One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[kiwi57]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your comments here are not supported by a close reading of the historical evidence.  Priesthood narratives were constructed after the fact in the 1833-35 timeframe.  No talk of a restored church happened until the summer of 1829 as the BoM dictation was coming to a close.  

Believe it or not, hft, I am quite conversant with the revisionist dogma you are reciting. I'm also aware of the arguments behind it, and I do not find them persuasive.

Pop quiz: on what date did Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (1) receive the Priesthood from a heavenly messenger, and (2) baptize each other, having no authority to do so previously?

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There are more universalist impulses in the earlier theology articulated by Smith.  The idea that you could access God directly which was in harmony with universalist beliefs that his father would also have subscribed to.  

And it is still part of LDS doctrine today; all claims to the contrary being entirely false.

Those "universalist impulses" seem to include such ideas as the absolute necessity of repentance, the centrality of the Atonement of Christ, and the essential nature of certain ordinances, beginning with baptism.

[kiwi57]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like fair treatment and equality mean something different to you than to me.  A group with God’s exclusive authority can restrict access to God to just its members or to certain races or those with specific sexual preference or gender or gender expression.  We see this in Mormonism today.  

No.

We do not.

 

[kiwi57]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If it isn’t valuable then it isn’t true.  That’s the Alma 32 test in a nutshell.  

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

[kiwi57]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My Dad taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right.  

That's a dodge. The point is that you tried to pretend that "shunning" is a feature of Mormonism, as a representative sample of "fundamental conservative religions." That just isn't true, but you seem to find it "valuable" to claim that it is.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, I realise that these are popular slogans in some circles.

But the claim that either of those things "restricts access to God" is clearly, plainly and demonstrably false.

How is it not a restriction of access to God?  For the LGBT policy first, same sex married individuals are excommunicated, isn't that a restriction of access to God?  For the children of those individuals, they can't be blessed as babies, baptized at eight, or receive the priesthood for males at 12.  Seems like a clear restriction. 

For gender discrimination its a little less clear, but just as problematic.  Women can't be ordained to the priesthood, so they have no priesthood authority.  See this link from Handbook #2.  I believe this means women institutionally relegated to second class citizenship, they can't be ordained to any of the highest offices in the church leadership and they can't administer any outward ordinances.  Some might argue that this doesn't restrict their access to God.  Since these leadership callings aren't available to women, restricting the callings restricts the access to God associated with those callings.  Also, when it comes to things like the keys of the ministering of angels, this isn't an ordinance, this sounds like direct access to God via an angelic encounter.  And that's available to 12 year old boys, but not available to women as they can't have this authority.  Unless I misunderstand what this key of administration of angels is.  So to me, restricting priesthood authority to men only, is clearly restricting access to God in Mormonism.   

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles?lang=eng&_r=1

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

That's a dodge. The point is that you tried to pretend that "shunning" is a feature of Mormonism, as a representative sample of "fundamental conservative religions." That just isn't true, but you seem to find it "valuable" to claim that it is.

Earlier you said "Of course shunning happens; and it takes many forms."  Now it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't happen.  Which is it?  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

Mind trying to explain how this isn't a correct interpretation of Alma 32?  I seems clear to me.  

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How is it not a restriction of access to God?  For the LGBT policy first, same sex married individuals are excommunicated, isn't that a restriction of access to God?  For the children of those individuals, they can't be blessed as babies, baptized at eight, or receive the priesthood for males at 12.  Seems like a clear restriction. 

The only thing that restricts access to God is sin or departure from God's plan.  It has always been that way.

Edited November 29, 2017 by JLHPROF

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How is it not a restriction of access to God?  For the LGBT policy first, same sex married individuals are excommunicated, isn't that a restriction of access to God?  For the children of those individuals, they can't be blessed as babies, baptized at eight, or receive the priesthood for males at 12.  Seems like a clear restriction. 

Yes, it's a restriction; but not of access to God.

