Can a Person Covenant with God Without Becoming a Member of the House of Israel, God's Covenant People?

[bluebell]

Another question that is just an interesting thing to ponder is whether or not someone can covenant with God without being either a literal or adopted member of the House of Israel?  I'm wondering because I was thinking about Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Moses, etc and whether or not they would be considered gentiles since they lived before God covenanted with Abraham.  

Also, if someone is automatically adopted into the House of Israel at baptism, was Adam adopted into Abraham's family when he was baptized?  Because it kind of seems like Adam outranks Abraham in the whole scheme of things.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Potter said:

I'll confess my grasp of Mormon history isn't as profound as most here, but it seems to me that in the realm of Mormonism, only those covenants made with the right priesthood authority get the divine thumbs up from God. It's basically just like a holy ritual, baptism, or sacrament.  So, while other churches might be splashing around in baptism or performing sacraments, according to Mormon doctrine, aren't they just playing pretend since they lack the divine stamp of approval? 

This doesn't really have anything to do with my initial question, but you are right in that we do believe ordinances must be done by someone who has authority to act in the name of God, otherwise they aren't binding.  But no we don't believe that those who are baptized outside of our church are "playing pretend".  There was one member of the church who once described it like that and he got some pretty heavy and public pushback from members for saying it.  

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Potter said:

I can't recall the name of the address I caught from prophet Nelson, but it was during a general meeting talk last year. Essentially, he suggested that other churches are merely fit for humanitarian efforts and educational pursuits, lacking the authority to be considered proper churches. Was his address the push back moment you describe?

No that's not what I'm describing.  You'd have to provide the reference for it because I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Another question that is just an interesting thing to ponder is whether or not someone can covenant with God without being either a literal or adopted member of the House of Israel?  I'm wondering because I was thinking about Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Moses, etc and whether or not they would be considered gentiles since they lived before God covenanted with Abraham.  

Also, if someone is automatically adopted into the House of Israel at baptism, was Adam adopted into Abraham's family when he was baptized?  Because it kind of seems like Adam outranks Abraham in the whole scheme of things.

The House of Israel is a term that picks up the Lord's covenants with His people from Jacob (Israel) onward, including Jesus' dispensation and our dispensation of the fulness of times.  Those patriarchs who lived prior to Jacob abided the covenants of their own dispensation (Moses was born after Jacob died). Some were restored and some were new, just as in our current dispensation. I can think of a couple that were done away with. The idea of "literal" and "adopted" has to do with the House of Israel onward. All are the seed of Abraham from his day onward, and all are the posterity of Adam from his day onward. At some point [ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2021/10/questions-and-answers/14_adam-ondi-ahman?lang=eng ]we are all gathered into one, which I take to ultimately be, post-resurrection, the Church of the Firstborn.

I think "born in the covenant" (and/or "lineage") and "adoption" had their respective versions in each pre-Israel dispensation, and our reference to the House of Israel and how we use the terms "lineage" and "adoption" has more to do with how things rolled out since that dispensation.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I think "born in the covenant" (and/or "lineage") and "adoption" had their respective versions in each pre-Israel dispensation, and our reference to the House of Israel and how we use the terms "lineage" and "adoption" has more to do with how things rolled out since that dispensation.

That's what I'm assuming as well.  

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Potter said:

from Prophet Nelson

Just an FYI, we call him President Nelson as he is President of the Church.  There are a few people are called President in our church as the leadership of most of our groups are labeled presidencies with a president and two counselors (the bishopric and his two counselors may be the only exception along with the Presiding Bishopric who are the church wide or general leaders over temporal needs in the Church).  I haven’t thought of this before….maybe someone else will catch where I have forgotten something.  
 

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/organizational-structure-of-the-church

We consider all members of the First Presidency (the highest authority “quorum” or priesthood group in the Church) and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles as called to be prophets, seers, and revelators.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Alright, I've tracked down the sermon from Prophet Nelson I mentioned earlier, it's titled "Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys" from the April 2024 general meeting. In this sermon, he pointed out that without Priesthood Keys, a church can merely operate as a teaching or humanitarian organization, and not much else. To me, that suggests other churches lack the divine authority to act in God's name, implying they're just "playing church." Am I misunderstanding his position?

There is a difference in saying other churches lack authority and playing/pretending church.  My daughter pretended to be a mom when she was little, but never felt she was actually a mom.  People who go to other churches believe in those churches or their tenants or that they are led by God.  They are not pretending.  They are not playing. It's not the same thing.

Note: I no longer believe this church has any more authority than other churches so I'm not someone who is defending what President Nelson saying.  I'm just saying that he didn't say that they were playing and he didn't mean that.  Like @bluebell someone else said that and many people spoke up against what he said.   

