- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I would like a little help in working out an idea I have been kicking around for some time. My present comprehension of the “one true church” statement is personal – it is the only church that I could imagine fitting properly into my life and filling my spiritual needs. I do not project my meaning onto others. I have a hard time conceptualizing the statement as universal, because I can’t get it to flow with my understanding of how God works with his children on the earth.
The main obstacle is the nature of revelation being personal. If I cannot receive revelations on what other people should do in their personal lives – then how can I think that they personally need to join a specific church? Wouldn’t that be in effect the same as claiming the revelation for them?
I realize the other argument has to do with universal truths – that God has dictated one authority under which all lines must flow, but this idea when I carry it out far enough always seems to come back to the subject of revelation for me. I just can’t imagine holding a position where I say all men must come under the LDS tent to find salvation. I feel like I limit God if I say such a thing.
Can you put on your traditional LDS hats and work through this with me?
I think your second last paragraph hit the nail on the head. The fact that we have baptisms for the dead, progression within kingdoms, and all these fairness loopholes indicates that God may not necessarily encourage everyone to join the LDS Church or even give them testimonies of it. So, one can have access to salvation eventually even if you avoid the LDS Church like the plague in this life, without strong enough knowledge that it’s true. Arguments can be made that final assignment to kingdoms is also temporary, as endless punishment is God’s punishment, not permanent punishment (from D&C).
In fact, I leave myself open to the idea that in the eternities, the Mormons may have to alter their views a bit to be more inclusive than we currently are.
I think one needs to take the One True Church concept with a grain of salt. Doing so explains so much in my view. So much that seems so dead wrong when you believe that we are the only true Church on the face of the earth.
Anyone who has been around for years knows there is the official thing you can say over the pulpit, and the true state of affairs. If you say the true state of affairs, which tends to be more lenient than the public declaration, everyone will fall back to the lenient standard. So, all you hear about is the strongest party line, when really, there is more lenience than perhaps we’re aware of.
I guess I blew your criterion of taking a traditional Mormon stance on this subject, but this is what I honestly believe now.
To me, it is hard to take the “One True Church” concept with a grain of salt when the canonized scriptures state:
Quote:D&C 1: 29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—
Orson, I really like the way you put it with regards to how revelation works and how personal it is, and you won’t project that meaning on others.
However, I think we all have to realize that the Church doesn’t claim that. It claims to be the only true church on the earth, because the Lord said it through his prophet. Authority, then, becomes important. It is the only church with authority for saving ordinances. That is not personal.
Orson wrote:I just can’t imagine holding a position where I say all men must come under the LDS tent to find salvation.
I can’t either, but the idea seems to be, while in this life, that is what it is. How salvation is worked in the next life, we don’t know…will we really all need temple baptisms done? What about people born before census records were kept…does Heaven have records they’ll use? I don’t know…and I think the argument starts to fall apart that it is so literal that everyone must have ordinances done for salvation and there is no other way. I can’t see that position either.
Heber13 wrote:To me, it is hard to take the “One True Church” concept with a grain of salt when the canonized scriptures state:
I see your point, but perhaps the “on the face of the earth” comment is the one that gives us an “out”. The time will come when there will be a renewal of the earth, and also, when we will be not part of this earth as we await resurrection. Lots of exception granting can happen at that time, and whatever form the Church takes during those periods may well be more inclusive. Perhaps old laws will be done away and new ones in their place, much like the transitino from Old to New Testament.
Like I said, there is also the scripture in the D&C that Endless punishment is God’s punishment, not eternal punishment. It implies that even non-compliance with authority in this life may lead to consequences that are not permanent — not pleasant either, but not permanent.
