Do LDS baptize converts immediately?

[Horton]

What draws me is apostolicity (is that even a word?). In my own study over the last couple decades I’ve become convinced that Jesus Christ established a visible church with a hierarchy, true Sacraments, and most importantly a mechanism to effect continuity through the ages: Bishops who succeed from the Apostles. What I haven’t figured out yet is which of the four main communions is the continuation of that ancient Church (Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic). Given the ecumenical movement though I may not have to really make this decision. The Catholic priest at the parish I attend bimonthly told me that should I find myself in danger of death and I’m in the presence of a Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest that I should grab whoever is closest and request baptism. The Orthodox priest I know well has told me to quit overthinking this and just become Catholic already! (Catholic not Orthodox).

And welcome home

 

[iepuras]

Yes, I remember when you first posted about your mom (I’ve been lurking here for long time). Her actions were shameful. I also find alter calls to be extremely tacky (not offense to any Evangelicals here, I just do). Personally, I strive to be very transparent about my religious chats/invitations to others.

What is Catholic (of the Byzantine variety) different from any other Catholic?

There are actually 22 or so Catholic churches that are in communion with each other and the bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church happens to be the largest (by a huge margin) of the Catholic churches. Byzantine Catholic churches are several among those churches that follow the Greek or Byzantine Rite. The largest
include the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.

The simple explanation is that the Byzantine Catholics are the same in theology and tradition as the Eastern Orthodox but in communion with Rome. So we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. We use lots of incense at Divine Liturgy and fill our churches with icons. We chant. We baptize, chrismate (confirm) and commune our infants. (If we go to a Roman Catholic parish for Mass I have to talk to the priest beforehand to explain why my children who are too young for First Communion in the Latin Rite will be presenting themselves to receive the Eucharist.) These are just a handful of the differences.

My husband is from a country that is primarily Eastern Orthodox, so we are following his religious traditions just in communion with Rome.

 

[iepuras]

What draws me is apostolicity (is that even a word?). In my own study over the last couple decades I’ve become convinced that Jesus Christ established a visible church with a hierarchy, true Sacraments, and most importantly a mechanism to effect continuity through the ages: Bishops who succeed from the Apostles. What I haven’t figured out yet is which of the four main communions is the continuation of that ancient Church (Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic). Given the ecumenical movement though I may not have to really make this decision. The Catholic priest at the parish I attend bimonthly told me that should I find myself in danger of death and I’m in the presence of a Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest that I should grab whoever is closest and request baptism. The Orthodox priest I know well has told me to quit overthinking this and just become Catholic already! (Catholic not Orthodox).

My Eastern Orthodox family are all very ecumenical. In their minds, we are all one church but only divided because of men. They do not care that we are Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox, and I freely admit that if I converted to Christianity in my husband’s home country rather than the US, I would have become Orthodox rather than Catholic.

There are probably those who would flame me, but I don’t think you would go “wrong” whichever way you go. Maybe compromise by becoming Byzantine Catholic?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m an even older fuddy duddy than Telstar. I was raised with the same understanding of interfaith participation. I was raised in Utah in the 30s-40s and it was unthinkable to even consider participating in another religion’s (or denomination’s) services. You just didn’t do it. You didn’t even ask others to do it unless your goal was actually proselytization. It wasn’t necessarily couched in ideas of possibly causing confusion or doubt. Worship was understood far more communally than individualistically as it is today. If you walked into a Catholic church and participated in the Mass (even if you didn’t receive communion) you were in effect worshipping as Catholics do. There wasn’t any sort of understanding that one could divorce themselves from the communal aspect of corporate worship and “just be a fly on the wall”.

The first time I ever saw this sort of “church swapping” was when I moved to San Francisco in the early 50s. There was only one LDS meeting house that was in the process of being extensively renovated. The local Masonic temple was gracious enough to lend us their space for Sacrament Meeting and a few months later a Methodist church lent us their recreation hall for the same (Wednesday School, Priesthood Meeting, Relief Society, etc. were held in members’ houses). It was only then, and I think out of necessity, that it was seen as OK that Mormon children attend the youth activities with the Methodists. It would still take another decade or two for the Catholics to come around though. I was told by many Catholic acquaintances that a Catholic could only attend a non-Catholic Christian service if its for an important social event (i.e. marriages and funerals). Religious events (such as baptisms and confirmations) were still off the table since going to witness these events were construed as participating in another religion’s worship. I was also told that they were absolutely forbidden from even entering a synagogue.

In the 70s, my niece had a Mormon friend, whose mom told my niece, while at her friend’s house, that she couldn’t play with her friend any more because my niece wasn’t Mormon. My niece went home crying.

