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


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I, personally, am not fond of the phrase itself "The Church is true"; however, I understand this is said because of the scripture already shared D&C 1:30, and that individuals are using this phrase to mean that this is God's church with which he is well pleased. I understand that others use this phrase to mean that what the Church proclaims to be -- it is.

 

 

Thanks Anddenex. I use to say the phrase just because it was what you say, but, currently I am not a fan of that phrase either.

As I read the verse D&C 1:30, it technically does not exclude other churches as being true. It affirms that the Church spoken of in D&C 1:30 is the only true and living church with which the Lord is well pleased, but it does not actually deny that other true and living churches exist. Do you think that this verse leaves room for there to be other true and living churches with which the Lord is simply pleased, or displeased, or not well pleased? That particular verse also seems to leave room for churches that are true, but not necessarily living.

What do you think?

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Finrock said:

Thanks Anddenex. I use to say the phrase just because it was what you say, but, currently I am not a fan of that phrase either.

As I read the verse D&C 1:30, it technically does not exclude other churches as being true. It affirms that the Church spoken of in D&C 1:30 is the only true and living church with which the Lord is well pleased, but it does not actually deny that other true and living churches exist. Do you think that this verse leaves room for there to be other true and living churches with which the Lord is simply pleased, or displeased, or not well pleased? That particular verse also seems to leave room for churches that are true, but not necessarily living.

What do you think?

-Finrock

Do you think that this verse leaves room for there to be other true and living churches with which the Lord is simply pleased, or displeased, or not well pleased?

The current knowledge and understanding I have of this verse is specific to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, meaning that this is the only true and living Church that offers the ability (in this life) for the sons & daughters of God to reach their full potential (without proper saving ordinances we are unable to reach our full potential). In light of this, I currently do not believe this refers to any other church body except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ (as to true and living churches). Living means "collective and personal revelation" and being fully directed by the Lord which requires priesthood power, priesthood authority, and priesthood keys. No other church offers these options, other than The Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints.

Am I in agreement that there are churches with which the Lord would be pleased with the efforts of its leaders? Yes. My mind draws upon the Lord's guidance to the apostles who wanted to stop a man who did not have authority, but was going about doing good. The Lord did not stop him, but showed his apostles that he was (to a point) pleased with the individuals desire to draw people to Christ. What we don't have is the full story regarding further instruction and how after this statement they interacted with this brother who was going about doing good. I would say our current top leadership are showing us this example as they serve with other churches who are going about doing good, seeking to bring people to Christ, and they aren't directly trying to stop these leaders obeying the Lord's counsel. Do I believe the Lord is pleased with these individuals, yes (to a point).

That particular verse also seems to leave room for churches that are true, but not necessarily living.

I would call possible "semantics" argument here. There are other churches that teach portions of truth, but are not themselves "true." We are in agreement of them not living as previously stated in my first paragraph. I would then call into evidence President Hinckley's statement (can't find the exact quote) where he stated to potential converts/investigator, "Bring all the good with you, and let us add unto it." (paraphrased).

True, as to my knowledge/understanding, means that what is taught will save (exaltation), anything less isn't completely true.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion per Finrock's question: related to the two primary meanings as I see it to what makes a church true and living, no there are no other true and living churches -- the meanings being this: authority for revelation and authority for ordinances. These are the true and living components that I understand as the meaning of the phrase and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church that has such authority. The revelation side of things certainly exists outside the LDS church, but not the authority for organized revelation by the order of the priesthood required for the knowledge of the second point -- the ordinances of the gospel, which is wherein the true power, authority, meaning, and value of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a huge fan of the statement "The Church is true." I will say what many here believe but what at least a few are afraid to say: The Church is as true as the gospel. It could be no other way. The Church is the vehicle of the gospel. It is the very kingdom of God on the earth. Outside the Church, the fulness of the gospel does not exist. There is no Priesthood authority, no saving ordinances, no continuing revelation to guide us in the path to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Finrock said:

Okay. So, you are saying that the phrase "the Church is true" means that it is the only Church with which the Lord is well pleased?

