Does the D&C teach a church other than the CoJCoLDS?

[prisonchaplain]

Many are familiar with Robert Millet, religion professor, and former dean at BYU. He was engaging an evangelical in a discussion about the offensiveness of the common Protestant/Catholic claim that "Mormons are not Christians" vs. the offensiveness of the LDS claim to be the only true church. That night he was reading the following verse: Word Search: destroy my church

Suddenly it dawned on him. What did God have in mind when he mentions "my church?" The verse says that God was not setting about to destroy his church, but to build it. Of course, most might assume he meant the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But...the verse was penned in the summer of 1828--before the church was organized.

Millet contends that God was saying that the Gospel Joseph Smith brought was never intended to destroy the universal church--the believers and followers of Jesus. He further suggests that this mitigates Smith's revelations about corrupt professors, abominable doctrines, etc. Most pointedly, he rejects the dichotamy of the Lord's Church (LDS) vs. the Devil's church (all others), believing instead that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ. The professor still believes his church is the restored church, and is alone in having priesthood authority. Nevertheless, he found the D&C verse to be a strong confirmation of his inclination to engage other Christians in loving gospel dialogue.

[Vort]

Millet might have a point. There is no doubt that Section 10 was received well before the LDS Church was organized. What, then, did God mean by "church"? Was he speaking to some future time? No, in context, it is clear he meant something right then.

I am not yet ready to accept Millet's idea that the Lord intended the so-called "universal church". I don't know if etymology sheds light on this or not, but perhaps it is worth noting that the Greek for "church", ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), literally means "calling out of", and was used originally to denote an assembly of people. Might the "church" of D&C 10 refer to "spiritual Israel" in the wilderness? That is, might it refer to those sincere souls of the time "who [were] only kept from the truth because they [knew] not where to find it"? If so, then it is not a huge leap to get from this point to Millet's thesis.

At this time, I reject the idea "that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ". This is explicitly contrary to what I understand the LDS Church to teach. But I also acknowledge that my understanding might be faulty, and that Millet may have a point.

[HiJolly]

This fits with my view of the "Church of the Lamb of God" vs the "Church of the Devil". They are bigger than any single institution. This also fits with what the "Church of the Firstborn" is.

I love it:

1 Nephi 14: 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

HiJolly

[Vort]

This fits with my view of the "Church of the Lamb of God" vs the "Church of the Devil". They are bigger than any single institution. This also fits with what the "Church of the Firstborn" is.

No, this is demonstrably incorrect.

And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. (D&C 76:50-54)

The Church of the Firstborn, who will be those raised to celestial glory in the resurrection of the just, are members of the kingdom of God -- aka (in this dispensation) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Justice]

That verse could mean "the followers of Christ," specifically those that believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and looked forward to the time the Church would be officially reorganized. Just because it was not organized does not mean He must not have been talking about those who recognized a modern prophet.

[Maxel]

I agree with HiJolly's take on the OP's question.

Vort, I read D&C 76:50-54 slightly differently. I believe members of the Church of the Firstborn might not join the LDS Church in this lifetime, but by receiving all required ordinances after death they are able to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

[Vort]

Vort, I read D&C 76:50-54 slightly differently. I believe members of the Church of the Firstborn might not join the LDS Church in this lifetime, but by receiving all required ordinances after death they are able to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

Then you are not reading it differently. My point is that the "Church of the Firstborn" refers solely to those who are members of God's kingdom (aka the LDS Church) and who come forth in exaltation. It manifestly does not refer to some "universal church of believers".

[prisonchaplain]

I readily admit that I am super-imposing my concept of universal church upon Millet's thoughts. Vort's referenced to "the called out ones" and the assembly of people rings true.

Millet went on to cite a dicussion Stephen Robinson (also of BYU) had with a liberal mainstream Protestant minister. Robinson, after hearing the minister say that Mormons obviously were not Christians, asked, "Do you believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God, who actually did miracles, and who somehow literally and physically atoned for our sins?" The minister replied no. And Robinson asked, "Then how is it that I, a Mormon, who believe all of these things, am not a Christian, but you are?"

