21 Reasons It Doesn’t Matter if The Church is True


Recommended Posts

A lot of people aren't looking for a true church, they're looking for a good church. They want to be part of an organization that is fundamentally sound and makes its members and the world around it better. I'm not trying to say the Church is perfect. But we so often get stuck focusing on its minor faults and its truth claims that we often miss what an outstanding organization it simply is. Here are 21 reasons we are lucky to be members. 1) Takes Care of Their Own The Church does good by those who are members. Through fast offerings, bishop's storehouses, and job services, along with ward councils and home teachers to make sure no one slips through the cracks, the Church is wildly efficient at caring for its own members. 2) Does Good in the Community The Church and its wards regularly serve at the community level. Whether it's participating in local service projects, working at local food banks, or organizing with the new JustServe.org website, Latter-day Saints strive to make where they...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an outsider, I struggle with this approach. Many Christian churches--particularly some of the mega-ones--are adopting this "post-modern" line--that ultimate truth, or absolutist claims, just don't work. So long as I am mostly good, and can reconcile my faith and practices in a way that works for me ...

The Father commands that we worship no other gods.  Jesus said he was THE way, truth and life.  Then there is this:  if "the church" is really just a pretty good one, why would Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or Pentecostal prisonchaplains even look your way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunate headline (or article title). Perhaps many people aren't looking for a "true" church, mostly because they don't believe such an animal exists. But the objective truthfulness of the Church is 100% vital to its existence. Without that, we are a weaker version of the Community of Christ, with a pronounced Unitarian bent -- in short, a waste of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose certainly wasn't to dismiss the conversation about truth claims. But suggesting without them the church is somehow especially week is also incorrect. This simply acknowledges that the question about whether or not the Church is good is a different conversation then whether or not the Church is true. 

So many critics of the Church try to say that the Church isn't true because the Church isn't good. And often we respond by talking about why the Church is true. This focuses on the other question and presents the case that the Church is good regardless of the accuracy of its truth claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ccunningham said:

This simply acknowledges that the question about whether or not the Church is good is a different conversation then whether or not the Church is true

I believe I understand your intent, and I don't disagree. But I also believe the above statement is untrue. At least, President Hinckley seemed to disagree:

Quote

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

I think the truthfulness of the Church's claims of authority cannot be neatly separated from the good it does (or tries to do). In a superficial objective way, we might be able to claim that the Church "does good" regardless of whether people believe its doctrines. But on a deeper and more holistic level, I think the two are inextricably intertwined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the article, it appeared to be aimed more at current members, reminding them that they belong to a worthy fellowship that is a moral force for good, in an age when the church's critics attack perceived political positions of members as being hateful and negative. Despite the intent, there is a definite post-modern tone to the article, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the church isn't true then it's claims on what is "good" become suspect. Sure, the church may have some good things, but how can one stand and state confidently that the church's position on social issues such as gay marriage are "good" if one doesn't have a firm conviction that they are from God? The idea that doing some good offsets a host of bigoted evil doesn't exactly work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it is the Title that throws this article off. I read the article and felt the article was good. The title, not so much. If "not true" I wouldn't belong to it, and it doesn't matter what good, because leading me into false beliefs is not "good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also agree that the title is what's throwing this all off. I believe the meaning is not easily distilled into a succinct phrase that would be more appropriate for an article title:

"Aside from the fact the Church is true, here are some other great things about the Church and its people."

That's just too long to use as a title for an article.  Any ideas?

"21 Good Things that Make the Church Great".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Maybe the article is trying to reach those who lost their belief in the LDS church's claims of being "the one true church" and the article is saying "so what if you don't believe the claims, the church still has good things that make it worthwhile."

M.

Great point! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nutshell of this article bothers me so much. Throughout my childhood and upbringing, the Church prided itself on being the one and only true church of Christ. I was raised to believe that those doctrines were directly related to my ability - and that of every other person in the world - to reach the highest level of acceptance in the heavens. Being taught that belief from a young age had a marked influence on my entire life, in every aspect and realm of my environment. 
 
In recent years, the Church has increasingly, slowly, stepped back from its claim of being the only source of truth in the world. Now, as evidenced in your article, it's apparently irrelevant that the Church isn't true. Now, what simply matters is that the Church is good. I cannot convey how much I resent that sentiment. 
 
For twenty years, my whole life revolved around the Church's claim of absolute truth. I lived and breathed it. Since it's no longer convenient for the Church to make such a bold claim - since it's hitting such large backlash - its changing tune. I am angry with you and other members that think this is acceptable. Articles such as this continue to perpetuate the ideology that we must aimlessly follow the Church's hypocritical lead. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, lorelaihc said:
The nutshell of this article bothers me so much. Throughout my childhood and upbringing, the Church prided itself on being the one and only true church of Christ. I was raised to believe that those doctrines were directly related to my ability - and that of every other person in the world - to reach the highest level of acceptance in the heavens. Being taught that belief from a young age had a marked influence on my entire life, in every aspect and realm of my environment. 
 
