"What does it mean that this is the true Church?"

[Scott Lloyd]

A brief but thought-provoking treatise by Elder J. Devn Cornish, a General Authority Seventy, has appeared on LDS.org. It addresses the concept expressed in the Lord's statement that this is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30."

Critics are often prone to quibble and fuss over this concept, so I thought I would post a link to Elder Cornish's piece. An excerpt:

Quote

If the leaders and members of the past were able to establish Christ’s Church even though their efforts were sometimes imperfect, and if they sometimes made mistakes, then what does it mean to say that this is the true Church? It means that we may have complete confidence in the validity of the restored priesthood authority, the saving ordinances, the revealed doctrine, the scriptures, and the united quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. It means that we may know that the Savior Himself directs the Church and that the Holy Ghost will bear witness to all sincere seekers of the truth of these things. It means that by striving to keep the covenants associated with the ordinances, and continually repenting, even imperfect but sincere people like you and me will live in celestial glory with God and Christ and our families forever, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

.......................

If the leaders and members of the past were able to establish Christ’s Church even though their efforts were sometimes imperfect, and if they sometimes made mistakes, then what does it mean to say that this is the true Church? It means that we may have complete confidence in the validity of the restored priesthood authority, the saving ordinances, the revealed doctrine, the scriptures, and the united quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. It means that we may know that the Savior Himself directs the Church and that the Holy Ghost will bear witness to all sincere seekers of the truth of these things. It means that by striving to keep the covenants associated with the ordinances, and continually repenting, even imperfect but sincere people like you and me will live in celestial glory with God and Christ and our families forever, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Not sure that Elder Cornish's logic here is entirely coherent or meaningful:

Quote

Quote

1. If the leaders and members of the past were able to establish Christ’s Church even though their efforts were sometimes imperfect,

2. if they sometimes made mistakes,

Then to say that the LDS Church is the true Church means 

a. that we may have complete confidence in the validity of the restored priesthood authority,

b. the saving ordinances,

c. the revealed doctrine,

d. the scriptures,

e. and the united quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. 

f. that we may know that the Savior Himself directs the Church

g. that the Holy Ghost will bear witness to all sincere seekers of the truth of these things.

h. that by striving to keep the covenants associated with the ordinances,

i. and continually repenting,

THEREFORE: even imperfect but sincere people like you and me will live in celestial glory with God and Christ and our families forever,

through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Since the Atonement of Jesus Christ supersedes all other considerations, and since faith in Christ is the one essential element which produces all those other elements, then all these other (above) considerations are merely epiphenomena resulting from faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which centers on Christ's Atonement.  That is, they are merely fruits of authentic faith.

That the LDS Church is the true and living Body of Christ and Kingdom of God on Earth which authoritatively embodies and preaches that authentic Gospel, makes it a key element in the worldwide promulgation of that saving Gospel.  Yet all those features of the true Church and its adherents which seem so important in achieving Celestial Glory are merely the natural, concomitant result of the faith of those adherents, and do in no way earn God's saving grace.  They are not conditions of righteousness, but rather the natural features/results of righteous people who have authentic faith.  They are phenomena which follow them that believe, and by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that Elder Cornish's logic here is entirely coherent or meaningful:

Since the Atonement of Jesus Christ supersedes all other considerations, and since faith in Christ is the one essential element which produces all those other elements, then all these other (above) considerations are merely epiphenomena resulting from faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which centers on Christ's Atonement.  That is, they are merely fruits of authentic faith.

That the LDS Church is the true and living Body of Christ and Kingdom of God on Earth which authoritatively embodies and preaches that authentic Gospel, makes it a key element in the worldwide promulgation of that saving Gospel.  Yet all those features of the true Church and its adherents which seem so important in achieving Celestial Glory are merely the natural, concomitant result of the faith of those adherents, and do in no way earn God's saving grace.  They are not conditions of righteousness, but rather the natural features/results of righteous people who have authentic faith.  They are phenomena which follow them that believe, and by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

They that have faith and truly believe must at some point, either in this life or the next, enter into covenants and receive ordinances of salvation through the instrumentality of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other entity can administer those ordinances and covenants. It was set up by Christ Himself for this very purpose. 

This is how I read Elder Cornish’s statement, and I see it as being quite coherent. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that Elder Cornish's logic here is entirely coherent or meaningful:

Since the Atonement of Jesus Christ supersedes all other considerations, and since faith in Christ is the one essential element which produces all those other elements, then all these other (above) considerations are merely epiphenomena resulting from faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which centers on Christ's Atonement.  That is, they are merely fruits of authentic faith.

