Baptism, the Sacrament, etc. in the LDS Church

[MaryJehanne]

Hello! I'm new to the forum and a Catholic. I wanted to ask you guys about the equivalence of Catholic sacraments  (Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders) in the LDS church and what you believe they specifically mean. Would you call these sacraments? Ordinances? 

For instance, I've been wondering lately about the sacrament in LDS meetings. I heard you don't believe in transubstantiation, but I also saw somewhere that you think of it as more than just an allegorical event. Is that true? 

Thank you so much, and God bless!

 

[zil]

Correct, we believe the bread and water are symbolic, representing Christ's body and blood, and taken in remembrance of his sacrifice for us: 3 Nephi 18:7, 11.

This page has lots of references, so you can dig as much or as little as you wish:

https://www.lds.org/topics/sacrament?lang=eng

(Above is one of the topics covered in the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website.)

Edited March 27, 2018 by zil

[Jane_Doe]

45 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Hello! I'm new to the forum and a Catholic. I wanted to ask you guys about the equivalence of Catholic sacraments  (Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders) in the LDS church and what you believe they specifically mean. Would you call these sacraments? Ordinances? 

First it'll be helpful to help explain some different terms:

Holy rituals a person undertakes as part of their journey with Christ = Catholics call these "sacraments"  = LDS call them "ordinances" 

Partaking of the Lord's Supper = Catholics call it "communion" = LDS call it "the sacrament"  

 

I'll talk first about the Lord's Supper and weekly services, then go through each Catholic sacrament and the LDS comparison in my next post.

45 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For instance, I've been wondering lately about the sacrament in LDS meetings. I heard you don't believe in transubstantiation, but I also saw somewhere that you think of it as more than just an allegorical event. Is that true? 

LDS partake of the Lord's Supper every normal week in our Sunday services.   We call this "the sacrament" and the meeting where we partake of it "Sacrament Meeting" in honor of it.  LDS do believe that the Lord's Supper is symbolic and doesn't literally transform into anything.  However, it still bears power in that through the blessing of it and partaking, we each renew each covenant we've made with the Lord-- like having your baptismal promise once again renewed and remembered.  

LDS undergo the logistics of partaking of the Lord's Supper differently than Catholics.  If you want I can go into that more.

[Jane_Doe]

Baptism:

For both LDS and Catholics, baptism is the first saving sacraments/ordinances.  LDS believe a baptizee must be a believer in Christ & desire baptism (minimum age being 8).  The baptizer must be one bearing the Lord's priesthood/authority (this actually holds true for all ordinances).  The baptism is done via immersion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

Confirmation:

Confirmation is also a saving ordinance for LDS, but it's understanding is different than the Catholic.  When an LDS person is confirmed, they are giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, to ever have Him to be with them (pending of course they don't cast Him out).  This is usually done within a week of baptism.

 

Reconciliation:

LDS do not have a formal rite of reconciliation.  However, when a serious sin is committed (say fortification, for example), and LDS person is supposed to seek their Bishop (aka local leader) for help.  Part of the Bishop's task from God is to help guide those who've committed serious sins: serving both as a teacher/mentor, and as a judge to help the person keep thier head on straight (sin is SO blinding).  

[Jane_Doe]

Anointing of the Sick:

When an LDS person is sick, they may ask for a blessing of healing from any priesthood holder.  This is not a saving ordinance or even a one-time thing, but rather a gift to be invoked whenever a person have need of it.  A non-LDS person may also freely received a blessing of for the sick whenever they so desire it.

 

Matrimony:

 When an LDS man and woman wish to be married not only in the eyes of man's law, but to form a binding covenant between them & God-- to have that union blessed & sealed not only for time but for all eternity --  they undertake what is known as a "marriage sealing".   This is the apex ordinance and done in a holy Temple of the Lord.   

 

Holy Orders:

All worthy LDS men are ordained as priests.  They bear His priesthood and act as His servants including giving blessings, teaching classes, blessing the Lord's Supper, etc.  Unlike current Catholic traditions, an LDS man can be a priest and married.  Being a priest is an act of service, and they receive no monetary compensation for their time, and hold regular day jobs to pay the bills.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

Ok, I think that's enough blabbering for now (as each ordinance can be a thread itself).  Please let me know if you want any elaboration, links, scripture references, or for me to talk about LDS ordinances which don't have a Catholic equivalent.  

[MaryJehanne]

@zil

Thank you! I looked over the page!  

