Seeking traditional perspectives on my exclusive authority Q

[Anonymous]

I have thought about this question for several years now, I can’t help but wonder how my ideas may be viewed by more traditional members. I have thought about asking people I know personally from time to time, but it is probably best if I don’t.

One of my difficulties in the church comes when I hear fellow members say things like “everyone needs the Gospel” — implying that every life would be better or it is the intention or wish of a loving Heavenly Father to have every person eventually join the modern LDS church.

I have written before about how when praying for an answer to the “is this the true church” question I couldn’t receive an answer until I changed the question to a personal “is this the right place for ME?” I have interpreted this as not being entitled to receiving personal answers/revelation for anyone else. It makes sense to me that I cannot receive personal direction for another’s life, I am only entitled to direction for my own life.

The question then moves to what does this say about revelation in regards to universal truths. My takeaway is revelation is meant to confirm personal truth. We don’t seek revelation in scientific pursuits… (I think my line of reasoning becomes obvious from there.)

So in short I feel that I am claiming to know the mind and will of God if I say that all mankind needs to join our church. I can allow God to have other purposes, to value diversity and the challenges that it presents, to make people with different ideas, needs, and modes of worship. I can hear the response “but this is the revealed mind and will of God” …which will take us to a different discussion on the nature of revelation, and how history makes it appear to take on the color of the prophet’s understanding and culture.

Are my views threatening? I don’t have a firm answer on why priesthood authority is vital to the salvation of mankind, I tend to lean toward ordinances being an outward expression of the more important internal commitment. I allow everyone the freedom to choose how they will express their following God, and I hope to learn something from their approach if I can. Do I fall short of your ideal for believing Mormons?

[Anonymous]

I know quite a few fully active members, even in leadership positions, who would agree completely with what you wrote. I know I do.

On the other hand, it absolutely is threatening to people who need to feel they have found ultimate truth and that everyone would be better off with that same understanding – and that is true of people in EVERY religion and denomination. It’s not unique to the LDS Church by any stretch.

Security is important to most people, so I try to be very careful not to rock that security for someone who desperately needs it.

[Anonymous]

Yes Ray, I agree completely. As we’ve had a few people join us here in the recent past that describe themselves as more traditional members (whatever that may mean) I thought I’d throw this out to see if any interesting points may come out of the discussion.

[Anonymous]

I love this quote by the Dalai Lama:

Quote:

“I always tell my Western friends that it is best to keep your own tradition. Changing religion is not easy and sometimes causes confusion. You must value your tradition and honor your own religion.”

I think that the gospel can be a great tool for a good life and to know God. Church is a wonderful vehicle to make known the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I think it is one of the tools, not the one and only tool. I think I was lucky to learn the gospel through this special tool which is the Church, that I want to value and honor.

Sometimes it is not easy, but necessary if I think about all that it has given me over the years.

[Anonymous]

Orson,

Here is what I think you are saying, for your main question – please tell me if I’ve got it correct:

“Maybe the LDS church is not necessarily for everyone. If we say that it is, then we are presuming to know what is best for everyone, and presuming that we know what God wants for everyone.”

Is that what you mean?

Orson wrote:

I don’t have a firm answer on why priesthood authority is vital to the salvation of mankind, I tend to lean toward ordinances being an outward expression of the more important internal commitment. I allow everyone the freedom to choose how they will express their following God, and I hope to learn something from their approach if I can. Do I fall short of your ideal for believing Mormons?

I have often wondered myself why the physical ordinances are necessary. For example, with baptism, why is it necessary to be immersed in the water and have a priesthood holder speak the prayer? Why can’t we just say, “I commit to follow the gospel and I will join the church now?”

Does the ordinance of baptism accomplish something “magical” that wouldn’t have otherwise have happened? Or is it just symbolic? Or is it good to do something tangible so I and others know for sure that we are now members of the church and agree to follow God?

Baptism for proxy is even more perplexing to me. Why is it necessary?

I don’t have answers to these questions. Maybe someone here can tell me more.

