One True Church Claim: 20 Year Phase Out Plan

[RubinHighlander]

Hello NOM and I hope you had a great mother's day. DW and I were so very grateful for our moms, but even more grateful we didn't have to suffer through any church meetings and end up with a small pot of Geraniums.

Okay, so a primer to the Subject:
Had lunch with a couple of ExMO friends last week. One is a former bish who did over 3 years of sincere research then finally had enough to get out. His SP handled his sincere questions very badly, which helped my friend go all the way up to the top for the name removal. So, my friend recently had a couple of NOMs move in across the street from him. One of them claims to have a TBM friend that works for the COB in the research department and claims that she came across information on the PEW research/surveys where the one true church claim is the number one issue that active members dislike. Given the research, the friend of the neighbor of my friend claims the COB has a 10-20 year plan to phase out the one true church claim.

So, there you have some very 4th hand information, which constitutes a juicy rumor. True or not, let's play with the idea, because I believe it's a realistic one. Think about the surveys the COB has been doing this past couple of years. Think about the leaked videos of the old guys sitting in a room, looking at the data in slide decks to make their policy decisions. Also, in thinking back on my last decade of TBMness, I was noticing that the COB was backing off on things like the Armageddon last days BS. If you take the analysis from the last mormondiscussionpodcast, you can see they are dumbing down a lot of the miraculous or just not mentioning it. It will be interesting to see if the next prez after Monson continues his trend of non-direct testimony of the truth claims.

Will the trend continue to be hard-core COB and local leadership worship over Christ and miracles of the past with more adoption of the essay apologetics into the correlated narrative? I don't see why not, but what say ye?

[redjay]

I hope the church gives up its claim of the one true church - I believe it is harmful to the church (perpetuates its right to be act like a cult) and the members (the rigidity of thinking divides families - isn't that why a whole heap of us are here on NOM?)

But to give up it's one truth claim the church has to give up control. You can't have supernormal profits unless you have a monopoly. But in a system of all thing being equal - perfect competition.

Who is going to give 10% of gross, wear ridiculous underwear and clean the toilets of a church that offers nothing better than Joe Shmoe's church down the road?

I asked on a previous thread would the church thrive if it gave up control, and the answer from most people seemed to be 'no' it would have a similar experience to the CoC and lose lots of members.

But perhaps that is why the church wants to drip feed the change in? Desensitisation or inoculation as seems to be the commonly used term.

Also the church has the moridor where the church is so deeply ingrained into the culture that it seems to be part of the fabric of society there and I should imagine it could much be like the catholic church in many places - the standard denomination that people cling to out of tradition, despite not buying into it completely (e.g. birth control, transubstantiation).

Outside of the moridor I wonder if it will just dwindle and die? It is not part of our culture, it is weird, and it's helluva expensive - median salary in the US is about $55k, in the UK $36k - plus in the UK you can expect to be taxed more.

I would love for the church to normalise, relax, and truly have a place for everyone - my parents are TBM and the one true church paradigm means that if I believe anything different we will not be together in the eternities (in their eyes).

As for dropping the one church rhetoric, Holland still seems to be banging on about the BoM, so no change there - although a non-literal belief in the BoM is being hinted at as allowable among the TBM fringe/academics.


Things are changing: it seems like excommunication for sexual misdeeds is not the standard response anymore, as it used to be a few decades ago.

However, it is all too slow for me: church is boring, expensive and I want the occasional pint - I don't want to wait 20 years for these things to be optional, given that I know now that the church is NOT the one true church.

[blazerb]

I can imagine a faction within the leadership that thinks this is a good idea. But, then you have Bednar, Holland, Oaks, and Nelson. I can't imagine any of them relinquishing their exclusive authority to speak for God, as far as the members are concerned.

On the other side, I could imagine some leaders who see the decreasing numbers of baptisms every year and know that the church is never going to "fill the earth," who think that letting go of this doctrine will keep more members than not letting go.

[oliver_denom]

If the church did this, then I'd be very impressed and surprised. Letting go of that claim, as was mentioned, means releasing an awful lot of power. It would certainly make our lives better though.

But, it depends on what they mean. Do they mean they want to phase out the phrase but keep the idea? "We're not the only TRUE church, but we ARE the only one with authority to administer salvation". That seems more likely.

Also, of true, it shows they still don't understand the speed of modern social change. They want to do the slow fade on things to keep older conservative members from splintering, but in doing so, they'll lose a lot of impatient youth.

[Brent]

What's interesting is this is a natural progression of the "we're not weird" movement. Over the years the "truth is where you find it" movement has naturally allowed for the idea of exclusive truth to pale.

