Why I Haven't Become a Member

[Senator]

47 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

You don't think Navidad's "non-covenant authority" spiritual experience is authentic?

47 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

Yet, that's the way it is.  What are you going to do about it?  Tell them their spiritual experiences can't possibly be true because they don't all align and don't have the correct authority?

47 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

Ok?! 

Meanwhile Navidad and scores of other go about their spiritually rich and abiding walk in Christ.

 

[Navidad]

53 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

Hi amigo: I am not sure how to answer you. Neither authority nor ordinances have ever been important to me in my faith tradition. For me, they are similar to the creeds. I never used them, liked them, or was even particularly interested in them until my LDS friends began telling me I was creedal, because they seemed to have been taught that all non-LDS Christians are creedal. That confused me like your focus on ordinances and authority confuses me. They sound to me like the old divine rights of certain kings, where only certain kings had the divine right to do something and were then only responsible to God for the results.

The only ordinances I ever performed were baptisms, weddings, communion, and in a few cases, foot washing. I never thought that my baptizing anyone granted them anything. I still don't. I baptized people as a public testimony of their faith—nothing more or less. I married people with the authority to do so from the state. It was a sacred event, with legal approval. Communion (your sacrament) was a memorial service. We remembered what Christ did for us as a congregation. Nothing more or less. We didn't need my authority as pastor to remember; we encouraged each parishioner to do so quietly on their own. We didn't do confirmations. I never laid my hands on anyone for them to receive the Holy Spirit. I didn't need to have that authority. They received the Holy Spirit directly from God. No need for my authority or hands. No authority was involved in foot washing—only humility and remembering Christ's love and humility were the goals.

Frankly, I don't want authority. I would probably someday somehow misuse it. I didn't have the authority to remove someone from our congregation and didn't want it. I have watched numerous LDS ordinances as done outside the temple. I never saw much difference in what I did as a pastor. I never observed any authority in the young deacons. They seemed more worried about needing to do it right. Sometimes I felt bad for them. 
Sorry. Gotta run. Take care. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

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.

LDS don’t limit the Spirit to only these interactions, even the most restrictive interpretations.

There are a few leaders I have heard teaching the Spirit will only witness to the truth of the gospel in regards for nonmembers, but they also talk about nonmembers being inspired, so it doesn’t seem very consistent.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is treated as a different type of relationship that is available only to those who have made the covenant, but even there they need to be righteous or humble to engage with the Spirit.  The most common difference I have heard used is the Holy Ghost is our constant companion…but then the condition of it won’t be present if we sin is mentioned, so again consistency….there are definite gaps in knowledge on how it works imo.

We also teach those who are righteous and seeking God can engage with the Spirit, not just the Light of Christ as long as they are righteous, so it doesn’t seem if that is all there is, there is much difference in time spent with the Spirit between members and nonmembers according to actual doctrine.

So it seems to me there needs to be additional qualities when it comes to the Gift, though it is possible that practically speaking there may not be at our level much difference similar to how if you look at a nonLDS who chooses to live in a loving and honorable way, who happens to choose to skip alcohol and coffee and tea, premarital sex…from just behaviour there isn’t going to be significant differences in day to day nonChurch related life.

Quote

Have you ever considered all the ways you’ve been blessed through the gift of the Holy Ghost? All of God’s children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His gospel. But the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. This gift is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—a member of the Godhead. It is no ordinary gift—it can’t be seen—but its power is undeniable when you choose to receive it through righteous living. Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation, and enjoy the blessings known as “the gifts of the Spirit.”

We believe nonmembers can receive personal revelation and gifts of the Spirit, such as healing.   We believe they can become more righteous through the Spirit’s influence (isn’t that being cleansed of sin?).

Quote

Moroni 10:17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

Quote

It becomes the responsibility of members to invite the Holy Ghost to be with them (see Doctrine and Covenants 88:33). Elder David A. Bednar said, “As we receive this ordinance, each of us accepts a sacred and ongoing responsibility to desire, to seek, to work, and to so live that we indeed ‘receive the Holy Ghost’ and its attendant spiritual gifts.”

Quote

President Henry B. Eyring said: “We need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. We desire it, yet we know from experience that it is not easy to maintain. We each think, say, and do things in our daily lives that can offend the Spirit. The Lord taught us that the Holy Ghost will be our constant companion when our hearts are full of charity and when virtue garnishes our thoughts unceasingly (see D&C 121:45).” When you seek to cultivate a companionship with the Holy Ghost, you will sense what things need to change in your life.

