What do you mean by, “I know this church is true”?

I had a conversation this past week in the Caribbean with some new friends that inspired me to add this posting. Thank you Beu' lah Mary, Zar and Jonathan.

Inerrancy vs. trustworthiness - semantics

Certain Evangelical branches of Christianity claim something that is quite misunderstood by many inside and outside of their specific persuasion in regards to the Bible. It is derived from a statement frequently used which claims the Bible to be “the inerrant word of God”. To anyone who has read the bible in its entirety, this seems an absurd claim whereas there exists a googillian seeming contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the book. So what do they mean?

A careful examination of the claims of inerrancy show that those educated on the subject are not at all claiming the book, in its current state, to be perfect. (See encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer, 1982) They understand well that the text of the Bible has been transmitted by mortal men for thousands of years, using limited skills, imperfect language, and a host of other limitations to convey the word of God to successive generations. They simply mean that the Bible, as given in its original state, was correct, inerrant, and pure coming from God himself. The Bible is the word of God (as Mormons would say). The next argument is to try and prove why today’s versions are, or are not trustworthy. (Unfortunately we have no single surviving original manuscript)

Similar misunderstandings

My point in sharing this observation is to point out a similarly misunderstood term used commonly by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This phrase is “I know this church is true.” To outsiders this can be a shocking statement as they watch mortal men guide an organization comprised of completely normal people, acting in roles of leadership and trying their best to work out their own salvation and help others along the way. No one can help but notice the weaknesses of men, the inconsistencies in leaders, the completely human part of this organization… and then to hear someone say that it is true? What do they mean? I personally find the term insufficient in describing what we mean. I prefer to say, “I know that this is the true and living church of Jesus Christ.”

I have come to know this statement to be accurate and would like to explain what I mean.

Unity of the Faith

In Ephesians 4 we learn that “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Here is where much disagreement exists, for anyone looking at Christianity today will notice that according to dogmas, creeds, and doctrines there are many variations of the Spirit, many disagreeing bodies of believers, many differing views of Christ, many forms of baptism, and many diverging teachings of who God is. This is a BIG problem!

We learn just a few verses later that to this end Christ gave gifts unto men… gifts to help us achieve oneness. What are these gifts? They comprise an organization of imperfect men authorized and commissioned to be stewards of truth. He gave to us a church organization comprised of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Then he explains specifically why such an organization is given: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

It seems clear that we are all to hold the same faith, the same knowledge of the Son of God and that the role of Christ’s Church is to maintain the integrity of that church. I have been to LDS worship services all over the world now and am pleased to note that wherever I have attended a service by the Church of Jesus Christ, the doctrines are consistent. There is only one teaching about the Spirit, the Lord, God the Father, baptism, etc. I believe the doctrines of this Church to be consistent with things as they really are, were and will be (i.e. TRUTH).

What it means to be Living

Yes, mere men are in the leading roles of this Church, but Christ is at the Head. Revelation is a correct principle of truth and it is by revelation that our leaders are led, and then by that same revelation that we can receive confirmation that their decisions and teachings are consistent with God’s will. It is modern, current revelation that makes this church LIVING. And it is the fact that it is a living church that makes it “true” for Christ is at its head. Without such a profoundly central detail the Church of Jesus Christ is no different than any other Christian persuasion. Without the direct guidance of the Savior, the church would be dead… and therefore untrue.

The Lord says in section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Church of Jesus Christ is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually”

True… living… as a collective body. All three of these details are imperative. Individually we are all prone to gross error, but collectively we stand a far greater chance of adhering to God’s will. We must be united, something I see within my own faith.

An Authoritative Gift from God

To all who feel threatened by what must appear as an “authoritarian church” I would suggest you reconsider, for none who belong to this church feel threatened by such a prospect, and we prefer the term "authoritative (Thanks Rockwood). Christ is our King, and God is our God and they lead their work as sovereigns. Their Church therefore is truly authoritative, but is governed by their great love, and eternal principles of truth and agency. Such authoritativeness is not to be feared. We see the centralized organization of the Church as a gift to help us on our journey back to God, and not as the only vehicle with heavenly access. The Church is not saved… individuals are, but the Church has been provided as a gift from God to be the custodian of truth, to maintain the integrity of Christ’s teachings and to break the grip of false teachings, so that we don’t have to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. As the Church of Jesus Christ rolls forth to fill the earth all who join will experience the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,” spoken of by Paul, yet unavailable in the largely divisive persuasions of traditional Christianity.

