“The Church is True”

When I was 16-17 and “investigating” the LDS church for the first time, “the Church is true” was a phrase Brother Pratt loved to repeat. If you’ve read the “Mormonism & Me” series, you will recall that Brother Pratt was the local stake missionary and that I had visited his house once a week for the missionary discussions. He was fond of me, his desire to see me convert was earnest, and he seemed to feel that the best way to get me into the water was to repeat “the Church is true, Jack” every chance he got. Over. And over. Again. And again.
He found a way to work it into the conversation every time he saw me. Whatever questions I asked about the church, it was sure that at some point in his answer, he would stress to me that “all that really matters is that the Church is true, Jack.” Eventually he caught on to the fact that I found his endless repetition of this statement annoying, but he did not let up. Can’t deny that I did my share of annoying him, so I guess that made us even.
There was just one problem with Brother Pratt’s favorite phrase: I had no idea what the saying “the Church is true” even meant. Twelve years later, I still have no idea what Mormons mean when they testify of this. I do not know how it’s even possible for an earthly organization consisting of human beings to be “true.”
Let me explore some of the possible answers and explain why they make little sense to me:
It means the teachings of the church are true. – In theory, this works. In reality, “the church” has taught plenty of things that it no longer considers true and officially repudiated things that it once considered true (Adam-God, anyone?). I don’t believe this interpretation can be salvaged by the “doctrine/not-doctrine” band-aid. Not everything “the church” has taught has been true.
It means this is the only church which God endorses. - We can interpret “endorsement” in a variety of ways. He endorses it by giving it living prophets, he endorses it by giving it priesthood, he endorses it by making membership in the church the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom, etc.
But why has God placed his seal of approval on this church if its teachings are not always true? Is it simply the “most correct” church on the face of the earth? That still does not make it “true.” Take the following statements:
(a) 2+2 = 2
(b) 2+2 = 6
(c) 2+2 = 5
(c) may be the closest to the truth, but it’s still wrong. It isn’t correct to say that (c) is the only “true” equation in this blog post.
I suppose we can argue that God’s approval of the LDS church is arbitrary and dependent on (dare I say it?) grace. But then “the church is true” is really only telling me that God arbitrarily favors the church for no logical reason. It doesn’t actually tell me anything about the church.
It means this is the only church where the people have their hearts set on God. – This is consistent enough. It would be wildly offensive to people from other religions and obviously untrue to most outsiders, but you could believe it.
I guess that my ultimate hang-up with the phrase “the church is true” is that a “church” (LDS or otherwise) is an earthly organization of mortal, fallible, individuals. Humans make mistakes, they screw up, they sin, and they teach heresies and false doctrines. I cannot imagine ever testifying that a group of human beings are “true.”
I understand what Mormons mean when they testify that the [LDS] gospel is true. We can quibble about what exactly “gospel” entails, but I find this concept much more tangible and coherent than the idea of a church being “true.” I know what they mean when they testify that their church president is a prophet of God. I even know what it means for “the priesthood” to be true, so long as we’re talking about priesthood as in “power or force” and not priesthood as in “the men who hold it.”
But I don’t know what it means for a church to be true.
What do you think?

Comments

“The Church is True” — 47 Comments

  1. Good post today,
    I have often wondered the same thing myself, and what makes it even more confusing is when you hear the phrase “the church is true but the members are not” Wow, since any church only exists because of its members, how is that for a contradiction.
    I personally think that when we hear members say the church is true they are confounding church and gospel.
    I came to this realization on my mission and because of that I only ever said the gospel is true from that day forward.
  2. Hey Jack, I have the same issues you do with the phrase. I’ve actually stopped using it myself and even though I felt a lesser Mormon for some time, I’m ok with not using it. I even make a point of engaging my fellow Mormons over why they use it when they do. The phrase doesn’t make much sense to me because it implies that other churches are not true, and although this might be the understanding of some Mormons who might teach or who might have taught so in the past, the LDS church doesn’t believe that other churches are not true.
