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

[Navidad]

In Romans 3:10 some versions translate "worthy" and some "righteous" when it says There is none righteous no not one." And that is quoting a text from Psalms - I forget the exact reference.  It is a foundational scripture in the non-LDS context. That verse uses the word dikaios instead of axios (the usual word for worthy) so there is a different meaning there.

[Navidad]

15 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.

They have been in Mexico last week singing down in Mexico City!

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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? 

We are all on different paths to get to the same goal.  

Analogy- I know you get this- this analogy is for others - :

Get out your GPS and ask for directions to SLC, and I will do the same.  My first instruction will be to head south on Xyz street, then turn right on abc street.  I can guarantee that yours will not be the same as mine.

I was Catholic, atheist, Pantheist, Buddhist, student radical, almost joined Bahai, atheist again... but now found IT for me, right here.

I don't see any more changes but who knows. 

But the trip itself IS it's own goal.

It's all part of the Final Exam.

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps the concept of receiving another's belief is as foreign to the LDS as worthy meaning eligible was foreign to me? 

Can you explain what you mean by “receive” belief including nuances, please.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's all part of the Final Exam.

Maybe it’s the Final Exam for Jr. High though….

[InCognitus]

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?

Sara, could you please respond to my questions about how you define "Christian" over in the other folder (here)?  You keep using different definitions of "Christian".  I also asked that you provide sources for some of the things you claimed about the church wanting to not be any different than other Christian denominations.

Edited June 20, 2023 by InCognitus

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

No, I wouldn't consider myself unworthy.

Seriously not?  I certainly would if they were requesting I perform an ordinance with their understanding and they were thinking .I held the same beliefs as they did.

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We are all on different paths to get to the same goal.  

Analogy- I know you get this- this analogy is for others - :

Get out your GPS and ask for directions to SLC, and I will do the same.  My first instruction will be to head south on Xyz street, then turn right on abc street.  I can guarantee that yours will not be the same as mine.

I was Catholic, atheist, Pantheist, Buddhist, student radical, almost joined Bahai, atheist again... but now found IT for me, right here.

I don't see any more changes but who knows. 

But the trip itself IS it's own goal.

It's all part of the Final Exam.

 

Now, please don't fall over. I agree with everything you said. As I wrote here last week, "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey."

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

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:

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.

 

If unworthy means ineligible, then you are indeed unworthy to baptize in a Baptist church. They simply would not let you do so, no matter how many times you explain to them about your only authority from God position. Do you disagree with the idea that worthy means eligible? That is after all, what this thread is about.

But But But, I have read the LDS covenants made at baptism. Here they are:

1. Come into the fold of God (become a member of the Church
of Jesus Christ).
2. Be called his son or daughter (take upon me the name of Christ).
3. Bear others’ burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that
mourn; and comfort those in need of comfort (help others).
4. Stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in
all places (testify of Christ and set a good example at all times).
5. Serve God and keep his commandments.

In what way are different from the covenants I was required to make to the Savior by my earthly father before he would baptize me. The only difference I can think of it was a different church and our baptism did not autonomically make us church members. Do you really think non-LDS Christians don't make virtually the same covenants at baptism that you do? Having said that, perhaps there is something requiring a certain sacrament that I don't understand or know about. I have heard the prayers give hundreds of times at LDS Sacrament service. I hear nothing different in meaning from what I would hear in the Lord's Table in any other church. Would it be against the LDS church doctrine for you to recommit yourself to your wife during a sacrament service quiet time while the elements are being passed around the congregation?

Edited June 20, 2023 by Navidad

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously not?  I certainly would if they were requesting I perform an ordinance with their understanding and they were thinking .I held the same beliefs as they did.

I guess I don't think "unworthy" is the correct term.  I would definitely feel weird doing it and out of place but not "unworthy".

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

But But But, I have read the LDS covenants made at baptism. Here they are:

1. Come into the fold of God (become a member of the Church
of Jesus Christ).
2. Be called his son or daughter (take upon me the name of Christ).
3. Bear others’ burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that
mourn; and comfort those in need of comfort (help others).
4. Stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in
all places (testify of Christ and set a good example at all times).
5. Serve God and keep his commandments.

In what way are different from the covenants I was required to make to the Savior by my earthly father before he would baptize me. The only difference I can think of it was a different church and our baptism did not autonomically make us church members. Do you really think non-LDS Christians don't make virtually the same covenants at baptism that you do? Having said that, perhaps there is something requiring a certain sacrament that I don't understand or know about. I have heard the prayers give hundreds of times at LDS Sacrament service. I hear nothing different in meaning from what I would hear in the Lord's Table in any other church. Would it be against the LDS church doctrine for you to recommit yourself to your wife during a sacrament service quiet time while the elements are being passed around the congregation?

