One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Yes, and technically it is revisionist history.  The current highly educated historians are revising the narratives and myths that previous generations told about the foundations of the church.  The more light that can be shone on the actual historical evidence the better.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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.

I do have some thoughts on your comments, and these are good points and I want to reference a couple books first.  I'll get back to you on these points, because this is an important discussion and the concept of Priesthood vs. a Priest, and divine command authority vs. laying on of hands authority are different.  Thanks

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

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...  

I don't believe that anyone person is permanently a mouthpiece for God, even for short periods of time like callings to positions of authority.  I believe any one person can be inspired and that things they say and do can be interpreted as having inspiration from God.  Its kind of like the statement about a prophet only being a prophet when he(she) is acting as such.  Just because someone speaks at a conference or church meeting, I don't automatically assume those comments are inspired by God.  I think the Alma 32 test should be applied, I also think the core principles of the gospel should be weighted and balanced against any advice given by church leaders or anyone else.  I look at the principles as the guiding compass pointing the direction we should go, and I look at specific orders, policies, teachings, even "doctrines" as suggestions that certain people have that are tied to a specific context and worldview, that may not be in alignment with the compass.  I will always try to follow the compass.  

On the LGBT topic, I would just say that I believe all our leaders up to this point are not in alignment with the compass and principles of the gospel.  I think with time they will eventually get it right, but it took over 100 years to course correct on the priesthood ban, and many years to eradicate polygamy.  It took the Catholics 100s of years to finally admit they were wrong about Galileo.  Conservative religious groups are slow to change.  

I didn't say that I believe God would never restrict anyone from anything.  I'm not confident enough to proclaim I know the mind of God that well, I'm sure there may be circumstances.  I do think that God loves everyone and wants a connection with all of creation, and I don't think the cleanliness & purity language in Christian traditions are part of the core messages of the gospel.  

[hope_for_things]

7 hours 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.

Alma 13, is talking about the “office of the high priesthood”, which was the same thing as being a high priest.  Charlie Harrell talks about this in his book on The Development of Mormon Theology.  He says, “There is no mention of priesthood as an abstract principle of authority like the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood.”  Chpt. 4

The Mosiah 18 reference I was using as an example of divine command authority to perform an ordinance.  But I’m glad you brought up the likely chronology for what part of the BoM they were working on in May when Joseph and Oliver baptized each other.  In 3 Nephi 11 it talks of power and authority to baptize but doesn’t link this to priesthood.  Interesting that they also receive this power directly from Jesus, not through an ordinance or by laying on of hands, but directly by command.  They definitely were seeking authority or power to baptize, but the idea of priesthood as a principle of authority, and the idea that John the Baptist and Peter, James & John granted this authority to them is not present until 1834 at the earliest that I’m aware of.  

Alma being a priest already might strengthen my argument for priesthood authority not being tied directly to an office.  When Alma baptizes himself and the first convert Helam, he uses language that suggests he’s asking for God’s authority to baptize right there, and it says the Holy Spirit was poured out on him and he baptized himself and the other person at the same time.  The second person he baptized he does not dunk himself in the water that time.  The references to miracles in the BoM are typically connected to the workings of the Holy Spirit, and not to priesthood authority.  Miracles are performed by the power of the spirit.  

It’s clear to me that our modern concept for priesthood as a principle of authority is not the same as in the earliest years of Mormonism.  It was a developing concept.  David Whitmer and William McLellin both said it didn’t exist in the early church.  I believe there are seeds of the theology in the BoM and early revelations, but these seeds are very different concepts than what was articulated later.  Those early BoM concepts are also compatible with other Protestant Christian ideas at the time.  As with all Mormon doctrine, these concepts developed over time.  

If you haven’t read the essay by Dan Vogel on this subject in the 2014 JWHA journal, I highly recommend it, he lays out a timeline that is very useful with a lot of strong evidence to support this idea.  It’s titled Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives, and it starts on p. 58 of that issue, available online, let me know if you would like a link.  

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

You're probably right. There's not going to be a lot of common ground between me and someone who wants to argue that disagreeing with him on a point of doctrine is morally reprehensible.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

You're probably right. There's not going to be a lot of common ground between me and someone who wants to argue that disagreeing with him on a point of doctrine is morally reprehensible.

