Who has read Jeff Strong why people leave and what we can learn from them?

[Navidad]

On 8/15/2026 at 1:51 PM, bluebell said:

True, kind of.

When the church has been around for as long as it has, starting to disseminate a more accurate history in the late 90s (being generous) isn't really 'a while'.  It's the last 30 years (again, if we are generous).   It's an awesome thing that I am so grateful for, but it's also fairly recent, all things considered.

There are a lot of reasons that even the generous estimates for transparency don't always hold up.  For example, before it was closed down for renovations around 2023 the Beehive House tour focused on teaching about FHE, trying to give away copies of the Book of Mormon, and testifying of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The tour guides followed a script that pretended BY had one wife and polygamy wasn't a thing.  They even went out of their way to point out "BY's wife's" bedroom.  When I asked (a very friendly and not at all contentious) question about how polygamy worked in the house (I was getting my history degree at the time and was legitimately curious) with just the one wife's bedroom, the sister missionaries had no idea what to say and tried hard to move on and sidestep the question.  Thankfully my family was the only people on the tour so the sisters weren't embarrassed or anything.   Also thankfully, we are a very active family and the sidestepping didn't impact any of our feelings about the church or the gospel it teaches.  My opinion of its 'historical' tours took a hit though. 

I've heard that the tours are going to be historically accurate once it reopens to the public.  Hopefully that is true.  The reviews for the place are really bad on tripadvisor and yelp because the tour promised was not the tour that was delivered and being more open about the history will go a long way to fix that I think.  But, it's still the case that if these changes do happen, they are happening in 2026.  Again, that's not 'for a while'.  That's recent.

I think our leaders understand the need for more transparency now and are very happy to work on getting things right.  The correlated materials now prize accuracy over faith-promoting and that's a very good thing.  I agree that some critics of the church like to really focus on the church "lying" and refuse to acknowledge the information that did exist or the changes that have been rolled out over the years.  Some also tend to not like to discuss how their own family dynamics growing up led to some (or sometimes many) of their issues with the church.

But, we don't need to fall into the all bad vs. all good dichotomy.  If a critic cannot acknowledge anything good from the church or the gospel then that is their own issue.  We don't have to lay the other side of the coin on thick to counter them.  We don't have to defend mistakes just because it's a critic pointing them out. 

 

I hope this response comes across well. . . . Back sometime around 2019 ( I may have the date wrong) or so, I had a VIP tour (just me) of the Beehive House given by the managing director of Temple Square. I think that was his title. I don't remember his name. I was speaking at some meeting in SLC and for some reason, was provided a wonderful tour by an obviously very well-informed church leader who took me anywhere he wanted in the house.

He was a friend of Reid Neilson, who at that time was managing director of the church history department. He later was a mission president and now a leader at BYU. I mention him because I hope he is a friend, but more importantly, a really Godly man who taught me some good lessons while having lunch here in our home in the colonies. No one can ever tell me that members of the LDS church are not Godly after my time with Reid Neilson and my many hours with the bishop of our ward here in Colonia Juárez. Perhaps Reid is the one who arranged the tour for me, or perhaps it was Elder Snow. I really don't remember, and I guess that isn't relevant. 

What was important was that I had a very open and candid tour of all parts of the property. I would describe it as more than just historically accurate. I was grateful for the time and opportunity. I believe that was the trip where I was told that Elder Bednar is my first cousin thirteen times removed! I also got to sing in an impromptu choir in the choir loft of the tabernacle. I was seated in front of the bass pipes. I was glad I had given my talk the day before because I don't think I could hear anything for a week. I got to sit next to two great singers and LDS historians, the Shepherd brothers. Their work on General Conference talks is still one of the best.

Anyway, I just want to say all this to say that everyone I met was very open and candid about church history. I enjoyed my time there very much. If I remember right, I was put up at a Radisson hotel right off Temple Square and walked to a Sheraton Hotel somewhere a few blocks away for the conference. There was a Chinese restaurant in between that I really liked. I guess that is enough of my walk down memory lane. All of this to say that in 2017, 18, or 19 . . . Whenever it was, I was very pleased with the kindness and historical openness shared with this non-member! 

