What if you want the church to be true,

[ave maria]

Ave you correctly quoted me (QUOTE (charity @ Sep 10 2005, 02:23 AM) "And Ave, since you very clearly described similar feelings of sadness. . . " and then you say, "You must have me confused with someone else, charity. You'd have to point out where and when I did any such thing. I believe you are quite mistaken. "

So Ave, here is the direct quote from you: "Do you think that didn't cause enormous sadness? Overwhelming grief? Do you imagine the Church likes to be divided, separated?"

What I think happened in this misunderstanding, is you thought I was saying that you were saddened to leave the Church. I thought you were saying that now that you are Catholic, you similarly, would be saddened if someone left the Catholic Church. My question was intended to ask you why you could see leaving the Catholic church can be met with sadness, but LDS people cannot feel sadness but can only feel threatened when someone leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Thanks for the clarification.

I was using that description in two senses--one, in the specific sense that family or friends might feel "sadness" if someone they loved left their particular church/denomination/faith tradition/culture, and two, in the larger, more mystical sense that the "Church" as the Body of Christ is itself an entity that does not like to be separated (generally, this sense is not employed in Mormonspeak).

If you assumed that by that statement that I was describing personal sadness, even with the departure of another person from Catholicism, you'd be incorrect, at least in the sense that I believe you perceive it.

[charity]

Ave, I believe you are not understanding what I am saying. (And as smart as you are, I really do not see how that can be.) You replied to my post by saying "Asserting that God does not exist outside the Church (LDS or otherwise) is antithetical to most Christian belief, and, I'd respectfully suggest, likewise unsupported by official LDS belief."

I said that God's authority to perform saving ordinances does not exist outside the Church. Baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament, the endowment, sealing, those are all rites and ordinances which require priesthood authority. They do not exist outside the Church, and this is fully supported by "official LDS belief."

But then you failed to note that the next paragraph of my post said, "However, there is another sense. God loves all His children, and He wants to stay in their lives to the extent that they will allow Him. He does not force Himself on any one. So, yes, everyone who wants to can experience His love."

This obviously means that I understand God exists outside the Church. I really do not understand how you could have made that mistake.

[ave maria]

And thanks for the football info.  I wouldn't want to be using a term that would be taking something sacred to someone and using it inappropriately. 

Sacred, maybe. Like the Green Bay Packers are God's true football team.

In some parts of the country, you'll see seas of Packer jerseys in mass on game days, and homilies abbreviated to catch a kick-off.

[charity]

Ave, maybe I am being obtuse now. You said, "If you assumed that by that statement that I was describing personal sadness, even with the departure of another person from Catholicism, you'd be incorrect, at least in the sense that I believe you perceive it."

Do you really mean that if you had a friend or family member who told you they had decided to leave the Catholic Church to join another church, you would not feel any personal sadness? If you believe the Catholic Church is the way back to Heavenly Father's presence, how can that be? Or do you believe all paths lead to Heaven and everyone will get there no matter what they do or don't do here on earth?

I really am confused about this. I thought Catholic doctrine was that a person had to receive the rites of the church to get to Heaven, even to the extent that an unbaptized infant was consigned to Hell.

[ave maria]

Ave, I believe you are not understanding what I am saying. (And as smart as you are, I really do not see how that can be.) You replied to my post by saying "Asserting that God does not exist outside the Church (LDS or otherwise) is antithetical to most Christian belief, and, I'd respectfully suggest, likewise unsupported by official LDS belief."

I said that God's authority to perform saving ordinances does not exist outside the Church. Baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament, the endowment, sealing, those are all rites and ordinances which require priesthood authority. They do not exist outside the Church, and this is fully supported by "official LDS belief."

Oh, no, charity, I understand completely, and am in complete agreement, except that you and I do not agree where that "Church" exists.

I firmly and devoutly believe that the authority to perform the sacraments/saving ordinances does not exist outside the Church (and as I believe the LDS Church is "outside the Church," I therefore do not believe they have the authority to perform the same).

Where you and I would disagree is that I do not believe membership is required to be saved. I believe, as is consistent with current Catholic belief and teaching, that the Church is the vehicle to salvation for all, but not that all need to "belong to it" (in the sense that they need to be officially members) to be saved.

(If you want to continue a discussion specifically on that topic, I'd suggest spinning off onto a separate thread.)

We would also disagree somewhat on what the "saving ordinances" or sacraments of the Church properly are, and how they should properly be administered, but we certainly both agree that authority resides only within "the Church." Again, our point of difference is where that Church exists.

