Is The L D S Church The Only True Church?

[Damien the Leper]

Well, it is easy enough, and perhaps natural, to dismiss it as a mere worldview. I don't fault you for that.

I happen to know that it is a fact, however. I don't expect you to agree with me, of course.

The bolded is the difficult operative word. I'm also not dismissing anything. I understand why such claims are made.

[Stargazer]

The bolded is the difficult operative word. I'm also not dismissing anything. I understand why such claims are made.

I know the sun will rise again tomorrow. I have not seen it, yet, however. That kind of know.

[Damien the Leper]

I know the sun will rise again tomorrow. I have not seen it, yet, however. That kind of know.

I hope the sun will rise tomorrow and I'm pretty sure it will.

[Ahab]

I hope the sun will rise tomorrow and I'm pretty sure it will.

When it comes to being sure there is kinda sure, pretty/really sure, and totally sure... which is also referred to as knowing because it means you have no doubts about whatever you are totally sure about... and with any one of them you could still be wrong even though you are in various degrees of certainty. There is a way to avoid being wrong, though. I just don't know how to explain that.

[blackstrap]

I hope the sun will rise tomorrow and I'm pretty sure it will.

I suppose , to be technical, the Earth will continue to rotate and the sun will 'appear' to rise tomorrow. Now , whether or not you are around to see it happen , is another thing we don't know.

[Stone holm]

I hope the sun will rise tomorrow and I'm pretty sure it will.

Sometimes I wish the Sun wouldn't rise quite so soon on the morrow.

[Stargazer]

Sometimes I wish the Sun wouldn't rise quite so soon on the morrow.

Amen to that.

[Avatar4321]

3DOP, on 28 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Too late Darren! (I gave you one anyway.)

Nobody who considers themselves to be the legitimate descendants of Christ's priesthood can neglect the patrimony that the Jews preserved until that time. Some Catholics, mistakenly in my opinion, have gone so far as to propose that ethnic Jews are saved by adherence to a separate covenant. I think this untenable, but it illustrates the importance of the Old Covenant, and reflects the teaching which says that in the end times, God will redeem the physical offspring of Abraham.

Which covenant do Christians use to follow Christ? And, if that is the same covenant which God made with the Jews of antiquity, which covenant was that? Are you speaking of the Mosaic covenant (Sinai) or the Davidic covenant? Or both? And, if the Mosaic and Davidic covenants are conditional, what then do we do with the unconditional covenant of Abraham (Gen 17)?

After all, Romans 11 and LDS theology (Jacob 5) seem to be in agreement that there is indeed a special, unconditional covenant (brit) applied to Israel, such that Joseph sent Orson Hyde to Palestine in 1841 to dedicate the land to the gathering of the Jews -- a gathering which continues apace in these latter-days.*

This reminds me that at the 2012 Society for Mormon Philosophy & Theology annual mtg at USU in Logan, Utah, Grant Hardy made some comments on the lack of supersessionism in the BofM, along with the lack of the Davidic covenant: understandable in light of Lehi being a Manassite and the Book of Mormon being a northern E document -- thus Lehi mentions the covenant of Joseph instead.

* Steven Epperson, “Some Problems with Supersessionism in Mormon Thought: A Review Essay,” BYU Studies, 34/4 (1994-95), 125-136; Epperson, Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel (SLC: Signature, 1992); Seymour Cain, “Judaism and Mormonism: Paradigm and Supersession,” Dialogue, 25/3 (1992), 57-65; Jon Levenson, Death and Resurrection, x.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is Supersessionism?

[Avatar4321]

The bolded is the difficult operative word. I'm also not dismissing anything. I understand why such claims are made.

Nothing difficult about it. When God tells us something, we know it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was thinking of the Abrahamic covenant plus the explicit instruction by YHWH upon Israel to follow Him and Him only.

Correct but I wonder if in being or in person? Even in LDS theology, there's historical and doctrinal precedent to refer to bot the Father and the Son as YHWH / Lord / I AM, etc.

Yes, the Father (II Ne 19:6, Mosiah 3:8, Alma 11:38-39).

[Robert F. Smith]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is Supersessionism?

The theological notion (once a foregone conclusion among Christians) that Christians have superceded (replaced) the Jews as God's chosen people in every sense. It has been increasingly difficult to maintain this fiction in light of the gathering of the Jews and the unquestioned power of the Israeli state. Indeed, many Christians now see the events in the Middle East as a sign of the last days. The times of the Gentiles are coming to an end.

[volgadon]

Except it explicitly is not the same covenant, as described in Jeremiah 31: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke ...

New can carry in Hebrew a connotation of renewed, that is, made new again.

[Avatar4321]

The theological notion (once a foregone conclusion among Christians) that Christians have superceded (replaced) the Jews as God's chosen people in every sense. It has been increasingly difficult to maintain this fiction in light of the gathering of the Jews and the unquestioned power of the Israeli state. Indeed, many Christians now see the events in the Middle East as a sign of the last days. The times of the Gentiles are coming to an end.

Ah. That makes total sense.

I've recently been looking at the notion that the old covenant was the National covenant and the New covenant was the individual covenant the Father makes with us to fulfill His national covenant. I haven't fleshed everything out in my head yet.

[Darren10]

II Ne 19:6

That passage quotes Isaiah 9 and I'll bold the part I thin you're referring to:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Here the Son is both the Son and the Father and it's from the Masoretic text widely available in Englis translations ofthe Old Testament. What interests me is that the Book of Mormon gives reasons for calling the Son the Father. The son is the Father of our covenants, He was uniquely conceived in mortality, and He being one in the flesh with the Father are sone reasons. In the Isaiah passage I learned from reading Margaret Barker that the Septuagint version reads Isaiah 9:6 differently than does the Masoretic text. From the Septuagint:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Here, it seems, Jesus would be the "Everlasting Father" due to His being the bringer of "great counsel". This reminds me of the angelic proclamation of the birth of the Child being a message of good tidings of great joy.