But I take it as a matter of faith. I believe in the church and I believe God leads it through the prophet. So I will do it, even though I don’t understand it at this time.

For baptism, specifically, we also have the account in the New Testament where John the Baptist asks essentially the same question I have, when he asks Jesus why he wants to be baptized by John. Jesus’ response is that everyone needs to do it, and he is going to set the example for us. That’s good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your response shoshin.

shoshin wrote:

Here is what I think you are saying, for your main question – please tell me if I’ve got it correct:

“Maybe the LDS church is not necessarily for everyone. If we say that it is, then we are presuming to know what is best for everyone, and presuming that we know what God wants for everyone.”

Is that what you mean?

That is close enough to the main thrust of that idea, yes. I am also wondering if my ideas are seen as threatening or something that may undermine the message that many members take away from church.

I agree that baptism is an important ordinance, it does show a desire to begin new and follow God. I don’t argue with Jesus’ being baptized as an example to all. I only say if we sit back and consider all the possible interpretations we may realize there could be something else, and we should be open to a new message that we may have never considered. What message? I don’t know, and most of all I’m afraid if we think we understand what it’s about we’ll quit looking. Or if we think our answers have to fall within prescribed boundaries we may miss an important but “unfamiliar” concept.

Maybe what I am eventually getting to is how to reconcile competing needs at church. Like Ray said some people need to feel the security of certainty. Others like me need to be open to ambiguity and unencumbered by tradition. These opposing needs can bring conflict to church, is there a viable solution?

Maybe the conflict is the answer (if dealt with maturely), maybe it sets the stage that we need to enact our own individual enlightenment. Failure and retreat is an option also, life comes with agency.

I don’t know, as you can tell I’m trying to think out loud.

[Anonymous]

I gave this some thought before replying, Orson. I tried to put on my orthodox garb (figuratively speaking) and see it from that perspective. My perception is that the orthodox ideology says that this is the Lord’s restored gospel and one true church with exclusive authority and keys to perform priesthood ordinances. Since its establishment through the prophet Joseph Smith, the main purpose of the restoration and the church itself has been to bring the saving ordinances to everyone in the world. Because of the efforts of the church in redeeming the living and the dead, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ – everyone does need this gospel.

In reality I don’t believe most of that myself, but like most of us here I am in the minority in a purely church setting. I actually see baptism as very symbolic and indicative of an individual’s commitment. I’m not sure there is any priesthood authority required to perform baptism, and I do not believe there is any “magic” involved with the priesthood in performance of this ordinance or any other (in other words, I don’t see that being baptized by priesthood authority in and of itself provides any forgiveness of sins, acceptance by God, etc.).

Are your views threatening to me? Certainly not, I think we’re on the same page. Could they be threatening to more orthodox members who believe that which I describe above? I think so, unless presented in such a vague way that they don’t really understand what you’re saying (in the Bible Jesus did that all the time). I don’t think most of them would have a problem with the idea that personal revelation applies only to the individual, but I think the majority believes the missionary aspect of the church to be established by revelation and is applicable to everyone whether you have a testimony of it or not (and if you don’t have one you need to get one because you’re also not sustaining the prophet). And, I do believe most members believe the priesthood to be some actual authority with actual power that nobody else has.

[Anonymous]

This is a hard one. As a small child I had a default to look at things from different perspectives. To question quietly everything I thought I knew. This was one of them. It didn’t end well for and I didn’t understand why. Growing up at least I can articulate that ya, many people seek a unhealthy dose of certainty to feel secure. Those that do will not be ok with these questions. Those that don’t will be ok on varying levels.

As for the church itself, growing up tells me 100% it was/is threatening. But I have seen changes recently so who knows. It’s way to soon to tell. I wouldn’t risk it again.