 

[jane_doe]

That is one mega-fancy LDS church!

At first this trend was only seen with LDS meeting houses, but now this architectural plague has hit the Temples as well. All newly constructed temples are significantly smaller than those of yesteryear and what’s worse is they are all constructed from the same cookie cutter template. Just boxy looking buildings with a single spire and an Angel Moroni on top. It’s so sad.

In places where there is another LDS temple within ~3 hours driving distance, new temples put in do tend to be smaller than the pre 1980’s ones. It’s because more smaller buildings allow more people to attend (shorter drive), but don’t need to be huge.

As to the blueprints, during the 90’s-early 2000’s there was a trend of cookie-cutter temples. Since then they’ve stepped away from those, and again custom tailor them. For instance, I used to live in Fort Collins CO. The temple being built there is small-ish (Denver’s only 90 away) and was costumed designed to reflect local historical architecture trends. Link of pix ldschurchtemples.com/fortcollins/gallery/download.php?id=7696. Places where there is not another temple nearby, they still build larger (like Rome: ldschurchtemples.com/rome/)

 

[jane_doe]

What draws me is apostolicity (is that even a word?). In my own study over the last couple decades I’ve become convinced that Jesus Christ established a visible church with a hierarchy, true Sacraments, and most importantly a mechanism to effect continuity through the ages: Bishops who succeed from the Apostles. What I haven’t figured out yet is which of the four main communions is the continuation of that ancient Church (Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic). Given the ecumenical movement though I may not have to really make this decision. The Catholic priest at the parish I attend bimonthly told me that should I find myself in danger of death and I’m in the presence of a Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest that I should grab whoever is closest and request baptism. The Orthodox priest I know well has told me to quit overthinking this and just become Catholic already! (Catholic not Orthodox).

I find it puzzling: Catholic’s stress being the ONE successor church to Christ, but then the same could Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic. I’ve studied the Great Schism: there were some very bitter feelings on all sides over the matter. But then Catholic people nowadays act like it’s all same difference… but 1 does not equal 4. If it is same difference, why continue to have authority split? Like I said, I find it puzzling.

 

[jane_doe]

There are actually 22 or so Catholic churches that are in communion with each other and the bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church happens to be the largest (by a huge margin) of the Catholic churches. Byzantine Catholic churches are several among those churches that follow the Greek or Byzantine Rite. The largest
include the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.

The simple explanation is that the Byzantine Catholics are the same in theology and tradition as the Eastern Orthodox but in communion with Rome. So we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. We use lots of incense at Divine Liturgy and fill our churches with icons. We chant. We baptize, chrismate (confirm) and commune our infants. (If we go to a Roman Catholic parish for Mass I have to talk to the priest beforehand to explain why my children who are too young for First Communion in the Latin Rite will be presenting themselves to receive the Eucharist.) These are just a handful of the differences.

My husband is from a country that is primarily Eastern Orthodox, so we are following his religious traditions just in communion with Rome.

Wow! 22 definitely does not equal 1. Much more complicated than I thought…

What exactly is meant by “are in communion with each other and the bishop of Rome”?

I thought Catholics were confirmed at ~14, when you choose (i.e. confirmed) the choice to be Catholic, and that such was a matter of doctrine. But Byzantine confirm babies? So is confirmation age not a matter of doctrine?

I have many more questions (this is a whole wing of Catholic practice I was unaware of), but I’ll stick with these for now.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

That is understandable. Another question and you can decline to answer if it’s too personal. It appears you are the patriarch of a large family. Since you plan to convert what is the LDS understanding of the sealing issue? In other words, a wife and children believe they are all sealed for time & eternity and the patriarch is the leads the path to heaven what happens when that patriarch no longer holds the same belief?

 

[jane_doe]

My Eastern Orthodox family are all very ecumenical. In their minds, we are all one church but only divided because of men. They do not care that we are Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox, and I freely admit that if I converted to Christianity in my husband’s home country rather than the US, I would have become Orthodox rather than Catholic.

There are probably those who would flame me, but I don’t think you would go “wrong” whichever way you go. Maybe compromise by becoming Byzantine Catholic?

I realize my last few posts have been similar, I’m just replying to previous posts in a train of thought, learning cool new stuff.

From my limited understanding of Catholic tradition, after one pope dies, the title of “Bishop of Rome” is passed to the next pope, chosen by the cardinals from among themselves. This clear line of authority from one pope to the next is a very big deal, and much of the foundation why Catholics believe they are the ONE true church.