It's a restriction from entering into binding covenants which they have little or no hope of being able to keep.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For gender discrimination its a little less clear, but just as problematic.  Women can't be ordained to the priesthood, so they have no priesthood authority.  See this link from Handbook #2. 

We know this. Your point?

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe this means women institutionally relegated to second class citizenship, they can't be ordained to any of the highest offices in the church leadership and they can't administer any outward ordinances. 

Thank you for telling us what you believe. However, those who think the Priesthood really is something more significant than a mere marker of social status don't share your belief.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some might argue that this doesn't restrict their access to God.

For the very good and sufficient reason that it doesn't.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  Since these leadership callings aren't available to women, restricting the callings restricts the access to God associated with those callings.

That's a circular argument. Sure a woman who isn't the Elders' Quorum President doesn't get to seek inspiration about how to administer the Elders' Quorum, but why would she need it? The "access to God associated with those callings" is nothing more or less than the access to God needed to carry out those callings. You might as well complain (and you really might as well, while you're on a roll) that men don't get "access to God associated with those callings" such as Relief Society President, Primary President, etc.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Also, when it comes to things like the keys of the ministering of angels, this isn't an ordinance, this sounds like direct access to God via an angelic encounter.

Sigh.

"Via an angelic encounter" is, by definition, indirect. You are desperately overplaying your hand; as, of course, you must, since it's rather nondescript.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 And that's available to 12 year old boys, but not available to women as they can't have this authority.  Unless I misunderstand what this key of administration of angels is.

You finally got something right.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  So to me, restricting priesthood authority to men only, is clearly restricting access to God in Mormonism.   

And that's the key phrase: to you.

[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?  

To me, the one true church thing makes sense.  Unless all Churches teach exactly the same thing, the differences will result in one Church being more true than the others.  Unless of course not even God knows what God is and what God believes then I guess there can be many true churches as God himself does not know what is going on. 

I don't mistrust science or the secular.  I just don't make them my god and worship them over God.  I will shun family members if they are a threat to my safety.  Thankfully none are a threat.  I don't think the Church is "hyperjudgement" nor to they tell members to be so.  Some maybe but that is different.  The job of the Church is to give us a standard in which we can judge or lives and behavior.  A standard that God will hold us to when we stand before God when we are judged.  The Church does not tell members not to critically think.  It is good to critically think.  A person however can critically think themselves out of truth.  Just keep perspective that one does not know all the answers and remember not to cast out faith while maintaining critical thinking.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see it as a strength in that it forces us to be humble and teachable...

Yet you seem to be categorizing what you will accept as teachings and what you won't.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How is it not a restriction of access to God?  For the LGBT policy first, same sex married individuals are excommunicated, isn't that a restriction of access to God?  For the children of those individuals, they can't be blessed as babies, baptized at eight, or receive the priesthood for males at 12.  Seems like a clear restriction. 

For gender discrimination its a little less clear, but just as problematic.  Women can't be ordained to the priesthood, so they have no priesthood authority.  See this link from Handbook #2.  I believe this means women institutionally relegated to second class citizenship, they can't be ordained to any of the highest offices in the church leadership and they can't administer any outward ordinances.  Some might argue that this doesn't restrict their access to God.  Since these leadership callings aren't available to women, restricting the callings restricts the access to God associated with those callings.  Also, when it comes to things like the keys of the ministering of angels, this isn't an ordinance, this sounds like direct access to God via an angelic encounter.  And that's available to 12 year old boys, but not available to women as they can't have this authority.  Unless I misunderstand what this key of administration of angels is.  So to me, restricting priesthood authority to men only, is clearly restricting access to God in Mormonism.   

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles?lang=eng&_r=1

Are you saying LDS teach women are never visited and taught by angels?

If not, what do you think administration of angels is and what is the access it gives to God that getting down on our knees or speaking from our heart in prayer does not?

Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and Son when he had not covenanted, been ordained to the Priesthood, or given any keys.

In what way was his experience not full access to God?

