- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I think some of my friends with other churches have trouble with the idea that Mormons feel the spirit!!!
Yeah, Sam, it’s easy to develop a bit of myopia and start labeling some things uniquely Mormon that really are endemic of humanity at large. It’s hard to gain external perspective and a degree of objectivity when experiencing cog dis, disillusion and/or struggle of any kind.
Their notion is that because the Mormon church is so different and “blasphemous”, that the LDS don’t feel the Holy Spirit. I think some of them genuinely do, but there are also many people who think that they do and don’t. Merely enjoying yourself is not the Holy Spirit.
I had this discussion with my TBM brother the other day. He said that I didn’t understand the quote. He said the quote should say, “the one and only true LIVING church.” Whatever. I think I like the car manual example and the star wars example. Both good and insightful.
This term was said a half dozen times during Fast and Testimony meeting a couple of weeks ago. After the meeting, my kids (age 13 and 15) were making snide comments about this exact wordage in youth sunday school. I told them the church is true, and here is why, “it will lead people the right direction to god. It points true.” I threw out the manual lesson and drew a big compass on the board and then talked and read about the Iron Rod and the Liahona, and described the different kind of spiritual paths that one might take. It worked pretty well. My 15 year old made a great observation — she said that it’s important to remember that if one chooses the liahona, it only works for certain people, “in tune” people, and you have to be “close to god” or it doesn’t work at all. That led into the discussion about why we need to be Iron Rod mormons first – SAFETY – and then when we are firmly on the right path, we may feel like we need to choose the Liahona as our guide.
I despise the term “the one and only true church,” but i understand why mormons say it and need it. I occasionally say the church is true, but I never put the “only” in with it. It doesn’t make sense to me, and that phrase does not feel or ring true to me. My Liahona tells me that the mormon church is a true pathway –
one of many.cwald wrote:I told them the church is true, and here is why, “it will lead people the right direction to god. It points true.”
I can accept that idea IF we add the qualifier that it will lead SOME people the right direction to God. It points true from a certain perspective.
I think it’s valid to some degree to say that a pilot in New York headed for London can’t follow the directions meant for a pilot in Rome headed for London. Likewise the LDS Church gives instructions and a program that are helpful and useful for moving a person toward Godliness assuming a certain range of starting positions. For people starting from places outside that range, the instructions either don’t work or don’t lead to Godliness.
I think a religion’s ability to become a world religion depends in part on its ability to expand that range of people for whom it is helpful and useful.
Tom
For what it’s worth, while I’m not making an “only” claim, I certain have been in dead churches which were most definitely NOT true. SamBee wrote:For what it’s worth, while I’m not making an “only” claim, I certain have been in dead churches which were most definitely NOT true.
I can accept that idea IF we add the qualifier that it is dead to SOME people, and definitely NOT true from a certain perspective.(In other words, I agree with Tom and Obi-Wan Kenobi.)Nah, these churches were most definitely dead. For example, in some churches, people were forced to be in them.
I can take as an example the dreadful services I was forced to attend in elementary and high school.
No one wanted to be at them really, the born again pupils thought little of them, the schoolkids sang dirty lyrics to the hymns, and even some of the teachers voiced their complete disbelief.
The sermons were mostly a chance for our principal to tell us all off.
But it was kept on because it was the done thing, not because it was a spiritual one. Atheists were required to attend as well.
I can think of other churches which were dead because of the complete unbelief of the clergyman leading them, and the congregation, completely unchristian practices such as snobbery and crime, or because of a horrible vagueness and lack of direction. And no, I don’t mean the Quakers – they’ve got a certain je ne sais quoi to their church, but I suppose it’s not without its problems too.
I just wanted to bump up this thread from the past on this common topic. We have some new members of our forum now and they might have some new perspectives to add to this discussion. For me, the discussion on pages 1 and 2 were particularly interesting.
What does the group think of Brian’s questions he poses on page 2?