But then the great schism messed that up: with various “popes” excommunicating the other and the religious order splintering into different factions. If the ONE line of authority is such a big deal, how can 22 different lines be same difference?

 

[jane_doe]

In the 70s, my niece had a Mormon friend, whose mom told my niece, while at her friend’s house, that she couldn’t play with her friend any more because my niece wasn’t Mormon. My niece went home crying.

And that mom greatly erred. Such behavior (saying “you can’t play with non-Mormons”) has repeatedly been called out over the General Conference pulpit as very wrong. If you want I can get you some specific links.

For what it’s worth, I was told many times by other kids mom’s that I was an unfit playmate because I was Mormon. Bigotry is a sadly common issue.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I find it puzzling: Catholic’s stress being the ONE successor church to Christ, but then the same could Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic. I’ve studied the Great Schism: there were some very bitter feelings on all sides over the matter.

And now you understand my dilemma.

But then Catholic people nowadays act like it’s all same difference… but 1 does not equal 4. If it is same difference, why continue to have authority split? Like I said, I find it puzzling.

There are still real theological differences that are keeping the four churches apart. In my personal opinion some of these theological differences are so minor as to barely warrant even the most cursory of thought over. Does Jesus have two distinct natures (one human and one divine) or does he have a single hybrid nature of both? My answer would be: who cares? No matter how you reckon the number of natures inside the God-Man he is still fully human and fully divine, which I believe is the real important part. Other questions I think are still pretty pressing such as the biggy: Does the Pope actually have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church and is this jurisdiction a matter of Divine Law? I’ve been mulling this over for about 4 years and I’m no closer to answering it now than I was 4 years ago.

 

[Telstar]

Thanks for sharing.

How/when did you teach your children about dealing with those that have different beliefs than them? Have your children (now grown) attended Mass ~every week of their adult lives now? Or has one of them ventured into another faith/non-faith for a while?

Sadly, when my kids were young, I was a terrible Catholic. (Some people would probably say I still am.) I disagreed with a lot of the changes that happened in the Church after Vat II, so I stopped going to Mass. My flawed thinking was that it was probably better for my kids not to learn the Faith in that environment. It was a very stupid thing to do. Now, two of them are really great guys, but they’re “agnostic” (at best). That’s definitely my own stupid fault and I’ve been kicking myself for it, ever since.

My youngest was the one that practically dragged me back to the Church after suffering a serious illness (he was about 20). When we were on the way back home from the hospital, he told me I had to go back to church. Imagine that? How could I argue with him? Unfortunately, not too many years later I started struggling with an anxiety disorder that got so bad that it’s kept me housebound for several years. When I stopped going to Mass because of it, he’s stopped going to Mass, too. I think it really bothered him a lot. Recently, I have started to get back out of the house, again. (I actually had to force myself to do it when my brother got very sick.) Now, I’m working on trying to get back to going to Mass, regularly.

What better way is there to learn respect and appreciation of another faith than to visit them in their house of worship? I love it growing up, and now take my daughter to different churches on random weeks.

For me, I’ve found that seeing things from different perspectives does not make the image fuzzy at all, but rather clarifies the image and brings it into a 3D depth. Somethings in God’s magnificence are simply better viewed from a different perspective.

I’ve had friends (and relatives) from a wide range of different faiths over the years (including Mormons ). But, I didn’t have to go to their church services to be able to appreciate or have respect for what they believe. I know it’s sometimes very different from what I believe, but I still love them, anyway. I’ve even had a few friends that were Pagan! :bigyikes:

As to Mormon social structure being built around the family, nothing of that changed because I would visit a Baptist youth group (for example). I still came home, I’m still my Mom’s daughter, going skiing with the family, praying together, went to church, and loving God together. She always trusted me to come home after my adventures, having faith in the my faith.

I’ve had a few LDS friends, and they’ve told me they usually stick to socializing with other LDS (though not always). The ones I’ve been friends with online were from Utah (we ‘met’ in a forum like this, except not a religious forum), so maybe that’s the difference. They said it was more for cultural reasons. From what I remember, it seemed that it was actually frowned upon for them to associate too much with people of other faiths, at least in a social environment. For the most part, I think they just felt more comfortable around other LDS than they did with non-LDS. I can understand that, because sometimes I feel more comfortable around other Catholics, too. It depends on the circumstances.

Quite the opposite! What drove me away from Mormonism for a while was being at BYU-Idaho, where the people were >99% LDS and the culture had become… when you have a monoculture of anything, the fallen-human tendency pretend like there’s only one way of thinking and one way of acting to an extreme, and then the Pharisees take over. I wanted zero part of that and left (the church and BYU-Idaho).