@Jane_Doe

Thank you! So, in its essence, is the sacrament considered blessed bread and water that carries graces, not just normal bread and water?

For Baptism, in Catholicism, it wipes away original sin. Does LDS baptism do the same? Do you believe in original sin?

For confirmation, how does that effect the LDS person? What does it mean to have the gift of the Holy Ghost versus being baptized, but not having it? How do you believe the individuals have changed upon receiving confirmation?

For Reconciliation, the LDS have more of a counseling structure, then? Do you ask God to forgive your sins in private prayer, or is there another way an LDS person would appeal to God's mercy? Or is it not addressed directly, more like you interiorly say you're sorry and continue?

For Anointing of the Sick, would that be considered a guaranteed healing or more of a leg up in fighting whatever illness is being suffered?

For Matrimony, I've been thinking about this too for a bit, and I wanted to ask what an LDS relationship with God looks like? Will a Latter-Day Saint's relationship with God last beyond death? Is family or God more important to an LDS member? Will their relationship be deeper with their family or God? I see marriage and family emphasized a lot in the LDS community and while God is important, it doesn't seem like loving God above and before all is as much of a focus. Is that true? Is the human family the pinnacle in the LDS tradition?

For Holy Orders, what would it mean for an LDS man not to be ordained? Would he just not be able to do as much, or do you believe it has spiritual repercussions (like, would it be akin to not being baptized or confirmed?).

(And as an aside, just because you mentioned it, Catholic priests can be married! In the Roman rite, the current discipline is that only in special situations, such as a Protestant pastor who converts, wishes to be a priest, and is married, are married priests allowed. In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, however, married priests are fairly common. My family was close to the family of our Ukrainian rite pastor and his family. The only stipulation is that once ordained, the priest cannot remarry if and when his spouse were to pass away.)

 

Thank you so much for spending the time to answer my questions!  Some of the nuances are harder to find in general information books and sites. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by MaryJehanne

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Correct, we believe the bread and water are symbolic, representing Christ's body and blood,)

Hence the use of that ultra-bleached WalMart store brand stuff that barely represents bread.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For confirmation, how does that effect the LDS person?

It makes them eligible for membership in various MLM scamsopportunities.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Anointing of the Sick, would that be considered a guaranteed healing or more of a leg up in fighting whatever illness is being suffered?

Sometimes, His blessings take the form of someone else's Earthly talents; have someone call the ambulance while you're getting the blessing and let Him guide the doctor's work.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Will a Latter-Day Saint's relationship with God last beyond death?

?!?  Is there any Judeo-Christian faith that doesn't believe it does?  I'm not sure what the point of any of this would be if God just stopped by at death to say "Well done thou good and faithful servant.  Have a great forever without Me."

[bytebear]

Mormons do not believe in original sin, but they do believe the fall of Adam created an imperfect world, and baptism removes the sins of the individual.  The age of accountability (age 8) does not mean a person is sinless up to that point, but that God doesn't hold them accountable for their sins, so baptism isn't required for salvation (same with those whose mental abilities are below an accountable level).  One must covenant with God in baptism, promising to keep the commandments and follow the Lord.  Confirmation does two things.  1) promises that the Holy Ghost will be present always if the person remains worthy and 2) confirms their membership in the church.  it is done by the laying on of hands (lots of good Bible references to this in the NT). 

Reconciliation is what we would call repentance, and for the most part it is an ongoing process and done via prayer and forgoing sinful behavior.  Some sinful behavior is serious enough that an ecclesiastical leader may intervene, and the covenant of baptism revoked (excommunication). But Mormons don't shun, and they don't forbid the person from attendance to church, but they cannot partake of the sacrament, and if they repent, and "witness to the church" that they have truly repented, they can be rebaptized, and have their covenants renewed.

Healing blessings are really up to the Lord as to His will, and the blessing is meant for comfort and to strengthen, although we believe in miracles, and that certain blessings are predicated on our asking for them.  Because nearly all male adults hold the priesthood, it is not unusual for these blessings (and baptism, etc.) to be performed by the father of the home.

As I said, the father is considered the priesthood holder for the home, and so pretty much all worthy men are priesthood holders, and the church emphasizes those who aren't spiritually prepared for the priesthood to align their lives so they can be priests of their home.   This basically means following a minimum of commandments, attending church, paying tithes, obeying the word of wisdom (a dietary law regarding the non-use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea), being faithful to ones spouse, or chaste if unmarried.  Priesthood is not required for salvation, but it is a great blessing for one's family, and is required for temple marriage.

