The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

I believe He prevents it primarily by guiding and inspiring prophet-leaders to resist external or internal advocacy movements and pressure groups that would corrupt the doctrine. We should bear this in mind when we hear or see grumbling about priesthood correlation or encounter heretical notions such as the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction or revisions to the law of chastity to accommodate worldly trends and ideologies. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I think it is heading there, just from seeing the millennials amongst my adult children and their friends. My missionary son's friends mostly are non believing now, and they all served missions. My friend's sons who both served missions now don't follow the WoW, drink alcohol and drink coffee, and have tattoo's. She only knows about the son who drinks coffee and has a tattoo. If she knew about her other son who is off to school in another country, it may just kill her. Her brother become an anti Mormon a few years ago and later committed suicide, so she will take it really hard.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it is heading there, just from seeing the millennials amongst my adult children and their friends. My missionary son's friends mostly are non believing now, and they all served missions. My friend's sons who both served missions now don't follow the WoW, drink alcohol and drink coffee, and have tattoo's. She only knows about the son who drinks coffee and has a tattoo. If she knew about her other son who is off to school in another country, it may just kill her. Her brother become an anti Mormon a few years ago and later committed suicide, so she will take it really hard.

There have always been apostates. That will not cause the extinction of the pure gospel unless the Lord allows it. I’m saying He prevents it primarily by inspiring prophet leaders to resist pressures to corrupt it. 

“Millennials” and others who cannot abide the pure gospel will simply find themselves on the outside.

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

There have always been apostates. That will not cause the extinction of the pure gospel unless the Lord allows it. I’m saying He prevents it primarily by inspiring prophet leaders to resist pressures to corrupt it. 

“Millennials” and others who cannot abide the pure gospel will simply find themselves in the outside.

 

I should have read the OP better. Thanks!

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

I believe He prevents this primarily by guiding and inspiring prophet-leaders to resist external or internal advocacy movements and pressure groups that would corrupt the doctrine. We should bear this in mind when we hear or see grumbling about priesthood correlation or encounter heretical notions such as the Book of Mormon as pious fiction or revisions to the law of chastity to accommodate worldly trends and ideologies. 

I agree that rough times are ahead. The Book of Mormon shows how this can happen over a very short time span. It also documents some of the remedies.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

This is interesting because my son had a friend over yesterday and we were discussing how many in their generation are leaving their organized religions (he is not a member of the church, but was raised as an active member of another religion).  It does seem that many are not staying active (attendance and otherwise).  But, he expressed how he still is a follower of Christ's teachings and believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ....he just no longer attends weekly.  

So I believe the gospel won't go extinct (people choosing to follow the teachings of Christ), but that the attendance for organized religions will continue to diminish in size.  I don't see an actual extinction taking place though.

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We should bear this in mind when we hear or see grumbling about priesthood correlation or encounter heretical notions such as the Book of Mormon as pious fiction....

Many now believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but that doesn't mean they believe it is "pious fiction".  From my observations, most still believe it is inspired and contains great truths.  So maybe inspired fiction is a better term to describe how many believe who do not believe the events literally took place?

Edited September 23, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree that rough times are ahead. The Book of Mormon shows how this can happen over a very short time span. It also documents some of the remedies.

Rough times are ahead, but the Church of Jesus Christ will always stand as a beacon and a refuge. 

Edited to add: I believe we should not support or tolerate any movement or advocacy that would diminish or destabilize the Church in the fulfillment of that role. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

This is interesting because my son had a friend over yesterday and we were discussing how many of their generation are leaving their organized religions (he is not a member of the church, but was raised as an active member of another religion).  It does seem that many are not staying active (attendance and otherwise).  But, he expressed how he still is a follower of Christ's teachings and believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

So I believe the gospel won't go extinct (people choosing to follow the teachings of Christ), but that the attendance for organized religions will continue to diminish in size.  I don't see an actual extinction taking place though.

Many now believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but also do not believe it is "pious fiction".  From my observations, most still believe it is inspired and contains great truths.  So maybe inspired fiction is a better term that describes how most believe who do not believe the events literally took place?

I used the phrase “gospel <in its purity>” deliberately. 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I used the phrase “gospel <in its purity>” deliberately. 

