- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I stumbled across this and against my better judgement clicked on it but there was a good tidbit in there. Quote:In a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord referred to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).
As a result, Latter-day Saints often refer to the Church as the only true church. Sometimes it might be done in a way that gives offense to people who belong to other churches or subscribe to other philosophies — ways that might imply arrogance, a “holier than thou” attitude, a monopoly on truth that excludes other faiths and philosophies, or suggestions that Latter-day Saints are better than others.
“We should try to avoid all of those ideas because none of them is true,” President Oaks said. “God has not taught us anything that should cause us to feel arrogant or superior to other people.”
My first thought was “there goes half our next testimony meeting.” Take away the God of the Lost Car Keys too and the meeting would be over in 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I think Oaks makes a good point and it would be great if he said it in GC (not that it would really make a difference but at least it would be more widely out there).The rest of the article seems more legalistic/obedience/worthiness oriented but for what it’s worth, here’s the link:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-03-04/president-oaks-missionaries-temple-square-mission-jesus-christ-testimony-priesthood-authority-atonement-lds-205767 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-03-04/president-oaks-missionaries-temple-square-mission-jesus-christ-testimony-priesthood-authority-atonement-lds-205767 Interesting. Glad to hear it… yet, I should note that he’s not saying that it ISN’T the Only True and Living Church on the Face of the Whole Earth… what he is getting at is to be careful how you say it. DHO lays out two strawman arguments and then counters them by saying “none of them is true”. 1 – According to DHO, it is not true that we have a “monopoly on truth that excludes other faiths and philosophies”, but that’s a very well-constructed statement. The Church believes that the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings. So do some other Christian Churches. Therefore, we don’t have a “monopoly” on that idea. But, I would guess that DHO believes that no other Church or Philosophy has a truth that we do not. If it sounds like I’m carefully parsing his words, let me just say that DHO carefully CRAFTS his words to be legally true, even if doing so sometimes gives an intended mistaken impression (women DO have the priesthood, according to DHO, you just have to say it in a certain way).
2 – DHO also points out that it is not true “that Latter-day Saints are better than others.” Although I’m glad he made this statement, I don’t feel he really backed it up. According to the speech, we have better stuff from God than others… so the inference is too-easily drawn that we must be better. If the Church wants for its members to embrace the idea that we are no better than others, it needs to discuss this more openly. Sadly, it’s a missed opportunity, because, in fact, our doctrine is pretty clear that “God is no respecter of persons” or that “all are alike unto God”. So, it would be a simple matter of reminding that we are all equal in God’s eyes, and in fact, we have a responsibility to those other equals to help them find what we ourselves have been given in spite of our no-more-worthy nature. What I am getting at is the basic precepts of the Church can be held in this way, but we never do in practice. In practice, non-members can join the Church, but the instant they do, they are members of that exclusive club. Non-members who don’t join are still living in darkness, etc, etc…
The 1978 revelation which you can see quoted in my footer discusses how other religions have been given portions of the truth. Indeed like Muslims, LDS believe there have been many prophets sent to many people by Heavenly Father and not just Native Americans. If you look at Confucius for example, there are many things in his teachings which are in line with LDS ones – duty to family, honoring the dead and treating others with respect.
On Own Now wrote:
Interesting. Glad to hear it… yet, I should note that he’s not saying that it ISN’T the Only True and Living Church on the Face of the Whole Earth… what he is getting at is to be careful how you say it. DHO lays out two strawman arguments and then counters them by saying “none of them is true”.1 – According to DHO, it is not true that we have a “monopoly on truth that excludes other faiths and philosophies”, but that’s a very well-constructed statement. The Church believes that the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings. So do some other Christian Churches. Therefore, we don’t have a “monopoly” on that idea. But, I would guess that DHO believes that no other Church or Philosophy has a truth that we do not. If it sounds like I’m carefully parsing his words, let me just say that DHO carefully CRAFTS his words to be legally true, even if doing so sometimes gives an intended mistaken impression (women DO have the priesthood, according to DHO, you just have to say it in a certain way).