Marriage is more than just marriage, but a sealing of family, both with spouses and children.  Children not born to sealed parents are sealed to them in a similar ordinance to marriage.  And we believe in proxy work for the dead, so we seal ourselves to our ancestors, and seal our ancestors to their spouses and children.  The marriage covenant is also between spouses and God.   So, husband and wife both covenant with God jointly.

Edited March 27, 2018 by bytebear

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you! So, in its essence, is the sacrament considered blessed bread and water that carries graces, not just normal bread and water?

It is normal bread and water, but through the blessing and partaking, we renew our covenants with the Lord.   

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Baptism, in Catholicism, it wipes away original sin. Does LDS baptism do the same? Do you believe in original sin?

No.  LDS Article of Faith #2: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Adam alone bears the punishment for his actions, not us.  Babies are innocent and automatically saved in Christ.  Baptism is for a believer, washing away their own sins (not Adam's), the old man being buried & the new man in Christ rising up carrying His name.  Useful link: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-20-baptism?lang=eng

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For confirmation, how does that effect the LDS person? What does it mean to have the gift of the Holy Ghost versus being baptized, but not having it? How do you believe the individuals have changed upon receiving confirmation?

Before receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, a person is visited by the Holy Ghost and He bears witness for them.  After receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, He is a person's constant companion to always be with them.  It increases their guidance, commitment to Christ, and accountability.  Useful link: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Reconciliation, the LDS have more of a counseling structure, then? Do you ask God to forgive your sins in private prayer, or is there another way an LDS person would appeal to God's mercy? 

For most sins, things are dwelt with directly between you and the Lord-- the Lord alone gives forgiveness.  For larger sins, the Bishop serves as a consoler/judge to help wit the process, as a servant of God.  Again, God alone does the actual forgiving.  

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

 Or is it not addressed directly, more like you interiorly say you're sorry and continue?

Repentance is MUCH more than saying "I'm sorry", rathe turning away from the sin and re-committing to the Lord-- change of heart.  Merely saying "I'm sorry" and going about your sinful ways is completely hollow and in no way actual repentance.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Anointing of the Sick, would that be considered a guaranteed healing or more of a leg up in fighting whatever illness is being suffered?

Ultimately: Thy will, Lord, be done.  Still, we do ask.

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

is the sacrament considered blessed bread and water that carries graces, not just normal bread and water?

Yes  sorta. We promise at baptism that we will obey God, help those in need, always remember him, and strive to be like him. In return he promises his spirit. When we partake the sacrament (bread and water), we are re covenanting those things.

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Baptism, in Catholicism, it wipes away original sin. Does LDS baptism do the same? Do you believe in original sin?

For confirmation, how does that effect the LDS person? What does it mean to have the gift of the Holy Ghost versus being baptized, but not having it? How do you believe the individuals have changed upon receiving confirmation?

We do not believe in original sin. We believe that the fall of Adam was an essential part of God’s plan and was actually a magnificent event.

Baptism is a cleaning of sin and a setting apart from the world. But most of all it is symbolic of being born again, becoming new I’m Christ. Now the actual literal becoming born or becoming righteous  may not happen at baptism, one can be baptized but may not experience a cleansing until they have decided to fully repent and come unto Christ (which really is a life long pursuit).

The confirmation is the bestowing of the Holy Ghost, a being that will guide us in our lives as long as we keep the covenants and promises we make at baptism and the sacrament.

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Reconciliation, the LDS have more of a counseling structure, then? Do you ask God to forgive your sins in private prayer, or is there another way an LDS person would appeal to God's mercy? Or is it not addressed directly, more like you interiorly say you're sorry and continue?

For repentance, if one were to make a list it would go as follows: recognize sin, stop sin, confess sin (to God, self, those who have been harmed, and for major sins the bishop), make restitution, keep commandments, acknowledge the savior’s hand.

But ofcourse it is more than a list. One must truest repent and change their heart in the process. This is really only judged by the person and God.

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Anointing of the Sick, would that be considered a guaranteed healing or more of a leg up in fighting whatever illness is being suffered?

No, it is not a guaranteed heal. It is an act of faith and when done correctly and with great faith, it can bless those giving and receiving it with faith and guidance. The blessing may include a healing, relief from pain, knowledge that they would not be healed, or even a release from life. All of course dependent on the will of God. One may say, under an improper spirit, in a blessing “you will have this disease for 2 more years” but be healed the next day. The words in the blessing do not decide the effects.

