“No Action” for Gina Colvin

[strappinglad]

I hate to say it, but having watched the 'progress ' of several of these folks , I suspect there will be another shoe hovering within the next couple of years.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have to trust that her bishopric acted under inspiration. I've certainly gone into a disciplinary council with an outcome in mind and been soundly corrected.

I’ve not disputed that, nor do I dispute it now. I still have my apprehensions about her behavior going forward, however. People have their moral agency. I believe that sometimes the Lord will give a person every advantage to leave the person without excuse regarding the use of his/her agency. 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that sometimes the Lord will give a person every advantage to leave the person without excuse regarding the use of his/her agency. 

I think that's nearly always how the Lord works. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:36 AM, longview said:

Baptism into a particular church implies the following:  1- accepting/believing that this church properly represents the Lord and has the authority to perform this ordinance;  2- making the commitment publicly to live by the teachings of said church;  3- striving to accept the challenges and trials that will come their way and attempting to do God's Will to grow and become faithful in overcoming/meeting the test.

For Gina Colvin to turn around and accept baptism into another church implies she desires to take the "cafeteria approach" to choosing what parts of which church she "fancies" or feels comfortable with.  She will have to resolve on her own what parts to follow or disregard.  A very clear indication that her "commitment" with either church was very flimsy and carnally minded.

1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

I know this is the way we view it in our church but do other church's really hold as firmly to what we would believe to be hard/fast rules about authority and membership?

I was speaking to a pastor friend of mine and asked her how many people had joined her congregation during the year. She gave me a number that wasn't based on baptism or confirmation, but rather on attendance at meetings. She considered people as members if they were engaged in the life of the church. To her, baptism was a symbol of following Jesus. The end. It had nothing to do with membership. For us, membership is officially part of the confirmation ordinance so we naturally think that membership is tied to the ordinance but I just don't think it's that way in all cases.

I have no idea how Anglicans view baptism/confirmation/membership but I'd be interested if anyone knows. But just because we tie the ordinance to membership doesn't mean everyone else does too.

The issue of "advocate its teachings" is tricky when considering whether someone is apostate from the church. "Advocate" can mean so many different things to different people.

To me, it would be more appropriate to show that someone is apostate to Jesus, not to a specific church and its leaders. Taking a Christian baptism as a sign of apostasy seems very problematic to me and illustrates how many are more interested in the issue of apostasy as it relates to the church/leaders and less how it actually relates to Jesus.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:29 PM, ksfisher said:

I'm in a bishopric in Salt Lake and I don't think we've ever felt any such pressure or scrutiny.  The former leaders in our ward are very happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting now.

Interesting.

I'm sure it's different in various places but I will say that Bishopric members rarely feel the same level of pressure and scrutiny as the bishop. When I was counselor many times prior to being bishop I was rarely aware of the scrutiny the bishop was facing by superiors. Likewise, when I was bishop I rarely allowed all the crap that was heaped on me to roll downstream to my counselors. Among other things, a bishop is a manager of a ward, and like all managers must determine how much info, how often, and what kind of tone to share with others as passed down by superiors. I had 1 stake president who seemed to pass down criticism/judgement/scrutiny on every single issue that popped into his mind and/or was shared by his superiors. If I had shared all of that, it would have demoralized many in the ward.

That's a long winded way of suggesting that in some cases bishopric members may not know all of the scrutiny a bishop/ward is facing because he consciously shields the other members from it.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Taking a Christian baptism as a sign of apostasy seems very problematic to me

It's not  just a matter of Christian baptism.  It's a baptism, using the sacred rites and ordinances of the gospel, by someone who has no authority to officiate in those ordinances.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the priesthood, the authority to act in the name of God, was restored to the earth by through the prophet Joseph Smith. 

Someone who accepts baptism in another church, in my mind, is in effect saying that the priesthood is not necessary.

Edited December 24, 2018 by ksfisher
sp

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When I was counselor many times prior to being bishop I was rarely aware of the scrutiny the bishop was facing by superiors.

Our bishop is very willing to share information.  He is also a very effective at delegating.  I can't see him not saying something if the stake was putting any pressure on him.  Actually, it's usually the other way around.  We're the ones putting pressure on the stake to do what they should be doing. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's not  just a matter of Christian baptism.  It's a baptism, using the sacred rites and ordinances of the gospel, by someone who has not authority to officiate in those ordinances.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the priesthood, the authority to act in the name of God, was restored to the earth by through the prophet Joseph Smith. 

