Why I Haven't Become a Member

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Jesus calls us all to repent, to change ourselves "as {we} are" so as to more fully obey Him and keep His commandments.

And would it be fair to say that pretty much all of Christendom has some sort of exclusionary / boundary maintenance provision?  Are those who reject Jesus Christ "Christian," or are they excluded therefrom?

What are your thoughts about strict five-point Calvinists?  My understanding is that for them, before the foundation of the world, God sovereignly chose some people for salvation (the elect) purely by His will, not based on any foreseen faith, works, or merit on their part.  The rest of humanity (the reprobate) are passed over (or in stricter versions, actively ordained) for damnation.  This decision is unconditional and based entirely on God's hidden will — nothing the individual does or believes can change their eternal destiny.

Yes.  Part of His efforts being organizing His church on the earth, vesting servants with priesthood authority, and commanding them to go and proclaim faith and repentance, exhorting everyone to come unto Christ.  He wants us to change, and not just stay as we are.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure to whom you are asking your questions? I think all of your first questions are for Christ to decide. Not you or me. What do I think about five-point Calvinists? Not much. I don't know any. I have never spoken with any. I have been a Christian since I was six and am now 77.  What they believe has no interest to me. Nor does it have any impact on my relationship to Christ now or in eternity. I will just say I think there is a lot more variance in their beliefs than you are stating, as there are in my LDS friends as well. There is always variance in every religious group. 

I don't think Christ especially wants us to change as much as he wants us to grow in truthing, loving, and caring. More the fruits of the spirit kinds of things. Being kinds-of-things. Right off the cuff, I don't remember any verses exhorting us to change, but to grow in Him in grace, truth, peace, and love. Maybe that is just parsing words. It is like the difference between migrating and converting. In my life I have been non-denominational, Baptist, Mennonite, and if I could be one right now, I would be Moravian. I see each of those as a migration, just as I would see it if I became LDS. Migration doesn't necessarily involve ordinances, rites, creeds, or rituals. Although those vary across all branches of Christianity.

If I became LDS, how would I be converting? I would be migrating to a different form of Christianity with all same basic tenets of faith that all the rest of those I have belonged to affirm. As do almost all Christian groups (not all). If I became Muslim, I would be converting, I think. But joining another branch of the vine that is Jesus Christ? I don't think so. I have been to enough LDS sacraments, Sunday Schools, and Elder Quorums to have realized that the teachings are about 85% the same as in every other Christian church I have attended. The other 15% are of no interest to me one way or the other, because I don't value certainty in any believer. Sorry, I wrote too much. Take care. 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I worked with public school districts in relatively important positions for many years. I am well-experienced at being mocked at and ridiculed at almost every board meeting. I found, however, that the secret to not being reviled was to wear a Winnie the Pooh tie on the dais. No one can mock or ridicule someone in a Pooh tie! I still have around thirty or so! 

All church members are not as strong as you are to take the criticism. The critics reach a great many members who are at different levels of strength of faith  in the church. Some who don't even yet know much about the Temple.  And they likely are not going to be owners of Winnie the Pooh ties. 😉

[MiserereNobis]

Do you believe Christians who have fences are wrong with their fences? 

Do you believe the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church’s fences for 1500+ years were/are wrong?

 This comes across as a very contemporary Protestant view. How do you account for Christian history?

ETA: Our Mormon friends are very accommodating, and that is in the spirit of Christ. But sometimes hard questions of doctrine need to be addressed, hence Paul and all the following ecumenical counsels. 

Edited May 19 by MiserereNobis

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, Tony uk said:

Those on this Dialogue, who are familiar with me, will be aware I am RC (Please don't all scream 😊). I came to this Dialogue to help me with my own personal journey in faith. And very glad I did arrive here, and hope to remain as long as allowed.

From my own experience, all Christians can learn from each other how to develop in their own personal journey in faith.

I'm pretty confident we'll never kick you out ... As long as you behave yourself!     