My view is ordinances and covenants provide a variety of lessons that those who are not ordained or operating under covenant do not have, but we still all have the same Teacher and all can therefore go to him and ask of him what we desire and what he desires for us whether one is the President of the Church or a 14 year old boy who sought him out when the Church was nonexistent on earth or if one is experiencing any other state of existence men and women have been in since the beginning of mortality.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The only thing that restricts access to God is sin or departure from God's plan.  It has always been that way.

Actually I don’t think sin restricts access to God, I’ve seen too many examples to the contrary.  

I think God’s plan is loving creation, goodness and life, so anything that takes away from those things I would agree in some sense is diminishing a connection with God.  

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually I don’t think sin restricts access to God, I’ve seen too many examples to the contrary.  

I think God’s plan is loving creation, goodness and life, so anything that takes away from those things I would agree in some sense is diminishing a connection with God.  

I would hesitantly guess that your examples involve repentant sinners, those who are working on their sins and come under the atonement of Christ.

Those who embrace their sins and refuse to give them up are definitely restricted in their access to God.  No unclean thing can enter his presence, only those who are clean through Christ.  So yes, sin restricts access to God.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Believe it or not, hft, I am quite conversant with the revisionist dogma you are reciting. I'm also aware of the arguments behind it, and I do not find them persuasive.

Pop quiz: on what date did Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (1) receive the Priesthood from a heavenly messenger, and (2) baptize each other, having no authority to do so previously?

May 15, 1829 was the date that Oliver and Joseph baptized each other.  However there are no contemporary records to corroborate an angelic messenger conferring priesthood authority to Oliver and Joseph.  The narrative told of an angel conferring priesthood authority didn't develop until a few years later.  The idea of Priesthood authority wasn't fully baked in 1829 and the concept of an angel needing to confer this authority also wasn't around at that time.  The BoM has narratives of how authority was given was by divine command, like Alma baptizing in Mosiah 18.  And it wasn't explicitly Priesthood authority, the concept of Priesthood was also a later development.  

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

May 15, 1829 was the date that Oliver and Joseph baptized each other.  However there are no contemporary records to corroborate an angelic messenger conferring priesthood authority to Oliver and Joseph.  The narrative told of an angel conferring priesthood authority didn't develop until a few years later.  The idea of Priesthood authority wasn't fully baked in 1829 and the concept of an angel needing to confer this authority also wasn't around at that time.  The BoM has narratives of how authority was given was by divine command, like Alma baptizing in Mosiah 18.  And it wasn't explicitly Priesthood authority, the concept of Priesthood was also a later development.  

Correct, even though I'm sure kiwi will dismiss by saying this is revisionist history.  

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying LDS teach women are never visited and taught by angels?

If not, what do you think administration of angels is and what is the access it gives to God that getting down on our knees or speaking from our heart in prayer does not?

Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and Son when he had not covenanted, been ordained to the Priesthood, or given any keys.

In what way was his experience not full access to God?

My view is ordinances and covenants provide a variety of lessons that those who are not ordained or operating under covenant do not have, but we still all have the same Teacher and all can therefore go to him and ask of him what we desire and what he desires for us whether one is the President of the Church or a 14 year old boy who sought him out when the Church was nonexistent on earth or if one is experiencing any other state of existence men and women have been in since the beginning of mortality.

Just one question...where were the angels when it became necessary to persuade those women to enter polygamy?  Why not have the same angels that visited JS..(or said to)..communicate with these women?  I don't profess to be highly educated on all religious matters pertaining to the bible...but what women (other than mother mary, mary) who received the resurrected Jesus, received anything from angels...Mary, the mother is the only one that I know of.  Why not Emma?   The woman who was destined to be a mother of this dispensation?? 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

May 15, 1829 was the date that Oliver and Joseph baptized each other.  However there are no contemporary records to corroborate an angelic messenger conferring priesthood authority to Oliver and Joseph.  The narrative told of an angel conferring priesthood authority didn't develop until a few years later.  The idea of Priesthood authority wasn't fully baked in 1829 and the concept of an angel needing to confer this authority also wasn't around at that time.  The BoM has narratives of how authority was given was by divine command, like Alma baptizing in Mosiah 18.  And it wasn't explicitly Priesthood authority, the concept of Priesthood was also a later development.  

