Navidad

We enjoy the fellowship. Let me reiterate that . . . we attend the ward because we enjoy the fellowship with our fellow Christians. The vast majority of them also teach us via their lived lives. We attend Sacrament because we enjoy taking the sacrament and remembering and recommitting to our covenants we have made with God. We enjoy and learn from some of the talks. However we attend the ward for the fellowship with those of a like mind.

Ok. Never thought of it that way. You are bringing up something certainly different than what I am thinking. Good for you. I guess it comes back to how involved was God, the man in pre-Judaic religious rituals that were adopted into both Judaism and Christianity. In your view did Judaism or Christianity initiate the idea or concept of religious ordinances,or were there pre-existing ordinances adopted by those two? If the latter, then how active was God the man in those?

I am simply saying that I think many religious ordinances preceded Judaism. So we have to consider that. More later. So I guess my initial answer is no. But don't consider that my final answer to a much more complex question.

The idea of Baptism as an initiation rite? Probably by man in some far off pre-Judaistic rite. I think it is safe today that the idea of baptism preceded Judaism. Then one has to decide how active God was in all of that. Great question. Gotta run.

I won't be here today. Will have to reply tomorrow. Thanks

I am going to be gone all day, so I cannot reply until tomorrow (Thursday). I would love to chat further (farther) on the differences in certain ordinances in Catholicism and who interprets their mode, manner, and method. That will also give me a chance to discuss it with our parish priest. Thanks!

The only priesthood authority that most Evangelicals recognize is the priesthood of the believer mentioned by Peter. It is hard to speak more broadly than that since there most likely are Evangelicals in virtually every Christian group. I think there are most likely are more Evangelicals in the LDS church than even the LDS would believe! Certainly there are in the Community of Christ.

Are you serious? Do you think only Protestants can be Evangelical, or that all Evangelicals are Protestants? If so, I have a lot of Pentecostal and Anabaptist friends I would like you to meet!

I agree with you that churches and their approved humans with administrative authority often administer the ordinance in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Nothing obscure about that. It is performed by the approved person (by the group) in the name of God. There is no doubt about that. "Proper authority" in your verbiage is proof of that. Someone must have "proper authority from a group" to administer an ordinance. In many groups, like Catholics and others, it depends on the ordinance. It is therefore humans who make the determination what is or is not valid, not God. Mode, manner, method are all human concepts and limitation/restrictions.

I think that some ordinances are created by man and some by God. All are administered or administrated by humans, usually by a church or church group.

Hi my friend: Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I don't have the opportunity right now to provide the thoughtful responses that they deserve, especially an interpretation of the three verses. I will suggest that I have no idea what the concept of a baptism being "valid" in God's eyes means. It seems very important to you. I am not criticizing it in any way. I just don't understand the concept. I don't think God thinks about baptism as being valid, invalid, or sort of valid. It is an ordinance like many others. Some ordinances are specific to certain groups or faiths, others span Christianity. I can't fathom God saying to someone in a future heavenly encounter that He is upset because that person engaged in an invalid ordinance, the intent of which was either to testify of Him or to seek forgiveness of sins. The authority I mentioned was strictly that which is granted by an individual denomination or group. I grant no authority to "the priesthood" of believers at all; that is the only form of NT priest I understand. Authority to baptize comes from a group that recognizes a baptism in a certain way. It is neither generic nor universal. Again, you even with your concept of the priesthood have no authority to exercise that priesthood anywhere but in an LDS setting. Am I wrong? Your priesthood may still exist if you walk into a Methodist Church, but you have no means therein to exercise. Am I wrong? That is the distinction in my mind. I very much appreciate your helping me better understand the Godhead and the six kingdoms (including three levels alone in the Celestial Kingdom. You are very kind and patient. You have no idea how much I appreciate that. Gotta run. More on those verses later.

If that wasn't just a rhetorical question and you want an answer, I would say a hearty "Yes"

I'm sorry I don't know this - what is a colon clog? Sounds like a term I might enjoy using some day!

I think you asked a very relevant and important question. Thanks.

This thread makes me wonder - Is being all-too-easily-accused of being anti-gay much different than being all-too-easily-accused of being anti-Mormon? Hmmm! 🙃