    I think that what most Mormons mean when they say “the church is true” is that they believe the Mormon church possesses the power to speak/act in God’s behalf (priesthood) to the world, sanctioned in a way that other churches don’t. Why this church and not others when the LDS church has taught things that no longer teaches or wants to distance itself from that are/were not true? That’s a whole other blog post/discussion.
  3. I hear ya, Jack. It is a pretty nonsensical statement.
    I blogged about this once, and here’s what I think they mean when they say it:
    “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s only ‘authorized’ organization; Joseph Smith was a prophet; the LDS scriptures are the revealed word of God; God has given members of the LDS church special authority to act in His name; and LDS church leaders speak for God in a special authorized way that no one else can fully claim.”
  4. Jack: I can see why you would find the phrase annoying. I don’t use it myself, as the phrase is foreign to the way I talk, not having grown up in the Church. And even if I were to use the phrase, I wouldn’t use it with outsiders.
    Basically, I think you’re being too literal. It’s an idiomatic expression, “in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements” (Merriam-Webster). So analyzing its words, which is what you’re doing, isn’t particularly helpful.
    I think what Mormons typically mean by the phrase (or at least what I would mean if I were to say it) is that the LDS church is the church that was created through God’s immediate direction (and that I do believe). Such a statement doesn’t imply infallibility or perfection.
    And having read it since I started writing this comment, I think that Katie L.’s definition of the phrase is quite good as well.
  6. I don’t care for the phrase, either. It makes about as much sense to me as saying “my body is true”, when what I really mean to say is “my body is the house of my spirit and functions pretty well at doing the things I need to do in this life.” I prefer to say “The Gospel is true.”
  8. Chris! I’m glad you’re here. Come write the last page of my book review of Mind of the Master Class for me, it’s due tomorrow. ;)
    I’ll get back to everyone else later.
  9. That may be a problem, as I have never read that book, and I have a book review of my own to write by bedtime tomorrow… just 140 more pages of dense sociological analysis to go!
  10. I suppose it’s kind of like the phrase “I love you.”
    Most people who say this phrase have no clear idea what it means either.
  11. Yeah, I hate it when people say “the church is true”. Not only is it ambiguous and somewhat nonsensical and dismissive of the truth found in churches other than the Mormon church, it also isn’t even a terribly useful thing thing to say even if we do settle on a definition for it.
    When someone gets up in testimony meeting and says they know the church is true, and they mean by that any of the definitions that have been mentioned, how does that help anyone? I would much rather hear what specific aspects of the “true” church are useful in the testimony-bearer’s life. I would like to hear why the church/gospel being “true” matters (and I try to do that when I bear my own testimony). It’s much more meaningful when people say things like “I know that Jesus Christ lives and through His grace and sacrifice I can be forgiven of my sins” or “I know that the Book of Mormon was written to bring us to Christ and help us solve our problems”. Specific truth claims like these can potentially help people in ways that asserting that our particular story about God is the right one cannot.
  12. I agree with Katie’s (#3) and Eric’s (#4) definition.
    I would add the word “official” along with Katie’s use of the word “authorized.” In that sense, “true” means “official and authorized.”
    If Joseph Smith told the truth concerning the founding of the LDS church, then the LDS church would be God’s only official and authorized church on the earth today. All of the others would be along the lines of “well-intentioned but unauthorized fan clubs.”
    I think of the LDS church as “official” in that Joseph Smith founded the church at the command of the Lord himself. Though founders of other church may claim to be inspired, I don’t believe any other church can rightfully/correctly make the same claim, that their earthly founder/organizer/head was acting under direct heavenly direction of the Lord himself.
    The only ones that come close are the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church which claim their line of descendency from St. Peter.
    I believe no other Christian church has that distinction. With a few exceptions of some fringes claiming prophet-hood, all Protestant churches today derive from movements that broke away from Catholicism.