[ave maria]

I really am confused about this. I thought Catholic doctrine was that a person had to receive the rites of the church to get to Heaven, even to the extent that an unbaptized infant was consigned to Hell.

Not exactly (see my post above).

Again, as I recomended above, if you want to spin off in that direction and pursue that topic, I'd recommend you start another thread for that purpose.

[charity]

Ave, you didn't answer my question. Would you be sad if someone, friend or family, left the Catholic Church to join another?

[ave maria]

Ave, you didn't answer my question. Would you be sad if someone, friend or family, left the Catholic Church to join another?

Not in the same sense that you'd be sad if a family member or friend left the LDS Church.

For example, all my immediate and extended family members (on my side) are LDS. Am I sad that they are not Catholic? I'm not sure "sad" is the correct word for it. Would I prefer that they have the fulness of the truth and the sacraments that I believe are within the Catholic Church? Sure. But I don't perceive Mormonism as diminishing them; they are good people, and strive to serve God, and see Jesus Christ as their Savior.

I do have other family members (not on my side) that are marginal Catholic, or have left the Catholic Church. Again, I'm not sure it would be correct to say that this brings me the "sadness" that I believe you perceive. I have at least one grandson who is a professed atheist, and a granddaughter who, after confirmation in the Catholic Church, decided to become Buddhist. I believe in both cases those are their own personal journeys to be made. Both have received the sacrament of baptism, and both I suspect will do some wandering as they make their journey.

Do I judge them negatively for their choices? No. I believe spiritual journeys are quite an individual matter. I prefer that people respect me for my own, and in that spirit, I strive to respect others for theirs.

I trust to a loving and merciful and compassionate and all-knowing and understanding God to sort these things in His infinite wisdom.

[Dill Pickles]

Ave, you didn't answer my question.  Would you be sad if someone, friend or family, left the Catholic Church to join another?

Not in the same sense that you'd be sad if a family member or friend left the LDS Church.

For example, all my immediate and extended family members (on my side) are LDS. Am I sad that they are not Catholic? I'm not sure "sad" is the correct word for it. Would I prefer that they have the fulness of the truth and the sacraments that I believe are within the Catholic Church? Sure. But I don't perceive Mormonism as diminishing them; they are good people, and strive to serve God, and see Jesus Christ as their Savior.

I do have other family members (not on my side) that are marginal Catholic, or have left the Catholic Church. Again, I'm not sure it would be correct to say that this brings me the "sadness" that I believe you perceive. I have at least one grandson who is a professed atheist, and a granddaughter who, after confirmation in the Catholic Church, decided to become Buddhist. I believe in both cases those are their own personal journeys to be made. Both have received the sacrament of baptism, and both I suspect will do some wandering as they make their journey.

Do I judge them negatively for their choices? No. I believe spiritual journeys are quite an individual matter. I prefer that people respect me for my own, and in that spirit, I strive to respect others for theirs.

I trust to a loving and merciful and compassionate and all-knowing and understanding God to sort these things in His infinite wisdom.

from the Pickle jar: a young friend of mine, raised Catholic, recently joined the LDS church. Her father disowned her and severed all ties. I find that to be incredibly sad. I also find it to be absolutely unnecessary.

[ave maria]

from the Pickle jar: a young friend of mine, raised Catholic, recently joined the LDS church. Her father disowned her and severed all ties. I find that to be incredibly sad. I also find it to be absolutely unnecessary.

I absolutely agree. Although history is replete with examples of the same.

[1dc]

I find nothing in the LDS Articles of Faith that supports sibling's assertion. If you are referring to Article #11, it stands contrary to his assertion.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Ahhhh, Article 11 does apply. You are free to believe they are incorrect.

Note that the article doesn't say God allows one to separate themselves from God's Church. It says we . . as in we members who worship God. So sibling is entitled to believe exactly as asserted.

So you don't *have* to believe God or His messengers. And if they are true messengers, then you've separated yourself from some of God's blessings. Free agency is a wonderful principle of truth.

[1dc]

If God authorizes only one Church to administer the saving ordinances, then walking away from that is walking away from God.

That is roughly the sense in which the statement, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," is used with respect to the Catholic Church, but more in the sense that the Church is the vehicle for salvation for all, not that all need to "belong" to it in order to be saved.

Figuratively choosing to walk away from the Celestial Kingdom by rejecting required ordinances is walking away from God (the Father) from an LDS view . . .one which your argments to the contrary is sibling's right to believe.