Do we not teach that nonmembers who desire, seek, and work and live to receive the Holy Ghost will be visited by him and given spiritual gifts?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/holy-ghost-gift-study-guide?lang=eng
 

So besides it being a covenantal relationship, not seeing much of a difference.   That is a huge difference though, imo.  Think of the difference between working with someone as a day laborer every day and as an employee under contact.   Or a professor who has tenure and one who gets hired by semester.  Maybe that worker or professor would do nothing differently, but it is still a different type of relationship.  One is committing to the employer in a different sense.  While someone may have the same intent, a contract makes a difference.  

There are also work responsibilities that must be done through authority.  We want our police to be authorized representatives, not vigilantes even if the latter are respectful and charitable to those they are ‘policing’.  We require restaurants to be certified as safe by authorized government employees, not some guy off the street though he claims to do a better job (don’t mind recommendations of course).

Then there is the difference between a formal marriage (license or some form of contract) and common law marriage.  Depending on the jurisdiction, common law can be seen as meaningless, an informal meaningful commitment (rights to inherit or require support if separating), or identical to a formal marriage relationship.  What determines which one it is depends on what the authority, the government if there is one, allows.

Christ chose apostles, etc.  He instituted rituals (label them sacraments or ordinances or something else). 

I understand why there is a debate, but it’s not illogical or unreasonable to believe in God operating through humanity by both channels he gives some of his authority to and others that function without it given humanity’s needs are wide and varied.  Scriptures can be reasonably interpreted imo for both institutional authority and not, depending on what part is emphasized.  
 

I think how we treat the different forms of marriage are a good example of how there can be a great deal of overlap, but also additional benefits to the relationships with greater authority.

In our redemption of the dead, we accept common law marriages as identical to formal civil marriages when it comes to sealing eligibility.  We don’t for the living because authorized versions are available to them.  We accept legal civil and religious marriages as valid, couples are not “living in sin” and have access to all the government protections and some of the many blessings that marriage can bring.  A civil marriage will not replace a temple sealing, whether formal or common law.  For the specific blessings that only come through a sealing, the temple ordinance that creates a specific covenant with God is needed…not because some man said so in our belief, but because God told us it worked this way through his authorized representatives.

It makes sense to reject this doctrine if you don’t believe God operates that way, but there should imo be recognition if someone believes it’s not men inserting themselves between God and the rest of us by having ordinances and defining authority as limited, but rather God defining a part of his relationship with us.  Downgrading it as anything but God or Christ centered when someone acts out of obedience to what they believe is God’s will, imo, is misunderstanding how the relationship is viewed by believers.

Edited May 19 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

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

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.

I believe in the need for "priestly" authority because to induct people into the priesthood you need to receive it from someone with the priesthood to give it. Baptism is actually a part of the priestly born-again ritual. Baptism is needed to enter God's presence because the priesthood is what allows mortals to endure God's glory, just like it was needed in the ancient temple, incase God appeared in there.

I also believe God will accept even a 'Gentile's" covenant or vow. Say, like it's an outward symbol of your inward commitment to Christ. Even an unauthorized baptism is acceptable to God on their own terms. A step up, on the steppingstones of the gospel. Though it's not what we call a baptism, but that's semantics. Like how "speaking in tongues" I don't believe is technically the same as getting struck "dumb" and babbling, yet that is not to say it's no less a miracle or sign from the Holy Ghost to them. The Holy Spirit can work in people, without "the gift" of the Holy Ghost, per se. 

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

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.

You’re not wrong. The LDS Church has a lot of fences. Between worthiness interviews, dietary codes, and structured organizational boundaries, it absolutely operates with lines. But a well in an open wilderness can easily get polluted without a structure around it built to protect the purity of the well so that whenever someone does come to drink, the water is always clear and constant. 

It completely makes sense why a pure fence group wouldn't work for you. And maybe the LDS path is trying and failing to be both. Maybe it's not being a well very well. The well itself is often marketed around eternal family and priesthood. Sometimes we get so hyper-focused on that aspect when not everyone who comes to drink wants it, and we neglect ministering to the others, like the happily single person, or a perpetually just visiting person, or a pilgrim, or the excommunicated one who keeps coming anyway. There is something for you.

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

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.