Pretty sure I’ve never said you or anyone else was morally reprehensible just for disagreement with me.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Alma 13, is talking about the “office of the high priesthood”, which was the same thing as being a high priest.  Charlie Harrell talks about this in his book on The Development of Mormon Theology.  He says, “There is no mention of priesthood as an abstract principle of authority like the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood.”  Chpt. 4

I think he's wrong on this point as for the Jews there was only a single high priest. The idea of abstraction to Aaronic or Melchezedek comes later of course, but I'd argue that's somewhat misleading the way Mormons have interpreted it. But that's beside the point. There's a priesthood in the sense of collection of priests who have rituals and who can do things others can't. Further I'd argue that "holy order of God" is an abstraction in places like 6. So the high priesthood is "of the holy order of God" and "after the order of his Son." The notion of order here is abstract. This isn't called Melchezedek Priesthood, but it's pretty close.

So I think he's either pushing a difference without a difference or is just getting some basics wrong.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The Mosiah 18 reference I was using as an example of divine command authority to perform an ordinance.  But I’m glad you brought up the likely chronology for what part of the BoM they were working on in May when Joseph and Oliver baptized each other.  In 3 Nephi 11 it talks of power and authority to baptize but doesn’t link this to priesthood.  Interesting that they also receive this power directly from Jesus, not through an ordinance or by laying on of hands, but directly by command.  They definitely were seeking authority or power to baptize, but the idea of priesthood as a principle of authority, and the idea that John the Baptist and Peter, James & John granted this authority to them is not present until 1834 at the earliest that I’m aware of.

It doesn't use the word priesthood in 3 Nephi 11 but you just agreed that it has the functional description of priesthood. I fully agree that the term "Aaronic Priesthood" doesn't appear. That's either a later description of what happened or was a term John the Baptist used. But we have to distinguish between the terms used and the structural function. You're conflating those two. 3 Nephi 11 has everything Mormons attribute to priesthood baptism: some can do it while others can't, the authority to do it has to be given. 

Further you still dismiss the key element of Mosiah 18. Alma was a priest. He claims to have authority from the almighty but it's not anywhere described as "divine command authority." Rather the narrative goes out of its way to emphasize that Alma was a priest. Now exactly how to take Nephite baptism isn't exactly clear. It seems partially tied to a Mikvah or normal washing yet Nephi introduces baptism as a imitation of Christ's baptism in his eschatological vision as well. But Alma's role is to take Helam into a covenant.

Most significantly you miss what Alma does. He ordains priests (18:18) after stating that baptism required "the power and authority of God" (17) The implication clearly is that this is the power of being a priest. Further the later Alma 13 seems to be tied to that.

So no, they don't talk about an abstract Aaronic Priesthood but that's irrelevant. (Not the least of which being they weren't priests after the order of Aaron as Alma 13 demonstrates).

Going back to 3 Nephi 11 while it doesn't talk about priesthood it does emphasize that the person baptizing state their authority. (25) This authority was a power given (22). I'd also add that prior to Christ's appearance we have 3 Nephi 7:25 where Nephi ordains people to baptize. So the priesthood authority is implied there. Likewise in the post-Christ religion there are people ordained. (3 Nephi 18:5) We know from Moroni 3 that the "disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers." So I think Moroni clearly establishes that there is a priesthood order and baptism is tied to it. 

So it's not quite clear what's missing. Power and authority are needed to baptize. While Moroni comes after 3 Nephi by then it's clear priests are ordained to this although I'd note again that 3 Nephi 7 already establishes this just around the time of the appearance of John the Baptist.

The abstraction I'd agree comes later and indeed I'd say is fairly muddled. However even most of D&C 84 (1832) while it abstracts priesthood as the authority give doesn't fully abstract it. But priesthood is received, the way the Book of Mormon talked of receiving the spirit. If you mean this terminology of "receiving" then I agree it's not in the Book of Mormon. I'm not sure that's terribly significant nor a problem for the appearance of John the Baptist. Alma 13 does talk of "received the office of the high priesthood." Rather than an abstraction one could easily read D&C 84 as simply shortening that to "received the priesthood." It's a terminological simplification of the sort we'd expect given repetition. I suspect once the phrase is shortened then comes the attraction of reifying the term. (That is take the short term as if it referred to an entity rather than a shorthand)

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Pretty sure I’ve never said you or anyone else was morally reprehensible just for disagreement with me.  

