Baptism, the Sacrament, etc. in the LDS Church

[bytebear]

We don't distinguish sins into categories.  One must be sinless to stand before God.  But, some sins are harder to repent of than others, and some are impossible to bring restitution (murder, for example).  And, one's knowledge and covenants with God also make it harder, because you have outwardly (via baptism) committed to live the commandments, and then broke the covenant.  Same with the covenant of marriage, which is why adultery is considered more serious, and even more so if the covenant of marriage was done in a temple. 

But ultimately, our goal is to become perfected through Christ, which is a process of repentance, and making and keeping covenants (baptism, marriage, etc.).  So we do distinguish between "saving" ordinances and non-saving ordinances.  Saving ordinances (baptism) are required for salvation, and have promises that extend through the eternities.  Temple covenants and temple marriage also involve promises of rewards in the afterlife (eternal families).   Other ordinances are not considered saving ordinances.  These include baby blessings (christening), blessings of healings, last rites (which we really don't do, but you may have a blessing of comfort), dedication and blessings on homes, etc. These are not required for salvation. 

Here's additional information that explains it better than me.

https://www.lds.org/youth/topic/covenants-and-ordinances?lang=eng

[Traveler]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:33 PM, 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? 

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!

 

 

I would add a couple of point (principles) that will help understand basic differences between LDS and Catholics.   

First Principle.  LDS believe that a “restoration” is necessary and will take place in the “Last Days” before the return of Christ – it is necessary to prepare a people (covenant children of G-d) for the return of Christ.

Second Principle.  Ordinances are sacred rituals that have sacred purposes and meaning.  The purposes and meaning are represented symbolically in the ordinances and cannot fully be understood by the world and those uninitiated by the spirit of G-d.  The symbolism of ordinances is not just of things to be remembered from the past but also things to be looked forward to in the future.   Thus, the sacrament of the bread and wine (water) not only reference the sacrificial lamb of G-d (Passover and Atonement) but also the redemption of the World (feast – last supper) when Christ returns.  Thus, we learn that the ordinances are also prophetic as well as a remembrance.   

I would add something here that touches both on the first principle of restoration and the principal of sacred ordinances.  In Isaiah (chapter 24) Isaiah prophesies of an apostasy – not an apostasy of “doctrine” but of 3 parts.  Part 1 is a “transgression” of the Law.  Part 2 is a changing of the Ordinances.  And Part 3 is the breaking of the everlasting covenant.  Thus, the restoration is a restoration of the Law, reestablishing the unchanged prophetic ordinances and finely the bringing back of the Everlasting Covenant that has been broken.

If you are willing I would again add something to the discussion concerning the “Last Days”.  The prophet Daniel revealed that the restoration would take place at a time when a great kingdom of iron (mostly believed to be the Roman empire) would first be divided into 2 empires (two legs) and finely into 10 very week (mixture of iron with clay) kingdoms represented by 10 toes.  That the Kingdom of G-d would then be restored (represented by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands) and would roll forth as the 10 remaining kingdoms of Rome fall and are replaced but no more kings.

 

The Traveler

Edited March 30, 2018 by Traveler

[MaryJehanne]

On March 28, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jane_Doe said:

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

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.  

In short: Once again turn back to Christ.

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.

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. 

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!  

Ah, okay! (Yeah, for us that would be even graver offenses. To the extent of my knowledge, you're not excommunicated for murder; there would have to be some other qualifications to make it an automatic excommunication, which "impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts".)

Yes, the LDS and the Catholic perspective of Baptism is a little different! For us, It's not a matter of a visual expression of accepting Christ, but a conferring of grace upon an individual. One of the main aspects of Baptism is the remission of both actual and original sin. It's not a membership contract as much as an adoption, letting the children draw near to Him. Through mortal sin, you can leave God, but you will always have the mark on your soul that shows you were once His in grace. Once you turn back to God, you re-enter a State of Grace.

Good to know! Yes, I've seen that in most religions! From our perspective, we believe sin is sin as well, and no sin is ever worth committing, but venial sin causes damage to your relationship with God, whereas mortal sin severs it completely, putting your soul in grave peril (and this would have be a knowing, purposeful rejection, not a mistake!).

 

Yes, I'd agree that it may be called a sub-section of serving God, because God is our primary love, not the other way around! We don't love God because it's a sub-section of serving our family. I'm also wondering if there's a distinction between "loving" and "serving" in the LDS faith? As an observation, I've noticed (if I remember rightly!) that in discussing love, service seems to be used somewhat interchangeably... Service would of course follow love, and love of God without some sort of discipleship wouldn't be true love, but there still seems to be a distinction (love does not equal service, and someone can serve without loving), and I'm wondering if that's something you recognize in your faith?

On March 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Jane_Doe said:

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?

Yes, you're right, any member of the Church can baptize when ministers aren't available or are lacking (all Catholic laity have a baptismal priesthood)!