And my response reflects what I believe regarding that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

And my response reflects what I believe regarding that.

I do see your point about “inspired fiction” being a better term to characterize that view. I have changed the OP accordingly. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

Elder Eyring said this in 2001: 

Quote

I am grateful to be with you and for our opportunity to teach the gospel to the young people of the Church. They hold the future in their hands. The Church has always been one generation away from extinction. If a whole generation were lost, which will not happen, we would lose the Church. But even a single individual lost to the gospel of Jesus Christ closes doors for generations of descendants, unless the Lord reaches out to bring some of them back. Our trust from the Lord as teachers of youth is great. And so is our opportunity.

Similar concepts.

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

I agree.  See Elder Eyrings remarks above ("The Church has always been one generation away from extinction. If a whole generation were lost, which will not happen...").

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe He prevents this primarily by guiding and inspiring prophet-leaders to resist external or internal advocacy movements and pressure groups that would corrupt the doctrine.

He also does it by raising up leaders who are able to listen to ideas presented in the public sphere, and take them into account, while still subordinating such viewpoints to revealed truths.  I think this is why, for example, we have seen leaders of the Church work so very hard to demonstrate empathy and compassion and love and patience regarding homosexuality and homosexual behavior, while still clearly maintaining the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Eyring said this in 2001: 

Similar concepts.

I agree.  See Elder Eyrings remarks above ("The Church has always been one generation away from extinction. If a whole generation were lost, which will not happen...").

He also does it by raising up leaders who are able to listen to ideas presented in the public sphere, and take them into account, while still subordinating such viewpoints to revealed truths.  I think this is why, for example, we have seen leaders of the Church work so very hard to demonstrate empathy and compassion and love and patience regarding homosexuality and homosexual behavior, while still clearly maintaining the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for this. 

In the back of my mind there were echoes of this remark from President Eyring, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I’m thinking he must have gotten this concept from Reagan as well. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many now believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but that doesn't mean they believe it is "pious fiction".  From my observations, most still believe it is inspired and contains great truths.  So maybe inspired fiction is a better term to describe how many believe who do not believe the events literally took place?

Could you clarify what you mean by "historically accurate?"  Discussions of this sort can go sideways because there is some ambiguity in the terms being used.

For example, it is one thing to say that the Nephite record was not utterly "historically accurate" in its depiction of the Lamanites.  That they could have been, or actually were, "racist" or "ethnocentric" in their views of the Lamanites.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It is understandable how some, without this nuanced understanding, could read the Book of Mormon as a text that portrays the Nephites as having what we today would deem “racist,” or more properly ethnocentric, attitudes towards non-Nephites. “Could the Nephites have been racist in their views of the Lamanites?” asked John A. Tvedtnes. “Perhaps, in the same sense that the biblical patriarchs were racist when it came to their pagan neighbors—the Hittites, the Canaanites, and the Amorites—and did not want their offspring to marry these unbelievers.”

Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.” Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.” Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description.”

It should not be overlooked that the Book of Mormon itself condemns this Nephite ethnocentrism. Jacob slammed Nephite ethnic pride when he declared, “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. . . . Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:5, 9). Clear at the end of Nephite history, tribalism and ethnocentrism was eschewed, and portrayed as leading to hatred, wickeness, pride, vanity, and rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (4 Nephi 1:38–43). Whatever ethnocentric attitudes the Nephites may have exhibited were thus condemned by the Book of Mormon prophets.

If this is the sort of thing you mean by "historically accurate," then I am right there with you.

However, it is quite another thing to use the phrase "historically accurate" for the proposition that Lehi and his descendants never existed at all, that they and the events in which they were involved are ahistorical.  That they lack historicity.

I think it is this second characterization that Scott finds problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify what you mean by "historically accurate?"  Discussions of this sort can go sideways because there is some ambiguity in the terms being used.

For example, it is one thing to say that the Nephite record was not utterly "historically accurate" in its depiction of the Lamanites.  That they could have been, or actually were, "racist" or "ethnocentric" in their views of the Lamanites.  See, e.g., here:

If this is the sort of thing you mean by "historically accurate," then I am right there with you.

However, it is quite another thing to use the phrase "historically accurate" for the proposition that Lehi and his descendants never existed at all, that they and the events in which they were involved are ahistorical.  That they lack historicity.