That the LDS Church is the true and living Body of Christ and Kingdom of God on Earth which authoritatively embodies and preaches that authentic Gospel, makes it a key element in the worldwide promulgation of that saving Gospel.  Yet all those features of the true Church and its adherents which seem so important in achieving Celestial Glory are merely the natural, concomitant result of the faith of those adherents, and do in no way earn God's saving grace.  They are not conditions of righteousness, but rather the natural features/results of righteous people who have authentic faith.  They are phenomena which follow them that believe, and by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

I struggle to see the members exemplify Christ in the last two wards I've been in, I find members doing their duty. But not being authentic in it. There were indeed many that did but many that do not. The members in my old ward and now my new ward have let me down. The only time I thought everyone was peachy keen was when I was full in. Now that I'm not all in, I don't see it. This has been a huge eye opener. Put in as compassionate service at my request. Wanted to minister and get ministered to. My partner who is a member of the motab will not return my calls, she has nothing to do with me. My ministering sisters have not contacted me. As the many months go by, I see that "the one" is not that important. No contact from my bishop. Even though I set up a meeting with my bishop to explain my situation. Not someone that "wants to be left alone". Someone that needed to be needed. The kingdom isn't so in my estimation. And really maybe my time to venture outside of it to see if there is any at all. Maybe the kingdom is really for certain humans, that have the credentials or made covenants. Yet so many Christ-like people aren't in that specific kingdom. It might be that there are many kingdoms or bodies or groups representing Christ, not an organization per se. I believe the fruits are in the eye of the beholder.

ETA: I need to state that I do see the members living lives that do exemplify Christ often, started thinking that I came off bad in this post, and have a problem lumping all together. Maybe these covenants contribute to that kingdom to where people live closer to producing good fruit. I admit I'm  very back and forth. And I'm posting at 4:00 am, plus I didn't read your comments well enough to understand you. Now that I read it two more times I see that my reply isn't the best.  

Edited September 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[PPP]

The church has taken great steps towards honesty in the realm of history  In the future, the challenge will be to be honest in the realm of theology.

The $64,000 dollar question that the "honest church history" leads to is this:  Why did God condemn all prior churches for their imperfections, only to restore the ONE TRUE CHURCH in yet another very imperfect church?  Let's unpack this the traditional explanations for the apostasy, and compare them with the results of the "honest church history" movement:

Explanation #1: The Early Church changed its ordinances, therefore apostasy!  Counter-Argument #1:  The current LDS church has changed its ordinances too.  Changes in the temple ceremony are well documented. Changes in the wording of baptism are easy to see (compare with the wording of the BOM vs. current wording). Do I really need to go further with this?

Explanation #2: The Early Church didn't have the correct organizational structure (12 apostles, etc.). Counter-Argument #2:  History shows us that the organizational structure of the early LDS church was also quite fluid. It took time to develop the various quorums. The balance of power between the quorums has changed over time.  The meaning of "apostle" has changed in modern times as well - consider Brigham Young's ordination of his young son to the apostleship, who was never seated in the Quorum of the 12!  Consider the rule changes instituted to prevent the son of BY from becoming the leader of the church.

Explanation #3:  The Early Church started teaching false doctrines.  Counter-Argument #3:  The early LDS church also taught doctrines now regarded as false.  Adam-God. The priesthood ban, etc.

Explanation #4: The Early Church had sinful leaders.  Counter-Argument #3:  So God's solution to this was to create a church where leaders secretly married 14 year old girls and other men's wives, violating morality taught in the New Testament and D&C 132?  Or where, after publicly renouncing polygamy, church leaders continued to marry new wives in private?

Yes, the early church was imperfect.  Yes, the restored Church is imperfect.  

The big question is:  How can the current church, with all its imperfections, claim to be so superior to all other churches so as to be the "one true church?"  Its the claims to exclusivity of the current church, in light of its history, that seem to pose the theological conundrum.  Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, PPP said:

The church has taken great steps towards honesty in the realm of history  In the future, the challenge will be to be honest in the realm of theology.

The $64,000 dollar question that the "honest church history" leads to is this:  Why did God condemn all prior churches for their imperfections, only to restore the ONE TRUE CHURCH in yet another very imperfect church?  Let's unpack this the traditional explanations for the apostasy, and compare them with the results of the "honest church history" movement:

Explanation #1: The Early Church changed its ordinances, therefore apostasy!  Counter-Argument #1:  The current LDS church has changed its ordinances too.  Changes in the temple ceremony are well documented. Changes in the wording of baptism are easy to see (compare with the wording of the BOM vs. current wording). Do I really need to go further with this?

Explanation #2: The Early Church didn't have the correct organizational structure (12 apostles, etc.). Counter-Argument #2:  History shows us that the organizational structure of the early LDS church was also quite fluid. It took time to develop the various quorums. The balance of power between the quorums has changed over time.  The meaning of "apostle" has changed in modern times as well - consider Brigham Young's ordination of his young son to the apostleship, who was never seated in the Quorum of the 12!  Consider the rule changes instituted to prevent the son of BY from becoming the leader of the church.