Asserting that God does not exist outside the Church (LDS or otherwise) is antithetical to most Christian belief, and, I'd respectfully suggest, likewise unsupported by official LDS belief.

I believe you said it would be helpful to identify which person of God one refers . . your point is vague unless you do so and include whether you are referring to the person or the spirit felt from that person.

[ave maria]

If God authorizes only one Church to administer the saving ordinances, then walking away from that is walking away from God.

That is roughly the sense in which the statement, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," is used with respect to the Catholic Church, but more in the sense that the Church is the vehicle for salvation for all, not that all need to "belong" to it in order to be saved.

Figuratively choosing to walk away from the Celestial Kingdom by rejecting required ordinances is walking away from God (the Father) from an LDS view . . .one which your argments to the contrary is sibling's right to believe.

And which required ordinances might those be?

sibling didn't initially use the expression "walking away from." He said "separated from." The two are not the same.

Can you demonstrate that sibling's statement is supported by official LDS belief? That separating one's self from the LDS Church is separating one's self from God?

[ave maria]

Asserting that God does not exist outside the Church (LDS or otherwise) is antithetical to most Christian belief, and, I'd respectfully suggest, likewise unsupported by official LDS belief.

I believe you said it would be helpful to identify which person of God one refers . . your point is vague unless you do so and include whether you are referring to the person or the spirit felt from that person.

Are you asking whether sibling's statement refers to God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, or all three?

As I understand his statement, he's referring to God the Father, but you'd have to ask him for clarification.

I'm responding to what I believe is his inference--that is, that one is separated from God the Father. But the point is moot, as I believe he is incorrect regardless of which personage of the Godhead/Holy Trinity he is discussing.

I don't believe or support his statement on two levels:

1) I don't support that it reflects authentic or official LDS belief,

and

2) I don't believe it to be true universally, without respect to official LDS belief.

[1dc]

And which required ordinances might those be?

In LDS theology as you know it, can one enter into the rest of the Lord without making/accepting certain covenants?

sibling didn't initially use the expression "walking away from."  He said "separated from."  The two are not the same.

They may not be the same in your mind, however I can see them as having the same meaning to one who suggests they are. Walking away is certainly not an embrace. One turns one's back to walk away . . it is a symbol of denial or rejection of another.

Can you demonstrate that sibling's statement is supported by official LDS belief? That separating one's self from the LDS Church is separating one's self from God?

If one has received knowledge of the Church as true by the Holy Ghost and that person then denies the Holy Ghost's witness, what do you think LDS theology says about that?

Now, if you were to ask if there were other possibilities as to why someone left, I'd say yes, but that doesn't make his statement incorrect . . it makes it correct in a perhaps limited fashion. With Christ as judge, rather than you or sibling or me or etc.

[ave maria]

And which required ordinances might those be?

In LDS theology as you know it, can one enter into the rest of the Lord without making/accepting certain covenants?

sibling didn't initially use the expression "walking away from."  He said "separated from."  The two are not the same.

They may not be the same in your mind, however I can see them as having the same meaning to one who suggests they are. Walking away is certainly not an embrace. One turns one's back to walk away . . it is a symbol of denial or rejection of another.

Can you demonstrate that sibling's statement is supported by official LDS belief? That separating one's self from the LDS Church is separating one's self from God?

If one has received knowledge of the Church as true by the Holy Ghost and that person then denies the Holy Ghost's witness, what do you think LDS theology says about that?

Now, if you were to ask if there were other possibilities as to why someone left, I'd say yes, but that doesn't make his statement incorrect . . it makes it correct in a perhaps limited fashion. With Christ as judge, rather than you or sibling or me or etc.

I think you're getting far afield of the "separation from the LDS Church = separation from God" assertion.

No one has yet demonstrated to me that sibling's statement is supported in official LDS belief.

[UteFan]

IF the LDS Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, THEN those who separate themselves from the LDS Church necessarily separate themselves from God.

I don't agree with this either.

If a person honestly has studied and prayed about it and honestly thinks they are led by the spirit to leave the church, how can they necessarily separate themselves from God. God is the one that is telling them to leave. Especially if they have "fruit" to back it up.

Seriously in my mind it works both ways. Study pray -> bom is true -> join the church.

Study pray -> church isn't true -> leave the church.

Sure we can be decieved but that is the reason for the honest prayer.

