"True and Living Church"

[Misshalfway]

I have been thinking a lot over the last couple of days about how some are offended by the church saying that it is the only true and living church. I often hear that from folks from the Christian community and who share belief in the Bible. I don't know if I am able to articulate my thoughts very well..... just going to think out loud here.

I feel like I understand how it may appear to some as a statement of arrogance. It is bold, to say the least, and brave to state in this world of competing religious factions.

As I read the Old and New Testaments, the God I read about is very sure of himself. In fact, absolutely sure of Himself. The God I read about is very clear and specific about what is expected for the Israelites for example. He instructed folks like Moses and Joshua and others to do specific things for the people. He says things like, "I am the great I AM." And " have no other God's before me." He seems very specific about the use of idols. ANd in the New Testament, he is very specific with the people in trying to straighten out the Jewish establishment. And Christ is very clear to tell them who He is. It was one of the reasons the killed him.

Why would God be different now? He says he is no respecter of persons. He also states that He can't allow any degree of sin. Would he be different now? Would he let the people decide what was sinful and what wasn't? Why would he stop professing and identifying Himself to the people? And why is it so difficult to consider that He would identify his church to the people as well?

He says in D&C 1:34 & 38 "And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons....."

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

I suppose one could reason that perhaps God doesn't create churches. That He only gave dogma and spiritual ideas and then leaves man to interpret and guide himself. But frankly, that doesn't seem like a familiar pattern to me based upon what I have read. Why would Christ go to such special effort to establish his church if the specific nature of it wasn't important? So, I guess for me, the fact that the Doctrine and Covenants quotes the Lord in professing the authenticity of this church, doesn't offend me or scare me at all. It is something that I would expect of God. It instead invites me to determine if the statement in fact comes from God.

Perhaps the people not of the LDS faith, are offended because they just simply don't think that a church like ours could come from God. I just don't know. I think that I am baffled as to why some become offended and turned off to the church because of this point.

Perhaps it is the person sending the message. Is the arrogance coming from them and that is what is offensive. Perhaps it comes across as self-righteousness.

For those who feel the offense, would it help to read the actual quote from God himself about this church?

D&C 1: 30 "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking of the church collectively and not individually -- For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance....."

Maybe if those who look into our faith understand that we believe that it is God himself making the statement, it would be less offensive.

Just wondering.........

[WANDERER]

I was reading LDS Nana's blog the other day and thinking about the LDS church as a restoration. As I look at the change in churches over time, it would seem that there has been a change from a reformation type focus within churches to restoration. To some degree a 'restoration of truth' focus has had an impact on all of Christianity and beliefs, and it appears to be an ongoing effect. Some have called this a 'revival'.

Just some thoughts I had about it all.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I was thinking back to before I joined the church to try to understand this. I do remember a time when I thought "What makes you think you have some better way of praising God than I have?" and I realise that I was judging the people and not seeing it as God himself saying to ALL people that this is HIS way.

It is a little difficult to separate the two and easy to see it as arrogance on the part of the member who says "we have the truth". Maybe it's more a case of "I'm nothing special but God has this great plan and I've finally found it and want to be part of it. You guys can be part of it too."

I've had people tell me that we are arrogant and prideful to call ourselves saints because to them they see the term 'saint' as describing someone holier than the average person who has been raised to a position only a little below deity by virtue of their saintliness. I have responded to this by pointing out that theirs is the misinterpreted definition of the word and that the early Christians called themselves saints and didn't see themselves as superior but often precisely the opposite, just as we do. We acknowledge our imperfections and the need for Christ in our lives and the Holy Spirit to guide and help us.

[MorningStar]

"One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." I've never found anything offensive about that scripture. :)

[WANDERER]

"And also those to whom these commandments were given might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness" . This kind of makes the rest of it read a whole more humbly in context.

[rameumptom]

I think it is one thing for the scriptures and the Lord to state this. I think it would be another thing if we walked around bragging about it. Unfortunately, there are members that do brag about belonging to the only true and living church.