Also, consider this perspective, which I wrote a while ago, putting myself in the shoes of a wise overseer:
Quote:
You are God. You have a young man (16), good-hearted, praying to know the truth of whether God exists in a little town. There is one priesthood holder in the town, who attends a Ward in another city. The missionaries rarely ever go there. You know this young man will not run into the missionaries for a long time. For whatever reason, you are not going to intervene as heavenly father and send the missionaries to him. Perhaps you know his parents are staunch born-agains and would turn him against the LDS Church for now, whatever.He attends a local Christian denomination with the full support of his family. For the first time, he is sincerely praying to know God exists, having been encouraged to do so by his minister.
What would you do? Withhold the message or spiritual confirmation because he has not found the LDS Church yet, and will end up dedicated in the wrong Church? Or lead him to the LDS Church when his family may well turn against him, and he may well lose enthusiasm for ALL religion as the result (using your foreknowledge). Or look at his circumstances with your foreknowledge and know that giving him a confirmation of your existence and the need for Christ will help him live a better life, even if he believes his current Church, non-LDS is the place to pursue it?
I would suspect the latter. So, this young man has a huge spiritual confirmation of the existence of God and Christ, and dedicates him to the logical place that has chanced into his life — his existing church. As he lives true principles he has more commitment and spiritual experiences in that church, becoming more and more committed.
Realizing his chances of finding the LDS Church are slim given the area he lives in, as well as the chances of him engaging with it are also slim given his staunch family, you, as Heavenly Father, realize that it’s OK for him to stay in that Church given his family support, his temperament, the availability of the relion in his town etc. You have a master plan that will bring all people into the tent of truth someday. You are patient….it can happen on your own timetable, knowing that in the end, the unfolding of events will be what is best for this young man. You see the full landscape of eternity.
This is my belief. God let’s us believe the truth within our own microcosms. If there is net good from beleiving in a certain Church, although not LDS, He allows and even supports this. There is a plan in the end, although we know not what it is. It may end in the LDS people modifying their beliefs. It may end in the whole of Christianity embracing Mormonism. I don’t know, but I know that these spiritual impressions people have in other Churches are real, valid, and point them to greater good, and often deep commitment to the church in which they had real spiritual experiences. The most powerful spiritual experience I ever had was in another Church — when I was the 16 year old man praying to know if God lived.
That’s why I let the the One True Church belief wash over me. I accept it, but I won’t be disappointed if there is a complicated reason why it’s not exactly that way in the final judgment.
AS I said, the young man in the scenario above was myself as a young man — except I didn’t turn on religion in general. He didnt’ answer me for well over a year, and I fasted for three days solid to know the truth, read the BoM, lived clean, and attended the Church regularly through that period. There are times I think he gave me what I wanted when it wasn’t the best thing for me in the long run….at least, not for this life.
All you have to see are the impact my interaction with the Church and my personality and experiences — to know that perhaps this LDS experience is not the only or best way for me to find peace in this life.
By the way, I’m reminded of a comment a very intelligent missionary said. He said he wanted to baptize people who “were capable of living the lifestyle of a Mormon”. I found this profound, and it solidified the idea that people may well thrive and live better lives in places other than the Mormon religion.
Orson wrote:The main obstacle is the nature of revelation being personal. If I cannot receive revelations on what other people should do in their personal lives – then how can I think that they personally need to join a specific church? Wouldn’t that be in effect the same as claiming the revelation for them?
Orson wrote:I realize the other argument has to do with universal truths – that God has dictated one authority under which all lines must flow
My understanding of the traditional LDS understanding of revelation is realm of authority revelation. You cannot have revelations for someone that is not in your area of authority. You may have a revelation that a particular woman is “the one” for you to marry, but unless this woman receives her own revelation that you are her “one” – your revelation is meaningless to her. As a parent you may have revelations for your family. As a bishop you may have revelations for your ward and all the people within the geographical boundaries of the ward. This continues for Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, and so on until it reaches the living prophet. The living prophet has authority over the worldwide church and also everyone else in the world. This is what I understand Heber to be saying when he says:
Heber13 wrote:It claims to be the only true church on the earth, because the Lord said it through his prophet. Authority, then, becomes important. It is the only church with authority for saving ordinances. That is not personal.
