One true church of Christ?


Recommended Posts

Is it possible that every prophet and leader of the church (past and present) could be in complete agreement on a specific aspect of doctrine, and all of them be at least slightly wrong, or is this considered to be completely and totally impossible?

I, personally, am of the opinion that when the First Presidency and the Twelve make a deliberate point of speaking unitedly and on behalf of the Church, deliberately invoking the Lord's authority in their pronouncements (e.g. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and "The Living Christ", there is not going to be error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, personally, am of the opinion that when the First Presidency and the Twelve make a deliberate point of speaking unitedly and on behalf of the Church, deliberately invoking the Lord's authority in their pronouncements (e.g. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and "The Living Christ", there is not going to be error.

It is very good that you limited that to a personal opinion. This sort of humility is what is required to remain extremely receptive to the Holy Spirit.

That is what I like about the LDS church the most, it seems that its members are far more humble and thus receptive to the Holy Spirit than any other church.

I have never encountered any instance of self-righteousness by any of the members of the LDS church. I can not say this about the Pentecostal church that I belonged to for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that every prophet and leader of the church (past and present) could be in complete agreement on a specific aspect of doctrine, and all of them be at least slightly wrong, or is this considered to be completely and totally impossible?

I think it happens all the time. For example, in the early years (1st 100 years or so?) of the Church's existence, almost every single leader simply took it for granted that the Book of Mormon events occurred in all of North and South America, even though the evidence from the book itself doesn't allow for that.

Some members of the Church still struggle (and argue) about that.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was also some Seventy a couple of decades ago (I forget his name, but it's rather an infamous story among Mormon critics) who delivered a conference address that had some language that could have been interpreted as justifying open rebellion against Church leadership. This Seventy actually took the rather extreme step of re-recording the entire sermon, with doctrinal corrections, and substituted that version for the original as-delivered version in the Conference videos that were later distributed to the Church.

So, yes; LDS leadership occasionally make non-doctrinally-kosher public pronouncements and do have to correct themselves.

I think that was Elder Glenn L. Pace. It was a great talk before the corrections. Still a good one after the corrections.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that was Elder Glenn L. Pace. It was a great talk before the corrections. Still a good one after the corrections.

HiJolly

I was thinking of the 1984 Ronald E. Poelman of the first quorum of the Seventy conference talk. It was the only one that was re-taped (up to that point--not sure if any after) from the podium with a cough-track added.

From Wikipedia:

Controversial sermonIn the October 1984 general conference of the LDS Church, Poelman delivered a sermon entitled "The Gospel and the Church". Controversy ensued when the version of his sermon that was published in the November 1984 Ensign magazine differed from the sermon Poelman had delivered orally. According to Poelman's brother, after Poelman had delivered his sermon, it had been pointed out to him by apostles that have dealt with apostate, often pro-polygamy groups, that the text of his talk might support these groups' claims that people do not need the LDS Church. In response, Poelman decided to revise the text of the sermon.[6] Videotape copies of general conference that were included in church archives and distributed throughout the church contained Poelman delivering the revised version of his sermon. A "cough track" was included in the retaping to make it appear that the revised sermon was delivered in front of an audience.[7]

One commentator has criticised the changes to the sermon as a dramatic shift in the meaning of Poelman's address:

"The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman's October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out."[8]

Poelman spoke again in general conference after four and a half years.[7]

Article from Peggy Fletcher in 1985:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/045-44-57.pdf

The Original talk at conference 1984:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very good that you limited that to a personal opinion. This sort of humility is what is required to remain extremely receptive to the Holy Spirit.

That is what I like about the LDS church the most, it seems that its members are far more humble and thus receptive to the Holy Spirit than any other church.

I have never encountered any instance of self-righteousness by any of the members of the LDS church. I can not say this about the Pentecostal church that I belonged to for many years.

Stick around awhile, you will surely run into one -- as in any faith group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty clear. It looks like there is substantial humility in the church leaders.

