Apostasy

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I stated in another comment that I don't see how a person formally joins another church without advocating its teachings in some way. I guess we can argue about what it means to "advocate" but ...

I would actually see advocating as being a step toward formally joining, not the other way around.

Advocating its teachings would involve something more than just becoming a member of a church.  Are you trying to change the definition of advocacy?  

Advocacy: "Advocacy is an activity by an individual or group which aims to influence decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions. Advocacy can include many activities that a person or organization undertakes including media campaigns, public speaking, commissioning and publishing research or conducting exit poll or the filing of an amicus brief."

Say I join the Catholic Church.  I'm sure that would make Rory happy, but as long as I just became an active Catholic, attending Mass, performing whatever duties that might be given me as a regular Catholic within the parish, there is no way that could be counted as advocacy.  HOWEVER, if I joined the RCC and then started advocating Catholicism to LDS members, or let's say that I wrote a book advocating other LDS to convert to Catholicism, and then started a media campaign attempting to promote my book and encourage LDS to convert -- well, that would be advocacy.  And the LDS church would be entirely justified in excommunicating me.

[california boy]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this is one of the issues that many church members really find confusing.  Why do some ex-mormons care what labels the church applies to them?  For most members (at least the ones i've been around or read), they fully expect ex-mormons not to care about what labels the church uses.  When they do care, it just seems weird.

It never bothered me that the church calls me an apostate.  It is just name calling as far as I am concerned.  Says more about the church than it does me.  I am quite secure in my relationship with Christ.  I don't need the church to define that relationship.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't find it strange.  Attending another church for whatever reason does not mean one has adopted that Church or group.  Once one joins, they have officially made themselves a part of it.  I guess I will propose this idea.  Suppose it is 42 A.D and one is a part of the church back then.  James, Peter, ect are leading the Church.  Somebody decides to depart from the group that is being lead by the early apostles and follow another small group that believes in Jesus.  It is ok for them to reject the organization James and Peter are running and follow another group?    What is the difference between the LDS Church and all the other churches that profess to be Christian?  The difference is if one wants to go the Celestial Kingdom, there is only one way to get there.  Baptism and temple ordinances are required.  These are not optional.   Believing does not have the power to get you there.  The priesthood power and ordinances are required.   If one wants Terrestrial glory, the other churches can get you there.  It all depends where you want to go.   There is perfect unity in the Celestial Kingdom.  Nobody is believing different things and following God in different ways. 

If you believe that Catholics, or Lutherans or Baptist or Hindus or anyone but members of the LDS Church will be in the Celestial Kingdom, then why bother to do any temple work for the dead?  Is baptism and priesthood ordinances necessary for entrance into the lower kingdoms?

[changed]

As in Adam all die...

Adam went through both a spiritual and a physical death - does that mean that Jesus, and the church, and each individual must also die both spiritually and physically - complete death in order to experience a full re-birth?  ...

... Why hast thou forsaken me - spiritual death?  

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It never bothered me that the church calls me an apostate.  It is just name calling as far as I am concerned.  Says more about the church than it does me.  I am quite secure in my relationship with Christ.  I don't need the church to define that relationship.

And that's a very healthy way to be in the world.  What other people think of us really doesn't matter. What you think of the church's use of the word apostate doesn't matter to the church, and it makes sense that likewise, what the church thinks about your being an apostate doesn't matter to you.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't find it strange.  Attending another church for whatever reason does not mean one has adopted that Church or group.  Once one joins, they have officially made themselves a part of it.  I guess I will propose this idea.  Suppose it is 42 A.D and one is a part of the church back then.  James, Peter, ect are leading the Church.  Somebody decides to depart from the group that is being lead by the early apostles and follow another small group that believes in Jesus.  It is ok for them to reject the organization James and Peter are running and follow another group?    What is the difference between the LDS Church and all the other churches that profess to be Christian?  The difference is if one wants to go the Celestial Kingdom, there is only one way to get there.  Baptism and temple ordinances are required.  These are not optional.   Believing does not have the power to get you there.  The priesthood power and ordinances are required.   If one wants Terrestrial glory, the other churches can get you there.  It all depends where you want to go.   There is perfect unity in the Celestial Kingdom.  Nobody is believing different things and following God in different ways. 