Such bragging has hurt the Church in the past. It led to ill feelings in Missouri and Illinois, as members bragged about building Zion and kicking out the Gentiles, or that Joseph Smith was the modern Solomon to build the temple that Masons had spoken about for centuries. Clearly, such hubris on our part did not engender good feelings.

We should approach those around us with a little more humility. We aren't special because we belong the the true Church. We have been blessed with a gift that we should humbly cherish and share.

[WillowTheWhisp]

We aren't special because we belong the the true Church.

Indeed not. We are just ordinary folks the same as anyone else. But we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Church is special because it is the only true Church on earth today.

[Misshalfway]

I think it is one thing for the scriptures and the Lord to state this. I think it would be another thing if we walked around bragging about it. Unfortunately, there are members that do brag about belonging to the only true and living church.

Such bragging has hurt the Church in the past. It led to ill feelings in Missouri and Illinois, as members bragged about building Zion and kicking out the Gentiles, or that Joseph Smith was the modern Solomon to build the temple that Masons had spoken about for centuries. Clearly, such hubris on our part did not engender good feelings.

We should approach those around us with a little more humility. We aren't special because we belong the the true Church. We have been blessed with a gift that we should humbly cherish and share.

I think that perhaps you are very right here -- at least in part.

[Misshalfway]

"And also those to whom these commandments were given might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness" . This kind of makes the rest of it read a whole more humbly in context.

There is something in these statements that makes me feel deeply secure. Knowing that God is in control. It is comforting to lean on that strength and and absolute confidence.

[DigitalShadow]

Let me just say that I am not in the least offended by how the church presents itself, but I can see how someone might be.

Stating that your church is the only true church is like saying that vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream worth eating. It's a matter of opinion that is being stated as a fact and that is inherently arrogant and offensive to some people people. I don't think those people are offended that you believe your church is the only true church, they just take issue with how it is stated. Would you be offended and/or think I'm arrogant if I stated that evolution is the only explaination for human life?

[skalenfehl]

The reason why the LDS church uses that expression is because it is the only church today that is led by a living prophet who speaks directly with our Savior (who we know lives), pertaining to His business, His work on earth. We have living apostles and leaders who bear the same priesthood authority conferred upon Melchizedek, all the prophets of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New Testament. Only through the restoration of His church could this be brought about. No other church claims to receive direct revelation in this manner for its members or the entire world but rather preach that the Bible is God's sole authority on Christian matters.

[prisonchaplain]

I feel like I understand how it may appear to some as a statement of arrogance. It is bold, to say the least, and brave to state in this world of competing religious factions.

My purpose in this response is to help clarify the evangelical attitudes towards the LDS stance that it is the one and only true living church of Jesus Christ. The phrase I bolded is a great starting point. While we see ourselves as competing against Satan and the false gods of this world, we do not 'compete' against one another in the Christian community. I can rejoice that the Methodist church down the road is seeing new converts, as they might rejoice at a successful food kitchen we run. Sure, we might believe that our particular church has the better handle on a given teaching...but we are brothers and sisters, part of the universal church of Jesus Christ.

Why would God be different now? He says he is no respecter of persons. He also states that He can't allow any degree of sin. Would he be different now? Would he let the people decide what was sinful and what wasn't? Why would he stop professing and identifying Himself to the people? And why is it so difficult to consider that He would identify his church to the people as well?

We don't disagree about God clearly, dramatically, and exclusively revealing himself to his creation. Our difference is over whether his revelation must needs come through only one denomination. IMHO, Joseph Smith, frustrated by the plethora of Christian denominations, solved the problem of supposed chaos by creating yet another Christian denomination. On the other hand, rather saying he did so because the others neglected or misinterpreted a particular aspect of God's word, he went further, saying the other churches were all wrong, and that his new group was the only one with authority in these latter days. That is either incredible hubris, or it is truth. Those uncertain cannot be blamed for giving pause to consider the issue.

