Is Exclusive Truth Bad?

[Verum]

I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts about the various perceptions that exist concerning the church’s claims to exclusive truths. I don’t think Mormons believe that the church is the only one with truth, but instead that it has claim to the most truth. In other words, the church believes that through its doctrine and teachings, one can receive the most correct answers to the following 3 golden questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? And, with that knowledge, if the desire is to return to the presence of a Father in Heaven, the church claims to provide the best answer to the question – How do we get there? As the church claims to have the most correct answers to these questions, it is the primary reason it qualifies itself as being the “one and only” true church. Is this a fair description?

There are many members (and non-members) of the church, probably the more liberal Mormons or those on the fringes (of which I am a part of), who would like the church to be more inclusive in its truth claims or teachings. One argument for more inclusivity is that claiming a “one and only” true church creates an “us vs them” mentality that by nature creates an exclusionary and judgmental environment. Another argument is based on the fact that only a small percentage of the world population is LDS, and by claiming exclusive truth, many of God’s children are left out, unless they in many cases radically change their beliefs in order to join the fold, which seems like a very unrealistic expectation that an all-loving God would have on his children. Thus, many are advocating that the church should be more tolerant and liberal in its claims and teachings in order to give room for a diversity of belief and interpretation that would allow more of God’s children to have access to exaltation here on earth and to God’s love.

My thoughts – I don’t think that truth is an inclusive reality. For example, I can believe all I want that 2 +2 = 100, even it it makes me feel good, but the reality is that 2 + 2 = 4. I know this is incredibly simplistic, but here me out a little bit. Even if, hypothetically speaking, the answer to the problem of 2 + 2 had not been discovered yet in the field of mathematics, wouldn’t it be the goal that every mathematician would ultimately strive for? We work toward truth. We want concrete answers to life's "golden" question. This is why I believe it is noble and worthy for any religion or church to ultimately strive for the "one and only" truth as a goal, because the closer one is to having it, the more one progresses.

But that is the key distinction in my opinion—CLAIMING exclusive truth versus STRIVING FOR it. I have no problem with the ideal or goal of a church one day claiming to be the “one and only” true church, my problem is the church’s ability to CLAIM exclusive truth, mainly because: 1) belief in religious truth claims is based on hope and faith which implies that there is always a level of uncertainty, 2) the church’s doctrines and beliefs have evolved over time and continue to evolve which to me is an indicator that we have yet to arrive to exclusive truth, and 3) it assumes that God only has one form of revealed truth and one medium to reveal it but could actually be revealing conflicting truths to various people as a means to bring to pass his work. So, isn’t there a case for allowing for more liberality or diversity of belief? But not for the sake of inclusivity, but instead for the sake of humility and openness to the idea that other beliefs may also bring us closer to the truth.

Maybe it’s just the agnostic in me….

Your thoughts welcomed!

Edited February 20, 2012 by Verum

[Buzzard]

You can argue-and reasonably so-how much truth is found in other religions. You could even have a lot of fun with doctrine vs. policy, and how much personal views, prejudices, and cultural context factor in on the things our leaders say-or even the policies they promulgate. I think it is obvious that God does not micromanage the church, and that imperfect humans have not always been perfect in leading wards, stakes, or even the church.

But there is one thing that is both clear and non-negotiable. The LDS church is the only one that has the priesthood authority to perform the ordinances that have the power to bring us back into God's presence. And while God hears and answers the prayers of all his children, this same authority means that only in the LDS church do we have the power to act in his name, or in the case of President Monson, speak in his name for the whole world. (Even if most of the world or even most of the church is not listening.)

IMHO, if you don't believe that, you might as well be a Methodist. They are a lot cheaper, and from what I understand, have the best potlucks around.

[stemelbow]

There are many members (and non-members) of the church, probably the more liberal Mormons or those on the fringes (of which I am a part of), who would like the church to be more inclusive in its truth claims or teachings. One argument for more inclusivity is that claiming a “one and only” true church creates an “us vs them” mentality that by nature creates an exclusionary and judgmental environment. Another argument is based on the fact that only a small percentage of the world population is LDS, and by claiming exclusive truth, many of God’s children are left out, unless they in many cases radically change their beliefs in order to join the fold, which seems like a very unrealistic expectation that an all-loving God would have on his children. Thus, many are advocating that the church should be more tolerant and liberal in its claims and teachings in order to give room for a diversity of belief and interpretation that would allow more of God’s children to have access to exaltation here on earth and to God’s love.