Edited January 22, 2025 by Rain

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Alright, I've tracked down the sermon from Prophet Nelson I mentioned earlier, it's titled "Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys" from the April 2024 general meeting. In this sermon, he pointed out that without Priesthood Keys, a church can merely operate as a teaching or humanitarian organization, and not much else. To me, that suggests other churches lack the divine authority to act in God's name, implying they're just "playing church." Am I misunderstanding his position?

A dysphemism is rarely if ever implied... So his position is simply as stated. He is speaking of our Church, not other churches. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/57nelson?lang=eng "Without priesthood keys, the Church could serve only as a significant teaching and humanitarian organization but not much more."

As to whether other churches possess these keys, we do believe only one Church was restored under the direction of Jesus Christ. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-restoration-of-the-fulness-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/a-bicentennial-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

 

Edited January 22, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

To me, that suggests other churches lack the divine authority to act in God's name, implying they're just "playing church." Am I misunderstanding his position?

There is authority to act in God’s name that comes with the authorized priesthood.  This is attached to what we believe are the salvific ordinances.

But we are also taught that faith gives power to actions done in God’s name as well.  Prayer is often used as an example of faith in this way.  My guess is we would probably group other denominations’ ordinances/sacraments/rites as in the same category as prayers, not done with priesthood authority, but done with the authority that comes with one’s faith in God.

Historically speaking (much of last century), this puts nonmembers who have faith in the same category as the Church often put female members and still does in some ways.  We (women in the Church) cannot offer priesthood blessing such as healing the sick, we can offer prayers for them though (this is a change of practice though as in the earlier years of the modern church women often offered healing blessings, especially in relation to childbirth).   Recently language has changed and women who have been to the temple and received certain ordinances there are basically spoken of as having priesthood without having offices in it, thus lacking the authority to perform the ordinances (inside the temple there is an exception, but not really relevant to answering your comment so skipping that detail), but this is pretty new, so at least for much of our history nonmembers with faith and female members were seen as having much the same access to God’s power imo….which is saying quite a lot, again imo.

Faith is a very powerful connection to God’s power.  Faith is the first principle of the Gospel.  Those who dismiss others who have faith in Christ as their Saviour as playing church are ignoring our own doctrine, imo.  Much of God’s work can be achieved through faith.  Even more when charity and hope are added…none of which our Church has a monopoly on.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-gospel-and-the-productive-life-teacher-manual/5-faith-in-jesus-christ-gives-us-power-to-provide-for-ourselves-and-others?lang=eng#p14

Quote

“Faith in its true signification is more than the moving cause pursuant to which men and angels act. It is also a principle of power. Faith is power. And where there is power, there is faith; and where there is no power, there is no faith. Thus, Joseph Smith continues: ‘Faith is not only the principle of action, but of power also, in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven or on earth.’ Faith applies in all spheres. All intelligent beings—be they gods, angels, spirits, or men—all operate by its power” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith[1985], 164).

I don’t think we would be having leaders attend interfaith meetings or offering our buildings as places of worship to those who are temporarily unable to meet in their own house of faith or speaking of the importance of freedom of religion for all if we looked on others’ organized worship as “playing church”.

https://news-uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/women-faith-leaders-meet-in-wales-to-discuss-faithful-living?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-southern-california-fires?

https://news-ie.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interfaith-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

Quote

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, stated at the forum, “Religion is fundamental to societal well-being, and freedom of religion benefits not only believers but all of society, whether they know it or not. Therefore, all have an interest in protecting this freedom, whether they are believers or not.”

When people come together with concern and a desire to help others, they can solve problems and save lives. Sister Jean B. Bingham, Relief Society General President said at the 2018 Women’s Interfaith Conference in Wales, “I am convinced that when we unite together as women of faith, we not only strengthen the relationship between religions, but individual lives are touched as we reach out to those in need.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ encourages love and kindness to everyone, regardless of differences. Late President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson encouraged, “members of the Church wherever they may be to show kindness and respect for all people everywhere. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours.”

 

Edited January 22, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Alright, I've tracked down the sermon from Prophet Nelson I mentioned earlier, it's titled "Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys" from the April 2024 general meeting. In this sermon, he pointed out that without Priesthood Keys, a church can merely operate as a teaching or humanitarian organization, and not much else. To me, that suggests other churches lack the divine authority to act in God's name, implying they're just "playing church." Am I misunderstanding his position?

"Playing church" isn't the right term. Let me see if I can explain this concisely.