The title of this thread rather strongly implies that it is a "vice" to accept the Lord's revealed verdict about the Church.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he's wrong on this point as for the Jews there was only a single high priest. The idea of abstraction to Aaronic or Melchezedek comes later of course, but I'd argue that's somewhat misleading the way Mormons have interpreted it. But that's beside the point. There's a priesthood in the sense of collection of priests who have rituals and who can do things others can't. Further I'd argue that "holy order of God" is an abstraction in places like 6. So the high priesthood is "of the holy order of God" and "after the order of his Son." The notion of order here is abstract. This isn't called Melchezedek Priesthood, but it's pretty close.

So I think he's either pushing a difference without a difference or is just getting some basics wrong.

I was also reading an essay on this subject last night by William V. Smith titled "Early Mormon Priesthood Revelations: Text, Impact, and Evolution.  Sounds like he agrees with the Dr. Harrell position as for how to interpret the BoM and early Joseph revelation references to "High Priesthood" as a description of an office.  He says, "The term 'high priesthood' was well understood to refer to the office of high priest.  Similar terminology dated from the Book of Mormon translation and was found in Masonic movements of the time.  'Melchizedek' became attached to the high priesthood in early discourse and, by 1835, was firmly embedded in priesthood taxonomy"  

He also has some very detailed textual analysis of the proto texts for D&C 107, and in one of these he's explains: "The word 'priesthood' in the early revelations was not the designator of a class of individuals or offices.  It named an office.  This is partly telegraphed to modern readers in the spelling above (priest hood).  It gradually evolved in usage so that priesthood meant a multitude of things."  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V46N04_103b.pdf

I recommend reading it, I'm not through it all the way yet, but I really respect WVS and his detailed analysis of this subject is interesting and well studied.  

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It doesn't use the word priesthood in 3 Nephi 11 but you just agreed that it has the functional description of priesthood. I fully agree that the term "Aaronic Priesthood" doesn't appear. That's either a later description of what happened or was a term John the Baptist used. But we have to distinguish between the terms used and the structural function. You're conflating those two. 3 Nephi 11 has everything Mormons attribute to priesthood baptism: some can do it while others can't, the authority to do it has to be given. 

The point I tried to make here is that priesthood as an abstract principle of authority like we have today in the church, is not found in the BoM text.  Jesus gives them authority by command, but this would not have been thought of as priesthood in our modern sense.  The word priesthood was synonymous with an office title, like elder or priesthood.  

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Further you still dismiss the key element of Mosiah 18. Alma was a priest. He claims to have authority from the almighty but it's not anywhere described as "divine command authority." Rather the narrative goes out of its way to emphasize that Alma was a priest. Now exactly how to take Nephite baptism isn't exactly clear. It seems partially tied to a Mikvah or normal washing yet Nephi introduces baptism as a imitation of Christ's baptism in his eschatological vision as well. But Alma's role is to take Helam into a covenant.

Most significantly you miss what Alma does. He ordains priests (18:18) after stating that baptism required "the power and authority of God" (17) The implication clearly is that this is the power of being a priest. Further the later Alma 13 seems to be tied to that.

Alma was a priest of Noah, that is all the text tells us.  It doesn't say he has authority to baptize anywhere in the text.  I read the narrative as going against your interpretation as Alma specifically prays "O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart".  I believe this is evidence of him asking for authority, and the proof is in the next verse when the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he then says he has authority from God.  The direct link between asking for the Spirit, and then receiving the Spirit and the authority, and then connecting this receipt of authority with performing the ritual for both himself and Helam.   

I think your reading that Alma's title as a priest of Noah granted him authority to baptize is anachronistic.  Could you show any evidence to support the idea that Alma already had authority to baptize prior to this event with him calling on God to receive the Spirit?  The words divine command authority isn't found in the text because its a modern philosophical description of God granting authority by command.  I assumed you understood this because you know way more about philosophy than I do.  Sorry if my description was confusing on this point.  

