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

[SouthernMo]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But yes, God's expressed desire to you, and your alignment with that, makes it true and living also.

So if God told me to be a Muslim, would that likewise make the Islamic faith true and living to me?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

I know your response was not to me, but this is one reason why I believe the Church is not perfect. If it was perfect, it would never go astray, yet we believe men did go astray and apostatize. I think they would do it again if the Lord does not step in. There is no reason to feel insulted. Men just follow imperfectly.

Quote

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.

In Joseph Smith's first vision the Lord called the creeds of men abominable. I don't take that as a statement that creeds are always abominable, but that the creeds which had come into being since He founded the Church are an abomination. What if He wasn't begotten before all aeon? Should He take exception to that creedal claim? The Nicene Creed is regularly used to allege that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS are not Christian. Further, in its original forms, it was anathema to say anything in opposition to this creed essentially saying I am an apostate if I don't say that Yeshua was begotten before aeon. It became the law to recite this creed in all churches of the Roman empire, and if you did not, you were subject to excommunication. So, should I like this creed? I find it errant and presumptuous. It is not really for me to hate though. It is not about me, but about my Savior. It is not for the sake of being a creed that I dislike them - it is for their errors, and use to claim that I am not Christian if I will not recite them.

Quote

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.

Protestants have done some horrible things. Mormons have done some horrible things. None of us have claims to complete purity. I applaud the good that Catholics do, and have found some to be "more Christian" than Protestants I have known. However, being good does not make all teachings correct or mean that we do everything as our Savior would have us do.

Quote

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

To the extent that they follow scripture, they do. However, I have no great love for Protestant theology. It is full of errors. There is no central authorized authority in Protestantism to hold things together. Hence, it has splintered into thousands of pieces with myriads of different and conflicting teachings. However, it was born out of a realization that God's authority had left the earth.

Edited September 1, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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)

Actually the way it works is not mingle them, but to show they are delivering the same content using different words.

Again, French vs German.

It is more a translation process than anything, insofar as it is translated correctly.

Edited September 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Yes, to me that is one valid application of the principle. There were a number of dispensations, apostasies and restorations leading up to Christ as the apex, then a commensurate fall and rising for one last time with the sixth seal for the opening of the final, seventh seal and the events that follow even that.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

So if God told me to be a Muslim, would that likewise make the Islamic faith true and living to me?

Of course, until such time He told you to join only His true and living Church, at which point you can technically continue to "be a Muslim" (a "submitter to God") in a fuller sense. I think it significant that in D&C 1 the Lord is speaking for Himself and inviting others to agree with Him.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

So if God told me to be a Muslim, would that likewise make the Islamic faith true and living to me?

God speaks to all men according to their language and understanding, but in the end every knee shall bend and every tongue confess, not out of force but out of love.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I'd love to try living outside of the state of Utah just to see what that is like, thanks for the suggestion. Don't know if it will ever work out, but one can dream.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

God speaks to all men according to their language and understanding, but in the end every knee shall bend and every tongue confess, not out of force but out of love.

And, I would add, out of pure, unmuddled, intelligent recognition of truth.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I don't agree that he does have his priorities backwards. One of the functions of the true and living Church is to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. For many people, their reception of the gospel message is the beginning of faith that leads to salvation and the saving covenants and ordinances.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't agree that he does have his priorities backwards. One of the functions of the true and living Church is to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. For many people, their reception of the gospel message is the beginning of faith that leads to salvation and the saving covenants and ordinances.

Yes, and all those fine functions are a result of faith.  Without faith those things simply would not happen.  Not only would the Gospel not be taken to the world, but no one would be baptized or endowed.  There are phenomena, and then there are causal factors.  Losing track of the most important values (like a chicken & egg dilemma) not only destroys theological clarity, but it can create a whole series of false values -- reminiscent of the Zoramites.

My question would be, Is modern America going the way of the Zoramites?  Is that old "Nephite disease" (Nibley) running rampant?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, PPP said:

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.)

I am confused.

If we cannot "rely on arguments for prior apostasy and current restoration that rely on changed ordinances, organizational structure, false doctrines, or sinful leaders" then why did you bring them up?

And of course I would not dispute them since they are irrelevant and you have said above that we cannot rely on these arguments.

So what am I missing?

Quote

- With respect to the "open canon" argument for exclusive truth. this seems susceptible to a few strong counterarguments. 