I suppose one could reason that perhaps God doesn't create churches. That He only gave dogma and spiritual ideas and then leaves man to interpret and guide himself. But frankly, that doesn't seem like a familiar pattern to me based upon what I have read. Why would Christ go to such special effort to establish his church if the specific nature of it wasn't important? So, I guess for me, the fact that the Doctrine and Covenants quotes the Lord in professing the authenticity of this church, doesn't offend me or scare me at all. It is something that I would expect of God. It instead invites me to determine if the statement in fact comes from God.

You might want to reread the sections of the New Testament that describe church life. The church at Corinth had factions within its single ward! The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 have very different problems. The letters that Paul writes to the various churches each have their own teachings, based on the obviously differing situations. I do not see a monolithic, hierarchical structure. Rather, I see Jesus empowering the disciples, to empower the local leaders, who were to empower all the believers. Perhaps I have a high tolerance for diversity--but I do not see organizational singularity as a necessity, based on the biblical pattern.

Perhaps the people not of the LDS faith, are offended because they just simply don't think that a church like ours could come from God. I just don't know. I think that I am baffled as to why some become offended and turned off to the church because of this point.

Miss Halfway, if LDS teaching is right, then I am wrong. I did not hear from God when he called me into the ministry, led me into pentecost, poured out his Spirit on 550 million or so of my brothers and sisters in the last 100 years, etc. You must know that's a tough pill to swallow.

God certainly could call a teenage boy to be a prophet and declare the rest of the Christian world to be without the Spirit. But, did he? Am I wrong? Were those tears I cried at the altar mostly in vain? Was my mother's recent conversion, after 30 years of prayers, incomplete?

And on what do I have to base such a monumental viewpoint? The success of your church? My church has done well too--especially in the last 30 years or so. And, what of the other groups who make such claims--especially the Jehovah's Witnesses?

I share this not to plant doubts, but to explain the doubts of non-LDS--especially evangelicals, whom you reference. We have a faith that is historical, grounded in Scripture, and born out in personal testimony. Thus, the claims of Joseph Smith come as a very strong challenge to my spiritual discernment. And, from the outside, we'd say with objectivity and fairness, the burden of proof falls on theological innovators.

Perhaps it is the person sending the message. Is the arrogance coming from them and that is what is offensive. Perhaps it comes across as self-righteousness.

Maybe if those who look into our faith understand that we believe that it is God himself making the statement, it would be less offensive.

Just wondering.........

And there's the rub--either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, called to re-establish the authorized Christian church in the latter days, or he wasn't. If he was, you've got no choice. You must give the appearance of arrogance to proclaim your truth to a skeptical Christian world. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, then the response of the universal Christian church--ranging from dismissal, to respectful dialogue, to counter-evangelism efforts--to the most rabid anti-LDS activity--is also perhaps more understandable. I don't justify it all--especially the obnoxious underwear waving protestors--but if Joseph was wrong, those accusations he made were pretty strong.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't think those people are offended that you believe your church is the only true church, they just take issue with how it is stated. Would you be offended and/or think I'm arrogant if I stated that evolution is the only explaination for human life?

But aren't you missing the obvious? If this church is the one true living church, then does that not make my church a false, dead one by implication? Tell someone who's convinced they are right that they are wrong, and do you expect them to be grateful?

[DigitalShadow]

But aren't you missing the obvious? If this church is the one true living church, then does that not make my church a false, dead one by implication? Tell someone who's convinced they are right that they are wrong, and do you expect them to be grateful?

I believe you stated it better than I could. :)

[Misshalfway]

Let me just say that I am not in the least offended by how the church presents itself, but I can see how someone might be.

Stating that your church is the only true church is like saying that vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream worth eating. It's a matter of opinion that is being stated as a fact and that is inherently arrogant and offensive to some people people. I don't think those people are offended that you believe your church is the only true church, they just take issue with how it is stated. Would you be offended and/or think I'm arrogant if I stated that evolution is the only explaination for human life?

I wouldn't be offended or think you were arrogant at all. I would think you were making the best determination of truth for yourself. I may disagree, but that is different than being offended and disliking you as a person or degrading you as a person because your view is different than mine.