So what if someone's Christianity only leads one to Salvation but not exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Is that level of Christianity worthless? There are 3 degrees of Glory therefore it's not ONLY about the Celestial Kingdom. Besides, I wonder if it's possible that people who have been led to a firm faith in Christ through other churches are being prepared for more. If these churches are leading people down the Christian path, why would we not consider them to be part of the body of Christ?

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, changed said:

As in Adam all die...

Adam went through both a spiritual and a physical death - does that mean that Jesus, and the church, and each individual must also die both spiritually and physically - complete death in order to experience a full re-birth?  ...

... Why hast thou forsaken me - spiritual death?  

That's an interesting way to look at it.  And it's true.  Because of Adam and Eve we all experience both spiritual and physical death.  That's what it means to be born into a fallen world. The apostasy could also be looked at as a spiritual death I guess.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Advocating its teachings would involve something more than just becoming a member of a church.  Are you trying to change the definition of advocacy?  

Advocacy: "Advocacy is an activity by an individual or group which aims to influence decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions. Advocacy can include many activities that a person or organization undertakes including media campaigns, public speaking, commissioning and publishing research or conducting exit poll or the filing of an amicus brief."

Say I join the Catholic Church.  I'm sure that would make Rory happy, but as long as I just became an active Catholic, attending Mass, performing whatever duties that might be given me as a regular Catholic within the parish, there is no way that could be counted as advocacy.  HOWEVER, if I joined the RCC and then started advocating Catholicism to LDS members, or let's say that I wrote a book advocating other LDS to convert to Catholicism, and then started a media campaign attempting to promote my book and encourage LDS to convert -- well, that would be advocacy.  And the LDS church would be entirely justified in excommunicating me.

sigh...

That's a grandiose definition of advocacy. I believe that those big political/social statements are advocacy but I also believe there are much smaller versions. I don't think someone needs to go that big to be considered an advocate. Try this definition of "advocate" on for size.

Quote

ad·vo·cate

[advocate]

 

NOUN

advocates (plural noun)

1. a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.

   "he was an untiring advocate of economic reform"

   synonyms: champion · upholder · supporter · backer · promoter · proponent

    

   VERB

advocates (third person present) · advocated (past tense) · advocated (past participle) · advocating (present participle)

1. publicly recommend or support.

So if I formally joined another church and publicly supported that church to friends, family, on facebook, would I be considered an advocate for that church? What if I only made a public affirmation of faith to Christ and the church as part of confirmation. Would that be advocacy?

 

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if your position is "I'm right and I belong to the one and only true church" therefore "you are wrong and reject Christ" then, yes.  There's not much room for common ground, understanding, or respect.

When you re-phrase what someone said in the worst possible way, it doesn't really seem like you care at all about finding ground.  It seems like you are focused on how right you are and how everyone else is wrong.

Quote

When one believes in such black and white terms there isn't much opportunity to respect different POV's because everyone else is always wrong. And if that's the case, why not demonize others who reject the truth, because it's true that they are uninspired, unworthy covenant breakers.

I think it's very possible to believe that someone else is wrong and still respect them.  

You believe i'm wrong, right?  Does that mean that you disrespect me?  Should I think that because you believe I'm wrong that you are out to demonize me?  Would that be a reasonable way for me to interpret your feelings for me in regards to this thread?

If you can believe that I am wrong about this topic and still respect me, then why argue that there is no way for the church to do the same?

Quote

IMO there has to be some humility in both sides for there to be some respect and acceptance of the other. Otherwise the POV is simply a "I'm right, you're wrong and that makes perfect sense because I'm right and you're wrong."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that you are right and that I am wrong about this.  Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the church believing that they are right and you are wrong.  Humility isn't believing that everyone is right nor is it believing that no one is ever wrong.  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When you re-phrase what someone said in the worst possible way, it doesn't really seem like you care at all about finding ground.  It seems like you are focused on how right you are and how everyone else is wrong.