I never made this claim.  I do not believe in "exclusive truth"- I just think that an open canon is essential to allow flexibility in the doctrinal structure.  My point is that it allows an organization to change along with the times and even Catholics have something called "sensus fidelium" which allows them to essentially alter doctrine according to what the Faithful already believe.  You are presuming that conditions never change and what may be wrong in one era must always be wrong.  I do not agree with that.  Polygamy is a fine example-  I believe it was necessary for a period, and then became unnecessary and a burden on the church.  I believe the changes in the ordinances were wise and called for.

Quote

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? 

The only way changes in doctrine can be philosophically justified in my opinion is by claiming revelation from God.  I believe that such revelation is a kind of "data" which we should individually "verify" by going personally to God with the question and allowing Him to confirm the changes to us personally- and I have had experiences like this myself, personally.

So yes in a sense one man's "revelation" may be another man's "apostasy" but there is not much that can be done about that.  I believe that truth is contextual and yes Catholics and Mormons will disagree about that.  I do not find that particularly distressing.  We agree to disagree on these points- and that is just the way it is.  I would argue of course the philosophy of Catholicism as derivative of pagan Greek,  specifically Platonic philosophy and then also Aristotelian philosophy.  How anyone can reconcile the bible with Plato is a bit of a feat of magic- but that would be the line I would personally take if called on to comment on why I think Catholicism was in apostasy.  I think that is pretty easily demonstrable.

Quote

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. 

Meh.

Perhaps we have not needed one- there have been many changes in "policy" and "practices" and it is a continuing discussion as to whether those constitute "canonical".  For me these are pretty much semantic distinctions that don't amount to much.

Quote

- 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).

Yes of course which I see as evidence that the doctrine is indeed "primitive" and found in the early church.  This becomes a strength for us in my opinion.  In fact if one looks at the present day Coptic confirmation and other ceremonies, they parallel our temple ceremonies pretty closely.   To me this is clear evidence of their ancient roots.

Quote

- 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?

This seems to be a pretty easy question for me- just look up the answer with google!

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says this on the subject:   http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Fulness_of_the_Gospel

Quote

President Ezra Taft Benson explains: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson, pp. 18-19).

There are other quotes in which Christ says that His doctrine is simply essentially the atonement and resurrection and anything more than that.  Too lazy to look them up at the moment-  Here's an easy reference

Quote

 

Introduction

No doctrine in the gospel is more important than the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the gospel were compared to a wheel, the Atonement would be the hub and all other doctrines would be the spokes emanating from the hub. As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/9-the-atonement?lang=eng

I don't have a problem with that.

"The fullness" to me means "ALL" on need to know to be "saved".  You have that- the rest is gravy.  I mean it is not like we really have the "fullness" anyway- we don't know how to create planets or resurrect people etc.

Semantic issue as far as I am concerned, no biggie. 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So if God told me to be a Muslim, would that likewise make the Islamic faith true and living to me?

 "To you" obviously it would NOT be false and dead or you would not be a Muslim!

It seems kind of self-evident.  Why would you believe in a false and dead faith?

You have to look at both sides of the coin

And unfortunately there is no objective measure to decide between the two positions- except testimony.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And unfortunately there is no objective measure to decide between the two positions- except testimony.

Grammatically your sentence means that testimony is an objective measure to decide between the two. Did you mean it that way?

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Grammatically your sentence means that testimony is an objective measure to decide between the two. Did you mean it that way?

Great point I should not have put it that way.

Actually I probably should not have brought it up since subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin. Looking at it statistically if 15 million people agree that it is objectively correct then it is, assuming the criteria for "objective " is multiple people reporting the same observation.

So if you want to get technical it gets tricky.

But yes I did get the grammar wrong.

[Kevin Christensen]

In dealing with the questions raised, we could consult D&C 1 and say, Joseph Smith, and search out of the best books words of wisdom.

Quote

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?
...

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?

See D&C 1, which is the formal explanation for why God called Joseph Smith, the distinctive nature of the LDS faith compared to others, and what to expect of LDS members and leaders.  A close reading makes a difference.

Quote

For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

A key essay in understanding the importance of Covenant is Noel Reynolds on "The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought" on the change from ordinances involving personal covenants with God to a sacrament performed for people by an intermediary. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=11

As to cosmetic changes in ordinances, look rather to the covenants.   The form of the endowment in 3 Nephi 8-27 is different than the current form, but the covenants are the same.

Quote

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.

It's not just the structure, which ought to be subject to practical considerations and pedagogy, but the authority.

Quote

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

Notice that revelation is not exclusive to the LDS:

Quote

And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world ...

And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;

35 For I am no respecter of persons

Regarding the notion of false doctrines.