I think judgement day is going to be a lot more of what we did with our life than what church did we attend. There is temple work to make up all this. But life in the church and temple work can't make up for the former.

I 100% believe one can leave the Mormon church and remain close to God.

[1dc]

And which required ordinances might those be?

In LDS theology as you know it, can one enter into the rest of the Lord without making/accepting certain covenants?

sibling didn't initially use the expression "walking away from."

[1dc]

I 100% believe one can leave the Mormon church and remain close to God.

But that's not the issue . .

We believe God's spirit will strive with all who seek to know Him . . . and that all will have a fair chance to know His Church. One can't separate oneself from something they never knew (specifically the fullness of Gospel, not referring to a legal/social org)

The issue is for those who've had a fair chance, known it, denied it, and continued in such denial to the last day. The Holy Spirit isn't going to lead one away from Truth . . that would come from our own rationalization.

God is the one that is telling them to leave.

God would tell someone to leave His Church? I 100% don't believe that.

I think judgement day is going to be a lot more of what we did with our life than what church did we attend. 

Absolutely . . except if one denies God's call to His true Church as a part of what one is supposed to do with their life. Then we hope for that honest and sincere belief to be accepted. (Works both ways!)

There is temple work to make up all this.  But life in the church and temple work can't make up for the former.

Perhaps God will leave sacrifice, devotion, repentence, and following God until the next life? Nice thought . . but I don't think it works that way. Didn't for Christ, so there really is not good reason to believe it will be that way for us. He said: "Come, Follow Me."

[Abulafia]

1DC, I find your attitude so frustrating. (I hope you don't mind engaging me in dialogue over this)

I was so pleased to see that Methodism and Catholicism are more ecumenical in nature and more accepting of other churches and authority.

You say the LDS church has the 'fulness of the gospel'. It is a term that is spouted off by member after member, but what does it really mean 1DC?

What does the church really have that any other believing christian doesn't have?

Jesus's gospel was one of simplicity. With regard to authority, if 2 or more are gathered in his name, there will his spirit be. I have felt the spirit strongly as I sat in a Church of England week after week. That doesn't mean I agree with all their doctrines, practices and beliefs. But I truly felt a burning in the bosom a warmth in my heart, as the Vicar talked of a loving Jesus who invited all to come to HIM and follow HIS path.

You know, I spent, what, 20+ years as a very active, loyal, member of the church, and I can't tell you anything really important that the LDS church has, that other sincere believers in a loving way of life, as exemplified by Jesus's role model, don't have..

What do they have 1DC? What belief? That separates them to the extent that you or anyone else can say that the institution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Jesus are synonymous?

Jesus was not a Mormon, this I know for a fact.

[StBalthasar]

What does the church really have that any other believing christian doesn't have?

For starters, I articulate these six:

1 - Authority from God, directly from the Savior (who gave authority to Peter, James & John, who gave/restored authority to Joseph Smith) - we call this the Priesthood.

2 - Prophetic leadership. God speaks to man today as He always (unchangeably) has - through his servants, the prophets (not through mere repeaters of past past prophets' words).

3 - The Gift of the Holy Ghost (related to 1, above). Although anyone can feel the Spirit and experience the Light of Christ, only those baptized by the proper authority can truly be baptized by fire (= receive the gift of the Holy Ghost), which is, as Jesus said, requisite for entering into the kingdom of Heaven (see John 3:5).

4 - An open canon; God is not bound by men's (mis)understanding of the "finality" of His (previously-given) written words.

5 - The Ordinances of Salvation (also related to 1, above). Ask yourself: what is the significance of Malachi's prophesy about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children, in conjunction with the return of Elijah the prophet? No other religion presents a fulfilment of this prophecy. Elijah (and Moses and Noah and others) appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith and restored keys to the various ordinances of salvation (as well as other keys), including the sealing power.

6 - The Covenant; all who would follow Christ must enter into a covenant with Him; this is demonstrated throughout the Bible (both in the Old Testament and New Testament). Although others may present some version of a covenant, there is no authority from God, outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to enter into such coventants.

[Abulafia]

What does the church really have that any other believing christian doesn't have?

For starters, I articulate these six:

1 - Authority from God, directly from the Savior (who gave authority to Peter, James & John, who gave/restored authority to Joseph Smith) - we call this the Priesthood.

2 - Prophetic leadership. God speaks to man today as He always (unchangeably) has - through his servants, the prophets (not through mere repeaters of past past prophets' words).

