Denominations?

[Islander]

Hi bytor2112--

I'll be glad to take this up with you off-line. Indeed, if you happen to live in the greater Seattle metropolitan area, we can do this in-person—and we can do it over the beverage of your choice in the venue of your choice, on me…

--Erik

Yeah, you should keep this acrimonious exchange off line. It is interesting that ou say you "became christian in 2005". So, that implies you did not considered yourself a Christian? I doubt very much you were a member of the church, but all the same.

Erik since, according to you, no longer have any interest in the Church you should devote your time and energy to your family rather. Just a suggestion.

[Traveler]

Yeah, you should keep this acrimonious exchange off line. It is interesting that ou say you "became christian in 2005". So, that implies you did not considered yourself a Christian? I doubt very much you were a member of the church, but all the same.

Erik since, according to you, no longer have any interest in the Church you should devote your time and energy to your family rather. Just a suggestion.

The Seattle area is one of the major anti-LDS areas. When I lived there I had a long conversation with Ed Decker who has made himself a millionaire with his apostasy from LDS. These anti's are so caught up in an anti spirit that they would rather talk ill of LDS than of the Goodness of Christ so much so that seldom will talk to LDS without speaking on something negative. I am convinced that they are so drawn to and delight in that which is negative that they have lost a sense of that which is holy. I believe their bitterness is the modern equivalent of the ancient Scribes and Pharisees.

The Traveler

[Rico]

If you'd like to know, I became a Christian in 2005 and requested my name be "removed from the records" shortly thereafter (although it took ~ 9 months and repeated calls to Salt Lake City to get the LDS Church to acknowledge it).

Why does anyone bother getting their names removed from any records of any church? When my wife and I joined up, I didn't remove my name from any church I have been a member of in the past. Heck, I have been a member of several different churches and never removed my name. I just stopped going or moved out of the area. My wife didn't remove her name from the register of the Catholic Church. All of her government records has her religion listed as Catholic but there is no need to run down and change a single thing.

So why do antis who leave the church have to run down and remove their names from the church? Do they get special brownie points? Or is it because of the church's practice of performing the ordinances after death of all members who didn't perform them while they were still alive?

If it's the last reason, then it's further testimony that the church is true. When my oldest son was born in Thailand, he was born in 4 months after 9/11 in a hospital that was written up in international newspapers because many children born there were named some form of Osama Bin Laden. I was warned that you had to watch your child after he was born because the Muslim nurses would secretly offer up your child to Allah with a special blessing. (Cue the picture of a headscarfed nurse holding your baby in the air while shouting prayers in Arabic) I could only laugh. Even if the nurse did, there is only one Living God so those prayers wouldn't be effective.

The same holds true for those who aren't members of the church. If you don't believe the church is true, then how can any of the ordinances be true and effective?

[BenRaines]

I think it is to get rid of home teachers and visiting teachers. To some they are a pest and to others they never visit. Interesting how it is. To the active they seem to never come and to the inactive they seem to never miss a month. Well not the inactive as much as the anti.

Ben Raines

[Rico]

In our ward, everyone has an assignment, but very few actually go home teaching. Anyways, the way the antis are so venomous, you'd think they'd welcome a home/visiting teacher so they could set them straight. They seem to be going out of their way to find and tell mormons how bad they are, it seems like they'd be happy having one come right to their door.

[ErikJohnson]

The Seattle area is one of the major anti-LDS areas. When I lived there I had a long conversation with Ed Decker who has made himself a millionaire with his apostasy from LDS. These anti's are so caught up in an anti spirit that they would rather talk ill of LDS than of the Goodness of Christ so much so that seldom will talk to LDS without speaking on something negative. I am convinced that they are so drawn to and delight in that which is negative that they have lost a sense of that which is holy. I believe their bitterness is the modern equivalent of the ancient Scribes and Pharisees.

The Traveler

Hi Traveler—

This is a remarkable post. So let me make a few remarks. I was born in Seattle and have lived here most of my life. And all that time, I’ve never heard anyone characterize it as, “one of the major anti-LDS areas.” Are there statistics on that? And can you provide us with a list of the other “major” areas? I’m sure you’ve left others on the board wondering where their city ranks.