I think it is this second characterization that Scott finds problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. 

And, truth be told, I have a bit of heartburn over the first as well. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify what you mean by "historically accurate?"

I think I stated it better after I used those terms....sorry for the confusion. 

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So maybe inspired fiction is a better term to describe how many believe who do not believe the events literally took place....

 

[smac97]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

Could you clarify what you mean by "historically accurate?"  Discussions of this sort can go sideways because there is some ambiguity in the terms being used.

For example, it is one thing to say that the Nephite record was not utterly "historically accurate" in its depiction of the Lamanites.  That they could have been, or actually were, "racist" or "ethnocentric" in their views of the Lamanites.  See, e.g., here:

If this is the sort of thing you mean by "historically accurate," then I am right there with you.

However, it is quite another thing to use the phrase "historically accurate" for the proposition that Lehi and his descendants never existed at all, that they and the events in which they were involved are ahistorical.  That they lack historicity.

I think it is this second characterization that Scott finds problematic.

Yes. 

And, truth be told, I have a bit of heartburn over the first as well. 

I actually kind of appreciate the candorwith which the text addresses the issue of "racism"/"ethnocentrism."  I put both terms in quotes because both are modern contrivances.  Per the same link:

Quote

First, it is critical to underscore the fact that modern sociologists, historians, and cultural anthropologists are coming to see “race” as being largely, if not solely, a social construct and not a biological feature. Many are no longer sure we have a clear definition of “race” anymore (if we ever did). Improved biological science (including advances in understanding human genetics and ancestry) and complicating cultural factors (international travel, cultural exchange, intermarriage, etc.) are largely erasing old racial categories. Any discussion of “race” or “racism,” therefore, must be careful to define these and similar concepts.

Nevertheless, Mormon included in the narrative descriptions of events and attitudes that we would today call racism/ethnocentrism.  I think he did so not because these behaviors/attitudes were righteous or acceptable in the Lord's eyes, but rather because they were a necessary component of the narrative.  We need to know that these behaviors/attitudes were present in that culture, as this is important context to understand, say, Jacob 3:5, 9 and 4 Nephi 1:38–43 (both cited in the previous post).

Thanks,

-Smac

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

I believe He prevents it primarily by guiding and inspiring prophet-leaders to resist external or internal advocacy movements and pressure groups that would corrupt the doctrine. We should bear this in mind when we hear or see grumbling about priesthood correlation or encounter heretical notions such as the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction or revisions to the law of chastity to accommodate worldly trends and ideologies. 

Hello,

I am a large fan of this essay:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/

 

Before this essay I was always uncomfortable with the idea that "this is the last dispensation."  I read once that since Christ came there has never been a generation of Christians that did not include a group of rational Christians who thought the second coming was in their lifetime.  In addition to this, there are no OBVIOUS markers in history where a group of rational Christians said, "We are God's people on earth, but a couple of decades or centuries from now a Restoration will raise up new leaders to supplant our position."

So, as a hopefully faithful LDS I believed this was the last dispensation because the Prophet told me it was and I truly believe that he has communications with God for my benefit.  But, intellectually I had no reason to understand why God makes a dispensation only to let it fall into apostasy OR why I should believe that today's LDS are better, smarter, more holy, ... than yesterday's Catholics.

Larsen in his article gave me some tools to answer this question (and I think he largely answered it for himself too).

Christ came at a unique time in history when God's people would rise up and kill God, not for any questionable behavior like Polygamy or ... but because He claimed to be who He was.  But, a side-effect or feature of this time was that humanity's understanding of itself and its relationship to God was such that Kings and Priests were encouraged by followers to exercise unrighteous dominion.  As soon as a Christian leader opened the door a crack for pride or other sinful (but common and natural) thoughts this was magnified by society.  Unique men who received revelation for ALL of the world would not long resist the corrosive influence of the adoration they received.  The gift of Supernatural Public Revelation for the leading of God's Church and the World would be removed.  And the most important aspect of all dispensation would end, no more Public Revelation.