Lastly, I'm having a hard time finding any evidence to support your idea that the BoM text emphasizes Alma as being a priest already.  Nothing in chapter 18 to talk about Alma already being a priest.  All the references I'm reading are talking about the priests of king Noah as a group, Alma being one of them.  I'm not aware of this group of Noah priests ever performing religious rituals anywhere in the text.  This idea that Alma already had a title that directly granted him authority to perform a ritual like baptism, I don't see anywhere.  Also, I'm thinking that Joseph was likely borrowing from biblical narratives, there are examples in the bible of false priests or evil priests, these priests of Noah seem to better fit that description.  

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, I'm having a hard time finding any evidence to support your idea that the BoM text emphasizes Alma as being a priest already.  Nothing in chapter 18 to talk about Alma already being a priest.  All the references I'm reading are talking about the priests of king Noah as a group, Alma being one of them.  I'm not aware of this group of Noah priests ever performing religious rituals anywhere in the text.  This idea that Alma already had a title that directly granted him authority to perform a ritual like baptism, I don't see anywhere.  Also, I'm thinking that Joseph was likely borrowing from biblical narratives, there are examples in the bible of false priests or evil priests, these priests of Noah seem to better fit that description.  

I'll comment later on the WVS article when I have some more time. (May be a little while - we're doing a baby blessing this weekend and my parents are down from Canada)

To the above, Mosiah 17:2 says that Alma was one of the priests the King commanded to slay Abinadi. When he forms his own Church he immediately ordains priests and claims he does this because of authority. (18:18) Exactly what the connection between the Priests of Noah and the main body of Nephites isn't clear and likely is part of the lost 116 pages.

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe that anyone person is permanently a mouthpiece for God, even for short periods of time like callings to positions of authority.  I believe any one person can be inspired and that things they say and do can be interpreted as having inspiration from God.  Its kind of like the statement about a prophet only being a prophet when he(she) is acting as such.  Just because someone speaks at a conference or church meeting, I don't automatically assume those comments are inspired by God.  I think the Alma 32 test should be applied, I also think the core principles of the gospel should be weighted and balanced against any advice given by church leaders or anyone else.  I look at the principles as the guiding compass pointing the direction we should go, and I look at specific orders, policies, teachings, even "doctrines" as suggestions that certain people have that are tied to a specific context and worldview, that may not be in alignment with the compass.  I will always try to follow the compass.  

On the LGBT topic, I would just say that I believe all our leaders up to this point are not in alignment with the compass and principles of the gospel.  I think with time they will eventually get it right, but it took over 100 years to course correct on the priesthood ban, and many years to eradicate polygamy.  It took the Catholics 100s of years to finally admit they were wrong about Galileo.  Conservative religious groups are slow to change.  

I didn't say that I believe God would never restrict anyone from anything.  I'm not confident enough to proclaim I know the mind of God that well, I'm sure there may be circumstances.  I do think that God loves everyone and wants a connection with all of creation, and I don't think the cleanliness & purity language in Christian traditions are part of the core messages of the gospel.  

Yep... then with that said.  We will obviously continue to disagree (though I respect your opinion, and am not offended by differing views!)  

The LDS church is a LONG way fro changing to believe they are not lead by prophets and apostles through divine authority.  And I and the current LDS leadership believe that moral (read, sexual) purity is of primary importance in the gospel discussion and lifestyle.  I do believe that God wants a people who honors their sexual gifts and keeps them in the bounds He has set.  In my mind, there is not a grey area here...  he sets the limits - I follow.  My guess is that the church would splinter/fall apart, before changing these views.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll comment later on the WVS article when I have some more time. (May be a little while - we're doing a baby blessing this weekend and my parents are down from Canada)

To the above, Mosiah 17:2 says that Alma was one of the priests the King commanded to slay Abinadi. When he forms his own Church he immediately ordains priests and claims he does this because of authority. (18:18) Exactly what the connection between the Priests of Noah and the main body of Nephites isn't clear and likely is part of the lost 116 pages.

Thanks, baby blessings are much more important, hope you enjoy the visit and it isn't too stressful.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Yep... then with that said.  We will obviously continue to disagree (though I respect your opinion, and am not offended by differing views!)  