Yes, that second point is what I noticed most clearly as the similarity!

 

Without the opportunity to be baptized? Do you mean that they want to be and aren't able to be or that they never knew they should get baptized at all?

Those who know they should be baptize and choose not to, or those who do not know about it in any sense, but refuse good as they know it and choose hatred, aren't in a good spot.

For those who know of baptism into Christianity, and wish to receive it but can't (for instance, on their way to being baptized, they have a fatal car accident), there is the baptism of desire (God is not limited by human action in His ability to grant His Love and grace). For those who die for Christ, but have not been baptized, their martyrdom would be baptism of blood.

For those who have never been properly exposed to Truth, by not fault of their own, or live in a place or time that keeps them from hearing the Good News, what is necessary is that they desire to good, accepting God as they know Him. It is possible to know some aspects of God and objective goodness through natural reasoning. I was discussing this with Person0 on the Atonement thread, and I brought up one of the later scenes in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, a perfect illustration of this idea.

Happy Easter! He is risen!

[MaryJehanne]

On March 28, 2018 at 11:16 PM, bytebear said:

We don't distinguish sins into categories.  One must be sinless to stand before God.  But, some sins are harder to repent of than others, and some are impossible to bring restitution (murder, for example).  And, one's knowledge and covenants with God also make it harder, because you have outwardly (via baptism) committed to live the commandments, and then broke the covenant.  Same with the covenant of marriage, which is why adultery is considered more serious, and even more so if the covenant of marriage was done in a temple. 

But ultimately, our goal is to become perfected through Christ, which is a process of repentance, and making and keeping covenants (baptism, marriage, etc.).  So we do distinguish between "saving" ordinances and non-saving ordinances.  Saving ordinances (baptism) are required for salvation, and have promises that extend through the eternities.  Temple covenants and temple marriage also involve promises of rewards in the afterlife (eternal families).   Other ordinances are not considered saving ordinances.  These include baby blessings (christening), blessings of healings, last rites (which we really don't do, but you may have a blessing of comfort), dedication and blessings on homes, etc. These are not required for salvation. 

Here's additional information that explains it better than me.

https://www.lds.org/youth/topic/covenants-and-ordinances?lang=eng

Yes, that's good to know!  We also think someone must be sinless to enter the Beatific Vision, but that's why we have confession and purgatory! I suppose we might be able to agree that grave sins (what we'd call mortal sins) are harder to repent of, simply because that's a definite refusal of God's Love, depriving a soul of sanctifying grace. Adultery is more serious? Do you mean in contrast to murder or the Catholic Church's concept?

Ah, okay! I think I understand. Marriage is a saving ordinance?

[MaryJehanne]

On March 30, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Traveler said:

 

I would add a couple of point (principles) that will help understand basic differences between LDS and Catholics.   

First Principle.  LDS believe that a “restoration” is necessary and will take place in the “Last Days” before the return of Christ – it is necessary to prepare a people (covenant children of G-d) for the return of Christ.

Second Principle.  Ordinances are sacred rituals that have sacred purposes and meaning.  The purposes and meaning are represented symbolically in the ordinances and cannot fully be understood by the world and those uninitiated by the spirit of G-d.  The symbolism of ordinances is not just of things to be remembered from the past but also things to be looked forward to in the future.   Thus, the sacrament of the bread and wine (water) not only reference the sacrificial lamb of G-d (Passover and Atonement) but also the redemption of the World (feast – last supper) when Christ returns.  Thus, we learn that the ordinances are also prophetic as well as a remembrance.   

I would add something here that touches both on the first principle of restoration and the principal of sacred ordinances.  In Isaiah (chapter 24) Isaiah prophesies of an apostasy – not an apostasy of “doctrine” but of 3 parts.  Part 1 is a “transgression” of the Law.  Part 2 is a changing of the Ordinances.  And Part 3 is the breaking of the everlasting covenant.  Thus, the restoration is a restoration of the Law, reestablishing the unchanged prophetic ordinances and finely the bringing back of the Everlasting Covenant that has been broken.

If you are willing I would again add something to the discussion concerning the “Last Days”.  The prophet Daniel revealed that the restoration would take place at a time when a great kingdom of iron (mostly believed to be the Roman empire) would first be divided into 2 empires (two legs) and finely into 10 very week (mixture of iron with clay) kingdoms represented by 10 toes.  That the Kingdom of G-d would then be restored (represented by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands) and would roll forth as the 10 remaining kingdoms of Rome fall and are replaced but no more kings.

 

The Traveler

Hello, The Traveler.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Yes, I do know about a restoration being an essential part of LDS theology.

Okay, that's an interesting perspective! So they are more interacting with the symbolic, versus the Catholic view of receiving the supernatural? 

So, if I'm understanding your point correctly, you're proposing that the LDS ordinances are ancient Jewish rituals that were restored later on (But what do you mean by Everlasting Covenant? At first glance, I'd say it can't really be everlasting if it was broken)?