FYI, I was watching this with my wife, and she did respond, "Wow...I'm more angry at the liberal minister pretending to be a Christian than I am the Mormon!"

[Moksha]

FYI, I was watching this with my wife, and she did respond, "Wow...I'm more angry at the liberal minister pretending to be a Christian than I am the Mormon!"

So you wife views the failure to believe all literally as heresy greater than the other checklist items cited against Mormonism? That is a general tenet of Evangelicalism is it not?

[Vanhin]

No, this is demonstrably incorrect.

And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. (D&C 76:50-54)

The Church of the Firstborn, who will be those raised to celestial glory in the resurrection of the just, are members of the kingdom of God -- aka (in this dispensation) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think you misunderstood what HiJolly was saying. He did not actually say what the Church of the Firstborn was. He was using it as an example of how the word church can be used.

The Church of the Firstborn is not the same thing as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was his point.

Correct me if I am wrong HiJolly.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

No, this is demonstrably incorrect.

And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. (D&C 76:50-54)

The Church of the Firstborn, who will be those raised to celestial glory in the resurrection of the just, are members of the kingdom of God -- aka (in this dispensation) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I have highlighted the key parts of that scripture you quoted that is the determining factor of who is the Church of the Firstborn. It is they who have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, or in other words, they have had their calling and election made sure. That is the Church of the Firstborn.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Maxel]

Then you are not reading it differently. My point is that the "Church of the Firstborn" refers solely to those who are members of God's kingdom (aka the LDS Church) and who come forth in exaltation. It manifestly does not refer to some "universal church of believers".

Okay, we may have different ideas about two key concepts:

-What is required to be inducted into the Church of the Firstborn, and

-What is God's kingdom, and can one 'join' it after death?

I've always understood the Church of the Firstborn to include all those throughout the history of the world who exercised real faith in God and were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (this would include Abraham, Israel (Jacob), the Apostle Peter, the Three Nephites, and the other holy prophets), which to my understanding includes a personal visitation from the Savior. These requirements definitely exclude the Protestant idea of a "universal church [or priesthood] of believers", but does not limit members of the Church of the Firstborn to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. In other word, membership in the Church of the Firstborn is not limited to people living in this dispensation.

In that sense, I'm comfortable with calling the Church of the Firstborn a Mormon version of a "universal Church of believers"- because they're not just 'believers', but those who have actually seen Christ appear to them, personally, and know without a doubt that He exists.

[Vort]

Okay, we may have different ideas about two key concepts:

-What is required to be inducted into the Church of the Firstborn, and

Requoting D&C 76:50-54:

And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

I count five conditions, bolded above:

• Receive the testimony of Jesus.
• Believe on Jesus' name.
• Be baptized as specified by commandment.
• Overcome by faith.
• Be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

Requirement #3 explicitly enumerated baptism and thus membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or its equivalent in other dispensations).

-What is God's kingdom, and can one 'join' it after death?

God's earthly kingdom today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of proxy temple work for our deceased is precisely to allow them to "join it after death".

I've always understood the Church of the Firstborn to include all those throughout the history of the world who exercised real faith in God and were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (this would include Abraham, Israel (Jacob), the Apostle Peter, the Three Nephites, and the other holy prophets), which to my understanding includes a personal visitation from the Savior. These requirements definitely exclude the Protestant idea of a "universal church [or priesthood] of believers", but does not limit members of the Church of the Firstborn to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. In other word, membership in the Church of the Firstborn is not limited to people living in this dispensation.

True enough. As I wrote above, they must be a member of the kingdom of God, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its equivalent in other dispensations.

As for the "personal visitation" part, I have no idea about that.

In that sense, I'm comfortable with calling the Church of the Firstborn a Mormon version of a "universal Church of believers"- because they're not just 'believers', but those who have actually seen Christ appear to them, personally, and know without a doubt that He exists.

In Elder McConkie's final General Conference testimony delivered days before his death, he talked of a future time when he would bathe the Savior's feet with his tears -- but proclaimed that he would not know at that future time any better than he knew at the time of his testimony that Jesus was the Christ. I believe the Spirit testifies of Christ's reality and divinity even better than our senses.

