Today’s Guest Post is from Bruce Nielson.
I had a long conversation with a Mormon friend on the internet in which he said something that got me curious how members of the LDS church would answer or react to certain question or questions. I am going to ask the questions using language as clear as I can, which requires the language to be a bit more blunt than you might normally want. But I do not feel it’s an unfair or unclear question as worded:
Does the LDS Church’s magisterium (i.e. what LDS members call “The Brethren”) teach that the collection of all religious or priesthood authorities (or equivalent) of all religions in the world can be split into two broad categories?:
- A single priesthood authority that is Divine, namely that of the LDS Church.
- All other religious authorities of all other religions, which are man-made.
If you answer ‘YES’ to the first question (i.e. CAN be split into those two broad caregories), here is the follow-on question:
- Does this mean that the LDS Church’s magisterium teaches that there is a sense in which the President of the LDS Church (i.e. what they call “The Prophet”) is not only the prophet over all LDS church members in the world, but even non-LDS members?
If you answer ‘NO’ to the first question (i.e. can NOT be split into those two broad categories), here is a follow-on question:
- Has the LDS Church (or rather the magisterium of the LDS Church, or “The Brethren”) ever in its history taught that their Prophets are infallible?
Important Note: It’s well known that Mormons believe other religions have truth in them, God inspires their leaders at times, and God respects or even accepts their authority in some senses or areas. The questions have been carefully worded to not imply that the leaders of the church teach that “all other churches are fully man made and non-divine in any sense” or anything long those lines. The questions are carefully worded as best as was possible to ask about if you understand the LDS Church Leaders as teach there is a qualitative difference about how they view their priesthood vs that of other religions and if that difference is or isn’t split solely by the boundary lines of the LDS Church.
Note: Please read the whole rest of the post so you won’t mistakenly break the experiment by not following the rules. It is VERY hard to ask or answer questions like this with minimal ambiguity and the explanations below should help you understand the intent of the questions and what the rules are for how to give an answer.
Points of clarification:
- This is not intended to be a trick question. It is supposed to be as straightforward and obvious as it seems. So don’t over think it or attempt to read anything into it beyond the most obvious reading/meaning or you will likely be perceived as answering differently than you intend.
- There is no doubt that with some clever thought and careful interpretation, you can answer these questions any way you wish. (As can be done with literally any question and answer.) That isn’t the point of the test and directly violates #1. Simply answer which ever way is ‘best’ or ‘most accurate’ or given the two options of Yes or No.
- Because Yes / No answers are always a little uncomfortable due to the loss of nuance, you are free (and in fact encouraged) to then go on and nuance your answer however you see fit so as to not be misunderstood.
- But please do not insist on rewriting the questions first before answering or refusing to answer the questions at all and instead start commenting. The Yes / No response is imperative to reducing certain kinds of ambiguity or misunderstanding. If you do not do that, you will likely be perceived as answering differently than you intend.
- If you really and truly cannot see that either Yes or No is a better answer, then you may then answer ‘I cannot answer the questions as currently worded’ and then go on to explain why. However, I want to emphasize again that this is not a trick or trap question and even an answer of ‘I can’t…’ — no matter how much nuance you put into it — is likely to be perceived differently than you intend because of your refusal to pick a best answer. You are far more likely to be correctly understood if you follow the rules I am laying out. Still, ‘I can’t’ is an answer open to you if you really don’t see a ‘best’ answer of Yes or No.
- Some have commented that the questions, to them, have a bit of a bite because they are put more straightforwardly than some would want for fear that it would be misunderstood by a non-LDS person. That is why I’m offering you a chance to give nuance afterwards. But there honestly was no better way to word the question that wouldn’t have led to ambiguities that would ruing the whole experiment.
- This is also why I can’t allow you to rewrite the questions first or not give a Yes / No (or Can’t) answer first.
- This question is solely about those alive and mortal today. So it was not intended to ask anything about, say, the modern church vs the primitive church.
- I am not asking what you personally believe about the LDS Church and its authority. Nor is it a question about what you think members as a whole believe in comparison to what the magisterium teaches. It is not even a question about what LDS scripture teaches on the subject except in so far as it might relate to the modern teachings of the LDS Church. This is specifically a question about what the leaders of the Church teach today.