3 - The Gift of the Holy Ghost (related to 1, above). Although anyone can feel the Spirit and experience the Light of Christ, only those baptized by the proper authority can truly be baptized by fire (= receive the gift of the Holy Ghost), which is, as Jesus said, requisite for entering into the kingdom of Heaven (see John 3:5).

4 - An open canon; God is not bound by men's (mis)understanding of the "finality" of His (previously-given) written words.

5 - The Ordinances of Salvation (also related to 1, above). Ask yourself: what is the significance of Malachi's prophesy about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children, in conjunction with the return of Elijah the prophet? No other religion presents a fulfilment of this prophecy. Elijah (and Moses and Noah and others) appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith and restored keys to the various ordinances of salvation (as well as other keys), including the sealing power.

6 - The Covenant; all who would follow Christ must enter into a covenant with Him; this is demonstrated throughout the Bible (both in the Old Testament and New Testament). Although others may present some version of a covenant, there is no authority from God, outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to enter into such coventants.

StBalthasar I am just off to work, but I will get back to you on this.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply...

Abulafia

[Abulafia]

1 - Authority from God, directly from the Savior (who gave authority to Peter, James & John, who gave/restored authority to Joseph Smith) - we call this the Priesthood.

In real and everyday practical terms is it the authority of the person that is essential or their desire to be christlike.

I can't accept the authority issue. As a missionary, I taught in very simplistic terms to investigators. You wouldn't want a milk man arresting you, it should be someone with authority. No-one came back at me, with the idea of citizens arrest...more's the pity, that would have knocked that particular analogy on the head. Oh well.

2 - Prophetic leadership.

[1dc]

1DC, I find your attitude so frustrating. (I hope you don't mind engaging me in dialogue over this)

Don't mind at all. I think many of us get frustrated until we get closer to understanding how the other person thinks. Then we search for bridges which may or may not be used.

I was so pleased to see that Methodism and Catholicism are more ecumenical in nature and more accepting of other churches and authority.

I accept that other churches do much good and provide a law that will be used by Christ in judging one's life. I don't for a moment believe that automatically grants them the right to say what Christ told JS was wrong any more than I would presume to tell you that you must believe JS or our prophet or me. See below.

The question is will Christ say they have the fullness of what he has taught to mankind. The LDS statement is that Christ said they do not. Believe it or don't . . but don't get frustrated at others who do believe it. Focus on the truth you have found and we'll do the same.

You say the LDS church has the 'fulness of the gospel'. It is a term that is spouted off by member after member, but what does it really mean 1DC?

Amplifying on the above, God's commandments are for our happiness. As we believe God has clarified and offered additional covenants that would mean we have more of the wisdom God intends for us to have leading us to happiness into the eternities. You are free to choose for yourself.

What does the church really have that any other believing christian doesn't have?

I suppose you could go back to a Gospel Essentials manual to list this for yourself. I've answered you simply here but believe it would be a good thread and would respond if you PM me or I see it. Of course, there might already be a topic with this question and a good answer, too. If you are sincerely interested in this, a good follow-up question for each item is how might we mortals benefit from the theological differences that the LDS Church suggests.

Jesus's gospel was one of simplicity. 

I believe 'is' rather than 'was' is *much* more appropriate. I frequently refer to Christ's teaching on this point when I have a chance. Though simple, our carnal natures must be mastered for us to live them fully and completely. So the question isn't whether the Gospel is simple . . it is how we help each other to more fully understand and live the Gospel.

With regard to authority, if 2 or more are gathered in his name, there will his spirit be.

That the Spirit is with us helps us . . doesn't mean we listen to it (I find many who choose not to live the commandments are uncomfortable with it) . . and it certainly doen't mean because the Spirit is present that we automatically have His full authority as Peter was given.

I have felt the spirit strongly as I sat in a Church of England week after week.  That doesn't mean I agree with all their doctrines, practices and beliefs.  But I truly felt a burning in the bosom a warmth in my heart, as the Vicar talked of a loving Jesus who invited all to come to HIM and follow HIS path.

Wonderful. I hope you will study and better learn what His path is and follow it closely day by day. I haven't always strived earnestly to do so, but feel I am getting better.

You know, I spent, what, 20+ years as a very active, loyal, member of the church, and I can't tell you anything really important that the LDS church has, that other sincere believers in a loving way of life,  as exemplified by Jesus's role model, don't have.. 