[Hemidakota]

Many are familiar with Robert Millet, religion professor, and former dean at BYU. He was engaging an evangelical in a discussion about the offensiveness of the common Protestant/Catholic claim that "Mormons are not Christians" vs. the offensiveness of the LDS claim to be the only true church. That night he was reading the following verse: Word Search: destroy my church

Suddenly it dawned on him. What did God have in mind when he mentions "my church?" The verse says that God was not setting about to destroy his church, but to build it. Of course, most might assume he meant the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But...the verse was penned in the summer of 1828--before the church was organized.

Millet contends that God was saying that the Gospel Joseph Smith brought was never intended to destroy the universal church--the believers and followers of Jesus. He further suggests that this mitigates Smith's revelations about corrupt professors, abominable doctrines, etc. Most pointedly, he rejects the dichotamy of the Lord's Church (LDS) vs. the Devil's church (all others), believing instead that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ. The professor still believes his church is the restored church, and is alone in having priesthood authority. Nevertheless, he found the D&C verse to be a strong confirmation of his inclination to engage other Christians in loving gospel dialogue.

In keeping the candle wick [the universal church] burning until the Savior restore His church, His authority, and His dominion.

Now, I don’t agree with Bob at all. We can review what the Lord stated in the 1st Vision. I can state the same when I also asked the same question and it was completely same statement as what Joseph received. If Bob sought the same, he would have received the same message. The answer lies in asking for the same message for clearer guidance on what is the Lord.

In addition, noting what Nephi saw in a vision, in the beginning it was many churches but in the end, there was but two churches left standing, the few who belong to the FATHER's church, and the many that belong to the man made wisdom [the world, churches and so forth]. When we view the same vision that was given to Nephi, there is a notable difference of what really belongs to GOD and what belongs to Satan, the great deceiver.

We choose [agency] to follow what we believe is correct and divine. But many will be deceived by the craftiness of Lucifer and his cronies.

[Hemidakota]

Then you are not reading it differently. My point is that the "Church of the Firstborn" refers solely to those who are members of God's kingdom (aka the LDS Church) and who come forth in exaltation. It manifestly does not refer to some "universal church of believers".

Let me add some correction here. Even among the many Saints in claiming membership in the church doesn't not constitute exclusivity automatically within Church of the Firstborn. This exclusive membership only comes after we apply membership in the church, by faith, by desire, being obedient and following HIS will, received the fullness of the priesthood [through temple ordinances] may receive it by the hands of the Holy Ghost in presenting the person before the Godhead as a exclusive divine member.

There are three notable keys that Peter [2nd Peter chap 1] left us in gaining this exclusivity, which the Prophet Joseph stated after his review of the book. Now, you can be an active temple member of the church and still not be considered a member of Church of the Firstborn. This is left to the Godhead in hand selecting those who they deemed worthy to stand as a FATHER and MOTHER in the eternality’s.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Requoting D&C 76:50-54:

And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

I count five conditions, bolded above:

• Receive the testimony of Jesus.
• Believe on Jesus' name.
• Be baptized as specified by commandment.
• Overcome by faith.
• Be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

Requirement #3 explicitly enumerated baptism and thus membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or its equivalent in other dispensations).

God's earthly kingdom today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of proxy temple work for our deceased is precisely to allow them to "join it after death".

True enough. As I wrote above, they must be a member of the kingdom of God, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its equivalent in other dispensations.

As for the "personal visitation" part, I have no idea about that.

In Elder McConkie's final General Conference testimony delivered days before his death, he talked of a future time when he would bathe the Savior's feet with his tears -- but proclaimed that he would not know at that future time any better than he knew at the time of his testimony that Jesus was the Christ. I believe the Spirit testifies of Christ's reality and divinity even better than our senses.

What are the three keys Joseph stated that is required for membership?

[Hemidakota]

In that sense, I'm comfortable with calling the Church of the Firstborn a Mormon version of a "universal Church of believers"- because they're not just 'believers', but those who have actually seen Christ appear to them, personally, and know without a doubt that He exists.