Over time as Christians (Catholic and Protestant thinkers) guided humanity to truly believe that God is "no respecter of persons," the strength of humanity and the resistance to unrighteous dominion (both from the internal compass present in leaders AND from the external presence of an enlightened citizenry/church) became sufficient to allow continued Public Revelation without too much corruption of pride.

Thus, this is the last dispensation not because our leaders are better than any leaders ever in history; not because God intercedes more aggressively in the workings of His church and His leaders; but because the BRANCHES and the ROOTS from Jacob 5 are sufficiently balanced today after centuries of Christian/divine interaction with God's children.

Anyway, this is my intellectual (or attempt at an intellectual) reason for believing this is the last dispensation.

Charity, TOm 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think I stated it better after I used those terms....sorry for the confusion. 

Quote

So maybe inspired fiction is a better term to describe how many believe who do not believe the events literally took place....

 

Okay.  How is "inspired fiction" superior to "pious fiction?"

Also, by "do not believe the events literally took place," you are also referring to the idea that Lehi and his descendants never existed?  That both the people and "the events" described in the text are fictional?  That there were no authentic/ancient Gold Plates buried in the ground?  That there was no Angel Moroni?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 23, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  How is "inspired fiction" superior to "pious fiction?"

I think pious may have a more negative connotation:

Quote

Pious has a bit of an image problem. From the beginning of its use in the 15th century this Latin descendant has been used to describe those who are simply very religious—that is, who are deeply devoted to their religion—but it has for centuries also described those who make a show of their religiousness and use it to assert their superiority. 

Over the years other meanings have developed too. Pious can be used positively to describe those who are dutiful or virtuous, or things that are worthy. And it can be used negatively to describe hypocrisy.

Of course it doesn't have to mean that, but I think inspired better describes how most feel regarding this (from my observations):

Quote

Inspired

Definition of inspired

outstanding or brilliant in a way or to a degree suggestive of divine inspiration

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think pious may have a more negative connotation:

Of course it doesn't have to mean that, but I think inspired better describes how most feel regarding this (from my observations):

Okay.

But again, by "do not believe the events literally took place," you are also referring to the idea that Lehi and his descendants never existed?  That both the people and "the events" described in the text are fictional?  That there were no authentic/ancient Gold Plates buried in the ground?  That there was no Angel Moroni?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There have always been apostates. That will not cause the extinction of the pure gospel unless the Lord allows it. I’m saying He prevents it primarily by inspiring prophet leaders to resist pressures to corrupt it. 

“Millennials” and others who cannot abide the pure gospel will simply find themselves on the outside.

 

If you are essentially saying there will always be at least one person in each generation who will be ordained to the office of high priest and receive the keys of that priesthood and proclaim the true gospel, thereby guaranteeing that the true gospel will continue to be preached, then I am afraid that I have no choice because of who I am and the kind of person I am to agree with you.

All it takes is one, right?

[Durangout]

No, the church will never become extinct.  

However I do think that we have peaked.  Based on the church growth trends, I expect that we will decline in size relative to the world’s population growth.  Point of fact,  I expect that decline to accelerate over time.  The rising generation is a disaster in so many ways...the leaving behind of religion is one of those ways and they are leaving all religion at an unprecedented rate.  

Unfortunately our people follow in parallel to the rest of society in most aspects.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Durangout said:

No, the church will never become extinct.  

However I do think that we have peaked.  Based on the church growth trends, I expect that we will decline in size relative to the world’s population growth.  Point of fact,  I expect that decline to accelerate over time.  The rising generation is a disaster in so many ways...the leaving behind of religion is one of those ways and they are leaving all religion at an unprecedented rate.  

Unfortunately our people follow in parallel to the rest of society in most aspects.

Why do we need an institute of religion? To me some or many institutes rely on stressing that people need their religions or else. They underestimate the power within many individuals to have the relationship with their God how they see it. Religion might be great for being a place that organizes great things to happen within the groups, but we have the power within us as well. We don't have to rely on an institution for that power. Some organizations like to strip the power from their members and keep them in. They like us to rely on them but often Deity gets lost in all of that. I think it can be a scam too. The millennials see through it. They see the big picture, IMO. I have no worries that this world is in trouble. It's been the religious zealots that cause problems, IMO. And the political scene, it's a joke. I love the recent outrage about climate change. Below is a link, the younger generation get it. 

https://www.axios.com/climate-protests-take-over-world-5a7fb7ad-a3e6-4645-88c4-428308dfcc75.html

 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Hello,

I am a large fan of this essay:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/

 

Before this essay I was always uncomfortable with the idea that "this is the last dispensation."  I read once that since Christ came there has never been a generation of Christians that did not include a group of rational Christians who thought the second coming was in their lifetime.  In addition to this, there are no OBVIOUS markers in history where a group of rational Christians said, "We are God's people on earth, but a couple of decades or centuries from now a Restoration will raise up new leaders to supplant our position."