And what does Ed Decker have to do with anything? I’ve at least heard his name in the context of Mormonism—but I’m sure that puts me in a VERY small minority around here. There actually aren’t that many LDS in the city itself (Mars Hill Church has a larger membership--and it only began in 1996). And since the 1990’s LDS wards have been consolidating (one of the singles wards and the international ward were closed in the North stake) and the overall number is in decline (which is interesting because the city itself has experienced significant population growth during this time). And while I personally know a number of people who have left the LDS Church in Seattle—I have yet to hear anyone credit (or even mention) Mr. Decker.

Continuing through your post, why are you “convinced” LDS apostates are drawn to and delight in the negative? Why do you “believe” apostates are bitter? Speaking for myself, I would disagree with you on all counts. Do you suppose that anyone who leaves the LDS Church over matters of doctrine must be bitter and the equivalent of a Pharisee?

Lastly, what do you and bytor2112 hope to gain with these personal attacks and innuendo? Do you imagine investigators and other nonpartisans who visit the board will discount my posts because I live in Seattle—a known hotbed of anti-Mormonism (according to you)? I can’t help noting that your tactics are likely to be counterproductive. Mind you, I’m not complaining to the mods or even asking you to stop. But I do think we could challenge each other’s conceptions and worldviews without resorting to labels and name-calling (bitter, anti, delighting in the negative, equivalent of a Pharisee, etc.). You tell me, Traveler…

--Erik

PS. Bytor2112 did succeed in motivating me to post an introduction so that folks can have a bit of perspective when I write. Feel free to take a look and let me know if it sounds like I’m driven by “bitterness.”

;0)

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

1 Nephi 22

1. [23] For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

[ADoyle90815]

I happen to be Episcopalian, and one thing I like about that is that they do allow women to be ordained as priests and even as bishops.

[Maxel]

AnthonyB, I admire the thoughts that you've come up with and the skill with which you presented your case. If I may, I'd like to comment and offer my opinion.

The biblical/historical example that comes to mind is Babel. People were one nation and through sinfulness God divided people into nations. God in his redeeming nature developed various cultures through which we can glimpse the creative nature of God expressed through these diverse nations. We still sometimes see the negative outworking of this sin in the strife between nations. IMHO God’s answer to this is not that people should become one nation (with a single culture, language and custom). Rather that we should recognize our unity as humans (the beings made in his image) whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that humanness.

Is it better to work together for evil, or work apart for good? In the same vein, is it better to work together for good, or work apart for evil? In which manner will a group of people accomplish more?

One moral of the Tower of Babel is that it is better that man work apart for good than to work together for evil. However, that truth does not affect a situation where the choices were working together for good, or working together for evil. In that situation, the only question is: is it better to work together, or apart?

May I suggest that working together is to be unified, and working apart is to be divided? May I suggest a central theme of Christ's message is to be unified, and to put away our divisions?

What does it mean to be divided? Is division the same as diversity? If I like to dance, and you like to paint, does that mean we must live in a different culture, speak a different language so that our communication is hindered, and believe different things about the same God? If I like to dance the tango, and you like to dance traditional waltzes, can we not celebrate our diversities together and still worship the same God and belong to the same religion?

What diversities are important? Is a diversity among religion the same thing as a diversity of wholesome culture? If I believe in the concept of the Trinity, and you believe in the concept of the LDS Godhead, is that as trivial as if I like American food and you like Italian? If I believe, wholeheartedly, in the Nicean Creed and you reject it as a work of man, is that as inconsequential as preferring watching Soccer to Baseball? Are all things we encounter and do in this life of equal value?

Can not a single culture encompass all of the valid diversities we see in the world? Could not one culture include Mexican architecture, Indian cuisine, and American sports? Could it not include people who looked different, act different, like different entertainment?

It could- but it falls to the people who live inside that culture to be accepting of diversity.

Religion strikes human beings at the very heart of the soul: it deals with who we are, where we came from, and where we're going in this life. Pure religion is the greatest philosophy, the greatest system of ethics, and the greatest supplier of inspirational anecdotes the world has ever seen. No creation of man rivals the institution of pure religion: because pure religion was given to this earth from a power higher than man.

No culture that encompasses the whole of wholesome human creativity could unite under anything other than the True Religion.