I think it's very possible to believe that someone else is wrong and still respect them.  

You believe i'm wrong, right?  Does that mean that you disrespect me?  Should I think that because you believe I'm wrong that you are out to demonize me?  Would that be a reasonable way for me to interpret your feelings for me in regards to this thread?

If you can believe that I am wrong about this topic and still respect me, then why argue that there is no way for the church to do the same?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that you are right and that I am wrong about this.  Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the church believing that they are right and you are wrong.  Humility isn't believing that everyone is right nor is it believing that no one is ever wrong.  

I wasn't trying to re-phrase in the worst possible way out of spite or anything, but only as a way to perhaps help you see the limitation of that POV. When taken to the logical conclusion, even in the extreme, it doesn't sound as good

No, but humility is accepting the possibility that even though I think I'm right, I might actually be wrong. In this case, I recognize that my opinion is just that, an opinion. It isn't absolute truth even though it works for me, so yes, I can respect that you have a different opinion. It is humility to believe that you can have your opinion, no matter how wrong I may think it is, but that your opinion doesn't necessarily make you a bad person or doomed to eternal damnation. Nor do I think I should teach others that your opinion means you are doomed to eternal torment as if it's an absolute fact. Humility is recognizing the limitations of ones own POV.

But you seem to be arguing that it's ok to claim something (even as an absolute fact), because from your POV, it is true. What is wrong is when the church teaches others with absolute certainty and as absolute fact that a person is an apostate and therefore lost.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When taken to the logical conclusion, even in the extreme, it doesn't sound as good

I think the problem is that I disagree that that is the logical conclusion.  

Quote

But you seem to be arguing that it's ok to claim something (even as an absolute fact), because from your POV, it is true. What is wrong is when the church teaches others with absolute certainty and as absolute fact that a person is an apostate and therefore lost.

I'm definitely arguing that it's o.k. to believe that some things are absolute fact.  We can still be wrong (and sometimes we will be) but believing in the existence of absolute facts is not anti-humility.  Beyond that, I don't think i've ever seen the church teach that someone was an apostate with absolute certainty and as absolute fact.  Can you provide me with a reference for that?

The church teaches their belief and opinion that someone is apostate, while leaving the ultimate judgement up to God.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wasn't trying to re-phrase in the worst possible way out of spite or anything, but only as a way to perhaps help you see the limitation of that POV. When taken to the logical conclusion, even in the extreme, it doesn't sound as good

No, but humility is accepting the possibility that even though I think I'm right, I might actually be wrong. In this case, I recognize that my opinion is just that, an opinion. It isn't absolute truth even though it works for me, so yes, I can respect that you have a different opinion. It is humility to believe that you can have your opinion, no matter how wrong I may think it is, but that your opinion doesn't necessarily make you a bad person or doomed to eternal damnation. Nor do I think I should teach others that your opinion means you are doomed to eternal torment as if it's an absolute fact. Humility is recognizing the limitations of ones own POV.

But you seem to be arguing that it's ok to claim something (even as an absolute fact), because from your POV, it is true. What is wrong is when the church teaches others with absolute certainty and as absolute fact that a person is an apostate and therefore lost.

Where is this coming from? Even persons excommunicated for apostasy are extended a way back into the fold.

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm definitely arguing that it's o.k. to believe that some things are absolute fact.  We can still be wrong (and sometimes we will be) but believing in the existence of absolute facts is not anti-humility.  Beyond that, I don't think i've ever seen the church teach that someone was an apostate with absolute certainty and as absolute fact.  Can you provide me with a reference for that?