Questioning what we think we know is a positive part of life(I’m not talking about just religion here). A way of life. It’s a theology imbedded in so many acclaimed truths we have in the world from Galileo to Albert Einstein to newer people and many more. All the greats ask questions. It’s why we no longer believe in the ether. It’s embedded in out own story of Mormonism, that JS asked questions. A lot if questions. How ever like all established answers with in authority systems. The very questions that start end up being the very questions you can’t ask through dogma. Like JS praying in a grove to begin with, but now God only visits is in temples we are told. At least that’s what I get when I express I like to go to the mountains and pray. The very things that made us who we are are the very things we are discouraged to do today. It’s true of any system of authority. From the beginning of the USA, now the very same government seems to fear the very thing that started the nation could happen to itself and acts accordingly.

Don’t have any easy answers but I do know if children of god are to continue to evolve to solve a Madrid of problems we face and will face the standard answers are not working to solve them. We as in the past will have to continue to ask tough questions to ourselves in order to move forward, to progress to solve these mantid of problems we face. When we do, history shows that the most incredible and enlightening discovers are made. There almost never made by assuming we know what we know. I feel the sane applies to the gospel as well.

But my experience all throughout life tells me to keep those questions to myself or people feel really threatened in their security. Occasionally in work, culture or science too.

[Anonymous]

I agree with what DarkJedi and Forgotten_Charity have said.

The New Testament makes it clear that everyone needs to be baptized and follow Jesus Christ’s teachings to be saved. And then Mormon doctrine adds that your baptism must be done with authority from God, only found in Christ’s modern church reestablished by Joseph Smith. I think the doctrine is clear on these points. See the scripture examples below.

Mormon doctrine also adds temple marriage, as another necessary ordinance we all must eventually do to be saved.

I’m not personally offended by the idea that there is another possible path because I don’t believe there is.

HOWEVER –

Just because we must all enter in the same door (baptism by authority) does not mean we all followed the same path to reach that door.

Nor in my opinion will we all take the same path after that door. There are some basics we must all do – keep the commandments, etc. The way is narrow, in that sense. But when it comes to specifics I think everyone’s path is individual, as far as the choices you face in life and the things you accomplish. Some of us find ourselves in paths that are not the default standard Mormon path we expected to be on.

If you ask me if it’s a good idea to be an active member, then I will say yes definitely.

But none of this mean that Mormons have a monopoly on truth or that Mormons understand everything they have been given so far. I think we Mormons are currently like toddlers trying to take our first steps, as far as our current understanding of the gospel and our current level of development. There is a lot we must learn in the future.

I believe there are truths and good people in most other religions. I have known many non-members who are better people than I. And it’s obvious that God sends good teachers, for example Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, even U2’s Bono. These people can’t be Mormon church members if they are to reach the people they must teach.

Personally, in recent years I have found a lot of value in the practical teachings of Buddhism. (And then listened with delight as Elder Uchdorf has been teaching the same things in recent talks. My wife and I call him Zen Master Elder Uchtdorf.) I don’t believe anything in Buddhism will save me, but they have a lot of wise teachings and helpful tools for someone trying to be a disciple of Jesus.

Orson, let me know if I have responded to everything you wanted an opinion on.

Scriptures examples:

Baptism and Jesus are the only path:

John 3:5: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 7:13-14: Enter ye in at the strait gate: … because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Acts 4:12: There is none other name [besides Christ] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

John 10: 16: There shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

D&C 18.

Authority in the church is needed:

D&C 1 : This is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”

D&C 42:11 “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by someone who has authority.”

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses, they have each given me things to think about.

I agree that the doctrine of authority to perform ordinances has been made clear in the church, I now realize that is the reason I don’t feel comfortable making “out of the box” comments about authority in church. I also realize I don’t have a sense for myself that everything that we teach and understand in church is nailed down tight, this is obviously one of the effects of experiencing a faith crisis with one of the major components coming as a realization that things “nailed down” in the past have since become either unimportant or false doctrine. The principle of continuing revelation tends to do that, and I really appreciate that characteristic of our theology/doctrine.

shoshin wrote:

I’m not personally offended by the idea that there is another possible path because I don’t believe there is.