-Finrock

I mean:

10 hours ago, Vort said:

I am a huge fan of the statement "The Church is true." I will say what many here believe but what at least a few are afraid to say: The Church is as true as the gospel. It could be no other way. The Church is the vehicle of the gospel. It is the very kingdom of God on the earth. Outside the Church, the fulness of the gospel does not exist. There is no Priesthood authority, no saving ordinances, no continuing revelation to guide us in the path to God.

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My opinion per Finrock's question: related to the two primary meanings as I see it to what makes a church true and living, no there are no other true and living churches -- the meanings being this: authority for revelation and authority for ordinances. These are the true and living components that I understand as the meaning of the phrase and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church that has such authority. The revelation side of things certainly exists outside the LDS church, but not the authority for organized revelation by the order of the priesthood required for the knowledge of the second point -- the ordinances of the gospel, which is wherein the true power, authority, meaning, and value of the church.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to say that the Church was true in the same sense that a rifle is "true": It shoots straight, and you can hit what you aim for. I still believe this is the case, but I don't say it very often any more. Too many people misunderstand me, thinking that I'm saying that the Church isn't "really true", but just points you in a good direction. So I prefer to go with the more blunt and explicit statement. I think there is some nuance worth thinking about in the "rifle-true" comparison, but that should never overshadow the literal meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I used to say that the Church was true in the same sense that a rifle is "true": It shoots straight, and you can hit what you aim for. I still believe this is the case, but I don't say it very often any more. Too many people misunderstand me, thinking that I'm saying that the Church isn't "really true", but just points you in a good direction. So I prefer to go with the more blunt and explicit statement. I think there is some nuance worth thinking about in the "rifle-true" comparison, but that should never overshadow the literal meaning.

I don't have a problem with a "rifle" meaning of true.  But it doesn't mean straight.  It means "alongside" -- or possibly "parallel".  True means that one object is right alongside another object.  In the case of a rifle, the path of the projectile is right alongside the path which you wish it to go -- straight in this case.

When we say the Church is true, we're saying that the tenets, beliefs, ordinances, practices, powers (priesthood) teachings, etc. of the Church are right alongside the path that God would have us go.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one and only reason I stopped using that phrase in my testimony is because my husband, who wasn't a member for most of our marriage, didn't know what the abbreviation meant, and thought it and our "I know..." sounded arrogant.  So, for the sake of any non-members who may be hearing, I now testify to the truth using other words and am more explicit as to what it means when we say, "the Church is true".  I don't water-down testimony of things others might call arrogant claims, I just don't use Mormon-only idioms (or I try not to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't have a problem with a "rifle" meaning of true.  But it doesn't mean straight.  It means "alongside" -- or possibly "parallel".  True means that one object is right alongside another object.  In the case of a rifle, the path of the projectile is right alongside the path which you wish it to go -- straight in this case.

Well, if you want to get picky about it, since the projectile follows a ballistic path and the sight line is straight, the projectile actually just crosses the sight line a couple of times.  

So maybe J Golden Kimball was on the right track with "I may not walk the straight and the narrow, but I sure in hell try to cross it as often as I can!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

I am a huge fan of the statement "The Church is true." I will say what many here believe but what at least a few are afraid to say: The Church is as true as the gospel. It could be no other way. The Church is the vehicle of the gospel. It is the very kingdom of God on the earth. Outside the Church, the fulness of the gospel does not exist. There is no Priesthood authority, no saving ordinances, no continuing revelation to guide us in the path to God.

Regarding the 'no continuing revelation' part -  you're talking about new light and knowledge, previously unknown, right?  I'm pretty sure you're not claiming God only talks to Mormons.