See! It is because of the LDS culture! My friends felt much more comfortable being part of it, but it drove you nuts! They used to say that if they went somewhere outside the LDS circle, they’d start feeling a little guilty if they were having fun. I thought that was kinda sad.

Years later, my visiting other churches actually was the breath of fresh air which allowed my love of Christ to rekindle, and in turn brought me back to the Mormon church.

I have to say, I’m a little confused, here. You’re saying that visiting the other churches is what you believe rekindled your love of Jesus, but you chose to go back to Mormonism?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Wow! 22 definitely does not equal 1. Much more complicated than I thought…

What exactly is meant by “are in communion with each other and the bishop of Rome”?

Per wikipedia: “In Christian ecclesiology, full communion is a relationship between church organizations or groups that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines.”

Churches that are “in communion with the Bishop of Rome” are fully Catholic. The 23 particular churches of the Catholic Church are all “in communion with the Bishop of Rome”, so while particular aspects of the churches may vary such as the vestments the priests wear, the actual words of the liturgy, the hymnody, etc. they all share the same essential faith and Catholics from one particular church can receive the Sacraments at parishes of another particular church.

I thought Catholics were confirmed at ~14, when you choose (i.e. confirmed) the choice to be Catholic, and that such was a matter of doctrine. But Byzantine confirm babies? So is confirmation age not a matter of doctrine?

Not only is confirmation age not a doctrinal matter, but even the order of the Sacraments is not a doctrinal matter. Cradle Roman Catholics will typically be baptized as infants, go to their first confession at age 7, then receive their first communion sometime thereafter, and finally be confirmed around age 14. Thats: Baptism → Confession → First Communion → Confirmation. As I understand it some Roman Catholic dioceses have gone back to the practice of having confirmation before first communion.

Adult converts to Roman Catholicism will be baptized, then confirmed, then receive first communion, and finally some time after first communion go to their first confession. Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics do it this way as well including for infants.

 

[jane_doe]

My flawed thinking was that it was probably better for my kids not to learn the Faith in that environment. It was a very stupid thing to do.

I had meant to ask you how you handled (in reality or in more idealized theory) beliefs your kids were exposed to from other Catholics which you personally disagree with.

I know that there is diversity in Catholic beliefs, and in the last hour I have found the differences I previously knew were just the iceberg tip!

And great for your son dragging you back to church! And great for you for going!

I’ve had a few LDS friends, and they’ve told me they usually stick to socializing with other LDS (though not always). The ones I’ve been friends with online were from Utah (we ‘met’ in a forum like this, except not a religious forum), so maybe that’s the difference. They said it was more for cultural reasons. From what I remember, it seemed that it was actually frowned upon for them to associate too much with people of other faiths, at least in a social environment. For the most part, I think they just felt more comfortable around other LDS than they did with non-LDS. I can understand that, because sometimes I feel more comfortable around other Catholics, too. It depends on the circumstances.

Whether a particular LDS person hangs out with more LDS friends or not can be influenced by a number of factors. These include–

• Density of LDS folks to be friends with. If you like in UT, it’s easy to just hang out with LDS. But if you’re the only LDS kid in a HS of >2000 kids, you’re more likely to make friends with non-LDS people (like me).
• Lifestyle does come into play as well, being that it’s easier to hang out with people whom share a similar lifestyle as you do. LDS are anti drinking, smoking, and pre-martail sex, and it’s easiest to hang with people are similar. For this reason some LDS folk just prefer to be social in LDS circles (it’s simpler). I find this to be very small minded because there are many good moral people whom aren’t LDS and share similar values. I found much fellowship with Catholics, fundamentalist Baptists, and old-school non-denoms.

As to myself, excluding relatives, >99% of my friends are non-LDS. And I do find much fellowship.

See! It is because of the LDS culture! My friends felt much more comfortable being part of it, but it drove you nuts! They used to say that if they went somewhere outside the LDS circle, they’d start feeling a little guilty if they were having fun. I thought that was kinda sad.

Warning: I have a very big rant about this (pent up irritation through the years). I’ll try to keep it short.

The Mormon Gospel is NOT Utah culture!!! “Utah” culture isn’t even “Mormon” culture!! The Gospel is NOT green jello, roadshows, Jane Austin books, or saying “heck”. You don’t have to take communion with your right hand. You do not have to wear a white shirt to hand out communion. You will not die if you’re out of the house past midnight. And pop is NOT of the devil. And by golly, stop critiquing my outfit!

None of that is the Gospel. It is simply a bunch of cultural habits which have been acquired throughout the years. There is nothing sacred about it, and it is grave sin to shun someone simply because they have different culture than you do.

