The LDS Church is true or it is not true. Therefore...

[Vort]

[i'm putting this in "General Discussion" because it's not a discussion about LDS doctrine; it's a metadiscussion about the ramifications of people's actions given the status of the Church's truth claims.]

Elsewhere I have observed that the Church's truth claims are a binary proposition: Either the Church is true or the Church is not true. I want to discuss what this means, what the results are for either proposition, and whether there is a third possibility.

The Church being "true" means that it is the kingdom of God on earth, headed by Jesus Christ, and that those called to lead the Church are themselves the emissaries and mouthpieces of the Lord. It does not mean that the Church organization is perfect as currently constituted, that the leaders never say anything incorrect, or that all decisions they take are always the same decisions the Lord himself would take in that position.

The Church being "false" means that it is not what it claims to be; it is in fact not the kingdom of God on earth or anywhere else; it has no divine Priesthood authority, no power to bind on earth or in heaven anything of eternal significance. It means that much of the doctrine of the Church is itself false and should be rejected by any truth-seeking individual. It does not mean that the Church membership (or even leadership) consists of evil people. It does not mean that every last word the Church teaches is false. It doesn't mean the Church can't perform good works. It does not even necessarily mean that those who follow the gospel are condemned by God for it -- unless they somehow know the Church is false, in which case they are serving to further a deception.

• If, by the above definitions, the Church is true, then all Church members are under covenant to sustain their leaders. This means helping them to be successful, EVEN if the decisions they take are less than optimal (e.g. 18-month missions for men). It means subverting your own carnal desires and will in favor of building the kingdom. It means never "steadying the ark" unless you are specifically called or otherwise requested to do so. It certainly means never, ever intentionally exposing to ridicule or contempt either the Church or its leaders -- say, by creating a public petition demanding or requesting that the Church reconsider some element of its doctrine or procedure.

• If, by the above definitions, the Church is false, then all Church members are deceived. If they are not deceived, they are liars to continue to associate themselves with an organization they know to be false. In such a case, people are free to tear down and denigrate the organization and actions of the Church, it being a false and lying thing. But in such a case, such honest people would not be members of the Church, since that would itself be dishonest.

• In either case, members of the LDS Church cannot ever be justified in participating in such nonsense as petitions or internet email schemes in an attempt to pressure the leaders into making doctrinal or practical modifications. Unbelieving "members" are liars for continuing to uphold their membership, and believing members are covenant-breakers for failing to sustain their leaders.

Is there a third path? I believe there is not, but I can name an idea that some (not myself) would agree with. Suppose there is no such thing as truth. All churches or religions or whatever other philosophy systems are merely human creations. You cannot sin by defying them, because THERE IS NO SIN. No hell below us, above us only sky, in the words of one atheist prophet. In such a case, one might claim that he (or she) is a member of the LDS Church because s/he can effect change from within more effectively than from the outside. It's all balderdash anyway, but this way more people can be happy if we can just modify some of the more onerous doctrines and practices.

The problem with this, of course, is that it is irredeemably cynical. It places the atheist actor very firmly above the benighted fools he seeks to help -- not by enlightening their ignorance, but by changing the linens and accessories of their prison to make it more comfortable, as s/he supposes. It is an act of condescension in the very worst sense, not at all unlike the attitude of much of the political Left toward racial minorities: "We're your friends, you poor stupid fools, and we're here to take care of you and see to it that you don't do yourselves too much harm."

This outlook informs my general worldview, and specifically is why I tend to hold uncharitable feelings toward those who would seek to modify Church practice or doctrine by trying to stir up popular sentiment against the way things currently are.

Other viewpoints or commentary on what I have put forward are welcome.

[Dravin]

Is there a third path? I believe there is not, but I can name an idea that some (not myself) would agree with. Suppose there is no such thing as truth. All churches or religions or whatever other philosophy systems are merely human creations. You cannot sin by defying them, because THERE IS NO SIN. No hell below us, above us only sky, in the words of one atheist prophet. In such a case, one might claim that he (or she) is a member of the LDS Church because s/he can effect change from within more effectively than from the outside. It's all balderdash anyway, but this way more people can be happy if we can just modify some of the more onerous doctrines and practices.

You'd think it would be easier to either:

A) Find another religion that better suits you. If you want to say mold the Church into an Anglican image you'd think it'd just be easier to be an Anglican.

B) If no other religion sufficiently suits you, create one. You don't even have to do it from scratch, just create a splinter that is more fitting in your eyes. Though I suppose there may be an issue of critical mass, both numerically and socially.