2 – DHO also points out that it is not true “that Latter-day Saints are better than others.” Although I’m glad he made this statement, I don’t feel he really backed it up. According to the speech, we have better stuff from God than others… so the inference is too-easily drawn that we must be better. If the Church wants for its members to embrace the idea that we are no better than others, it needs to discuss this more openly. Sadly, it’s a missed opportunity, because, in fact, our doctrine is pretty clear that “God is no respecter of persons” or that “all are alike unto God”. So, it would be a simple matter of reminding that we are all equal in God’s eyes, and in fact, we have a responsibility to those other equals to help them find what we ourselves have been given in spite of our no-more-worthy nature. What I am getting at is the basic precepts of the Church can be held in this way, but we never do in practice. In practice, non-members can join the Church, but the instant they do, they are members of that exclusive club. Non-members who don’t join are still living in darkness, etc, etc…
Yes, I agree OON. Oaks is a lawyer and speaks like one, and all of his words are carefully chosen. And I agree that Oaks likely thinks we have more truth than any other church. That would hold true even if the restoration really is ongoing – in that case we’ll have even more truth. And I do think part of his message was not what we say but how we say it. Nonetheless, we have a few in our ward who regularly say such things in a way that is offensive or dismissive. For those who haven’t read the whole article, he was speaking to missionaries.
I also agree that in God’s eyes we are all the same/equal and latter-day saints are not as special as some think they are.
SamBee wrote:
The 1978 revelation which you can see quoted in my footer discusses how other religions have been given portions of the truth. Indeed like Muslims, LDS believe there have been many prophets sent to many people by Heavenly Father and not just Native Americans.If you look at Confucius for example, there are many things in his teachings which are in line with LDS ones – duty to family, honoring the dead and treating others with respect.
Agreed Sam. My personal take on the restoration is that the truth was all here, it wasn’t necessarily gathered in one place (although I think some churches come very close and most have the most essential elements of the gospel). There’s an interesting section on this idea in
All Things New(Fiona & Terryl Givens) which I just finished reading and intend to write a review on in the book section – when I have some spare time. For me, I believe that we have elitism baked into the church. We are the chosen people. Among the membership only the qualified and worthy can go to the temple and become part of an even more select group. I am glad that the second anointing has fallen out of favor. At this point it is unknown if it is still being performed and who it might be performed for. The second anointing in my mind creates still another select group.
We believe that there were variations in achievement in the premortal realm and that those variations determined the circumstances of birth in this life. We continually teach that the youth of today were reserved for this time because of their special status and preparation in the premortal world.
We also believe and teach that the afterlife will be stratified because we really do not want for people with varying levels of effort/success to be rewarded the same. Even the celestial kingdom has multiple levels – and we believe that some of our brothers and sisters that do not achieve the highest levels will become servants for those that do.
Is President Oaks telling me that despite the fact that we aspire to have a multitude of our brothers and sisters as our eternal servants we should not “feel arrogant or superior” ? Those two things do tend to be at odds with each other.
Roy wrote:
For me, I believe that we have elitism baked into the church.We are the chosen people. Among the membership only the qualified and worthy can go to the temple and become part of an even more select group. I am glad that the second anointing has fallen out of favor. At this point it is unknown if it is still being performed and who it might be performed for. The second anointing in my mind creates still another select group.
We believe that there were variations in achievement in the premortal realm and that those variations determined the circumstances of birth in this life. We continually teach that the youth of today were reserved for this time because of their special status and preparation in the premortal world.
We also believe and teach that the afterlife will be stratified because we really do not want for people with varying levels of effort/success to be rewarded the same. Even the celestial kingdom has multiple levels – and we believe that some of our brothers and sisters that do not achieve the highest levels will become servants for those that do.
Is President Oaks telling me that despite the fact that we aspire to have a multitude of our brothers and sisters as our eternal servants we should not “feel arrogant or superior” ? Those two things do tend to be at odds with each other.
And the whole “tribe of Israel” lineage thing in patriarchal blessings.
And the missionary lessons are designed around the idea that other churches are in apostasy, only we have the real authority, only we can seal families for eternity, etc. We like to talk about how other marriages end at death, but ours don’t. We have the idea that other religions have some truth, but only we have all of it. It’s hard to not come across as elitist with those ideas.
Roy wrote:
For me, I believe that we have elitism baked into the church.We are the chosen people. Among the membership only the qualified and worthy can go to the temple and become part of an even more select group. I am glad that the second anointing has fallen out of favor. At this point it is unknown if it is still being performed and who it might be performed for. The second anointing in my mind creates still another select group.
We believe that there were variations in achievement in the premortal realm and that those variations determined the circumstances of birth in this life. We continually teach that the youth of today were reserved for this time because of their special status and preparation in the premortal world.