    If the Catholic church wasn’t “true” (authorized/official) at the time of Luther, then none of the churches that broke away from it could be either. If the Catholic church _was_ “true”, then the Protestants are apostates, because they broke away without authorization of the mother-church.
    As I see it, the Protestants have no logical claim to authority, since they were unauthorized break-aways from the only church that did claim authority at the time. The construct of “the Bible gives us authority” was invented to overcome that objection to Protestantism.
    However, that would be like me picking up a Boy Scouts of America manual, starting a Boy Scout troop on my own , and then claiming to be authorized Boy Scouts. No matter how well-intentioned we were, or how closely we followed the manual, or how loudly we claimed that we were correct in our beliefs and practices, we would be unauthorized; well-intentioned imposters at best.
    “True” in this sense does not mean accurate or close to perfect or even 100% correct. The organization set up by Moses wasn’t perfect; he and Aaron made mistakes. Nor was the organization run by the early apostles perfect; they had disagreements, and were seemingly constantly trying to correct errors in the various church branches.
    Joseph Smith didn’t use the Book of Mormon to say “Hey, I’ll start a church based on this book” as many Protestant preachers pick up the Bible and say they’ll start a church based on their interpretation.
    I fully believe Joseph Smith started the modern LDS church because God told him to, and that he did it in the manner God told him to do it.
  13. Bookslinger, even though I appreciate your analogy, I don’t think Jack will. She believes in the priesthood of the believers.
    I have used this phrase. I don’t seem to use it as much any more. I do see so much good in the teachings and actions of so many people of other and of no faith.
    I do know that there are no other teachings that are as compelling and sit right with me. Agency, endless growth. Eternal Families. Perhaps to me belonging to the true church means that I am where I can progress best through the grace of God and by my meager contribution.
    I don’t think I am in any different position that any other person who really is looking for the truth and seeking to live by it. Not that I am that great at it. I am so grateful for my wife and my other loved ones that support me so well.
    I love the gospel of support each other until we are all perfected in Him.
  14. I have a question before I post a more in-depth interaction with the responses given so far.
    Some of you have talked about the idea that it means the LDS church is the only church that was directly organized by God.
    But the founders of many, many Protestant denominations claimed that they were moved by the Holy Spirit to organize the churches they organized. This was the case with the Swedish immigrants who founded my denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, in 1885.
    Do you believe that all of these Protestants were mistaken or otherwise wrong in their claims? Even the ones who lived during “the Great Apostasy” when it was impossible to join “the one true church”? I’m not going to be offended if you say yes; I just want to make sure I’m understanding this claim.
  15. For me the answer is that they are not as correct as the LDS church. They also they are not the official church of Jesus Christ. I believe that authority is important like if you were to work with the authorized agent of someone else.
    I debated whether or not to comment because this kind of discussion tires me. I really believe that if you or anyone else are doing your best to understand and follow truth, that the Lord respects that. We will all eventually become one united in faith. I even come come to expect that some of my own incorrect preconceptions will be clarified.
    That being said, I don’t like wasting my energy on, “We are right and you are wrong” because it won’t matter in the long run. I would rather spend my energy in improving my walk with the Lord and yours if you want the help and fellowship, orthopraxy over orthodoxy.
    My testimony has changed in the recent years from “I know the church is true” to “I believe the LDS church is the most correct of any church on earth” that a man will get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts that any other church.
    Now does that mean that I am going to share my testimony with less zeal, No! I think I just trust the plan of God more. If you really want to live with God, the rest is just details. I do believe that those who are committed to live with Him will eventually have to be humble enough to admit when they are wrong. That includes myself. We get what we pay for in study, prayer, exercised faith and character that come from sustained obedience. The Lord has paved the path for those who are willing to follow Him.
  16. For me the question, “How can I be a better husband and father?” is much more important. How can my wife help me in my walk? What am I doing to develop christ like attributes?
    What can I do to serve those around me? I think the Lord cares about these things much more.
  17. Do you believe that all of these Protestants were mistaken or otherwise wrong in their claims? Even the ones who lived during “the Great Apostasy” when it was impossible to join “the one true church”? I’m not going to be offended if you say yes; I just want to make sure I’m understanding this claim.