There are further restrictions on revelations – about them being consistent with the standard works and cannon and also being consistent (or at least not contradictory) with the direction of those with authority above you, but perhaps that is an issue for a different thread.
Orson wrote:The main obstacle is the nature of revelation being personal. If I cannot receive revelations on what other people should do in their personal lives – then how can I think that they personally need to join a specific church?
Good question. My answer is that you can’t … you can’t receive inspiration on behalf of others and you can’t know what church they should join or not join. I’m not sure if that’s helpful, but that is the undeniable (for me) conclusion that I have come to. I’m afraid I would be a rotten missionary. Spirituality is personal by nature, and therefore highly subjective. There will always be an uncrossable gulf between what we can know, through revelation or by any other means, and what is ‘true’. To presume that I can cross your gulf for you is the height of, well, presumption. Of course that doesn’t mean that you can’t share what works for you.
Yes, I realize as Heber stated it is an authority question. Personalities that prefer to follow authority figures instead of doing “all the work” to find their own way may have an easier time just going along instead of asking so many questions. For me, I have to make sense of why I’m doing what I do and why I believe what I do. I have no problem listening to authority figures and carefully considering their advice. When the spirit confirms to me that I should follow that counsel I happily do. I also think it is irresponsible to follow someone only because of the position that they hold – D&C 121:39 and 1 Corinthians 13:12 together illustrate that point — as well as historical examples where following leaders has gone wrong. So while I understand how many people view the “only” authority issue, it just doesn’t ring to me with quite the same power as I observe in others. I should have made the point initially that my purpose here is to try to bridge the gap between the traditional language of belief and expressing myself honestly in a way that most members could relate to. I like to participate in the traditional language as far as I can make some sense of it. I enjoy even more when I can express my heart-felt points in a way that most members can relate to – but this is one point where I think a gap still exists between my expression on the topic and what would be accepted. …So I’m trying to work on that gap.
It also occurred to me today that my experience in praying for a testimony further anchored this concept as a core of my spiritual understanding. I remember praying for some time in my youth for a confirmation of the truthfulness of our restored gospel. The answer didn’t seem to come as readily as I heard others express. Today as I look back I realize my concept that I held as I sought confirmation was one of universal and exclusive authority/truthfulness. I was in effect asking if everyone in the world needed to join this church — and I couldn’t get the answer. When I contemplated the question from a more personal angle, the answer came clearly and quickly. Now this experience makes perfect sense to me, I am simply not entitled to that form of revelation. It’s not for me to know what everyone else in the world should do. That’s why I say from my experience revelation does not bring to light “universal” truths.
The question of stewardship is an interesting one. I do believe I am entitled to revelation for my family. That however should not be confused with revelation on personal items for individual family members. Individuals still need to make their own decisions. For example a bishop would not receive revelation on what job a member of his ward should take or the person that someone should marry. The revelation is confined to the matters over which he presides. He may be inspired to give specific counsel, but his inspiration stops short of the personal decision.
That’s how I see it anyway.