Religious Buffet 2 - a Response

A trusted friend of mine of the Evangelical persuasion, whom I use as a sounding board, posted a response on his blog  http://aletheiaquest.blogspot.com/ "Religious Buffet"

His response was to a question I posed about concerns for a lack of unity in the Christian world. How doctrines become watered down.

In his response he pointed out the weakness of individuals without really  addressing the organizational dilemma. He made a few statements about the ways of the Church of Jesus Christ that I would like to address.

Below is an edited quote of his:

"This problem is an inherent weakness in Protestantism in general because it is not, like Mormonism and Roman Catholicism an authoritarian structure. The problems of the very apparent shallow and uncommitted Christianity referenced in the quote (see his blog) are only possible when people have the freedom to choose how and where they worship. Obviously, if one accepts that the LDS prophet and the priesthood are the authority of God on earth, then one has no choice when that authority says he must go to a certain ward at a certain time, give a certain percentage of his money, etc."

My response:

One point seems left undone. How would you suggest this problem relates to the Ephesians 4? One of the advantages I find in the "authoritarian structure" mentioned above is that it satisfies the chaotic dilemma found throughout traditional Christianity while still allowing a person to believe as they wish. 

In the Church of Jesus Christ, while accounting for the entire spectrum of faithfulness, or lack thereof, I find there is "one body, and one Spirit,... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, (v.4-6). Wherever I have attended a ward other than my own (anywhere in the world) I find a consistency in our faith and understanding of principles of truth. But as you have illustrated inconsistency in the genuineness of the members' intentions. This brings me to the actual point of the quote that I sent. Further down in chapter 4 we read that Christ, when he ascended up on high, gave gifts unto men... and gave them apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (in our interpretation this would suggest a church organization) for the express purpose of helping with the lack of faithfulness... in v.12 we read that he gave them "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Perfect unity.

The dilemma I see with the "religious buffet" is how it measures up to these scriptures in Ephesians. I understand the protestant perspective on authority, organization, the purpose of a church, etc. But I find that wanting compared to the "authoritarian structure" of Mormonism mentioned above.

One quick comment on your remark that such a structure limits "the freedom to choose how and where they worship". As an outsider I can see how it would appear that way. I would suggest that there is more freedom to be found where laws of truth exist, than in a system where anything goes. It is the truth that sets us free, and living according to principles of truth that allows us the freedom to live a life full of joy and contribution. There is a lot more freedom in our system than would appear to an outsider. The policies you speak of are purely for the sake of organization. I would compare them to a trip to McDonalds. We stand in line to order food because we have learned that it will be easier and faster for everyone if we do so... We are free to leave the line at any time but we may never be served. We can't say that McDonalds is inhibiting our freedom to act because they ask us to stay in line. The same goes with policies of the Church. They facilitate a better structure... and when it comes to beliefs and doctrines, I truly am surprised that there is as much consistency as there is. There is NO official commentary on any of our scriptures. We are taught to individually read and understand them and use them as the measuring stick of our belief. You will never find our leaders forcing a belief, but rather persuading, by use of the scriptures, to see a principle in the light of truth.

The Celestial Law of Marriage

I promised a friend of mine that I would include an entry on my blog regarding why members of the Church of Jesus Christ accept the doctrine of celestial marriage as requisite to gaining exaltation when he suggests there is no Bible support. The following summarizes my feelings on the issue.

Marriage is Honourable... Adultery is Not.

Critics of the doctrine of celestial marriage frequently and, in my judgment, erroneously site Paul's letters in 1 Cor. 7 as a rejection of the doctrine. Though married themselves many of them ignorantly champion the doctrine of celibacy which I whole-heartedly refute. As a father of 5 who has served full-time for 2 years seeking to convert the godless to the God of Abraham, I have learned first-hand that the most important and effective missionary work happens within the walls of a righteous home where both parents fear God and seek to live in accordance with His will. Furthermore, while Paul has obviously said things that could undermine the institution of marriage, he is also the most quoted champion of it. His words must therefore be read within their specific contexts rather than being taken as statements of general truth. A comprehensive examination of his teachings to the Corinthians illustrate his contempt for fornication and adultery. Contrarily he champions chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within the bonds of marriage. Applying this lens to his lectures to the Corinthians makes the issue plain. He was definitely speaking on behalf of marriage. To review a series of scriptures that show the obvious position of the Lord and the early Apostles in regards to marriage I would first like to cite Gen.1:28 where God gave a commandment to the family of men saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”. The seventh commandment says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14). So we are all commanded to multiply and replenish the earth yet not commit fornication and adultery.  This excludes all options save marriage. (Heb. 13:4 - Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.) The second chapter of Genesis backs up to the creation of Eve saying, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (v.24). We were created to marry and multiply. Now obviously modern marriage arrangements are a social construct, but since the beginning of mankind there has been an arrangement that would set a man and woman apart from others to cleave (be united) unto one another. All throughout the Old and New Testaments we learn of God's contempt for the sins of adultery and fornication which become obsolete within a righteous marriage relationship.  