We also believe and teach that the afterlife will be stratified because we really do not want for people with varying levels of effort/success to be rewarded the same. Even the celestial kingdom has multiple levels – and we believe that some of our brothers and sisters that do not achieve the highest levels will become servants for those that do.
Is President Oaks telling me that despite the fact that we aspire to have a multitude of our brothers and sisters as our eternal servants we should not “feel arrogant or superior” ? Those two things do tend to be at odds with each other.
If we start looking outside the box and listening to what Oaks and some other leaders and thinkers are saying we might begin to see that some of these teachings of the past were/are a bit off base and more akin to the creeds that God told Joseph Smith were an abomination. For example, if we take the essay on the priesthood in more broad terms, since the teachings that Africans were less valiant, etc., in their “first estate” are false wouldn’t it follow that other teachings regarding that theology could also be incorrect? Or, if God really does love all of us equally (and I believe They do) and the at-one-ment of Jesus Christ is really universal (and I believe it is), will there be a division in heaven? Before the post-McKay dark age it was commonly taught and believed that we do progress eternally, including from kingdom to kingdom – I don’t think it out of the realm of possibility that this teaching might return. Lastly, I think what the Q15 aren’t saying is almost as important as what they are saying – what haven’t they said in a long time?
Arrakeen wrote:
And the missionary lessons are designed around the idea that other churches are in apostasy, only we have the real authority, only we can seal families for eternity, etc. We like to talk about how other marriages end at death, but ours don’t. We have the idea that other religions have some truth, but only we have all of it.It’s hard to not come across as elitist with those ideas.
I think that’s exactly what Oaks was warning about.
I’ve said as much in other threads, I believe one of the fruits of religious exclusivism is arrogance/narcissism. Plant an apple tree, get apples. Plant a one True church… I’ve found that it’s very rare for a member to arrogantly proclaim their superiority to someone of another faith. I think our brand of arrogance is more passive aggressive. Call it strongly implied superiority.
Ordinances. We’ve got them right. In fact we’ve got them so right that we have to do ordinances for the dead because they got the wrong versions.
Missionary work. Dedicate lots of time and energy convincing others we’re exclusively correct.
Sunday School lessons. Dedicate lots of time and energy convincing ourselves we’re exclusively correct.
There are right and wrong answers to questions. A religion that believes in their exclusivity is going to set up correct doctrines. Creating a set of correct doctrines creates a set of incorrect doctrines, it comes with the territory. This black and white approach to doctrines can breed arrogance,
knowingthat you’re right about something and by extension the other person is wrong. There are right ways to live and wrong ways to live, leading to condemnation of what is believed to be the wrong way of living. Since this is Oaks I’ll cite a specific example, Oaks’ LGBTQ+ hobbyhorse. I’ll refrain from littering this post with DHO quotes about that issue, they’re not hard to find. Oaks’ comments are rooted in genuine belief, I get that, but strong conviction in one’s beliefs can lead to arrogance.
Maybe people at church don’t say, “Neener, neener, neener. My church is True.” but they do say things like, “[Satan] also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth.”
And just to get it out there, I’m a pot calling the kettle black. I haven’t got it right where others are wrong.
I guess I’m just more pragmatic regarding the church and what some (many) members believe and teach as doctrine. I believe that in the end it doesn’t matter what anybody else believes, it only matters what I believe. In a broad sense that seems to be the whole purpose of Come Follow Me – to figure it out for ourselves. That’s at least what I thought at the outset of Come Follow Me. I do think it strays from that premise in that the manuals do tend to interpret scripture or imply the “one true” (or correct) interpretation. Likewise, I think that SS class which was meant to be more of a forum of sharing our understandings and insights is mostly stymied by the manuals and old school thinkers (actually mostly not thinkers). In my own studies of early church history the early church did not have this issue and in fact members were encouraged to figure it out for themselves and it was mostly OK to have a different understanding of stuff. And it needs to be said that I don’t believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only way to salvation, and I’m not sure that scripture (D&C 1:30) indicates that either (certainly not explicitly).
I recently started a new book called
The Bible With and Without Jesus. It is not a church book and the authors are Jewish. But what I appreciate already, just a few chapters in, is the recognition that most scriptures have multiple meanings and interpretations and that is sometimes because of translations and sometimes because that’s the way they were meant to be. And just to be clear, it is pointed out in the beginning that the title of the book very purposely uses the word and– it’s not or. DarkJedi wrote:
I guess I’m just more pragmatic regarding the church and what some (many) members believe and teach as doctrine. I believe that in the end it doesn’t matter what anybody else believes, it only matters what I believe. In a broad sense that seems to be the whole purpose of Come Follow Me – to figure it out for ourselves.
nibbler wrote:
A religion that believes in their exclusivity is going to set up correct doctrines. Creating a set of correct doctrines creates a set of incorrect doctrines, it comes with the territory. This black and white approach to doctrines can breed arrogance, knowing that you’re right about something and by extension the other person is wrong.