I want to find the exact boundary of this and that is why I pose this next question:

Is it possible that every prophet and leader of the church (past and present) could be in complete agreement on a specific aspect of doctrine, and all of them be at least slightly wrong, or is this considered to be completely and totally impossible?

Read a book called 'Conflict In The Quorum' by Gary Bergera. That might give you an insight -- It was interesting to read the spats between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young and their opposing outlooks on doctrine (as the years went on) and their differing ideas on how leadership and authority was to fit into the scheme of things. (after the death of Joseph Smith)

Even in the modern Church, I'm sure they have their moments of disagreement -- it's bound to happen I would think with 15 different personalities -- but I think when it gets down to the nitty gritty, there of one mind.

Edited by FlaviusHambonius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stick around awhile, you will surely run into one -- as in any faith group.

I ran into an extremely stubborn sister missionary once.

I never ran into any "I am holier than thou" type.

I am estimating that the Holy Spirit might send this type of individual an unequivocal message that LDS is not the right place for them.

It would seem to me that the two things that may prevent this within the LDS church are:

(1) The doctrine of the spirit of contention.

(2) The focus on humility by everyone that I have met, thus setting the right example.

Is a focus on humility ever mentioned as a key doctrine of LDS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that the two things that may prevent this within the LDS church are:

(1) The doctrine of the spirit of contention.

(2) The focus on humility by everyone that I have met, thus setting the right example.

Is a focus on humility ever mentioned as a key doctrine of LDS?

Absolutely! Jesus Christ exemplified humility when he hung on the cross asking His Father to forgive those who crucified Him "for they know not what they do." This was the ultimate example in the standard of judgment. Truly we will be judged by the very standard, which we judge others. For when we accuse someone, we raise the bar not only unto them but unto ourselves and when we stand before Christ to be judged, that same bar will cause us to fall when Christ accuses us. This is why we are commanded to forgive and to pray for those that persecute us.

Joseph Smith taught:

"If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins."--HotC 4:445

Furthermore:

"The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the saints, as if recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses." (Teachings, 149-150.) The Prophet then quotes verses 16, 17, 18, 21, and 23, and asks that they be noted in particular.

In the great Day of Judgment, men will have to face their accusers. The standard by which we will be judged in that great day will be perfection. for us to pass that test, we must not accuse our offenders. It doesn't matter who accuses you. What matters is whether or not you accuse each other. Without humility, we contend, exact vengeance, hold grudges, retaliate, etc. If we would come unto Christ, we must become like Christ. We cannot become like Christ without humbling ourselves, whether of our own will or whether we become compelled to be humble, which is what ends up happening to most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran into an extremely stubborn sister missionary once.

I never ran into any "I am holier than thou" type.

I am estimating that the Holy Spirit might send this type of individual an unequivocal message that LDS is not the right place for them.

It would seem to me that the two things that may prevent this within the LDS church are:

(1) The doctrine of the spirit of contention.

(2) The focus on humility by everyone that I have met, thus setting the right example.

Is a focus on humility ever mentioned as a key doctrine of LDS?

As a member I have rarely run into those who I felt might be acting "holier than thou". Will you ever run into a member of the church who you feel lacks humilty? Absolutley.

But I believe the Holy Spirit will always be encouraging everyone, "holier than thou" or not to come to Christ. Only Satan would make someone feel they don't belong. As a lay member it would be the opposite of humility to judge whether or not someone belongs in the Church. The Church is made for sinners. We all fall short of the Glory of God in our own unique and individual ways.

I'm glad you have had a good experience so far with members of the Church. I've always striven to be humble. But I'm sure growing up I would have been accused of being "holier than thou" simply by obstaining from certain things teenagers do that are almost a right of passage. No matter how meekly I turned away, the accusation would still come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moses and other prophets spoke to the people as men and leaders and gave their own thoughts, opinions, and judgements. At other times they spoke in the capacity of a prophet of God and in His name. The official statements from our prophets are the Word of the Lord.

The notion that the pope is infallible is just laughable.