Explanation #3:  The Early Church started teaching false doctrines.  Counter-Argument #3:  The early LDS church also taught doctrines now regarded as false.  Adam-God. The priesthood ban, etc.

Explanation #4: The Early Church had sinful leaders.  Counter-Argument #3:  So God's solution to this was to create a church where leaders secretly married 14 year old girls and other men's wives, violating morality taught in the New Testament and D&C 132?  Or where, after publicly renouncing polygamy, church leaders continued to marry new wives in private?

Yes, the early church was imperfect.  Yes, the restored Church is imperfect.  

The big question is:  How can the current church, with all its imperfections, claim to be so superior to all other churches so as to be the "one true church?"  Its the claims to exclusivity of the current church, in light of its history, that seem to pose the theological conundrum.  Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?

 

Well I am clearly not Scott.

History Shmistory!

It's dead and gone and not relevant for today's spiritual issues anyway.

It is the truest church because it is pragmatically the best possible Paradigm for Imaging God.

It encourages us to become perfect people who live in a perfect Society. It encourages us to receive direct Revelation from God regarding these matters.

It preaches the exaltation of the entire human race from the dawn of History.

It preaches that through God's grace we can be forgiven of our sins and to progress eternally.

If one was to seek out a paradigm which is better for Humanity it simply cannot be done. I know because I tried it.

Not only is it true but it is also living.

No other Christian churches I know of have a open Cannon. No other Christian churches can adjust their doctrines as needed. What you see as errors I see as received revelation for corrective action.

Changes in outward ordinances are irrelevant. These are not magical incantations. The covenants remain the same.

Notice that I am wording this for a non-believer. I just want to say that I'm a full believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but sometimes we have to talk to critics as secular people would. So these are my answers for secular folks.  This is a logical not spiritual answer.

All errors are due to autocorrect because obviously I could not possibly make one.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now that I read it two more times I see that my reply isn't the best.  

Don't worry about it. When I do that I just go back and erase the whole thing! Unless of course I really mess up and get thrown out of the thread before I come to my senses. 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, PPP said:

The church has taken great steps towards honesty in the realm of history  In the future, the challenge will be to be honest in the realm of theology.

The $64,000 dollar question that the "honest church history" leads to is this:  Why did God condemn all prior churches for their imperfections, only to restore the ONE TRUE CHURCH in yet another very imperfect church?  Let's unpack this the traditional explanations for the apostasy, and compare them with the results of the "honest church history" movement:

Explanation #1: The Early Church changed its ordinances, therefore apostasy!  Counter-Argument #1:  The current LDS church has changed its ordinances too.  Changes in the temple ceremony are well documented. Changes in the wording of baptism are easy to see (compare with the wording of the BOM vs. current wording). Do I really need to go further with this?

Explanation #2: The Early Church didn't have the correct organizational structure (12 apostles, etc.). Counter-Argument #2:  History shows us that the organizational structure of the early LDS church was also quite fluid. It took time to develop the various quorums. The balance of power between the quorums has changed over time.  The meaning of "apostle" has changed in modern times as well - consider Brigham Young's ordination of his young son to the apostleship, who was never seated in the Quorum of the 12!  Consider the rule changes instituted to prevent the son of BY from becoming the leader of the church.

Explanation #3:  The Early Church started teaching false doctrines.  Counter-Argument #3:  The early LDS church also taught doctrines now regarded as false.  Adam-God. The priesthood ban, etc.

Explanation #4: The Early Church had sinful leaders.  Counter-Argument #3:  So God's solution to this was to create a church where leaders secretly married 14 year old girls and other men's wives, violating morality taught in the New Testament and D&C 132?  Or where, after publicly renouncing polygamy, church leaders continued to marry new wives in private?

Yes, the early church was imperfect.  Yes, the restored Church is imperfect.  

The big question is:  How can the current church, with all its imperfections, claim to be so superior to all other churches so as to be the "one true church?"  Its the claims to exclusivity of the current church, in light of its history, that seem to pose the theological conundrum.  Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?

 

I'm not Scott either but your points reveal man as the author, like so many other churches. One may say it is pragmatically the best for this reason or that [until something better comes along], still, it is merely yet another attempt by man to reach the divine, whatever that is.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, PPP said:

The big question is:  How can the current church, with all its imperfections, claim to be so superior to all other churches so as to be the "one true church?"  Its the claims to exclusivity of the current church, in light of its history, that seem to pose the theological conundrum.  Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?

It's a big question only because you bypassed “Explanation Zero”: the retraction from the early church of the priesthood keys – for whatever reason -- which was prophesied but only appreciated long after the fact by revelation.

