One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[The Nehor]

When you decide what you want to believe about something that is either true or false by making a pro/con list of what happens if you believe it you are doing it wrong.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

The kingdom should include everyone not just members.  The idea of a returned Christ can be a metaphorical or personal return of Christ in a transformational individual sense.  

I agree with you that the Church isn't just a place to worship on Sunday.  So if the church is "the foundation of the establishment of God's kingdom" isn't it bigger than Mormonism?  The institutional organization doesn't seem an adequate description and what you're describing seems much bigger.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

There is no membership in a boarderlands description.  Anyone can self describe, and use any label they want, not sure why that is bothering you, but use any other label, progressive, middle way, new order, internet, whatever you want to label it.   There is nothing exclusive about it, I'm just trying to describe an unorthodox position that isn't the mainstream correlated position.  

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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?

I'm not 100% sure that your definition of an extreme positive is the same as what I'm thinking.  But an example of what I'm thinking would be the idea of obedience being taken to extreme it can become a stumbling block as people focus on perfectionism and checklists and burn themselves out and harm others in the process of trying to be strictly obedient.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

I agree that all beliefs are not of equal value, but if this is a false dichotomy as you suggest, are you saying that none of my bullets are accurate descriptions pf things that happen in Mormon culture, or are you saying they aren't related at all to the one true church claim?  

Also, what about authority, are there any negatives outcomes that come from the exclusive authority claim?  I'm assuming you mean priesthood authority for performing ordinances that are valid in the eyes of God.  Do you see any negative behaviors of church members that are related to this faith belief?  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When you decide what you want to believe about something that is either true or false by making a pro/con list of what happens if you believe it you are doing it wrong.

How would you an honest reflection on the causes of those items I mentioned in the bullets?  

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The kingdom should include everyone not just members.  The idea of a returned Christ can be a metaphorical or personal return of Christ in a transformational individual sense.  

I agree with you that the Church isn't just a place to worship on Sunday.  So if the church is "the foundation of the establishment of God's kingdom" isn't it bigger than Mormonism?  The institutional organization doesn't seem an adequate description and what you're describing seems much bigger.  

Not if entrance into God's Kingdom requires baptism by priesthood authority.  God's Kingdom and the Church may not be exactly the same thing (one political, one not) but there is a direct connection between the Kingdom of God and the LDS Church that can never exist in another Church.

But yes, we are taught that even in the Millennial period there will remain other Church and belief systems on the earth.
But also that regardless of agency of belief, everyone will have to acknowledge Christ's rule, so definitely not metaphorical.

 

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is no membership in a boarderlands description.  Anyone can self describe, and use any label they want, not sure why that is bothering you, but use any other label, progressive, middle way, new order, internet, whatever you want to label it.   There is nothing exclusive about it, I'm just trying to describe an unorthodox position that isn't the mainstream correlated position.  

I'm not 100% sure that your definition of an extreme positive is the same as what I'm thinking.  But an example of what I'm thinking would be the idea of obedience being taken to extreme it can become a stumbling block as people focus on perfectionism and checklists and burn themselves out and harm others in the process of trying to be strictly obedient.  

Yes, i understand where you are coming from; just having fun with the Sunstone series which I don't think too, too many people relate to.

The perfectionism problem would be the case whether they believe in the one true Church or not, wouldn't it? Wouldn't such personalities tend to find another belief upon which to leverage their hangup? I think the same could be said of those who have unorthodox beliefs -- hangups certainly manifest there as well. So I'm wondering how best to help people with religious hangups, especially those that might have resulted from a misunderstanding of their religion.

Way back in 1986 Elder Packer said:

"True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior.

"The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with [negative] behavior can lead to [negative] behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/little-children?lang=eng

So for example, if the "one true church" idea were properly understood (as has been mentioned a few times on this thread), that might help.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not if entrance into God's Kingdom requires baptism by priesthood authority.  God's Kingdom and the Church may not be exactly the same thing (one political, one not) but there is a direct connection between the Kingdom of God and the LDS Church that can never exist in another Church.

