One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What I find odd by Mormons is how they want to justify polygamy as sanctioned by God in certain circumstances.  Yet they are quick to judge other sexual unions as unsanctioned by God.  A reasonable objective observer might call that hypocritical.  

I would prefer to take the argument about what God sanctions completely out of the equation, precisely because this is an argument that can't be solved by a reading of history or scriptures.   

So much of the human side in all of this..God doesn't get a chance to say anything...and yet there are changes all over the place in the church that never changes. Is there anything that stays the same regardless of the "times"???

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This is apples and oranges as you well know.  Polygamy is male & female, regardless of number.  I don't think you find this odd at all but rather a useful tool in the argument for SSM.

Unfortunately marriage was instituted by God and belongs to him and him alone.  If God doesn't accept a marriage as valid, then it's not.
We may not all agree on what constitutes a marriage that is valid in God's eyes, but God designed, instituted, and performed the first marriage.  That is the pattern and anything else is not a real marriage.

I wasn't thinking SSM when I posted my comment, but I do think its applicable to the argument.  Also, I don't agree that its apples and oranges when it comes to defining which sexual unions are condoned by the church and which aren't.  

This idea that marriage was instituted by God is a faith claim without any evidence to back it up.  So I can't really argue against it only to say that I doubt that its true.  What do you mean by God designed, instituted and performed the first marriage?  I guess its implied since Genesis calls Eve Adam's husband in the KJV, but the same root Hebrew word was also translated as man, or men, or one, in other contexts, so its questionable whether we can rely on that translation to imply a marriage contract for Adam and Eve.  No ceremony takes place in scripture.  And since I'm not a biblical literalist, I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on the planet.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I wasn't thinking SSM when I posted my comment, but I do think its applicable to the argument.  Also, I don't agree that its apples and oranges when it comes to defining which sexual unions are condoned by the church and which aren't.  

This idea that marriage was instituted by God is a faith claim without any evidence to back it up.  So I can't really argue against it only to say that I doubt that its true.  What do you mean by God designed, instituted and performed the first marriage?  I guess its implied since Genesis calls Eve Adam's husband in the KJV, but the same root Hebrew word was also translated as man, or men, or one, in other contexts, so its questionable whether we can rely on that translation to imply a marriage contract for Adam and Eve.  No ceremony takes place in scripture.  And since I'm not a biblical literalist, I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on the planet.  

Yes, we are speaking of faith claims here.  This is a religion board.  
You stated that "What I find odd by Mormons is how they want to justify polygamy as sanctioned by God in certain circumstances.  Yet they are quick to judge other sexual unions as unsanctioned by God. "

Mormon justification for any belief is always going to be a faith claim.  So is Catholic justification.
As for whether God performed the first wedding?  I am a Biblical literalist and Genesis and Moses describe the first marriage and the New Testament backs up the principle of male and female.

I am really not sure what your argument is here.  Perhaps if you were asking atheists or agnostics for justification by data.  But you aren't, you are asking Mormons for their justification - and that's always going to involve faith.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

As to your post about the OP being seen in cost/benefit terms, that probably depends on desired outcomes.  If the desired outcome it sheer numbers of members on record in this world, then I would definitely consider the exclusivity position as a drawback.  It is a much harder sell to make concrete claims that have no real "physical" evidence - as I admit the LDS church (and all others) do not have.  

However, if the goal is to retain stalwart members who are willing to sacrifice for the good of the membership and church, then I would posit that the exclusivity claim is a net benefit, as there is no other way in my mind to get people to sacrifice for an ideal, than to make that ideal seem preferable above other ideals.  That ideal is largely what drives countries to fight for their "freedoms" etc.  That perception that they are battling for a greater good.

For me the desired outcome should be improving society and the lives of individuals.  I don't think in terms of membership numbers when it comes to the cost/benefit analysis.  Maximum good for the maximum number of people is my measuring stick.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

So much of the human side in all of this..God doesn't get a chance to say anything...and yet there are changes all over the place in the church that never changes. Is there anything that stays the same regardless of the "times"???