- Because of the above point, this question is open to non-LDS people to answer as well, though in that case you need to state in your answer that you are non-LDS. I will be assuming you are LDS if you don’t state one way or the other. However, if you are non-LDS and don’t know the answer, please don’t answer at all.
- Given the above explanations, you should answer preferably either ‘yes’, ‘no’ based on which is the ‘best’ or ‘most accurate’ answer. The ‘I can’t answer as currently worded’ option is for if you really just can’t figure out how to answer it ‘best’ as currently worded. The option to add nuance after the answer is meant to allow you to feel comfortable that you aren’t being held solely to only the Yes/No.
- However, the experiment will not work if it isn’t obvious that you primarily intended a Yes or No and I have to guess which you are closest to after the fact. If I have to do that, I will just remove the answer and not count it. That is why I will remove comments that don’t take a definitive stance as Yes/No or ‘I cannot answer as currently worded and here is why…’
- You must answer both questions. (Some leniency on this if you just seem to have forgotten. I’ll then ask you to give the second answer.
- This is not a trap question. A trap question is one that doesn’t allow you to fully nuance your answer. You are being encouraged to do so once you’ve given your best answer first.
Please put your answers into the comments below. Feel free to add whatever thoughts you have on the subject or explanation that you feel needs to go with your yes/no answer. Part of what I’m looking for is how people will perceive the questions being asked, so feel free to even just tell me your feelings about the questions being asked. (i.e. are they simple, complicated, tricky, good questions, stupid questions, etc.) However, a simple “1. Yes, 2. No” or whatever is fine too and you don’t need to make any further comments.
Rules for Posting: All answers should start with “yes/no/can’t answer as worded.” Then you can elaborate. To enter the conversation, I want to be sure everyone is on the same page. I am okay with discussion about the answers (and even criticism of other people’s answers) if and only if you first answer the questions yourself as per the rules above.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ll go with Yes and Yes.
For your fast follower question, I would say No, that church leaders don’t claim to be in a position of authority over non-LDS people, other than in the general sense that a prophet warns people and speaks truth. I’m being inconsistent because you aren’t differentiating between authority (permission / sanction) to perform ordinances and authority (offices / titles) to administer the church, and conflating the two is problematic IMO. This is one reason I did the post that an apostle > prophet because a prophet doesn’t have titular or official authority per se. Just offices do. And offices are only within the church. Of course, the so-called Proclamation to the World could be used as counter-evidence, but my interpretation is that such would be under the umbrella of a prophet’s role, not a role related to offices of the church. https://wheatandtares.org/2015/12/29/prophets-apostles/
Because I said Yes and Yes, I’m not supposed to answer the question about infallibility, but I will anyway. I would say Yes. Although we give lip service to the idea of fallibility, all examples used are innocuous and silly like “speculating on God’s favorite breakfast cereal.” We never disavow things that we quite clearly should such as the race ban and (again IMO) polygamy as “divine.” We don’t disavow them because once you admit something was man-made, you allow the membership to pick and choose what they will follow, and you undermine the authority of church leaders to dictate orthopraxy. So while leaders claim fallibility, they never provide any “sanctioned” examples of fallibility which means that we have de facto infallibility for the majority of church members.
Basically, the reasons these questions are hard to answer is that words like “priesthood,” “authority,” and “doctrine” can be defined broadly or narrowly. Or Mormonly. We definitely like to create our own definitions.
Yes and Yes. Does this make me a “Yes Man”?
I was checking to see if any of the instructions said, “Ignore all of this and watch how long it takes others to finally get to this last item.”
It seems to me the leadership has been fairly clear that “the church has THE priesthood and everyone else’s power is just man made” and even has insinuated they are against God.
I have heard over and over that the bishop is the bishop for all people in his ward – members or not. Same for the stake president. So it would apply up the chain all the way to the president/prophet of the church.
And just like Hawkgrrrl, I want to answer the question that a yes/yes wasn’t asked. I think you just have to read “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” by Ezra Taft Benson. He was a a prophet and I can’t come away from reading this with any other interpretation than, “YES – prophets are infallible”.