Quote

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.

It helps enormously to consider the formal definition of what is and what emphatically is not doctrine.  After walking through faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, we come to this:

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

And regarding the implicit background preference for perfection and stasis as a basis for judgement, and "sinful leaders"

Quote

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

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

This is something to take for granted, rather than to take as an unexpected horror.

Quote

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 helps to notice that the phrase "one true church" does not appear in D&C 1.   That is a misreading, conditioned, I would argue, by the nature of human development.  I have referred to Position 2 of the 9 position Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  What D&C 1 has is this, 29 words, rather than 3.  A proper reading ought to account for the 29 words, rather than deleting and adding until we reach a reading that happens to match Position 2 of the Perry Scheme:

Quote

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

It helps to read carefully, in particular to consider that the Biblical uses of the words "true" and "living" in passages like "living waters", "true vine", living bread, etc. match the themes of D&C 1 overall.

 

 

 

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It helps enormously to consider the formal definition of what is and what emphatically is not doctrine.  After walking through faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, we come to this:

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

This is bold if one considers oneself to be ‘mainstream LDS.’

You seem to be in full commitment to what is taught in 3 Nephi.  Are you saying that any church teaching outside of faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost is not doctrine?

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is bold if one considers oneself to be ‘mainstream LDS.’

You seem to be in full commitment to what is taught in 3 Nephi.  Are you saying that any church teaching outside of faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost is not doctrine?

The point is that Jesus says that to assert that anything else is doctrine is to build on sand.  Does mainstream LDS encourage me to dismiss what Jesus says, should I embrace it? 

Thomas Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  So if I expect that LDS are a covenant community, rather than, say,  a long, static list of Things to Think About Everything That Never Will or Should Change, then my testimony will be much more tolerant and robust, and far less brittle and crisis prone.  It's as though I built my testimony on a rock, rather than a beach.

My wife was calling me to go to church, so I didn't quite finish the thoughts I was posting.  However, I have been posting the same kinds of things for decades. I was going to add a link to the essay with my more formal and detailed discussion of what "true and living" is doing in D&C 1.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/#fn52-4012

The information is on pages 132-139.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

MiserereNobis commented:

Quote

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.

Joseph Smith explained this clearly in passages that ought to be footnoted in the Joseph Smith Testimony of his First Vision. It would save a lot of trouble.

Quote

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings (“all of them have some truth”), but because “creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” (Joseph F. Smith, ed. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 327.) Joseph Smith also explained that “the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:215).  The real problem with creeds is not their content but their function. ) “I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine.” Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84, spelling modernized.) When in place, creeds place a person and a society beyond repentance, beyond change. Creeds box a person in and throw away the keys to further light and knowledge. If that is not abominable, what is?

Yes, the Articles of Faith begin "We believe..." but notice that the 9th says "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  That one specifically addresses the defining issue of his objection to creeds.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is bold if one considers oneself to be ‘mainstream LDS.’

You seem to be in full commitment to what is taught in 3 Nephi.  Are you saying that any church teaching outside of faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost is not doctrine?

Seven simple words encompassing all our doctrine, but each with a myriad of possibilities. Even "of" and "the."

Edited September 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

That is not an accurate assessment of the great apostasy. It had nothing to do with the job Jesus did or the knowledge of God, rather what men did with the job and knowledge after He was no longer physically present.

I believe that is what Paul had in mind in Acts 20.

Quote

25“Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching about the kingdom will ever see my face again.26I therefore declare to you today that I’m not responsible for the blood of any of you, 27because I never shrank from telling you the whole plan of God. 28Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God’shchurch, which he acquired with his own blood. 29I know that when I’m gone, savage wolves will come among you and not spare the flock. 30Indeed, some of your own men will arise and distort the truth in order to lure the disciples into following them. 31So be alert! Remember that for three years, night and day, I never stopped tearfully warning each of you.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/1/2018 at 6:58 AM, PPP said:

Any ideas on how to resolve these puzzles, Scott?

 

I defer to the comments of Kevin Christensen, with which I heartily agree. 

[MiserereNobis]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is not an accurate assessment of the great apostasy. It had nothing to do with the job Jesus did or the knowledge of God, rather what men did with the job and knowledge after He was no longer physically present.

My understanding is that the LDS church teaches that there will never be another apostasy, that God will protect the church now. I've even heard people say that if the president tried to lead the church astray then God would take his life.

Is this true (both that there will never be another apostasy and that the president would die if he tried something wrong)?