We want to share the secrets with everyone, its meant to be shared, but at the right moment. The ancient idea behind temple privacy isn't about hoarding, it’s an act of pastoral care. It’s meant to ensure that people aren't exposed to a deep, demanding covenant too early, before they have the spiritual context to understand them, and ideally are already worthy before they attempt it too early and fail to keep the covenant. 

"Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5)

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

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.

When a dedicated Christian comes into the LDS community, they aren't converting from paganism or godlessness. The Book of Mormon explicitly defines the 'Church of the Lamb' not as an organization, but a divide of what is in the hearts of men. You always have had faith, love, and repentance, you have been a vibrant, active member of the Church of the Lamb for years. You aren't on the outside looking in.

The LDS view differentiates between the power of the Holy Ghost which can rest upon anyone at any time and the covenant right to its constant companionship. When we talk about the 'Gift' of the Holy Ghost, we don't mean Latter-day Saints have a monopoly on God's Spirit and who it wants to be with. It's simply about a formal, covenantal anchor. I don't think a human can see the difference between the Spirit when in LDS people and Spirit in other people.

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

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.

I agree, the LDS teachings are very clear that a non-LDS man is saved if he would have joined the church had he known he needed to do so, they will absolutely inherit the Celestial Kingdom, the place where the Father and the Son dwell. The Church is often accused of being an exclusive club, its actual canonized doctrine regarding the afterlife is arguably the most radical, universalist, and inclusive vision in all of Christendom.

Edited May 20 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I baptized people as a public testimony of their faith

Do you see baptism as defining in part someone’s relationship with God?

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Even an improper baptism

Rather than “improper”, I would use “non-procedural” or “non-authorized” perhaps because how can a baptism be “improper” if it achieves the purpose it was done for…in Navidad’s case, they are witnessing their faith in this way.  Seems like the act is itself fulfilling that purpose, it’s proper for that purpose as would be any other baptism that is meant to stand as a witness of faith for the person being baptized.  Even in infant baptism, seems like it would be proper if intended as a witness of faith of the parents.

Edited May 19 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It's simply about a formal, covenantal anchor. I don't think human can tell the difference between the Spirit when in LDS people and Spirit in other people

Very well stated, imo.  I love the “covenantal anchor”.  That’s the idea I have been looking for forever.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I baptized people as a public testimony of their faith—nothing more or less. 

So I can understand what you are saying here better, for what purpose do you believe that Christ went to John the Baptist to be baptized?

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

Thanks for elaborating.

Can I ask, what purpose do you believe ordination serves?

Also, when you say that "no ordinance has salvific authority", that sounds like a position of certainty because it is stated as a fact (though I know you are sharing your personal opinion on it, it seems like for you, it's a fact).  Can you explain how you don't mean it as a fact so that I can better understand how to interpret your statements better?

Edited May 20 by bluebell

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you see baptism as defining in part someone’s relationship with God?

I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. I think baptism is a testimony to someone's relationship with God. My LDS friends frequently give testimonies to this or that. I think baptism is similar to that. It is a public confession, statement, agreement that one has accepted Christ's offering and gift of redemption. I don't think it is required for anything. I do not think it is salvific or confirming, except in the sense that it is an individual confirming their commitment to Christ publicly. We ask people to give a testimony to the congregation before being baptized. The baptism itself is a symbolic reflection on Christ's death. burial, and resurrection, which is why we immerse in almost the same form as the LDS do. Baptism and the difference in its administration are interesting, but not determinative. If I were to join the Catholic Church, I would not have to be rebaptized; they accept the validity of mine. If I were to join many Lutheran churches, I would have to be rebaptized, not because they believe my initial baptism to be invalid, but solely as a requirement to experience Lutheran baptism to be Lutheran. I could live with that because it does not insist on the invalid nature of my first baptism, as my LDS friends insist. LDS doctrine has proved itself to be variable based on thirty-year cycles. Although it matters naught, I believe that someday the doctrine regarding baptism and other Christian believers will change in the LDS church. LDS culture, identity, and doctrine are tightly linked together. It is much the same in the Mennonite church. Best wishes, Navidad

Edited May 20 by Navidad
typo error

[Calm]

Defining means creating and/or explaining the meaning of something in this case.  
 

1) Do you see baptism as part of explaining to others what one’s relationship is with God?