Should one be inspired to say what God’s will is (which in a perfect world would be all the time) then all involved would grow in faith

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Matrimony, I've been thinking about this too for a bit, and I wanted to ask what an LDS relationship with God looks like? Will a Latter-Day Saint's relationship with God last beyond death? Is family or God more important to an LDS member? Will their relationship be deeper with their family or God? I see marriage and family emphasized a lot in the LDS community and while God is important, it doesn't seem like loving God above and before all is as much of a focus. Is that true? Is the human family the pinnacle in the LDS tradition?

God is more important, however God and family almost always go together when all members are living righteously. Marriage will last for eternity. In heaven, those that chose to live righteously and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the LDS church will have their family forever and be apart of God’s family.

To desperate God and family into two separate choices is like trying to choose between Christ and Heavenly Father. They are just so closely intertwined they might as well be the same.

29 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Holy Orders, what would it mean for an LDS man not to be ordained? Would he just not be able to do as much, or do you believe it has spiritual repercussions (like, would it be akin to not being baptized or confirmed?).

All worthy makes may hold the priesthood. When they do, They may participate in ordinances such as sacrament, baptism, blessings, etc.

Every make should receive the priesthood. In fact a male cannot enter the highest degree of glory (heaven) without being ordained to the highest priesthood.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Fether

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Matrimony, I've been thinking about this too for a bit, and I wanted to ask what an LDS relationship with God looks like?

I love the Father with all my heart, mind, and actions.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God, my Savior, and I am 100% devoted to Him.  I... words fail to describe my love.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Will a Latter-Day Saint's relationship with God last beyond death?

Totally!  Not just last, but deepen SO much.  

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Will their relationship be deeper with their family or God?

Totally!  

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I see marriage and family emphasized a lot in the LDS community and while God is important, it doesn't seem like loving God above and before all is as much of a focus. Is that true?  Is the human family the pinnacle in the LDS tradition?

 LDS don't view love as being a "love God" versus "love my family" thing.  Rather righteously loving your family and righteously loving God go completely hand-and-hand and totally overlap-- we ALL are one family, including the Father as my spiritual Father.

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Holy Orders, what would it mean for an LDS man not to be ordained? Would he just not be able to do as much, or do you believe it has spiritual repercussions (like, would it be akin to not being baptized or confirmed?).

It is extremely unusual for an LDS man not to be ordained.  The only reasons would be 1) he's just recently committing to the faith and hasn't gotten there yet, or 2) he's not some major major sin going on that prevents him from being ready to be ordained.  Resolving a sin would involve working regularly with his bishop.  

If a person is not ordained, they cannot do the things which require ordination.  Ultiatmly, ordination is a saving ordinance for a male, but like all saving ordinances may or may not occur in this life.  (I can elaborate here if you want)

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

(And as an aside, just because you mentioned it, Catholic priests can be married! In the Roman rite, the current discipline is that only in special situations, such as a Protestant pastor who converts, wishes to be a priest, and is married, are married priests allowed. In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, however, married priests are fairly common. My family was close to the family of our Ukrainian rite pastor and his family. The only stipulation is that once ordained, the priest cannot remarry if and when his spouse were to pass away.)

I was actually aware of that   A friend of mine is a Byzantine Catholic and have a very beautiful faith she tells me much about.  

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you so much for spending the time to answer my questions!  Some of the nuances are harder to find in general information books and sites. 

My pleasure!  I LOVE questions!!!

[bytebear]

I would classify the fall of Adam as a necessary event, just as there was always a need for a Savior.  All part of God's plan.

[MaryJehanne]

Thank you, @NightSG!  

@bytebear, thank you! Just one more question: What is the concept of sin, then, in the LDS Church? If a child can be unaccountable for sin, but still commit it, does that mean sin is not thought of as reliant on the will and intention? What I mean is, in the Catholic Church, a child beneath the age of reason (generally 7) can't commit a mortal sin, because they don't have sufficient knowledge or intent. So even if they did something that was of grave matter, they would not objectively be guilty of mortal sin. Is that different in LDS theology?

@Jane_Doe, thank you again! So, in the LDS faith, loving God and loving your family are the same thing? Is God owed any special, ultimate allegiance over your family? Or is that not part of LDS theology?