[Calm]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The rest of humanity (the reprobate) are passed over (or in stricter versions, actively ordained) for damnation.  This decision is unconditional and based entirely on God's hidden will — nothing the individual does or believes can change their eternal destiny

I have a very difficult time trying to understand why anyone would interpret God in this way.  I would hope there was no God before God damning people to infinite punishment based on nothing they did or could do. 

Even if for some reason I was confident I was saved, what of those who were not?  How sad and awful an existence for them. 

Want to add I quoted that description and only that description to deal with that belief, not any other or any system of doctrine that belief might be part of or thought to be part of, including any Calvinists of any stripe.  If someone wants me to comment on a particular faith, I would prefer they actually quote an official website of that faith rather than give a paraphrase of what they think k someone believes…because that is so often wrong in my experience. 

Edited May 19 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't think Christ especially wants us to change as much as he wants us to grow in truthing, loving, and caring

How is growing not changing?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

found, however, that the secret to not being reviled was to wear a Winnie the Pooh tie on the dais. No one can mock or ridicule someone in a Pooh tie! I still have around thirty or so! 

One of my husband’s favorites. I got him matching socks. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Anyway, I am not sure what all that has to do with anything. I am simply not impressed with what I see to be the lack of missiology training for the missionaries. They are culturally oblivious, except for the language component of it. That is not enough. I want them to bring spiritual light to the people of our village. They simply come and go every six weeks or so.

I wish we taught a lot more about how to see things from others’ POV.  The missionaries I have been close to, I have always made a point of asking them to consider what they are asking the investigator to give up, how massive that is, not just what we have to offer them.  
 

It is shocking to me your experience is that there is so little curiosity about others in the missionaries you have met.  I wonder how much is actual lack of interest and how much of it is the intensity of how much they want to be good at providing others with what they can give them when the other reaches out to ask or accept. So often we focus our concern on what we need to do to help others that we forget to pay attention to who they really are, which should be the first step in helping others rather than what our ‘job’ is to be.  
 

There was never a more loving, generous, and kind man than my father.  We have had several people come up to us years later and share what my dad did for them that we never knew about. If he saw a need, he stepped in and filled it.  Unfortunately there were a lot of missteps because he often didn’t take the time to ask if what he saw was the real need or if he might have misunderstood.  He was right on the majority of the time from what I saw, so it was understandable why he was so confident in his own judgment, but it really hurt when he didn’t take time to listen first, especially when that was really the only thing I wanted him to do for me as an adult. 

I see the Church as operating in much the same way.  We are a church of doers, of problem solvers.  We wish to rescue people.  We wish to limit suffering as much as possible, so we get right to work.  And sometimes totally miss the point because of that too tight focus.  

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm pretty confident we'll never kick you out ... As long as you behave yourself!     

Many thanks Kenngo 👍. 

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I wish we taught a lot more about how to see things from others’ POV.  The missionaries I have been close to, I have always made a point of asking them to consider what they are asking the investigator to give up, how massive that is, not just what we have to offer them.  
 

It is shocking to me your experience is that there is so little curiosity about others in the missionaries you have met.  I wonder how much is actual lack of interest and how much of it is the intensity of how much they want to be good at providing others with what they can give them when the other reaches out to ask or accept. So often we focus our concern on what we need to do to help others that we forget to pay attention to who they really are, which should be the first step in helping others rather than what our ‘job’ is to be.  
 

There was never a more loving, generous, and kind man than my father.  We have had several people come up to us years later and share what my dad did for them that we never knew about. If he saw a need, he stepped in and filled it.  Unfortunately there were a lot of missteps because he often didn’t take the time to ask if what he saw was the real need or if he might have misunderstood.  He was right on the majority of the time from what I saw, so it was understandable why he was so confident in his own judgment, but it really hurt when he didn’t take time to listen first, especially when that was really the only thing I wanted him to do for me as an adult. 

I see the Church as operating in much the same way.  We are a church of doers, of problem solvers.  We wish to rescue people.  We wish to limit suffering as much as possible, so we get right to work.  And sometimes totally miss the point because of that too tight focus.  

Yes.