2) Or do you see it as adding something to the relationship, adding meaning in some way?  Being baptized does more in this understanding than just telling others what one believes, but it also does something to one’s relationship with God (as marrying someone changes the relationship to something more than just living together for most people). 

If you see it as adding meaning, how does baptism add meaning to the relationship in your view?

Perhaps it does both 1 and 2 in your view?

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

So I can understand what you are saying here better, for what purpose do you believe that Christ went to John the Baptist to be baptized?

I think the concept of baptism as a testimony of a new beginning was very familiar to Jews of the first century. So I think Christ went to his cousin's baptism to testify to the validity in the Jewish community of John's baptism. He was supporting his cousin. In the same vein of thinking, I think that Jesus was publicly testifying by his baptism to a new stage in his own earthly ministry. Ditto with the verbal affirmation of the Father at the same occasion - a public (verbal) affirmation of his pleasure with his son. Everything I know of about water baptism in the New Testament was affirmational. My son was baptized by a dear Mennonite bishop with a pitcher of water because of our son's autistic fear of water. I thought that was very kind of our bishop. It allowed our son to testify publicly without being traumatized by it. I believe he was about 14 years of age. Mennonites in that conference only baptized by immersion. Our bishop had “the authority” to make an exception for our son. I was glad he did that. You would say he had no authority to even baptize my boy, that his baptism was improper, nonprocedural, or not-authorized. That is really really sad. Had you been there, perhaps you would have had a different perspective, regardless of your church's doctrine. 

Edited May 20 by Navidad
fix typo

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I could live with that because it does insist on the invalid nature of my first baptism, as my LDS friends insist.

I do wish that we wouldn’t typically talk about others’ baptisms as meaningless or invalid, improper and only state other forms of baptism are invalid in a limited context, that of our authorized ordinance pertaining to membership in the restored Church, which ordinance contains specific forms of remission of sins (sanctification and purification occur in other ways as well even if this form is eventually necessary if seeking exaltation) as well as taking on Christ’s name in a specific way (others may take on his name in other ways, like declaring themselves to be Christian and testifying of him, acting as his hands in charitable works).

We are so used to thinking of baptism in only one way for ourselves, forgetting we used to be rebaptized for multiple reasons, as a testimony of our commitment, for healing (maybe for other things I have forgotten or don’t know about), that we have taken the next step of insisting it is the only way to baptize for anyone…which leads to unfounded claims that ancient Jews and ancient Americans baptized in the same way as we do now if we hear of ancient fonts or purification rituals.  
 

Even if we claim your baptism is valid for the purpose for which you yourself claim for it, I am guessing you still wouldn’t be baptized in our faith for the specific purpose of our ordinance because of our claim it serves a salvific purpose (it is commanded of the Lord in order to receive certain blessings from him) because you see this belief as to fundamentally wrong. 
 

aside:  I really don’t understand if any Saint said your baptism couldn’t serve as a testimony of Christ.

Am I correct in believing even if rebaptism to join a Lutheran congregation is acceptable, rebaptism to join an LDS congregation (the global one) is not in your view?

You said you would be baptized if joining a Lutheran congregation, but I don’t know the specific claimed nature of Lutheran baptism to be sure if the same sort of thinking could be applied to an LDS baptism.  

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Defining means creating and/or explaining the meaning of something in this case.  
 

1) Do you see baptism as part of explaining to others what one’s relationship is with God?

2) Or do you see it as adding something to the relationship, adding meaning in some way?  Being baptized does more in this understanding than just telling others what one believes, but it also does something to one’s relationship with God (as marrying someone changes the relationship to something more than just living together for most people). 

If you see it as adding meaning, how does baptism add meaning to the relationship in your view?

Perhaps it does both 1 and 2 in your view?

I assume you are asking me. I think baptism is a testimony, demonstrating the existence and  meaning and existence of one's apriori relationship with God. Baptism in no way creates or mpacts that relationship other than human feelings of pride and connectedness with the Savior.l 

No, I am not sure I agree with number 2 beyond what I said in reply to number 1. Of course, acknowledging a relationship, most likely on a human level, does something to strengthen that relationship. But not in the same way marriage does (in my opinion). I don't think baptism does anything to the relationship from the viewpoint of God; but it probably does from the viewpoint of the human undergoing the ritual. It is like my wife donning an Indiana Fever jersey to watch a Fever game sitting here at home. It strengthens the tie with the team. That is most likely a dumb illustration, but it just came to my mind. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You would say he had no authority to even baptize my boy, that his baptism was improper, nonprocedural, or not-authorized.