I find John 12:23-25 to be a no-fault explanation for the Great Apostasy: “And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” If the Son of God should die at the hands of wicked and imperfect men, why should His keys be an exception? He He should be restored in preparation for His Second Coming, why not His keys?

An outgrowth of that was, at worst, the abominable creeds (i.e. uncorrected ordinances, structures, falsehoods and priestcrafts) and at best, no authority to bind heaven and earth together even with the purest of intentions.

[PPP]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am clearly not Scott.

History Shmistory!

It's dead and gone and not relevant for today's spiritual issues anyway.

It is the truest church because it is pragmatically the best possible Paradigm for Imaging God.

It encourages us to become perfect people who live in a perfect Society. It encourages us to receive direct Revelation from God regarding these matters.

It preaches the exaltation of the entire human race from the dawn of History.

It preaches that through God's grace we can be forgiven of our sins and to progress eternally.

If one was to seek out a paradigm which is better for Humanity it simply cannot be done. I know because I tried it.

Not only is it true but it is also living.

No other Christian churches I know of have a open Cannon. No other Christian churches can adjust their doctrines as needed. What you see as errors I see as received revelation for corrective action.

Changes in outward ordinances are irrelevant. These are not magical incantations. The covenants remain the same.

Notice that I am wording this for a non-believer. I just want to say that I'm a full believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but sometimes we have to talk to critics as secular people would. So these are my answers for secular folks.  This is a logical not spiritual answer.

All errors are due to autocorrect because obviously I could not possibly make one.

 

 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond.  My purpose is not to de-convert anyone, but rather make our arguments for the exclusive truth claims of the LDS church more coherent.  I don't think we can rely on arguments for prior apostasy and current restoration that rely on changed ordinances, organizational structure, false doctrines, or sinful leaders. You don't really dispute these points in my first point, other than to say the outward way we perform ordinances is irrelevant (which is a far cry from prior arguments people have made about the invalidity of Catholic baptismal sprinkling, etc.)

- With respect to the "open canon" argument for exclusive truth. this seems susceptible to a few strong counterarguments.  First,  it leads people to saying that when the current church changes, it is "continuing revelation" or the "open canon."  Yet at the same time, we say that changes in other churches (e.g., Catholicism) were "apostasy."  Why is it "continuing revelation" in our church, and "apostasy" in others?  Second, we haven't had a formal addition to the "canon" for nearly 100 years - over half of the lifespan of the modern church. Third, there have been times when things were in the canon, but then removed (i.e. the Lectures on Faith).  Yet many of our members have railed against the early church for supposedly removing truth from the Canon. 

- With respect to the "eternal progression" argument, the counterargument is that we are actually not unique in this. The Eastern Orthodox church teaches deification, which amounts to eternal progression (although not progression to Godhood - a topic I address below).

- With respect to "eternal progression" to the point of Godhood, I agree that we are unique in this, but I disagree that this has been a basis for our exclusivity claims. First, we say that the "Book of Mormon" contains the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet nowhere does the BOM discuss deification to Godhood.  Thus, we either need to admit that "The Book of Mormon does NOT contain the fulness of Gospel of Jesus Christ," or we need to say "Eternal Progression to Godhood is not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."  Both options are not ideal.  If deification as understood by LDS doctrine is so absolutely central to our truth claims, why is it nowhere in the Book of Mormon, aka the book that restores the truths that people improperly corrupted in the Bible?  Why is it not part of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Second, if other church's baptisms aren't valid because they don't teach this Godhood doctrine, simply because this Godhood doctrine wasn't taught in our church for the first 10+ years either. Does that mean that the church's baptisms for the first 10+ years were invalid too?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, PPP said:

The church has taken great steps towards honesty in the realm of history  In the future, the challenge will be<need> to be honest in the realm of theology.

The $64,000 dollar question that the "honest church history" leads to is this:  Why did God condemn all prior churches for their imperfections, only to restore the ONE TRUE CHURCH in yet another very imperfect church? 

I see you've had some good responses. I would like to take a stab at one too. As I view it there were two reasons for the restoration. The early Church went too far astray with ordinances and teachings due to men. Second, Christ did not teach us everything God would reveal in the future, so God also needed to restore the Church in order for this to occur.

Quote

Let's unpack this the traditional explanations for the apostasy, and compare them with the results of the "honest church history" movement:

Explanation #1: The Early Church changed its ordinances, therefore apostasy!  Counter-Argument #1:  The current LDS church has changed its ordinances too.  Changes in the temple ceremony are well documented. Changes in the wording of baptism are easy to see (compare with the wording of the BOM vs. current wording). Do I really need to go further with this?

Explanation #2: The Early Church didn't have the correct organizational structure (12 apostles, etc.). Counter-Argument #2:  History shows us that the organizational structure of the early LDS church was also quite fluid. It took time to develop the various quorums. The balance of power between the quorums has changed over time.  The meaning of "apostle" has changed in modern times as well - consider Brigham Young's ordination of his young son to the apostleship, who was never seated in the Quorum of the 12!  Consider the rule changes instituted to prevent the son of BY from becoming the leader of the church.