Example: My wife's grandpa - a story from many years ago.  He was almost knocked off his bar stool by a powerful spiritual experience that etched the words "Wayne, why hast thou abandoned me" into his soul.  Personal revelation about the reality of God was absolutely received outside the church, but I wouldn't call it something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Regarding the 'no continuing revelation' part -  you're talking about new light and knowledge, previously unknown, right?  I'm pretty sure you're not claiming God only talks to Mormons.

In fact, that is exactly why I appended the part about "to guide us in the path to God." Yes, all children of God can receive revelation, and some do. But the kind of continuous revelation necessary to bring us to God requires the gift of the Holy Ghost, and none outside the Church (aka the kingdom of God) can possess that gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Well, if you want to get picky about it, since the projectile follows a ballistic path and the sight line is straight, the projectile actually just crosses the sight line a couple of times. 

Ideally it would "cross" it only once as it leaves the barrel.  Then it should "hit" once.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Depends on your zero range and actual target range.

lineofsight-departure-trajectory.jpg

Ideally, "far zero" point should be at the target.  So, I think you're looking beyond the mark.  :crackup: See what I did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Targets that matter don't always cooperate.

Maybe you're thinking pessimistically.  I have it zeroed to may farthest ideal range (around 300 yards currently, I'm looking to up it to 500 yards).  It is easier to adjust on the fly for a shorter distance to target than a farther one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe you're thinking pessimistically.  I have it zeroed to may farthest ideal range (around 300 yards currently, I'm looking to up it to 500 yards).  It is easier to adjust on the fly for a shorter distance to target than a farther one.

Go .243 Ackley Improved and it should be flat enough to never really matter at 250-300 unless you're going for bullseye competition or hunting mice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Go .243 Ackley Improved and it should be flat enough to never really matter at 250-300 unless you're going for bullseye competition or hunting mice.

So, you're saying that a .243 is "truer" than a 30-06?  I just can't accept that.  I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of my being, from the bottom of my heart that the 30-06 is the true and living round with which any "true" hunter would be well pleased. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're saying that a .243 is "truer" than a 30-06?

Depends; how far beyond SAAMI specs are you willing to go?  A 180gr flying 3200fps will stay pretty darn flat for a while, but I think I was pushing the limits of even the 1917 Enfield with that load.  OTOH, pushing 55gr .243 Barnes Varmint Grenades around 4,000fps will scatter an orange over a 30+ foot radius, while not hurting the orange behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Vort said:

I am a huge fan of the statement "The Church is true." I will say what many here believe but what at least a few are afraid to say: The Church is as true as the gospel. It could be no other way. The Church is the vehicle of the gospel. It is the very kingdom of God on the earth. Outside the Church, the fulness of the gospel does not exist. There is no Priesthood authority, no saving ordinances, no continuing revelation to guide us in the path to God.

Hi Vort,

A couple of things, at least, mitigate what you are saying. First, performing the outward or physical ordinances don't mean squat without the Spirit. Second, millions, if not billions, of people have and/or will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost without ever being baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Finrock said:

First, performing the outward or physical ordinances don't mean squat without the Spirit.

Not true. A baptism performed by an authorized Priesthood holder and approved by the appropriate authorities, even if done "without the Spirit", is valid.

On the other hand, one might say that such a baptism would by definition have the Spirit. That might be the case. However, in that case, I would ask: Can you name a situation where a legitimate Priesthood holder performs an approved ordinance that "do[es]n't mean squat without the Spirit"?

31 minutes ago, Finrock said:

Second, millions, if not billions, of people have and/or will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost without ever being baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Also untrue. None receives the gift of the Holy Ghost without first being confirmed a member of God's kingdom. People can (indeed, must) feel the Holy Ghost before that point, but the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost (at least the divine injunction to do so) is identical with entry into God's kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not true. A baptism performed by an authorized Priesthood holder and approved by the appropriate authorities, even if done "without the Spirit", is valid.

On the other hand, one might say that such a baptism would by definition have the Spirit. That might be the case. However, in that case, I would ask: Can you name a situation where a legitimate Priesthood holder performs an approved ordinance that "do[es]n't mean squat without the Spirit"?