To baptize him for a remission of sins, membership in his Restored Church, and unto eternal life…no, he had no authority to do so.

Authority to baptize him as a testament of his belief in Christ, why wouldn’t he have that?  I just don’t think LDS think of baptism in that way, but since we believe in different ways of testifying of our belief, why can’t baptism be one of them?

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I do wish that we wouldn’t typically talk about others’ baptisms as meaningless or invalid, improper and only state other forms of baptism are invalid in a limited context, that of our authorized ordinance pertaining to membership in the restored Church, which ordinance contains specific forms of remission of sins (sanctification and purification occur in other ways as well even if this form is eventually necessary if seeking exaltation) as well as taking on Christ’s name in a specific way (others may take on his name in other ways, like declaring themselves to be Christian and testifying of him, acting as his hands in charitable works).

We are so used to thinking of baptism in only one way for ourselves, forgetting we used to be rebaptized for multiple reasons, as a testimony of our commitment, for healing (maybe for other things I have forgotten or don’t know about), that we have taken the next step of insisting it is the only way to baptize for anyone…which leads to unfounded claims that ancient Jews and ancient Americans baptized in the same way as we do now if we hear of ancient fonts or purification rituals.  
 

Even if we claim your baptism is valid for the purpose for which you yourself claim for it, I am guessing you still wouldn’t be baptized in our faith for the specific purpose of our ordinance because of our claim it serves a salvific purpose (it is commanded of the Lord in order to receive certain blessings from him) because you see this belief as to fundamentally wrong. 
 

aside:  I really don’t understand if any Saint said your baptism couldn’t serve as a testimony of Christ.

Am I correct in believing even if rebaptism to join a Lutheran congregation is acceptable, rebaptism to join an LDS congregation (the global one) is not in your view?

You said you would be baptized if joining a Lutheran congregation, but I don’t know the specific claimed nature of Lutheran baptism to be sure if the same sort of thinking could be applied to an LDS baptism.  

Well, if you remember Spencer Kimball once wrote that when I baptized people I was committing blasphemy. (obviously not me personally) but as an non-LDS minister daring to perform the ordinance.

Huge difference in my mind between the viewpoint of the Lutheran and the LDS. The Lutherans say, we value and accept your baptism as valid, but for the purposes of uniting with us, we ask you to agree to be rebaptized by one of us into our church.  Not all Lutherans do this. Some do. It is just an example. Baptism is not salvific for most Lutherans.

The LDS say, only we are authorized by Christ of all Christians in all the world to baptize. Therefore, any baptism you experienced in your life before coming with us was not pleasing to Christ and was of null effect. Whoever baptized you was not authorized to do so by Christ, so one of us must repeat the ordinance with the method, mode, manner, and authority required for it to be salvific for you. We don't need to know who baptized you, it doesn't matter? Oh? It was your father? No matter. He had no authority because he didn't hold the correct priesthood like our elder does. He didn't know any better. What say you? He had the Melchizedek priesthood according to the Book of Hebrews?  I am so sorry you think that. Only our faithful male members can have the Melchizedek priesthood in this dispensation. We are sorry you are so confused. Now, lets get on with the questions. . . . . That is how it appears to a faithful non-LDS baptized Christians. 

Edited May 20 by Navidad
fix typo

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

To baptize him for a remission of sins, membership in his Restored Church, and unto eternal life…no, he had no authority to do so.

Authority to baptize him as a testament of his belief in Christ, why wouldn’t he have that?  I just don’t think LDS think of baptism in that way, but since we believe in different ways of testifying of our belief, why can’t baptism be one of them?

You make a good point. For sure, many non-LDS Christians don't think of baptism in the way you describe. I would guess Catholics do.

It would never dawn on me that after 70 years of living the Christian life, that in joining any other Christian church, I would be receiving remission of sins and eternal life via the act of their baptism. I received eternal life and received remission of sins seventy years ago! So now what do you have to testify to me about? Only that I did not receive eternal life and receive remission of sins seventy years ago when I became a Christian by professing faith in the atonement of Christ, asking Him to forgive me, and believing in Him to do so. You are not just saying that my baptism was incorrect,  but so was my entire conversion experience, as has been the last seventy years of my mistaken belief in my redemption, are you not?