But yes, we are taught that even in the Millennial period there will remain other Church and belief systems on the earth.
But also that regardless of agency of belief, everyone will have to acknowledge Christ's rule, so definitely not metaphorical.
 

I honestly don't see any of those things in literal terms, even the acknowledgement of Christ.  I see all of it as metaphorical and only valuable in as much as it helps to promote love and service of others.  But at any rate, I would just like to present there are differing beliefs on these concepts out there.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Yes, i understand where you are coming from; just having fun with the Sunstone series which I don't think too, too many people relate to.

The perfectionism problem would be the case whether they believe in the one true Church or not, wouldn't it? Wouldn't such personalities tend to find another belief upon which to leverage their hangup? I think the same could be said of those who have unorthodox beliefs -- hangups certainly manifest there as well. So I'm wondering how best to help people with religious hangups, especially those that might have resulted from a misunderstanding of their religion.

Way back in 1986 Elder Packer said:

"True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior.

"The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with [negative] behavior can lead to [negative] behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/little-children?lang=eng

So for example, if the "one true church" idea were properly understood (as has been mentioned a few times on this thread), that might help.

Not sure I agree with the concept that studying behavior is less effective than studying doctrine and I'm not sure there is a clear distinction, doctrine is a concept that just means teachings to me, and understanding human behavior seems vital to applying the teaching effectively.  I'm most interesting the results and I'm not sure the Elder Packer claim has any substance behind it from a results perspective.  

I think an emphasis on the two great commandments would help and a de-emphasis on any talk about exclusive authority or truth would also help.  

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I honestly don't see any of those things in literal terms, even the acknowledgement of Christ.  I see all of it as metaphorical and only valuable in as much as it helps to promote love and service of others.  But at any rate, I would just like to present there are differing beliefs on these concepts out there.  

Of course there are.
There is every possible belief out there and people have every right to their beliefs.
But this is a Mormon board, and your OP specifically refers to the Mormon Church and whether it would be beneficial to drop the claims of unique status.

Why on earth would any Mormon who believes Mormon doctrines consider that beneficial?  And if those doctrines aren't believed why should their opinion of the Church matter?
If Church members believe their own doctrines they have zero reason to drop the exclusivity, nor would it be "beneficial".

Edited November 27, 2017 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that all beliefs are not of equal value, but if this is a false dichotomy as you suggest, are you saying that none of my bullets are accurate descriptions pf things that happen in Mormon culture, or are you saying they aren't related at all to the one true church claim?  

No, I agree that some of those things do happen in Mormon culture.  What I am saying is that it is a false dichotomy to assume that if you accept the "one true church" claim then you must subscribe to your bullet points, and if you don't accept the claim, then you don't subscribe to your points.

It is like calling food a "vice" because some people who eat food misuse it in a way which leads to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?  What you are saying is similar - because some people misuse a good thing, then it must be a vice.   

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, what about authority, are there any negatives outcomes that come from the exclusive authority claim?  I'm assuming you mean priesthood authority for performing ordinances that are valid in the eyes of God.  Do you see any negative behaviors of church members that are related to this faith belief?  

There is certainly potential for misuse and abuse of such authority.  There is very clear warning about this in the Doctrine and Covenants section 121:

Quote

 

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

 

But again, potential for misuse and abuse does not equate to a vice. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course there are.
There is every possible belief out there and people have every right to their beliefs.
But this is a Mormon board, and your OP specifically refers to the Mormon Church and whether it would be beneficial to drop the claims of unique status.

Why on earth would any Mormon who believes Mormon doctrines consider that beneficial?

Two reasons, one is all the negative consequences that come from such beliefs that I listed in the OP.  Secondly the idea that there is a deeper meaning in the gospel message that is transcendent and of great value and this meaning can be found through a metaphorical approach to the gospel message.  

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If Church members believe their own doctrines they have zero reason to drop the exclusivity, nor would it be "beneficial".