Paul was a Proponent of Marriage

A quick run through of the Pauline scriptures that support the institution of marriage include 1 Tim 4:1-3 where Paul gives examples of those who give “heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of the devil” among which are those who forbid to marry (v.3). Self-prescribed celibacy, as he discusses it here, would be considered a doctrine of the devil. In 1 Cor. 7 we find Paul speaking expressly against the sins of adultery and fornication and then saying, “ let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband”. Pay attention in this chapter to what he says is a commandment from the Lord and what he expressly says is NOT a commandment but his own thoughts on the issue. (Read D&C 74, it's short). In vs.8 when he says, “ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” I am convinced that Paul is talking about remaining chaste... not unmarried. 1 Cor. 11:11 is probably the most significant of his teachings that relate to an eternal principle of marriage. The KJV says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Can we get any clearer than that?

Introduction of Ordinances

While I believe that many members of the First Century Church of Jesus Christ accepted and practiced the doctrine of celestial marriage, I understand that there is no solid New Testament proof of this. So I will not seek to prove such through the New Testament. Nevertheless, even if the Lord waited until this the last dispensation to introduce such a critical doctrine I would not be surprised. A parallel ordinance might help to clarify my convictions. In the Old Testament we find no solid proof that baptism was required for salvation, yet Christ is clear that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16), and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). While Members of the Church of Jesus Christ have their explanations for this, how does a mainstream protestant explain the perfect Mercy of God in relation to these scriptures and earlier peoples who were more worthy than they for the kingdom of God. Jesus made it clear that there is a covenantal ordinance that must take place. Similarly it is not inconsistent for Christ to reveal another saving ordinance after much of the earth has already come and gone as long as he provides means for past peoples to meet the same requirements. This is the purpose of the Spirit World (see next section), to provide this chance.

Salvation vs. Exaltation

There is a fundamental difference in the way Mainstream Protestants and members of the Church of Jesus Christ envision the afterlife as indicative of written teachings. Mormons do not believe in a simple dichotomous afterlife where everyone is divided into two camps: Heaven or Hell (Actually we do, but we call it the Spirit World and see it not as our final resting place but a transitional place where spirits have one final chance to accept or reject the doctrines and ordinances of salvation. (1 Pet. 3:18-20). Following the Spirit World is the Final Judgment as spoken of by John the Revelator (Rev. 20:12). It is after this judgment that all souls who are deserving of salvation shall receive a kingdom of glory perfectly complimentary to the life we lived, the nature of our hearts, and our acceptance of Christ's Atonement. The scriptures speak of three kingdoms of glory that vary in the amount of glory depending on their proximity to God. (D&C 74, 2 Cor. 12:2, 1 Cor. 15:40-42). Each kingdom is divided into a multitude of levels each varying in glory so that each soul receives their perfect due. To make a long explanation short. We believe that salvation will come to all who attain a kingdom of glory, which comes through a combination of the perfect grace of God and our own works of goodness. Exaltation, on the other hand, comes to a select group who inherit the highest level of the highest kingdom. (see D&C 131, 132). Therefore we often agree with other Christians when speaking of salvation, but do not see eye to eye when speaking of exaltation. Celestial marriage relates to exaltation.

Christ Rejects Divorce and Sustains Marriage

Jesus Christ, when confronted by the Pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 (and Mark 10:2-12) Jesus responded by explaining that God “made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh'. Here Jesus confirms that Old Testament account. He continues warning, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (separate).” My favorite part of the story actually comes next when the Pharisees defend divorce by saying that Moses commanded it as a prophet. Jesus soundly rebukes them explaining that Moses gave the commandment because of the hardness of the people's hearts. He said, “but from the  beginning it was not so.” There we have it. From the beginning we were meant to be together... not separate.