If a man sees a doctor because his knee is broken, what will the doctor tell him? The doctor sets the leg and counsels the patient. The patient must care for his knee: he must know what to do and what not to do. He must wait for weeks, walking on crutches and coddling his knee. A big race is coming. Before the end of it, he must have recovered and be running with all his might, or else he has failed.

------------------------------------------------

The preceding was a stream-of-consciousness piece that I am content with. As such, I will not edit or condense. My apologies for the loquacious writing, and the fact that a valid conclusion was not reached for my argument. The rest will be much more on point.

The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

Should we rejoice in the diversity of our doctrine, or in the parts where our faith is unified? What do you mean by the 'expressions of that faith'? If you mean the expressions of charity and service that is often characterized as Christian, than that is the expression of a common theme of our faith, not a differing doctrine. If you mean something else, forgive me not understanding you.

A hard fact of human life is that expressions of philosophies differing from our own is hard to bear. It's so hard to bear, in fact, that immature and corrupt men will punish anyone who makes such expressions (religious, philosophical, and artistic intolerance of the Dark Ages, for example). It was such intolerance that lead the Pilgrims to the land that would be deemed 'America'.

May I posit a theory. In times past, before the Church was restored, the religious state of affairs was as you described. There was no true Church to join, so Christians had to grin and bear it and do the best they could. However, would unity wait until the Second Coming?

Before Christ appeared on earth in the flesh, at the meridian of time, He sent His prophet John the Baptist to prepare the way for Him. John's message was one of preparation, of spiritual preparation for the advent of Christ's ministry. Before Christ came again, he would again need a forerunner. However, because the second time he would manifest himself to the whole world, he would need a forerunner that could bring His message to 'every creature': he would need His organized Church.

Malachi 4:5-6

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The Lord shall send Elijah to us before the Second Coming. Indeed, the Lord has sent Elijah to us. He not only returned the hearts of the fathers and children to each other, his coming signified the commencement of the gathering of Israel. His coming was one of the signs that the Lord's work had commenced. And, the Lord does not work among men, except he reveals his will to his prophets.

God scatters us to curse us for our sins, he gathers us to bless us for our righteousness. Without an organized entity already established well before the national crises that will herald the 'beginning of the end', the Lord would have no way to authoritatively make his voice known to the inhabitants of the earth. He warned the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of Babylon. He will not leave us without warning, and such a warning must come from His authorized ministers. Furthermore, his ministers must be trained in the godly life and have His priesthood to be able to work in His name. That could not realistically happen without a Church of God in place to teach those ministers correct doctrine, and to help their families raise them in righteousness.

Such a unity is needed, it is the only healthy state of affairs the world can function in.

The wheat must grow up with the chaff, only to be separated at the day of the harvest. That means that in these last days, when the evil chaff of the world is at its strongest, the righteous wheat of the world must also be at its strongest. All the blessings past Christians have ever enjoyed must be present today, and then some. That includes a unified, authoritative church.

Remember that Christ came at a time when many false Christs were proclaiming to be the Messiah. Christ was one man, and during his lifetime his influence was barely felt beyond his immediate presence. However, He was not just a man; he was God, and His power and influence swept the whole world. Similarly, His Church is one among many that make the same claim. The truth of the matter lies beyond words, it lies in man's communion with God.

[Maxel]

I think I deserve a Nobel Prize for Longest, Most Rambling Poster. Again, my apologies but it feels wrong to cut it.

EDIT: I think I killed it. My apologies.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Maxel

[AnthonyB]

Maxel,

Thanks for your post, I'll try to digest it.

I visited a LDS chapel about a month ago, (trying to get a copy of BoM). One of my initial impressions was how american it felt. (I have also often got the same impressions from some pentecostal churches I have visited.) The pictures were very reverent but I doubt a Pro Hart would feel right placed on the walls and the place very spotless but the colour scheme felt like a US mall. I can't help feel that you "one true church" might just be a tad monocultural for me to feel really at home.

(Time to break out into..."Give me a home among the gum trees....")

The NT does a very interesting but little noted thing....The first books of Paul's letters are actually ordered so as to address the major ethnic groups that inhabited large parts of the world he was reaching out to.

Romans, Corinthians (Greek), Galatians (Celts)

Now I'm sure that then as today there was quite some mixing of people but I can't help seeing it God honouring the varying cultures.