    Most Mormons I know would say that these Protestants were doing the best they knew how with the knowledge they had, even though their knowledge was insufficient and incomplete in some areas.
  18. Although I am LDS and believe in the particular truth claims of the LDS church, I do believe that the founders of many other religions, Christian and otherwise, were inspired by God. If a religion leads people to God and makes good things happen, and the founder of that religion claims to have been inspired by God to start the religion, then I believe that. While I believe that the ordinances of the gospel as taught by the LDS church are necessary for everyone eventually, I believe that part of God’s plan involves using many different churches and religions to reach out to all cultures and types of people to ultimately lead us to Him. Obviously the doctrines of other religions in many cases contradict the doctrines of the LDS church, but I don’t worry too much about that. Everything doesn’t need to be wrapped up in a neat little package just yet. For me the “how to be a good person” aspects of spirituality are more important than making sure all of the picky theological details line up, and the former is what many religions have in common.
  19. Ms. Jack asked:
    Do you believe that all of these Protestants were mistaken or otherwise wrong in their claims?
    My basic answer is that I pretty much agree with the other answers that have been given to the question. The LDS church is not without error, and other churches are not without truth. If someone claims that he/she was inspired to organize another church, and that church encourages people to trust in Christ and helps people become more like him, who am I to say that that person is/was doing the devil’s work?
    I have found the LDS church to be the church that speaks to me in ways that others don’t (and, trust me, it has been a surprise to learn that), and I do believe it has some uniquely endowed purposes. But it certainly is in the realm of possibility that God could also be calling other people in different ways — and if they’re producing good fruit, that could be one sign of that.
    On a practical level, I agree with what Rich Alger and Kathleen said above. Ultimately, it’s more important for me to concern myself with being the type of person God would have me be than it is to spend my time trying to figure out who got it wrong and where.
  20. When I used to say it (and I did), I probably meant along the lines of what Katie said.
    Really, though, it was the vernacular of the church and of testimony-bearing, for better or for worse. Just like opening prayers with “I’m thankful for this day…”. Some days I might not have actually BEEN thankful for that day, but it’s a way to get the prayer ball rolling, which I needed.
    However, when I said that the church was true, it did not necessarily follow that that meant that I thought other churches were untrue, or that they were false. I would have thought more along the lines of the ideal outcome being, say, 4, and different ways to get to four include 1+3, 2+2, 2*2, 4*1, etc. And the way that I was following was true and worked for me.
  21. I appreciate the answers on this thread, especially Katie L.’s (#3) and Eric’s (#4). Two minor quibbles with saying “this is an idiom”: (1) The related saying “the Gospel is true” is obviously not an idiom and can be literally interpreted. So is this saying really intended as an idiom, or does it have to become one because it makes no sense otherwise? (2) Idioms are usually expressions with common or easily deciphered meanings. I’ve asked plenty of Mormons what this means and gotten all kinds of different answers. That doesn’t mean this isn’t an idiom. It just means it isn’t a very good one.
    Even the “it means this is the only church God organized” explanation is confusing to me. The apostasy lasted from c. AD 200 – 1830. Did God really just expect everyone to sit around unchurched for 1630 years?
    Thanks everyone for their thoughts. I think I understand better now, though I still think it’s a rather unhelpful saying, at least from an outsider’s perspective.
    Bookslinger ~ This is rather tangential to the topic, but I guess I’ll bite anyways. I don’t buy your authority trilemma, for three reasons:
    1. The concept of a linear authority that has to be passed down from one man to another is arguably not found in the New Testament, and the New Testament represents the writings of the earliest Christians. If this all-important authority system had really been a part of their polity, it should be there. Churches that insist on authority are largely offering to solve a dilemma of their own making.