Since I've stopped believing, things church members say have hit me in a whole new way, but over this weekend with my son getting married it has hit even harder with so many things said. I actually think this is an every person problem, as evidenced in my time with working with charities,  but I think it hits harder in the church, because it is so much about much about gathering.

[bluebell]

On 5/16/2026 at 2:21 PM, Navidad said:

Why I haven’t become a Member:

1. I would have to agree to be rebaptized because of a doctrine that only the LDS baptism is pleasing to Christ in terms of mode, manner, and authority. My own father baptized me. I have baptized many people. I do not believe in the onlyness of LDS baptism and/or authority. It wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t a requirement for joining.

2. I am in agreement that churches (both individually and as affiliates of a group of churches), broadly speaking, break down into two types: fence groups and well (the kind that provides water) groups. The distinction is that fence churches build policies, doctrine, and guidelines to keep members in and to keep outsiders out. Well churches have a well (metaphorically speaking) built in the center that keeps the flock close by because it is a source of refreshment in the form of teaching, loving, and nourishing. It doesn’t worry about keeping others out or on the edge of fellowship. After six years of full-time faithful non-member worship, fellowship, and ministry, I believe the LDS church is more fence-oriented than well-oriented. That doesn’t work for me.

3. I don’t believe churches should keep secrets, especially about means of growth, participation, and spiritual renewal. I could never take an oath or agree to an expectation that I would keep silent about temple ordinances. I would want to spread the word; not hide it, especially if it is indeed sacred. The more sacred, the more meaningful; the more meaningful, the more it needs to be shared.

4. As probably most of you know, I am very uncomfortable with the onlying, othering, and persecution identity (all three are connected) that have become endemic to the LDS Church's individual and group identity. I think all three are unhealthy and inaccurate. To deny that the godly people I know as non-LDS Christians can have thee gift of the Holy Spirit outside the LDS Church is a non-starter for me. There can be no question of the Holy Spirit's power and Gift in many godly non-LDS Christians. Non-LDS Christians who become LDS Christians are migrants, not converts.

5. Regarding LAD – life after death—I cannot see eternity in a place where Christ and the Father do not dwell as anything but Hell (in the non-brimstone sense). I also do not believe Christian denominational and group identity will survive into eternity. We will all be in the same boat on that ocean. Boats aren’t marked by denomination or earthly affiliation.

Those are my five reasons. Having said all that, I must say this as well. . . . . None of that relates, for me, to either salvation or exaltation (which I deem sanctification). So, yes, I believe that LDS Christians are capable of being fully and completely Christians, just as are folks from any other group, Christian or perhaps, according to the wideness in God’s mercy, non-Christian as well. I believe that wideness extends to the Judgment Seat of Christ. Perfect judgment based on love, mercy, and perfect wisdom. No Mennonites, Catholics, or Mormons (sorry) in eternity. There will simply be humans - waiting for Christ to make His decisions one by one. 

I also must say that as an Evangelical, I hold my beliefs with faith, not with certainty. Humongous difference. I am also 120% convinced of the kindness of a majority of my LDS friends. That kind of kindness can only come from the Holy Spirit.

I am open to your thoughts. For those of you who have been around for a while, there is most likely nothing new in what I have said. Best wishes to all. 

It sounds like you are certain that there is no need for ordained priesthood authority, temple ordinances and covenants, or a focus on the importance of doctrinal truth and becoming like Christ.  I think it makes perfect sense that you haven't become a member as you don't believe the gospel as the church teaches it.  

You are a good man and I wish you the best in your spiritual beliefs.  

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

All church members are not as strong as you are to take the criticism. The critics reach a great many members who are at different levels of strength of faith  in the church. Some who don't even yet know much about the Temple.  And they likely are not going to be owners of Winnie the Pooh ties. 😉

I happen to think that, while AA Milne had many challenges in his life, Winnie the Pooh was (is) a fairly marvelous theologian/pastoral type of bear. He makes me laugh, think, and sometimes almost cry, as does Eeyore. 