In recent years, the Church has increasingly, slowly, stepped back from its claim of being the only source of truth in the world. Now, as evidenced in your article, it's apparently irrelevant that the Church isn't true. Now, what simply matters is that the Church is good. I cannot convey how much I resent that sentiment. 
 
For twenty years, my whole life revolved around the Church's claim of absolute truth. I lived and breathed it. Since it's no longer convenient for the Church to make such a bold claim - since it's hitting such large backlash - its changing tune. I am angry with you and other members that think this is acceptable. Articles such as this continue to perpetuate the ideology that we must aimlessly follow the Church's hypocritical lead. 

I, for one, don't see "The Church" walking back its truth claims.  I do see a very unfortunately-worded article published by LDS.net/MormonHub.com; but this website is not "The Church". 

It is probably worth noting that you're speaking of related-but-distinct concepts. 

  • The Church does claim to be the sole repository of the truths necessary to save a person in the Celestial Kingdom; and in my view it is not walking back that claim at all. 
  • On the other hand, the idea that "The Church" as an institution is the sole and exclusive source of all truth--I don't think that has ever been a part of Mormonism (though there have certainly been Mormons who thought it should be so!).  From our earliest days there has been an acknowledgement within Mormonism that there exist, outside the Church, "holy men ye know not of" (D&C 49:8); and nominally "secular" advancements in literature, in art, in science, in civics, and so on were viewed as a part of the process by which God was revealing additional truth to His children. 
Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Maybe the article is trying to reach those who lost their belief in the LDS church's claims of being "the one true church" and the article is saying "so what if you don't believe the claims, the church still has good things that make it worthwhile."

M.

Probably the point. But I think it's mistaken wording regardless, specifically in the words "it doesn't matter".

Pointing out good things about an organization does not offset the bad things. And false religion, historically, does not lead to good things, in spite of some good things that it may have done. It leads to war, persecution, suffering, etc.

If the religion isn't true then the niceties about said religion do not make it worth it. If the religion is true, then it's true. Period. Regardless the cost.

Moreover, if one looks at things from an eternal post-life perspective, if the LDS church is a way to go to hell then being involved very much matters. We should only be involved in things that will lead to salvation. And a church that declares eternal truth is either right or lying. If it's lying, then get out, get away, and move on. The nice social club aspect of it doesn't make it worth it.

Finally, two wrongs do not make a right. We can reductio ad Hiterlum it up a bit and look at the seemingly "good" things done for the German country, the youth, the economy, etc., at that time. In retrospect we can easily see that some of those things, ultimately, were not good but quite harmful. But even those things that were, actually, good* don't justify it in the end.

*Such as anti-tobacco movements, welfare programs, family values, low crime rate, animal preservation, buildings and roads, technology advancements, music promotion, etc., etc., etc... Oh yes...there were a lot of things the Nazis did that were "good".

If the church is true it is of God. If it is false it is of the devil. There is no middle ground.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, lorelaihc said:
In recent years, the Church has increasingly, slowly, stepped back from its claim of being the only source of truth in the world.

I do not believe this to be true. Primarily in that the church has never claimed to be the "only" source of truth in the world. And their claims to being the only source of certain truths has not changed a whit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2016 at 11:18 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Then there is this:  if "the church" is really just a pretty good one, why would Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or Pentecostal prisonchaplains even look your way? 

Carrot addiction?  Utter inability to coordinate a colored shirt?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 30-year bet with a buddy of mine.  He figures gay temple marriage is inevitable - just need a few generations to go by.  I figure he's wrong.  Whoever loses has to dress up in a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot".

Articles like this, move the tutu closer to me, not him.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's really happening here with this topic is the fact that a study was done on the American Indian and DNA was taken from each tribe of the America's and guess what? No Jewish blood was found in any of the tribes anywhere! The DNA evidence shows that the American Indian came from Asia. 

Another fact, was J. Smith translated the book of Morman out of a hat. Not by using the golden plates as we all have been taught. "Ensign, February 2015."

Things are going to change for this church. I think the church knows that. But, the 12 things that the author of this article mentioned I think should be at the bottom of our decisions wheather or not our faith is strong enough to stay or leave the church. 

I would also point out some reasons to stay in this church.

1. In a day and age of drugs, guns & thugs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only safe harbor there is to raise children today. The church will help teach correct principles and concepts and will never lead astray anyone.

2. Try to imagine what Christs church would be like here upon the earth if he was here. He would have everything in it that this church has- Temples,salvation for the dead, eternal marriage, protective garments like Adam & Eve worn after they were cast out of the garden, a new name, as stated in Rev. 3: 5.  I could go on and on with just everything the bible talks about having in Gods true church in plain sight. But it might take days. So I won't. 