[LittleWyvern]

Elsewhere I have observed that the Church's truth claims are a binary proposition: Either the Church is true or the Church is not true. I want to discuss what this means, what the results are for either proposition, and whether there is a third possibility.

Now let's not forget that this limits our scope to doctrinal issues. When it comes to matters of doctrine, commandments, temple work, and so on, then yes, I completely agree with you. These truth claims are absolutely binary, as they point toward absolute, eternal truths. We must sustain our leaders, "not steady the arc," and so on when it comes to doctrinal issues.

However, there's a second ecosystem that's often confused with the first: the area of culture. These issues have much less of a binary status, as cultural directives do not point to eternal truths and can vary between different regions of the church. Depending on the situation, these issues may be simply different ways to achieve a commandment, different cultural traditions, or just "we've always done things this way but we're not sure exactly why." There's a lot of wiggle room on these kinds of things, and as our knowledge of situations (or even indirectly related doctrine) increases, the way we do things as a cultural unit may change. I don't believe it is warranted to lump people who want to change a cultural tradition with those why want to change doctrinal issues, but in many cases it is impossible to tell where doctrine ends and where culture begins, and in most cases the two overlap. The Church has set up channels to direct these requests for change, and it's important that we follow them (because these channels are themselves doctrinal).

To put it more shortly, I agree with you in all you have said except for your grouping together of doctrine and cultural practices, and I don't think that anybody who wants to change a cultural practice does so only to harm the Church.

...And before anybody asks, yes, I do believe that this Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, that the scriptures contain the true and correct Word of God, and that I have a testimony of our prophet Thomas Monson. Let's not make this discussion about that.

[Anddenex]

Unbelieving "members" are liars for continuing to uphold their membership, and believing members are covenant-breakers for failing to sustain their leaders.

I believe what you have shared is well written and shared, however I don't believe this is the case for people who advocate such practices, except the idea they are breaking their covenant.

I don't believe they are liars in upholding their membership. They still need to hold their membership and continue in grace for grace, learning what it means to keep that sacred covenant.

[Magus]

I would argue that a third path would be that there is truth, but that there is no "true Church", just God, and there are many paths to heaven.

It's actually a pretty common belief amongst people who don't choose any particular religion but still believe in God.

[Vort]

To put it more shortly, I agree with you in all you have said except for your grouping together of doctrine and cultural practices, and I don't think that anybody who wants to change a cultural practice does so only to harm the Church.

What did I write to suggest that my opinion applies equally to doctrine and purely cultural matters? I spoke of the practice of the Church, which may well be culturally influenced but cannot be considered a pure cultural matter.

[Vort]

I believe what you have shared is well written and shared, however I don't believe this is the case for people who advocate such practices, except the idea they are breaking their covenant.

I don't believe they are liars in upholding their membership. They still need to hold their membership and continue in grace for grace, learning what it means to keep that sacred covenant.

By "unbelieving 'members'", I do not mean those who have doubts or weak moments or sometimes question their own belief system. At some point, that surely must apply to every one of us.

My opinion is essentially this: Any honest member looking at the Church can assume that the Church is true or that the Church is not true. If s/he assumes the Church is true, then s/he must also hold sacred those covenants s/he has made and seek to sustain his/her leaders, and thus would never participate in such activities as we have discussed. On the other hand, if s/he assumes the Church is not true, then to use his/her membership to effect change in a Church s/he thinks may be false is acting under false pretenses and is fundamentally dishonest. So as a matter of simple logic and personal integrity, the honest person would never act in that way, no matter how s/he might be feeling at the moment.

Bottom line: The only way an honest person can seek to effect change in the Church using social pressure is from the outside, as a non-member, the way many citizens of western countries try to pressure Islamic-based governments into changing their policies. To try to change things from within using such tactics is to willingly act as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[BadWolf]

In reverse order:

If Im wrong, Ive had an immensely good time.

Concerning 3rd paths... I keep having the conversation with my 10yo: there is an ENOURMOUS difference between lying and being wrong. A binary system is almost always incomplete. For example: take parenting. There are 1001 ways to parent correctly, but only few ways to parent wrong. (Abuse/neglect/absent). So taken on its surface there is a binary system: Right v Wrong. EXCEPT its not binary. There are multiple truths/ best is no longer singular, but becomes bests... When what is best for one child is not best for all).

There is a point at which "true" becomes so highly personal that it no longer translates to any other individual. An infinitesimal of truths. That are all true, even while being contradictory.

This is my personal belief on religion... That's they're ALL true.

That they are each a person relating themselves to God.