@Fether, thank you! Oh! So it's really significant to become a priesthood holder in the LDS faith! But women don't have that requirement? What would happen, then, in LDS belief, if a women entered the highest degree of glory, but the man she was sealed to had never become a priesthood holder? Would they be separated? Would she have to live in a lower degree of glory to stay with him?

 

Thank you, everyone!

[bytebear]

8 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

, thank you! @Jane_DoeJust one more question: What is the concept of sin, then, in the LDS Church? If a child can be unaccountable for sin, but still commit it, does that mean sin is not thought of as reliant on the will and intention? What I mean is, in the Catholic Church, a child beneath the age of reason (generally 7) can't commit a mortal sin, because they don't have sufficient knowledge or intent. So even if they did something that was of grave matter, they would not objectively be guilty of mortal sin. Is that different in LDS theology?

Thank you, everyone!

I think the concepts are very similar.  Sin is willfully going against God's commandments.  We are all born with the light of Christ, a conscience which tells us inherently right from wrong, but as we grow and learn, we gain more insight into what right and wrong mean.  And as we learn of Christ, and gain more spiritual insight, our accountability grows.  After baptism, we covenant with God, and that leads to more accountability.  As we grow in the church, we have higher covenants, as a priesthood holder for example, a bishop, and one who has been to the Temple (a higher covenant), and marriage.   So, for example, a church leader who commits adultery is under a higher level of condemnation than a teenager.  Both sins are grave, but because one was given more light, he is more accountable, and would probably be excommunicated, whereas the other may receive a lesser punishment from the church (called disfellowship) where one is not allowed to take sacrament, but doesn't lose church membership.   But ultimately we are working toward perfection, correcting our behavior, living more in tune with the Spirit, and leading a Christlike life.  And we believe there will be a final judgement, where rather than being weighed on our individual sins (like a scale comparing bad vs good), we are judged on our character, on who we have become, and whether we are worthy or really able to withstand the glory of God.  Our character, our very essence becomes like Christ.  And we hope to be One with Christ. 

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." John 3:2

[Fether]

30 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

thank you! Oh! So it's really significant to become a priesthood holder in the LDS faith! But women don't have that requirement? What would happen, then, in LDS belief, if a women entered the highest degree of glory, but the man she was sealed to had never become a priesthood holder? Would they be separated? Would she have to live in a lower degree of glory to stay with him?

Yes it is significant, but also VERY a common. Every male of the church is automatically lead in that direction  there is not a group of men in our church that choose not to receive the priesthood, all men in our church receive it

and as far as entering the highest degree of glory, one must be sealed to a spouse for time and eternity. This cannot happen until after he receives the priesthood. Females just need to live righteously and keep the covenants the have made to be worthy of eternal marriage. They do not “receive” the priesthood like men do, but they may still enter the highest degree

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

@Jane_Doe, thank you again! So, in the LDS faith, loving God and loving your family are the same thing? Is God owed any special, ultimate allegiance over your family? Or is that not part of LDS theology?

Matthew 22: 

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

May I suggest that these two great commandments are not two separate things, but loving your fellow man is a subset of loving your God.  For example, when we cloth a fellow being, we are serving not only them but also God-- Matthew 25:44-45  "Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."  Another great Book of Mormon scripture on this is "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."   (context: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/2.17) 
Choosing to serve  other people (including your family) is not refusing to serve God, but rather serving Him.  

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

But women don't have that requirement? 

Kind of a "duh" fact that I find people forget: men and woman are different.  They are both of equal value, but not they are not identical.  (personal aside/vent: I get really fed up with secular people who act like in order for me to be equal with a man I need to be a man and surrender my womanhood-- no on.  I'm just a valuable AS a woman).  

Part of a man's journey is being ordained.  A woman's journey is different.  Again, each are equally valuable.  

10 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

What would happen, then, in LDS belief, if a women entered the highest degree of glory, but the man she was sealed to had never become a priesthood holder? Would they be separated? Would she have to live in a lower degree of glory to stay with him?

Couple of things here that need detangling here--

1) Being a priest is required before a man may be sealed to his wife.   The man must have accepted God and covenanted to serve Him.   To refuse to serve Him is.... suffice it to say not a good thing and placing the world above Him.

2) God is perfectly just, hence all individuals will have equal opportunity to receive the fullness of glory, whether that opportunity comes in this mortal life or after.  Not hearing of Christ in this life doesn't forbid you to coming to Him, neither odes not having the opportunity to be baptized, neither does not having the opportunity to be joined with a righteous spouse.  