If so, why would God protect the church now and not back when Jesus established it? What's different now? People have always been evil, wicked, teaching false doctrine, following false doctrine, etc. I don't believe that people at the time of Jesus were any more or less wicked. In fact, I believe that the apostles whom Jesus called (excepting Judas, of course) were among the best Christians to have ever lived, dedicating their very lives to following the great commission to spread the gospel and establish churches.

Quote

I believe that is what Paul had in mind in Acts 20.

I don't read the quote as evidence that there would be a complete apostasy. Paul is warning the Church that there will be those who teach false doctrine. This is nothing new or surprising or apocalyptic. I imagine if I searched general conference addresses I could probably find LDS leaders giving the same warning -- be alert and don't allow false doctrine to lead you or those over whom you have stewardship astray.

[Jeanne]

For me, there is no true church.  Whatever changes you life for the better and moves you to more loving, compassionate living is good for you  This kind of thing can come from all over and what ever holes you have in your life can be filled with those things you find that make you a whole person.  Learning is everything.  To me, it is what God intended..to learn, to grow and take and give on those things that are relevant to happy and good lives.  This all requires decisions in free agency...and yes, there are consequences to wrong decisions...but they have everything to do with your growth..physical, spiritual and joyful change.  There is no one true church with authority to rule out you own conscience.  No priesthood in the world can replace or love, carin and gratitude to the nature of God's laws..He will do what He does...but how we conform to HIs understanding depends on us...not on church.

[smac97]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:55 PM, 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:

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.

 

I like this.  I think this dovetails with the first three questions of the Temple Recommend interview (the ones dealing with faith and belief, as the rest deal with conduct) :

• 1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
• 2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
• 3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

These cover a lot of ground, as at least an element of all three of these requires having "faith" in the prophetic callings of those through whom God has communicated.  I emphasize "prophetic calling" of the Lord's servants.  Not their infallibility.  We can and should accept and have faith in prophets not because they are perfect and incapable of error, but because they are the conduits of revealed truths and sound counsel, and because they are the custodians of the priesthood authority by which saving ordinances are administered.

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

This is very wise.  We needn't condemn the flawed men and women who have gone before.  They're already dead, and judgment is now up to God (as it has ever been).

But we also needn't ignore the flaws of our predecessors.  We can, and must, learn from them, that we may "be more wise they [they] have been."

I think this applies to the leaders of the Church.  And our fellow members.  And to the Church as a whole.  We are all imperfect beings.  And yet Christ loves His Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25).

So we need to forgive.  "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10).  And we need to remember that we will be judged by our own yardstick.

Quote

 

Judge not [unrighteously], that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. 7:1–2; see Joseph Smith Translation, Matt. 7:1–2).

 

Hmm.  Does this mean I need to forgive people like Sam Young and Jeremy Runnells?  And to abstain from unrighteous judgment against them?

Well, yes.  Yes it does.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My understanding is that the LDS church teaches that there will never be another apostasy, that God will protect the church now. I've even heard people say that if the president tried to lead the church astray then God would take his life.

Is this true (both that there will never be another apostasy and that the president would die if he tried something wrong)?

The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-Day Saints teaches (as I understand it) that the Gospel of Jesus the  Christ has been restored for the last time before the Second coming of the Christ. It also is pretty evident that there will be apostasy during this period, but as long as there are apostles called of God 9as opposed to false prophets) the apostasy will not be a full scale afffair. There have been multipel apostasies attested to in the scriptures when the prophets were killed or imprisoned for doing their duty in calling the people to repentance. There is no canonized scripture saying that the president will be killed if he does something wrong. We do have a a statement by a former prophet, Willford Woodruff that:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.

although there are some, maybe even a lot of members who do not believe that to be true.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Bernard Gui:  I believe that is what Paul had in mind in Acts 20.

I don't read the quote as evidence that there would be a complete apostasy. Paul is warning the Church that there will be those who teach false doctrine. This is nothing new or surprising or apocalyptic. I imagine if I searched general conference addresses I could probably find LDS leaders giving the same warning -- be alert and don't allow false doctrine to lead you or those over whom you have stewardship astray.

Of course that is a matter of interpretation, is it not? We believe that such an apostasy was forshadowed by the prophet Amos:

Quote

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

We also note that Paul elswhere talked about a "falling away."

Quote

Thessalonians 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Again, whether this be a general apostasy or just scattered ones here and there is a matter of interpretation, hence the need for prophets called of God that can interpret the meaning that God had when He had those words written since " no bprophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

Glenn