    2. There are serious historical problems with the authority claims of the three groups you favor. Papal authority ran into problems with the Papal Schism of 1378-1417. Collegial authority tripped up with the Council of Florence in the 15th century. Mormon authority claims are problematic because they’re entirely dependent on the testimony of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and they didn’t say anything about receiving ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John until years after it supposedly happened. Even Bushman admits that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication” (RSR 75). There’s also the problem with later Mormon schisms and the fact that we can’t be sure that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true heir to Joseph Smith’s legacy.
    3. One can make a very strong case from the book of Hebrews that the practice of ordaining human priests to play as mediators between God and humankind was meant to end with Christ’s death and resurrection, which would certainly explain the absence of the practice elsewhere in the New Testament.
    I do give you credit for mentioning the Eastern Orthodox, because most Mormons who make this argument take their cues from James Talmage or LeGrand Richards and argue that it’s between Catholics and Mormons, ignoring the EO. Which is unfortunate, because I think the Eastern Orthodox have the least problematic case for any church claiming linear authority.
    But in general, this “who has the authority?” argument is too ahistorical for me to find it compelling.
  22. I’d like to add my voice to Katie and Eric’s. I think that saying “the church is true” is a Mormon idiom that developed from the phrase found in the Doctrine & Covenants: “…the only true and living church with which I, the Lord, and well-pleased…” I find it interesting that the current edition of the scriptures don’t have a footnote for the word “true” in that passage. I just did a quick Google search of the phrase and found that Mormons are not the only ones to use it, nor is it limited to Mormons and Roman Catholics, although they seem to be the two best-known groups for making the truth claim. So I did the next sensible thing and did the define: true search on Google, and got these relevant definitions:
    * conforming to definitive criteria
    * true(a): rightly so called
    * true(a): having a legally established claim
    I think that when Mormons say “the Church is true” they are saying “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conforms to the definitive [God-given] criteria for being considered His church, it is genuine, and therefore rightly so called, because it has a legally-established [speaking in terms of divine law] claim to being Jesus Christ’s authorized organisation on earth today.”
    It is just easier to say “the Church is true.”
    “Even the “it means this is the only church God organized” explanation is confusing to me. The apostasy lasted from c. AD 200 – 1830. Did God really just expect everyone to sit around unchurched for 1630 years?”
    As a Mormon, my answer to this is simply that I don’t know why God waited so long. I also don’t know why God waited so long to do a lot of things. Why were there several hundred years between the time of Malachi and the time of John the Baptist? Why were the Israelites in bondage in Egypt for so long? Why did God allow Solomon’s sons to rip the Israelite nation apart? Why, why, why, why, why? All of these questions, for me, get filed under, “I don’t know, but maybe I’ll ask God when I see Him face to face.”
  23. Alex allow me to answer these for you:
    Why were there several hundred years between the time of Malachi and the time of John the Baptist?
    Because there was no apostasy in that time period. Second temple Judaism was chugging along just fine. In fact, you implicitly believe this yourself. The Book of Daniel was written in the 160′s BCE, right in the middle of the period in dispute.
    Why were the Israelites in bondage in Egypt for so long?
    They were not in bondage in Egypt. There is no evidence for bondage, Exodus, nor invasion into Canaan.
    Why did God allow Solomon’s sons to rip the Israelite nation apart?
    There is no archaeological evidence for an early 10th century BCE united kingdom in Palestine. Ergo, no kingdom to rip apart.
    Why, why, why, why, why? All of these questions, for me, get filed under, “I don’t know, but maybe I’ll ask God when I see Him face to face.”
    No need to ask God, now you know.
  24. David Clark,
    The next thing you’re going to tell me is that the reason Jesus is waiting so long for his Second Coming is because he was actually just a Jewish peasant apocalyptic prophet with no special powers over death and hell.
  25. Mephi,
    No, I’m going to tell you to watch this video:
    I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about merging critical understanding of scripture with a faithful reading of scripture. NT Wright points to the inherent strength of the orthodox position on reading scripture. Specifically, he points (implicitly) to the Chalcedonian Creed which allows, indeed forces one, to come to terms with both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Thus Jesus can present himself as a Jewish peasant apocalyptic prophet and also have special powers over death and hell. One must be both critical, to understand the human nature of Jesus, and faithful, to understand the divine nature of Jesus.