So let's just say Navidad gets baptized by an LDS elder this Sunday after Sacrament service. Is he getting remission of sins and gaining eternal life for the first time in his life? Perhaps this is the real crux of the matter. I haven't been your Christian brother all these years. I have only been your brother in the sense that all humans are progeny of Heavenly Father, so we are all spirit brothers and sisters. We are not brothers and sisters in the sense of Christian brothers and sisters, both redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb. That is why I cringe every time I am called Brother Navidad by an LDS friend. I know they really don't think I am their brother in Christ or my wife is their sister in Christ, even though in her case the WRS leaders have over and over again spoken highly of her relationship to Christ, her godliness, and her compassion for others. How can she be that without having had remission of sins and assurance of eternal life based on the actions of Christ, who loved her and gave Himself for her? If she insists on the truth of her full and complete relationship with Christ, your doctrine restrains you from believing her or acknowledging that you believe her. I, personally, believe that is why our bishop did not want us in the ward. We were confusing people, not by our words, but by our truthing our faith in a way that could not easily be denied or reconciled with certain LDS doctrines. For many, we were the first non-LDS Christians they ever got to know and love. 

This is a much bigger issue than I think my LDS friends think it is. We are not always the best at seeing things through the other person's eyes and faith. In fact, we are pretty bad at it. We tend to prioritize our doctrines over the living example of the one standing right in front of us. That is why I am not a doctrine fanatic. I prefer to say "Oh yes, I know Calm from years on the forum. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a complete and full sister in Christ bound for whatever good things lie ahead of us in paradise. Her wisdom can only come from God.  What then do I say to someone who asks me? "Dont you know she is a Mormon? What about all the errors in Mormon doctrine?" How do I answer? I would say, "Well, you are mistaken; she is as godly a woman as anyone I have never met!" Ha! My faith gives me freedom to affirm your completeness in Christ. Your doctrine seems to bind you from saying that about someone like me or my wife, or the millions of other faithful non-LDS Christians in the world. 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My faith gives me freedom to affirm your completeness in Christ. Your doctrine seems to bind you from saying that about someone like me or my wife, or the millions of other faithful non-LDS Christians in the world. 

It seems like both of our faiths give us the freedom to believe what we believe about Christ and His gospel. 

But your faith doesn't actually give you any freedom to declare anything about me (or Calm), and my faith doesn't give me any freedom to declare anything about you, does it?  That is just not in our ability to do; we are not that powerful.  You can affirm that I'm complete in Christ but that doesn't make it so.  It's just your (very kind and loving) opinion of me based on what you believe about Christ.  

The same is of course true for my beliefs about you and your relationship with Christ.  What I believe about that has no bearing on you and your relationship with Him in any way.  The only way my beliefs matter at all is if they are actually correct.  You don't think they are correct, though, so that's obviously not a worry for you or motivation in these discussions.  

So all of that leads me to wonder, what is your motivation for these discussions?  We've had them quite a few times over the years and they always seem to go the same way so it makes me wonder if we understood what you were looking for in them, maybe it could go differently this time.  Is it to get us to see the error in our beliefs?  To affirm you don't need baptismal covenants or temple ordinances to become a Joint-heir with Christ?  To validate your hurt even though we can't do anything to do change it?  

(sincerely asking)

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well, if you remember Spencer Kimball once wrote that when I baptized people I was committing blasphemy. (obviously not me personally) but as an non-LDS minister daring to perform the ordinance.

I don’t understand the reasoning unless Pres Kimball meant they actually believed they didn’t have the truly needed authority.  Blasphemy seems to be intentional to me and believing one has any necessary authority for an ordinance one believes is proper hardly seems like blasphemy.  Be interesting to see if he had the same belief as president of the Church.

We discussed the quote here if you recall:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71519-a-spencer-w-kimball-quote-on-blasphemy/

I do believe sinning in ignorance includes not truly believing something is a sin as well as not being aware of the law.

 

Edited May 20 by Calm

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is he getting remission of sins and gaining eternal life for the first time in his life?

It’s not an all or nothing thing.  We are on a path to eternal life.  Our journey is not complete simply because we are baptized into the Restored Churcchh or even when we receive our endowment and sealing.***  Whatever has kept you on the path has, imo, been part of the Lord blessing you with eternal life, but there is more we need to do to access and make use of it, imo.   Think of it as God giving you a car as soon as you first seek him out as a promise of what the future will bring, but the more we turn to him, the more we align our will with him, the better access we receive (keys to start it, fuel to make it move) and skills we develop (how to drive, how to care for it), so eventually at judgment, whenever and whatever that is, we get to drive off into the sunset happily ever after (whatever that means in the eternal sense). Or maybe a train is a better analogy as I believe exaltation is about journeying the eternities together.