[MaryJehanne]

@bytebear Thank you! Yes, I do see some parallels. Excommunicated! Is excommunication in the LDS church not difficult to come back from? You just get re-baptized, right?

I'm still a little confused about the children, though! I don't understand how, if there is no original sin, they can have sins on their souls and not be accountable for them... It seems that's saying sin is the matter itself, exclusive from intent. Do you see what I'm getting at? So even if someone accidentally, without understanding, or without knowledge did something wrong, they would have committed a sin, which they just would be excused from? That's different from Catholicism, where if you did something without knowledge, without understanding, or accidentally, it would not be a sin. A sin is about the intent, what comes from the heart. Is that the same in LDS theology?

@Fether Thank you! Ah, I see! That's a necessary link, then. You need to be a priesthood holder to be sealed!

@Jane_Doe Thank you! Yes, I'd agree that loving your neighbor does follow from loving God, but since it does follow, that would mean that loving God is primary. For instance, you can love your family, friends, and neighbors, but leave them if necessary to follow God. It's never moral to leave God under any circumstances. In addition, he is our Creator, our Designer, our and greatest Love. He brought me from nothing, not my parents. He died on the cross for me as an infinite sacrifice from an infinite Being, not my neighbor. That seems to show a greater allegiance and higher, distinctive sort of love due to Him. And I'd say loving God doesn't solely equal serving Him. Serving will be present, but it follows from love, it isn't love itself. In the Bible verses you quoted, loving your neighbor is listed, but it's clearly defined as secondary. Loving God is identified as the greatest commandment, as other English translations may clarify (we don't use the King James, although I think the translation in general is good ). For instance, the Douay-Rheims, translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate, reads, "This is the greatest and the first commandment" (emphasis added). Do you see what I mean? Is this not what the LDS church believes?

Yes, I see! We don't have different journeys like that in Catholicism, so that wouldn't really be something I'm used to!  Men may have the possibility of a vocation to the priesthood, but their salvation doesn't absolutely hinge on becoming a priest. Both genders have the same basic requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.

I think I understand what you mean here! Fether helped me with this one too.  I would completely agree! No one is barred from Christ simply because they were unable to know him. 

 

Thank you all again for your thoughtful answers!

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, MaryJehanne said:

@bytebear Thank you! Yes, I do see some parallels. Excommunicated! Is excommunication in the LDS church not difficult to come back from? You just get re-baptized, right?

When a person is ex-coommicated, it is the result of their actions completely severing their relationship with God.  They have thrown His name in trash and walked off to love sin.  Coming back from that involves a COMPLETE transformation -- that man who trashed Christ's name needs to have died, his ways completely forsaken, and honest desire to be a real disciple of Christ bearing His name.

Just now, MaryJehanne said:

@bytebearI'm still a little confused about the children, though! I don't understand how, if there is no original sin, they can have sins on their souls and not be accountable for them... It seems that's saying sin is the matter itself, exclusive from intent. Do you see what I'm getting at? So even if someone accidentally, without understanding, or without knowledge did something wrong, they would have committed a sin, which they just would be excused from? That's different from Catholicism, where if you did something without knowledge, without understanding, or accidentally, it would not be a sin. A sin is about the intent, what comes from the heart. Is that the same in LDS theology?

I halfway understand your question.  I think a couple of examples will help:

---I am a mother of a toddler.  She is below the age of reason/accountability and cannot sin because she doesn't understand things yet-- that brain's still developing.  

-- At church we have a special-ed girl, who is 11 years biologically, but only about 18 months mentally.  She cannot sin because she doesn't understand.

-- I teach the 8 year-old's at church.  These girls are of the age of accountability/reason: they understand things and are capable of sinning.  For example, if one of them tells me a falsehood, they are sinning (they know better).  This is different than my toddler who still doesn't understand this concept of fibbing yet.

--  Bob grows up in a household where fortification is run-of-the-mill.  Bob's never heard of God, and never heard that fornicating is against God's ways, etc.  "Sining" is defined as willfully rebelling against God.  Bob is not sinning never even heard of God or been told not to fornicate, and hence can't willfully rebel against Him and sin.  