I believe you when you say that you've made practically identical covenants.  And you have no problem renewing them at LDS sacrament services or other services.  But for me to renew my baptismal covenant, it requires a sacrament that is performed by the priesthood authority.  It isn't just the words or intent that are involved.

I've been to other sacrament/communion services.  I've even attended ones from the Community of Christ, who believe they have the same authority as we do.  But I don't believe that I'm renewing my baptismal covenants there.  I do find value at those services and feel the spirit and feel close to God.  I do recommit myself but it just isn't the same without the priesthood authority.

And no, it wouldn't be against doctrine to recommit myself to my wife during the sacrament.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I believe you when you say that you've made practically identical covenants.  And you have no problem renewing them at LDS sacrament services or other services.  But for me to renew my baptismal covenant, it requires a sacrament that is performed by the priesthood authority.  It isn't just the words or intent that are involved.

I've been to other sacrament/communion services.  I've even attended ones from the Community of Christ, who believe they have the same authority as we do.  But I don't believe that I'm renewing my baptismal covenants there.  I do find value at those services and feel the spirit and feel close to God.  I do recommit myself but it just isn't the same without the priesthood authority.

And no, it wouldn't be against doctrine to recommit myself to my wife during the sacrament.

Do you mind telling me what the sacrament is that is performed by the priesthood authority? I have observed two prayers, but prayers aren't a sacrament. I have observed the breaking of the bread during the hymn. Perhaps in that breaking of the bread is the sacrament? The water is already in the cups. Then the boys pass it to the congregation. It is passed down the aisles and then everyone waits for the boys to finish and return the trays to the table. Then the linen is replaced and the young men collectively leave and it is over. At what point does the sacramental act occur, and what is its nature? Thanks.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I guess I don't think "unworthy" is the correct term.  I would definitely feel weird doing it and out of place but not "unworthy".

OK. Then do you disagree with the concept of worthiness meaning eligibility? Would you substitute a different word as someone else has already done in this thread? Thanks my friend.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

The temple temple recommend process brings this out VERY clearly.

You are not eligible or qualified, as a man, to even schedule a recommend interview if you do not have the priesthood which has it's own eligibility requirements for membership etc.

Very few of the recommend questions are even ABOUT righteousness, except in a simple and direct form, like being chaste, a well defined term, which is demonstrated objectively by clearly discernable behaviors.  Yes or no.

Do you do this behavior?  Abstain from that behavior?  Yes or no?

It's really about OrthoPRAXIS, not even necessarily tied to righteousness.  Believe this? Yes or no.  Testimony of that? Yes or no.

It's almost like a job interview!

"Righteousness" per se, how spiritual you are, how you feel about God, how close in your heart you are to Christ, what kind of spiritual experiences you are having, how your life has changed- things like that- rarely come up.

The bishop has another appointment in 5 minutes, yes or no, shake hands, see you later.

THAT is the reality of it!

Eligibility.  

     Next....

 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

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

 

You NEVER know what those teen age priests were doing on Saturday night....

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Now, please don't fall over. I agree with everything you said. As I wrote here last week, "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey."

Yeah, but you were not on the same journey last week!  😳

[MustardSeed]

I got in trouble here for taking the Catholic sacrament. I wasn’t unworthy but apparently it was not OK. I don’t feel like any Catholics believe I am less than them because of it. And I’m not hurt by it.

[MustardSeed]

I got in trouble here for taking the Catholic sacrament. I wasn’t unworthy but apparently it was not OK. I don’t feel like any Catholics believe I am less than them because of it. And I’m not hurt by it.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do you mind telling me what the sacrament is that is performed by the priesthood authority? I have observed two prayers, but prayers aren't a sacrament. I have observed the breaking of the bread during the hymn. Perhaps in that breaking of the bread is the sacrament? The water is already in the cups. Then the boys pass it to the congregation. It is passed down the aisles and then everyone waits for the boys to finish and return the trays to the table. Then the linen is replaced and the young men collectively leave and it is over. At what point does the sacramental act occur, and what is its nature? Thanks.

It's in the heart of each person who actually renewed their Covenants and Remembered.

The words are reminders, that's all

These are not magic words. The ordinance in in the heart, not in the world. The ordinance is in God's kingdom.

[webbles]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do you mind telling me what the sacrament is that is performed by the priesthood authority? I have observed two prayers, but prayers aren't a sacrament. I have observed the breaking of the bread during the hymn. Perhaps in that breaking of the bread is the sacrament? The water is already in the cups. Then the boys pass it to the congregation. It is passed down the aisles and then everyone waits for the boys to finish and return the trays to the table. Then the linen is replaced and the young men collectively leave and it is over. At what point does the sacramental act occur, and what is its nature? Thanks.