That is a very interesting comment to me. I really appreciate the confidence and wish more members could honestly feel that confidence. In my opinion it is the lack of this type of confidence that brings unnecessary fear. At times I can get annoyed at an attitude I see that error can be more persuasive than truth. This is my interpretation of the idea that we should avoid or even fear material that would be critical of the church.

I appreciate your interest in other sources of good/truth, and frankly I think that is very Mormon of you.

Edit: I wanted to share my thoughts on that scripture “except a man be born of water and of the spirit…” When I read it in context it has always said to me 1) we are born physically (or “of water”) and then 2) we must be born spiritually – of which baptism is a symbol or representation. The spiritual birth sounds like an awakening to me, and we could never obtain the kingdom of God without it because we would never seek the kingdom of God without it.

One day I heard a sacrament talk that seemed to be saying this very thing, the bishop was nodding his head the whole time. I really enjoyed that.

[Anonymous]

Orson,

I’m happy you found some value in what I said.

I think we should be open to exploring all truth. However, we should also be careful. For example, there are powerful lies and distortions that Satan puts out there, so I tread carefully.

Anti-Mormon websites overflow with this kind of stuff. If I don’t think my faith is strong enough, I won’t enter into a place. However, anti-Mormon teachings can also be quite entertaining – watching all those distorted caricatures of Mormonism and see those straw men dancing around on their puppet strings. LOL

To me, one of the fascinating concepts in Mormonism is that Godly knowledge can injure you if you aren’t ready for it. For example D&C 19:17 “They must not know these things, lest they perish.” So faith is a delicate thing. I think we have to treat knowledge with respect and awe, and nurture our faith sometimes by protecting ourselves from things we aren’t ready to process or understand.

Ultimately and ideally, though, we must learn all knowledge I believe. Having an open mind is an attribute of Mormon doctrine I really am grateful for. See the quotes by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith in my intro. Here’s a key one, which I’ve also seen posted by someone else on this site recently:

For me, the plan of salvation must … circumscribe [all] the knowledge that is upon the face of the earth, or it is not from God. Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil: it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity; it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither.

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:148

[Anonymous]

shoshin wrote:

I’m not personally offended by the idea that there is another possible path because I don’t believe there is.

I’m not offended either, but I think the average elder and maybe a little less so the average high priest probably would be.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is statements like this that cause me to ponder:

shoshin wrote:

…there are powerful lies and distortions that Satan puts out there, so I tread carefully.

What makes a lie “powerful” …and can it become more powerful than truth? If we’re talking about emotional reactions to the information I will agree, but if we are considering the information on its merits I have to say half-truths will be more powerful than lies, but truth will eventually prevail.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Yes, it is statements like this that cause me to ponder:

shoshin wrote:

…there are powerful lies and distortions that Satan puts out there, so I tread carefully.

What makes a lie “powerful” …and can it become more powerful than truth? If we’re talking about emotional reactions to the information I will agree, but if we are considering the information on its merits I have to say half-truths will be more powerful than lies, but truth will eventually prevail.

While I don’t believe in Satan per se, I do believe there is evil and opposition in the world. I do think lies and/or half truths can become more powerful than truth but that truth will prevail in the end. Other than the Satan part, that’s fairly orthodox LDS. I agree that half truths can be more powerful than all out lies because they contain some truth. Antis use that tact all the time – most of the “lies” they tell are not fully false, they take something true and correct and add to it to make it false, but sometimes it’s difficult for those who don’t know the truth to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t (although sometimes I find the lies to be ridiculously absurd). Part of the problem is that many people don’t think it through while we truth seekers tend to think things through. And that, I think, is what makes a lie powerful – it’s believability.

[Anonymous]

I agree that distortions and part-truths can be very damaging. The Book of Mormon musical is a great example (also very entertaining, at least in the parts I can stomach).

But also lies. For example, Joseph Smith in the early days of the church had lots of lies told about him. It got people angry about nothing, and caused people to not listen and to actively persecute the church members. Anti-Mormons spread a lot of lies like this today.

Even something as silly as this: when I lived in Virginia many years ago some people believed Mormons literally had horns. I kid not.

[Author]

Posts