[DigitalShadow]

I wouldn't be offended or think you were arrogant at all. I would think you were making the best determination of truth for yourself. I may disagree, but that is different than being offended and disliking you as a person or degrading you as a person because your view is different than mine.

And that is what I tend to think as well when people say their truth is the only true and living church, but then again some people are more easily offended. I think prisonchaplain nailed the issue though.

[Misshalfway]

But aren't you missing the obvious? If this church is the one true living church, then does that not make my church a false, dead one by implication? Tell someone who's convinced they are right that they are wrong, and do you expect them to be grateful?

I understand what you are saying. I really do. I just don't understand the anger and persecution that it inspires in people. I don't understand the implications that we are a cult. That isn't exactly an extension of brotherhood....you know what I mean?

And if what you say in your earlier post is true, that Evangelical Christians believe that many denominations can bring people salvation, why is the LDS church so rejected? We are rejected as Christians -- which is a slap in the face to my religious conviction. It seems no different to me than a Lutheran church or any protestant church that broke away from the main. I don't care if you are baptist or catholic or jewish or athiest. I would be your friend. And what little I know of you, PC, you would be mine. And I wouldn't discount your conviction and your beautiful experience because of the above statements of my church. Because that is absolutely not what they mean.

I also wanted to clarify that the church does believe that the Spirit can and does testify throughout the world in many circumstances inside churches and without them. And I would never assume that a deep conviction could only be found in my faith. I can see how one might interpret it that way.... but it would be a misunderstanding of what is really being said.

I am talking about understanding one another... Not hating and condemning one another because we see religion differently. Or persisting in discounting my faith based upon misconception. Having said that, I think perhaps the weakness lies on both sides of a conflict like this one. One must decide to become offended. And others perhaps need to be a little more gentle about how they state their views.

[prisonchaplain]

I wouldn't be offended or think you were arrogant at all. I would think you were making the best determination of truth for yourself. I may disagree, but that is different than being offended and disliking you as a person or degrading you as a person because your view is different than mine.

That's the mature response, all right. Perhaps it's understandable, though, that many people, passionate about their own faith, take such challenges a bit too personally, and are indeed offended. This would be especially true of people unused to such challenges. As LDS, you are almost daily challenged for your unorthodox views. To survive, you must develop a thick skin concerning religious discussions. Most Christians in the U.S. take their privilege as part of the majority Judeo-Christian tradition of the culture for granted, and I quite off-put to be told their faith is deficient.

[Flyonthewall]

I would expect each and every other church to proclaim that they are the true church, and I would not be offended in the least.

Of course, we(LDS), have been told we are wrong and heretical from the very start so we are used to others claiming that we are wrong.

Other churches, IMO, in general, aren't as accustomed to being lumped in with the "errant believers" that is implied by our claim to the sole source of the complete truth.

Now, just because we claim the complete truth, does not mean no one else has any truth. Our prophets and companion scriptures just fill in some gaps that others have.

I hope I'm not coming off as arrogant, because as I said at the first, I would expect all other churches claim to be the "one".

[Misshalfway]

That's the mature response, all right. Perhaps it's understandable, though, that many people, passionate about their own faith, take such challenges a bit too personally, and are indeed offended. This would be especially true of people unused to such challenges. As LDS, you are almost daily challenged for your unorthodox views. To survive, you must develop a thick skin concerning religious discussions. Most Christians in the U.S. take their privilege as part of the majority Judeo-Christian tradition of the culture for granted, and I quite off-put to be told their faith is deficient.

I think I see. Thank you for your explanations. I just hope that maybe some could see that the intent of the statement is not meant to offend.... but to invite.

[WANDERER]

Absolute truths are the one's almost everyone agrees on...the ones that aren't up for a whole lot of debate. When presented with something as an 'absolute' I expect that it will be absolute. If not, there's an inherrent problem with the statement that bears investigating.

[prisonchaplain]

I understand what you are saying. I really do. I just don't understand the anger and persecution that it inspires in people. I don't understand the implications that we are a cult. That isn't exactly an extension of brotherhood....you know what I mean?

Again, not to justify brutishness or disrespect. Such is wrong, period. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, though...what would that make your church? And how should the other churches respond?