Quote:I think the LDS view of universal salvation is beautiful. The idea is very satisfying to the soul. Ray knows my point on this subject from other discussions. We teach that mortality is a vital experience on the path to exaltation. It is often presented as a grand test of obedience. Will we obey the commandments? Ritual saving ordinances are also stressed. Yet 99.99% of all the spirits that pass through this life get no benefit from it (so it would logically seem) since they never hear the “one true gospel,” receive the ordinances, the priesthood or even hear of the man named Jesus Christ.
The whole mess has to be fixed on the backend with temple work while they are taught missonary lessons in spirit prison. So what was the point of a mortal life?
The problem begs the question. Why? Life must other values instead of (or in addition to) a Mormon obedience test. How necessary is a church that almost nobody who ever lived attended? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody saw it, does it matter?
Boy I hope I get my thoughts written correctly. For me the idea of progressing to God status has always had appeal, not because I wanted to be all powerful, but in the grandparent, great grandparent type idea. If the idea of becoming as a god playes out as I like to internalize it, I get to guide someone else through a mortal existence from a post mortal place. (I can even imagine this in an angel form instead of God.) But for me Brian’s question on earth purpose becomes more than a test of obedience. To me the test of obedience part has merit, just like any test the more you study or experience, etc, the more likely you are to do better in “final exam”. You know graduate – Earth Cum Laude. I see life more has a lesson, with multiple mini lessons in it. Some of them I will understand, embrace, apply and succeed in – others, no matter what it may be a lesson I have to re learn. But with eternal growth I can take my lessons and experience and tutor someone else. For me I get to lean my vision into the LDS frame work. It’s the only frame work that I can claim my idea and not be completely rejected on. And maybe this tiny church is that for some of us, The only one and true, because it’s a place that it’s weird doctrines support an undescribable place in our visions of life.
I read a great quote from Mark Twain (surprise!) the other day. It went something like Quote:The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is as well.
I also read this one:
Quote:
The ability to quote is a servicable substitute for wit.I don’t even know what this is suppose to mean , “the one and only true church…” blah blah blah… (yeah, I read my response from two years ago) I don’t believe it – the
one truenonsense – at all. And I don’t have to. Perhaps the LDS church is just one more pathway, one of many, that man/woman can use to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next. Other than that – I don’t care anymore.
cwald wrote:I don’t believe it – the
one truenonsense – at all. And I don’t have to. Perhaps the LDS church is just one more pathway, one of many, that man/woman can use to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next. Other than that – I don’t care anymore.
:thumbup: cwald wrote:I don’t even know what this is suppose to mean , “the one and only true church…” blah blah blah… (yeah, I read my response from two years ago)
I don’t believe it – the
one truenonsense – at all. And I don’t have to. Perhaps the LDS church is just one more pathway, one of many, that man/woman can use to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next. Other than that – I don’t care anymore.
I was talking to one of my former bishops, a very close friend. For years as a joke, I have asked him if the Church is still true. THe other sunday, he responded, “What does that word mean…’true’?” It’s interesting, because his wife has been delving into church history and is completely incensed about the ‘principle’.Words have something to say, otherwise they’re just air. When we say something is ‘true’, then truth may have something to do with it. To me, there is significant directional truth in the church. there are also a number of ‘non-truths’ that can and do lead people astray. To say ‘the church is true’, or ‘the one and only true church’ is misleading without the qualifier that accepts the humanity of its leaders and expression of doctrine.
I don’t use the term any longer.
Bumping up this thread, since it has the most comments on this topic. Thanks Ray – I’ll have a read through these. I guess D&C 1:30 has become somewhat of a thorny issue for me. I’m glad that we’re not asked in the TR interview this question directly: “Do you believe this Church is the “only true and living church” on the earth?” I might struggle a little on that. I’m willing to say there are “but two churches” but I don’t think the the church of the Lamb is mormonism. I think a buddhist/muslim/atheist can all find themselves within the church of the lamb based on their values and behaviour. I believe that Mormonism is the most effective vehicle for me to stay on the path towards the lamb. But I don’t think it’s effective for everybody.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.