One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Since I never asked for advice on which church to attend, making the implication that my ideas don't fit with the group and might fit better somewhere else, that isn't a little passive aggressive?  

No, it is common sense.
You have stated yourself that you are no longer a believer that the LDS Church is God's church restored to the earth.
It is a fair question to ask why you would then want to see changes made to a Church you consider false rather than looking for one you consider to be more in line with God's will.
You have yet to explain why you consider the changes you suggest a net positive for members?  What would they gain by following such a course and giving up exclusivity claims?  And is it worth what they would be giving up?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think its a few that display the vices, I think its an overwhelming majority.  Its wisdom to re-evaluate the key priorities and principles of the gospel message and to make sure emphasis is being placed on those things that matter most.  There are many practices that get out of alignment over time, and this seems to be the backbone of the restoration movement in the first place.  Even while Joseph was alive he was frequently chastising the saints for one failure or another.  

An overwhelming majority? Why do you continue to associate with these horrible people?  

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

If access to the same blessings is available to everyone, how is that tribalism?

[cinepro]

On 11/27/2017 at 8:42 AM, hope_for_things said:

 

 

• Shunning of family members and friends who are seen as a threat

 

Wait, I thought this was one of the 17 "Signs of the True Church."  You're telling me it's a bad thing?

Quote

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I see this differently in that you're specifically calling my viewpoint extreme as opposed to me agreeing with a post by another participant, something that didn't point any fingers at any specific individuals on this board.  I believe there is an important difference.  

Suggesting your viewpoint seems extreme is not pointing fingers at you, but critiquing your perspective. You introduced the term in replying to other posters who did not use it, and furthermore clarified that it reflects your attitude about the overwhelming majority of LDS. Can you address the salient point about how a self-identified "outsider" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine you don't hold to, apparently for the same reason (that you do not understand it)?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it is common sense.
You have stated yourself that you are no longer a believer that the LDS Church is God's church restored to the earth.
It is a fair question to ask why you would then want to see changes made to a Church you consider false rather than looking for one you consider to be more in line with God's will.

Honestly, I'm surprised to see you defend making this discussion about me and my beliefs.  I'm a fairly open person on this message board, haven't been shy about sharing my struggles with the faith and my changing beliefs, but I don't like the direction this is going.  As I keep saying there are multiple different perspectives on these topics, and the way you've characterized my position is very inaccurate.  

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You have yet to explain why you consider the changes you suggest a net positive for members?  What would they gain by following such a course and giving up exclusivity claims?  And is it worth what they would be giving up?

I did answer this question earlier in the thread and I mentioned that it would be hard to know exactly what the impacts would be if the church suddenly irradiated this idea.  I'm proposing in the OP that all those negatives I listed are caused by the exclusivity claim, so obviously I think eliminating the claim would result in those problems being mitigated or eliminated.  I also mentioned earlier in the thread that I thought it might have an impact on commitment and activity rates, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.  Again, these are hypothetical observations.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

An overwhelming majority? Why do you continue to associate with these horrible people?  

Isn't the church for sinners?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If access to the same blessings is available to everyone, how is that tribalism?

Tribalism is saying my group has the authority that your group can access, but only by jumping through the hoops that my group sets.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Wait, I thought this was one of the 17 "Signs of the True Church."  You're telling me it's a bad thing?

 

I had never heard of the 17 points of the true church before, interesting.  

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Suggesting your viewpoint seems extreme is not pointing fingers at you, but critiquing your perspective. You introduced the term in replying to other posters who did not use it, and furthermore clarified that it reflects your attitude about the overwhelming majority of LDS. Can you address the salient point about how a self-identified "outsider" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine you don't hold to, apparently for the same reason (that you do not understand it)?

I never said I'm an outsider, I'm about as inside the Mormon world as a person can be, albeit I'm unorthodox these days, but still quite orthoprax.  But regardless, I don't think my personal beliefs are important to this discussion.  Quit trying to make this personal, please, last time I checked that was against the rules here.  

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Tribalism is saying my group has the authority that your group can access, but only by jumping through the hoops that my group sets.  

I'm not sure how that applies to God though, because it would be that a group has the authority that everyone can access, but only by jumping through the hoops that God has set.