Ordinances must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise for them to have any justification in the afterlife. I remember when I was sealed and the officiator declared the following, "Thank you for having the Spirit with you. I am truly sorry for these young men and young women who enter the temple unworthy to receive the blessings and the spirit does not justify the ordinance, and until they repent their temple ordinance will not be validated in the afterlife." In other words, they have no promise. So, in this case, even approved ordinances to a degree mean "squate" (not sure if that is the best word though) if the Holy Spirit of promise doesn't accompany the saving ordinance. At the end of this statement he thanked Ms. Anddenex and I for living worthy such that the Spirit of promise sealed our sealing. I am thinking this is what Finrock is referring to.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Finrock said:

Second, millions, if not billions, of people have and/or will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost without ever being baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-Finrock

Finrock, I am in agreement with Vort on this one possibly due to the verbiage of "receiving" the Holy Ghost. To "receive" the Holy Ghost means that an authorized priesthood has laid hands upon ones head and specifically states, "Receive, the Holy Ghost." (at least according to modern revelation).

Others may receive the Holy Ghost, but it does not remain with them as a constant companion, and Vort appears to have been referring to "confirmation" not just the Holy Spirit witnessing truth, or giving knowledge (similar to investigators who receive witness that the gospel has once again been restored, but have not "received" the Holy Ghost).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Not true. A baptism performed by an authorized Priesthood holder and approved by the appropriate authorities, even if done "without the Spirit", is valid.

On the other hand, one might say that such a baptism would by definition have the Spirit. That might be the case. However, in that case, I would ask: Can you name a situation where a legitimate Priesthood holder performs an approved ordinance that "do[es]n't mean squat without the Spirit"?

Also untrue. None receives the gift of the Holy Ghost without first being confirmed a member of God's kingdom. People can (indeed, must) feel the Holy Ghost before that point, but the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost (at least the divine injunction to do so) is identical with entry into God's kingdom.

The outward or physical ordinance does not save us. There are two baptisms, at least. One is the water baptism, the other is the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost. The baptism by the Spirit, is the one that matters. As Anddenex eluded to in his post,  "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead" (D&C 132:7).

Quote

D&C 22:

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

To enter in at the strait gate means to be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. A baptism is only valid if it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit. This does not automatically happen just because a person with proper authority has performed the ritual. This only happens when one has a broken heart and a contrite spirit or has become as a little child.

Are there people who have received the Holy Ghost without being baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Absolutely! First, let me point out that anyone who is saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God has, by definition, received the Holy Ghost.

Quote

Moroni 8:

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

So, little children and children who die before the age of accountability and those who are without the law need not to be baptized. The power of redemption comes on all them that have no law and they are not condemned and cannot repent, therefore baptism means nothing to them. All children who have died before the age of accountability, will never need to be baptized, not even by proxy. This is also true for people who have the mental capacity of a child. They will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever needing to be baptized. Remember, being saved in the Celestial Kingdom means that you have received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the prerequisite for entering in at the gate, or having access to the Celestial Kingdom.

But, it's not just children who die before the age of accountability or individuals with the mental capacity of a child who are saved without baptism...

Quote

D&C 137:

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Notice the gate that is described in D&C 137. It is a gate of fire, and all must pass through that fire to enter the Celestial Kingdom. If they are there, they were baptized by fire and received the Holy Ghost and yet they were baptized by fire and received the Holy Ghost without the ordinance of water baptism, not even by proxy.

So, it is a fact in Mormon theology that millions will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not even by proxy.

Quote

Vort wrote:

However, in that case, I would ask: Can you name a situation where a legitimate Priesthood holder performs an approved ordinance that "do[es]n't mean squat without the Spirit?

Here is one apparent example from the scriptures speaking about valid water baptism performed by Sidney Rigdon, but without the Spirit attending the baptism:

Quote

D&C 35:

4 Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.

5 Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received not the Holy Ghost;

6 But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Fixed formatting and quotes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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