[Navidad]

As I was reading a lot of your wonderful responses to me, I thought of this Spurgeon quote. While I have four favorite preachers, Spurgeon comes out most likely on top. This is a quote from a devotional book built on his teachings:

“It is ever the Holy Spirit’s work to turn our eyes away from self to Jesus; but Satan’s work is just the opposite of this, for he is constantly trying to make us regard ourselves instead of Christ. He insinuates, “Your sins are too great for pardon; you have no faith; you do not repent enough; you will never be able to continue to the end; you have not the joy of his children; you have such a wavering hold of Jesus.” All these are thoughts about self, and we shall never find comfort or assurance by looking within. But the Holy Spirit turns our eyes entirely away from self: he tells us that we are nothing, but that “Christ is all in all.” Remember, therefore, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee—it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee—it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that be the instrument—it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not so much to thy hand with which thou art grasping Christ, as to Christ; look not to thy hope, but to Jesus, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Jesus, the author and finisher of thy faith. We shall never find happiness by looking at our prayers, our doings, or our feelings; it is what Jesus is, not what we are, that gives rest to the soul. If we would at once overcome Satan and have peace with God, it must be by “looking unto Jesus.” Keep thine eye simply on him; let his death, his sufferings, his merits, his glories, his intercession, be fresh upon thy mind; when thou wakest in the morning, look to him; when thou liest down at night, look to him. Oh! let not thy hopes or fears come between thee and Jesus; follow hard after him, and he will never fail thee.”

When I read that, it reminds me that my redemption is not in my church, my faith, practices, or beliefs. It is in Christ. I believe we can be so bound to our institutions that those bindings can cause us to take our eyes off the simplicity that is in Christ. Any time any of our churches tries to persuade us that it is the means for our salvation, it takes our eyes off the Savior.

It dims our eyes from simply waking up in the morning and thanking Him for another day to journey a few steps farther in getting to know and appreciate Him. Sometimes I think our institutions come between us and Jesus. If any Christian finds him or herself talking or thinking about their church more than about the Savior, they have lost at least some of their joy in their salvation. Somehow I think this thought goes along with this thread. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like you are certain that there is no need for ordained priesthood authority, temple ordinances and covenants, or a focus on the importance of doctrinal truth and becoming like Christ.

Let me respond to the several parts of your wonderful reply one at a time. 1.  I am not certain about very much. I find that certainty stops me from listening to others with different worldviews than my own. I am a lesser man for that. So I resist certainty. 2. I see a need for ordination (I am ordained). I don't see a need for ordained priesthood authority if that keeps the Christian in the pew from focusing on Christ. I am not certain I even know what ordained priesthood authority means outside of Christ's priesthood authority that He wields. Human exercise of God's authority is feeble at best and power-centered at worst. 3. Temple ordinances: for me, no ordinance has any salvific authority. To the degree that any ordinance is a source of comfort, joy, or closeness to Christ for the participant, I am all for it, wherever it is found. 4. Covenants - I am a kind of covenant theologian. So yes, I value covenants as long as they are horizontal with my wife and vertical with my Savior. I don't know of anything or anyone else with whom I desire to covenant. I certainly have no desire to covenant with any institution. 5. Doctrinal truth. Hmm. I have to divide that into two - 5a. Doctrine? I find myself at this point in my life (77) relatively free from stressing about doctrine and doctrinal differences. That is a positive.  5b. Truth? I am very much dedicated to that. I am in fact, writing a book entitled "Truth as a Journey: A Path to Walk-not an Object to be Owned." I am exploring the history of the word Truth in eight languages and cultures,  and in the various forms we (humans) have given to truth over the centuries. It is the first in a series of Focus Books I am writing (each one under 100 pages -this the focus) on topics of interest to me. So yes, truth is important to me. I see a great need for being truth (using truth as a verb, not as a noun). 6. Becoming like Christ - Oh my, this is probably the most significant of all at this stage of my life. In the last six months I have lost my only son, who lived with us his entire 47 years, and almost lost my wife to heart failure and infection. So those paths have led me to a passion to be more like Christ and less like Navidad. So yes, becoming like Christ is very significant for me right now. I hope that helps. Take care. 

[Amulek]

On 5/16/2026 at 3:21 PM, Navidad said:

Why I haven’t become a Member:

1. I would have to agree to be rebaptized because of a doctrine that only the LDS baptism is pleasing to Christ in terms of mode, manner, and authority. My own father baptized me. I have baptized many people. I do not believe in the onlyness of LDS baptism and/or authority. It wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t a requirement for joining.

2. I am in agreement that churches (both individually and as affiliates of a group of churches), broadly speaking, break down into two types: fence groups and well (the kind that provides water) groups. The distinction is that fence churches build policies, doctrine, and guidelines to keep members in and to keep outsiders out. Well churches have a well (metaphorically speaking) built in the center that keeps the flock close by because it is a source of refreshment in the form of teaching, loving, and nourishing. It doesn’t worry about keeping others out or on the edge of fellowship. After six years of full-time faithful non-member worship, fellowship, and ministry, I believe the LDS church is more fence-oriented than well-oriented. That doesn’t work for me.

3. I don’t believe churches should keep secrets, especially about means of growth, participation, and spiritual renewal. I could never take an oath or agree to an expectation that I would keep silent about temple ordinances. I would want to spread the word; not hide it, especially if it is indeed sacred. The more sacred, the more meaningful; the more meaningful, the more it needs to be shared.

4. As probably most of you know, I am very uncomfortable with the onlying, othering, and persecution identity (all three are connected) that have become endemic to the LDS Church's individual and group identity. I think all three are unhealthy and inaccurate. To deny that the godly people I know as non-LDS Christians can have thee gift of the Holy Spirit outside the LDS Church is a non-starter for me. There can be no question of the Holy Spirit's power and Gift in many godly non-LDS Christians. Non-LDS Christians who become LDS Christians are migrants, not converts.

5. Regarding LAD – life after death—I cannot see eternity in a place where Christ and the Father do not dwell as anything but Hell (in the non-brimstone sense). I also do not believe Christian denominational and group identity will survive into eternity. We will all be in the same boat on that ocean. Boats aren’t marked by denomination or earthly affiliation.

Those are my five reasons. Having said all that, I must say this as well. . . . . None of that relates, for me, to either salvation or exaltation (which I deem sanctification). So, yes, I believe that LDS Christians are capable of being fully and completely Christians, just as are folks from any other group, Christian or perhaps, according to the wideness in God’s mercy, non-Christian as well. I believe that wideness extends to the Judgment Seat of Christ. Perfect judgment based on love, mercy, and perfect wisdom. No Mennonites, Catholics, or Mormons (sorry) in eternity. There will simply be humans - waiting for Christ to make His decisions one by one. 

I also must say that as an Evangelical, I hold my beliefs with faith, not with certainty. Humongous difference. I am also 120% convinced of the kindness of a majority of my LDS friends. That kind of kindness can only come from the Holy Spirit.

I am open to your thoughts. For those of you who have been around for a while, there is most likely nothing new in what I have said. Best wishes to all. 

I appreciate the honesty and charity in your post. I also appreciate your acknowledgment that many LDS people genuinely exhibit Christlike kindness. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree.

That said, I think your objections ultimately come down to one central issue: whether Christ established a real covenant Church with real authority and binding ordinances – or whether Christianity is primarily an invisible fellowship of sincere believers.

That difference affects every point you raised.

Quote

I would have to agree to be rebaptized[…] I do not believe in the onlyness of LDS baptism and/or authority.

I think the key question is whether sincerity alone makes an ordinance valid. In the New Testament, authority matters constantly. Jesus chose and ordained apostles (John 15:16), gave them authority to bind on earth and heaven (Matthew 16:19), and sent them to act in His name (John 20:21). Paul even rebaptized believers in Acts 19 because their prior baptism lacked covenantal fullness. So the LDS position is not really “our baptism is better than yours.” It’s that Christ works through divinely authorized ordinances.

 

Quote

The LDS church is more fence-oriented than well-oriented.

