DiscussMormonism.com

One criteria for membership in the "Mormon Church" might be valid baptism. The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view. Importantly, if it is invalid, then their baptisms are not valid (D&C 22:1-2) and they could not claim to be "Mormons" in the same sense that Joseph Smith or individuals who have valid baptisms today are "Mormons."

Best to use the term FN-Mormons, to distinguish them from the main group.

Have any of the FLDS been tested for the Cohen gene?

I think they aren't Latter-Day Saints, but the word Mormon is broad and refers to more than just members of the SLC-based LDS Church.

Everyone has the power of and to connect and to God.
Just because one imperfect person is not a part of the same exact sub-group of another imperfect person doesn't make their spiritual power greater or less-than.
Priesthood is like a divination tool - a way to help (primarily men) have faith in their already inherent "kingdom of God within."

As someone else noted, some - especially mothers - have this intuition and power to love (act for God) without any formal ordination.
I see priesthood in Mormonism as good in a way that inspires men to serve and love more than they might otherwise, and bad because it tends to also inspire pride (self-rightousness) and division.

Re: Baptism...
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Although I think the ordinance of baptism is beautifully symbolic, I see the "born of water" part of the scripture above fulfilled when we each were born of water of the amniotic fluid from our mothers.

If the LDS can claim to be Christians, then the flds can claim to be Mormon.

BrianHales wrote:One criteria for membership in the "Mormon Church" might be valid baptism. The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view. Importantly, if it is invalid, then their baptisms are not valid (D&C 22:1-2) and they could not claim to be "Mormons" in the same sense that Joseph Smith or individuals who have valid baptisms today are "Mormons."

What ever happened to the command from on high that we were not to refer to ourselves as the "Mormon Church" anyway? Was it not for the exact reason for which you are now using it instead of what you were instructed to call it in specifically these kind of cases?

Also D&C 22 does not mention "Mormon" or the official title of the Corporate Sole

Oh and Welcome Brother Hales ... its great to have you here!

BrianHales wrote:The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view.

This claim really needs some actual details included.

I'm also wondering what about the FLDS practice of polygamy that is at odds with the polygamy initially practiced by the CoJCoLDS?

canpakes wrote:

BrianHales wrote:The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view.

This claim really needs some actual details included.

I'm also wondering what about the FLDS practice of polygamy that is at odds with the polygamy initially practiced by the CoJCoLDS?

Brian is right about the question of if the FLDS have the keys required for baptism.

Daymon Smith discusses the issue somewhere in this series (its been a long time)
http://mormonstories.org/daymon-smith-o ... nd-mammon/

The above being an excellent listen on the split as well as a must listen about the evolution of correlation.

RockSlider wrote:Brian is right about the question of if the FLDS have the keys required for baptism.

Daymon Smith discusses the issue somewhere in this series (its been a long time)
http://mormonstories.org/daymon-smith-o ... nd-mammon/

The above being an excellent listen on the split as well as a must listen about the evolution of correlation.

Thank you, RockSlider - that's just the sort of thing that I was looking for, in order to gain a better understanding of the claim. I will give this a listen.

As the LDS claims to the Melchizedek priesthood, and Aaronic priesthood are spurious, made up BS. And as the succession crisis miracle of the transforming BY is made up, giving the SLC branch of the church no more claim to authority than any of the other groups. The flds claims to taking it with them when they left are just as legit/equally garbage as any other, as is Denver's claim to be the true holder of the keys now. Again, if the LDS can claim to be christian, then any LDS offshoot group has just as much right to claim to be Mormon.