Who Puts The "z" In Zion?

[Jenda]

And btw, although you may say that I may be the one to eventually discover the truth as long as I keep my heart pure, I testify that I already know the truth, which makes me either a true or false witness. In other words, I and my heart are either purely right, purely wrong, or purely innocent in my beliefs, and I will be judged based on my actions and the thoughts and intents of my heart.

I don't completely agree with this, Ray, because by saying this, you are saying that you already know everything about God. I don't think any of us can come close to knowing everything there is to know. I believe that I am led by God to the church that is truest to those revelations and commandments we have received, but I believe that God is always revealing things to us. I may have come as far as I am able to at this point in time, but I hope that I am open enough to the leadings of His spirit that if/when he reveals something else (but not different) to me, that I can accept it. Although I do know that one can get set in their ways, I hope that I don't ever fall into that pit.

I hope the same for you, also. :)

[Ray]

I testify that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on Earth with the authority to tell people how and when and where they should worship God and our Lord.

And btw, before anyone else brings it up, I’m not saying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has officially said that everybody should accept only what its leaders tell them about how and when and where they should worship God and our Lord.

What I’m saying is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization with the authority to do that and have that action officially recognized and accepted by our Lord.

But since that message wouldn’t go over very well with many people, including the leaders of our nation who have enacted laws protecting the freedom of everyone else, stating that all people should be free to worship God as they please, we [the Church] also allow everyone that freedom… let them worship how and where and what they please.

Am I making myself clear now?

In other words, only the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the authority of our Lord behind them when they tell people that they should repent, or be baptized, and what people should repent from, or how they should be baptized. Anyone else who does that is an unauthorized servant, acting without the authority of our Lord, and as such our Lord will not recognize their authority.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 12 2004, 02:08 PM

And btw, although you may say that I may be the one to eventually discover the truth as long as I keep my heart pure, I testify that I already know the truth, which makes me either a true or false witness. In other words, I and my heart are either purely right, purely wrong, or purely innocent in my beliefs, and I will be judged based on my actions and the thoughts and intents of my heart.

I don't completely agree with this, Ray, because by saying this, you are saying that you already know everything about God.  I don't think any of us can come close to knowing everything there is to know.  I believe that I am led by God to the church that is truest to those revelations and commandments we have received, but I believe that God is always revealing things to us.  I may have come as far as I am able to at this point in time, but I hope that I am open enough to the leadings of His spirit that if/when he reveals something else (but not different) to me, that I can accept it.  Although I do know that one can get set in their ways, I hope that I don't ever fall into that pit.

I hope the same for you, also.  :)

No, I didn’t mean to say or imply that I already know everything about God, because I don't, but I do know some things while knowing that those things are true.

One of the things that I know is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on Earth that is authorized by our Lord to teach the things He wants people to know about Him. If you don’t know that yet, I think that’s fine, as long as you don’t say that I’m wrong or that it can’t possibly be true. If you were to do that, you would be placing yourself on the side against the Church, rather than as someone who simply doesn’t know that yet, and our Lord would then consider and hold you accountable for being a false witness.

[Blessed]

I find this interesting. I see CofC as the one with the authority of the priesthood. Jenda is a member, but won't accept women in the priesthood, but has testimony that the RLDS before 156 had the authority and Ray believes the LDS is right.

Now if we all have that confirmation of the Holy Spirit... maybe we are all right... or maybe we are all wrong?

Something to think on... but to say that someone else did not really receive that confirmation is really passing judgment and I dare not do that and won't do that.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Blessed@Nov 12 2004, 02:21 PM

I find this interesting.  I see CofC as the one with the authority of the priesthood.  Jenda is a member, but won't accept women in the priesthood, but has testimony that the RLDS before 156 had the authority and Ray believes the LDS is right.

Now if we all have that confirmation of the Holy Spirit... maybe we are all right... or maybe we are all wrong?

Something to think on... but to say that someone else did not really receive that confirmation is really passing judgment and I dare not do that and won't do that.

I can guarantee that our Lord has not told anyone else that their organization is His organization of believers on Earth. He has given His assurance that certain things are true, such as the assurance that He is the Christ, or that the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was and is one of His prophets, but He has not told anyone else that their organization is true.