So, as a hopefully faithful LDS I believed this was the last dispensation because the Prophet told me it was and I truly believe that he has communications with God for my benefit.  But, intellectually I had no reason to understand why God makes a dispensation only to let it fall into apostasy OR why I should believe that today's LDS are better, smarter, more holy, ... than yesterday's Catholics.

Larsen in his article gave me some tools to answer this question (and I think he largely answered it for himself too).

Christ came at a unique time in history when God's people would rise up and kill God, not for any questionable behavior like Polygamy or ... but because He claimed to be who He was.  But, a side-effect or feature of this time was that humanity's understanding of itself and its relationship to God was such that Kings and Priests were encouraged by followers to exercise unrighteous dominion.  As soon as a Christian leader opened the door a crack for pride or other sinful (but common and natural) thoughts this was magnified by society.  Unique men who received revelation for ALL of the world would not long resist the corrosive influence of the adoration they received.  The gift of Supernatural Public Revelation for the leading of God's Church and the World would be removed.  And the most important aspect of all dispensation would end, no more Public Revelation.

Over time as Christians (Catholic and Protestant thinkers) guided humanity to truly believe that God is "no respecter of persons," the strength of humanity and the resistance to unrighteous dominion (both from the internal compass present in leaders AND from the external presence of an enlightened citizenry/church) became sufficient to allow continued Public Revelation without too much corruption of pride.

Thus, this is the last dispensation not because our leaders are better than any leaders ever in history; not because God intercedes more aggressively in the workings of His church and His leaders; but because the BRANCHES and the ROOTS from Jacob 5 are sufficiently balanced today after centuries of Christian/divine interaction with God's children.

Anyway, this is my intellectual (or attempt at an intellectual) reason for believing this is the last dispensation.

Charity, TOm 

Interesting theory. And food for thought. It occurs to me that the dissolution of slavery in the United States transpired within the lifetimes of those living when the gospel was restored. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why do we need an institute of religion? To me some or many institutes rely on stressing that people need their religions or else. They underestimate the power within many individuals to have the relationship with their God how they see it. Religion might be great for being a place that organizes great things to happen within the groups, but we have the power within us as well. We don't have to rely on an institution for that power. Some organizations like to strip the power from their members and keep them in. They like us to rely on them but often Deity gets lost in all of that. I think it can be a scam too. The millennials see through it. They see the big picture, IMO. I have no worries that this world is in trouble. It's been the religious zealots that cause problems, IMO. And the political scene, it's a joke. I love the recent outrage about climate change. Below is a link, the younger generation get it. 

https://www.axios.com/climate-protests-take-over-world-5a7fb7ad-a3e6-4645-88c4-428308dfcc75.html

 

One of the first things I noticed and appreciated about the Church when I found it was how well it was organized.  The church I was in before I found this one had a non denominational structure and I saw how that caused problems by not having other people to appeal to for correcting problems within each congregation of members.  Members just left to go find another church they liked better when they realized the leadership of their congregation wasn't going to be making any improvements, and I went through years wondering why they didn't have the same structure as outlined in the Bible, where people like Paul and Peter wrote to each congregation to try to correct any problem they saw.  And not only is the structure better in our Church, but we also have the correct and proper and same type of authority that every other true church on this earth has ever had.  The true priesthood of God.  I think its amazing that so many people don't even seem to realize how important that is, or they somehow think they have it, even though I can see that they don't.

Just different opinions, I guess.  That's all that really separates us from all other people in all other churches or "institutes" of religions.  Not everybody agrees with each other.  People believe different things.  And they usually think they are right, too, just like we say and claim we are the one true church that is governed by God, himself, through Jesus Christ, and his authorized messengers.