You know how I think by now when I read a post intially. Here are a couple of posts in our archives: “One True Church!” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=382&hilit=one+true+church “Is the Church the ONLY Church?” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=575&start=10&hilit=one+true+church and something I wrote on Mormon Matters about D&C 1:30:
“Common Scriptures in Review: The Only True and Living Church” (
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/12/common-scriptures-in-review-the-weapons-of-their-rebellion/ In re-reading my Mormon Matters post, I decided to excerpt the last part and actually quote it here – since I think it’s important on a forum like this to understand what D&C 1:30 does NOT say: when I look at what I think the verse actually says, I am left to discount what I believe it does not say – even what has been assumed by many but simply isn’t there. The following are a few of the things I believe are incorrect assumptions – things the verse simply does NOT say:
Quote:False Assumption #1)The Church’s structure was restored exactly as existed in the time of the ancient apostles. Any deviation from the ancient structure invalidates its “true” structure, and every part of the current organization was in place in the ancient Church. (Hogwash. It just doesn’t say that. We do believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, but it clearly was only the foundation that was laid at the time of the Restoration. Furthermore, the relevant Article of Faith (#6) follows the “same organization” statement with a listing of essential responsibilities/offices, not the entire structure. Also, architecturally, since we are dealing with a “foundation” upon which a structure will be built, similar or equivalent structures can contain radically different internal components and still be the same shape or structure. This idea is bolstered by the increasing complexity of the organizational Church as it grows numerically and geographically – changing the outward appearance and internal structure, but not affecting the foundation in the slightest – as well as the differences that appear to have existed among the various congregations within the ancient Church.)
False Assumption #2)All other Churches are bad or abominable. (Simply not said – here or in JSH 1:19 [which will be parsed in a future post in a couple of weeks]. They might not be “of the right kind; such as [they] should be; proper: [arranged] in their true order,” but it does not say they are evil or bad. They might not make the Lord “well pleased”, but there is nothing that says the Lord isn’t “pleased” with them in some or many ways. In fact, the usage of a qualifier [“well”] generally implies that the same term without the qualifier [“pleased”] applies to the entities being compared. I know it is a radically different interpretation than the standard one, but I believe the words of the verse itself state that the Lord is not displeased with all religions other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – that at least some others do please Him to some degree.)
False Assumption #3)Other churches (and members of those other churches) are spiritually dead. (Stupid, imo. Their churches might not be living in the sense that they provide eternal growth [“eternal life giving”] – since they don’t even teach life eternal, as we understand it – but there is no statement saying the other churches cause their members to be separated from godliness, which is the orthodox definition of spiritual death within Mormonism. At worst, if other Christians accept their churches’ teachings fully and reject Mormonism completely, the vast majority of them still will live immortally in the presence of The God they worship – Jesus, the Christ. Nothing in verse 30 says otherwise.)
False Assumption #4)Our leaders are “true” (infallible) and will never teach things that are not 100% true. (The verse itself says the Lord is NOT well-pleased with individuals in the Church, and it is followed by the numerous rebukes of Joseph, Oliver and others in the “commandments” it prefaces. The Church as a whole is well-pleasing and will continue to provide life to its members, but individual members, no matter their standing, still can incur the Lord’s displeasure.)
doug wrote:Spirituality is personal by nature, and therefore highly subjective. There will always be an uncrossable gulf between what we can know, through revelation or by any other means, and what is ‘true’. To presume that I can cross your gulf for you is the height of, well, presumption. Of course that doesn’t mean that you can’t share what works for you.
Orson wrote:That’s why I say from my experience revelation does not bring to light “universal” truths.
The question of stewardship is an interesting one. I do believe I am entitled to revelation for my family. That however should not be confused with revelation on personal items for individual family members. Individuals still need to make their own decisions. For example a bishop would not receive revelation on what job a member of his ward should take or the person that someone should marry. The revelation is confined to the matters over which he presides. He may be inspired to give specific counsel, but his inspiration stops short of the personal decision.
I agree with what has been said – personal revelation brings forth spiritual truth. There have been other threads discussing the differences between spiritual truth and scientific truth (for example you wouldn’t pray to know the outcome of a proposed science experiment). Spiritual truth is by nature personal and subjective.
Regarding stewardship and area of authority – when jurisdictional lines cross, I agree that it is ultimately up to the individual to take accountability and ownership of decisions and actions. I believe it was Heber that had shared how after much thought (and prayer?) his family made a decision to allow his daughter to date prior to age 16. Now, I believe the generally accepted counsel from the church on this matter is that when your personal line of revelation diverges from the priesthood line, you better follow the priesthood – (Not that this is really a surprise, can you imagine the church counseling that sometimes it is ok to prayerfully consider its counsels and then go your own way?).