I have very similar ideas as you. There is too much use and good in the world outside of the Church to stick to closely with exclusivity. I maintain the Church holds an important message for the world, but the message is often less unique then we wish to make it.

[BCSpace]

The LDS Church is totally and completely exclusive in that it claims to be the only Church that carries the authority and ordinances and teachings to attain eternal life. And yes, we should maintain this claim because 1) it's the truth, and 2) it's the only rational and logical way God can not be a liar and a respector of persons, and 3) you will not get more interest in the Church any other way.

Edited February 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[rodheadlee]

Verum, you miss the main point, it's His Church. Jesus Christ's Church, He started it or re-started as the case may be.

[mfbukowski]

Well I thought I'd go ahead and jump into this one for a bit.

Welcome to the board- I think a few of the things you said are unclear- at least I do not fully understand your questions

I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts about the various perceptions that exist concerning the church’s claims to exclusive truths. I don’t think Mormons believe that the church is the only one with truth, but instead that it has claim to the most truth. In other words, the church believes that through its doctrine and teachings, one can receive the most correct answers to the following 3 golden questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? And, with that knowledge, if the desire is to return to the presence of a Father in Heaven, the church claims to provide the best answer to the question – How do we get there? As the church claims to have the most correct answers to these questions, it is the primary reason it qualifies itself as being the “one and only” true church. Is this a fair description?

Mostly. But I think that no other church- Christian church that is- in fact TRIES to answer those questions. Catholicism and Protestantism doesn't attempt to answer "where did we come from" at all- we are created beings- and they have poor answers in my opinion to the purpose of the creation in the first place.

But also notice, that here you are asserting that the LDS church "claims to have the BEST answers to those questions"- and not that you are not asserting then that they have the ONLY or the "exclusive" answer to those questions.

There are many members (and non-members) of the church, probably the more liberal Mormons or those on the fringes (of which I am a part of), who would like the church to be more inclusive in its truth claims or teachings. One argument for more inclusivity is that claiming a “one and only” true church creates an “us vs them” mentality that by nature creates an exclusionary and judgmental environment. Another argument is based on the fact that only a small percentage of the world population is LDS, and by claiming exclusive truth, many of God’s children are left out, unless they in many cases radically change their beliefs in order to join the fold, which seems like a very unrealistic expectation that an all-loving God would have on his children. Thus, many are advocating that the church should be more tolerant and liberal in its claims and teachings in order to give room for a diversity of belief and interpretation that would allow more of God’s children to have access to exaltation here on earth and to God’s love.

Now wait a minute... now you are saying the church claims not the "best" explanation, but the "exclusively correct" interpretation and that itself excludes others. Which is it, the best or the exclusive truth?

My thoughts – I don’t think that truth is an inclusive reality. For example, I can believe all I want that 2 +2 = 100, even it it makes me feel good, but the reality is that 2 + 2 = 4. I know this is incredibly simplistic, but here me out a little bit. Even if, hypothetically speaking, the answer to the problem of 2 + 2 had not been discovered yet in the field of mathematics, wouldn’t it be the goal that every mathematician would ultimately strive for? We work toward truth. We want concrete answers to life's "golden" question. This is why I believe it is noble and worthy for any religion or church to ultimately strive for the "one and only" truth as a goal, because the closer one is to having it, the more one progresses.

Well frankly, I think this is a pretty vague understanding of the nature of "truth". Mathematical certainty has little to do with most questions in life, and accepting the truths of the gospel on faith, as we do, has nothing at all to do with mathematical certainty. Justified true beliefs based on one's experiences are not the same as a priori truths which are derived from definitions. What we MEAN by "1+2" is that it "equals 2". Those things are true by definition- like the fact that all bachelors are unmarried. Propositions which are called true based on experiences which give rise to justified true beliefs are totally different from that.