While I agree the narrative emphasizing angelic authority wasn't there in our extant writings I think you push things too far the other direction. For one Alma was already a priest so I think you twist the story when you say it wasn't with authority. Indeed the text emphasizes Alma as priest. Second most historians assume the decision to seek baptism was conceive while translating 3 Nephi not Mosiah 18. But 3 Nephi explicitly emphasizes authority in 11:21-13. So if that's the passage that led them to seek baptism they'd presumably seek "power to baptize" that's emphasized in the text. It's even given by a heavenly messenger (Christ). Finally priesthood is emphasized in the Book of Mormon in Alma 13 which Joseph had already translated at that time. So to argue that a concept of priesthood is later is just mistaken. Further entering into the priesthood in Alma 13 emphasizes how their garments were washed white. 

So while our modern conception of priesthood was absent, the idea of authority and priesthood for baptism wasn't. If anything what would be the case at the time was seeing no distinction between priesthood and baptism the way we do today.

Edited November 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I agree the narrative emphasizing angelic authority wasn't there in our extant writings I think you push things too far the other direction. For one Alma was already a priest so I think you twist the story when you say it wasn't with authority. Indeed the text emphasizes Alma as priest. Second most historians assume the decision to seek baptism was conceive while translating 3 Nephi not Mosiah 18. But 3 Nephi explicitly emphasizes authority in 11:21-13. So if that's the passage that led them to seek baptism they'd presumably seek "power to baptize" that's emphasized in the text. It's even given by a heavenly messenger (Christ). Finally priesthood is emphasized in the Book of Mormon in Alma 13 which Joseph had already translated at that time. So to argue that a concept of priesthood is later is just mistaken. Further entering into the priesthood in Alma 13 emphasizes how their garments were washed white. 

So while our modern conception of priesthood was absent, the idea of authority and priesthood for baptism wasn't. If anything what would be the case at the time was seeing no distinction between priesthood and baptism the way we do today.

My question would be, in what sense was Alma a priest? Lehi wasn't a Levite.

[Maestrophil]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually I don’t think sin restricts access to God, I’ve seen too many examples to the contrary.  

I think God’s plan is loving creation, goodness and life, so anything that takes away from those things I would agree in some sense is diminishing a connection with God.  

So as I said before - are we safe to assume you believe that the brethren, and more specifically the President of the LDS church are NOT actual mouth-pieces of God?

If you don't (which is fine - and your prerogative), then we are all just going to keep talking around in circles.  If they are, then they are doing their best to enforce God's will.  Mistakes can and are made, but also remedied.  As far as the LBGT subject, which seems to hold a lot of weight with dissatisfied members etc., There is not, nor has ever been any indication form any prophet that homosexual sexual relations are anything less than fornication.  How can there be an exception for that?  Should we allow people of other sins to attend the temple as well?  Murderers, Straight couples having sex out of wedlock? Drunkards? Are there not historical examples of God restricting access for certain ordinances and knowledge to certain groups at certain times?

It seems (correct me if I am wrong) that you feel that God would not ever restrict anyone from anything, and if there is a document, organization, or teaching to the contrary, you are seeking to reduce the legitimacy of such to make it fit your worldview...  

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

My question would be, in what sense was Alma a priest? Lehi wasn't a Levite.

I think I brought this up before with the distinction between Sons of Moses and Sons of Aaron. There appears to be an older strata of a competing priesthood to the Aaronic tied to the prophets. I think Alma 13 is evidence for that. A lot of this gets wrapped up in the discussion of the Josiah reforms and changes pushed by the Deuteronomist tradition and Priestly tradition. Lehi is clearly not in that tradition. He offers sacrifice in high places and not just at the Jerusalem temple. There's an argument to be made that in places like Nephi's vision we see more Canaanite-like traditions that were expunged by the Josiah reforms.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I would hesitantly guess that your examples involve repentant sinners, those who are working on their sins and come under the atonement of Christ.

