rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 2 hours ago, CV75 said: I cannot get into his head. I’m sure he believes that while “all churches and philosophies have elements of truth in them,” the Lord has stated that the LDS Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” https://www.lds.org/youth/article/only-true-living-church?lang=eng And he does emphasize that the individual, personal witness from the Spirit is ultimately the deciding factor. Elder Callister does not say that these two claims alone make the Church is true. He is saying if they are not true, the Church is not true. The link above explains more about why the LDS Church is “the only true and living church.” Elder Callister does not represent the two clams as the origins of the LDS Church; rather he presents them as the keystone of the LDS religion and that the prophet received it from an angel and translated it by the gift and power of God. No other church seems to trace its origin in those contexts. Do you have examples? Yep... its the "only true and living church" presumed belief that creates the problem with his statement. Callister actually does claim that the church's "truth" is established by the two claims. Here's the second half of his quote (taken from the OP): “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple." I disagree that it "is that simple". It isn't. Other churches which Callister would likely not define as "true" also believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph's role as prophet. So there must be more to it.
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: Right, I think we're in the same boat. So when you say "The FLDS stll make no claim about the truthfulness of their church being determined by the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the role of Joseph Smith in bringing it forth (see comments above)" that's really just a guess, right? I wouldn't call it a guess. Comparing the relative ease with which anyone can ascertain the LDS claims (another poster called it "common knowledge"), to not being able to find the same two points in the FLDS claims (whether due to their unwillingness or lack of wherewithal to share them, or that the claims simply are not anywhere in the universe to be shared), it's a reasonable conclusion. At any rate, no one has made the claim in their behalf to me!
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yep... its the "only true and living church" presumed belief that creates the problem with his statement. Callister actually does claim that the church's "truth" is established by the two claims. Here's the second half of his quote (taken from the OP): “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple." I disagree that it "is that simple". It isn't. Other churches which Callister would likely not define as "true" also believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph's role as prophet. So there must be more to it. Since he says, "on the other hand," in reference to one idea, he's limiting the discussion to the two claims, not all the bases on which the only true and living church is established. His remarks are in context of the narrow topic, “The Book of Mormon: Man-made or God-given”, where his point is “Once we have a foundational testimony of the Book of Mormon, then any question or challenge we confront in life, however difficult it may seem, can be approached with faith, not doubt." The foundational testimony is the individual, personal witness from the Spirit.
Recommended Posts