Explanation #3:  The Early Church started teaching false doctrines.  Counter-Argument #3:  The early LDS church also taught doctrines now regarded as false.  Adam-God. The priesthood ban, etc.

Explanation #4: The Early Church had sinful leaders.  Counter-Argument #3:  So God's solution to this was to create a church where leaders secretly married 14 year old girls and other men's wives, violating morality taught in the New Testament and D&C 132?  Or where, after publicly renouncing polygamy, church leaders continued to marry new wives in private?

Yes, the early church was imperfect.  Yes, the restored Church is imperfect.  

The big question is:  How can the current church, with all its imperfections, claim to be so superior to all other churches so as to be the "one true church?"  Its the claims to exclusivity of the current church, in light of its history, that seem to pose the theological conundrum.  Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?
 

#1 There is evidence the early church changed its ordinances. There is also evidence some ordinances were simply forgotten. For example Paul talks like the Church performed baptisms for the dead. Is it possible this is an ordinance the Church did in Jerusalem, which was forgotten when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the apostles killed? If so, wouldn't God need to replace that ordinance for the Church to return to the true path? Changes in wording aren't so important if the meaning is there. Obviously different languages are going to have different wording.

#2 I have been a member of this Church 42 years now, and it sometimes bothers me that I continue to learn things like this. However, this about BY doesn't surprise me. He did a number of things I take some exception to. However, he was a great leader and organizer whom I think the Lord used for these talents. The question is did he lead the Church astray any? I will say from a personal standpoint that he did. Does that make the Church untrue? I conclude, no, that it does not. It still had the restored priesthood and restored teachings of Christianity. I take exception to some of Brigham Young's theological teachings as well. You know what? I do not have to accept them to be a member of the Church. He was a man. Men make mistakes. God can correct them.

#3 See above

#4 The early Church had sinful leaders. Yep. The early Church taught that only Christ lived without sin. So God has to work with sinful men who go astray. However, marrying 14 year old women is not a sin. It was done all the time in the Hebrew world, and God never said diddly. Also marrying "other men's wives sounds worse than what happened. There is little strong evidence Joseph Smith ever did this in the present, and none that other church leaders ever did it. Although it has been alleged that Joseph Smith consummated some of these marriages, DNA evidence from the children of these women all have been negative for familial relationship to Joseph Smith. It is likely that Joseph was only sealed to other men's wives in an eternal bond, ie a bond after this life, since legal marriage at the time was til death do you part. This resulted in a spate of hearsay allegations which are read in history accounts about Joseph "marrying other men's wives." Very few are first hand accounts.  And to date the physical evidence just doesn't back up these accounts. That should be troublesome to those who believe these accounts of intimate relations with other men's wives.

Perhaps surprisingly I agree with you that the restored Church is imperfect. Why? Because it is made up of imperfect men who do things incorrectly at times. Despite the Church's need to teach that it is perfect, I believe it is simply not so. So, it has the potential to go astray. However, this does not mean that it is not God's true Church on the earth with the true priesthood and true ordinances. Men have always fumbled to find truth, and follow God imperfectly. God intervenes and leads as needed. He has always done so, and will continue to do so until His work is finished on the earth. That is how an imperfect Church can claim to be the true Church. Your wording of "superior" is not the claim. God does not view us as superior to other people, just as I wouldn't view my faithful children as superior to a wayward child. I love my wayward child as much as my other children(personally right now that doesn't apply). 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't worry about it. When I do that I just go back and erase the whole thing! Unless of course I really mess up and get thrown out of the thread before I come to my senses. 

 

I don't want to erase something that on paper doesn't look all that important but every word had a lot of emotion and I don't want to erase that part of me at the moment. I just wanted Robert to know that after reading his post a couple of times after, that my reply really didn't apply to his reply. 

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A brief but thought-provoking treatise by Elder J. Devn Cornish, a General Authority Seventy, has appeared on LDS.org. It addresses the concept expressed in the Lord's statement that this is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30."

Critics are often prone to quibble and fuss over this concept, so I thought I would post a link to Elder Cornish's piece. An excerpt: [SNIP]

 

I tend to phrase it that the Church is the only authoritative and authorized representation of the Kingdom of God in Heaven here on the Earth. A statement that I think is consistent with and encapsulates what Elder Cornish said.

Sometimes I make the analogy that the Church is like an embassy of the Kingdom of God/Heaven (but it wouldn't be the Kingdom itself as that domain extends to countless worlds well  beyond our earth).

And baptism, baptism, is essentially naturalization as we become citizens of that Kingdom and agree to be subject to its laws.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I struggle to see the members exemplify Christ in the last two wards I've been in, I find members doing their duty. But not being authentic in it. There were indeed many that did but many that do not. The members in my old ward and now my new ward have let me down. The only time I thought everyone was peachy keen was when I was full in. Now that I'm not all in, I don't see it. This has been a huge eye opener. ............................

It may be that some of the members of your ward are afraid of you  -- are afraid that you may be contagious -- aside from the fact that everyone is an individual, and each one is at a different place along the path of life.  Each has his own struggles to contend with, his own demons to overcome.  It will all be "peachy keen" one day, on the Other Side.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It may be that some of the members of your ward are afraid of you  -- are afraid that you may be contagious -- aside from the fact that everyone is an individual, and each one is at a different place along the path of life.  Each has his own struggles to contend with, his own demons to overcome.  It will all be "peachy keen" one day, on the Other Side.

Robert, wish I could give you a great big hug! Finally someone on here that is true believing, gets it. I've been saying this for a long time and others have put it on me, as to why I'm getting ignored. Appreciate that, because I really kept thinking I'm going insane. But you know what, deep down, I was probably the kind of person that did this to others on the fringe because I didn't know how to relate or communicate, so I'm getting my own medicine, I deserve this! But thank you!

Edited September 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They that have faith and truly believe must at some point, either in this life or the next, enter into covenants and receive ordinances of salvation through the instrumentality of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other entity can administer those ordinances and covenants. It was set up by Christ Himself for this very purpose. 

This is how I read Elder Cornish’s statement, and I see it as being quite coherent. 

That is no doubt how he intended it to be understood.   There is also no doubt about the importance of those ordinances and covenants, here and hereafter.  I was merely complaining that he has his priorities backward.  As Pres Kimball truly said:  "Faith precedes the miracle."  Mormons have long had a reputation for not quite understanding that fact.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It's a big question only because you bypassed “Explanation Zero”: the retraction from the early church of the priesthood keys – for whatever reason -- which was prophesied but only appreciated long after the fact by revelation.

I find John 12:23-25 to be a no-fault explanation for the Great Apostasy: “And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” If the Son of God should die at the hands of wicked and imperfect men, why should His keys be an exception? He He should be restored in preparation for His Second Coming, why not His keys?

I find this argument from that scripture illogical. Jesus is talking about His own death and resurrection, and then extended that figuratively to our lives as believers. Nowhere is the Church or priesthood mentioned or inferred. In fact, I'd say the logic points us in the opposite direction. Christ died for our salvation. The Church lives for our salvation.

I also find it odd that the LDS stance is that in the 2000 year history of Christianity, true Christianity has only been around for what, 100 years after Christ plus 200 years of the LDS church. The idea of the great apostasy rests on the idea that Christ did a terrible job of setting up His Church originally, but now has done a perfect job with the restoration (since there will not be another apostasy). I find that illogical and somewhat insulting to God to believe that He didn't know how to do it right the first and most important time, the time when He Himself was physically here to do it.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this nor change each other's mind, since the foundational difference between our churches, that you aptly call "Explanation Zero," is the idea of the apostasy. No apostasy means the LDS church is not what it claims. Apostasy means the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (that Pope St. John Paul II called the two lungs of Christianity) are not what they claim.

At least we both can agree that the protestants don't have a leg to stand on

Quote

An outgrowth of that was, at worst, the abominable creeds (i.e. uncorrected ordinances, structures, falsehoods and priestcrafts) and at best, no authority to bind heaven and earth together even with the purest of intentions.

After all these years I still don't understand the LDS hatred of creeds. I can totally understand saying that the Christian creeds are incorrect (obviously, or you'd be a part of Credal Christianity), but the idea that creeds in and of themselves are abominable strikes me as quite odd and somewhat contradictory. You have the Articles of Faith, which begin "We believe." That is a creed.

Finally, I appreciate that you mention those of pure intentions. Often in discussions of apostasy I have found the focus is on vilifying the Catholic Church. I guess that makes sense from a rhetorical standpoint and obviously Catholics have done some pretty terrible things, but let's not let all the good that Catholics and the Church have done get parsed over. I'd argue that there isn't a single organization, at least in Western civilization, that has done more good. This encompasses individual morality -- helping individuals become better people, all the way through organizational morality -- think of all the Catholic schools, charities, hospitals, universities, religious orders, etc. Billions of Catholics over a time period of 2000 years trying to follow Christ's teachings and better themselves and those around them.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Notice that I am wording this for a non-believer. I just want to say that I'm a full believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but sometimes we have to talk to critics as secular people would. So these are my answers for secular folks.  This is a logical not spiritual answer.

How would you word it if you were talking to a Mormon at church on Sunday, or teaching Sunday school?