[manol]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Very well said. I consider myself to be a “wideness in God's Mercy" kind of a Christian. That term comes from an old hymn that I really treasure. Here are the words,

1. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
   Like the wideness of the sea;
   There’s a kindness in God’s justice,
   Which is more than liberty.
2. There is welcome for the sinner,
   And more graces for the good;
   There is mercy with the Savior,
   There is healing in His blood.
3. But we make God’s love too narrow
   By false limits of our own,
   And we magnify its strictness
   With a zeal God will not own.
4. For the love of God is broader
   Than the measures of the mind,
   And the heart of the Eternal
   Is most wonderfully kind.
5. If our love were but more simple,
   We should rest upon God’s word,
   And our lives would be illumined
   By the presence of our Lord.
   
   "If our love were but more simple.". . . . I'll say Amen to that! The song is by Frederick Faber from 1862. Oh, and if anyone is interested—Faber was an Anglican migrant to Roman Catholicism. So he was a religious migrant seventeen years before he wrote this song as a faithful Roman Catholic! I like that!

Beautiful message in those lyrics indeed, THANK YOU Navidad! 

Below is a link to a blog post by a near-death experiencer writing about love.  He does not come from a religious background, but he ends up in a similar place to where Frederick Faber takes us in that inspired hymn.  Here's a quick quote, as a preview:

"Love everyone where they are. Not where you wish they would be."

Love (jonathanashford.com)

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hope this response comes across well. . . . Back sometime around 2019 ( I may have the date wrong) or so, I had a VIP tour (just me) of the Beehive House given by the managing director of Temple Square. I think that was his title. I don't remember his name. I was speaking at some meeting in SLC and for some reason, was provided a wonderful tour by an obviously very well-informed church leader who took me anywhere he wanted in the house.

He was a friend of Reid Neilson, who at that time was managing director of the church history department. He later was a mission president and now a leader at BYU. I mention him because I hope he is a friend, but more importantly, a really Godly man who taught me some good lessons while having lunch here in our home in the colonies. No one can ever tell me that members of the LDS church are not Godly after my time with Reid Neilson and my many hours with the bishop of our ward here in Colonia Juárez. Perhaps Reid is the one who arranged the tour for me, or perhaps it was Elder Snow. I really don't remember, and I guess that isn't relevant. 

What was important was that I had a very open and candid tour of all parts of the property. I would describe it as more than just historically accurate. I was grateful for the time and opportunity. I believe that was the trip where I was told that Elder Bednar is my first cousin thirteen times removed! I also got to sing in an impromptu choir in the choir loft of the tabernacle. I was seated in front of the bass pipes. I was glad I had given my talk the day before because I don't think I could hear anything for a week. I got to sit next to two great singers and LDS historians, the Shepherd brothers. Their work on General Conference talks is still one of the best.

Anyway, I just want to say all this to say that everyone I met was very open and candid about church history. I enjoyed my time there very much. If I remember right, I was put up at a Radisson hotel right off Temple Square and walked to a Sheraton Hotel somewhere a few blocks away for the conference. There was a Chinese restaurant in between that I really liked. I guess that is enough of my walk down memory lane. All of this to say that in 2017, 18, or 19 . . . Whenever it was, I was very pleased with the kindness and historical openness shared with this non-member! 

Very good to know.  The last time I went through was probably around 2010 or 2011.  It sounds like it has already gotten a lot better.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Very good to know.  The last time I went through was probably around 2010 or 2011.  It sounds like it has already gotten a lot better.

It's hard to know about change though, since his was a special VIP tour for him specifically and given by the managing director of Temple Square.  Not a general, every day tour. 

The weird thing is I know something like 20/25 years ago they did talk about the other wives when I went. And I think (though I'm not sure) in later years when I went again they didn't, just like you experienced.  So why they had it, but then didn't have it,  I don't know. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It's hard to know about change though, since his was a special VIP tour for him specifically and given by the managing director of Temple Square.  Not a general, every day tour. 

The weird thing is I know something like 20/25 years ago they did talk about the other wives when I went. And I think (though I'm not sure) in later years when I went again they didn't, just like you experienced.  So why they had it, but then didn't have it,  I don't know. 

Different mission presidents I bet or whoever makes the decision.