Jesus Christ has all power and authority. He is the God of Israel. He gave various people authority to preach about Him. It is through those authorized servants that the world has any knowledge of Him. We have a collection of the writings of those people, called prophets, we call it the Holy Bible. There is no text in the Holy Bible that is unauthorized by God. Therefore, anybody who preaches using the words of that book are preaching with authority, only it's not their own authority, it's borrowed authority from the authorized writings of the holy prophets. Any commentary or interpretation given on the Bible in a sermon or lecture is not authorized, and I think that most people understand that in the Christian world. Many "shop around" for a pastor that fits them just right as each pastor brings their own flair to preaching: energy, ambience, commentary, interpretation, etc.

Now days there are many Christian churches that don't preach from the Bible anymore, or they use a verse or two over the course of an hour sermon. These churches I would personally classify as "playing church", and I view them more as a business seeking to maximize profits by giving people the "warm fuzzies". I'm thinking of the Joel Osteen's in the world. I just saw a video the other day chronicling how all of the Christian pop that's used by non-denominational churches is copyrighted and Blackrock owns the Christian Copyright Association. To me, the "music ministry" that charges all churches to use its music, that is a "play pretend ministry" and stands in stark contrast to Christ's personal authorized teachings that His gospel is free.

Those who preach with sincerity using the words of the Bible and strive to get those in their congregations to study the Bible and personally commune with God are not pretending at anything. But that sincerity is vanishingly rare in the Christian world, and it's tragic to me.

As far as ordinances, sacraments, ceremonies, and rituals are concerned. If they aren't performed by someone who has the authority of Jesus Christ, then they will not be in effect after death. All will have the chance to receive the necessary ordinances from one who has authority in the afterlife if they so desire. But there isn't a consensus agreement in the Christian world on if there is even a single ordinance that's required in order to receive salvation from Christ. More often than not that notion will be rejected as a "works based" salvation. So I don't think any Christian is going to be upset if someone says their baptism wasn't authorized when they don't even believe that it's truly necessary for salvation. Most that I know say that their baptism was an outward symbolic expression signifying their commitment to Christ.

Am I making any sense? Or do I sound completely off base here.

[Mfbnew]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...dysphemism...

Dang dude, that's the first time in a long time that I had to drag out my good old dictionary! 

Sounded to me that it must have had some connection to curing the common cold... 

 

Edited January 22, 2025 by Mfbnew

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, JVW said:

So I don't think any Christian is going to be upset if someone says their baptism wasn't authorized when they don't even believe that it's truly necessary for salvation. Most that I know say that their baptism was an outward symbolic expression signifying their commitment to Christ.

I beg to differ on this,  I have seen quite a few who are upset we do not accept their baptism as equal to ours, even with the latter understanding.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Potter said:

If you argue that my Christian church lacks authority from God, you are essentially suggesting that no matter what church I belong to outside of the Mormon church, the lessons I acquire from being a member of my church will have no impact on my life after I die.

It lacks authority for performing salvific ordinances, not all authority

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

If you argue that my Christian church lacks authority from God, you are essentially suggesting that no matter what church I belong to outside of the Mormon church, the lessons I acquire from being a member of my church will have no impact on my life after I die.

First of all, like I said, I won't be arguing that.

And no, I don't agree.  One of the things you are forgetting is that this church doesn't just believe in heaven and hell.  It basically believes in 3 heavens and only the top one requires Godly authority of ordinances.  Good people who do not accept those ordinances go the second heaven.  

Also, they believe that you can continue to be taught after death so you still have a chance. The church believes that learning here will help you with learning there so if you belong to another good church and you pray and listen to God it will help you learn more before going on to final judgment.  It isn't like other churches that say "if you don't accept Jesus as your Savior you will go to hell after death". 

Again, I don't believe these church leaders have more church authority than leaders in other churches.  Understanding it's doctrine I can say what I quoted from you is not true. In fact, I'm confident that since I'm sincere and have truly tried to follow God that if it were true that this church is the only one with authority that the lessons I am aquiring from other faiths will positively impact my life after I die despite the fact I no longer believe in it. 

Edited January 22, 2025 by Rain

[Mfbnew]

27 minutes ago, Potter said:

Oh, I see we’re playing the disagreement game! I disagree with you. With my spiritual antenna tuned in, it seems he's addressing every church on this planet. In the segment of the sermon I'm discussing, he kicks things off by prompting Mormons to ponder how their lives might have taken a different turn if Priesthood Keys had decided to play hide and seek instead of being restored to the earth. So, he's basically chatting about the entire human population, which includes yours truly. As a Christian, the concept of priesthood keys never crossed my mind until I bumped into the missionaries and dove into the world of Mormonism. In this segment of the discussion, he's inviting everyone Mormon to ponder how their lives might unfold if they weren't part of the Mormon community. To put it another way, if you, as a Mormon, decided to bid adieu to the church and its self-proclaimed authority. 