I have an extremely diverse religious background. In EVERY religion I have spent time in, I have caught glimpses of God. Each and every single one. And EVERY GLIMPSE of God is precious. Without price.

Only in the LDS church have I found the spirit present constantly.

Only in the LDS church has EVERY feeling of rightness I found in other been amalgamated into a single entity.

So, for me, the single best / truth... is the LDS church.

For others?

How they find God, their glimpses and their constancy, may well be different.

Including abandoning religion entirely.

The multiplicity of "best".

The variance of "truth".

Reminds me of a muppets quote

W.A.R.

We

Are

Right

Risky, that.

I don't limit God.

I believe that God is as present for others, as he is for me.

I believe that I can be RIGHT

Without it following that others are wrong.

But then, Im also equating churches & religions to parenting styles.

Because I believe that God can parent his children differently.

[MarginOfError]

Some of us believe the Church is true, and we stay because we believe it is true.

Some of us, through study and prayer, have developed strong feelings - similar in strength and origin as our testimonies themselves - that there are things the Church could do better and that there are things the membership do that are just plain wrong.

We stay because we have testimonies. We stay because we love to Gospel and continue to reap the benefits of the Atonement (despite the snide demonization we receive from those so enmeshed in Mormon culture who cannot or refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a spiritual experience different from their own).

Believing such things does not make us dishonest. It does not make us covenant breakers. It makes us human beings with divine heritage that deserve the same love, respect, and acceptance that all people deserve.

[LittleWyvern]

What did I write to suggest that my opinion applies equally to doctrine and purely cultural matters? I spoke of the practice of the Church, which may well be culturally influenced but cannot be considered a pure cultural matter.

That's the feeling I got from the way you used the word practice and the phrase "the way things currently are," by which you seemed to lump together both: the person who notices something cultural about the church and suggests a small change in the hopes that it will help the Church grow is not found anywhere in your model. My apologies if I read you wrong.

[estradling75]

I think the core of Vort's question can be summed up as... How do we sustain a leader(s) (for those who have covenanted to do so) when we have every reason to think they are wrong or in error on a matter.

[MarginOfError]

I think the core of Vort's question can be summed up as... How do we sustain a leader(s) (for those who have covenanted to do so) when we have every reason to think they are wrong or in error on a matter.

First, you obey the commandments. Second, you assume that they have the best intentions. Third, you give feedback. You try to help the see different viewpoints.

While some people consider giving critical feedback a form of not sustaining leader, I consider it a form of sustaining. I would consider it a failure to allow one of my leaders to press forward into a decision without having given him or her all of the best information.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned

Persuasion is an interesting word choice. Remember that dissent is a necessary condition for persuasion to occur. So dissent will occur, and persuasion will be attempted until one party persuades the other. But in order for any of that to happen,t he discussions have to take place.

[Gwen]

First, you obey the commandments. Second, you assume that they have the best intentions. Third, you give feedback. You try to help the see different viewpoints.

While some people consider giving critical feedback a form of not sustaining leader, I consider it a form of sustaining. I would consider it a failure to allow one of my leaders to press forward into a decision without having given him or her all of the best information.

Persuasion is an interesting word choice. Remember that dissent is a necessary condition for persuasion to occur. So dissent will occur, and persuasion will be attempted until one party persuades the other. But in order for any of that to happen,t he discussions have to take place.

This reminds me of how the word of wisdom came to be.

[prisonchaplain]

Bottom line: The only way an honest person can seek to effect change in the Church using social pressure is from the outside, as a non-member, the way many citizens of western countries try to pressure Islamic-based governments into changing their policies. To try to change things from within using such tactics is to willingly act as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

A few months ago an evangelical pastor in our area met with one of the 12 Apostles of the church (this pastor is active in social issues in ways your church supports). Afterwards this pastor wrote of his reflections. He suggested that the LDS view of modern prophets actually leaves room for gradual shifts in theological perspectives. Based on this, he expressed mild hope that the church could move closer to evangelical understandings. Now, this pastor was very careful to say that the apostle said nothing to directly support his reflections.

With that in mind, I wonder if some members believe in the foundational truth of the church, but are eager to see some transitions of their own. In essence, they are praying for some changes that will make the church look ever more ready for the 2nd coming.

Are these members wolves in sheeps' clothing? They probably just believe they are a bit ahead of their time.

On the other hand, campaigning for changes that are supposed to come by prophetic revelation seems kind of ridiculous. Such efforts might actually taint the true prophetic message, causing people to wonder if it was God or pressure.

[Suzie]

On the other hand, campaigning for changes that are supposed to come by prophetic revelation seems kind of ridiculous.