    I also think this is one of the real tragedies in Mormon history, that Mormons have cut themselves off from these “abominable creeds.” By doing this they cut themselves off from a lot of tools to aid in understanding and interpreting the life of Jesus and the history of Israel.
  26. David Clark,
    The point of my comment, which you apparently missed, was that higher criticism is useless when it comes to the issue of God’s timetable, whether it’s an evangelical wondering why it took so long for God to restore the church in the Mormon narrative, or atheists wondering why Jesus doesn’t come down and mop up Adam and Eve’s mess already in the traditional narrative (which is how I usually hear the objection framed).
    Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
    We all have to balance the things we learn from scholarly and spiritual sources. I’m glad you find the creeds useful for this. Obviously I don’t and would disagree with your characterization of this as a tragedy. But that’s more tangential discussion which is probably best left for another day.
  27. David,
    I didn’t say there was an apostasy in that first period. Just that there is an awfully long gap between Malachi and John the Baptist.
    The rest of your answers seem to be that the Bible is lying about all that. Interesting take. Whenever we confront something in a record that claims to be history, just write it off as make-believe.
    So what is your answer to Mephhibosheth’s question? Why has Jesus waited nearly 2000 years to come and bring us a world of peace and harmony? Why has the world had to suffer for so long?
  28. Just so that we’re clear, I never wondered why it took God so long to restore the church in the LDS narrative.
    I wondered how he was moving in people’s lives in the meantime. Mormons seldom seem to care what God was doing during that 1630 years of human history when there was no “true” church. I do.
  29. I didn’t say there was an apostasy in that first period. Just that there is an awfully long gap between Malachi and John the Baptist.
    It’s a traditional LDS understanding that there was an apostasy before Jesus restored the gospel. Though, it’s probably not “official doctrine,” whatever that means. However, as I pointed out, the book of Daniel is canonical and between those two books, so I also answered your question about the gap, there wasn’t one.
    The rest of your answers seem to be that the Bible is lying about all that. Interesting take. Whenever we confront something in a record that claims to be history, just write it off as make-believe.
    Lying is a serious charge and implies intent to deceive. The writers of the Bible did the best they could with the sources they had. Did they get stuff wrong? Yes, they did. However, I take the historical claims of the Bible very seriously, which is why I have taken the trouble to research archaeology and history outside the canon. The Bible does contain history, I am not a biblical minimalist. If you want to know where I stand on the Old Testament, I wrote a lengthy post at FPR a while ago where I outlined the main positions:
    I lean towards the low chronology position, but the recent archaeological discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa eliminate some of my objections towards the high chronology school.
    So what is your answer to Mephhibosheth’s question? Why has Jesus waited nearly 2000 years to come and bring us a world of peace and harmony? Why has the world had to suffer for so long?
    To be honest, I haven’t done much thinking about the book of Revelation. My hunch is that it is better read as a document which provides hope for 1st century Christians, and not as a book of predictive prophecy. Much of the history of Christianity has been a history of hopes that were dashed when Jesus didn’t come when he was supposed to. So much so that pretty much anyone who pins their hopes on Jesus’ coming just around the corner is almost surely wrong. So, I don’t do much hoping for that, I just try and be a good Christian and not put too much stock in 2nd coming theology.
  30. Also, I missed the memo. When did 200 CE become the magical year for when the apostasy started?
  31. It didn’t, I’m just estimating.
    To read official LDS literature, you’d think it started in the 4th century, but more historically sophisticated Mormons know that date is absurd.
  32. Jack said:
    I wondered how he was moving in people’s lives in the meantime. Mormons seldom seem to care what God was doing during that 1630 years of human history when there was no “true” church. I do.
    I’m not sure the answer for most people on this planet is that much different than it was during those 16 or whatever centuries. In most of the world, the chance that someone would have someone tell him or her about the LDS church is quite remote.