Someone who accepts baptism in another church, in my mind, is in effect saying that the priesthood is not necessary.

And you are welcome to personally interpret a Christian baptism in that way if you choose.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's more about being apostate to the claims of the church than it is about being apostate to Jesus as the Savior of the world.

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But that doesn't change the fact that it's more about being apostate to the claims of the church than it is about being apostate to Jesus as the Savior of the world.

I don't think so.  The priesthood is more than the church.  The church is a mortal organization that exists to further His work and officiate, by virtue of priesthood authority invested in the church, in saving ordinances for His children.

This priesthood is eternal.  It is the power and authority to act in the name of God and the power and authority by which Christ performed His saving work. 

I don't see how you can deny His priesthood on one hand and claim Him as Savior with the other.

It brings to mind this phrase from Joseph Smith History "having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think so.  The priesthood is more than the church.  The church is a mortal organization that exists to further His work and officiate, by virtue of priesthood authority invested in the church, in saving ordinances for His children.

This priesthood is eternal.  It is the power and authority to act in the name of God and the power and authority by which Christ performed His saving work. 

I don't see how you can deny His priesthood on one hand and claim Him as Savior with the other.

It brings to mind this phrase from Joseph Smith History "having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

And this is an illustration of how so many in the church conflate Jesus and the church as if they're the same thing.

PSA- they're not the same thing  

 

Merry Christmas!

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And this is an illustration of how so many in the church conflate Jesus and the church as if they're the same thing.

PSA- they're not the same thing  

 

Merry Christmas!

I'm not sure how you understood that from what I wrote.  Here's what I wrote about the church:

 

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The priesthood is more than the church.  The church is a mortal organization that exists to further His work and officiate, by virtue of priesthood authority invested in the church, in saving ordinances for His children.

How am I conflating the church with Christ?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know this is the way we view it in our church but do other church's really hold as firmly to what we would believe to be hard/fast rules about authority and membership?

I was speaking to a pastor friend of mine and asked her how many people had joined her congregation during the year. She gave me a number that wasn't based on baptism or confirmation, but rather on attendance at meetings. She considered people as members if they were engaged in the life of the church. To her, baptism was a symbol of following Jesus. The end. It had nothing to do with membership. For us, membership is officially part of the confirmation ordinance so we naturally think that membership is tied to the ordinance but I just don't think it's that way in all cases.

I have no idea how Anglicans view baptism/confirmation/membership but I'd be interested if anyone knows. But just because we tie the ordinance to membership doesn't mean everyone else does too.

The issue of "advocate its teachings" is tricky when considering whether someone is apostate from the church. "Advocate" can mean so many different things to different people.

To me, it would be more appropriate to show that someone is apostate to Jesus, not to a specific church and its leaders. Taking a Christian baptism as a sign of apostasy seems very problematic to me and illustrates how many are more interested in the issue of apostasy as it relates to the church/leaders and less how it actually relates to Jesus.

mu Aunt is United Church of Canada and she switched congregations a few years back, she was saying her minister was a dweeb and one thing she didn't like was counting as members people who were just visiting and signed the guestbook, roll thing! So, they have like inflated numbers but actually attending is significantly less, like our church kind of ! if they have a formal baptismal procedure I have no idea

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And you are welcome to personally interpret a Christian baptism in that way if you choose.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's more about being apostate to the claims of the church than it is about being apostate to Jesus as the Savior of the world.

This is a false dichotomy. It ignores the concept that “the claims of the Church” originate with the Savior of the world. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[flameburns623]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know this is the way we view it in our church but do other church's really hold as firmly to what we would believe to be hard/fast rules about authority and membership?

I was speaking to a pastor friend of mine and asked her how many people had joined her congregation during the year. She gave me a number that wasn't based on baptism or confirmation, but rather on attendance at meetings. She considered people as members if they were engaged in the life of the church. To her, baptism was a symbol of following Jesus. The end. It had nothing to do with membership. For us, membership is officially part of the confirmation ordinance so we naturally think that membership is tied to the ordinance but I just don't think it's that way in all cases.

I have no idea how Anglicans view baptism/confirmation/membership but I'd be interested if anyone knows. But just because we tie the ordinance to membership doesn't mean everyone else does too.

The issue of "advocate its teachings" is tricky when considering whether someone is apostate from the church. "Advocate" can mean so many different things to different people.

To me, it would be more appropriate to show that someone is apostate to Jesus, not to a specific church and its leaders. Taking a Christian baptism as a sign of apostasy seems very problematic to me and illustrates how many are more interested in the issue of apostasy as it relates to the church/leaders and less how it actually relates to Jesus.