The LDS church is a LONG way fro changing to believe they are not lead by prophets and apostles through divine authority.  And I and the current LDS leadership believe that moral (read, sexual) purity is of primary importance in the gospel discussion and lifestyle.  I do believe that God wants a people who honors their sexual gifts and keeps them in the bounds He has set.  In my mind, there is not a grey area here...  he sets the limits - I follow.  My guess is that the church would splinter/fall apart, before changing these views.

Well, I'm not so sure the church is that far away from it.  After Joseph died members seemed to reserve this prophet title more for references to Joseph, and other leaders were definitely on a lower level of status.  But that has started to change again in recent generations, but I could see the pendulum swinging back the other way, even with recent statements from Elder Ballard about not being an authority on many different topics.  The expectations for a church leader can and should be lowered.  

I'm very conservative on sexual issues, as a raised Mormon it has definitely influenced me and I think our society in general is way over sexualized.  I think the modesty rhetoric in the church is very unhealthy as well as discussions about pornography and healthy sexual expression.  Many of these topics are taboo to discuss, but I think there is room for improvement without abandoning principles of maintaining fidelity in marriage and of respect for the power of intimate relationships.  These things are all culturally influenced as well, and I'm sure many of our societal norms today would seem very foreign to previous generations, and that includes within Mormon culture. 

My difference is with connecting purity with sex.  I don't think those things should be connected.  

[Guest]

On November 27, 2017 at 11:42 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?  

You posts suggest that you believe there are other Christian Faith, as we do to. When a Latter-day Saint speaks of the only true Church, they do not say the "only true Christian Church", they are expressing the idea taken from scripture, and properly say. "I believe that this Church is true". We believe we have the fullness of the Gospel. Of course their are other Christian! Also In my 39 years as a member, never reading any doctrine of Priesthood leadership teach of teaching of shunning. And certainly not the shunning of one's own family. Just to point out a couple of things. 

[Maestrophil]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:23 AM, hope_for_things said:

My difference is with connecting purity with sex.  I don't think those things should be connected.  

Can you please explain how this can be so?  So someone can be engaging in sex outside the bonds of marriage and still be pure.  Is that what you are saying?  

I agree that strictly speaking, as in cased of abuse or rape, that sex and purity are different - but in the case of willfully choosing to engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage - how can that be seen as anything but a lack of purity?  Help me understand.

[Maestrophil]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:23 AM, hope_for_things said:

Well, I'm not so sure the church is that far away from it.  After Joseph died members seemed to reserve this prophet title more for references to Joseph, and other leaders were definitely on a lower level of status.  But that has started to change again in recent generations, but I could see the pendulum swinging back the other way, even with recent statements from Elder Ballard about not being an authority on many different topics.  The expectations for a church leader can and should be lowered.  

I'm very conservative on sexual issues, as a raised Mormon it has definitely influenced me and I think our society in general is way over sexualized.  I think the modesty rhetoric in the church is very unhealthy as well as discussions about pornography and healthy sexual expression.  Many of these topics are taboo to discuss, but I think there is room for improvement without abandoning principles of maintaining fidelity in marriage and of respect for the power of intimate relationships.  These things are all culturally influenced as well, and I'm sure many of our societal norms today would seem very foreign to previous generations, and that includes within Mormon culture. 

My difference is with connecting purity with sex.  I don't think those things should be connected.  

And in keeping with the OP - I would not want to be part of a church that did not offer me something 'more' than other churches did.  For me, that something is and has been the closer connection to revelation and authority that the LDS church claims.  I consider it a virtue when seen in light of all truth being contained in one whole.  In other words, I view the LDS faith a gathering place for all truths from other worldview - which I consider also often if not always God-inspired.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Can you please explain how this can be so?  So someone can be engaging in sex outside the bonds of marriage and still be pure.  Is that what you are saying?  

I agree that strictly speaking, as in cased of abuse or rape, that sex and purity are different - but in the case of willfully choosing to engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage - how can that be seen as anything but a lack of purity?  Help me understand.

Yes, I'm saying that engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage isn't necessarily pure or impure by definition.  Purity is a construct created to try and police cultural norms, I don't believe it directly ties to God or not.  Each group that has an ideal for purity will define what is pure for that group of people.  I don't believe it is something God has defined. 