“Does the LDS Church’s magisterium (i.e. what LDS members call “The Brethren”) teach that the collection of all religious or priesthood authorities (or equivalent) of all religions in the world can be split into two broad categories?” Yes. Ordinances are only considered binding if performed under this priesthood authority.
“Does this mean that the LDS Church’s magisterium teaches that there is a sense in which the President of the LDS Church (i.e. what they call “The Prophet”) is not only the prophet over all LDS church members in the world, but even non-LDS members?” Yes. Prophets and apostles have responsibilities to testify of Christ to *all* people and call them to repentance. The family proc was a proclamation TO THE WORLD. It wasn’t just a declaration of our beliefs, they tacked on the prophetic warning of calamity and destruction at the end if people don’t follow through.
I’ll be like Hawkgrrrl and respond to the infallibility question even though I don’t qualify. While I can point to a few modern statements by church leaders stating our belief in the fallibility of church leaders (President Uchtdorf and Elder Christofferson, to name two), I can point to many, MANY more statements by church leaders suggesting saints should follow the words of the living prophets because it is equivalent to following the words of God. That definitely gives the impression of infallibility, even if it is not overtly stated.
Yes / Yes
The whole notion of one-true-churchness is pretty much embedded in the origin story of Joseph Smith History as given in the Pearl of Great Price and taught by missionaries pretty heavily.
Fallibility is a much more interesting question. “The Bretheren” would say they are fallible, but they don’t generally allow for members to treat them that way.
Happy Hubby: “I think you just have to read “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” by Ezra Taft Benson. He was a a prophet and I can’t come away from reading this with any other interpretation than, “YES – prophets are infallible”.” An important caveat, though. He was not a prophet at the time he originally said that. But, as the dog returneth to its own vomit, it’s been regurgitated plenty.
Mary Ann: Here’s where you & I disagree. You said that Yes, church leaders have priesthood authority over the whole world, not just LDS people. I said, No, they don’t. But I still think we are saying the same thing–probably. Here are some questions / observations along those lines, thought:
– In David O. McKay & the Rise of Modern Mormonism, there’s quite a bit about church leaders not being globally aware beyond the borders of Utah, to say nothing of the borders of the church generally. So whether such is their mandate, such is not really their purview in a meaningful way, or at least it was not in David O. McKay’s time. We often see a lack of awareness along these lines today. To me, that means (at least in part) a lack of vision that must be reinforced by institutional norms.
– If we are talking about authority to perform ordinances, yes, I think we would all agree that the church teaches that LDS ordinance authority is the only one with “efficacy”–we don’t recognize baptisms of any other churches, including other restorationist movements who can trace their lines back to Joseph Smith and the priesthood restoration just like ours.
– If we are talking about defining “commandments” that must be obeyed in mortality to qualify for celestial glory, our doctrine also states that those who aren’t members of the church aren’t bound by these same things. IOW, drink all the coffee you want, and you could still make it to the top Mormon glory so long as you weren’t baptized and didn’t understand that baptism was necessary. That universalism greatly reduces what it means for church leaders to have any sort of “authority” over non-LDS people.
1. Yes
2. Yes
Yes and Yes.
And I’ll copy Hawkgrrl and Mary Ann and answer the infallibility question. While it’s true that living apostles are really hesitant to throw their predecessors under the bus (eg., priesthood ban), I don’t believe they teach they’re basically infallible. They will claim that the Lord leads His church through them and that members better follow, but none of the would attempt to defend Brigham Young’s Adam god doctrine, and I’ve heard multiple GAs claim that the brethren aren’t shrinking violets and have strong and differing opinions at times. They can’t be infallible if they disagree, even if they keep their disagreements behind the curtains.
Yes and yes. I was directly taught both of these in my LDS ward as an adolescent.
Yes and the D&C talks about people under the authority of other prophets. Kinda gets you to a qualified yes/no on the second point.
Brigham Young taught that treating prophets as infallible would lead you straight to hell. Just saying.
Yes/yes
Yes, and to the followup question also yes. Citation needed, but if you told me no one had ever made statements to that effect in General Conference I would be surprised. I’ve certainly been taught as much in Sunday School.
Yes and yes
Yes and Yes.
On the first one I was told when I was made a deacon that I had more authority to act in God’s name than the pope. Pretty cool talk to a 12 year old.