At the end of the day, from the very beginning (cf. Joseph Smith history in the PoGP), a foundational teaching of the Church is that all other churches are in a state of apostasy and only the Church has the fulness of the gospel and restored authority. If we stop teaching and believing this, then we really have no reason for existing or mattering. This doesn't mean that we are jerks about it (we shouldn't be), but it is our central message --- or ought to be. It's the reason why we matter and why joining the Church matters. If we soften this to where we aren't "arrogant" about it (as seen by outsiders and some insiders), then we actually have no unique value or worth in the spectrum of Christianity. Not really. We're just one of many equally-valid and equally-important subset of Christianity. 

But our message to the world is (or ought to be) that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth, and we have a prophetic mission to usher in the dispensation of the fulness of times. This offends some people, and that is to be expected. But it shouldn't lead us to shirk our covenant duty so as not to be "arrogant" or to be "humble" from the perspective of aggrieved people who don't like that message. 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem is that I disagree that that is the logical conclusion.  

Fair enough

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm definitely arguing that it's o.k. to believe that some things are absolute fact.  We can still be wrong (and sometimes we will be) but believing in the existence of absolute facts is not anti-humility.  Beyond that, I don't think i've ever seen the church teach that someone was an apostate with absolute certainty and as absolute fact.  Can you provide me with a reference for that?

I believe there are absolute truths and facts, I just don't think humans are capable of knowing those with absolute certitude. The lack of humility doesn't exist because of absolute truth, it exists because of the unwillingness of an individual/organization to recognize its own limitation in knowing, understanding, and sharing that truth. IMO it's prideful for anyone to think they have a perfect knowledge. It's fine if you disagree with that.

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church teaches their belief and opinion that someone is apostate, while leaving the ultimate judgement up to God.

I've never understood the church to share it's "opinion" on things. It states the will of God. When judgement is passed, like happens in excommunication, the excommunicated member has their name "blotted out". Their priesthood and saving ordinances are rescinded. Sounds like a pretty harsh punishment if it's only the bishop's opinion. But I guess we can disagree on that too.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

At the end of the day, from the very beginning (cf. Joseph Smith history in the PoGP), a foundational teaching of the Church is that all other churches are in a state of apostasy and only the Church has the fulness of the gospel and restored authority. If we stop teaching and believing this, then we really have no reason for existing or mattering. This doesn't mean that we are jerks about it (we shouldn't be), but it is our central message --- or ought to be. It's the reason why we matter and why joining the Church matters. If we soften this to where we aren't "arrogant" about it (as seen by outsiders and some insiders), then we actually have no unique value or worth in the spectrum of Christianity. Not really. We're just one of many equally-valid and equally-important subset of Christianity. 

But our message to the world is (or ought to be) that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth, and we have a prophetic mission to usher in the dispensation of the fulness of times. This offends some people, and that is to be expected. But it shouldn't lead us to shirk our covenant duty so as not to be "arrogant" or to be "humble" from the perspective of aggrieved people who don't like that message. 

I can't understand the arrogance.

Even if all churches are in some level of apostasy (meaning an imperfect understanding and practice of the gospel) and even if our church is perfect, to claim that no other Christian church plays a role in the body of Christ is mind blowing. The point of the "body of Christ" is that there are many diverse parts doing different things. Read 1Cor 12. It even states that there are imperfections in the parts, but that doesn't mean they have no use.

Quote

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

If the church is a strong body part it would assist the parts that are lacking. It does not cut off that body part and say to the hand, because you are imperfect you at not part of the body.

I can't express how shocked and disappointed I am that so many here think that other Christians aren't even a "part" of the body of Christ. I've been appalled in the past when evangelicals have claimed that Mormons aren't Christians, but I consider the view that non-LDS are not part of the body of Christ as the exact same thing. IT's dismissive, and rude. Having a semblance of humility, even if it is only feigned, does not diminish the church's role as part of the body.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO it's prideful for anyone to think they have a perfect knowledge. It's fine if you disagree with that.

I don't disagree.  There are a ton of things that I believe are absolute facts that I don't believe I have a perfect knowledge of.  

Quote

I've never understood the church to share it's "opinion" on things. It states the will of God. When judgement is passed, like happens in excommunication, the excommunicated member has their name "blotted out". Their priesthood and saving ordinances are rescinded. Sounds like a pretty harsh punishment if it's only the bishop's opinion. But I guess we can disagree on that too.