Joseph witnessed both the FATHER and the Son in his tender age of 14 but still not sealed by the Holy Ghost at that point. It came later when two of them were in attendance in the upper room of the Kirtland Temple, they were given this promise in person, which also is applied to their spouses and children if they remain faithful to the end. What was left out and not written, is the status of their pre-mortal life - whom they were and what lies before them to come.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Hemidakota

[FunkyTown]

I am going to go out on a limb and say that PC is correct: The LDS church was never intended to destroy the rest of the churches of the world any more than Martin Luther was supposed to destroy the Catholic church.

The LDS church, in keeping with modern prophets, does not believe that all other churches are of 'The Devil'. Instead, they believe that there is far too much confusion out there over doctrine and that the LDS church has the single true doctrine.

This is important as it's a claim made by many churches throughout history: Reformers and many others. What makes Joseph Smith's claims unique are not that the Church needed to be reformed and had fallen away from what God had intended.

It's that he was told what God had intended from God himself. That makes his claim unique.

[stormwitch]

I love one of the last scenes in "The Last Battle" by C. S. Lewis. I think, everybody knows Aslan, the lion, wo represents in many ways Jesus Christ in this 7-book-long fable. Tash is a false God, and Emeth has served him all his life. In this scene Narnia (the world) has come to an end, and the survivors meet in a new country. Emeth describes meeting Aslan:

"... the Glorious one bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desiere for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn.... But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yes I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

It makes me a bit afraid to make assumptions of who will belong to which group. We might be surprised at the outcome. Jesus told us not to judge.

The only important thingf or us is to qualify to be in the Church of the Firstborn. When we do this (being LDS or of any other confession) by being the best person we can and by keeping all commandments we know of, we have done our part. The rest is in the Hand of God and happens due to the atonement of Christ. We by ourselves will go nowhere!

Edited November 25, 2009 by stormwitch

[prisonchaplain]

So you wife views the failure to believe all literally as heresy greater than the other checklist items cited against Mormonism? That is a general tenet of Evangelicalism is it not?

It's not so much whether Jonah was "literally" swallowed by a great fish, but whether Jesus really was the Son of God, come to actually atone for our sins. That someone would think that because they belong to a historic Christian denomination, and even have ordination in it, that they can please God while not believing any of the supernatural and God-intervening aspects of the Bible--well it reminds me of the Sadduccees. Compare that with an active, observant, knowledgeable LDS professor who really believes God loves, interacts, even interferes with us...you don't see the irony?

And please...it's not a matter of someone having to believe EXACTLY as we do. In fact, that's rather the whole point. Doctrinally, the statement of the church that liberal minister was from was quite close to that of mine. The LDS statements is quite different. Yet, when it comes to how God loves us and involves himself with us, we'd be closer to the professor. So, from our perspective, much was given, and much should be expected from the minister. We won't judge either one's place with God, but we are much more disappointed in the liberal minister.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Many are familiar with Robert Millet, religion professor, and former dean at BYU. He was engaging an evangelical in a discussion about the offensiveness of the common Protestant/Catholic claim that "Mormons are not Christians" vs. the offensiveness of the LDS claim to be the only true church. That night he was reading the following verse: Word Search: destroy my church

Suddenly it dawned on him. What did God have in mind when he mentions "my church?" The verse says that God was not setting about to destroy his church, but to build it. Of course, most might assume he meant the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But...the verse was penned in the summer of 1828--before the church was organized.

Millet contends that God was saying that the Gospel Joseph Smith brought was never intended to destroy the universal church--the believers and followers of Jesus. He further suggests that this mitigates Smith's revelations about corrupt professors, abominable doctrines, etc. Most pointedly, he rejects the dichotamy of the Lord's Church (LDS) vs. the Devil's church (all others), believing instead that the Lord's Church is also that universal fellowship of true followers of Christ. The professor still believes his church is the restored church, and is alone in having priesthood authority. Nevertheless, he found the D&C verse to be a strong confirmation of his inclination to engage other Christians in loving gospel dialogue.