  33. David, I never heard it taught in my entire life as a Mormon that there was an “apostasy” prior to Christ’s ministry and that he was “restoring” anything.
    Not saying your point is invalid. Just stating my experience for whatever it’s worth.
  35. Seth,
    I was taught what the Bible Dictionary says in the entry on dispensations:
    A dispensation of the gospel is a period of time in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth. When this occurs, the gospel is revealed anew, so that people of that dispensation do not have to depend basically on past dispensations for knowledge of the plan of salvation. There have been many gospel dispensations since the beginning. The Bible suggests at least one dispensation identified with Adam, another with Enoch, another with Noah, and so on with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus with his apostles in the meridian of time.
    This suggests some kind of apostasy before Jesus and John the Baptist. If there was nothing missing, there would be no need for a new dispensation. Granted it doesn’t directly call it an apostasy, but I think the notion of apostasy is implicit in the Mormon doctrine of dispensation. That’s what I was referring to, and that’s how I was reading Alex’s musings on the gap between Malachi and John the Baptist, as evidence of the need for a new dispensation.
  37. According to the Book of Mormon the Church is only “conditionally true”. 3 Nephi 27: “9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;
    10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.
    11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.”
    In other words (according to the BoM) it can be true (if it abides by the Gospel of Christ) and become untrue (if it abides not by the Gospel of Christ). There is no “forever truth” about this. Of course Mormons don’t seriously believe this can ever happen because they have been ingrained with the idea that, as Eugene England phrased it long ago, “the Church is as true as the Gospel”. According to the Book of Mormon itself, there’s nothing watertight about this.
  38. For centuries in the Christian world, all were united in one faith, the Catholic Church.
    Then came along the “reformation” and splits in the Body of Christ. With it came many changes in teaching by the various Christian sects. Some of these teachings, especially in the 20th century, seem to be poll driven, just like our very own civil government.
    Their “teachings” are based on public opinion, not on truth. The “teaching” of the day among some of these non-Catholic sects seems to be based on the let us oil the squeaking wheel"policy. I must remind you that private opinions do not change the truth one iota.
    However, the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, the Catholic Church (1Timothy 3:15), is unmoving in this respect. She and she alone stands up against the world in teaching the truth, as commanded by Jesus Christ Himself.
    In so doing, she comes under great criticism by many who have found worldly things to be their real god. How then, can the “Pillar of Truth” teach nothing but the truth?
    “Have I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16)
  39. #38 Michael ~ If you’re going to plagiarize material from other Web sites in your comments, could you perhaps choose some material that isn’t full of ahistorical tripe and laughable Roman Catholic propaganda?
    Thanks in advance.
  43. He attempted to comment three times after I banned him, on one occasion changing his name to “Dave” and using a different e-mail address, but posting the exact same stuff.
    Didn’t work, did it, Michael?
  44. More hilarious yet, an hour ago he posted a series of pseudo-replies addressed to you over at my new blog. Persistent spammer, ain’t he? Apparently, today in Bizarro World, your observation that he’s spamming was a “diatribe” that shows “unresolved issues from your childhood”.
  45. Apparently, today in Bizarro World, your observation that he’s spamming was a “diatribe” that shows “unresolved issues from your childhood”.
  46. In regards to the Evangelical Covenant Church and the Mormons: Each side is going to say that God gave them the truth and that God is trying to move the other side toward the truth but that they aren’t there yet. When asked how they know that it is their denomination to who God reveals the most truth, they will say that because of their personal relationship with Jesus Christ/burning in the bosom, they KNOW that they are right and that by process of elimination, the other side must be wrong.
  47. RollingForest ~ Doesn’t sound like you’ve talked to very many ECC’ers.
    The Covenant Church is a denomination that is all about not saying they are right. Literally. They exist to allow difference within the Body of Christ.
    I can’t even imagine a Covenanter saying something as cheesy as, “I know I’m right because of my personal relationship with Christ.”
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity