One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[hope_for_things]

Even though I no longer believe in the "one true church" faith claim, I've generally considered this belief to be a net positive for Mormons because of how it motivates them to action and commitment to service within the church.  However, I'm having my doubts of late as I consider some of the negative elements to this belief.  I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members.  Some of the cons:

• God has granted me special access to spiritual insight - via the Holy Ghost and Priesthood authority
• My beliefs are superior or more complete because they are in alignment with God
• Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
• An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
• Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
• Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

What do you think, am I being too critical of this idea of exclusivity?  I know many apologists that are fairly progressive but still defend the one true church claim, but does this claim really benefit members or does it have a more negative impact than positive?   Thoughts?  

[bluebell]

I think it would help all of us (members and non-members) to be more accurate in our use of the phrase 'one true church' (which isn't scriptural but is more a shorthand term that was probably never that useful).  

The term used in scriptures is 'only true and living church' which means that it is the only church on the earth that has His teachings, laws, ordinances, and name (true); and is governed by Him through representatives whom He has appointed and has His authority (living).

This theology definitely does make room for us to illustrate our weaknesses (such as pride) but that alone does not mean that it's a negative.  

 

[stemelbow]

A vice, for sure.  It is perhaps on of the larger issues I have with the Church (I don't care much for other doctrinal disagreements).  I think your list sums up the problems nicely.  

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

................................................................

• Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
• An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
• Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
• Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

.......................................................................

These sound like attitudes not in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they are a problem with any "true" religion.  Parents who raise their children on that fear-based set of attitudes will likely have a whole crop of apostate children.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would help all of us (members and non-members) to be more accurate in our use of the phrase 'one true church' (which isn't scriptural but is more a shorthand term that was probably never that useful).  

The term used in scriptures is 'only true and living church' which means that it is the only church on the earth that has His teachings, laws, ordinances, and name (true); and is governed by Him through representatives whom He has appointed and has His authority (living).

This theology definitely does make room for us to illustrate our weaknesses (such as pride) but that alone does not mean that it's a negative.  

 

Speaking of being accurate, it is interesting that this verse and the previous one, said to have been received in 1831, speaks as if the church is yet to come.  As if the translation of the Book of Mormon is yet to come.  It makes me wonder whether the Church we have today is what God suggested is the only true and living Church upon the face of the earth.  I guess we can assume so, though.  

 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A vice, for sure.  It is perhaps on of the larger issues I have with the Church (I don't care much for other doctrinal disagreements).  I think your list sums up the problems nicely.  

Thanks stem, good to know its not just me.  I actually think a change from true church to good church would be a positive step for active members of the church, in addition to their families and friends.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would help all of us (members and non-members) to be more accurate in our use of the phrase 'one true church' (which isn't scriptural but is more a shorthand term that was probably never that useful).  

The term used in scriptures is 'only true and living church' which means that it is the only church on the earth that has His teachings, laws, ordinances, and name (true); and is governed by Him through representatives whom He has appointed and has His authority (living).

This theology definitely does make room for us to illustrate our weaknesses (such as pride) but that alone does not mean that it's a negative.  

 

This is a good point, and I think a further exploration of what it means to be a true and living church would be a healthy discussion.  Unfortunately, when you have testimony meetings with members affirming the church is the only true church, I think it becomes more like a rameumpton kind of process.  This one line from D&C 1 isn't taken in context with all the other statements in the D&C where the people are under condemnation for their sins.  The whole picture is much more complex.  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These sound like attitudes not in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they are a problem with any "true" religion.  Parents who raise their children on that fear-based set of attitudes will likely have a whole crop of apostate children.

I agree that many other religions that emphasis authority and truth to these extremes will find the same kind of negative traits.  This isn't unique to Mormonism, and there are certainly exceptions within Mormonism as well. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Speaking of being accurate, it is interesting that this verse and the previous one, said to have been received in 1831, speaks as if the church is yet to come.  As if the translation of the Book of Mormon is yet to come.  It makes me wonder whether the Church we have today is what God suggested is the only true and living Church upon the face of the earth.  I guess we can assume so, though.  

 

It says that this revelation was given to the church in 1831 at a special conference.  I don't think it says when it was received by JS though, does it?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a good point, and I think a further exploration of what it means to be a true and living church would be a healthy discussion.  Unfortunately, when you have testimony meetings with members affirming the church is the only true church, I think it becomes more like a rameumpton kind of process.  This one line from D&C 1 isn't taken in context with all the other statements in the D&C where the people are under condemnation for their sins.  The whole picture is much more complex.  

Yes, I agree that the picture of the church is much more complex than what the phrase "only true church' portrays.  That, as it pertains to testimony meeting, is a cultural issue and can easily be amended if members change up their phraseology while bearing testimony.  That tends to happen as people become more aware of the actual words they are saying and as they mature spiritually.  It's a process for all of us.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Even though I no longer believe in the "one true church" faith claim, I've generally considered this belief to be a net positive for Mormons because of how it motivates them to action and commitment to service within the church.  However, I'm having my doubts of late as I consider some of the negative elements to this belief.  I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members.  Some of the cons:

• God has granted me special access to spiritual insight - via the Holy Ghost and Priesthood authority
• My beliefs are superior or more complete because they are in alignment with God
• Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
• An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
• Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
• Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

What do you think, am I being too critical of this idea of exclusivity?  I know many apologists that are fairly progressive but still defend the one true church claim, but does this claim really benefit members or does it have a more negative impact than positive?   Thoughts?  

Did you overlook these negatives in making your previous assessment of a “net positive,” or are you now assigning them greater weight? Perhaps your perception or attitude has changed for some reason, and not necessarily the slate of pros and cons.

I think people can take a truth and apply it badly, as well as act badly or nurture flaws irrespective of what they hold to be true. Also, it is hard to tease out which came first, the particular point of belief or a propensity toward ignorance, hyperjudgementalism, ostracism, sophophobia, intellectual passivity, superciliousness, etc.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think people can take a truth and apply it badly, as well as act badly or nurture flaws irrespective of what they hold to be true. Also, it is hard to tease out which came first, the particular point of belief or a propensity toward ignorance, hyperjudgementalism, ostracism, sophophobia, intellectual passivity, superciliousness, etc.

Exactly.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, CV75 said:

Did you overlook these negatives in making your previous assessment of a “net positive,” or are you now assigning them greater weight? Perhaps your perception or attitude has changed for some reason, and not necessarily the slate of pros and cons.

 

I think people can take a truth and apply it badly, as well as act badly or nurture flaws irrespective of what they hold to be true. Also, it is hard to tease out which came first, the particular point of belief or a propensity toward ignorance, hyperjudgementalism, ostracism, sophophobia, intellectual passivity, superciliousness, etc.

 

I think I gave the positives greater weight because I certainly was aware of the negatives, but my perspective and experiences have influenced my feelings on this subject, as well as the time I've had on the borderlands of Mormonism.  

I also agree with you that the application of ideas can have a large effect in a negative direction, especially when taken to extreme.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It says that this revelation was given to the church in 1831 at a special conference.  I don't think it says when it was received by JS though, does it?

I don't think so.  This creates more elements of interest for me though.  How did it work for Joseph?  In that did he quote verbatim what was told him, when he wrote up the revelations, or did he summarize or speak [write] a bit more fluidly.  If we are to take the current heading of the section seriously your idea of it being received before the conference, perhaps years before, and then Joseph decided to tell the church about it, doesn't seem to fit:

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, on November 1, 1831, during a special conference of elders of the Church, held at Hiram, Ohio.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng

It doesn't say it was a revelation had by Joseph at an earlier date and then given in Nov 1831.  It says it was given through Joseph in Nov 1831--as if the Lord, particularly in the verses in question, was speaking through Joseph.  It really adds complication to what we call revelation and what we think of as coming from God, of course.

This is from the earliest version of the revelation as we have it:  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-1-november-1831-b-dc-1/3#full-transcript

Quote

Given in Hiram Nov 1st 1831

A Preface or instructions upon the Book of Commandments which were given of the Lord unto his Church through him whom he appointed to this work by the voice of his Saints through the prayer of faith this church being organized according to the will of him who rules all things on the Sixth day of April in the year of our Lord 1830

This is really just a header for the whole of the compilation of revelations it seems in the Book fo Commandments. Neither the 1835 nor the 1844 edition, published after Joseph died, according to the JSP site didn't include headers.

I'm not sure when the heading was first added, as we have it. It was likely not approved of Joseph though.  So it's possible that the revelation was had by Joseph and he revealed it directly as he received it, tense and all, in 1831.  I guess, as far as I can see, we'll have to assume that.  

 

[Gray]

The one true church thing is the hallmark of sectarianism, which is I think a bad thing. That's tempered somewhat by the belief in multiple degrees of glory, work for the dead, etc. Exclusivity isn't a good thing,  but in practice the results aren't as bad as they could be. I think Mormons are pretty tolerant of other religions, despite the sectarian nature of the truth claims.

[Kevin Christensen]

"one true church" is a misreading that derives more from inescapable issues of human development than from the formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" spelled out in D&C 1.  I've written this up several times.  Here for instance:

Quote

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking [Page 134]lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹ The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

For the human development issue, from the same essay:

Quote

Of course, it’s easy to object that many LDS think and behave as though D&C 1 says exactly what it does not say. There happens to be a very good reason for the common misreading that goes beyond repetition and commonplace thinking. Brigham Young commented that “there is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.”⁵² One of the ways that has helped me better understand “men and women as they are” has been the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. The Perry Scheme is based on a study of the way students develop during their college years in moving from provincial communities to a diverse university environment.⁵³ Here are Positions 1 and 2 of 9:

Position 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms—Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will [Page 136]teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.⁵⁴

The point here is that the attitude toward a group’s authorities that Riskas sees as a distinctive Mormon claim applies to a position of human development that everyone faces regardless of their cultural background. Because Mormons are human, these positions will always be found among Mormons. But it is not a binding Mormon doctrine, simply an expected expression of human attitude toward their chosen society at a particular level of personal growth. As I have shown, D&C 1 expressly contradicts the assumptions of these initial positions and thereby encourages further growth. Later, I’ll return to the Perry Scheme and show how Joseph Smith compares to the later positions, demonstrating cognitive and ethical growth in the prophet that Riskas, who is clearly stuck at Position 2, does not show. Riskas has merely exchanged the locations of [Page 137]his labels for those who he sees as TRUE authorities and those who are confused and are frauds.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think I gave the positives greater weight because I certainly was aware of the negatives, but my perspective and experiences have influenced my feelings on this subject, as well as the time I've had on the borderlands of Mormonism.  

I also agree with you that the application of ideas can have a large effect in a negative direction, especially when taken to extreme.  

What are the "borderlands of Mormonism?"

Also, are you saying that from your observation, the net is defined by negative extremes (an extreme positive is not a positive)?

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What are the "borderlands of Mormonism?"

Also, are you saying that from your observation, the net is defined by negative extremes (an extreme positive is not a positive)?

Borderlands is a term that has been used for quite a while, but its on the edges of Mormonism, not orthodox, not mainstream.  

When I say what is the net impact, that comes from my finance background where we do a lot of cost benefit analysis, and try to decide whether business decisions will have a net positive or net negative impact.  Extreme positives would still count as positives.  I was also saying sometimes extremes can become a negative with respect to their impact on individuals.  Hope that helps.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Even though I no longer believe in the "one true church" faith claim, I've generally considered this belief to be a net positive for Mormons because of how it motivates them to action and commitment to service within the church.  However, I'm having my doubts of late as I consider some of the negative elements to this belief.  I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members.  Some of the cons:

• God has granted me special access to spiritual insight - via the Holy Ghost and Priesthood authority
• My beliefs are superior or more complete because they are in alignment with God
• Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
• An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
• Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
• Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

What do you think, am I being too critical of this idea of exclusivity?  I know many apologists that are fairly progressive but still defend the one true church claim, but does this claim really benefit members or does it have a more negative impact than positive?   Thoughts?  

After I had some time to reconsider I'd add one item to your list:

An unnecessary division, in the minds of members, amongst people who should be all in this together.  This certainly lends to the notion that I see often in Church among members - us vs them mentality

 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

After I had some time to reconsider I'd add one item to your list:

An unnecessary division, in the minds of members, amongst people who should be all in this together.  This certainly lends to the notion that I see often in Church among members - us vs them mentality

Yes, and there is a discomfort with respect to having differences of opinion.  Often I've seen people equate this discomfort with the Holy Ghost telling them that they should avoid that person or avoid that topic.  I've seen this hurt relationships and shut down communication.  We need to be comfortable with differences of opinion and learn to have healthy conversations with those that we disagree with.  Tolerance is way too often looked at as a bad thing in Mormonism  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks stem, good to know its not just me.  I actually think a change from true church to good church would be a positive step for active members of the church, in addition to their families and friends.  

I have zero interest in being a member of a merely good Church.
Nor would such a change fit with many doctrines of the Church and kingdom.  Remember the LDS part - the idea here is that the Church will be the one that builds God's Kingdom and Christ returns to. 
The Church is not just a place we gather on Sundays to worship God.  If that's all it was then yes, any good Church would do.
The Church is meant to be the foundation of the establishment of God's kingdom.  No other Church is going to fill that role.  And to diminish to the point of just another sect negates far too much of our scripture.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Borderlands is a term that has been used for quite a while, but its on the edges of Mormonism, not orthodox, not mainstream.  

When I say what is the net impact, that comes from my finance background where we do a lot of cost benefit analysis, and try to decide whether business decisions will have a net positive or net negative impact.  Extreme positives would still count as positives.  I was also saying sometimes extremes can become a negative with respect to their impact on individuals.  Hope that helps.  

LOL you mean a term used by a few who follow the articles (does that ring of exclusivity?)…

What are some of the extreme positives in how LDS apply their beliefs in "the true and living Church" / "one true Church" be? I tend to think of extreme positives in terms of "too much of a good thing." Also, as has been noted elsewhere, "one true Church" is not accurate; how can the wrong take on a true belief lead to an extreme positive?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Even though I no longer believe in the "one true church" faith claim, I've generally considered this belief to be a net positive for Mormons because of how it motivates them to action and commitment to service within the church.  However, I'm having my doubts of late as I consider some of the negative elements to this belief.  I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members.  Some of the cons:

• God has granted me special access to spiritual insight - via the Holy Ghost and Priesthood authority
• My beliefs are superior or more complete because they are in alignment with God
• Little to no critical thinking of the advice given by church leaders
• An underlying mistrust of the secular and scientific
• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat
• Ignorance of broader religious scholarship, biblical and other religions are seen as inferior or threatening
• Hyperjudgmental - people, choices, ideas, everything is judged through a Mormon lens to determine if it fits the ideal or threatens it

What do you think, am I being too critical of this idea of exclusivity?  I know many apologists that are fairly progressive but still defend the one true church claim, but does this claim really benefit members or does it have a more negative impact than positive?   Thoughts?  

The "one true church" claim has more to do with authority than anything else.  What is messed up is to think that God has placed his stamp of authority and approval on conflicting doctrines.  All interpretations of the gospel can't be the most complete and most accurate. There can only be one "most" complete.  That is simple math.   

Pretending like all beliefs are of equal value and truth is the real vice! 

Also, it is a false dichotomy to suggest that if you believe in the "one true church" that you must believe in or subscribe to all of your bullet points. 

 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 It makes me wonder whether the Church we have today is what God suggested is the only true and living Church upon the face of the earth.  

It is the only one he has authorized. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is the only one he has authorized. 

Well we have to make a few assumptions to make that work.  But I grant any one who wishes to make their own guesses on this.