Edited Tuesday at 03:52 AM by Calm

[BlipBlap]

On 8/16/2026 at 9:46 PM, bluebell said:

I think other posters have already said this, but most other churches don't believe they are the 'only true and living church'.  They almost all believe that Creedal Christianity is the only true belief system, but that is different than what we claim.  Many don't have leaders that claim to speak for God either.  They claim inspiration and authority from God to lead (either through an extension of papal authority--if I understand that right--or through the priesthood of all believers and feeling called to lead), but that is another thing that is very different from what we claim.

I don't know that we are more open about our history than most, maybe.  Most Christian religions have the luxury of much older history for sure, and that does blunt its impact a lot.  But our unique claims of authority and revelation mean that our history can hit differently, depending how someone interprets those claims.  We just can't remove the obstacles that our history can present to people by pointing to other Christian churches.  That's a chapter in the discussion but it's not the whole discussion.  

They most certainly do believe such, regardless of whether they say it out loud or not.  If they did not believe such, there would be no separate denominations.  There would be no such thing as "heresy", for none would believe themselves to have the authority to declare anything as such.

[BlipBlap]

On 8/16/2026 at 4:08 PM, Calm said:

No, they don’t.  They may claim to be true (and even that is not precise) but not all claim uniqueness in being the “one true church”.  

And technically (at least for revealed truth) it’s “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” which may not be the same thing.

https://benspackman.com/2017/01/quick-thoughts-dc-130-true-living-church/

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70969-what-does-it-mean-that-this-is-the-true-church/page/2/#findComment-1209849454

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69911-one-true-church-virtue-or-vice/page/12/#findComment-1209789097

added:  I see Navidad already addressed this sufficiently 
 

Another distinction without a difference.  They can't all be "true" and yet all be different.  

[BlipBlap]

On 8/16/2026 at 3:28 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Not every church necessarily claims that. And the Catholic Church doesn’t jump through hoops; it most definitely openly states it. 

You can read all about the Catholic Church’s history. How are we not open about our history? It’s the history of Europe. 

Which is an absolute shame. 

Which was absolutely wrong and terrible, as stated by 2 popes who condemned it and asked forgiveness. 

Earlier you spoke against presentism. You might consider that here, too. Also size and politics come into play. Finally, there were the Danites. 

A claim doesn't have to be made.  All you have to do is look at how they behave.  

You aren't open about your history precisely because you spent hundreds of years torturing and murdering dissenters and anyone deemed infidel while burning their material.  Material that is objectively part of your history.  Hilarious that you ask that and then the very next line you respond to is you stating how you think it's a shame.

Where is presentism an issue here, precisely?  How does invoking presentism make a difference?  I'm going to assume you're referring to my commentary on how using presentism when discussing the marriage of "underage" women, so imagine being so desperate for a point that you have to conflate a long-standing practice across the entire planet built out of a need for the survival of the species to a statist "church" making laws in order to justify killing their political rivals.  At this point, you might as well be doing the "Everything Hitler did was legal" meme unironically. 

Also, what about the Danites?  Are you going to try to claim that they were officially supported by the LDS church?  Can you show evidence that any of their activities were officially sanctioned by the LDS church, particularly the more infamous ones like Mountain Meadows?

Even if they were, you'd still have to hand-wave away the orders of magnitude of difference between them and the historical Catholic church.  Meanwhile, your church quite literally has it's own official army and has co-opted those of entire nations more than once.  Trying to act like they're anywhere near the same is peak disingenuousness.

[BlipBlap]

On 8/16/2026 at 11:12 AM, Navidad said:

I would quietly suggest that your first statement does not represent the truth. Of the thousands of Christian groups in the world, I would suggest that very few insist that they are "the one true church." I would suggest that most suggest they are "a true church," and most probably are. As far as their leaders claiming to be speaking the word of God, I would agree with you, with the caveat that various leaders would claim that with varying amounts of humility, certainty, and confidence. When I pastored, I prayed  every week that I would have wisdom and judgment in my teaching and preaching ministry. I recognized that on many points of doctrine, my teachings were just one view of many. I have also learned that just within the LDS church, local leaders, like bishops and stake presidents, have varying understandings of both scripture and the church general handbook, which on a local level. the interpretation is often varied. I should welcome you to the forum. So welcome! We are a widely diverse group with many varying degrees of beliefs and certainty in our midst. Oh, and as far as Hus; his case is quite a bit more complicated than you make it. I thoroughly enjoy the Moravian history and teachings. The Catholic Church, in the person of a recent pope, has apologized for his death. In fact, my wife and I just watched a Moravian church service from Pennsylvania this morning. As far as Arius, you can look up on Cambridge University websites his extant letters and other documents, which offer an excellent summary of his doctrinal beliefs. 