I don't think anything stays the same, throughout history, everything is contextual to the times.  I find that actually encouraging, but for fundamentalists it goes against their world view.  

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As for whether God performed the first wedding?  I am a Biblical literalist and Genesis and Moses describe the first marriage and the New Testament backs up the principle of male and female.

Where is the first marriage ceremony described in Genesis and Moses?  

 

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Where is the first marriage ceremony described in Genesis and Moses?  

If we define marriage in a religious belief as God joining two people then we find it:

• Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
  
  (Sounds remarkably like the LDS marriage ceremony, an ordinance we believe to be ancient)
   
• Genesis 2:18 ¶ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
  23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
  24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
  25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
   
• Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
  17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
  
  (So they were husband and wife at that point so labelled by God)

Clearly God joined this male and female as one.  That is the definition of marriage.  Nowhere in all of recorded gospel history does God EVER condone or allow for the joining of the same sexes.  It is the joining of male and female that is marriage, regardless of numbers.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(Sounds remarkably like the LDS marriage ceremony, an ordinance we believe to be ancient)

Sounds like LDS marriage ceremony because they use biblical imagery in the ceremony.  

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

(So they were husband and wife at that point so labelled by God)

I mentioned earlier how the Hebrew word translated as husband has other translations at different points in the text.  It’s important to mention the same is true for the word wife which is also translated as woman at other points.  

I don’t have a problem with saying that marriage goes back a long ways, but there isn’t a ceremony for Adam and Eve in the Bible and I think you overstated what the text actually says.  

[kiwi57]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like LDS marriage ceremony because they use biblical imagery in the ceremony.  

I mentioned earlier how the Hebrew word translated as husband has other translations at different points in the text.  It’s important to mention the same is true for the word wife which is also translated as woman at other points.  

I don’t have a problem with saying that marriage goes back a long ways, but there isn’t a ceremony for Adam and Eve in the Bible and I think you overstated what the text actually says.  

I see a ceremony, and I don't think he's overstating anything.

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I see a ceremony, and I don't think he's overstating anything.

Where exactly?  

[Maestrophil]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For me the desired outcome should be improving society and the lives of individuals.  I don't think in terms of membership numbers when it comes to the cost/benefit analysis.  Maximum good for the maximum number of people is my measuring stick.  

And I believe that the LDS church would do a maximum good for the maximum amount of individuals if those individuals would adhere to it’s Commandments and covenants. In fact, I am certain the world would be better if everyone did

 Now the trick question is -  is the claim of exclusivity preventing more people from those benefits? That could be the case as I mentioned before. But on the other hand if in order to get more adherents, The church jettisoned some of the foundational principles, would it then lose its ability to be as transformational as it is. I question if that is the case   I tend to believe it would lose its ability to be as impactful on individual lives if it was water down so to speak

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Maestrophil

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Where exactly?  

Don't be obtuse.  You say Mormons use Biblical imagery.  Mormons say the Bible is describing the same ancient rite they use.  It's an issue of faith but it's still there.  God "created" Eve for Adam, put them together, commanded them to multiply and replenish, promised them dominion, and afterwards referred to them as husband and wife.

You don't have to share the faith assertion but in Mormonism the first marriage was performed by God.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

And I believe that the LDS church would do a maximum good for the maximum amount of individuals if those individuals would adhere to it’s Commandments and covenants. In fact, I am certain the world would be better if everyone did

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion here.  I don't think one size fits all, and while Mormonism is great for some, it is very damaging for others.  Thankfully, if history is any indicator, we're not in jeopardy of Mormonism taking over the world.  