But Christ Himself established fences. He established discipline, qualifications for leadership, authority structures, and even excommunication in some cases (Matthew 18:17). Every biblical covenant has boundaries. The issue is not whether fences exist – it’s whether Christ authorized them. A covenant without boundaries eventually stops being a covenant. Even wells require walls.  

 

Quote

I don’t believe churches should keep secrets[…] The more sacred, the more meaningful, the more it needs to be shared.

Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between public truths and sacred things reserved for covenant participants. Jesus spoke of “the mysteries of the kingdom” given to some and not others. Ancient Israel had restricted sacred spaces culminating in the Holy of Holies. Early Christians practiced sacred confidentiality around certain ordinances as well. 

But sacred confidentiality is not the same thing as secrecy for secrecy’s sake. The fact that some things are not discussed casually or publicly does not mean we want to hide them from the world. Quite the opposite – we want everyone to come unto Christ, enter into covenants with Him, attend the temple, and receive the blessings associated with those ordinances. The temple is meant to be universally invitational, even if participation in its most sacred rites is covenantal rather than casual.

 

Quote

To deny that the godly people I know as non-LDS Christians can have the gift of the Holy Spirit outside the LDS Church is a non-starter for me.

I actually agree that many non-LDS Christians experience real influence from the Holy Spirit. LDS theology already allows for that. Moroni teaches that all good things come from God. The disagreement is whether spiritual experiences are identical to priesthood authority. Scripture itself distinguishes between the two. People in scripture sometimes prophesied, worked miracles, or experienced God’s power without holding covenant authority.

The LDS claim is not: “Only Latter-day Saints can feel the Spirit.”

The claim is: Christ restored covenant authority through priesthood keys. Those are different claims.

 

Quote

I cannot see eternity in a place where Christ and the Father do not dwell as anything but Hell.

I understand that emotionally, but Paul himself taught differing degrees of glory in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:41–42). The Restoration’s view of heaven is actually far more expansive and merciful than the traditional binary heaven/hell model. It recognizes varying capacities for glory while still affirming that all salvation ultimately comes through Christ.

To me, the Restoration ultimately rises or falls on one question: Did Christ restore priesthood authority and covenant keys through Joseph Smith? If the answer is yes, then rebaptism, temples, ordinances, and the institutional Church all make sense. If the answer is no, then they do not.

YMMV

 

[Senator]

43 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I actually agree that many non-LDS Christians experience real influence from the Holy Spirit. LDS theology already allows for that. Moroni teaches that all good things come from God. The disagreement is whether spiritual experiences are identical to priesthood authority.

 

If I had to choose between "experience[ing] real influence from the Holy Spirit" or a claim to priesthood authority, I would choose the former any day.

[Navidad]

51 minutes ago, Amulek said:

YMMV

 

What does YMMV mean? Thanks for taking time to create your response. Take care and very best wishes. 

Edited May 19 by Navidad
complete my thought

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What does YMMV mean? 

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, Senator said:

If I had to choose between "experience[ing] real influence from the Holy Spirit" or a claim to priesthood authority, I would choose the former any day.

Those aren't necessarily competing choices. Christ gave His apostles both the Holy Spirit and priesthood authority.

The biblical pattern is not ‘Spirit versus authority’ – it’s Spirit working through authorized covenant servants and ordinances.

 

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The biblical pattern is not ‘Spirit versus authority’ – it’s Spirit working through authorized covenant servants and ordinances.

 

But not necessarily.  And I think that is what Navidad is getting at.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I happen to think that, while AA Milne had many challenges in his life, Winnie the Pooh was (is) a fairly marvelous theologian/pastoral type of bear. He makes me laugh, think, and sometimes almost cry, as does Eeyore. 

Have you read the Tao of Pooh?  Or the Te of Piglet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Pooh

I need to get those off the shelf and reread them.

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Senator said:

But not necessarily.  And I think that is what Navidad is getting at.

That's fine. He can believe anything he wants. But, to my knowledge, the New Testament never treats private spiritual experience as self-authenticating apart from covenant authority.