On the second one I do believe one of the golden questions mention that we sustain the prophet as the “only person on the earth who is authorized…”
On a side note if you want to have fun go and talk to an Orthodox Jew with 3600 years of history under their belt and tell them that you are of the house of Israel, that Jews somehow lost authority to act in Gods name, and that God only recognizes Mormon ordinances. It is a kick in the pants.
I just wanted Mary Ann to know that I accidentally thumbs downed her comment. I agree with her. Dumb fat fingers.
Yes and Yes. It seems pretty clear.
https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng
The word priesthood has two meanings.
First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end (see Alma 13:7–8; D&C 84:17–18). Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” ( Moses 1:39; see also D&C 84:35–38).
Second, in mortality, priesthood is the power and authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children. The blessings of the priesthood are available to all who receive the gospel. (“Priesthood Authority,” Handbook 2, Administering the Church)
The authority of God to organize His Church and perform ordinances of salvation was lost because of apostasy after the death of Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the first century A.D. However, it was restored by the Lord to Joseph Smith through heavenly messengers during the 19th century.
The keys of the priesthood are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church within a jurisdiction. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.
The priesthood includes the authority to administer ordinances of salvation to all human beings who are willing and worthy to accept them. Without the priesthood and the saving ordinances thereof, “the whole earth would be utterly wasted” (see D&C 2:1-3; see also D&C 84:21-22).
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1973/04/what-is-a-living-prophet?lang=eng
What is it, then, that qualifies a man to be a prophet?
Foremost, God must choose him as his prophet! This is entirely different than for man to choose God. The Savior, speaking to his apostles, said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit. …” (John 15:16.)
“We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.” (A of F 1:5.)
A prophet, then, is the authorized representative of the Lord. While the world may not recognize him, the important requirement is that God speaks through him. A prophet is a teacher. He receives revelations from the Lord. These may be new truths or explanations of truths already received.
————————————
There seems to be some confusion on this thread regarding your question:
Some seem to think that a “yes” answer implies some sort of power or influence over the non-Mormons of the world. Yet we are taught:
No power or influence can be maintained by virtue of the priesthood,
No power or influence ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood,
Power or influence may only be maintained by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
(Doctrine & Covenants 121:41)
Even the members of the Church are not to be controlled or dominated or compelled by the Priesthood, only taught, ministered to, and converted.
(We have learned by sad experience, etc.)
However, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a responsibility for the salvation of all on the earth, as do the apostles. Their message is not for only the members, but for all the world, whether or not the world recognizes them.
Zach: “I was told when I was made a deacon that I had more authority to act in God’s name than the pope. Pretty cool talk to a 12 year old.” Uhm, as a former mother of 12 year old boys, that’s a pretty horrifying thing to be telling these kids. I don’t see how that leads to anything good, intentions aside.
Yes and yes. Remember the joke that catholics teach that the pope is infallible but nobody believes it and mormons say that the prophet is fallible but no one believes that? Interesting.
kimchuro, I’ve found mistaken thumbs down can be removed by selecting thumbs up several times over.
On the OP – I guess it has to be yes and yes, though I am feeling more than tired about the whole thing just at this moment.
Yes/yes.
Yes and yes. I do think closer scrutiny of our doctrine and the historical record punches some large holes in these ideas, it will be interesting to see if we back off from them in the next 50 years. Questions about priesthood authority in the scriptures get fuzzy: 1. Alma in the Book of Mormon seems to have the priesthood to baptize, but received it as a wicked priest of King Noah, how did that work? Also, where does it say in the New Testament that Jesus restored the priesthood and true Church to the earth? That seems to be a narrative we’ve adopted, but does not have much scriptural backing. There were problems with Judaism at the time of Jesus, but there is never a concern that they are missing proper priesthood authority that needs to be reestablished. 3. The timeline problems with the priesthood restoration (no mention prior to 1835) seem to pose some questions about the nature and requirements of priesthood. I think the narrative of absolute authority helps our esprit de corps and facilitates a simple missionary message, but does not totally hold up. In our recent gospel doctrine lesson, the teacher took this one step further and said that the gifts of the spirit only returned to the earth after the priesthood was restored and are only available to members of the Church.
