness on your part to perform an ordinance in a Baptist church because they would not allow you to do so, regardless of your approval or not. In the sense of eligibility you are just as unworthy in a Baptist church (for example) as I am in an LDS church - to perform an ordinance. I personally personal devotion to the savior is a different matter - praying, singing, leading worship, even teaching the basics of the gospel as known in all Christianity. But that isn't the point of this thread.

 

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

OK. but in the context of this discussion you would also be unworthy to do it. Can you agree with that?

No, I wouldn't consider myself unworthy.  I've been noodling a bit on why I would probably not perform a baptism of another Christian denomination.  And I think the best answer is I worry that I could either be condemned for misusing my priesthood in an invalid ordinance, or I could potentially cause eternal consequences for the person I'm "baptizing" because I'm using the power of God in a manner inconsistent with what He has declared.  I'm not exactly sure what type of consequences could befall me or the person, so I'd rather not risk it.

You mentioned something in the other thread that I think might have use in this conversation:

Quote

Could you not personally renew your LDS covenants in a Lord's table ordinance that I was leading?

I believe the answer to that is no.  And maybe it is because covenants can have a different meaning for us.  There are certain, special covenants that we enter into through the ordinances of baptism, endowment, and sealing.  The sacrament can renew the covenants we make at baptism but it must be performed by someone who has the priesthood authority.  Personal covenants that we make between ourselves and God or other people could be renewed anywhere and anytime (including a sacrament that you are leading), but the covenant we make at baptism can only be renewed through a valid sacrament.