I would not-so-quietly state that it does represent the truth.  Again, you're acting as if actions mean nothing.  Were that not the case, there would've been no pogroms against "heretics" or "infidels".  Were that not the case,  there would either be no individual denominations at all, or they would be far, far fewer in number.  Why do you think the various schisms happened?  Why do you think the Reformation happened (also an interesting question to ask Reformed believers when discussing the topic of the Great Apostasy).

Varying interpretation has little to do with the concept of "the one true church".  I don't recall anyone claiming that no such thing existed in the LDS church or any other.

Whether it's "quite a bit more complicated" or not doesn't seem to detract from the fact that he was lured in under false pretenses and subsequently murdered as an official act for being a dissenter.  An apology hundreds of years afterwards doesn't negate that fact.  Do note that I'm not attempting to hold any modern people accountable, but the act itself can't be ignored when discussing history.

The documents at Cambridge only summarize themselves.  Whether they give a full, accurate accounting of his beliefs remains to be seen.  Even then, what would that matter?  The fact that any were destroyed at all as an act sanctioned by the Catholic church is the problem.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

They most certainly do believe such, regardless of whether they say it out loud or not.  If they did not believe such, there would be no separate denominations.  There would be no such thing as "heresy", for none would believe themselves to have the authority to declare anything as such.

I’ve spent enough time with people telling me, as a latter-day saint, what I actually believe that it’s a red flag to me when a Latter Day Saint does it to someone else.  We have to be really careful not to create a double standard in these kinds of conversations, where it’s ok if we do something to someone else that we would never tolerate them doing to us.

There are obviously some independent denominations out there that do believe they are the only right ones. There have certainly been times in the past (and in places even now) when persecution between denominations was intense.  Some of that had more to do with cultural heritage rather than doctrinal disputes.  It’s messy  

But most (I was very careful in my work choice there) do not view church and Christianity through that lens.  A Presbyterian may think that a Methodist is wrong in some of their beliefs, but, generally speaking, they don’t have a problem considering them to be Christian. 

I’m curious why it’s so important to you that they do?  It’s seems like a weird hill to die on. 

[Tony uk]

In Britain, over the last few centuries, there has been issues regarding denomination. Over time, culture and history gets dragged into the debate. In time it becomes, in my opinion, a never ending argument of, you say this, and I say that, with both sides constantly finger pointing at each other, fault finding and points scoring on each other.

 The last few years, things have begun to settle down. People learning to co exist with each other. It is easier, I find, to accept all people are individuals, with both independent, and also shared beliefs. 

[BlipBlap]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’ve spent enough time with people telling me, as a latter-day saint, what I actually believe that it’s a red flag to me when a Latter Day Saint does it to someone else.  We have to be really careful not to create a double standard in these kinds of conversations, where it’s ok if we do something to someone else that we would never tolerate them doing to us.

There are obviously some independent denominations out there that do believe they are the only right ones. There have certainly been times in the past (and in places even now) when persecution between denominations was intense.  Some of that had more to do with cultural heritage rather than doctrinal disputes.  It’s messy  

But most (I was very careful in my work choice there) do not view church and Christianity through that lens.  A Presbyterian may think that a Methodist is wrong in some of their beliefs, but, generally speaking, they don’t have a problem considering them to be Christian. 

I’m curious why it’s so important to you that they do?  It’s seems like a weird hill to die on. 

This isn't me "telling them what they believe", this is looking at behavior.  

"Considering them to be Christian" is not equivalent to "not considering themselves the one true church".  Again, why do these denominations exist at all?  It's precisely because their founders believed that they were correct and that everyone else was wrong.  There is no reason for them to exist otherwise.

Why are those "independent denominations" "independent"?  Gee, it's almost like they do not believe (be that belief expressed explicitly by statement or implicitly by behavior) that the larger, more organized groups are correct.

Maybe "most do not view church and Christianity through that lens", but that seems to be more a product of cultural inertia than due to any appraisal of individual (by "individual", I mean each denomination) theology.

