One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I'm not out to convert you but am trying to validate my own decisions if you want to know the truth. I grew up on mormonism being the one true church and wonder why there is a reluctance to own that here. Does it have something to do with when President Hinckley seemed to turn the church to more mainstream christianity? I know the one true church claim really bothered other christians when I was on my mission. Is distancing itself from this claim part of an attempt to be more accepted by mainstream christianity in your opinion?

Don't ask me.  I have given references to many who see it as I do  and even the quote that was given did not substantiate the "one true church" view but the "only true and living church" and the differences therein.

I have only been a member 38 years and realized from the beginning that if you have an OPEN CANON in which doctrine changes ( polygamy- no polygamy; no blacks- blacks) you cannot claim infallible prophets.  I mean how could that possibly work?  How could you possibly believe in infallible prophets if there are on-going doctrinal changes?  How could you base a theory of truth on Alma 32 - truth=what gives "good fruit" AND incorporate the idea of testimony into your theology- assuming that everyone gets the exact same revelations from God, when that is blatantly false?  Obviously one must follow one's own testimony or else you have a cult of personality and little robots drinking the kool aid at someone's bizarro will.   It just doesn't make sense!  One always always always has to be able to follow one's conscience to be a credible religion without blind obedience.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  You would have a dictator for a prophet- not a figure of Christ.

But one COULD have the only Christ like church based on agency and each person's confirmation of beliefs according to their own consciences.   Now THAT would be something new instead of burning witches or killing infidels which is generated by blind obedience and blind authority.   I see none of that in the church here in the "mission field"

And that is what it is!

 I know there are many fundamentalist Mormons, but these are left over beliefs which have filtered through probably from their generations of Calvinism.... or whatever.  Hellfire Protestantism can be pretty hard to eradicate because you scare kids with it and then they are scared for life.  

But that's not the Mormonism I know at all

The poor folks who see it that way understandably leave the church and end up here all saying the same things.  I think it is a regional thing but we won't go there.  Honestly I don't see that in California, I don't see backbiting and judgementalism etc and all that other stuff I hear about on this board.   It just doesn't exist.

Mormonism is not mainstream Christianity and I don't even want it to pretend it is.

It is Humanism raised to a wonderful new theology.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I guess that's a matter of perspective. Maybe it might be healthy for you to accept that there are still some of us who believe the truth claims of the Church, even though you have "grown beyond" them, or something.

The "Mormon community" is the community of people who believe in the teachings of the Church. The rhetorical trickery by which people who've abandoned those teachings still claim to be some sort of "Mormon" - and then take it upon themselves to busy their little bodies by going about correcting our "attitudes" for us - leaves me rather unimpressed.

What makes you think that I don't know that there are many people who believe the truth claims of the church?  I respect those beliefs, and I'm not trying to change them.  You think my posting on a message board akin to trying to correct your attitude?  I haven't done anything of the sort.  I started a thread to discuss things, not to correct people.  Yet I'm constantly attacked by others like yourself for my opinions.  It seems the shoes of your accusation would fit better on some other feet.  

The question I have for you, is do you respect that there are people like myself who have different beliefs, that consider themselves Mormon still, and that exist and participate within the Mormon community?  Your last statement seems like an attempt to shame or say that my kind of existence within Mormonism isn't legitimate.  

 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Are you actually suggesting that it would benefit the Mormon community to be more religiously diverse?  😁

I know that the Catholic religion needs a little more Buddhism, and the Baptists could learn a thing or two from the Scientologists.

Perhaps Mormons should embrace principles of Wicca.  You know, in the interests of diversity.

 

"Truth, no matter what the source"

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Are you actually suggesting that it would benefit the Mormon community to be more religiously diverse?  😁

I know that the Catholic religion needs a little more Buddhism, and the Baptists could learn a thing or two from the Scientologists.

Perhaps Mormons should embrace principles of Wicca.  You know, in the interests of diversity.