In her John Dehlin interview which I linked to earlier, Colvin discussed how mainline Christian denominations have lost any concern over the "One True Church" doctrine and see each denomination as having elements which may help a Christian pilgrim during PART of their life's journey but not for all of it. 

Specifically,  Gina speaks of being part of a liberal New Zealand Baptist fellowship when someone, hearing of what she was seeking, steered her toward the Anglican congregation of which she is now a member. 

The explicit message Gina says she was given was, "We LOVE you, Gina. We are NOT asking you to leave. We want you to  stay. If you must leave,  we hope that someday you will come back. Under whatever conditions seem right for you. But if you need to leave us, for a while or forever, in order to find yourself, then you have our blessing and our love". (Approximate paraphrase of  Colvin's comments, drawn from memory).

This sense of fuzzy,  open borders between otherwise very different approaches to spirituality,  is at the crux of Gina Colvin's criticisms of the use of excommunication by the LDS Church,  I expect.  She sees churches as communities gathered around therapeutic myths, (in the full sense of the word  "myth": a story which might have some basis, or no basis at all, in facticity,  but which serves some purpose other than a recounting of historical facts), gathered around those myths in order to serve one another and the larger world.

Because faith communities are for bonding, healing, therapy, and opportunities for service, and are NOT, fundamentally, truth-seeking endeavors,  Gina feels that,  by the process of excommunication, the LDS Church does terrible harm to itself as well as to the subjects of disciplinary actions.  

Edited December 24, 2018 by flameburns623

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

In her John Dehlin interview which I linked to earlier, Colvin discussed how mainline Christian denominations have lost any concern over the "One True Church" doctrine and see each denomination as having elements which may help a Christian pilgrim during PART of their life's journey but not for all of it. 

Specifically,  Gina speaks of being part of a liberal New Zealand Baptist fellowship when someone, hearing of what she was seeking, steered her toward the Anglican congregation of which she is now a member. 

The explicit message Gina says she was given was, "We LOVE you, Gina. We are NOT asking you to leave. We want you to  stay. If you must leave,  we hope that someday you will come back. Under whatever conditions seem right for you. But if you need to leave us, for a while or forever, in order to find yourself, then you have our blessing and our love". (Approximate paraphrase of  Colvin's comments, drawn from memory).

This sense of fuzzy,  open borders between otherwise very different approaches to spirituality,  is at the crux of Gina Colvin's criticisms of the use of excommunication by the LDS Church,  I expect.  She sees churches as communities gathered around therapeutic myths, (in the full sense of the word  "myth": a story which might have some basis, or no basis at all, in facticity,  but which serves some purpose other than a recounting of historical facts), gathered around those myths in order to serve one another and the larger world.

Because faith communities are therapy and opportunities for service, and NOT truth-seeking endeavors,  Gina feels that,  by the process of excommunication, the LDS Church does terrible harm to itself as well as to the subjects of disciplinary actions.  

OR...

She views LDS church, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. as all being a part of the body of Christ. Why would the Methodist (the hand) say to the eye (the Mormons) that I have no need of thee? Or why would the Mormons say to the Anglican, you are not part of the body?

If ALL Christians are a part of the body of Christ, either individually or collectively as denominations/congregations then the "fuzzy- open borders" approach makes a great deal of sense. Why would one body part claim superiority over another. Yet this is exactly what happens so often. I think Gina wants to be a part of the body of Christ, different denominations fulfilling different missions, and she finds value in participating in more than one of those missions. This is why I've said that apostasy from a denomination in favor of another denomination is very different than apostasy from the entire body of Christ.

Of course there are many on this board who will reject the notion that other denominations are even a part of the body of Christ. They will claim that the Mormon church IS the body. But no need to rehash that argument again  

[flameburns623]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OR...

She views LDS church, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. as all being a part of the body of Christ. Why would the Methodist (the hand) say to the eye (the Mormons) that I have no need of thee? Or why would the Mormons say to the Anglican, you are not part of the body?

If ALL Christians are a part of the body of Christ, either individually or collectively as denominations/congregations then the "fuzzy- open borders" approach makes a great deal of sense. Why would one body part claim superiority over another. Yet this is exactly what happens so often. I think Gina wants to be a part of the body of Christ, different denominations fulfilling different missions, and she finds value in participating in more than one of those missions. This is why I've said that apostasy from a denomination in favor of another denomination is very different than apostasy from the entire body of Christ.