The general feeling I have (which was echoed by others I respect in PH last Sunday) is that far too many LDS people think making their covenants is enough. It is not. We average Americans like much of the rest of the richer part of our world glory in temporal pleasures. That said, most studies I've seen suggest that LDS people do tend to know and live their faith more fully *on average*. That doesn't mean there aren't wonderful people of other faiths . . rather it says that those who understand and are obedient to LDS beliefs can come closer to following what all Christians should do . . better live the simple Gospel mentioned above.

What do they have 1DC? What belief?  That separates them to the extent that you or anyone else can say that the institution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Jesus are synonymous?

Christ's word by his holy prophets. Which is by His authority we are but one dispensation in which Saints from all time (on earth and in the spirit world) are joined in His Church.

I suppose the better question is what knowledge might be important for us to have and whether it helps us to better live the simple Gospel. IMO, the LDS Church does well on this front because it primarily enhances the basics of traditional Christianity without taking away on how we should truly live the simple Gospel.

Example: Tithing 10% is a sacrifice that faithful members believe is ultimately beneficial to their spiritual well being. It evokes and/or results from gratitude for what we have. And our principle of volunteering time to run our wards and stakes reminds us that it is money for the Lord's Kingdom and not a way back into our pocket for volunteering as choir director or organist or the various other paid positions many congregations have in their local budgets. Most of the arguments I've seen against it downplay the spiritual benefits for temporal reasons.

Jesus was not a Mormon, this I know for a fact.

Of course not. Mormon was born hundreds of years later. LOL!

[1dc]

In real and everyday practical terms is it the authority of the person that is essential or their desire to be christlike.

I can't accept the authority issue. As a missionary, I taught in very simplistic terms to investigators. You wouldn't want a milk man arresting you, it should be someone with authority. No-one came back at me, with the idea of citizens arrest...more's the pity, that would have knocked that particular analogy on the head. Oh well.

Citizen's arrest authority only exists by authority of a higher power . . the voice of the people through their government.

I would say the individual's 'authority is their free agency to be obedient, or not. You could also convince me it is the authority granted by God to his obedient children for the temporal benefit of others. It doesn't address the kind of authority given to Peter and the apostles to lead the Church and act for God.

The head of the church holds the title President of the Corporation of the LDS church as well as prophet.

To what extent does GBH mirror the ancient prophetic role.  Were the OT prophets voted in?  What authority did they (the OT prophets) have from God, other than they were accepted for their ability to prophecy?

Why do you limit this to only OT? Because you know the NT provides the details where the OT may not? We also see examples of righteous men accepted by God as prophets in the BoM, just as we see men appointed and chosen by righteousness within family lineages (as per the OT). In modern times we've seen similar examples. Lineages cut off for lack of a righteous candidate and righteous men called to leadership.

As someone, who spent 20+ years in and now 15 years out.  There really is NO difference.  I can assure you of that..

What many people mean (in the LDS faith) is that you have the gift of the HG, only if you have a testimony of the LDS church...

YMMV = your mileage may vary

4 - An open canon; God is not bound by men's (mis)understanding of the "finality" of His (previously-given) written words.

But how much of that canon, is God, and how much is man???

As a body, we have an accepted answer and a personal responsiblity to determine what helps us in following the simple Gospel.

5 - The Ordinances of Salvation (also related to 1, above).  Ask yourself: what is the significance of Malachi's prophesy about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children, in conjunction with the return of Elijah the prophet?  No other religion presents a fulfilment of this prophecy.  Elijah (and Moses and Noah and others) appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith and restored keys to the various ordinances of salvation (as well as other keys), including the sealing power.

I think you are referring to baptism of the living and dead.  This ordinance is surely open to all, and what gives the ordinance authority is in the heart and mind of the person receiving it.

Umm, you seem to dismiss the power to bind on earth and in heaven was given to Peter. The person (living or spirit world) accepts the ordinance because it has authority. If there is no authority to bind in heaven there is nothing to accept or receive.

Not sure what you mean here, as per which particular covenant?

He probably meant all of them. The concept is huge in the Bible and our other scriptures. You might start study here: http://scriptures.lds.org/gsc/covenant

I just cannot relate this exclusivity to what I understand of Jesus and his message.???

The message isn't exclusive, hence missionary work. But Paul was clear that there is only one Gospel and it's not the one that any man may say is his . . . it must only be revealed by Christ.

http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/1/6-12#6

It is our testimony that we are serving Christ in preaching His Gospel. Whle it is exclusively his, it is available to all who hear it in the world today; and it has been or will be available to everyone else at another time or place.