Many people have trouble making those distinctions.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 12 2004, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 12 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 12 2004, 02:08 PM

And btw, although you may say that I may be the one to eventually discover the truth as long as I keep my heart pure, I testify that I already know the truth, which makes me either a true or false witness. In other words, I and my heart are either purely right, purely wrong, or purely innocent in my beliefs, and I will be judged based on my actions and the thoughts and intents of my heart.

I don't completely agree with this, Ray, because by saying this, you are saying that you already know everything about God.  I don't think any of us can come close to knowing everything there is to know.  I believe that I am led by God to the church that is truest to those revelations and commandments we have received, but I believe that God is always revealing things to us.  I may have come as far as I am able to at this point in time, but I hope that I am open enough to the leadings of His spirit that if/when he reveals something else (but not different) to me, that I can accept it.  Although I do know that one can get set in their ways, I hope that I don't ever fall into that pit.

I hope the same for you, also.  :)

No, I didn’t mean to say or imply that I already know everything about God, because I don't, but I do know some things while knowing that those things are true.

One of the things that I know is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on Earth that is authorized by our Lord to teach the things He wants people to know about Him. If you don’t know that yet, I think that’s fine, as long as you don’t say that I’m wrong or that it can’t possibly be true. If you were to do that, you would be placing yourself on the side against the Church, rather than as someone who simply doesn’t know that yet, and our Lord would then consider and hold you accountable for being a false witness.

I don't think there is a problem with any of us believing that what we believe is true, as long as we all realize that there is a greater truth that none of us can know. The difference I see between you, Ray, and myself, is that, while I believe my church to be "truest", I don't believe that there can be a "true" church on the earth till Zion is established and Christ returns and teaches us Himself. Until then, we are left to what we "know" through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I believe that we are the truest as far as authority and adherence to the commandments and revelations, but I will never tell anyone else they are wrong, except by way of offering my testimony (and that would not necessarily be the kind of testimony you offered. It would be the testimony of how Christ has changed my life and lives and works through me.)

Like I said, when that day comes that Christ will be with us, teaching us, I believe that all of us, in one way or another, will have to put aside what we have always held fast to to accept those things that He has to offer us. Because He is the ultimate authority.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 12 2004, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 12 2004, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Blessed@Nov 12 2004, 02:21 PM

I find this interesting.  I see CofC as the one with the authority of the priesthood.  Jenda is a member, but won't accept women in the priesthood, but has testimony that the RLDS before 156 had the authority and Ray believes the LDS is right.

Now if we all have that confirmation of the Holy Spirit... maybe we are all right... or maybe we are all wrong?

Something to think on... but to say that someone else did not really receive that confirmation is really passing judgment and I dare not do that and won't do that.

I can guarantee that our Lord has not told anyone else that their organization is His organization of believers on Earth. He has given His assurance that certain things are true, such as the assurance that He is the Christ, or that the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was and is one of His prophets, but He has not told anyone else that their organization is true.

Many people have trouble making those distinctions.

And this would be part of my testimony, too, Ray. So, evidently He has given that assurance to other "organizations."

[Ray]

Keeping thinking and pondering and praying about this, Jenda, and I'll keep praying that you and the rest of the world will understand.

[Blessed]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:28 PM

I can guarantee that our Lord has not told anyone else that their organization is His organization of believers on Earth. He has given His assurance that certain things are true, such as the assurance that He is the Christ, or that the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was and is one of His prophets, but He has not told anyone else that their organization is true.

Many people have trouble making those distinctions.

This is what you said in an earlier post:

Heh, of course, but since I assert that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being led by our Lord's true priesthood, under His direction, I expect you to understand that you must join us. [\QUOTE]

My point was you feel that the LDS are the Lord's true priesthood. I say Community of Christ has that as well. Now are you right and I am wrong or vice versa or are we both wrong or are we both right?

I understand your point about certain truths... and agree, but when you are so bold to say the above... that leads me to believe that your last post contradicts what I just posted. Make sense... or did I lose ya, I think I just lost me.

[Ray]

Here's what I said in another thread, just in case you missed it.

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have remained the only Church on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize. The Lutherans couldn’t assume it, the Methodists couldn’t assume it, and no other “Protestant” organization could assume it, just as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” couldn’t assume it.

One argument you could make is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in apostasy, just as the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but another organization cannot claim the right to the authority simply because they once had it while in the “other” organization and had “other” ideas for what they should do with it.

So if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t have it, nobody has it, just as the Catholic Church doesn’t have it, and nobody can claim it from the Catholic Church.

Can you understand me now?