Of course there are many on this board who will reject the notion that other denominations are even a part of the body of Christ. They will claim that the Mormon church IS the body. But no need to rehash that argument again  

Concur this is at least part of what Gina Colvin is saying. 

My comments were formulated to allow others to underscore that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints DOES see itself as a truth-seeking endeavor,  and as an organization uniquely in possession of certain truths. That is the difference between how Gina Colvin currently sees "doing church" as opposed to how the LDS Church sees itself. 

Gina isn't blithely unaware of this difference.  She isn't debunking Church truth-claims with the fierceness of a Jeremy Runnels or a Bill Reel.  But she takes for granted that the unique LDS "truths" are alreasy debunked, and that therefore the Church needs to reimagine its purpose for existence. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by flameburns623

[carbon dioxide]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OR...

She views LDS church, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. as all being a part of the body of Christ. Why would the Methodist (the hand) say to the eye (the Mormons) that I have no need of thee? Or why would the Mormons say to the Anglican, you are not part of the body?

If ALL Christians are a part of the body of Christ, either individually or collectively as denominations/congregations then the "fuzzy- open borders" approach makes a great deal of sense. Why would one body part claim superiority over another. Yet this is exactly what happens so often. I think Gina wants to be a part of the body of Christ, different denominations fulfilling different missions, and she finds value in participating in more than one of those missions. This is why I've said that apostasy from a denomination in favor of another denomination is very different than apostasy from the entire body of Christ.

Of course there are many on this board who will reject the notion that other denominations are even a part of the body of Christ. They will claim that the Mormon church IS the body. But no need to rehash that argument again  

I have a problem with the idea of different denominations all being a part of the body of Christ if for no other reason than the 1 Corinthians 1:13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"  Based upon the word "divided" is merizō  which according to this non-LDS site https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3307&t=KJV says that word means

1. to divide

   1. to separate into parts, cut into pieces

      1. to divide into parties, i.e. be split into factions

   2. to distribute

      1. a thing among people

      2. bestow, impart

If a denomination is a party or faction and I don't see how they can not be classified as such then Paul is asking is the Christ divided into parties, factions, denominations?  I think the answer he gives is NO.  Which means the body of Christ has to be like our bodies.  No part is at war with the other and all parts to work property agree and move towards the goals the overall organism is wanting or needs to do while staying healthy.  The brain tells the hand to move.  The hand does not tell the brain "No I will do what I want.  I choose not to move."  No healthy body does that.  Perhaps Gina answers Paul's question differently.

Edited December 24, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have a problem with the idea of different denominations all being a part of the body of Christ if for no other reason than the 1 Corinthians 1:13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"  Based upon the word "divided" is merizō  which according to this non-LDS site https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3307&t=KJV says that word means

1. to divide

   1. to separate into parts, cut into pieces

      1. to divide into parties, i.e. be split into factions

   2. to distribute

      1. a thing among people

      2. bestow, impart

If a denomination is a party or faction and I don't see how they can not be classified as such then Paul is asking is the Christ divided into parties, factions, denominations?  I think the answer he gives is NO.  Which means the body of Christ has to be like our bodies.  No part is at war with the other and all parts to work property agree and move towards one goal.  The brain tells the hand to move.  The hand does not tell the brain "No I will do what I want.  I choose not to move."  No healthy body does that.

And in an unhealthy body, the treatment is to separate the part that does that from the body, a in the cases of cancer or gangrene. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[flameburns623]

On 12/24/2018 at 1:54 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I have a problem with the idea of different denominations all being a part of the body of Christ if for no other reason than the 1 Corinthians 1:13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"  Based upon the word "divided" is merizō  which according to this non-LDS site https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3307&t=KJV says that word means

1. to divide

   1. to separate into parts, cut into pieces

      1. to divide into parties, i.e. be split into factions

   2. to distribute

      1. a thing among people

      2. bestow, impart

If a denomination is a party or faction and I don't see how they can not be classified as such then Paul is asking is the Christ divided into parties, factions, denominations?  I think the answer he gives is NO.  Which means the body of Christ has to be like our bodies.  No part is at war with the other and all parts to work property agree and move towards the goals the overall organism is wanting or needs to do while staying healthy.  The brain tells the hand to move.  The hand does not tell the brain "No I will do what I want.  I choose not to move."  No healthy body does that.  Perhaps Gina answers Paul's question differently.

You are exegeting as a fundamentalist. You are not reading Scripture in a manner which unites,  includes, promotes diversity,  or heals. You are reading Scripture to sift them as a guide to a universal orthodoxy and/or general orthopraxy. Progressive Christians are as aware of the passage you are citing as you are,  and deploy it to support a very different approach.  