I guess I am too simple minded to follow how you are saying "my church" refers to anything other than the church he was referring to in the verse right before the one you mentioned. And if you read that whole section, the section is talking about manuscripts that were taken away for evil purposes and so, God in his wisdom does not fall for that trap, trying to get Joseph Smith to re-translate that manuscript and those evil people catching him in a re-translation error. So He said that He will not give it all now, only on the faithfulness of the members of the church will he give those parts of the gospel. But he doesn't withhold it to destroy the church but to build up the faith of the members and when they are ready will include more prophecy from which that what was taken.

Why is it any more complicated than that?

His church is the same that was established when Jesus was here and which was established with the Nephites from which that verse is referring to in D&C, about the book of Lehi. The Nephites wished anyone on this land that had faith would receive this gospel, not to destroy what was done but to reestablish and restore and build up that which was part of the original church, or "His church." I don't see anything referring to the Devils church or anything else. We see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the same church that was established when He was here and with the Nephites. The reestablishing of His church was revealed to Joseph many years before it was actually, officially restored. right?

[Traveler]

I have two thought about the “Church” of Christ.

The first thought is universal and that is that anyone that strives to live according to correct principles that G-d has given them, regardless of any organization to which they are joined, is among the “sheep” and should be counted into the fold of Christ. When we talk about the universal inclusion of all that believe and so live I am disappointed with those “Christians” that immediately exclude others based on some criteria and think because they are “Christian” they can exclude anyone that does not “believe” some doctrine they wish to use as their litmus test for Christianity. To be blunt – I believe there is a significant disconnect when someone will call themselves “Christian” and then think of someone else as not Christian when that someone else is more loving and kind towards their fellow men than them; especially if they are concerned when someone excludes them from belonging to the congregation of G-d. (Remembering that Jesus taught that Christians are to think of others and treat them as they would have others treat and think of them)

The second thought is not universal but quite exclusive. That is that the church of Christ is the church that establishes and assists with the covenants necessary to be a disciple of Christ and him your master according to covenant. Jesus was very blunt in his teaching on this subject – he taught that not everybody that “believes” enough to call him L-rd is acceptable to him as a Christian. Only those that are willing to live according to covenant, which is the will of the Father, should be able to use his sacred name or title. Otherwise they commit willingly the sin of sedition and rejection of G-d by using the name of G-d in vein.

In summary I do not believe someone to be a Christian that is unwilling to live all of G-d’s commandments given to them and that in any way preach or teach that it is not necessary, for whatever reason, to keep all of G-d’s commandments one receives from G-d. If G-d has asked someone to do something and they refuse to do so; claiming it is not really necessary – I do not think they are very Christian at all – in fact not even a little bit, even and especially if they are LDS.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

And please...it's not a matter of someone having to believe EXACTLY as we do. In fact, that's rather the whole point. Doctrinally, the statement of the church that liberal minister was from was quite close to that of mine. The LDS statements is quite different. Yet, when it comes to how God loves us and involves himself with us, we'd be closer to the professor. So, from our perspective, much was given, and much should be expected from the minister. We won't judge either one's place with God, but we are much more disappointed in the liberal minister.

Sounds like the liberal minister gave a broad answer to a broad question. The answer could be interpreted as not believing that Jesus was the Christ as well as Jonah not being swallowed by the whale, but is that what he really believed? That would seem way odd for a Christian Church minister to not hold with the divinity of Jesus. Perhaps Robinson's analysis and question were premature without further inquiry.

BTW, sorry if the original question sounded snarky. I picked up on that the second I reread it. I appreciate your post and remarks.

:)

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, there are "liberal" ministers who believe the Bible to be inspirational, rather than literally inspired of the Holy Ghost. They find much of the supernatural aspects of the Gospels to be embarrassing and antiquated. They see many of the morality rules to be cultural bound, rather than based on eternal principles. At the end of the day, Jesus is this great guy with some profound teachings, who was willing to buck the system. They find this cool, and their spiritual heritage to be a healthy mixture of morals, positive thinking, and tradition.

[bytebear]

I realize the church was officially established April 6, 1830 as a legal entity, but does that mean the church (as a concept, an extension of the gospel, and as a spiritual entity) exist prior to that. Did it begin with the priesthood keys restored? or in 1820 when Smith was first called as the prophet of the restoration?