In fariness, the pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra ie: in the spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have the testimony that the LDS church is the most righteous church on Earth.

I used to really relate to declarations like this. Now I don't anymore. Maybe it's the wording. Maybe it's my experience. What I mean is that I really don't see the mormon church as always being the most righteous. Sometimes the church loses its way, even when it's still endorsed by Jesus. The BofM is a good example of this as the church lost it's way sometimes rendering non-believers more righteous at certain points.

Now in my worshipping, I'm very careful about where I put my faith. I don't put it into the arm of the flesh....even when the arm of the flesh wears a clean black suit and tie and smiles super big at the beginning of meetings. I look for the spirit in everything that is said. THAT is where my faith is. If the spirit attends the words of the leaders, I'm right there with it. If my bishop gives me counsel and the spirit does not confirm, well that tells me something, doesn't it?

One experience.....Had a bishop give me some counsel. I felt a very wrong feeling about it and said so. The bishop was disgruntled. He wanted my compliance to his decision and I wasn't ready to give it. He phoned me later in the week a very changed and humbled man. He said he'd prayed and the Lord had corrected him and given him greater perspective. He apologized, corrected his course with me, and apologized for not seeing what I'd been through. The spirit filled then discussion!

My point is that the CHURCH isn't true!! The CHURCH is an earthly vessel much like the physical body that is corruptible and temporary. It's the gospel principles, the effect they have on my mind and spirit, and the way they help as we enjoy an experience in the flesh. The church and it's leaders/members will continue to be flawed. Prophets will continue to say incomplete truths and bishops will continue to trip over themselves. But none of that matters if we have a clear understanding of where we should hitch our wagons. I think it's these important transitions in the process of testimony building that really render us strong. It's the ones who hold so tight to the need for perfection as an outward proof that miss so much of what we are doing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the CHURCH isn't true!! The CHURCH is an earthly vessel much like the physical body that is corruptible and temporary.

I think I understand what you're driving at, but I could hardly disagree more with this statement. The Church may indeed be a temporary and imperfect vehicle for the gospel, but it is as true as the gospel itself is.

"True" does not mean "perfect". There are many definitions of "true". A faithful spouse may not be perfect, but he or she is true. (Significantly, the Church is the bride of Christ.) A gun that fires "true" simply shoots straight. Likewise, the Church carries the gospel to us and points us to Christ.

Yes, the Church is indeed true. Were it not, it could not be the vehicle for the gospel of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand what you're driving at, but I could hardly disagree more with this statement. The Church may indeed be a temporary and imperfect vehicle for the gospel, but it is as true as the gospel itself is.

"True" does not mean "perfect". There are many definitions of "true". A faithful spouse may not be perfect, but he or she is true. (Significantly, the Church is the bride of Christ.) A gun that fires "true" simply shoots straight. Likewise, the Church carries the gospel to us and points us to Christ.

Yes, the Church is indeed true. Were it not, it could not be the vehicle for the gospel of Christ.

Yeah....thank you. I think you've made my point better than I did.

Maybe what I am struggling with is the way I see people make the word "true" mean the same thing as "perfect". And the way testimony is shaken when they realize that the church is fallible.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a testimony grounded in a firm understanding of what the church is, and what it isn't. This in no way takes away from the value of the church. My physical body is certainly problematic. But it gets me to and fro and supports my very breath. I can honor that. And the same way I'm not as interested in saving my body as much as I am my spirit, I have little interest in exalting the church. It will pass away.

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we say that this is the true and living church -- it is not so different from saying that G-d is the true and living G-d.

I believe that the problem is that most think in terms of doctrine - but there is a problems. Doctrine is not what is true and living - at least not in the way that so many of us think of it.

The true and living church has the ordinances, covenants and the discipline necessary for man to receive salvation. Like G-d the true and living Church will and can save all mankind from the fall - everyone that is living or has ever lived. The true and living church is for all - it is for Adam and Eve and it is for everyone today and everyone to be born to this earth and everyone in between. The true and living church has never changed and will not change in time or place - only our perception of it will change.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share