For example, in early Mormonism, having multiple sexual partners outside the bonds of legal marriage, was common practice by early church leaders and my ancestors.  Personally, I don't consider those actions to be ideal, and I personally don't think it was ethical, but for them, they believed they were living a higher law of God.  I try not to judge whether they were pure in the eyes of God, because there is no way to for me to know that or not.  I try to show charity towards others and their very different perspectives.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

And in keeping with the OP - I would not want to be part of a church that did not offer me something 'more' than other churches did.  For me, that something is and has been the closer connection to revelation and authority that the LDS church claims.  I consider it a virtue when seen in light of all truth being contained in one whole.  In other words, I view the LDS faith a gathering place for all truths from other worldview - which I consider also often if not always God-inspired.

There is really no objective way for you to know if Mormonism offers you "more" than other churches.  Its more accurate to say that Mormonism offers you something different, and that you perceive the value of that difference as being a great thing for you and your life.   I would hope that people align with religious institutions because they believe they are receiving value from those relationships.  

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There is really no objective way for you to know if Mormonism offers you "more" than other churches.  Its more accurate to say that Mormonism offers you something different, and that you perceive the value of that difference as being a great thing for you and your life.   I would hope that people align with religious institutions because they believe they are receiving value from those relationships.  

On that we agree - people will and should go where they feel a spiritual connection.  I was simply stating that I don't consider it a vice if people believe the truth claims of the LDS church, or any other for that matter.  

 

The only objectivity I have is spending many years attending other churches and learning of their teachings - but you are right that I have never had a fully committed relationship to any other faith.

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I'm saying that engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage isn't necessarily pure or impure by definition.  Purity is a construct created to try and police cultural norms, I don't believe it directly ties to God or not.  Each group that has an ideal for purity will define what is pure for that group of people.  I don't believe it is something God has defined. 

For example, in early Mormonism, having multiple sexual partners outside the bonds of legal marriage, was common practice by early church leaders and my ancestors.  Personally, I don't consider those actions to be ideal, and I personally don't think it was ethical, but for them, they believed they were living a higher law of God.  I try not to judge whether they were pure in the eyes of God, because there is no way to for me to know that or not.  I try to show charity towards others and their very different perspectives.  

Notice I did not say 'legal' bonds of marriage as you added.  I don't believe marriage to be a legal contract - but rather a religious one.  Polygamy is still a valid form of marriage where sanctioned by God.  

So yes, the conversation can probably end there about sexuality - as there is no way I see sex outside of marriage as possible while maintaining spiritual purity.  And you don't.  Which is fine, but does not square with Mormon doctrine.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

On that we agree - people will and should go where they feel a spiritual connection.  I was simply stating that I don't consider it a vice if people believe the truth claims of the LDS church, or any other for that matter.  

The only objectivity I have is spending many years attending other churches and learning of their teachings - but you are right that I have never had a fully committed relationship to any other faith.

Thanks, this makes sense.  To clarify, in my OP I wanted a discussion about the negative outcomes in a strong exclusivity belief, the one true church concept.  I'm asking if people think that the negatives outweigh the positives.  A couple participants got held up by my use of the term vice, but that was paired opposite virtue.  Perhaps I could have found more appropriate terms.  The way I was thinking of this is in a typical business financial decision context.  What is the cost/benefit analysis on the exclusivity claim.  Do we have a net positive impact from this belief or is it a net negative.  

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

So yes, the conversation can probably end there about sexuality - as there is no way I see sex outside of marriage as possible while maintaining spiritual purity.  And you don't.  Which is fine, but does not square with Mormon doctrine.

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

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

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

Quote

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

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

Edited December 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Maestrophil]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

Right - which puts us right back to the original questions of truth claims.  IF the LDS church is viewed as the pinnacle of revelation (as I view it), then God's approval is the only metric.  

 

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

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

The balancing act that I try and do, and I believe the church is doing more and more, is to continue to hold to the claims of exclusive keys, while still recognizing that God has scattered truths everywhere, and it is our duty to collect and embrace them.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

How would you know? Have you asked one?

We accept that Plural Marriage can be justified by God in some circumstances because God said so. God has never said that He justifies what you are pleased to call "other sexual unions," so we don't either. That's not hypocrisy, that's consistency.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Yes. It can.