Yes and yes. I do think closer scrutiny of our doctrine and the historical record punches some large holes in these ideas, it will be interesting to see if we back off from them in the next 50 years. Questions about priesthood authority in the scriptures get fuzzy: 1. Alma in the Book of Mormon seems to have the priesthood to baptize, but received it as a wicked priest of King Noah, how did that work? Also, where does it say in the New Testament that Jesus restored the priesthood and true Church to the earth? That seems to be a narrative we’ve adopted, but does not have much scriptural backing. There were problems with Judaism at the time of Jesus, but there is never a concern that they are missing proper priesthood authority that needs to be reestablished. 3. The timeline problems with the priesthood restoration (no mention prior to 1835) seem to pose some questions about the nature and requirements of priesthood. I think the narrative of absolute authority helps our esprit de corps and facilitates a simple missionary message, but does not totally hold up. In our recent gospel doctrine lesson, the teacher took this one step further and said that the gifts of the spirit only returned to the earth after the priesthood was restored and are only available to members of the Church.
Yes. Yes.
(I got a bit confused on where the poll was located. I’m trained to do it in the post (click on yes buttons, etc.).
Yes and yes. Non-Mormon.
Yes and Yes.
I had a bishop who claimed that he was not just the bishop over the members within his ward but also the entire population (reasonably sized mid-west city of around 500k). So, while it may not be entirely popular for the “magesterium” to publicize their authority over all inhabitants of the earth, that’s exactly what they think.
Yes and yes.
In the spirit of trying to be as contrary as possible, I still can not see a path to answering them any other way. These teaching are clear. So what is the purpose of this short poll?
These questions do speak directly to the concept of Mormon exclusivity which is either wrong since we are inferior to many other churches in so many important ways, or we have a situation described by a friend as, “the true but crappy church.” (Ok, he said something other than crappy but I sugar-coated it.)
Kimchuro:
Dumb thumbs are not as bad as dumb comments, which I make more than my share.
Yes and Yes. I’m an active Mormon.
Kullervo, I think “former mormon” is a better description for you.
Yes I agree hawkgrrl. That mindset is horrifying. Here is something else to chew on while we are talking priesthood authority. Mormonism teaches, and lives and dies on the doctrine, that saving ordinances are necessary and that God only recognizes those done by Mormons. If that is not true we do not have anything more than any other Christian denomination.
I understand stand that belief is a matter of faith and I love the zealous efforts of Mormons to go do these vicariously.
In a practical matter how does authority even affect those who belong to other Christian faiths as they live their religion? When a Catholic confesses to his priest the feeling of relief he experiences is the same as when a Mormon confesses to his bishop. When an evangelical is baptized and has a burning in their body, they feel as though they accepted Christ and the feeling is just as strong as any Mormon baptism done with proper authority.
I brought this up in a Sunday School class and the first response was that the devil has power to imitate feelings of the spirit. Basically the consensus was that other preachers are minions of the devil doing his work. That is also horrifying to me. The church took that out of the temple ceremony for a reason, but there seems to now be a void on what the talking point should be. I think some major work needs to be done in our messaging and in our lessons regarding our authority as opposed to other churches authority.
Zach: The idea that the devil and his minions are behind positive feelings in other churches is not sanctioned by the higher ups. That seems like a byproduct of local membership ratcheting up their notions of self-aggrandizement as Mormons. I suspect that aside from the BRM / JFS types, most of the Q15 would find that idea repellent. Maybe I’m wrong, but I hear them giving at least lip service to respect for other religions having truth and godliness to them.
Sure, but the OP just asked for a heads-up if the respondent is a non-Mormon, and I am a non-Mormon. I’m not trying to be coy.
1. Yes
2. Yes
These are taught by the overwhelming majority of LDS church leadership. LDS canonical scripture, and actions taken by these leaders occasionally contradict these teachings.
hawkgrrrl:
I have seen references by GAs to truth in other religions but don’t recall any references to godliness in other religions. I would be interested if there were some specific references you would have readily available. Thanks.
1. Yes
2. Yes
I believe that the church as an institution teaches that the brethren are infallible. I personally don’t believe that concept is true and I think it constitutes one of the most damaging doctrines in the church today.. It has become one of the most difficult sticking points for people who are leaving the church and is the source of some of the biggest pains and sorrows I have argued with members of the church about it and found it to bring out the worst in people. For most members to think that the brethren are fallible is nigh unto blasphemy. Rarely do I see such anger and vitriol about any other subject. .