The boys/men who say the prayers have been ordained as a priest (at a minimum).  This gives them the power to make it binding upon the members who are participating.  The presiding authority (usually the bishop) has the keys to allow that to happen and he ensures that the sacrament is performed correctly.

I don't know what you mean by "at what point does the sacramental act occur, and what is its nature?"  I would say the entire act, from setting up the table, to blessing, to passing.

Maybe this guidance from the First Presidency might help.  During 2020, when many members were required to stay home, there was the problem of how to partake of the sacrament.  They provided https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/essential-ordinances-blessings-other-church-functions which included a section on the sacrament.

Quote

Members should take advantage of the blessings of attending sacrament meeting and partaking of the sacrament weekly when possible. In exceptional circumstances, when ward sacrament meetings are not held for an extended time, a bishop may authorize worthy priesthood holders in his ward to prepare and administer the sacrament in their own homes or in the homes of other ward members who request it and who do not have a worthy priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home. (See General Handbook, 18.9.1.) When needed, the sacrament may be administered by a single priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

Members may provide their own bread and water. However, preparing the sacrament, including breaking the bread, should be done by the authorized priesthood holder(s). The priesthood holder(s) administering the sacrament must be in the same location as those who receive it when they break the bread, say the prayers, and pass the emblems. In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by a priesthood bearer.

There were some stakes/wards that allowed families to administer the sacrament in their home.  There were also some stakes/wards that didn't allow it.  Even though there were plenty of priesthood holders in those homes, they couldn't perform the sacrament and had to go without it for months.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do you mind telling me what the sacrament is that is performed by the priesthood authority? I have observed two prayers, but prayers aren't a sacrament. I have observed the breaking of the bread during the hymn. Perhaps in that breaking of the bread is the sacrament? The water is already in the cups. Then the boys pass it to the congregation. It is passed down the aisles and then everyone waits for the boys to finish and return the trays to the table. Then the linen is replaced and the young men collectively leave and it is over. At what point does the sacramental act occur, and what is its nature? Thanks.

Maybe this link will be helpful—

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sacrament?lang=eng

[webbles]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

OK. Then do you disagree with the concept of worthiness meaning eligibility? Would you substitute a different word as someone else has already done in this thread? Thanks my friend.

 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If unworthy means ineligible, then you are indeed unworthy to baptize in a Baptist church. They simply would not let you do so, no matter how many times you explain to them about your only authority from God position. Do you disagree with the idea that worthy means eligible? That is after all, what this thread is about.

I don't disagree with what Calm said.  But worthiness doesn't always equal eligibility.  Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.  And, unfortunately, it isn't always obvious even to LDS which meaning is being used.

In your original post, you said:

Quote

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?

Maybe another way to phrase it is "it is the only priesthood on earth with the ability to bind in heaven as it is bound on earth".

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's in the heart of each person who actually renewed their Covenants and Remembered.

The words are reminders, that's all

These are not magic words. The ordinance in in the heart, not in the world. The ordinance is in God's kingdom.

If the ordinance is in the heart . . . then I in no way disrespect the ordinance.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's in the heart of each person who actually renewed their Covenants and Remembered.

The words are reminders, that's all

These are not magic words. The ordinance in in the heart, not in the world. The ordinance is in God's kingdom.

OK. Then it is in my heart too as I renewed and remembered. I like the idea that the ordinance is in the heart! That means no one can take it away from me.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. Then it is in my heart too as I renewed and remembered. I like the idea that the ordinance is in the heart! That means no one can take it away from me.

Yes, the "ordinance" is an EXPERIENCE you can ponder in your heart, as did Mary.

It is real BECAUSE it is a human experience, yet no one else can "have" it - they have their own.

That is why I kept saying that "our" baptism was different than "yours", because a vital part of the experience is the beliefs that give the act significance for each of us individually; every nuance becomes part of the experience and context/meaning of the ordinance itself.

I suppose maybe a Baptist might feel free from original sin as a part of the personal experience- surely that is important for Catholics as well- or feel "saved", while we may be thinking about becoming part of the family of Christ, or seeing the path toward exaltation to become as God is, now being open to us, something surely a Baptist would NOT be thinking about.

We of course do not believe that "original sin " exists, so we cannot be freed from what we never believed existed in the first place 

The beliefs about what baptism IS surely affects how we experience it.

So we cannot say that the LDS baptism is the "same" as the Baptist baptism because the experience will be different, if nothing else, and we cannot KNOW any " reality " other than what we experience.