Also, the Holy Spirit, if you can't feel the Holy Ghost there in the church you've chosen what good is it all?

Yes our church has these things still. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has these things yesterday, today and tomorrow. And that is the evidence of what truth is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Probably the point. But I think it's mistaken wording regardless, specifically in the words "it doesn't matter".

Pointing out good things about an organization does not offset the bad things. And false religion, historically, does not lead to good things, in spite of some good things that it may have done. It leads to war, persecution, suffering, etc.

If the religion isn't true then the niceties about said religion do not make it worth it. If the religion is true, then it's true. Period. Regardless the cost.

Moreover, if one looks at things from an eternal post-life perspective, if the LDS church is a way to go to hell then being involved very much matters. We should only be involved in things that will lead to salvation. And a church that declares eternal truth is either right or lying. If it's lying, then get out, get away, and move on. The nice social club aspect of it doesn't make it worth it.

Finally, two wrongs do not make a right. We can reductio ad Hiterlum it up a bit and look at the seemingly "good" things done for the German country, the youth, the economy, etc., at that time. In retrospect we can easily see that some of those things, ultimately, were not good but quite harmful. But even those things that were, actually, good* don't justify it in the end.

*Such as anti-tobacco movements, welfare programs, family values, low crime rate, animal preservation, buildings and roads, technology advancements, music promotion, etc., etc., etc... Oh yes...there were a lot of things the Nazis did that were "good".

If the church is true it is of God. If it is false it is of the devil. There is no middle ground.

Totally agree.  I am LDS because I believe it 100%, that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be, and Joseph Smith really was a prophet who restored first century Christianity.  I don't think it would make much sense to hang around a "pretty good" church that I knew was not absolutely correct... I think I would bolt for Catholicism or Islam in such a case.  But such talk is all strictly theoretical, because the Church IS 100% true, and that is just fact!

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a world where almost everyone is a convert. The concept of joining the church because it represents good values and can be very helpful for raising a family is a good start. Enough to get baptized on. As trials come, converts often reach out to G-d and then the process of true conversions begins to happen. At the temple, someone quoted a statistic that 80% of converts fall away but drops to 30% if they go to the temple soon after baptism. I try to get new converts to the temple. Some people are hanging with us with quite a weak testimony. For example the church is a good place to be. Let's help them stay because such a testimony will not get you through the hard spots of life. 

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Patsview said:

I think what's really happening here with this topic is the fact that a study was done on the American Indian and DNA was taken from each tribe of the America's and guess what? No Jewish blood was found in any of the tribes anywhere! The DNA evidence shows that the American Indian came from Asia. 

 

Hi and welcome to the forums Patsview.  I see you've encountered some old antimormon arguments.  The DNA issue was massive in the 1990's and 2000's, every church critic out there seemed to believe DNA research on indigenous people in the Americas proved the Book of Mormon was not the historical record it claimed to be.  Problem was, these critics, and the originators of the criticisms had flawed understanding of what DNA research can and can't tell us.  They also had flawed understandings of what the BoM claimed about itself. 

Here - do a few weeks of reading on the issue if you choose, and you can see your statements lack the impact you seem to believe they should have.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence

 

 

14 hours ago, Patsview said:

Another fact, was J. Smith translated the book of Morman out of a hat. Not by using the golden plates as we all have been taught. "Ensign, February 2015."

"Morman"?  Are you a member, Patsview, or a visiting critic?  Also, if 'we have all been taught' something, why point us to an Ensign article in your very next breath that contradicts your claim?  Again, have some reading that may expound your understanding of this issue.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865625005/Joseph-the-stone-and-the-hat-Why-it-all-matters.html?pg=all

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I live in a world where almost everyone is a convert. The concept of the joining the church because it represents good values and can be very helpful for raising a family is a good start. Enough to get baptized on. As trials come, converts often reach out to G-d and then the process of true conversions begins to happen. At the temple, someone quoted a statistic that 80% of converts fall away but drops to 30% if they go to the temple soon after baptism. I try to get new converts to the temple. Some people are hanging with us with quite a weak testimony. For example the church is a good place to be. Let's help them stay because such a testimony will not get you through the hard spots of life. 

And I think this is the point.  Without a testimony, a conviction of the truth, all these good facts about the the church aren't going to matter one bit when the trials come (and they come to all of us eventually).  We need members to develop that firm conviction as quickly as possible, and telling them there are "reasons it doesn't matter if the church is true" is not helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@zilI am with you a deeper testimony is important. On the other hand, some here criticize those who are baptized with little knowledge of basic doctrines or the Book of Mormon. Me, I say, less criticism, more helping! 

I haven't noticed that criticism, or maybe I didn't recognize it as criticism.  I do think one should understand the covenant of baptism before making it, and have sufficient testimony to make it with real intent.  Whatever the case, we are to help and teach each other the gospel.  Seems fairly simple to me (even if it's not easy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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