[Jane_Doe]

 

Just now, MaryJehanne said:

 

@Jane_Doe Thank you! Yes, I'd agree that loving your neighbor does follow from loving God, but since it does follow, that would mean that loving God is primary. For instance, you can love your family, friends, and neighbors, but leave them if necessary to follow God. It's never moral to leave God under any circumstances. In addition, he is our Creator, our Designer, our and greatest Love. He brought me from nothing, not my parents. He died on the cross for me as an infinite sacrifice from an infinite Being, not my neighbor. That seems to show a greater allegiance and higher, distinctive sort of love due to Him. And I'd say loving God doesn't solely equal serving Him. Serving will be present, but it follows from love, it isn't love itself. In the Bible verses you quoted, loving your neighbor is listed, but it's clearly defined as secondary. Loving God is identified as the greatest commandment, as other English translations may clarify (we don't use the King James, although I think the translation in general is good ). For instance, the Douay-Rheims, translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate, reads, "This is the greatest and the first commandment" (emphasis added). Do you see what I mean? Is this not what the LDS church believes?

I'm struggling to follow you here...  a lot of it comes down to "why are you leaving?"   

Say your father is abusive and destructive to you/your relationship with God, LDS do believe you should keep healthy boundaries.  Yes, you always love your dad, but if it's necessary to move out of the house and limit contact, then you should do that.  

Another example is empty-nester LDS couples do leave on mission trips, serving God that way.  

But if you're asking if I'm going to just dump my toddler off in the street to go off another way, that's a big "NO!!"--- that would be in violation of both great commandments.  Right now it is my duty to God to raise her the best I can, teaching her His ways.  

Just now, MaryJehanne said:

Yes, I see! We don't have different journeys like that in Catholicism, so that wouldn't really be something I'm used to!  Men may have the possibility of a vocation to the priesthood, but their salvation doesn't absolutely hinge on becoming a priest. Both genders have the same basic requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.

I think I understand what you mean here! Fether helped me with this one too.  I would completely agree! No one is barred from Christ simply because they were unable to know him. 

For LDS, both genders do have the same core requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.  Taking on His name at baptism is part of this loving God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.  Likewise a man serving as a priest is part of this same love of God.  

[bytebear]

It's important to note that we believe that everyone is ultimately accountable for their acceptance of Christ.  Ultimately they will have a choice to accept Christ or not.  God is a just God.  But God is also merciful, and Christ's blood atones for sin.  For those younger or unable to understand the covenant of baptism, the blood of Christ is sufficient for salvation.  For those who are old enough and capable of understanding the covenants being made, baptism is required for salvation.  And it's still the blood of Christ that saves, but one must choose to accept Christ, and the outward act of that acceptance is baptism.

[MaryJehanne]

15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

When a person is ex-coommicated, it is the result of their actions completely severing their relationship with God.  They have thrown His name in trash and walked off to love sin.  Coming back from that involves a COMPLETE transformation -- that man who trashed Christ's name needs to have died, his ways completely forsaken, and honest desire to be a real disciple of Christ bearing His name.

Oh, okay... I think the concepts of excommunication our a little different in our churches! For us excommunication is a the "severest censure" used as a "medicinal penalty" to help wake the individual up to what they've done so as to bring them back. Essentially, it's exile, but it can't revoke Baptism, which is permanent. It's reserved for the gravest of willing offenses, such as heresy, an "obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth". Excommunication for the LDS church, though, invalidates the member's baptism? What do they have to do to come back?

15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I halfway understand your question.  I think a couple of examples will help:

---I am a mother of a toddler.  She is below the age of reason/accountability and cannot sin because she doesn't understand things yet-- that brain's still developing.  

-- At church we have a special-ed girl, who is 11 years biologically, but only about 18 months mentally.  She cannot sin because she doesn't understand.

-- I teach the 8 year-old's at church.  These girls are of the age of accountability/reason: they understand things and are capable of sinning.  For example, if one of them tells me a falsehood, they are sinning (they know better).  This is different than my toddler who still doesn't understand this concept of fibbing yet.

--  Bob grows up in a household where fortification is run-of-the-mill.  Bob's never heard of God, and never heard that fornicating is against God's ways, etc.  "Sining" is defined as willfully rebelling against God.  Bob is not sinning never even heard of God or been told not to fornicate, and hence can't willfully rebel against Him and sin.  

Yes! I think I agree with most of this, except the last one may still qualify as a venial sin, since this might be an instance when the wrong is universally understood by the moral sense God gave mankind... but maybe not! I'm not sure. 