 

Absolutely, I recently read a book that I really enjoyed titled, Why Did Jesus Moses the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road by Brian McLaren.  It was a really good read and talked about how we have so much to learn from other faiths and that we should interact with and incorporate the good from other traditions.  I found it beautiful, and quite Mormon if you consider what Joseph was doing and what some leaders have said about adopting truth wherever we can find it. 

We should also engage with atheists as we can learn many valuable things from them as well.  I don't know much about the Wicca's, but I don't doubt that there are good elements that we could learn from them too.  

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't ask me.  I have given references to many who see it as I do  and even the quote that was given did not substantiate the "one true church" view but the "only true and living church" and the differences therein.

I have only been a member 38 years and realized from the beginning that if you have an OPEN CANON in which doctrine changes ( polygamy- no polygamy; no blacks- blacks) you cannot claim infallible prophets.  I mean how could that possibly work?  How could you possibly believe in infallible prophets if there are on-going doctrinal changes?  How could you base a theory of truth on Alma 32 - truth=what gives "good fruit" AND incorporate the idea of testimony into your theology- assuming that everyone gets the exact same revelations from God, when that is blatantly false?  Obviously one must follow one's own testimony or else you have a cult of personality and little robots drinking the kool aid at someone's bizarro will.   It just doesn't make sense!  One always always always has to be able to follow one's conscience to be a credible religion without blind obedience.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  You would have a dictator for a prophet- not a figure of Christ.

But one COULD have the only Christ like church based on agency and each person's confirmation of beliefs according to their own consciences.   Now THAT would be something new instead of burning witches or killing infidels which is generated by blind obedience and blind authority.   I see none of that in the church here in the "mission field"

And that is what it is!

 I know there are many fundamentalist Mormons, but these are left over beliefs which have filtered through probably from their generations of Calvinism.... or whatever.  Hellfire Protestantism can be pretty hard to eradicate because you scare kids with it and then they are scared for life.  

But that's not the Mormonism I know at all

The poor folks who see it that way understandably leave the church and end up here all saying the same things.  I think it is a regional thing but we won't go there.  Honestly I don't see that in California, I don't see backbiting and judgementalism etc and all that other stuff I hear about on this board.   It just doesn't exist.

Mormonism is not mainstream Christianity and I don't even want it to pretend it is.

It is Humanism raised to a wonderful new theology.

Thanks for the response and your thoughts.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

"Truth, no matter what the source"

There is a huge difference between recognizing a truth in another religion and diversifying your religion to allow for differing beliefs.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Absolutely, I recently read a book that I really enjoyed titled, Why Did Jesus Moses the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road by Brian McLaren.  It was a really good read and talked about how we have so much to learn from other faiths and that we should interact with and incorporate the good from other traditions.  I found it beautiful, and quite Mormon if you consider what Joseph was doing and what some leaders have said about adopting truth wherever we can find it. 

We should also engage with atheists as we can learn many valuable things from them as well.  I don't know much about the Wicca's, but I don't doubt that there are good elements that we could learn from them too.  

As I said above, big difference in interfaith dialogue and diversifying your religion to be more inclusive.
Sorry, I have no interest in non-denominational religion.  It may work for others and is certainly more inclusive, but that is not in keeping with my religious beliefs.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

All religions may have a measure of truth, or Christ's grace.  But there remains one Lord (authority again), one faith, one baptism.
 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Are you actually suggesting that it would benefit the Mormon community to be more religiously diverse?  😁

I know that the Catholic religion needs a little more Buddhism, and the Baptists could learn a thing or two from the Scientologists.

Perhaps Mormons should embrace principles of Wicca.  You know, in the interests of diversity.

 

Knowing you, I see the sarcasm but we might actually seek out the best books words of wisdom.

We might actually get a convert who is a Wiccan if we actually understood it.

Nah, who cares about understanding people?

After all we have all the answers here in the one true church, fixed and eternal , unmovable and infallible.

Edited January 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Knowing you, I see the sarcasm but we might actually seek out the best books words of wisdom.