Do I think it would be good for all Christians to give up their creeds and non biblical pratices and return to NT Christianity, most certainly. However I'd rather praise God for the good I see then spend my days cursing men for our collective failings. Seek unity in the essentials of the Christian faith, leave room for diversity on the unessentials and hopefully love everyone regardless.

Edited January 30, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Islander]

Maxel,

Thanks for your post, I'll try to digest it.

I visited a LDS chapel about a month ago, (trying to get a copy of BoM). One of my initial impressions was how american it felt. (I have also often got the same impressions from some pentecostal churches I have visited.) The pictures were very reverent but I doubt a Pro Hart would feel right placed on the walls and the place very spotless but the colour scheme felt like a US mall. I can't help feel that you "one true church" might just be a tad monocultural for me to feel really at home..

You went to ONE LDS chapel and from that single experience you arrived at the ground-breaking and generalized opinion that it is a very "mono-cultural" church?

I got your bias. I suggest some travel beyond your borders but I suspect you made up your mind long ago.

I would like to point to the fact that your assumption about Paul's letters being first is because he is "speaking" to the world or the outside boundaries of the church is not accurate. Paul wrote 13 out of 21 books in the NT. They are ordered according to length and Hebrews at the end of his epistles since the early Christians could not agree on authorship. Nothing to do with the potential audience.

If ALL you have to say about the church relates to the aesthetics of the building and your inability to feel "at home" in a specific building, it rather points to your possible spiritual homelessness. Just a thought.

[Maxel]

Maxel,

Thanks for your post, I'll try to digest it.

Again, my apologies for the length, but... it feels wrong to cut it. I'm usually able to cut a good chunk out of long posts like that, but not this time.

I visited a LDS chapel about a month ago, (trying to get a copy of BoM). One of my initial impressions was how american it felt. (I have also often got the same impressions from some pentecostal churches I have visited.) The pictures were very reverent but I doubt a Pro Hart would feel right placed on the walls and the place very spotless but the colour scheme felt like a US mall. I can't help feel that you "one true church" might just be a tad monocultural for me to feel really at home.

Were you visiting a chapel in America? Might that be the source of its... American-ness?

There are chapels all throughout the world, most of them are built among the same architectural guidelines, when possible. The decorations and inside designs are probably a bit different.

The NT does a very interesting but little noted thing....The first books of Paul's letters are actually ordered so as to address the major ethnic groups that inhabited large parts of the world he was reaching out to.

The Pauline epistles are arranged by length first and foremost (except for Hebrews, which was placed last due to disputes about it actually being written by Paul).

Do I think it would be good for all Christians to give up their creeds and non biblical pratices and return to NT Christianity, most certainly. However I'd rather praise God for the good I see then spend my days cursing men for our collective failings. Seek unity in the essentials of the Christian faith, leave room for diversity on the unessentials and hopefully love everyone regardless.

Have you considered this condition: seeking to find the NT Christianity, and yet not cursing others' religions and beliefs because they differ from one's own? That is the stance of the LDS church: there is much good and truth found in the other religions of the world, but the LDS church has the fullness of Christ's Gospel and the most truth of them all.

It might seem that stance is denigrating to other religions, but there is no way to more charitably state the case of the church- unless we are to start saying it does not hold the fullness of truth, which we believe it does.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Maxel

[LittleNipper]

Are there not several different groups of Mormons? Are they any more united then most Christian denominations? I would like to say that I've had several very indepth conversations with christians of other denominations. They never ended up in a fist fight...

[Maxel]

Are there not several different groups of Mormons? Are they any more united then most Christian denominations? I would like to say that I've had several very indepth conversations with christians of other denominations. They never ended up in a fist fight...

There are different groups calling themselves Mormons; often the different branches of the original church founded by Joseph Smith are called 'Restorationist' churches. I've talked to a few of them, and was good friends with a member of the RLDS church (now the Community of Christ), and our differences never led to a fist fight either.

[LittleNipper]

There are different groups calling themselves Mormons; often the different branches of the original church founded by Joseph Smith are called 'Restorationist' churches. I've talked to a few of them, and was good friends with a member of the RLDS church (now the Community of Christ), and our differences never led to a fist fight either.

So see there are differences even in Mormonism.

[Maxel]

So see there are differences even in Mormonism.

Too true. What's the main thrust of your statements?