I agree. Having said that, the changes that members are discussing aren't doctrinal, but merely cultural/tradition. The problem is when both (doctrine and tradition) are seen as the same.

[NeuroTypical]

There is an often overlooked third path. It's the path of apathetic lack of thought, reason, or argumentation. This third path isn't born of any sort of belief system or agenda, other than the desire to satisfy perceived short-term wants.

In other words, there are a bunch of people out there who think the church should allow gay marriage (or pants on women, or beards on BYU students, or what have you), because being nice is more better than being mean. The brain cells just don't rub together to form anything more complex than that. This is why arguments from these people seem to be so goofy and asenine - because since they're human, they want to love and be loved. Which means when someone calls them on whatever dumb idea they just pushed, they try to defend it, because appearing smart and right is a way be loved.

Anyway, I know this is a third path, because I used to be one of these people until about halfway through my teen years, and I was friends with many like me. I can't begin to convey the large numbers of people who attempted to ascribe some sort of deeper thought or meaning or reasoning or agenda to my beliefs and actions. All were strawmen, attempting to uncover, define, and argue with things that simply weren't there.

As I keep abreast of current culture, I find this third path is still well-peopled.

If you understand that picture, you've plumbed every depth that mindset has to offer. No further agenda-seeking necessary.

[To clarify - I'm not saying everyone who isn't on one of Vort's first two sides is on this path. Consider what I'm talking about to be a 4th or 5th path if you wish.]

Edited March 21, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree. Having said that, the changes that members are discussing aren't doctrinal, but merely cultural/tradition. The problem is when both (doctrine and tradition) are seen as the same.

Who is to be the final authority on distinguishing the difference?

I would venture to guess that both you and I both understand that whoever controls the terminology, controls the argument.

[pam]

On the other hand, campaigning for changes that are supposed to come by prophetic revelation seems kind of ridiculous. Such efforts might actually taint the true prophetic message, causing people to wonder if it was God or pressure.

Love love love this statement.

[prisonchaplain]

I agree. Having said that, the changes that members are discussing aren't doctrinal, but merely cultural/tradition. The problem is when both (doctrine and tradition) are seen as the same.

Perhaps there is that area where doctrine and tradition mesh. And within that meshing there is the "mostly doctrine" "half doctrine/half tradition" and the "mostly tradition with some doctrine" subcategories. Who's to lead the way? My intuition (outsider, of course) is that it would still be those with a prophetic mantle--at least in the mostly and half doctrine subcategories.

It's in that final "mostly tradition" category that so much spiritual heartburn takes place. People with different roles try to push the bar. Others get offended. Discussions about "agency" arise. Too often, the battle degenerates into a war over who gets the say-so. Those almost always end badly.

I wish I could tell you that there is refuge from these troubles in evangelical churches, but alas, we too struggle with such...though usually at the congregation/ward level. Then again, sometimes the smaller arena makes the struggle that much more intense.

[Maureen]

I think the core of Vort's question can be summed up as... How do we sustain a leader(s) (for those who have covenanted to do so) when we have every reason to think they are wrong or in error on a matter.

Or maybe it's not about being wrong but about forgetting or overlooking something; and leaders need to be reminded sometimes.

I've posted this quote before and I'm going to do it again here.

There are principles of the gospel underlying every phase of Church administration. These are not explained in the handbooks. They are found in the scriptures. They are the substance of and the purpose for the revelations.

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change.

If you over-emphasize programs and procedures that can change, and will change, and must change, and do not understand the fundamental principles of the gospel, which never change, you can be misled.

Principles - Liahona Oct.?Nov. 1985 - liahona

Now I understand that Vort is not talking about "not changing anything", he is talking about how members go about requesting change. In the very conservative way of thinking there is only one way to request change in the LDS church and that is through going up the leadership ladder until you hope someone at the top got the message, cares about the message and is inspired to action. Vort seems to think any other way taints members as unsupportive of their leaders, even covenant breakers. I am not LDS so I do confess I don't really understand this strict procedure that must work between the lowly member and awe-inspiring leader. I do see the leaders of the LDS church as men with huge responsiblities that can't be everywhere and remember everything. They too are human and need a little reminder from the grunts once in awhile.

M.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Maureen

[Just_A_Guy]

I do see the leaders of the LDS church as men with huge responsiblities that can't be everywhere and remember everything. They too are human and need a little reminder from the grunts once in awhile.

I don't know that Vort is disputing even that. I certainly am not.

But there is a huge difference between a gentle reminder, or even an impassioned pleading; versus an attempt at public humiliation.