If the authority comes from God, then how can it be tribalism for Him to set the terms of it's use?

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how that applies to God though, because it would be that a group has the authority that everyone can access, but only by jumping through the hoops that God has set.

If the authority comes from God, then how can it be tribalism for Him to set the terms of it's use?

The authority doesn't come from God, its a claim that the tribe makes.  The whole concept of authority is a human construct.  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The authority doesn't come from God, its a claim that the tribe makes.  The whole concept of authority is a human construct.  

Why?  Where does the idea come from that divine authority is a human construct?

[clarkgoble]

On 11/27/2017 at 9:42 AM, hope_for_things said:

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

I confess I don't see these.  For one it's LDS teaching that everyone has a spiritual gift and that the Holy Ghost can testify to anyone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have him as a constant companion. Priesthood authority doesn't necessarily give spiritual insight.

The second one strikes me as odd. Shouldn't we think any true belief is superior to a false belief. Why would we think otherwise. I think my belief in physics is superior to people who believe in a flat earth. Is that a con or a pro? Seems like a pro to me.

I just disagree with your third point. There are people like that of course, but I think they're just stupid and don't remotely make up the majority of people.

I just disagree with the claim of a mistrust in science. I'm not sure what you mean by secular. Certainly some secular things we should mistrust.

Shunning if someone is a threat is a good thing isn't it? Why would I suspect your issue is more over whether people are seen as a threat inappropriately.

Ignorance seems an odd charge since that seems an inherent characteristic of people

Likewise the hyperjudgmental bit I think is pretty debatable. Also it seems odd to complain that it's seen through a Mormon lens. Of course people judge from their own perspective. What other perspective could they judge from?

[Maestrophil]

I like to think of the words in context of what they might have meant in the time that revelation were given.  In the 1828 Websters dictionary, this is the definition of truth:

TRUTH, noun

1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.

According to this definition of the word, the LDS claim makes more sense to me.  It is the only church that is in "exact accordance to that which is, or has been, or shall be".  Other churches can still be right on many counts - but it is the "exactness" which stood out to me.  Whereas, in my view, the current definition of "truth" is presented as a binary - and a false one at that - things are either true or false.  Which that perspective, claiming one church as "true" automatically infers that others churches are not "true".  Whereas with the 1828 definition, all churches can be "right" or "good", while still having only one that is in exact accordance to what God desires. Just a thought.  :-)

MP

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Isn't the church for sinners?  

A dated idea I am hoping we will toss soon.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Trying to dismiss someone else's points by calling them extreme and/or attempting to make this personal don't really enable good discussion and dialogue.  

That you don't see your own comments as doing the same, just in a much broader way also impacts the quality of conversation.

"I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members."

It is personal when you label a group many here identify with as acting in "immoral or wicked" ways (definition of vice on google)

[Calm]

dup

Edited November 28, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I never said I'm an outsider, I'm about as inside the Mormon world as a person can be, albeit I'm unorthodox these days, but still quite orthoprax.  But regardless, I don't think my personal beliefs are important to this discussion.  Quit trying to make this personal, please, last time I checked that was against the rules here.  

How is it not personal when you yourself have made it about the personal beliefs of others? Why is it appropriate for you to condemn as immoral or wicked (a vice) beliefs of others, but to question the status of your own is against the rules, somehow personal while yours is not?

This board began in part because ZLMB functioned as placing targets on believing LDS' backs where others could come and attack their beliefs because they were known, but hide behind their own anonymity because their own beliefs would not be immediately apparent and thus could not be analyses, criticized, or attacked in the same manner.

Somehow I doubt the mods agree with your interpretation of the rules.  I may be wrong, of course.  Hopefully one will pop up soon and weigh in.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Tribalism is saying my group has the authority that your group can access, but only by jumping through the hoops that my group sets.  

Like every group that has ever existed...for example, the US government or any play group set up by either kids or parents.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why?  Where does the idea come from that divine authority is a human construct?

Humans, same origin as any other ideas about authority.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Humans, same origin as any other ideas about authority.  

So your beliefs about godly authority come from the same flawed place as those you disagree with, and both your and my opinion is equal in terms of evidence to support it?  

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Humans, same origin as any other ideas about authority.  