[LittleNipper]

Too true. What's the main thrust of your statements?

Only that cannot hide behind a belief that his/her faith must be true because there is no dissention, deviation, nor conflict within the group; when the opposite is plan for anyone to note.

My own faith is not based on which denomination I side with. My faith rests on GOD's Holy Word.

[Rico]

I can see where AnthonyB is coming from when he says that the church seems very mono-cultural. It is. I have no doubt in my mind that there is but one culture in the church. It's called the Gospel Culture.

I go to church in the Philippines. I am an American, but I have never been inside a Chapel in the US(ok, not ture, once when I was 2 but I can't remember it). That said, LDS chapels don't look like any other church here. How so? The buildings are in good repair, the grounds are kept up nicely. Inside the chapel, things are kept clean. On Sunday, people are dressed up modestly, in their best clothes.

In fact, it does start to look pretty standardized. The men wear short sleeve white shirts, tie, shoes, and long slacks. It looks and feels like a house of order.

On a side note, it's always nice to see how people progress as they join the church and grow in the church. They might come to church first wearing t shirt, shorts and flip-flops. Soon, they wear long pants, tshirt and flip-flops. Next they progress to shoes, long pants and tshirt and then they reach long pants, dress shirt, tie and shoes.

[Islander]

I have been in LDS chapels all over Mexico and South America. And in deed, it is part of the Gospel culture to dress modestly on our Sunday's best. The Priesthood has its own standards and expectations and it shows all over the world.

Just like a high level meeting has its own protocols (they are international norms, by the way) we answer to the Highest Authority and demonstrate our reverence and love by how we maintain the houses of worship and how we carry ourselves.

[Maxel]

Only that cannot hide behind a belief that his/her faith must be true because there is no dissention, deviation, nor conflict within the group; when the opposite is plan for anyone to note.

My own faith is not based on which denomination I side with. My faith rests on GOD's Holy Word.

Well, the idea that there is authoritative conflict within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is debatable, at best. Spin-off branches that teach a different branch of Mormonism have no effect on the policies of the LDS Church, and they often evolve to teach different, sometimes radically different, doctrine than the LDS Church. The LDS Church proper is very authoritative and stresses one religion to reflect the one true Gospel of Christ.

On another note, I don't remember anyone 'hiding' behind a belief like you mentioned above.

Lastly, I can agree that my own faith is not based on a denomination but is given lifeblood through my testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

[LittleNipper]

Well, the idea that there is authoritative conflict within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is debatable, at best. Spin-off branches that teach a different branch of Mormonism have no effect on the policies of the LDS Church, and they often evolve to teach different, sometimes radically different, doctrine than the LDS Church. The LDS Church proper is very authoritative and stresses one religion to reflect the one true Gospel of Christ.

On another note, I don't remember anyone 'hiding' behind a belief like you mentioned above.

Lastly, I can agree that my own faith is not based on a denomination but is given lifeblood through my testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Please don't take this as an insult, it was not meant to be. However, it would seem that by your very words you may just consider that you are hiding behind the "authority" of a church...

The church I presently participate with is supportive of my biblical salvation understanding, and couples that with a healthy need to mature spiritually in my christian growth/walk that is spoken of in the New Testament. The church functions to cause interaction among other believers of like minds with the leading of the HOLY SPIRT. The church is not THE AUTHORITY as I understand it from a Biblical perspective. The WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are the authority. The HOLY SPIRIT providing the understanding of scripture to the children of GOD.

Consider if "A church" was the authority, then would JESUS be addressing 7 churches in Revelations?

Edited February 10, 2009 by LittleNipper

[Islander]

Please don't take this as an insult, it was not meant to be. However, it would seem that by your very words you may just consider that you are hiding behind the "authority" of a church...

The church I presently participate with is supportive of my biblical salvation understanding, and couples that with a healthy need to mature spiritually in my christian growth/walk that is spoken of in the New Testament. The church functions to cause interaction among other believers of like minds with the leading of the HOLY SPIRT. The church is not THE AUTHORITY as I understand it from a Biblical perspective. The WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are the authority. The HOLY SPIRIT providing the understanding of scripture to the children of GOD.

Consider if "A church" was the authority, then would JESUS be addressing 7 churches in Revelations?