I remember a quote from a post-apostasy primitive Christian church leader, “love may give birth to the best converts, but fear makes the most numerous.” In modifying this to fit our current discussion, if each man were to follow their own personal divine compass they may become better (better being a completely subjective term) disciples – but how would you lead them?
Richard Bushman talked some about this paradox in RSR. The revealed doctrine of JS imbued the common man with power, authority, and participation in the works of divinity to a degree that was uncommon – yet at the same time asking the common man to surrender up an increasing degree of power and authority towards the center.
I believe this paradox is epitomized in the two doctrinal extremes of: “The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.”… and… “Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58:27–29) That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable” (D&C 101:78)
I think where you find balance between the two extremes is up to you and is more about you than applying an objective standard of universal truth. I have faith in you Orson. It sounds like you already have a good understanding of how God speaks to you in your life and the outline of your relationship with Him. From there, a lot of it is about making peace with those who see things differently and may experience different relationships (interaction patterns) with God.
Orson wrote:Can you put on your traditional LDS hats and work through this with me?
If I work with this requirement, then the best I think I can say is that God revealed the One-and-Only-True Church to his Prophet Joseph Smith, and it has evolved under the direct guidance of similarly inspired and guided prophets up to the present. It really comes down to deciding to believe the foundation claim, or not. It is not a provable assertion. You can’t prove that God exists and created the LDS Church. You can’t prove God didn’t.
It is a faith statement. It’s all the truth. And if something doesn’t seem to make sense, then we must exercise faith until we find out the reasons why it is true. We might have to wait until we “pass through the veil” to get the full story sometimes, but it is ALL true.
/takes off “traditional LDS hat”
There are alternative ways of looking at it that might still fit the idea of the Church being the only “true” and “living” Church on the earth:
1. The “Church” is not the LDS Church specifically, but we are talking about the broader concept of the “Church of the Lamb” or the “Church of the First Born” as described in Hebrews 12:23. One could view this as the collection of enlightened souls, or those “perfected” men and women who have truly become self-actualized individuals. While this is a broader definition, it would really encompass a very small minority of people. The Church might be helping people to achieve this state of “exaltation,” which makes it true and living, but it doesn’t necessarily encompass all “true and living” people. Also, those withing the membership are certainly not all “true and living.” We’re working on it.
2. Get rid of a lot of the contextual fluff and details. Look at some of the very broad ideas “restored” through Joseph Smith, the way he freely combined some of the best elements of religion from a WIDE variety of sources, and you could possibly consider that movement to be a “true and living” church. I am thinking about the rich metaphors of eternal progression and increase, universal salvation, working towards becoming “gods,” the strong Mormon theme of personal revelation and direct personal contact with deity, etc. The ward basketball team, scouting and the visiting teaching program? Those are just attempted not-fully-true-and-fully-living implementations of broad and beautiful metaphors and concepts. We are humans, so we fail, but the true and living ideals are there.
3. Bold claims bring bold action and bold faith. Who wants to be in the kind-of-sort-of-true Church on the face of the whole earth? You can look at it like a marketing slogan. It’s a pretty good Church. But is it the only Church that was ever worth belonging to and no other one every had any truth in it? Yeah, seems far fetched, and not a very effective “plan of happiness.”
It’s like saying that your restaurant serves the best chili dogs in town. Are they really the best? Nobody else might like it with different toppings ever? You can’t even prove one way or the other. They are really personal tastes and preferences.
Roy wrote:Regarding stewardship and area of authority – when jurisdictional lines cross, I agree that it is ultimately up to the individual to take accountability and ownership of decisions and actions. I believe it was Heber that had shared how after much thought (and prayer?) his family made a decision to allow his daughter to date prior to age 16.