If God does not have any authority then we  do not need religion.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see these.  For one it's LDS teaching that everyone has a spiritual gift and that the Holy Ghost can testify to anyone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have him as a constant companion. Priesthood authority doesn't necessarily give spiritual insight.

Exclusive LDS priesthood power would probably be a better descriptor of what I was referring to, and yes this is an explicit teaching in the church, I think its connected to this idea of exclusive authority and the one true church concept.  I think they are intertwined and believe they are a negative influence.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The second one strikes me as odd. Shouldn't we think any true belief is superior to a false belief. Why would we think otherwise. I think my belief in physics is superior to people who believe in a flat earth. Is that a con or a pro? Seems like a pro to me.

Its the idea that my ideas are in alignment with God, which is essentially an authority claim again.  Your beliefs around physics have been tested and tried and repeated through the scientific method.  The idea that God privileges a person's beliefs because the church sanctions certain theological constructs is just an authority claim without the same kind of trial and testing.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I just disagree with your third point. There are people like that of course, but I think they're just stupid and don't remotely make up the majority of people.

As evidence for the third claim, why is the church able to influence political issues in Utah so dramatically when they support a particular issue.  In some cases, support for an issue has changed from one side to the other when the church has come out against or for something.  Thinking about the ERA amendment, but there have been other examples.  This tells me that members don't critically think about things that the brethren say.  As another example, the stigma around not turning down callings would support this idea that when a leader calls you to a position it is akin to God calling you and you shouldn't question it.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I just disagree with the claim of a mistrust in science. I'm not sure what you mean by secular. Certainly some secular things we should mistrust. 

This is my observation from speaking with family and friends and living in the Utah, but I would like to see some social science polling to support it, I think Armand Mauss had some in his book Angel and the Beehive, and I'm hoping there were some questions in the recent Jana Reiss survey as well around science.  I don't think we should start from a place of distrust of things secular, that is a dangerous precedent in my mind.  I think we should give everything a fair shake.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Shunning if someone is a threat is a good thing isn't it? Why would I suspect your issue is more over whether people are seen as a threat inappropriately.

The problem is that the church labels people with doubts as a threat.  Instead of actual threats like child molesters and rapists.  The treatment towards the LGBT community, different races in the past and present, there are many problematic traditions for shaming and shunning in the church which I think are in opposition to a NT gospel message.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Ignorance seems an odd charge since that seems an inherent characteristic of people

The reason this ties to the one church concept is that culture of fear of the learning of the academy and a dismissal of biblical scholarship has emerged.  Thats why Mormonism is so far behind the biblical scholarship of the rest of the world and essentially teach 19th century biblical concepts in church each Sunday.  This is slowly changing with some of the work happening at BYU and other outlets.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Likewise the hyperjudgmental bit I think is pretty debatable. Also it seems odd to complain that it's seen through a Mormon lens. Of course people judge from their own perspective. What other perspective could they judge from?

You can be Mormon without obsessing over Mormonism.  This is more a critique of how insulated the culture seems sometimes.  How oblivious to the world and how slow to respond to current events at times.  Just my observations, and perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture, but when family and friends I know are always commenting on the way that the church responds to social issues, rather than their own opinions sans the church's message.  Its like Apple fan boys that can only say positive things about Apple products and that obsess over everything Apple.  Other people can see the good in Apple products, but aren't so obsessed, they can also appreciate the good in other products too and see the flaws in Apple products.  A person can do both, but Mormons I know are often fanboys of Mormonism.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

According to this definition of the word, the LDS claim makes more sense to me.  It is the only church that is in "exact accordance to that which is, or has been, or shall be".  Other churches can still be right on many counts - but it is the "exactness" which stood out to me.  Whereas, in my view, the current definition of "truth" is presented as a binary - and a false one at that - things are either true or false.  Which that perspective, claiming one church as "true" automatically infers that others churches are not "true".  Whereas with the 1828 definition, all churches can be "right" or "good", while still having only one that is in exact accordance to what God desires. Just a thought.  :-)

What makes you think Mormonism is in exact accordance with what God desires?  I don't think that's what D&C 1 says at all, and I'm not even aware of any statements in Mormonism that claim exact accordance to God.  This sounds to me like you are making a stronger claim than what even most traditional orthodox Mormons I know would be willing to state.