What I mean is, it's the church's opinion that it states the will of God.  It's the church's belief that it states the will of God.  The church understands, and teaches, that nothing is effected eternally unless it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise-something the church has no control over or say in.

Edited October 3, 2018 by bluebell

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't understand the arrogance.

Even if all churches are in some level of apostasy (meaning an imperfect understanding and practice of the gospel) and even if our church is perfect, to claim that no other Christian church plays a role in the body of Christ is mind blowing. The point of the "body of Christ" is that there are many diverse parts doing different things. Read 1Cor 12. It even states that there are imperfections in the parts, but that doesn't mean they have no use.

If the church is a strong body part it would assist the parts that are lacking. It does not cut off that body part and say to the hand, because you are imperfect you at not part of the body.

I can't express how shocked and disappointed I am that so many here think that other Christians aren't even a "part" of the body of Christ. I've been appalled in the past when evangelicals have claimed that Mormons aren't Christians, but I consider the view that non-LDS are not part of the body of Christ as the exact same thing. IT's dismissive, and rude. Having a semblance of humility, even if it is only feigned, does not diminish the church's role as part of the body.

1 Corinthians 12 is talking about the church, using the body of Christ as a metaphor. The body and parts are described not as anyone professing Christ, but as a specific organization with keys for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, miracles, gifts, helps and governments (verse 13 and 28), and members taking on various offices and roles (verse 29). Other denominations professing Christ, as meaningful as that is, are not part of the body as defined here (1 Corinthians 1:12).

Some Church members simply do not honor their baptism sufficiently to remain with the body, and so excommunication is taught throughout the New Testament. Saints are not cut off from the body for imperfection, but for an unwillingness to be a disciple, which sometime entails formal discipline which if rejected can result in excommunication.

The Church does not “excommunicate” other churches from Christendom, nor does she consider Christendom the body of Christ. She acknowledges the teaching of Paul about apostasy and multiple denominations that result from saints separating from the body of Christ whether they do that attitudinally, by voluntary separation or as a result of disciplinary action. Paul spoke of both general apostasy and personal apostasy as a separation from the body of Christ.

Here's a good article: https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if all churches are in some level of apostasy (meaning an imperfect understanding and practice of the gospel) and even if our church is perfect, to claim that no other Christian church plays a role in the body of Christ is mind blowing. The point of the "body of Christ" is that there are many diverse parts doing different things. Read 1Cor 12. It even states that there are imperfections in the parts, but that doesn't mean they have no use.

If the church is a strong body part it would assist the parts that are lacking. It does not cut off that body part and say to the hand, because you are imperfect you at not part of the body.

I can't express how shocked and disappointed I am that so many here think that other Christians aren't even a "part" of the body of Christ. I've been appalled in the past when evangelicals have claimed that Mormons aren't Christians, but I consider the view that non-LDS are not part of the body of Christ as the exact same thing. IT's dismissive, and rude. Having a semblance of humility, even if it is only feigned, does not diminish the church's role as part of the body.

I think almost all Mormons would say that non-Mormon Christianity is part of the body of Christ in the general sense, but the emphasis would be that they don't have the authority or the fullness of the gospel. Is that arrogant? That's what makes us Mormon. 

I don't think many would say that they are no part of the body of Christ, whatsoever. We (most of us) genuinely speak in a positive way about the role that the Catholic Church and the Reformers played in keeping fragmentary Christianity alive up to the Restoration, and in laying a foundation upon the which the Restoration could take place. I think that very few Mormons would actually say that the Spirit is not with non-Mormon Christians at all. 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

sigh...

That's a grandiose definition of advocacy. I believe that those big political/social statements are advocacy but I also believe there are much smaller versions. I don't think someone needs to go that big to be considered an advocate. Try this definition of "advocate" on for size.

So if I formally joined another church and publicly supported that church to friends, family, on facebook, would I be considered an advocate for that church? What if I only made a public affirmation of faith to Christ and the church as part of confirmation. Would that be advocacy?