Those who embrace their sins and refuse to give them up are definitely restricted in their access to God.  No unclean thing can enter his presence, only those who are clean through Christ.  So yes, sin restricts access to God.

I'm not willing to say that God restricts access to unrepentant sinners.  I personally think that God often is involved most with those who need it most, including those who aren't in a repentant state and may be struggling the most.  I don't like the cleanliness/purity language of Christianity, and I think God loves and is a part of the lives of most everyone most of the time with only rare exceptions from my observations, but I still wouldn't be willing to say that God restricts access to even the most heinous of people.  I would rather say that we just don't know.  

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, it's a restriction; but not of access to God.

It's a restriction from entering into binding covenants which they have little or no hope of being able to keep.

We know this. Your point?

Thank you for telling us what you believe. However, those who think the Priesthood really is something more significant than a mere marker of social status don't share your belief.

For the very good and sufficient reason that it doesn't.

That's a circular argument. Sure a woman who isn't the Elders' Quorum President doesn't get to seek inspiration about how to administer the Elders' Quorum, but why would she need it? The "access to God associated with those callings" is nothing more or less than the access to God needed to carry out those callings. You might as well complain (and you really might as well, while you're on a roll) that men don't get "access to God associated with those callings" such as Relief Society President, Primary President, etc.

Sigh.

"Via an angelic encounter" is, by definition, indirect. You are desperately overplaying your hand; as, of course, you must, since it's rather nondescript.

You finally got something right.

And that's the key phrase: to you.

Sorry kiwi57, I'm having a hard time finding much to build off here.  You seem to disagree with me on every count.  Probably best to just acknowledge a broad difference of opinion.  

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

To me, the one true church thing makes sense.  Unless all Churches teach exactly the same thing, the differences will result in one Church being more true than the others.  Unless of course not even God knows what God is and what God believes then I guess there can be many true churches as God himself does not know what is going on. 

Maybe its more complicated than that.  Maybe its not about specific church's or theologies, maybe its more about how we treat one another and our good works.  That's the gospel message in a nut shell for me, if any denomination preaches that gospel, I affirm it.  I think life is not a quest to determine which interpretation of some ancient text is most in alignment with a deity, but rather a desire to serve and love and build a better place for all.  

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying LDS teach women are never visited and taught by angels?

If not, what do you think administration of angels is and what is the access it gives to God that getting down on our knees or speaking from our heart in prayer does not?

Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and Son when he had not covenanted, been ordained to the Priesthood, or given any keys.

In what way was his experience not full access to God?

My view is ordinances and covenants provide a variety of lessons that those who are not ordained or operating under covenant do not have, but we still all have the same Teacher and all can therefore go to him and ask of him what we desire and what he desires for us whether one is the President of the Church or a 14 year old boy who sought him out when the Church was nonexistent on earth or if one is experiencing any other state of existence men and women have been in since the beginning of mortality.

I'm not saying LDS women can't have interaction with angels.  I was just repeating the LDS definition for keys of the administering of angels and what that seems to mean.  

Maybe you could tell me what the big deal is with the keys of the administering of angels.  I don't know, but supposedly it's only available those with the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood.  

As for the priesthood callings and the access to God that is connected to the specific needs of that calling.  I would say that in LDS theology this access to God for the needs of that calling are unique to the duties of that calling.  And since women can't have those callings, then they also can't have that same access to God for the duties of that calling.  At the least this would mean that women can't experience the same kind of growth by having those experiences.  You could argue that they can grow just as much by accessing to God through Relief Society callings, but I would say its different because for one there are less leadership callings to go around, so from a numbers perspective there are less women in leadership, and two that the scope of responsibility is less than in some of the callings just for men.