I would argue that everyone already believes their own doctrines, you are a case in point example as I've read your posts, your beliefs definitely fall outside the mainstream on some subjects.  Recently I've observed more negatives from the exclusivity doctrine, and as I'm a pragmatic person at heart, I think its not worth promoting an idea with net negative results.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I agree that some of those things do happen in Mormon culture.  What I am saying is that it is a false dichotomy to assume that if you accept the "one true church" claim then you must subscribe to your bullet points, and if you don't accept the claim, then you don't subscribe to your points.

It is like calling food a "vice" because some people who eat food misuse it in a way which leads to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?  What you are saying is similar - because some people misuse a good thing, then it must be a vice.   

Ok, this is interesting.  If I understand correctly, you would agree with some of my bullets, but you would say they don't all point to the exclusivity claim as responsible for these negative outcomes.  This could also be said for any list of positive outcomes as well, the one I was assuming to be a positive outcome for the one true church claim, is that this is a motivating factor that keeps people dedicated to church attendance and activity.  Perhaps that positive outcome shouldn't be tied to the one true church claim either.  

This makes me wonder, if the church were able to turn off the one true church claim, like a light switch, and completely eliminate this concept in a flash, what would happen.  Would all those negatives that I mentioned be eliminated?  Would church activity and commitment be instantly impacted?  I guess its all hypothetical because its hard to know cause and effect.  

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, this is interesting.  If I understand correctly, you would agree with some of my bullets, but you would say they don't all point to the exclusivity claim as responsible for these negative outcomes.  This could also be said for any list of positive outcomes as well, the one I was assuming to be a positive outcome for the one true church claim, is that this is a motivating factor that keeps people dedicated to church attendance and activity.  Perhaps that positive outcome shouldn't be tied to the one true church claim either.  

Both positive and negative outcomes from the claim are tied exclusively to righteous and unrighteous applications of the claim, just like positive and negative outcomes of food consumption are tied exclusively to good and bad use of food.  

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This makes me wonder, if the church were able to turn off the one true church claim, like a light switch, and completely eliminate this concept in a flash, what would happen.  Would all those negatives that I mentioned be eliminated?  Would church activity and commitment be instantly impacted?  I guess its all hypothetical because its hard to know cause and effect.  

I think that both would be impacted significantly.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Both positive and negative outcomes from the claim are tied exclusively to righteous and unrighteous applications of the claim, just like positive and negative outcomes of food consumption are tied exclusively to good and bad use of food.  

Agreed, but I think we might disagree about what a righteous application might look like.  I would say that believing in a God that grants exclusive authority to any select people in the history of this world is an unrighteous application.  Unfortunately exclusive authority claims and privileged status for groups of people has a strong history within Judaeo-Christian traditions.  I think those exclusivity traditions are all unrighteous.  

[kiwi57]

6 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?  

Then there are those who reject this teaching. Imaging they've "outgrown" it (or perhaps "evolved beyond" it) doesn't make them feel superior in any way, does it?

There's nothing "hyperjudgmental" about assuming that those inferior minds who hold such inferior beliefs are "hyperjudgmental," is there?

Edited November 27, 2017 by kiwi57

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

How would you an honest reflection on the causes of those items I mentioned in the bullets?  

What?

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed, but I think we might disagree about what a righteous application might look like.  I would say that believing in a God that grants exclusive authority to any select people in the history of this world is an unrighteous application.  Unfortunately exclusive authority claims and privileged status for groups of people has a strong history within Judaeo-Christian traditions.  I think those exclusivity traditions are all unrighteous.  

Just to be clear, we are talking about the application of the "one true and living church" claim of the Mormon Church, right?  If you agree that the Mormon claim of being the one true church can have positive and righteous application, what does that even mean if it is not tied to exclusive authority?  And why would you call it a vice (blanket statement) if it has positive applications?