(Ok, Rant now over )

For what it’s worth, in recent years it seems to me that many Mormons in UT/ID have improved in their acceptance of diversity. Church leadership certainly has. I still despise UT culture though.

I have to say, I’m a little confused, here. You’re saying that visiting the other churches is what you believe rekindled your love of Jesus, but you chose to go back to Mormonism?

I love visiting other churches, and I’ve been to dozens of them. I see things from a different perspectives, meet great people, and gain a deeper appreciation of Christ. But… when I leave those doors, I am spiritually still hungry-- like my meal there was missing an important vitamin. I tried another church after church, trying to fill the hunger, but it got worse and worse, until it became a near obsession. Finally, I swallowed my pride, and went back to the LDS church, suddenly my hunger was gone: I was home, and this was right.

It is the theology and spirituality which drives me to the LDS church, not the culture.

 

[jane_doe]

Per wikipedia: “In Christian ecclesiology, full communion is a relationship between church organizations or groups that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines.”

Churches that are “in communion with the Bishop of Rome” are fully Catholic. The 23 particular churches of the Catholic Church are all “in communion with the Bishop of Rome”, so while particular aspects of the churches may vary such as the vestments the priests wear, the actual words of the liturgy, the hymnody, etc. they all share the same essential faith and Catholics from one particular church can receive the Sacraments at parishes of another particular church.

That sounds a lot like protestant churches. I’ve heard many of them say “it doesn’t matter which church you go to, as long as XYZ are agreed upon”. But part of that is they very specifically reject the need for centralized leadership (which Catholics do not).

 

[Horton]

That sounds a lot like protestant churches. I’ve heard many of them say “it doesn’t matter which church you go to, as long as XYZ are agreed upon”. But part of that is they very specifically reject the need for centralized leadership (which Catholics do not).

There is a major difference between the various Catholic rites and Protestant denominations. That difference is the real presence of the Blessed Sacrament. We don’t receive communion as a " remembrance " of Jesus but believe that when the host & wine are consecrated they actually become the body & blood, soul & divinity of Jesus. We consume Jesus during The Liturgy of the Eucharist

 

[Brandon_Cal]

That sounds a lot like protestant churches. I’ve heard many of them say “it doesn’t matter which church you go to, as long as XYZ are agreed upon”. But part of that is they very specifically reject the need for centralized leadership (which Catholics do not).

No it’s not really analogous to the various Protestant denominations. The vast majority of the differences between Catholic particular churches are the externals. It’s almost entirely a matter of culture. What color the priest’s vestments are, whether you should use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist, whether the faithful should kneel on Sundays, whether the priests should be allowed to shave their beards, whether married men should be allowed to be ordained, which days particular saints are celebrated on the church’s calendar, whether the faithful should receive the two species of the Eucharist separately or at the same time (Eastern Catholics receive by intinction where the consecrated host is dunked into the chalice and the faithful receive both via a liturgical spoon); these are all matters of culture and custom, not doctrine.

What you will not find are various Catholic particular churches in communion with one another that disagree whether Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist, whether divorce and remarriage is not adultery, whether missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation is a sin, whether there are more than three persons in the Holy Trinity, etc.

 

[XuDan]

Really? That is new to me. Any idea of how far back that teaching goes? It certainly was not prevelant when I was LDS.

The first time I heard it taught was ~20 years ago. It’s been suggested that the quorum president was out of line in his teaching. It became a part of that wards understanding of it though if that is the case. It’s also unlikely he made it up, I’m sure that’s how he was taught. Again, a problem with lay instruction with no real oversight on what is taught.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Suffering just is, and while I believe the Catholic approach to suffering makes more sense than most, the best approach I’ve ever come across is, “life is suffering”. That’s the truth of it. Whether or not I believe God allows suffering for some good, or it’s just “sh&@ happens”, the reality of the actual suffering, doesn’t change.

And really, what good do we get from a child dying of starvation, and really, that is the tool God is going to teach us with?

I don’t find that to be plausible.

God became man, in order to suffer with us. I find that has something important to say, but what it is…

Love the other enough to suffer with them. That’s about all we can do, because that is what Christ did. Something redemptive, but why that is, is a mystery to me.

Wow, Rebecca. I think you’re onto something here. I’m learning a great deal lately about the suffering of people I dearly love. I appreciate your insights.

Paul

 

[jane_doe]

No it’s not really analogous to the various Protestant denominations. The vast majority of the differences between Catholic particular churches are the externals. It’s almost entirely a matter of culture.

You said almost a matter of culture, implying that some few things are not. What would those be?