[Damien the Leper]

Nothing difficult about it. When God tells us something, we know it.

Good for you. I hope that avenue of faith serves you well. But it is not for me.

[mfbukowski]

New can carry in Hebrew a connotation of renewed, that is, made new again.

That must be useful in the "new " car business

[Damien the Leper]

That must be useful in the "new " car business

Ha! You never cease to amaze me...

[Kenngo1969]

I am making fun of those quoting some dude in the Ensign, and, for heaven's sake, the FAIR WIKI.

So, what's wrong with quoting the infamous cdowis who makes clever, insightful, profound, noteworthy, comments here in this forum. Is he chopped liver?

Not to me, Commissioner!

[Lightbearer]

So as not to derail the other thread where this came up, I am starting a new one.

I was raised LDS, have heard many testimonies from ward members and GA's proclaiming the LDS Church as the only true church. Apparently the phrase "only true church" does not mean what I think it means (shameless PB reference).

Boyd K. Packer said, "We did not invent the doctrine of the only true church. It came from the Lord. Whatever perception others have of us, however presumptuous we appear to be, whatever criticism is directed to us, we must teach it to all who will listen."

What does it mean to be the "only true church?"

I think that should be obvious. It means exactly what it says and although it is a "hard saying" and very "offensive" it is what we were commissioned to teach. As President Packer says "we must teach it to all who will listen."

I think there is a very good reason for this if we admit that all churches have the ability to give entrance into the Celestial Kingdom then why on earth would God restore His Church? If all paths lead to the Kingdom of God then it would not matter what church if any church one belongs to. We cannot take that position or we deny the very Gospel we have been commissioned to teach to all nations. That is the very heart and soul of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. When Joseph Smith sought which church was right and which he should join the Lord responded with the First Vision and stated the following:

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, "Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off." I then said to my mother, "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true." (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:18-20)

This is pretty direct and I often wonder why we tend to shy away from this most basic testimony. I suppose we are afraid of offending our friends and relatives by giving them the harsh news that they are not saved in the kingdom of God (meaning the Celestial Kingdom) and while they may have a "part" of truth that they are in need of repentance as stated in the following reference to the Shakers:

"HEARKEN unto my word, my servants Sidney, and Parley, and Leman; for behold, verily I say unto you, that I give unto you a commandment that you shall go and preach my gospel which ye have received, even as ye have received it, unto the Shakers. Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent. Wherefore, I send you, my servants Sidney and Parley, to preach the gospel unto them. And my servant Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you my servants; and by so doing I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 49:1-4)

This to me is very instructive, while we are not to be overtly offensive, we are to be bold in declaring the restoration or we will not prosper in converting those seeking the fulness of the Gospel.

While we do say keep all the good you have (meaning true principles that are taught in other churches) and we will add to it. In essence we are saying that they do not have the complete truth, and they do not have the priesthood of God and the saving ordinances therefore there is no salvation in any other church or religion (meaning salvation in the Celestial Kingdom). So when we say "I know that this Church is the only true Church" we could say "only complete Church." While I understand that it has been stated that other Churches and relgions often lead people to the fullness of the Gospel this is true to a point. Sometimes it becomes a stumbling block that may cause people to harden their hearts against it, preventing them from seeking the Kingdom of God.

[Stone holm]

I think that should be obvious. It means exactly what it says and although it is a "hard saying" and very "offensive" it is what we were commissioned to teach. As President Packer says "we must teach it to all who will listen."

I think there is a very good reason for this if we admit that all churches have the ability to give entrance into the Celestial Kingdom then why on earth would God restore His Church? If all paths lead to the Kingdom of God then it would not matter what church if any church one belongs to. We cannot take that position or we deny the very Gospel we have been commissioned to teach to all nations. That is the very heart and soul of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. When Joseph Smith sought which church was right and which he should join the Lord responded with the First Vision and stated the following:

This is pretty direct and I often wonder why we tend to shy away from this most basic testimony. I suppose we are afraid of offending our friends and relatives by giving them the harsh news that they are not saved in the kingdom of God (meaning the Celestial Kingdom) and while they may have a "part" of truth that they are in need of repentance as stated in the following reference to the Shakers:

This to me is very instructive, while we are not to be overtly offensive, we are to be bold in declaring the restoration or we will not prosper in converting those seeking the fulness of the Gospel.

While we do say keep all the good you have (meaning true principles that are taught in other churches) and we will add to it. In essence we are saying that they do not have the complete truth, and they do not have the priesthood of God and the saving ordinances therefore there is no salvation in any other church or religion (meaning salvation in the Celestial Kingdom). So when we say "I know that this Church is the only true Church" we could say "only complete Church." While I understand that it has been stated that other Churches and relgions often lead people to the fullness of the Gospel this is true to a point. Sometimes it becomes a stumbling block that may cause people to harden their hearts against it, preventing them from seeking the Kingdom of God.

Have never really agreed with the missionary approach that we are really like you but have more stuff. It seems dishonest when we really are not like the Catholics and Protestants except on a fairly superficial basis.

[Kenngo1969]

Have never really agreed with the missionary approach that we are really like you but have more stuff. It seems dishonest when we really are not like the Catholics and Protestants except on a fairly superficial basis.

It depends on how one uses the word like. Do you take issue with President Hinckley's (and he got it from President Brigham Young), "Bring the good that you have with you, and let us see if we can add to it," then?