We might actually get a convert who is a Wiccan if we actually understood it.

Nah, who cares about understanding people?

After all we have all the answers here in the one true church, fixed and eternal , unmovable and infallible.

True.

No, not really.  But again, as I said above, big difference in interfaith dialogue and diversifying your religion to be more inclusive.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said above, big difference in interfaith dialogue and diversifying your religion to be more inclusive.
Sorry, I have no interest in non-denominational religion.  It may work for others and is certainly more inclusive, but that is not in keeping with my religious beliefs.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

All religions may have a measure of truth, or Christ's grace.  But there remains one Lord (authority again), one faith, one baptism.

If you accept that others have a measure of truth, doesn't this mean Mormonism contains a measure of error as well?  It just seems to me that its not an either/or choice, you can do both.  You can believe in authority claims of Mormonism, and also recognize that Mormonism isn't perfect and to me that imperfection includes the teachings around the authority claims.  

Edited January 25, 2018 by hope_for_things

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you accept that others have a measure of truth, doesn't this mean Mormonism contains a measure of error as well?  It just seems to me that its not an either/or choice, you can do both.  You can believe in authority claims of Mormonism, and also recognize that Mormonism isn't perfect and to me that imperfection includes the teachings around the authority claims.  

You are speaking of two different issues here.
Recognizing truth contained in other religions and potential errors in your own is one topic.
Making a place for other religious beliefs in your religious community is another.

Is there a possible truth to be found in Catholicism that is missing from Mormonism at this time?  Sure, that's entirely possible.
In order to obtain that truth should the LDS Church implement Catholic worship practices in their community?  No.  No they shouldn't.
Diversity is about respect and recognition of value.  It is not about a blending.

It's the difference between the melting pot and the tapestry.  Mormonism can exist peacefully with other religions without embracing them.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You are speaking of two different issues here.
Recognizing truth contained in other religions and potential errors in your own is one topic.
Making a place for other religious beliefs in your religious community is another.

Is there a possible truth to be found in Catholicism that is missing from Mormonism at this time?  Sure, that's entirely possible.
In order to obtain that truth should the LDS Church implement Catholic worship practices in their community?  No.  No they shouldn't.
Diversity is about respect and recognition of value.  It is not about a blending.

It's the difference between the melting pot and the tapestry.  Mormonism can exist peacefully with other religions without embracing them.

There may be some differences, I can see what you're saying.  I just don't see a clear dividing line between the two.  If you consider how Joseph was borrowing practices from all religions as he crafted Mormonism (through inspiration from a believing perspective) he was borrowing from Masons, from other religions, and from secular learning.  I just don't see any reason to believe that Mormonism should remain stuck in the 19th century version of itself, I think innovation and borrowing are central to the teaching of continuing revelation.  

[CV75]

On 1/25/2018 at 1:07 AM, mfbukowski said:

Mormonism is not mainstream Christianity and I don't even want it to pretend it is.

It is Humanism raised to a wonderful new theology.

Depending on the “age of man”, I think the theology could raise animism and naturalism as well, and even in today’s world, the “dataism” that is gradually replacing liberal humanism. When we see how the Church is using IT for genealogy and temple work for example, requiring us to essentially interface with an automated data system much as we do with Facebook [but not me] and this discussion board [that, I do!], and act as data processors in the work for the dead.

To me, this does not change the theology that God is the Man of Holiness, but does show how He related to His children throughout the “ages of man,” as reflected in Adam’s life in the Garden (Moses 3:19-21, animist -- when he named the animals); in the Fall (Moses 5:6, naturalist -- when he knew nothing except to do stuff); in the Redemption (Moses 5:10-11 and 6:1, humanist -- when he loved their offspring); and in the Dispensation (Moses 6:5, “dataist” -- when he learned to write, keep a book of remembrance and secure the "data connection" -- sealing -- with others). Amazing how Joseph Smith revealed how God accommodated and reconciled all these systems!

Edited January 26, 2018 by CV75