Who said that this is "important" to me?  Are you presuming that responses to a topic indicate some kind of importance?  It seems to be an even weirder hill to die on that you have to attribute some kind of personal reason to my stance.

Why is it so important to you that they don't believe themselves to be "the one true church", contrary to their actions and in many cases their own theology?

[Tony uk]

5 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

This isn't me "telling them what they believe", this is looking at behavior.  

"Considering them to be Christian" is not equivalent to "not considering themselves the one true church".  Again, why do these denominations exist at all?  It's precisely because their founders believed that they were correct and that everyone else was wrong.  There is no reason for them to exist otherwise.

Why are those "independent denominations" "independent"?  Gee, it's almost like they do not believe (be that belief expressed explicitly by statement or implicitly by behavior) that the larger, more organized groups are correct.

Maybe "most do not view church and Christianity through that lens", but that seems to be more a product of cultural inertia than due to any appraisal of individual (by "individual", I mean each denomination) theology.

Who said that this is "important" to me?  Are you presuming that responses to a topic indicate some kind of importance?  It seems to be an even weirder hill to die on that you have to attribute some kind of personal reason to my stance.

Why is it so important to you that they don't believe themselves to be "the one true church", contrary to their actions and in many cases their own theology?

Maybe the founders of these independent Churches considered themselves to be correct, and Christian, because they felt that they were the one true Church.

Edited 10 hours ago by Tony uk
Grammar issue

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

This isn't me "telling them what they believe", this is looking at behavior.  

"Considering them to be Christian" is not equivalent to "not considering themselves the one true church".  Again, why do these denominations exist at all?  It's precisely because their founders believed that they were correct and that everyone else was wrong.  There is no reason for them to exist otherwise.

I'll try to clarify. 

It is equivalent to them not considering themselves to be the true church because the disagreement has no bearing on their beliefs about what will be happening to each of them in the next life.

While the presbyterian may believe the methodist or the baptist is wrong on some points of doctrine or belief, they generally don't believe that translates into a need for the methodist or the baptist to change anything in order to receive eternal life or be saved.  There probably was a time (and in some independent congregations I'm sure that time is right now) where the doctrinal differences were much more tied to heavenly consequences.  Most of the big denominations came to existence during a time when people were very much trying to find the 'correct' gospel and they persist today, even though the members don't usually hold to the same perspective, for a lot of different reasons.

My husband grew up very active Lutheran.  He began investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when the pastor of his church was kicked out due to disagreements with the ruling church council and they wanted to hire someone else.  The pastor that was booted started his own congregation and took a large chunk of the other congregation with him (while my husband started taking the missionary discussions and moved on). 

That's one example of why so many different protestant churches exist and it has nothing to do with the old Lutheran congregation believing that they were the only true church, nor the new Lutheran congregation believing they were the only true church. (I was shocked to learn just how many different kinds of Lutheran churches there are!).  

Quote

Why are those "independent denominations" "independent"?  Gee, it's almost like they do not believe (be that belief expressed explicitly by statement or implicitly by behavior) that the larger, more organized groups are correct.

As an aside, I'm not sure that 'snotty' is the tone that you want to be conveying right now, but it's what's coming through so just be aware.  Sometimes we don't realize the tone that our posts have and I'm guessing you aren't here to do more harm than good.

Quote

Why is it so important to you that they don't believe themselves to be "the one true church", contrary to their actions and in many cases their own theology?

Accuracy is important to me.  I've seen to many members become the worst enemies of the gospel of Christ because of they way they speak and act when trying to defend it.  I have been that person in the past and all that comes from it is bad fruit.

[BlipBlap]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'll try to clarify. 

It is equivalent to them not considering themselves to be the true church because the disagreement has no bearing on their beliefs about what will be happening to each of them in the next life.

While the presbyterian may believe the methodist or the baptist is wrong on some points of doctrine or belief, they generally don't believe that translates into a need for the methodist or the baptist to change anything in order to receive eternal life or be saved.  There probably was a time (and in some independent congregations I'm sure that time is right now) where the doctrinal differences were much more tied to heavenly consequences.  Most of the big denominations came to existence during a time when people were very much trying to find the 'correct' gospel and they persist today, even though the members don't usually hold to the same perspective, for a lot of different reasons.