The "brain" in their apprehension, is not earthly but Divine, and the central nervous system is the Holy Spirit. Only God is necessarily fully aware of how Christ's Body is fulfilling His purposes on Earth.  What might appear to limited human eyes to be spastic and palsied is in fact a Divine dance. 

Btw: I am not endorsing this, but attempting to approximate how I think progressive exegetes might respond.  My personal view is that progressives are somewhat blinded to their own tendencies to be exclusionary and judgemental. 

I do not think their more relaxed, culturally-directed way of getting at the Mind of God is as fecund or creative as they imagine.  It has a certain appeal,  but only just so much so. My feeling, anyhow. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by flameburns623

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OR...

She views LDS church, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. as all being a part of the body of Christ. Why would the Methodist (the hand) say to the eye (the Mormons) that I have no need of thee? Or why would the Mormons say to the Anglican, you are not part of the body?

If ALL Christians are a part of the body of Christ, either individually or collectively as denominations/congregations then the "fuzzy- open borders" approach makes a great deal of sense. Why would one body part claim superiority over another. Yet this is exactly what happens so often. I think Gina wants to be a part of the body of Christ, different denominations fulfilling different missions, and she finds value in participating in more than one of those missions. This is why I've said that apostasy from a denomination in favor of another denomination is very different than apostasy from the entire body of Christ.

Of course there are many on this board who will reject the notion that other denominations are even a part of the body of Christ. They will claim that the Mormon church IS the body. But no need to rehash that argument again  

That view point makes no sense. Neither the Church of Jesus Christ, the methodists, the Baptist, the Anglicans etc are all completely different organizations. Every one can easily say they don't need the other. Because they dont

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OR...

She views LDS church, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. as all being a part of the body of Christ. Why would the Methodist (the hand) say to the eye (the Mormons) that I have no need of thee? Or why would the Mormons say to the Anglican, you are not part of the body?

If ALL Christians are a part of the body of Christ, either individually or collectively as denominations/congregations then the "fuzzy- open borders" approach makes a great deal of sense. Why would one body part claim superiority over another. Yet this is exactly what happens so often. I think Gina wants to be a part of the body of Christ, different denominations fulfilling different missions, and she finds value in participating in more than one of those missions. This is why I've said that apostasy from a denomination in favor of another denomination is very different than apostasy from the entire body of Christ.

Of course there are many on this board who will reject the notion that other denominations are even a part of the body of Christ. They will claim that the Mormon church IS the body. But no need to rehash that argument again  

Why stop there? Is Hinduism part of the body of Christ? Scientology? Satanism?

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why stop there? Is Hinduism part of the body of Christ? Scientology? Satanism?

There are ecumenists who seek commonality within most of the major world religions. At present, l don't believe much progress is being made. We are several millennia yet removed from the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible

[longview]

On 12/24/2018 at 9:11 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I have no idea how Anglicans view baptism/confirmation/membership but I'd be interested if anyone knows. But just because we tie the ordinance to membership doesn't mean everyone else does too.

It seems RCC and Eastern Orthodox have greater formality and solemnity for "granting admission" into the Kingdom of God.  It is sad other churches have trivialized this ordinance.  Such as substituting "alter calls" and claiming anointing of the holy spirit, etc.

I will never forget hearing Hank Hanegraaff on his radio program "Bible Answer Man" about 20 years ago commuting home from work.  There was a sincere and thoughtful lady (likely not LDS) asking him about the importance of baptism and pointing out that Jesus considered it so important that He would show ALL His followers to do the same.  But Hank kept disassembling and brushing off her scriptural citations.  It was really frustrating hearing him squashing the lady in such a deflating manner.  I was much impressed with her attempts to reason by the scriptures.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[longview]

23 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have a problem with the idea of different denominations all being a part of the body of Christ if for no other reason than the 1 Corinthians 1:13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Which brings up the question of which church has the correct understanding of what is needed to be a "true disciple" of Christ.  Who has the authority for resolving differing interpretations of scriptures?  All the churches claim to pray but still are unable to come to the "unity of the Body of Christ" as required by Him:  "If ye are not ONE (united), ye are not mine."

 

[california boy]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why stop there? Is Hinduism part of the body of Christ? Scientology? Satanism?

How do you view the role of other religions?  Do you think they have any part of the body of Christ?  Or if you are not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then you really don't fit in anywhere.  The whole abomination thing.