Of course , the lay membership is taught that the brethren are infallible their entire lives. This move to infallibility started with Wilford Woodruff at the time of the Manifesto and has increased since then. The best example of this teaching comes from seminaries and institutes. The current course “Teachings of the Living Prophets” Religion 333 is a complete course in the brethren are infallible. Every cliche statement you have ever heard about” the Prophet will never lead the church astray” etc. is contained in its pages. I don’t think every current General Authority believes in infallibility and there have been a few statements in the last ten years that would indicate such, but those few seem powerless to do much about it. I know many members whose whole testimony is built on this concept.
yes/yes
Ojiisan, I do not recall GA references to “godliness” in other churches, but my search of lds.org on the word godliness was motivated primarily by trying to figure out what they meant by that word. I was unsuccessful. I have the suspicion that it doesn’t mean in Mormon-speak the same thing it appears to mean in the KJV NT. What I did find is that Mormons like to quote D&C 84:20-21 about the “power of godliness” not being manifest to men in the flesh without the authority and ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood, but I’ve not yet found any coherent public explanation of what that “power of godliness” is.
Shannon, I think you can trace the infallibility movement back earlier than Wilford Woodruff at least to Brigham Young who was quite inconsistent with himself on the subject. Even BRM, however, was able to assert that BY was wrong about his Adam-God theory. And JFS was able to admit to Eugene England that his prior teachings on blacks and priesthood were not based on scripture or revelation. I think I would describe the apparent active-LDS common thinking on the subject as belief in the infallibility of the current prophets even when they contradict earlier LDS prophets (or each other, since we sustain all the 15 as “prophets, seers, and revelators”) while preferring to ignore any such contradiction or refuse to acknowledge its existence. I suspect a part of this comes from rather fuzzy or even non- thinking about making a distinction between sustaining current prophets in their roles as administrators and their efforts to move us toward a “Zion community,” on the one hand, and, on the other, believing that everything they do and say is in accordance with God’s will for all people and all time. I think the conflation is comfortable for a lot of people who want certainty (even if only apparent to them), guidance, and avoidance of difficult issues.
Shannon, yup – I heard it said twice just last Sunday that prophets won’t be permitted to lead us astray (cue me grinding my teeth) – it’s oh so thoroughly embedded in general discourse.
Yes and Yes.
I also think I hear at church a lot of nuance or wiggle room to make sure it makes sense that things are important (like temples) but God will do all to bless and love all His children, and so there is a fair way for all people to hear his voice and know his will if they seek. However…it gets messy sometimes…and we just have faith it will get figured out by God’s unending wisdom and grace and love…somehow. But staying 3 hours of church is necessary. And don’t drink tea.
Answering Yes/No questions only applies to the specific questions. There are always more questions to ask and answer to get to truth.
Zach, any Catholic should tell you that the efficacy of a sacrament (their word for “ordinance”) has nothing to do with the feelings felt by the participants. Similarly, an Evangelical should tell you that their salvation is a matter of putting their trust in Jesus, not in being baptized and certainly not in a feeling they had when they got baptized.
Yes and Yes.
That’s the whole point of the Restoration, the presence once again of divine authority. The misuse and abuse of that authority, as we were warned about so eloquently in D&C 121, is an entirely different question. Do not throw out the priesthood baby with the patriarchal, oppressive bathwater.
I grew up as a Roman Catholic, and quit being one after a fairly intense study of history, RC doctrine, the New Testament, and the roots of “papal infallibility.” I left the church because I was convinced that the Pope was not the Vicar of Christ and the successor to St Peter, and that the Catholic priesthood had no special authority. In short, I conceptualized the “Great Apostasy” on my own hook, without knowing the difference between Mormons and Marmite. And I said something like, “If I ever find a church organized like the NT, which actually has that real authority, I’ll join it.” (Be careful what you ask for.)
The only question for me in my investigation was whether or not Joseph had received real authority from God. Once I was satisfied of that, all else followed, and I got wet. I remain convinced of that no matter how many living 121s I see around us, self included.