Nope.  You just don't understand our theology!

It just means you will have to wait a little "longer"- whatever that means in eternity- to be in the Church of Jesus Christ.  EVERYONE will eventually understand that- and you WILL be baptized even after you pass away first!

Ah sorry that in your church you CANNOT be married in heaven, right?  Does your church make that claim?

Why do you admit that your church DOES NOT OFFER that your family can be together AS a family after death!  But you will be eventually!

What will be the status of your family after you pass?

Is your God embodied?  How are you then "in his image"?

Do you believe in ultimate Universal salvation?

Are you promised that you can become like God and sit with Him in his throne? (its in the bible...)

THOSE are some of the reasons we do not use the word "Mormon" anymore- because we believe that we ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ.   No more "Mormon Church"!

But don't worry!

"Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ"- therefore you WILL be a member of His church after all- because HE HAS PROMISED IT!

It will be so obvious when you meet Jesus that you will become members of our church- THAT is the doctrine!!

So don't worry- - even if you do not join us today- you will see for yourself after you pass that WE ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ.

I am not arguing, just trying to show you that you WILL be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ in maybe- who knows?- a thousand years, or tomorrow.

You just don't understand the claim we are making!

No "hide and seek"- whatever that means- it's all right out in the open if you LEARN the doctrine!

Welcome bro!  😃

 

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

If you argue that my Christian church lacks authority from God, you are essentially suggesting that no matter what church I belong to outside of the Mormon church, the lessons I acquire from being a member of my church will have no impact on my life after I die.

Not at all!

You are now learning about Christ- but are not getting the full story!  But that's ok!!  You WILL see it eventually even if you are now an atheist!

I used to be one myself!

Once you receive your personal revelation you will get it- now or when you meet Christ!   You are now still learning about Christ, and perhaps are not yet ready- but it WILL happen- THAT is the doctrine!

[JVW]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I beg to differ on this,  I have seen quite a few who are upset we do not accept their baptism as equal to ours, even with the latter understanding.

I've interacted with Christians who were upset that the LDS view their baptism as not authorized, but I don't think I've ever had a conversation with a Christian who got upset, who believed that their baptism was necessary for salvation, and/or that they became a covenant member of the house of Israel when they were baptized. Authority doesn't matter if one is doing something to symbolically represent their commitment to Christ. It's entirely possible that people could have something like a "Christian Birthday" to celebrate the date of when they accepted Christ into their heart and became saved. If someone celebrates their love of God with a ceremony, whether it's authorized or not doesn't diminish it. Nobody would be upset that their "Christian Birthday" where they turned 5 wasn't authorized. That's not the point of it. It's just to mark a special occasion.

If a Christian truly believes that baptism is a necessary part of following Christ and they are offended at the thought that authority is required then there are two roads to take. Either authority isn't required so who cares what the LDS say. Or authority is required and I imagine that Christian would spend time, in accordance with how much they care, researching God's authority and then probably end up doing a Catholic baptism or an LDS one. From what I understand many Christians believe that they all have authority and are all prophets which doesn't quite line up with the complex history of Christianity and I think is a lazy statement made in ignorance. If there is confusion about who truly has authority, then they may consider getting baptized by a variety of different sects in order to have all of their bases covered. But I don't think this is really a major concern among Christians.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Potter said:

Oh, I see we’re playing the disagreement game! I disagree with you. With my spiritual antenna tuned in, it seems he's addressing every church on this planet. In the segment of the sermon I'm discussing, he kicks things off by prompting Mormons to ponder how their lives might have taken a different turn if Priesthood Keys had decided to play hide and seek instead of being restored to the earth. So, he's basically chatting about the entire human population, which includes yours truly. As a Christian, the concept of priesthood keys never crossed my mind until I bumped into the missionaries and dove into the world of Mormonism. In this segment of the discussion, he's inviting everyone Mormon to ponder how their lives might unfold if they weren't part of the Mormon community. To put it another way, if you, as a Mormon, decided to bid adieu to the church and its self-proclaimed authority. 

You asked if you understand his position about other churches, but (a) he was not talking about other churches or (b) implying they're just "playing church." So yes, I responded that you misunderstand his position. I offered you two links that I feel would help you correctly understand his and the Church's position on other churches. Here are three more:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interfaith

https://news-uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/let-us-learn-about-other-faiths-and-focus-on-common-ground?lang=undefined#:~:text=Those situations in which each,We are all God's children”.

https://news-ie.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interfaith-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints#:~:text=For decades%2C leaders%2C scholars%2C,the lives of all mankind.”