 

Grandiose? Precise maybe.

Yours suits me, too. I was just trying to get away from mere joining as advocacy

Edited October 3, 2018 by Stargazer

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think almost all Mormons would say that non-Mormon Christianity is part of the body of Christ in the general sense, but the emphasis would be that they don't have the authority or the fullness of the gospel. Is that arrogant? That's what makes us Mormon. 

I don't think many would say that they are no part of the body of Christ, whatsoever. We (most of us) genuinely speak in a positive way about the role that the Catholic Church and the Reformers played in keeping fragmentary Christianity alive up to the Restoration, and in laying a foundation upon the which the Restoration could take place. I think that very few Mormons would actually say that the Spirit is not with non-Mormon Christians at all. 

That is exactly what some have been saying, and what you seemed to agree with earlier. The consensus that seems to be growing on this thread is that only the LDS church is the body of Christ and all other Christian churches are outside of that body. Others have been making that claim while responding to specific questions about other churches not being part of the body. That's what I have been so disappointed by. I'm glad to hear you change your tune.

I don't really care about claims of authority right now because that's not what the argument is about. IMO- a church with authority is simply part of the body. An important one, but "part". Those without authority may have a different function than the LDS church but to claim that they aren't part of the body at all IS arrogant.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/2/2018 at 11:20 AM, ksfisher said:

It doesn't sounds like He considers them to be part of the body.

I guess you don't consider yourself Christian, then. Or, if you do, you don't consider the rest of us Christian.

Which I suppose is fine, unless you get upset if someone tells you you're not Christian.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/2/2018 at 3:29 PM, ksfisher said:

This is Happy Jack's interpretation.

And the interpretation of Christianity.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/2/2018 at 6:19 PM, Stargazer said:

I'm sure that would make Rory happy,

And me, too. How could you leave me out?!  

[carbon dioxide]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So what if someone's Christianity only leads one to Salvation but not exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Is that level of Christianity worthless? There are 3 degrees of Glory therefore it's not ONLY about the Celestial Kingdom. Besides, I wonder if it's possible that people who have been led to a firm faith in Christ through other churches are being prepared for more. If these churches are leading people down the Christian path, why would we not consider them to be part of the body of Christ?

 

 

I think people really get what they want.  Ask a lot of people if their idea of being in heaven is living with Jesus they would say yes.  For many they think that Jesus and the Father are the same people.  So these people may get what they want.  Jesus spends time in the Terrestrial Kingdom and if we saw what that kingdom was, we would call it heaven in our viewpoint. So these people will get what they want.  They will spend time with Jesus in a great place.   If one wants something more, they will have to be in compliance with something more.   Most people don't believe something like exaltation is possible.  So I guess for them, it may not be possible.  They don't want it and they probably will not get it.  They may be happy with what they expect to get. 

Can other people be considered as part of the "body of Christ"?  I guess that is up to the individual.  I personally don't see how its possible.  Paul wrote in 1 Corith 1:13 "Is Christ divided?..."   Looking at the blueletterbible site it says the word "divided" is from " merizō" and means: "to divide. to separate into parts, cut into pieces, to divide into parties, i.e. be split into factions"  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3307&t=KJV

Is the body of Christ divided into separate parties, factions, denominations, churches, sects?    I don't believe so.  If the kingdom of God is a house of order than I expect to see order.  I don't see order in the modern Christian world.  That is not my definition of order. 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Palerider]

On 10/2/2018 at 11:20 AM, ksfisher said:

Here is what Christ taught Joseph Smith about other churches

 

“they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them

(Jospeh Smith History 1:19-20)

 

It doesn't sounds like He considers them to be part of the body.

Here is what the current lds church teaches...

• "Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/authority-in-the-church

 

I would have to say, if you're a believing Christian doing your best... you're a part of the body of Christ.

You'll have to reconcile the discrepancy between what Christ supposedly told Joseph then and what the church teaches now on your own....if you're able...