***seems like Joseph taught it wouldn’t be complete until long after death:

”When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation.”

There is nothing that indicates the rungs are in an identical order for each person as far as I am aware.  A nonmember may have climbed up further than an member imo even if they haven’t yet crossed their rung of baptism for remission of sins while the member might have practically started their climb with that as one of their first rungs.

Added:  it occurred to me I needed to make a clearer point that LDS don’t see a blessing or ordinance as only exclusively coming from one thing, that blessing or ordinance, though that ordinance may be necessary to receive the blessing….but other things are as well.  While baptism blesses us with eternal life, it is only part of the process, a step on the way.  You may have a patriarchal blessing promising certain things, but other factors, choices you make in life may delay those blessings until the next life.   Healings may not immediately come.  Of course this can be said to be an excuse to cover up failures when promised blessings don’t appear, which is possible, but it also makes sense given our doctrine of agency, etc. that blessings are rarely that linear.

Edited May 20 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

know they really don't think I am their brother in Christ or my wife is their sister in Christ,

That would depend on what they believe “brother in Christ” means.   To me, it’s another sincere Christian, whether they have the same covenants as I have or not, so there would be no need to cringe.  But that is also not how I personally use “Brother” or “ Sister”.  I don’t add in my head “in Christ” on to it. 

Would you cringe if someone spoke to you in Spanish (I am assuming you understand it even if you might be more fluent with English)?  Why would you cringe if people say Brother or Sister with a different interpretation than you if you understood what they meant even if it’s not what you would mean if they said it?

LDS think of all mankind as part of God’s family.  I believe that is how we generally view why we call each other “Brother” or “Sister”.  Any time I use Brother or Sister, it’s how I mean it…which means pretty much everyone who has ever existed fits that title.  I think I might choose not to use it for sons of perdition, who knowingly have rebelled against and rejected God, basically disowning themselves from his family, but otherwise I feel comfortable using it for anyone as long as they are comfortable with me calling them that.

Added:  I don’t believe Joseph Smith limited his use of Brother and Sister to only church members, but I am going off a vague memory.  Maybe someone else who is more familiar with his comments can confirm or correct me.

Edited May 20 by Calm

[3DOP]

Navidad. Hi.

I enjoyed hearing about your son's baptism. The reason is that Catholics sometimes get a bit of grief from some Protestant sections for our practice of different modes of baptism. We acknowledge that immersion in water is the most symbolically rich of the ways that are valid according to the Church. "Buried in baptism" being part of that. But I don't understand how people who desire baptism on their death beds should be deprived because of their physical condition. It is easy for modern Protestants to be dogmatic about how everybody needs to be dunked in a heated baptismal pool. What about people in wintry climates in the past where all the standing water has turned to ice?  Must they wait until summer to be baptized? There are many other cases I can think of like that of your son, where I believe that God in His mercy, would be pleased that His children for whom the symbolically rich mode, might be challenging, are permitted to receive baptism in a way that would be less of a hardship for them. I rejoice to believe in the validity of your son's baptism.

Please know that I am not going to try to persuade you of other Catholic teachings regarding Sacramental Theology. In a sense, I am "trying to make points with you". But it is only as I merely want to emphasize areas where we happen to be in agreement as a way to do my part to take little steps toward achieving Christian love and unity. I loved that your bishop departed from the ordinary norms of Mennonites because of your son's fear of water.

Maybe his Mom had trouble washing his hair when he was a baby! We had a boy like that who grew out of it, but it was kind of tricky at first to figure out a way to let Mom get his head wet.

Rory     

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

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

I agree that the Spirit can work wherever God desires.

The question, however, is whether the New Testament therefore concludes that covenant authority becomes unnecessary.

I do not think it does.

The New Testament simultaneously teaches both: (1) God is not confined geographically or institutionally, and (2) Christ still established a visible covenant Church with authorized servants and ordinances.

Those ideas are not opposites.

For Example, the Spirit clearly worked outside Israel in the Old Testament, yet priesthood authority still existed. 