I think we are running the risk of falling into a legalistic trap here. Seems like we are talking semantics here rather than substance. Christ is the corner stone of the Church and the absolute center of our worship. Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins by authority and the reception of the Holy Spirit are basic tenements of our religion.

The collective membership as guiding rod of the church sounds very good, in principle. In reality the priesthood HAS to be the guardian of the keys and the doctrine. You may read the scriptures and feel of the Spirit and receive, individually, revelation and knowledge. That does not equate with doing the same fot the WHOLE organization or the Church collectively. When we speak of "The Church" we are referring to the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the General Authorities the Stake Presidents, the Bishops, the Elders Q and HP group leaders as the instruments thru which the work of the Lord is carried out and service to the members is provided. Even when John was still alive and perhaps the last of the Apostles, there were congregations that began to break away from the "church" and refuse direction and counsel from one of the witnesses of the Savior, if you can imagine that.

So, collectively, it is called "The Church." And, the Priesthood ensures that the doctrine and the ordinances are not corrupted, that vague and obscure interpretations are not ascribed to the scriptures and the work is done according to the will and revelation of God. I have traveled the world over in the last 10 years and everywhere you go the Sacrament ordinance is conducted exactly the same way, the lessons are the same in ALL organizations, the Temple ordinances are exactly the same.

Again and again, the Apostles in their letters told the brethren to stick to what they had been taught, to ignore new doctrines and theologies for they were not of God. I don't know about you, but I spent 7 years visiting just about every congregation under the sun in LA looking for a home. What I saw stretches from the bizarre to the inspired and every shade in between. Some say it is all the same. I categorically state that it is not.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Islander

[LittleNipper]

I think we are running the risk of falling into a legalistic trap here. Seems like we are talking semantics here rather than substance. Christ is the corner stone of the Church and the absolute center of our worship. Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins by authority and the reception of the Holy Spirit are basic tenements of our religion.

The collective membership as guiding rod of the church sounds very good, in principle. In reality the priesthood HAS to be the guardian of the keys and the doctrine. You may read the scriptures and feel of the Spirit and receive, individually, revelation and knowledge. That does not equate with doing the same fot the WHOLE organization or the Church collectively. When we speak of "The Church" we are referring to the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the General Authorities the Stake Presidents, the Bishops, the Elders Q and HP group leaders as the instruments thru which the work of the Lord is carried out and service to the members is provided. Even when John was still alive and perhaps the last of the Apostles, there were congregations that began to break away from the "church" and refuse direction and counsel from one of the witnesses of the Savior, if you can imagine that.

So, collectively, it is called "The Church." And, the Priesthood ensures that the doctrine and the ordinances are not corrupted, that vague and obscure interpretations are not ascribed to the scriptures and the work is done according to the will and revelation of God. I have traveled the world over in the last 10 years and everywhere you go the Sacrament ordinance is conducted exactly the same way, the lessons are the same in ALL organizations, the Temple ordinances are exactly the same.

Again and again, the Apostles in their letters told the brethren to stick to what they had been taught, to ignore new doctrines and theologies for they were not of God. I don't know about you, but I spent 7 years visiting just about every congregation under the sun in LA looking for a home. What I saw stretches from the bizarre to the inspired and every shade in between. Some say it is all the same. I categorically state that it is not.

Unlike some christian denominations, my own faith, as understood from Bible study, would indicate that those holding the keys were the chosen founders/teachers/spreaders of the faith. The term was unique to the chosen and not for this age. They wrote the New Testament as so moved by the HOLY SPIRIT and founded the CHURCH on CHRIST as HE charged them. The CHURCH at large would seem to be entirely in the hands of GOD at present.

[Maxel]

Unlike some christian denominations, my own faith, as understood from Bible study, would indicate that those holding the keys were the chosen founders/teachers/spreaders of the faith. The term was unique to the chosen and not for this age. They wrote the New Testament as so moved by the HOLY SPIRIT and founded the CHURCH on CHRIST as HE charged them.

Do you believe the New Testament to be fully complete in its present form? That is to say, do you believe that the current Bible (especially the New Testament) contains all the books that God saw fit to include for the spreading of His Gospel until His second coming? Also, do you believe anyone after the original apostles would have authority to declare correct doctrine or canon?

The CHURCH at large would seem to be entirely in the hands of GOD at present.

I couldn't agree more.