But that is the key distinction in my opinion—CLAIMING exclusive truth versus STRIVING FOR it. I have no problem with the ideal or goal of a church one day claiming to be the “one and only” true church, my problem is the church’s ability to CLAIM exclusive truth,....

Not quite sure what you mean by "exclusive truth" here. Does that mean that the church exclusively has that truth? Or that no one else believes that about any other church? I don't think there are any beliefs in the LDS church has which are not also found in other churches. And furthermore you have only claimed in your opening paragraph that the church claims only the "best" explanation all in one place- the most truth in one set of totaly beliefs. That does not sound "exclusive" to me.

.... mainly because: 1) belief in religious truth claims is based on hope and faith which implies that there is always a level of uncertainty, 2) the church’s doctrines and beliefs have evolved over time and continue to evolve which to me is an indicator that we have yet to arrive to exclusive truth

This is why I think that "exclusive truth" idea is confusing you

....and 3) it assumes that God only has one form of revealed truth and one medium to reveal it but could actually be revealing conflicting truths to various people as a means to bring to pass his work. So, isn’t there a case for allowing for more liberality or diversity of belief? But not for the sake of inclusivity, but instead for the sake of humility and openness to the idea that other beliefs may also bring us closer to the truth.

Again- it seems this conflicts with your first paragraph- that we claim only the "best" explanations all in one place. I'm definitely having problems squaring your opening paragraph with all this "exclusive" stuff- which you leave undefined.

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate your distinction about striving for truth and claiming truth; however, the striving that we must all do is to live the truths we know. That is the challenge for all mankind. The Church does not claim to have all truth and that is where we have the blessing of learning from the truths taught by other churches and religions.

In addition, I agree with the other posters that it is the authority to act in God's name that demands exclusivity. It can be no other way. There is no alternative but to claim it; Christ restored his church on the earth. It remains regardless of the shortcomings of its members and leaders.

It would be a great talk for Sacrament meeting...do not be lulled into complacency by our testimonies of being members of the true church. It is not in knowing truth, but living that truth that is so vital to becoming like our Savior.

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate your distinction about striving for truth and claiming truth; however, the striving that we must all do is to live the truths we know. That is the challenge for all mankind. The Church does not claim to have all truth and that is where we have the blessing of learning from the truths taught by other churches and religions.

In addition, I agree with the other posters that it is the authority to act in God's name that demands exclusivity. It can be no other way. There is no alternative but to claim it; Christ restored his church on the earth. It remains regardless of the shortcomings of its members and leaders.

It would be a great talk for Sacrament meeting...do not be lulled into complacency by our testimonies of being members of the true church. It is not in knowing truth, but living that truth that is so vital to becoming like our Savior.

Agreed. And also you are clearly right about authority. It almost seems the very defintion of "authority" is the implication that if one has it, then others don't.

Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. We have the best collection of beliefs, mixed with exclusive authority. The idea of "exclusive truth" is a confusion.

Edited February 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Verum]

Good comments. I need to clarify a little bit…

I definitely think my usage of the word “exclusive” to truth is a little confusing. I probably meant “absolute” truth instead. Absolute is an unalterable, permanent fact that is universal but is exclusionary in nature of other conflicting perceptions of “truth.” For example, the church either has an unbroken line of priesthood authority given exclusively to the church, or it does not. Accepting this as an absolute truth must also mean that one accept that any other church claiming any such authority does not have it. Many members take issue with this exclusionary form of doctrine, but I do not. I believe that absolute truth does exist, and that it is noble for a person, church, religion, etc. to seek for absolute truth. I also agree that if the church didn’t strive for absolute truth, fewer people would be interested in joining.

There exists absolute truth, but the question to me is the likelihood of being able to fully impose truth as absolute to the world if it is almost entirely verifiable based on personal experience. For example, I may be able to absolutely believe that the church has exclusive priesthood authority, but that is relative since it is only verified through my own personal experience. Can others experience this same thing? Sure, but since verifying this specific religious truth is highly dependent on profound personal experience, it is unreasonable to expect that every one of God’s children that reject it as absolute truth should suffer eternal consequences. Thus, we don’t have to stop absolutely believing in religious truths, but instead should be more sympathetic to conflicting beliefs and interpretations, which means acknowledging that people who reject the gospel when presented may not be prevented from entering God’s presence.