Likewise, in the New Testament, Cornelius receives divine manifestation before baptism, yet Peter is still sent to administer covenant entry. Paul acknowledges spiritual gifts among believers, yet still insists on ordination, order, authority, and proper administration. People can experience miracles outside the apostolic circle, yet ordinances themselves are always tied to authorized administration.

So the biblical pattern is not, “Since God can work anywhere, covenant authority disappears.” Rather, it is more like “God works broadly among humanity while still establishing covenant structures and authorized servants.”

Otherwise several New Testament realities become difficult to explain. Why apostles at all? Why ordination? Why laying on of hands? Why church discipline? Why qualifications for bishops and elders? Why “keys” in Matthew 16? Why “as my Father sent me, so send I you” in John 20? Why Acts 19 rebaptism? Why Hebrews 5:4 insisting that authority is called, not self-assumed?

The LDS position is not trying to fence God in.

It is simply recognizing that the New Testament repeatedly fences covenant administration in.

Those are two very different things.

 

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Senator said:

You don't think Navidad's "non-covenant authority" spiritual experience is authentic?

Yet, that's the way it is.  What are you going to do about it?  Tell them their spiritual experiences can't possibly be true because they don't all align and don't have the correct authority?

Ok?! 

Meanwhile Navidad and scores of other go about their spiritually rich and abiding walk in Christ.

I am not saying Navidad’s experiences are fake. In fact, I have repeatedly said I believe God genuinely works among sincere people everywhere.

The issue is not whether spiritual experiences can occur outside LDS covenant authority. Clearly they can. The issue is whether spiritual experience alone becomes self-interpreting and self-authorizing.

Because once we say that it does, we immediately run into a major problem: contradictory spiritual claims all become equally binding.

One believer says God revealed infant baptism. Another says God revealed believer’s baptism only. One says God revealed Calvinism. Another says God revealed Arminianism. One says God revealed apostolic succession. Another says all institutional authority is unnecessary.

At that point, private experience alone cannot arbitrate truth claims because the experiences point in contradictory theological directions.

That is precisely why the New Testament consistently grounds the Church in more than inward experience alone and establishes things like apostles, ordination, and authorized ministry. None of that means God is absent outside those structures. But it means the New Testament does not treat personal spiritual experience by itself as sufficient to establish covenant authority or binding doctrine.

And honestly, the New Testament itself demonstrates this tension repeatedly. Jesus warns about sincere deception. Paul warns about false apostles. John warns believers to “try the spirits.” Even miraculous manifestations are not treated as automatically self-validating.

So yes, Navidad and other may absolutely have spiritually rich experiences with Christ. I have no problem acknowledging that. And, for clarity, I'll do so again now -  I'm grateful God is working in his life.

But that still does not answer the separate ecclesiological question: Did Christ establish a visible covenant Church with real authority and ordinances?

Those are related, but not identical, questions.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I am not saying Navidad’s experiences are fake. In fact, I have repeatedly said I believe God genuinely works among sincere people everywhere.

The issue is not whether spiritual experiences can occur outside LDS covenant authority. Clearly they can. The issue is whether spiritual experience alone becomes self-interpreting and self-authorizing.

Because once we say that it does, we immediately run into a major problem: contradictory spiritual claims all become equally binding.

One believer says God revealed infant baptism. Another says God revealed believer’s baptism only. One says God revealed Calvinism. Another says God revealed Arminianism. One says God revealed apostolic succession. Another says all institutional authority is unnecessary.

At that point, private experience alone cannot arbitrate truth claims because the experiences point in contradictory theological directions.

That is precisely why the New Testament consistently grounds the Church in more than inward experience alone and establishes things like apostles, ordination, and authorized ministry. None of that means God is absent outside those structures. But it means the New Testament does not treat personal spiritual experience by itself as sufficient to establish covenant authority or binding doctrine.

And honestly, the New Testament itself demonstrates this tension repeatedly. Jesus warns about sincere deception. Paul warns about false apostles. John warns believers to “try the spirits.” Even miraculous manifestations are not treated as automatically self-validating.

So yes, Navidad and other may absolutely have spiritually rich experiences with Christ. I have no problem acknowledging that. And, for clarity, I'll do so again now -  I'm grateful God is working in his life.

But that still does not answer the separate ecclesiological question: Did Christ establish a visible covenant Church with real authority and ordinances?

Those are related, but not identical, questions.

 

The problem is that everything in your church also hinges on private experience.