Thank you for elaborating!   Yes, but I don't believe that's viable evidence, since Isaiah 24 is talking about the Israelites turning on their relationship with God, not future Christendom. It also doesn't speak to a total, but rather partial apostasy, as is shown in other Old Testament selections, such as Amos 9:8: "Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth: but yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord" (emphasis added). I'm not entirely sure what part of Daniel you're speaking to, but that still seems like it's in reference to Judaism and not a complete apostasy of Christ's Church.

God bless!

 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Ah, okay! (Yeah, for us that would be even graver offenses. To the extent of my knowledge, you're not excommunicated for murder; there would have to be some other qualifications to make it an automatic excommunication, which "impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts".)

Yes, the LDS and the Catholic perspective of Baptism is a little different! For us, It's not a matter of a visual expression of accepting Christ, but a conferring of grace upon an individual. One of the main aspects of Baptism is the remission of both actual and original sin. It's not a membership contract as much as an adoption, letting the children draw near to Him. Through mortal sin, you can leave God, but you will always have the mark on your soul that shows you were once His in grace. Once you turn back to God, you re-enter a State of Grace.

Good to know! Yes, I've seen that in most religions! From our perspective, we believe sin is sin as well, and no sin is ever worth committing, but venial sin causes damage to your relationship with God, whereas mortal sin severs it completely, putting your soul in grave peril (and this would have be a knowing, purposeful rejection, not a mistake!).

What would be the difference between committing a mega-serious mortal sin (like cold-blooded premeditated murder) and excommunication?

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

 I'm also wondering if there's a distinction between "loving" and "serving" in the LDS faith? As an observation, I've noticed (if I remember rightly!) that in discussing love, service seems to be used somewhat interchangeably... Service would of course follow love, and love of God without some sort of discipleship wouldn't be true love, but there still seems to be a distinction (love does not equal service, and someone can serve without loving), and I'm wondering if that's something you recognize in your faith?

Service is an act of love, and in turn strengthens that love. 

To serve resentfully--without love--.... that's an empty gesture and not really service.  It's just going through some motions.  

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Yes, you're right, any member of the Church can baptize when ministers aren't available or are lacking (all Catholic laity have a baptismal priesthood)!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone (like even a nonChristian) administer a Catholic baptism in case of emergency?  I recall my atheist aunt (who works labor and delivery) saying that such was part of her possible duties in case a major baby-life-threatening emergency (she also mentioned how she's thankfully never been in that situation).  

[MaryJehanne]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

What would be the difference between committing a mega-serious mortal sin (like cold-blooded premeditated murder) and excommunication?

Service is an act of love, and in turn strengthens that love. 

To serve resentfully--without love--.... that's an empty gesture and not really service.  It's just going through some motions.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone (like even a nonChristian) administer a Catholic baptism in case of emergency?  I recall my atheist aunt (who works labor and delivery) saying that such was part of her possible duties in case a major baby-life-threatening emergency (she also mentioned how she's thankfully never been in that situation).  

The difference would be that a mortal sin is a depravation of grace in the soul, and that excommunication is an exclusion from some aspects of membership as a last resort. It is not an expression of distaste at any grave sin, but an exclamation mark to emphasize how terrible a sin really is for the sake of a soul. Cold-blooded murder under ordinary circumstance (or as ordinary as murderous circumstances can be) are not automatically worthy of excommunication. Abortion, however, would be. The woman, and "all formal conspirators", would fall under automatic excommunication. This is because the purpose of excommunication in the Catholic Church is to highlight something as evil. Most people know cold-blooded murder is wrong. There's no need to pile anything extra on there. Sadly, however, abortion is being accepted as ethically permissible and has become legal in many countries. Because of this, it's necessary to emphasize that, no, this is wrong!

(NOTE: "To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325). In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power." (italic emphasis added))

As mentioned in the note, if the excommunication was automatic, an individual simply needs to confess what happened to any Bishop (rather than an ordinary priest) in the sacrament of confession to lift it. 

______

Yes, that is very true. 

______

I believe that's correct! Just the proper form, with the proper intent and understanding, needs to be used.

 

[person0]

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

excommunication was automatic

This aspect of your post led me to some research.  Excommunication is clearly a different thing in Catholicism than in Mormonism.

[MaryJehanne]

12 minutes ago, person0 said:

This aspect of your post led me to some research.  Excommunication is clearly a different thing in Catholicism than in Mormonism.

Oh, okay! Yes, it certainly is.  Is there a reason you linked the Dummies page? Is there something that’s bothering you?

[person0]

39 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Oh, okay! Yes, it certainly is.  Is there a reason you linked the Dummies page? Is there something that’s bothering you?

Not really.  I just found the article enlightening about differences of definition and application.

[MaryJehanne]

8 hours ago, person0 said:

Not really.  I just found the article enlightening about differences of definition and application.

Oh, okay! I’m glad we’re both learning about the other’s religion, then! ☺️