You’ve got a good memory, Roy…that was a while ago, but yes, I remember being in a similar line of thinking as Orson:
Orson wrote:For me, I have to make sense of why I’m doing what I do and why I believe what I do. I have no problem listening to authority figures and carefully considering their advice. When the spirit confirms to me that I should follow that counsel I happily do. I also think it is irresponsible to follow someone only because of the position that they hold
I wasn’t sure if it mattered much, but at the time, I was putting this idea to the test and willing to let go of the pressure from our ward that to allow dating before 16 was verboten, even though multiple conversations with different parents gave multiple definitions and situations around what dating was. The common response from those I counseled with was, “There is safety in following the prophet, and the kids must learn that.”
In the end, I did pray, and did feel right about our family decision, and to this day, feel it was the right thing to do, mostly because my daughter and I have a stronger bond than ever before, and she knows I care about her more than I care about peer pressure, image, or arbitrary rules. At a personal level…I love her more than rules. That is what I believe Christ taught.
Interestingly, when you see how things played out, it seems the dating thing was not such a big deal. My daughter is actively attending seminary, has a job, getting straight As in school, plans to work for a scholarship to attend BYU Provo, and seems to be doing what is right to get married in the temple some day. So, this one decision really wasn’t any kind of major issue for her, or any kind of thing that played out like she broke the rules of the “One True Church” and therefore is led down to hell and not blessed. It was a personal thing that was not just a rebellious streak, but under personal circumstances at the time, was something we felt OK about.
However, I will say, with our choice comes consequences. And I know there are still people in our ward that have doubts about our family’s devotedness, and some YM that have been told to be careful of our daughter. She comes home crying with that sometimes. But those are also opportunities to teach her that the “One True Church” does not mean all parts of it are right and good and perfect, and certainly the people aren’t, that the Lord is pleased with the Church collectively, but not individually. That is a lesson we are learning, but not without some pain and sadness.
I think some people would rather just toe the line, because people respect you for it. But, again, I am like Orson…I find it more important to do what’s right for the right reasons, and wrestle with the things I don’t feel right about, until the Spirit speaks truth to my soul. And I realize that sometimes that means I will make mistakes and learn things through breaking rules I could have avoided if I was blindly obedient. But if I’m honest and pure in my intentions and my heart, I’m OK with that.
On a personal level, it is the one true church for me. On a universal level…I can’t reconcile everyone NEEDS to be mormon. And the authority and ordinance work needed for salvation is something I can’t figure out…and will leave in God’s hands. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Heber13 wrote:It claims to be the only true church on the earth, because the Lord said it through his prophet. Authority, then, becomes important. It is the only church with authority for saving ordinances. That is not personal.
Actually it is pretty personal. A number of years ago when I was at my lowest and was thinking of leaving the church, I was speaking to an episocopal priest that had befriended me and told him that the LDS church believed that it was the only church with priesthood authority. Hearing that none of the blessings, baptisms, or confirmations that he’d done were recognized by God made it very personal. You can finesse it all you want about good people doing good works out there but it still comes down to believing the the LDS Church is only one in the world that is true as regards being able to act for God.
GB, yes, that was what I meant by stating that authority through the “One True Church” is an issue. One cannot baptize because of personal revelation, but the church claims it must be through restored priesthood lines of authority. So that becomes a personal issue for many, but I was meaning to say it is not personal in terms of authority to act for God through personal revelation.
And we are not the only church requiring re-baptism for converts if they haven’t been baptized by an authority they recognize.
I have learned to nuance many meanings of scriptures and doctrines, but this is not one I feel can be nuanced. It is simply the claim made by the church. And it is one that I’m open to disagree with, even if I StayLDS.
Quote:Hearing that none of the blessings, baptisms, or confirmations that he’d done were recognized by God made it very personal.
Not believing that makes it easier for me to handle – and explain.
(and I remember our conversation when you first shared that experience, GB. I think it was on Mormon Matters, if I recall correctly.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.