Edited November 27, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure I agree with the concept that studying behavior is less effective than studying doctrine and I'm not sure there is a clear distinction, doctrine is a concept that just means teachings to me, and understanding human behavior seems vital to applying the teaching effectively.  I'm most interesting the results and I'm not sure the Elder Packer claim has any substance behind it from a results perspective.  

I think an emphasis on the two great commandments would help and a de-emphasis on any talk about exclusive authority or truth would also help.  

The two great commandments are doctrine, and entail "all thy heart ...all thy soul, and ...all thy mind." Where else does behavior originate from, if not the heart, soul and mind? Let's not deny people any of the rich doctrines of the Restoration, and take the high road to help them live and seek to understand the full religion. If we cannot find them in the borderland, meet them where they are. Model how to personally apply the two great commandments with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," with primary emphasis on "the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven," which constitutes the fundamental principles of Mormonism.

[filovirus]

OK, I'm staying away from the rhetoric of priesthood, continuing revelation, fullness of the gospel, etc that we associate with the phrase "only true and living church".

My take is this: There will be a lot more people who were never members of the Church of Jesus Christ who will reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom than people who have been Mormon in this life. So although the Church is the "only true and living church", that does not mean it is the only way to salvation. That being said, there still are required covenants that will eventually have to be made that can only be found in Christ's Church.

Edited November 28, 2017 by filovirus

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say that believing in a God that grants exclusive authority to any select people in the history of this world is an unrighteous application. I think those exclusivity traditions are all unrighteous.  

Why though?

As long as access to that authority is available to everyone, why is the idea of exclusive authority unrighteous?  I've never understand the reasoning behind such statements.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Then there are those who reject this teaching. Imaging they've "outgrown" it (or perhaps "evolved beyond" it) doesn't make them feel superior in any way, does it?

There's nothing "hyperjudgmental" about assuming that those inferior minds who hold such inferior beliefs are "hyperjudgmental," is there?

Sure, there are flaws on the opposite perspective for those that believe Mormonism is the one false religion.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

What?

Words got garbled on my last reply, sorry. I just wanted you to share any thoughts on the pros/cons being discussed.  Would you change anything to try and mitigate some of the cons?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, filovirus said:

OK, I'm staying away from the rhetoric of priesthood, continuing revelation, fullness of the gospel, etc that we associate with the phrase "only true and living church".

My take is this: There will be a lot more people who were never members of the Church of Jesus Christ who will reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom than people who have been Mormon in this life. So although the Church is the "only true and living church", that does not mean it is the only way to salvation. That being said, there still are required covenants that will eventually have to be made that can only be found in Christ's Church.

If by "does not mean it is the only way to salvation" you mean, one does not have to be a devout member all one's life and all postmortality, but sometime prior to final judgment (whatever that is) one must accept the fullness of God's Gospel including all the covenants and ordinances God has commanded, I would agree.  I believe the solitary, singular path to the top of the Mountain has to be taken at some point, one can't just talk about it or just settle for similar path, they will become a full and willing member of the eternal organization/community of which The Church of Jesus Christ is the current manifestation in mortality.  Many paths head that way, but eventually they join into the Way of Christ or wander off into dark and lonely ways heading nowhere.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why though?

As long as access to that authority is available to everyone, why is the idea of exclusive authority unrighteous?  I've never understand the reasoning behind such statements.

Because it contradicts fundamental principles that I believe are universally true.  The inherent inaliable rights that all humans posses.  The concept of God being no respector of persons.  The relational construct of a parent/child and the divine.  divine.  

The corrupt idea that some people are select and chosen over others has roots in the history of tribalism.  Tribes of people throughout history have privileged their group over others, and they have used religion throughout time as a mechanism for reinforcing this idea.  So many evils have been perpetuated throughout history and justified through the use of this idea.  An honest evaluation of its merits doesn’t allow me to see any redeeming qualities in this concept.  I find it evil, and I fundamentally reject it.  If there is some truth to this idea, then I can’t see it.  I don’t see anything virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy about this idea.  I find it antithetical to the gospel.