I quoted the part from nibbler because I think that it sets up perfectly my pain/concern on the subject. Within the church, I do not feel that I have been granted the freedom or validation to believe what I believe.Specifically, I recently ordained my son to the office of a teacher. It is meaningful to me to be able to do this. I feel that I am carrying on a tradition, passing on a legacy, and becoming part of my son’s rite of passage. I understand that my ability to do this rests upon the “keys” and goodwill of the bishop. I am sensitive to the thought that I could be excluded from future ordaining if my expressed belief does not line up sufficiently with orthodox beliefs.
I do sympathize that the church does need some mechanism to establish orthodox beliefs and to distance itself from individuals that are rather public in teaching unorthodox beliefs. On the other hand, I feel that the church is unnecessarily confident about the rightness of many truth claims and also probes rather invasively (worthiness interviews) as to the membership’s adherence to those orthodox beliefs.
I hear you Roy, and while my children are now grown I did have similar experiences when they were young and still desire to hold a temple recommend because they do silly things like get married. 
In context of the OP, we’re never asked in those interviews if we believe in the “one true and living church” (which is a good thing because I clearly don’t and I couldn’t nuance such an answer). The closest question that comes to mind in that relation is the one about having a testimony of the restoration. I do have a testimony of the restoration, one that in fact has expanded in recent months – but it’s probably not the same as my bishop’s understanding or testimony of the restoration. The article went on to talk about the three things that make our church the only true and living church (at least in the opinion of Pres. Oaks). They are the the fullness of doctrine, priesthood power, and unique testimony of Jesus Christ. The only one of those asked directly in the TR questions is a testimony of Jesus Christ (along with Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost). I do have such a testimony, although again it might be different from my bishop’s. If we include priesthood keys in priesthood power we’d have to infer from the question about the president of the church exercising all priesthood keys that we’re being asked about priesthood power. I never infer anything into the questions because I think the questions are worded very precisely and I think part of the reason for that is to allow everybody some leeway and get as many people to the temple as possible. Thus, I am not asked about priesthood keys or power directly – but I can answer that yes, I do sustain the president and I do in fact recognize him as the leader of the priesthood (in much the same way I recognize the pope as the leader of Catholic priesthood). Fortunately we’re not asked about most points of doctrine (or fullness thereof).
I’m not pointing any fingers at you Roy, this is just a general observation. I think many members tend to be so caught up in “believing it all” as a sign of “worthiness” but believing it all is not the standard for temple worthiness, which is often used as a standard. In a nutshell, most of the fluff we’re taught is just that – fluff. (My original word was not fluff.
Thank you for your understanding DJ. I feel better today. My specific situation rests more on tithing than belief. I am not a tithe payer and do not have a TR. Technically I do not need to have a TR or pay tithing in order to perform priesthood ordinations. This function operates under the keys of the Bishop and he can theoretically use his judgement to decide if someone is worthy to perform an ordinance in the absence of a TR. For this reason I believe that my Bishop’s perception of why I am not a tithe payer can make the difference between being able to participate and not being able to participate. I believe that if I was a tithe payer then I would also hold a TR and this would all be a moot point.
I am also aware that my anxiety over this subject is not exactly fair to my bishop and my ward family. I speculate that if they knew my real beliefs then they would not welcome/include me. However, I have not really given them that chance to accept or reject the real me. I struggle to hide myself from them while not judging them for contributing to the environment where I feel it is necessary to hide myself.
🙄 Roy wrote:
I am also aware that my anxiety over this subject is not exactly fair to my bishop and my ward family. I speculate that if they knew my real beliefs then they would not welcome/include me. However, I have not really given them that chance to accept or reject the real me. I struggle to hide myself from them while not judging them for contributing to the environment where I feel it is necessary to hide myself.🙄
I don’t have a ton of anxiety, but otherwise I think we’re in much the same position in this respect. Were I to say what I really think I’d most certainly be considered at least a heretic if not an apostate. That’s why I come here. It’s safe here and feel accepted here. I don’t totally hide myself at church but I do live in the shadows.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.