Did you learn about priesthood keys from the missionaries before or after you heard his talk? What was your reaction to their message? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/57nelson?lang=eng

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Potter said:

Alright, I've tracked down the sermon from Prophet Nelson I mentioned earlier, it's titled "Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys" from the April 2024 general meeting. In this sermon, he pointed out that without Priesthood Keys, a church can merely operate as a teaching or humanitarian organization, and not much else. To me, that suggests other churches lack the divine authority to act in God's name, implying they're just "playing church." Am I misunderstanding his position?

I'd have to see the exact quote before I could say if your interpretation was correct, but I've listened and read all of his talks and I've never come away with the implication that Pres. Nelson thinks that all other churches are just playing church.  So I'm going to say that yes I think you are misunderstanding his position.

A person can think that someone is wrong but still believe they are sincere and that their beliefs are worthy of respectful treatment.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

If you argue that my Christian church lacks authority from God, you are essentially suggesting that no matter what church I belong to outside of the Mormon church, the lessons I acquire from being a member of my church will have no impact on my life after I die.

We don't believe that though, so you might want to consider that your interpretation of what our beliefs mean are not correct.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I beg to differ on this,  I have seen quite a few who are upset we do not accept their baptism as equal to ours, even with the latter understanding.

Even though they don't have a problem not accepting our baptism as equal their theirs.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Potter said:

Meaning, Christian churches can't help you after death. To my Christian ears, he's declaring Christian churches are a mortal construct.

Mortal yes.  They no longer exist after death.  My guess is the LDS Church as is won’t existed either as it will be superseded by the full Church of Jesus Christ, also called the Kingdom of God or Church of the Firstborn.  The mortal version we have now is flawed and incomplete as that is inherent in mortals.

But the teachings of Christ that are taught by anyone including other Christian denominations (and there are many of those teachings as they teach from the Bible) stay with those who were so taught just as they stay with those who get baptized in the Restored Church.

We do not start from scratch at death or baptism.  We build on the foundations that are good that we carry with us.  To downplay or dismiss the value of these teachings in our lives is to not understand our doctrine.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Potter said:

Prophet Nelson also stated in the same sermon that no group other than the Mormon church may influence your afterlife. Meaning, Christian churches can't help you after death. To my Christian ears, he's declaring Christian churches are a mortal construct.

Please quote this part where he says it. I'm not asking for what you think it means. I want what he says.  The is a formal call for references.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Potter said:

Prophet Nelson also stated in the same sermon that no group other than the Mormon church may influence your afterlife. Meaning, Christian churches can't help you after death. To my Christian ears, he's declaring Christian churches are a mortal construct.

To my Christian ears, he's not.  But like Rain said, a quote would be useful.

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Oh, I see we’re playing the disagreement game! I disagree with you. With my spiritual antenna tuned in, it seems he's addressing every church on this planet. In the segment of the sermon I'm discussing, he kicks things off by prompting Mormons to ponder how their lives might have taken a different turn if Priesthood Keys had decided to play hide and seek instead of being restored to the earth. So, he's basically chatting about the entire human population, which includes yours truly. As a Christian, the concept of priesthood keys never crossed my mind until I bumped into the missionaries and dove into the world of Mormonism. In this segment of the discussion, he's inviting everyone Mormon to ponder how their lives might unfold if they weren't part of the Mormon community. To put it another way, if you, as a Mormon, decided to bid adieu to the church and its self-proclaimed authority. 

Nope.  You just don't understand our theology!

It just means you will have to wait a little "longer"- whatever that means in eternity- to be in the Church of Jesus Christ.  EVERYONE will eventually understand that- and you WILL be baptized even after you pass first!

Ah sorry to hw that in your church you CANNOT be married in heaven, right?  Does your church make that claim?

Why do you admit that your church DOES NOT OFFER 

What will be the status of your family after you pass?

Is your God embodied?

Do you believe in ultimate Universal salvation?

Are you promised that you can become like God and sit with Him in his throne? (its in the bible...)

THAT are some of the reasons we do not use the word "Mormon" anymore- because we believe that we ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ.   No more "Mormon Church"!

But don't worry!

"Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ"- therefore you WILL be a member of His church after all- because HE HAS PROMISED IT!

So don't worry- - even if you do not join us today- you will see for yourself after you pass that WE ARE THE Church of Jesus Christ.

I am not arguing, just trying to show you that you WILL be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ in maybe- who knows?- a thousand years, or tomorrow.

You just don't understand the claim we are making!