I ask because I'm curious to see how you translate your philosophical evidence of Mormonism to a regular Mormon who might be turned off by your ideas of relative truth and "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"?  (I googled to make sure I got that phrase right, ha)

[SouthernMo]

In discussing this, we could all define two important words: church and true.

By church, do we mean:

The leaders, the lay members, the teachings, the buildings, the ordinances, the authority, the traditions?  Something else?  Some combination of the above?

By true, do we mean:

Perfect, directionally correct, historically factual, honest, loyal, straight?  Something else?  Some combination of the above?

The honest reflection on and attempt to genuinely address the above definitions is complicated. We risk using our definitions of the words, rather than god’s.  My mentality tends to follow something like @mfbukowski noted, but slightly different.

Whether the ‘church is true’ or not is an irrelevant question to me. I ask God if he wants me to participate in this religion; as long as He says yes, I’ll be here.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I struggle to see the members exemplify Christ in the last two wards I've been in, I find members doing their duty. But not being authentic in it. There were indeed many that did but many that do not. The members in my old ward and now my new ward have let me down. The only time I thought everyone was peachy keen was when I was full in. Now that I'm not all in, I don't see it. This has been a huge eye opener. Put in as compassionate service at my request. Wanted to minister and get ministered to. My partner who is a member of the motab will not return my calls, she has nothing to do with me. My ministering sisters have not contacted me. As the many months go by, I see that "the one" is not that important. No contact from my bishop. Even though I set up a meeting with my bishop to explain my situation. Not someone that "wants to be left alone". Someone that needed to be needed. The kingdom isn't so in my estimation. And really maybe my time to venture outside of it to see if there is any at all. Maybe the kingdom is really for certain humans, that have the credentials or made covenants. Yet so many Christ-like people aren't in that specific kingdom. It might be that there are many kingdoms or bodies or groups representing Christ, not an organization per se. I believe the fruits are in the eye of the beholder.

ETA: I need to state that I do see the members living lives that do exemplify Christ often, started thinking that I came off bad in this post, and have a problem lumping all together. Maybe these covenants contribute to that kingdom to where people live closer to producing good fruit. I admit I'm  very back and forth. And I'm posting at 4:00 am, plus I didn't read your comments well enough to understand you. Now that I read it two more times I see that my reply isn't the best.  

If you are going to venture forth, might I invite you to try our neck of the Northwest woods? You may find what you seek here.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How would you word it if you were talking to a Mormon at church on Sunday, or teaching Sunday school?

I ask because I'm curious to see how you translate your philosophical evidence of Mormonism to a regular Mormon who might be turned off by your ideas of relative truth and "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"?  (I googled to make sure I got that phrase right, ha)

I would have said it almost the same way except emphasizing the spiritual instead of the secular,  all one has to do is are your testimony and then say " Even from a secular point of view we have the most practical beliefs to make people perfect. "

And then detail them is I have.

So it's exactly the same. You just have to distinguish the contexts as I have here as well.  It's like saying the same thing in French and then German.

Besides that everyone knows I'm a little odd about this stuff.

I even quote William James in sacrament meeting.

It's true in both contexts.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It's a big question only because you bypassed “Explanation Zero”: the retraction from the early church of the priesthood keys – for whatever reason -- which was prophesied but only appreciated long after the fact by revelation.

I find John 12:23-25 to be a no-fault explanation for the Great Apostasy: “And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” If the Son of God should die at the hands of wicked and imperfect men, why should His keys be an exception? He He should be restored in preparation for His Second Coming, why not His keys?

An outgrowth of that was, at worst, the abominable creeds (i.e. uncorrected ordinances, structures, falsehoods and priestcrafts) and at best, no authority to bind heaven and earth together even with the purest of intentions.

We should not expect the Restoration to have appeared in its perfect and complete form with all structure, doctrines, policies and practices firmly in place on April 6, 1830. It did have a pretty good roll out, however...   https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/01/april-6-1830-the-day-the-church-was-organized?lang=eng

Quote

Among the precious truths and instructions received in this revelation [D&C 20] were the following:

1. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ do exist. God is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the framer of heaven and earth and all things that are in them.

2. Man is made in the image and likeness of God.

3. The living and true God is the only being man should worship.

4. The Holy Ghost bears record of the Father and the Son.

5. Man became sensuous and devilish by transgressing the laws of God.

6. God truly loves his children.

7. God gave his Only Begotten Son so “as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved.” (D&C 20:25.)

8. God established for his children the principle of repentance for the remission of their sins.

9. After they have truly repented of their sins, all men should be baptized. (The prayer to be used in baptizing is given.)

10. A child must reach “the years of accountability before God” and be capable of repentance before he is baptized.

11. Those who have been baptized should be confirmed members of the Church by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost by those who have authority.