My husband grew up very active Lutheran.  He began investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when the pastor of his church was kicked out due to disagreements with the ruling church council and they wanted to hire someone else.  The pastor that was booted started his own congregation and took a large chunk of the other congregation with him (while my husband started taking the missionary discussions and moved on). 

That's one example of why so many different protestant churches exist and it has nothing to do with the old Lutheran congregation believing that they were the only true church, nor the new Lutheran congregation believing they were the only true church. (I was shocked to learn just how many different kinds of Lutheran churches there are!).  

As an aside, I'm not sure that 'snotty' is the tone that you want to be conveying right now, but it's what's coming through so just be aware.  Sometimes we don't realize the tone that our posts have and I'm guessing you aren't here to do more harm than good.

Accuracy is important to me.  I've seen to many members become the worst enemies of the gospel of Christ because of they way they speak and act when trying to defend it.  I have been that person in the past and all that comes from it is bad fruit.

That also isn't accurate.  Reformed/Calvinist denominations believe in a concept of unconditional election.  What this means is that God chooses who to save and that humans, based on the concept of total depravity, are unable to choose God on their own.  Therefore, it doesn't matter what you say or do as God will ultimately decide your fate for you.  They even believe in two churches.  The visible church that comprises all those who profess belief, and the invisible church that is made up of God's elect.

Catholics have historically believed that formal heretics receive some form of divine punishment.  This would include many Protestants, as they not only engage in theologies that the Catholic church considers heretical (see sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, sola fide), but reject certain Catholic dogmas (see Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation).

Your story even backs up my assertion.  If the ruling council did not believe that their church was the one true church, the pastor would not have been removed over merely expressing thoughts that the council disagreed with.  There would be no formal censure at all for merely expressing a theological or socio-political opinion.

If I'm coming off as "snotty", that's entirely on you.

Accuracy is important to me as well, and you aren't accurate.  You're having to ignore both the formal theologies of these groups as well as their behaviors, both current and historical.

If none of these groups considered themselves to be "the one true church", what was their rationale for justifying the murder of dissenters?  The very concepts of heresy, schism, and apostasy require a belief in the singular truth of one's group over the others.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

That also isn't accurate.  Reformed/Calvinist denominations believe in a concept of unconditional election.  What this means is that God chooses who to save and that humans, based on the concept of total depravity, are unable to choose God on their own.  Therefore, it doesn't matter what you say or do as God will ultimately decide your fate for you.  They even believe in two churches.  The visible church that comprises all those who profess belief, and the invisible church that is made up of God's elect.

Catholics have historically believed that formal heretics receive some form of divine punishment.  This would include many Protestants, as they not only engage in theologies that the Catholic church considers heretical (see sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, sola fide), but reject certain Catholic dogmas (see Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation).

Your story even backs up my assertion.  If the ruling council did not believe that their church was the one true church, the pastor would not have been removed over merely expressing thoughts that the council disagreed with.  There would be no formal censure at all for merely expressing a theological or socio-political opinion.

If I'm coming off as "snotty", that's entirely on you.

Accuracy is important to me as well, and you aren't accurate.  You're having to ignore both the formal theologies of these groups as well as their behaviors, both current and historical.

If none of these groups considered themselves to be "the one true church", what was their rationale for justifying the murder of dissenters?  The very concepts of heresy, schism, and apostasy require a belief in the singular truth of one's group over the others.

We’ve had a lot of TULIP Calvinists who have posted here over the years. I’m aware of their doctrine. It doesn’t translate into a belief that a specific Calvinist church is the only true church though. Not as it’s been explained to me anyway.  There is probably one out there somewhere that does believe it.  Lots of independent Calvinist churches out there.

Catholicism is probably the closest mainstream church to our views on one true church. The biggest difference is that they accept Protestant baptism as valid (if I understand correctly. Probably best to let one of the residents Catholics speak on that)

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We’ve had a lot of TULIP Calvinists who have posted here over the years. I’m aware of their doctrine. It doesn’t translate into a belief that a specific Calvinist church is the only true church though. Not as it’s been explained to me anyway.  There is probably one out there somewhere that does believe it.  Lots of independent Calvinist churches out there.

Catholicism is probably the closest mainstream church to our views on one true church. The biggest difference is that they accept Protestant baptism as valid (if I understand correctly. Probably best to let one of the residents Catholics speak on that)

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
 

Quote

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.