People wouldn't use petitions, politicking, and public pressure to get a spouse or family member to change their behavior (not if they wanted that relationship to last, anyways). But step into an LDS Church and a certain segment of our membership suddenly seems to think that anything goes, as long as they're taking on The Patriarchy™ or as long as we can split hairs about whether the status quo represents a "doctrine", "policy" or "tradition".

[Vort]

In the very conservative way of thinking there is only one way to request change in the LDS church and that is through going about the leadership ladder until you hope someone at the top got the message, cares about the message and is inspired to action. Vort seems to think any other way taints members as unsupportive of their leaders, even covenant breakers.

I may seem to you to think that way, but several others here appear to understand my meaning perfectly, and they are under no illusions that I think as you say I seem to.

[LittleWyvern]

Perhaps there is that area where doctrine and tradition mesh. And within that meshing there is the "mostly doctrine" "half doctrine/half tradition" and the "mostly tradition with some doctrine" subcategories. Who's to lead the way? My intuition (outsider, of course) is that it would still be those with a prophetic mantle--at least in the mostly and half doctrine subcategories.

It's in that final "mostly tradition" category that so much spiritual heartburn takes place. People with different roles try to push the bar. Others get offended. Discussions about "agency" arise. Too often, the battle degenerates into a war over who gets the say-so. Those almost always end badly.

I wish I could tell you that there is refuge from these troubles in evangelical churches, but alas, we too struggle with such...though usually at the congregation/ward level. Then again, sometimes the smaller arena makes the struggle that much more intense.

Another confusing part of the issue is that some cultural traditions stick around for so long that they become doctrine in the minds of many people. Some things go from cultural decision to "hey, that's a good idea" to "well, my bishop/stake president/parents did that" to "that's the way we've always done it" to "that's the way we're supposed to do it" to "Well, that's the way the people in Utah do it, so why don't we?" Viola, "doctrine."

[prisonchaplain]

Little,

I've seen the strings here about caffeine, soda, white shirts at sacrament, etc. The issues seem trite, but can feel humiliating, because I might know I should be able to figure it out for myself, but I really have no choice, and must comply with someone else's idea about what's right.

On the other hand, to pull this issue out of the LDS context, I've seen clearly doctrinal issues transition to cultural ones, in some fellowships--and then become matters of personal opinion. We've seen the several strings here about Protestant denominations that voted on allowing gay marriage, and eventually to allowing "active gays" as clergy. We shook our heads (most of us) and thought tsk tsk.

So...I'm not in such a hurry to make change within churches easy or democratic. Personal freedom (agency) is important. However, the turtle did beat the hare, eventually.

[LittleWyvern]

Little,

I've seen the strings here about caffeine, soda, white shirts at sacrament, etc. The issues seem trite, but can feel humiliating, because I might know I should be able to figure it out for myself, but I really have no choice, and must comply with someone else's idea about what's right.

On the other hand, to pull this issue out of the LDS context, I've seen clearly doctrinal issues transition to cultural ones, in some fellowships--and then become matters of personal opinion. We've seen the several strings here about Protestant denominations that voted on allowing gay marriage, and eventually to allowing "active gays" as clergy. We shook our heads (most of us) and thought tsk tsk.

Part of the way I try to sort between culture and doctrine is by following a wonderful model Elder Uchtdorf presented a few years ago:

The Savior Himself provided the answer with this profound declaration: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” This is the essence of what it means to be a true disciple: those who receive Christ Jesus walk with Him.

But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”

...

So how do we stay aligned with these weightier matters? Is there a constant compass that can help us prioritize our lives, thoughts, and actions?

Once again the Savior revealed the way. When asked to name the greatest commandment, He did not hesitate. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” He said. “This is the first and great commandment.” Coupled with the second great commandment—to love our neighbor as ourselves —we have a compass that provides direction not only for our lives but also for the Lord’s Church on both sides of the veil.

This is perhaps a more important task to do on an individual level than a Church level. When it comes down to it, it's our personal responsibility to make sure we are following the commandments of God the best way we know how, and that we aren't getting distracted in the labyrinth as Uchtdorf described it. The Church, too, can pick up cultural traditions like this, but...

So...I'm not in such a hurry to make change within churches easy or democratic. Personal freedom (agency) is important. However, the turtle did beat the hare, eventually.

...I'd generally agree with you here. Part of the hierarchical nature of the Church means that there are people in charge of establishing proper procedures and protocols. Thus, while weeding out the unneeded in our personal lives is something we all need to do for ourselves, doing this for the Church is much less our personal responsibility. However, if we do feel strongly about something, there are proper channels set up to address these concerns.