10 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

 Now the trick question is -  is the claim of exclusivity preventing more people from those benefits? That could be the case as I mentioned before. But on the other hand if in order to get more adherents, The church jettisoned some of the foundational principles, would it then lose its ability to be as transformational as it is. I question if that is the case   I tend to believe it would lose its ability to be as impactful on individual lives if it was water down so to speak

Thats a different question than what I was asking in the OP, but I think its also an interesting question.  I've always assumed that the strong exclusivity position of the church does keep members loyal and motivated, but it might also prevent others from joining, these assumptions might not be accurate and probably could be tested through some careful studies.  Softening the exclusivity claim would definitely change the dynamics within the church, my argument is that it would change things for the better for current members and their relationships with family and friends both members and non-members alike.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't be obtuse.  You say Mormons use Biblical imagery.  Mormons say the Bible is describing the same ancient rite they use.  It's an issue of faith but it's still there.  God "created" Eve for Adam, put them together, commanded them to multiply and replenish, promised them dominion, and afterwards referred to them as husband and wife.

You don't have to share the faith assertion but in Mormonism the first marriage was performed by God.

Biblical imagery in the Genesis text is used in modern times to create the language of a marriage ceremony.  That doesn't mean the original language in the bible was descriptive of a ceremony.  Let me give an example.  Handel really liked the language in Isaiah and created an oratorio put to music around that Isaiah imagery.  Would it be fair to say that the original Isaiah language was actually an oratorio written by Isaiah and that's why Handel used it for his version of an oratorio? 

Modern readers envision ancient texts in modern context all the time, and read modern interpretations into the ancient narratives.  

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

my argument is that it would change things for the better for current members and their relationships with family and friends both members and non-members alike.  

Possibly.  I also think if we LDS were better at practicing what we preach regarding Christ-like love and acceptance, our relationships with friends and family members would improve as well.  I think we are getting better.  

And to be fair - if a lot of friends and family reacted with the same empathy and understanding they demand of the LDS members, relationships would be better too.  Plenty of work to do all around.  I think it is hard for humans in general to respect other people's "otherness"

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Possibly.  I also think if we LDS were better at practicing what we preach regarding Christ-like love and acceptance, our relationships with friends and family members would improve as well.  I think we are getting better.  

And to be fair - if a lot of friends and family reacted with the same empathy and understanding they demand of the LDS members, relationships would be better too.  Plenty of work to do all around.  I think it is hard for humans in general to respect other people's "otherness"

I agree with this and have hope that it will continue to improve as we shed some of the more negative elements of our history, and continue to learn and grow as a culture.  Upward and onward! 

[Raymond Ellis]

I believe the LDS church is true because it has the priesthood restored to earth.

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/27/2017 at 9:42 AM, 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?  

I support the one true church view since it establishes a view that God is not like Trump where he has no position on anything.  God agrees with the last person he talked to.   If there is one standard, then people can know the standard and comply with it.  If there are multiple true churches and they are not the same, then there is no standard to comply with since truth is anything one wants it to be.  Truth can change tomorrow so why believe in anything today.  People can take this view and abuse it by thinking that because they are in the true church that they are superior to those who are not in it.  However to your points

1.  Anyone with the Holy Ghost and Priesthood do have special access to spiritual insight.  To assume that one does need the Holy Ghost for special spiritual insight pretty much is saying the Holy Ghost is not needed.  Basically they are trying to get the Holy Ghost fired or laid off.

2.  Anyone who is aligned with God is in a better position than those who is not aligned with God.  Some people however might think they are superior because they think their views are aligned with God but the actually their views are more based on pride than actually being aligned with God.  If one is actually aligned with God, there is no pride.

3.  Critical thinking is great when it leads to a correct conclusion.  It is possible for a person to critically think themselves into error.  God however is not impressed with critical thinking.  Find the greatest thinker or mind on this planet and they are still idiots in comparison to God.

4. This goes with the last point.  Secular and scientific stuff are great and have their place but they have their limits.  They will not save anyone in the end.  Science and secular knowledge help none of the dead in spirit prison.  We will spend a lot more time dead than our time being alive.  Spending too much time on secular and science and not enough on the spiritual is like a person working a lifetime but not planning for retirement.  Eventually they will get old and will be forced to stop working.  If they are not prepared, they got problems.

5.  One should not shun any family member unless they actually do constitute a threat.  If my son is dealing drugs in my house, I am kicking him out if he does not stop.  Same with spiritual issues.  I can handle a child that does not believe.  If a child is actively seeking to disrupt the spiritual welfare of the family, then that will have to be confronted.

6.  Religious scholarship is great but it is still limited.  Relying on scholarship is putting ones trust in man.  We are to put our trust in God.  Rely on the Holy Ghost.  If one has their priorities right, then scholarship can be helpful.   If one decides to put scholarship on top, they are in trouble.  Remember that the best scholars are still fools to God.  Scholars still error all the time.  God does not error. 

7.  People judging improperly is a problem.  However we all have to judge things in our life.  We do so on a daily basis to survive. 

 

 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/5/2017 at 3:44 PM, hope_for_things said:

This idea that marriage was instituted by God is a faith claim without any evidence to back it up.  So I can't really argue against it only to say that I doubt that its true.  What do you mean by God designed, instituted and performed the first marriage?  I guess its implied since Genesis calls Eve Adam's husband in the KJV, but the same root Hebrew word was also translated as man, or men, or one, in other contexts, so its questionable whether we can rely on that translation to imply a marriage contract for Adam and Eve.  No ceremony takes place in scripture.  And since I'm not a biblical literalist, I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on the planet.  

The Genesis account clearly has Adam being married to Eve.  I does call Eve to be Adam's wife.   There is evidence to back it up but I guess the best way of disposing evidence is to deny it or not consider it literal.  The fact that no ceremony is mentioned really does not matter.  One does not need a formal ceremony to get married.  One does not need to walk down any isle, a wedding cake or anything else. 

Since you disregard Genesis since it does not support your contention, what can be established is that heterosexual marriage has been the standard for thousands of years.  Gay marriage when it did happen in history was rare and strange.  Even today, most of the world rejects it.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I support the one true church view since it establishes a view that God is not like Trump where he has no position on anything.  God agrees with the last person he talked to.   If there is one standard, then people can know the standard and comply with it.  If there are multiple true churches and they are not the same, then there is no standard to comply with since truth is anything one wants it to be.  Truth can change tomorrow so why believe in anything today.  People can take this view and abuse it by thinking that because they are in the true church that they are superior to those who are not in it.  However to your points

1.  Anyone with the Holy Ghost and Priesthood do have special access to spiritual insight.  To assume that one does need the Holy Ghost for special spiritual insight pretty much is saying the Holy Ghost is not needed.  Basically they are trying to get the Holy Ghost fired or laid off.

2.  Anyone who is aligned with God is in a better position than those who is not aligned with God.  Some people however might think they are superior because they think their views are aligned with God but the actually their views are more based on pride than actually being aligned with God.  If one is actually aligned with God, there is no pride.

3.  Critical thinking is great when it leads to a correct conclusion.  It is possible for a person to critically think themselves into error.  God however is not impressed with critical thinking.  Find the greatest thinker or mind on this planet and they are still idiots in comparison to God.

4. This goes with the last point.  Secular and scientific stuff are great and have their place but they have their limits.  They will not save anyone in the end.  Science and secular knowledge help none of the dead in spirit prison.  We will spend a lot more time dead than our time being alive.  Spending too much time on secular and science and not enough on the spiritual is like a person working a lifetime but not planning for retirement.  Eventually they will get old and will be forced to stop working.  If they are not prepared, they got problems.

5.  One should not shun any family member unless they actually do constitute a threat.  If my son is dealing drugs in my house, I am kicking him out if he does not stop.  Same with spiritual issues.  I can handle a child that does not believe.  If a child is actively seeking to disrupt the spiritual welfare of the family, then that will have to be confronted.

6.  Religious scholarship is great but it is still limited.  Relying on scholarship is putting ones trust in man.  We are to put our trust in God.  Rely on the Holy Ghost.  If one has their priorities right, then scholarship can be helpful.   If one decides to put scholarship on top, they are in trouble.  Remember that the best scholars are still fools to God.  Scholars still error all the time.  God does not error. 

7.  People judging improperly is a problem.  However we all have to judge things in our life.  We do so on a daily basis to survive. 

 

Thanks Carbon for the reply, appreciate your engagement with the question.  I think your perspectives here are very illustrative of many orthodox Mormons, and I can understand your reasoning as I had similar reasoning at one point in time.  I’m pretty far apart from you on these individual perspectives though, so I’m not sure it would be helpful for me to comment, but did want to that you for adding your points to the discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Genesis account clearly has Adam being married to Eve.  I does call Eve to be Adam's wife.   There is evidence to back it up but I guess the best way of disposing evidence is to deny it or not consider it literal.  The fact that no ceremony is mentioned really does not matter.  One does not need a formal ceremony to get married.  One does not need to walk down any isle, a wedding cake or anything else. 

Since you disregard Genesis since it does not support your contention, what can be established is that heterosexual marriage has been the standard for thousands of years.  Gay marriage when it did happen in history was rare and strange.  Even today, most of the world rejects it.

The point I was trying to make is that the Hebrew word that was translated into English as husband in the KJV in those specific verses was also translated differently in other parts of the Bible.   I’m not disregarding Genesis, I’m just pointing out the translation difference.  If you consider that the authors in Hebrew may have intended those verses to mean “man” instead of “husband”, they you take away all evidence for any kind of official marriage relationship between Adam and Eve in the Bible.  

[mfbukowski]

On 11/27/2017 at 8:42 AM, 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?  

1- please find me anything on lds.org referring to the church as the "one true church".  "Only true and living church"- yes of course but that is very different.

2- Please find me anything on lds.org which says 

• Quote

   

   

  • 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

   

  Are these common beliefs in certain geographical areas near a large body of salt water in the west-central portion of the United States?  Yes.  Are they common in other areas?  Not that I am aware of.

• I have never seen a sense of superiority

• or the taking of church authority without question

• a mistrust of science

• shunning of family members

• intentional ignorance of broader religious scholarship- in fact I have seen such knowledge being praised

• hyperjudgemental people.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

1- please find me anything on lds.org referring to the church as the "one true church".  "Only true and living church"- yes of course but that is very different.

2- Please find me anything on lds.org which says 

• Are these common beliefs in certain geographical areas near a large body of salt water in the west-central portion of the United States?  Yes.  Are they common in other areas?  Not that I am aware of.

• I have never seen a sense of superiority

• or the taking of church authority without question

• a mistrust of science

• shunning of family members

• intentional ignorance of broader religious scholarship- in fact I have seen such knowledge being praised

• hyperjudgemental people.

How is "one true church" very different from "only true and living church?" The two seem to be saying the same thing.

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/5/2017 at 10:05 AM, hope_for_things said:

What I find odd by Mormons is how they want to justify polygamy as sanctioned by God in certain circumstances.  Yet they are quick to judge other sexual unions as unsanctioned by God.  A reasonable objective observer might call that hypocritical.  

I would prefer to take the argument about what God sanctions completely out of the equation, precisely because this is an argument that can't be solved by a reading of history or scriptures.   

 A reasonable observer would notice that the scriptures DO in show that God sanctioned polygamy in certain circumstances.  A reasonable observer would have have a very difficult time finding even one scripture that shows that God would sanction other sexual unions like gay marriage. 

With the development of AI and sex robots in society, eventually AI will be merged with sex robots. I predict that one day society will accept marriage between humans and these robots.  I also predict that some churches will accept these unions.  It sounds crazy but no more crazy than the idea of gay marriage 30 years ago.  Very few people considered gay marriage in any serious way 30 years ago.  I believe I will be right on this one.

[carbon dioxide]

If one believes Daniel 2:44 that God will establish a kingdom, it seems reasonable to conclude that truth will be found in that kingdom.  Anything outside that kingdom that rejects the truth that is found in that kingdom has to be false.  That kingdom that God would establish would be the one true kingdom.  If this not the case, why would God bother establishing such a kingdom when it does not matter anyway?  One can find just as much truth outside it and one does not need to be a part of that kingdom?