And if what you say in your earlier post is true, that Evangelical Christians believe that many denominations can bring people salvation, why is the LDS church so rejected? We are rejected as Christians -- which is a slap in the face to my religious conviction. It seems no different to me than a Lutheran church or any protestant church that broke away from the main. I don't care if you are baptist or catholic or jewish or athiest. I would be your friend. And what little I know of you, PC, you would be mine. And I wouldn't discount your conviction and your beautiful experience because of the above statements of my church. Because that is absolutely not what they mean.

The short answer is that the nature of Joseph Smith's revelations were so dramatically at odds with standard teaching, that most Christian churches have considered them outside the realm of Christian truth. Joseph Smith seems to have drawn a line in the sand and said, "Me or them." You've seen the discussions: the nature of God (Trinity vs. Godhead), the Bible (the final authority as God's word, vs. one part of God's revelation--only as true as the translation is good), the whole question of whether works is a prerequisite of salvation or a fruit of it, etc. Each of these issues are crucial, and they add up to differences far more substantial than those that separate even my relatively new denomination (Assemblies of God officially organized in 1914) and the ancient Catholic and Orthodox churches.

I don't dismiss LDS members as non-Christians out of hand. However, neither can I look at the differences of belief and offer a false or uncertain assurance that they don't matter.

I am talking about understanding one another... Not hating and condemning one another because we see religion differently. Or persisting in discounting my faith based upon misconception. Having said that, I think perhaps the weakness lies on both sides of a conflict like this one. One must decide to become offended. And others perhaps need to be a little more gentle about how they state their views.

I've been at this for two and a half years. So, yes, these conversations can be intelligent, and even kind. We can share our hearts, our testimonies, and our views, without rancor. But, our truth claims are ultimate hard to reconcile, so the potential for misunderstanding and passion are always there.

Thank you for your heartfelt sharing on this string...it's a worthy discussion.

[Misshalfway]

I don't dismiss LDS members as non-Christians out of hand. However, neither can I look at the differences of belief and offer a false or uncertain assurance that they don't matter.

The truth is that it is perfectly fine with me that the Christian establishment doesn't think LDS people believe in Jesus Christ. It baffles me, but it doesn't offend me. Why does the Christian world care so much what we say? So we believe in modern revelation. So we believe we have priesthood authority. So what? If you believe that we don't, and if indeed we truly don't (which is what I assume you believe), wouldn't our presence in the world be fairly benign?

If I might borrow DS's analogy for a minute. If it is indeed a question of flavor, then why would someone allow themselves to care so much that I think vanilla is best? Why attack it? Why seek to destroy it? Why move to discredit it? Why make up lies about it to slander it? What is so threatening? Why say that I am arrogant? Couldn't I say other groups are offensive by discounting the validity of my faith? If you know your faith is correct, then it is correct! All the descending votes in the world couldn't change that, right? So why become offended?

Forgive me for thinking out loud...... I hope you all can see my intensions as peaceful.... I understand how passions can get stirred up. I suppose....as sad as that is to me.... that it is human nature and may be my nature on the right day of the month.

My original question was not "why doesn't the rest of the world believe what I believe?" My question is "why do some become so very offended because I do?"

Maybe what I am really trying to say is that we waste so much energy becoming offended. It is destructive and purposeless and it divides us unnecessarily. Christ didn't come to condemn.... He came to fulfill. He wanted our hearts knit together as one. Yet, his presence caused many to become offended. So, perhaps it is to be expected. I am just sorry to see it when it happens.

[WANDERER]

Because absolute statements have been used to take away the freedom of others.

Is the agenda to have no other churches...is that offensive? What does the word 'only' mean. Depends on whether you take it as a statement of faith or an implied threat.

Obviously I'm in the statement of faith category.

[Misshalfway]

Because absolute statements have been used to take away the freedom of others.

Is the agenda to have no other churches...is that offensive? What does the word 'only' mean. Depends on whether you take it as a statement of faith or an implied threat.

Obviously I'm in the statement of faith category.

Yes. I think I can see that.