The authority is retained by the organization, and it does not move with the person once they leave the organization. That’s the way authority works in every kingdom. If someone receives authority to be a police officer and then leaves a police force, they no longer have the authority they once held as a police officer. If someone receives the authority to be the President of the United States and then gets voted out of office, he is no longer the President of the United States. And if someone receives authority to be a “high priest” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then leaves the Church, he is no longer considered to be a high priest. It just doesn’t work that way.

Btw, I want to make sure that you understand that I am not demeaning or denigrating your relationship with Jesus or your status as one of His followers. I am speaking only of the authority held within various organizations.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:45 PM

Keeping thinking and pondering and praying about this, Jenda, and I'll keep praying that you and the rest of the world will understand.

Lets just say the Lord gives you what you are looking for. If you want the truth, you will be given the truth. If you want your church to be the true one, the Lord will give you an assurance that it is.

Humilty is key. JS asked and asked to allow Martin Harris to take the 116 pages. He was finally given what he asked for. Would you accept the truth if if didn't please you Jenda?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Nov 12 2004, 10:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Nov 12 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:45 PM

Keeping thinking and pondering and praying about this, Jenda, and I'll keep praying that you and the rest of the world will understand.

Lets just say the Lord gives you what you are looking for. If you want the truth, you will be given the truth. If you want your church to be the true one, the Lord will give you an assurance that it is.

Humilty is key. JS asked and asked to allow Martin Harris to take the 116 pages. He was finally given what he asked for. Would you accept the truth if if didn't please you Jenda?

Right back atcha! B)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 13 2004, 06:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 13 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Nov 12 2004, 10:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:45 PM

Keeping thinking and pondering and praying about this, Jenda, and I'll keep praying that you and the rest of the world will understand.

Lets just say the Lord gives you what you are looking for. If you want the truth, you will be given the truth. If you want your church to be the true one, the Lord will give you an assurance that it is.

Humilty is key. JS asked and asked to allow Martin Harris to take the 116 pages. He was finally given what he asked for. Would you accept the truth if if didn't please you Jenda?

Right back atcha! B)

IOW you believe I am as unhumble as yourself? Not true. I am wonderfully humble.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Amillia+Nov 12 2004, 11:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Nov 12 2004, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 12 2004, 03:45 PM

Keeping thinking and pondering and praying about this, Jenda, and I'll keep praying that you and the rest of the world will understand.

Lets just say the Lord gives you what you are looking for. If you want the truth, you will be given the truth. If you want your church to be the true one, the Lord will give you an assurance that it is.

Humilty is key.

I have always had a slight problem with one faith or other, announcing very loudly, that their church is the only true church. It's kind of what I envisioned as I have read the Joseph Smith Story, "Come follow us because we have the truth that will free you from sin and evil"

I agree Humility IS Key.

I do believe the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints to be the true church because the spirit has testified this to me. That is not to say that other churches do not also have some of those truths.

I don't like the visualization of an overzealous priesthood holder, standing on his soapbox; saying that he will pray for others to understand the truth, the way he views it, or they can not be saved.

When Christ was here on the earth, he taught by example, love and caring. He didn’t try to frighten others into following him. They followed him because he was gentle. Christ’s authority was always there, but he didn't need to shout to make people listen to Him. Jesus Christ is the supreme authority holder, who has lived on this earth, and I will choose to follow His example.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@ Nov 13 2004, 10:00 AM

I don't like the visualization of an overzealous priesthood holder, standing on his soapbox; saying that he will pray for others to understand the truth, the way he views it, or they can not be saved.

I don’t like that visualization either, and I hope you weren’t thinking of me when you said that, yet for some reason I think you were because you said those things after you heard from me.

I believe all people will eventually be able to come to a knowledge of all truth, if they really want to, and that those who do will see the truth in the same way. After all, the truth is how something is, or was, or will be, and everybody should be able to agree once they see that.

When Christ was here on the earth, he taught by example, love and caring. He didn’t try to frighten others into following him. They followed him because he was gentle. Christ’s authority was always there, but he didn't need to shout to make people listen to Him. Jesus Christ is the supreme authority holder, who has lived on this earth, and I will choose to follow His example.

I think it’s great for you to be willing to admit that you follow the example of our Savior, and I try to do that too as gently as I know how. And I was neither trying to frighten you nor shout at you either.