23 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm struggling to follow you here...  a lot of it comes down to "why are you leaving?"   

Say your father is abusive and destructive to you/your relationship with God, LDS do believe you should keep healthy boundaries.  Yes, you always love your dad, but if it's necessary to move out of the house and limit contact, then you should do that.  

Another example is empty-nester LDS couples do leave on mission trips, serving God that way.  

But if you're asking if I'm going to just dump my toddler off in the street to go off another way, that's a big "NO!!"--- that would be in violation of both great commandments.  Right now it is my duty to God to raise her the best I can, teaching her His ways.  

Oh, okay! I'm thinking in a more abstract way here. What I mean is, there's a requirement to follow God no matter what. There's not a requirement to follow your parents no matter what, even if they're nice people. One Bible passage in particular I'm thinking of is Matthew 10:34-37, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" 

To hopefully clear things up, I'm not asking about whether to love family or not, I'm asking about which intrinsically deserves a higher form and degree of love, as a higher priority? What does the LDS church think of this? Hopefully that was easier to follow.

23 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

For LDS, both genders do have the same core requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.  Taking on His name at baptism is part of this loving God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.  Likewise a man serving as a priest is part of this same love of God.  

Ah, okay! So it's the same core requirement, then, with an extra step on one side?

 

@bytebear Thank you! Ah, I see. As a Catholic, I do agree with that first part. But, as far as Baptism goes, it seems like it's fair to say the LDS church and certain Protestant denominations share a similar notion in this area? That Baptism is a sign of accepting God, and that infants cannot be Baptized?

[Jane_Doe]

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Oh, okay... I think the concepts of excommunication our a little different in our churches! For us excommunication is a the "severest censure" used as a "medicinal penalty" to help wake the individual up to what they've done so as to bring them back.

That is also the purpose/hope of LDS excommunication.    It is also reserved for the gravest offenses (like murder puts you in that boat).  

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Excommunication for the LDS church, though, invalidates the member's baptism? 

Big picture thing: for Catholics, baptism is something you have done to you- usually without your consent, and there is no way to undo it.

LDS baptism is a choice: you are choosing to take on the name of Christ as His disciple- it is a covenant you make with God.  However, God is an a prison keeper- you can indeed live, if you truly desire.  Excommunication is just that: you (through your actions) are choosing to abandon your baptismal covenant with God.  

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

 What do they have to do to come back?

In short: Once again turn back to Christ.

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Yes! I think I agree with most of this, except the last one may still qualify as a venial sin, since this might be an instance when the wrong is universally understood by the moral sense God gave mankind... but maybe not! I'm not sure. 

Useful tidbit: LDS don't group sins into "venial" or "mortal".  Sin is sin.  Of course, some involves a much bigger mess to clean up than others.

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Oh, okay! I'm thinking in a more abstract way here. What I mean is, there's a requirement to follow God no matter what. There's not a requirement to follow your parents no matter what, even if they're nice people. One Bible passage in particular I'm thinking of is Matthew 10:34-37, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" 

To hopefully clear things up, I'm not asking about whether to love family or not, I'm asking about which intrinsically deserves a higher form and degree of love, as a higher priority? What does the LDS church think of this? Hopefully that was easier to follow.

Again, the hope is that serving your family/fellow man is always a sub-section of serving God.  Situations where a family member is abusive, or attacks your relationship with God, or otherwise destructive are tragic. 

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Ah, okay! So it's the same core requirement, then, with an extra step on one side?

Same goal, same destination, same value.  Slightly different routes.  For another example: during marriage, a man and a woman are united with God.  I can't step in the husband's spot-- that would just be silly!  

[Jane_Doe]

35 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

@bytebear Thank you! Ah, I see. As a Catholic, I do agree with that first part. But, as far as Baptism goes, it seems like it's fair to say the LDS church and certain Protestant denominations share a similar notion in this area? That Baptism is a sign of accepting God, and that infants cannot be Baptized?

Not really.  

Similarity between LDS and Catholics: baptism must be done by one with a valid priesthood.  A difference does come in with the Catholic disclaimer 'except in emergencies'. 

Similarity between LDS and an believer's-baptism Protestants (cause some Protestant do baptize infants): the baptizee must be a believer.

Some Protestants will say being baptized is a necessary thing for salvation (agreeing with LDS), some not.

Similarity between Catholics and majority of Protestants: baptism wipes away the original sin

 

Now a big question: what about a person who dies without the opportunity to be baptized?