That’s precisely why Christ established apostles, ordinances, laying on of hands, and a Church in the first place. Otherwise, everyone’s personal experience becomes equally binding, even when they contradict each other.

There are examples of people acting sincerely, spiritually, or even miraculously outside the apostolic circle, but there are no clear examples of Christ or the apostles affirming unauthorized ordinances as fully valid covenant ordinances.

In fact, the evidence points the other direction.

A few important examples:

        Acts 19:1–6 — Paul rebaptizes believers who had already undergone a prior baptism. Their earlier baptism was sincere, but incomplete. Paul does not say, “Your sincerity is enough.” He performs the ordinance properly under apostolic authority.
        Hebrews 5:4 — “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” This is specifically about priestly authority.
        Romans 10:15 — “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” Authority is conferred, not self-assumed.
        John 20:21–23 — Christ explicitly commissions the apostles and gives them authority tied to salvation and forgiveness.
        Acts 8:14–17 — Philip baptizes converts, but Peter and John must come confer the Holy Ghost through laying on of hands. Again, authority and ordinances are structured, not free-floating.
        Numbers 16 (Old Testament but highly relevant) — Korah’s rebellion is essentially about unauthorized priesthood action. The biblical pattern is, I think, consistent that sincerity does not replace divine authorization.

Protestants sometimes point to passages like Mark 9:38–40 (“he that is not against us is for us”), where someone outside the apostolic group casts out devils in Christ’s name. But that passage is about miracles and ministry, not covenant ordinances. The New Testament distinguishes between spiritual manifestations and ecclesiastical authority.

God may work through sincere people outside formal covenant authority, but covenant ordinances themselves are still treated as authority-dependent.

If you or Navidad have compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm certainly open to hearing it.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

But not necessarily.  And I think that is what Navidad is getting at.

Yes, you nailed it. The Holy Spirit cannot be limited to only certain “authorized covenant servants and ordinances.” I would never suggest the Spirit is not present in those.

I would propose that limiting the Spirit to those is limiting God. God would never, and I believe, has never, granted the authority to anyone or any church to limit or contain Himself. The Spirit works wherever and whenever it chooses. In the forest, at a rock concert, in a library, in a hospital room, or wherever the Spirit chooses to be active on both believer and unbeliever. This includes the Spirit  using all the resources of the LDS church, inclusive of the Book of Mormon, for example. Hymns, are used by the Spirit - hymns from all churches or a hymn composed by a guy sitting by a river!

My own most powerful personal (emotiona) and spiritual experiences have come in an ICU ward. For years I taught courses on the integration of psychology and theology. I know it is tricky sometimes to discern the spiritual from the emotional. That is all very complicated.

But, I guess I just can't imagine the power, authority, mercy, love, and grace of God being limited to, owned by, or majority controlled by one church, any church, or all churches put together, including the invisible church - the gathering of all believers. God cannot be fenced in or out from whomever or wherever God will speak, give gifts, minister, love, discipline, or provide eternal life with Himself, His Son, and Spirit. Oh, and just to be clear, I am just as sure that no other church has that hold on God either. Gotta go. Best wishes to all. 

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Those aren't necessarily competing choices. Christ gave His apostles both the Holy Spirit and priesthood authority.

The biblical pattern is not ‘Spirit versus authority’ – it’s Spirit working through authorized covenant servants and ordinances.

 

Methinks the Biblical pattern is the Spirit working wherever and through whatever means it desires. Take care. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Have you read the Tao of Pooh?  Or the Te of Piglet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Pooh

I need to get those off the shelf and reread them.

Hi Calm: Yes I have both. I have quite a library of all the Pooh books in many languages, as well as all the books written about interpreting the Pooh literature, including the biographies of Milne. I also had a lady, I believe a great niece of his, who worked for me. I spent a lot of time  talking with her about the stresses in Milne's life and family. Then when I was the headmaster of a Mennonite school, I recieved ties from everyone on holidays. I remember roaming little book stores in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Kenya, Costa Rica, Liberia, etc. etc. for Pooh books in the local language. That was fun.