I like the idea of being humble too, but who is to say who is humble and who is not? And is someone humble when they tell someone else they are not? How can anyone other than God really know what someone else is thinking?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ray -- On the subject of authority, you wrote:

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have remained the only Church on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize. The Lutherans couldn’t assume it, the Methodists couldn’t assume it, and no other “Protestant” organization could assume it, just as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” couldn’t assume it.

One argument you could make is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in apostasy, just as the Catholic Church is in apostasy, but another organization cannot claim the right to the authority simply because they once had it while in the “other” organization and had “other” ideas for what they should do with it.

So if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t have it, nobody has it, just as the Catholic Church doesn’t have it, and nobody can claim it from the Catholic Church.

Can you understand me now?

The authority is retained by the organization, and it does not move with the person once they leave the organization. That’s the way authority works in every kingdom. If someone receives authority to be a police officer and then leaves a police force, they no longer have the authority they once held as a police officer. If someone receives the authority to be the President of the United States and then gets voted out of office, he is no longer the President of the United States. And if someone receives authority to be a “high priest” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then leaves the Church, he is no longer considered to be a high priest. It just doesn’t work that way.

First, why the Catholic Church? Why not the Orthodox, or the other movements that claim apostolic authority? Why accept the claim of the Bishop of Rome to supremacy?

The churches that emphasize the principle of authority generally trace their authority to Jesus' giving Peter the "keys of the kingdom" in Matthew 16. But what was the nature of the authority Peter was given?

Was Peter given the "keys" in his capacity as an apostle? And if so, did the other apostles receive the same keys? If so, then the Orthodox could credibly claim divine authority. They trace the appointments of their leaders through the bishops ordained in the eastern Roman empire by the apostles, to the apostles themselves.

According to tradition, Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Catholics argue that the keys of the kingdom were given to him, personally, in his capacity as future bishop of Rome, and that all further authority had to be exercised through him or his successors. What if they were only half-right -- that is, Peter was given authority in his capacity as bishop, but it was the office of bishop generally, not that of bishop of Rome, that was vested with that authority? If so, then the Anglicans could credibly claim to have apostolic authority, because the Anglican Reformation was brought about by authorized decrees of the English bishops under the direction of their primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. (True, they issued those decrees at least partially under duress, but they did duly exercise their authority, whatever it was.)

Finally, what if Peter was vested with authority, not in his capacity as apostle nor as bishop, but in his capacity as a disciple? That is, why couldn't the authority to organize and operate Christ's church be vested in any individual disciple, or believer? That's what Martin Luther held, with his doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers," and it's the foundation for the Protestant doctrine of authority. There is some scriptural support for this in the epistles of Peter ("you [i.e. you all] are a royal priesthood").

That's not to say that any of these concepts of authority is correct. But they're not implausible, which is why the LeGrand Richards "if the Mormons don't have authority, only the Catholics can" argument -- attempting to establish the truth of the Church by logic -- never convinced me.

Finally, you compared divine authority to secular authority. Even if that were a useful comparison, the argument you make doesn't go as far as you try to make it. You wrote, "If someone receives authority to be a police officer and then leaves a police force, they no longer have the authority they once held as a police officer."

That's true, up to a point. But under that logic, no law enforcement officer in the United States has any authority. Think about it. George Washington was originally commissioned as an officer in the Virginia militia under the auspices of an authority whose chain of command ultimately stretched back to the British crown. One day in 1776, America up and left the British Empire without so much as a by-your-leave. Washington found himself a general, and later a President, and constituted various lower officers by virtue of the authority vested in him as holder of those offices. According to your logic, he had no such authority.

The Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation for all of the authority of American government (which otherwise would operate under British authority) states that governments derive their authority from the consent of the people, because those people are endowed by God with inalienable rights that may only be surrendered to government by the exercise of free will. In other words, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the sovereignty of God, vested in individuals, which those individuals may then organize into sovereign institutions to preserve their rights. How is that principle any different from a group of Protestants organizing themselves into a congregation and selecting a pastor?

[Ray]

I really have no idea which organization has a claim to authority by succession through Peter, and I really never gave it much thought because once I gained a testimony that the authority of our Lord is now vested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the point became of no concern to me. It would be nice to know who had the keys until then, though.

Btw, to understand the function and purpose of the keys of the kingdom, I recommend that you study more modern revelation.

The other point you brought up, about how authority exists in individuals or entities, can be accepted and understood within the context I was trying to explain.

For instance, the authority held by a President of the United States is granted through the leaders and / or voting citizens of the United States, just as the authority held by a Baptist minister is granted through the leaders and / or voting members of the congregation.

But as we all should know, God will either uphold or abolish all authorities on Earth that are not in accordance with His will, since He remains the supreme ruler over all, and His government and governance will endure forever.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Blessed@Nov 11 2004, 03:01 PM

I will share my thoughts, views, etc on Zion. I believe that Zion is the Kingdom of God on earth. I believe apart of it is endowed within each of those who have chosen Christ as their Savior. I believe it is a spiritual place as well as one day will be a physical place wherein we will all coexist peaceably. No poor, no rich, no heirarchy, and Jesus will reside with us. I believe it will be a small glimpse of what the celestrial glory will be like and after the final judgement we will (hopefully) be able to live in this Kingdom together... LDS, RLDS, CofC, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists... getting to the point that I think no specific denomination is required to be apart of the Celestrial or Zion for that matter. I think it will boil down to our hearts and that God will judge that.

OK-- those are my thoughts. Oh, one more thing, I believe it will come sooner than we think. Are we ready?

I think my first going will preceed His second coming

[Snow]

Ray,

You said:

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have remained the only Church on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize.

I thought that might be a misstatement but then you followed up with this:

I really have no idea which organization has a claim to authority by succession through Peter, and I really never gave it much thought because once I gained a testimony that the authority of our Lord is now vested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the point became of no concern to me. It would be nice to know who had the keys until then, though.

That is totally out of line with Church teachings. Whether or not Joseph Smith and the restoration ever came about, the world was in apostasy. No one held the keys after the early and ancient church fell into apostasy, and that happened long before the Catholic Church, as such, came into being.

[Ray]

If you’ll refer to the thread I originally quoted from, which is the ‘Question about Joseph Smith III’ thread, you’ll save me the trouble of repeating a lot of things I’ve already said.

Btw, also notice that I edited that post to read:

Originally posted by Ray@ Nov 12 2004, 03:17 PM

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have been the only Church remaining on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize….

Btw, this particular post can be found on page 22 of that thread.

I’ll also give you a short response, just in case this is enough to clarify my point.

The organized church of Christ remains on Earth as long as there are people on Earth with the keys of the kingdom, because the keys of the kingdom give people the right to organize and officiate in the Church. You seem to be saying that the keys of the kingdom are NOT retained by people who are in apostasy, and I will now ask you to clarify how you can make such a claim.

I say that the keys of the kingdom can only be taken away by Jesus or those people called by Him to organize and officiate in His church, and just as only He or those people can take them away, only He or those people can give them to other people. Or in other words, there is no mysterious or unseen event that occurs when the keys of the kingdom are given are taken away, as each event always consists of physical and actual appearances and events, with such appearances and events being documented for all the world to see.

[Deb]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 23 2004, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 23 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you’ll refer to the thread I originally quoted from, which is the ‘Question about Joseph Smith III’ thread, you’ll save me the trouble of repeating a lot of things I’ve already said.

Btw, also notice that I edited that post to read:

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray

@ Nov 12 2004, 03:17 PM

If Jesus had never given His authority to Joseph Smith and the other people who became officers in His Church, the Catholic Church would have been the only Church remaining on Earth which had ever received Jesus’ authority to organize….

Btw, this particular post can be found on page 22 of that thread.

I’ll also give you a short response, just in case this is enough to clarify my point.

The organized church of Christ remains on Earth as long as there are people on Earth with the keys of the kingdom, because the keys of the kingdom give people the right to organize and officiate in the Church. You seem to be saying that the keys of the kingdom are NOT retained by people who are in apostasy, and I will now ask you to clarify how you can make such a claim.

I say that the keys of the kingdom can only be taken away by Jesus or those people called by Him to organize and officiate in His church, and just as only He or those people can take them away, only He or those people can give them to other people. Or in other words, there is no mysterious or unseen event that occurs when the keys of the kingdom are given are taken away, as each event always consists of physical and actual appearances and events, with such appearances and events being documented for all the world to see.

I completely agree with you, Ray. Whenever I think of the Keys to the Kingdom, I shake my head in wonderment that all the other churches in the world don't see or understand the importance of having the ones given by God Himself. I like to think of it as having the only set of keys, if you will, that can open the doors to heaven and all the others only have keys that don't fit the lock in THAT door. Know what I mean?