I was referring to the sacramental procedure of the baptism itself, not the “service” that precedes or accompanies it. The “service” is not a part of the sacramental procedure. You can perform the baptism without the “service,” and it will be an equally valid baptism. That procedure lasts only a couple of minutes—perhaps seconds. It consists of uttering the sacramental formula: “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then dipping the candidate in water. That is all that there is to the sacrament of baptism. The “service” is not a required part of it.
Strictly speaking, the part of the Mass which consecrates the elements is also very very short. That too could be done in less than a minute. It is so done when there is necessity–a Catholic priest consecrating bread and wine in a concentration camp for example. But just as Mormons ordinarily make Baptism into a more-developed service, with hymns and prayers and so forth, so also do Catholics and other liturgical traditions make the Eucharist into a full worship service.
You are still missing the key point: Baptism and confirmation, in the LDS church, are such important rites that those rites are placed front-and-center of the worship. Same is true of ordination for that matter: those ordained are brought before the congregation and placed in the most prominent place in the chapel or the room (I was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood in Priesthood meeting, as were several others as I recollect, so this ordination doesn’t always take place in front of the whole congregation).
Sacrament, however, is consecrated obliquely to the congregation in an LDS chapel. It is not consecrated on an altar, and the entire service is not centrally focused on the act of consecration. If you were allowed to conduct an LDS worship service in a 2nd-century Christian chapel, you would have to bring in ‘furniture’ to do what is normally done in an LDS chapel, and you would have to ignore the furnishings which yet survive in such chapels–notably, the altar which is central to the room in the two or three such chapels I observed. On the other hand, a Lutheran or an Episcopalian could do a very basic worship service without making any significant changes to the furnishings of the catacomb or chapel. (The main difference would be the introduction of chairs or pews, with kneelers: originally, Christians observed worship standing and brought cushions to kneel on, or else knelt on the bare floor. Modern folks have gotten soft and like to sit down or kneel on special furniture).
This is in addition to the significant differences in the way liturgical worship services build ‘towards’ the consecration of the Eucharist, while Sacrament in an LDS worship service is a prelude to other activities. You have not addressed that fact. We have liturgies going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries–we KNOW what liturgy looked like very close to the Apostolic Age, and it doesn’t much resemble what happens in a Baptist worship service, let alone an LDS service.
Let me assure you once again that we believe that “something very important is happening” during the administration of the Sacrament, and that it is the “centre stage” of our service. We just don’t think that it should artificially be made to last forever for it to be that important, as you apparently do.
I don’t want to cast aspersions on your piety or reverence, which is not the point of my disagreement with you. I’m not certain I agree with you about your interpretation of what the official LDS understanding of Sacrament is. For Mormons, the majority of ‘official’ discussions of the issue suggest that it is a symbolic action, not a real reception of Christ, under the appearance of the elements or in any other way.
I have heard one priesthood holder suggest during a priesthood session that while receiving the Sacrament, one IS receiving Jesus in a special way. He did not elaborate on this except to say that the elements themselves are symbols, but that in receiving the symbols Mormons believe they are receiving Jesus in a special way. This was something I heard said by ONE LDS person, once, and I am not certain that I have ever heard such a thing said before or since in an LDS setting.
If this could be documented as approximating official LDS teaching, I would have to say that this understanding of LDS Sacrament would closely approximate what many Lutherans, Anglicans, and some other historic Reformation churches with a high-church liturgy suggest about the Eucharist. Remember that ‘transubstantiation’ is simply a medieval Catholic way of describing what is supposed to be happening in liturgical worship. (Of course it is also, now, official Catholic dogma). Lutherans and Episcopalians don’t accept transubstantiation either, but they still have a higher view of what consecration does than I think LDS theology has. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.
I also still would argue that LDS Sacrament service is saying something by the very ‘shape’ of it’s worship that is fundamentally different from what liturgical worship is saying. You might try reading something called “
The Shape of the Liturgy” by Dom Gregory Dix. It is a good introduction to some of the things which are being said by the ‘unspoken language’ of liturgy. Dix’s work actually helped create an impetus towards liturgical reform in the RCC and Episcopal Church, or so I’m told. It is NOT an apologetic work directed against Mormons or other Protestants, but you might find it useful in coming to understand what I am trying to describe about LDS worship versus traditional liturgical worship.
I can’t think of any better a refutation of his argument (Other than SCRIPTURE)
rolleyes