12. A person must be properly called and ordained by one having authority to officiate in the ordinances of the Church.

13. God truly does communicate with his prophets and sends messengers to administer to them.

14. The Book of Mormon was revealed and translated by divine power.

15. The Book of Mormon contains a record of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

16. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon proved to the world “that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in the generations of old; Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever.” (D&C 20:11–12.)

17. All those who believe and have faith and work righteousness will gain eternal life.

18. The practice of common consent is to be followed in the Church.

19. Duties of elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the Church are outlined.

20. The importance of the sacrament in remembrance of the Lord Jesus is stressed.

21. The manner in which the sacrament should be administered and the prayers to be used are given.

And this.....

Quote

D&C 20:35 And we know that these things are true and according to the revelations of John, neither adding to, nor diminishing from the prophecy of his book, the holy scriptures, or the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God, or the ministering of angels.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I find this argument from that scripture illogical. Jesus is talking about His own death and resurrection, and then extended that figuratively to our lives as believers. Nowhere is the Church or priesthood mentioned or inferred. In fact, I'd say the logic points us in the opposite direction. Christ died for our salvation. The Church lives for our salvation.

I also find it odd that the LDS stance is that in the 2000 year history of Christianity, true Christianity has only been around for what, 100 years after Christ plus 200 years of the LDS church. The idea of the great apostasy rests on the idea that Christ did a terrible job of setting up His Church originally, but now has done a perfect job with the restoration (since there will not be another apostasy). I find that illogical and somewhat insulting to God to believe that He didn't know how to do it right the first and most important time, the time when He Himself was physically here to do it.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this nor change each other's mind, since the foundational difference between our churches, that you aptly call "Explanation Zero," is the idea of the apostasy. No apostasy means the LDS church is not what it claims. Apostasy means the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (that Pope St. John Paul II called the two lungs of Christianity) are not what they claim.

At least we both can agree that the protestants don't have a leg to stand on

After all these years I still don't understand the LDS hatred of creeds. I can totally understand saying that the Christian creeds are incorrect (obviously, or you'd be a part of Credal Christianity), but the idea that creeds in and of themselves are abominable strikes me as quite odd and somewhat contradictory. You have the Articles of Faith, which begin "We believe." That is a creed.

Finally, I appreciate that you mention those of pure intentions. Often in discussions of apostasy I have found the focus is on vilifying the Catholic Church. I guess that makes sense from a rhetorical standpoint and obviously Catholics have done some pretty terrible things, but let's not let all the good that Catholics and the Church have done get parsed over. I'd argue that there isn't a single organization, at least in Western civilization, that has done more good. This encompasses individual morality -- helping individuals become better people, all the way through organizational morality -- think of all the Catholic schools, charities, hospitals, universities, religious orders, etc. Billions of Catholics over a time period of 2000 years trying to follow Christ's teachings and better themselves and those around them.

I much appreciate the idea that Christ died to leave a living Church for us to belong to and prepare for His return. But as long as we too die and are resurrected, I don’t think any other creation of God’s is exempt from death or renewal). Variations in timing notwithstanding, His power over obliteration of any kind and any thing is testament to His Majesty. In addition, the Church does not replace Him.

I don’t think it’s the creeds per se, but the uncorrected ordinances, structures, falsehoods and priestcrafts found within some of those creeds which facilitate the souls' departure from the light that shines within. I thank God every day that any form or expression of Christianity persisted as a ray of light in the world's darkness, and that His light was and still is able to increase in brightness. I see this as a lesson from His death, resurrection, ascension and yet to be realized glorious return, which I take the verses from John 12 to also teach on another level.

Edited September 1, 2018 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

In discussing this, we could all define two important words: church and true.

By church, do we mean:

The leaders, the lay members, the teachings, the buildings, the ordinances, the authority, the traditions?  Something else?  Some combination of the above?

By true, do we mean:

Perfect, directionally correct, historically factual, honest, loyal, straight?  Something else?  Some combination of the above?

The honest reflection on and attempt to genuinely address the above definitions is complicated. We risk using our definitions of the words, rather than god’s.  My mentality tends to follow something like @mfbukowski noted, but slightly different.

Whether the ‘church is true’ or not is an irrelevant question to me. I ask God if he wants me to participate in this religion; as long as He says yes, I’ll be here.

Since He’s speaking of the Church collectively, I would say the Church is the collective of delegated keys bestowed upon His servants, who can only use them in this world as long as they are living. And likewise, they keys can remain in this world only as long as there are servants living to hold them. By “true” I would say the keys are delegated in accordance or alignment with His will.

But yes, God's expressed desire to you, and your alignment with that, makes it true and living also. I think this could be the summation of the other verses in the same 17-39 passage.

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think any other creation of God’s is exempt from death or renewal

I can see what you are saying. I might argue that death and birth as concerning the priesthood and body of believers already happened: through Christ's death the Law of Moses passed away and through Christ's resurrection the Church was born.