[Brent]

The case against exclusivity hinges on 2 basic arguments: Mercy/Grace and the simple math of humanity. Math is fun so let’s start there. Here’s a fine BBC article on the subject: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16870579 our important quote is:

“There are currently seven billion people alive today and the Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived. This means that we are nowhere near close to having more alive than dead. In fact, there are 15 dead people for every person living”.

Granted this is from 2012 so you can add a couple hundred million to be current but at the end of the day science is pretty clear—there’s been a heck of a lot of people. If you’re a temple ordinance worker then, well, you’ve got your work cut out for you. The scientific model is what I think should be used as a base so I will ignore the idea of a “young earth” because the evidence is lacking.

IF 107 billion people have lived then the current LDS population (activity and age regardless) is .014% of the population. (Please feel free to correct my math, it’s terrible.) This is a super-crap success rate. In fact, it strongly implies that God isn’t that interested in seeing his children again. Does that make sense? This is where the Mercy and Grace argument becomes paramount; what parent would do such a thing? That’s basically 1 in 7,500? How many Heavenly parents are going to put up with that? You’re saving a sliver of humanity. Not even a sliver—that’s too bold a word for this rate of salvation. Even with vicarious work at 1 hour per person that’s millions of years of work…and waiting. Exclusivity of salvation isn’t workable from the numbers side or from the sanity side.

[Not Buying It]

As much as I hate it and think they should abandon it for the sake of honesty, the "One True Church" claim is all they've got. Without it, they are just an unusually freaky and demanding Christian denomination, and nothing keeps the members from finding something else that isn't so freaky and demanding. Besides, if God isn't talking to the leaders, nothing stops the members from just telling them to go to hell when they get too demanding.

They can't give the "One True Church" claim up, and they know it.

[FreeFallin]

It's easy to believe that a survey has been done showing that "one true church" is an issue for some people. However, believers believe, and it seems extremely unlikely that the concept of being the one and only true church would be phased out. I bet you anything that the phrase will be replaced with something less culty but that keeps all the believers believing. Here are some possibilities (join with me):

• The true and everlasting gospel

• The most true church

• The fountain of truth and knowledge

• God's work on this earth

• God's kingdom on earth

• The fullness of the gospel

It is easy to imagine that the 20 year plan includes replacing the phrase in manuals and texts as they come up year after year. There is probably a big committee having late night and weekend meetings to come up with phrases to replace "one and only true church," and to come up with conference talks that subtly guide people away from one phrase only to replace it with something that means essentially the same thing.

[redjay]

If they are willing to give up control, the one true church claim is fairly easy to hold onto if you change its meaning. Bill Reel did a good podcast on this.

According to the BoM there are only two churches: one of the devil and one of god.

At its most extreme: If we are the only true church, every other church must be under the influence of satan.

How many LDS members believe that all other denominations are satanic?

But when the word church is broadened to mean an assembly doing things that God would have it do - then all of Christianity (or even other religions) are the 'true' church. When the priests are molesting kids, taking money off the poor and being otherwise abusive, they are of the church of the devil. When they are building peace in the community and giving people comfort they are of the church of God

Assuming religious abuse can be done by mormons, baptists, muslims, or whoever:

Act good = church of god

Act bad = church of the devil

I can see the restoration being reframed as 'a force for good' to bring people closer to god - after all, look at the fruits of the church, how it's grown, become the backbone of communities etc.

The litmus test will be whether the church will claim to be a road to salvation or the only road - either in this life or the next (by proxy temple work).

So it's easy to make the doctrine fit, as long as the Brethren are willing to give up their demi-god status and see the church's income reduce.

[Red Ryder]

That's the most bothersome issue to members?

What's interesting is this is a natural progression of the "we're not weird" movement. Over the years the "truth is where you find it" movement has naturally allowed for the idea of exclusive truth to pale.

The church needs to ditch the daily garments and shift to temple worship wear before they ditch the one true church narrative.

NBI is right though. Exclusivity is the hook the church has to hang it's underpants on. Without it, they fall on the floor meaningless like any other pile of dirty laundry.

[Corsair]

What is so compelling about the church if it is not actually the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" (D&C 1:30)? I was an obedient, diligent Mormon because I thought that if the LDS church was TRUE, then any sacrifice for it would be worth the eventual reward. The church claims exclusive priesthood authority over the ordinances of salvation. Why should we sacrifice for the LDS church if other churches are also paths back to God?

[Brent]

What is so compelling about the church if it is not actually the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" (D&C 1:30)? I was an obedient, diligent Mormon because I thought that if the LDS church was TRUE, then any sacrifice for it would be worth the eventual reward. The church claims exclusive priesthood authority over the ordinances of salvation. Why should we sacrifice for the LDS church if other churches are also paths back to God?

Exclusivity of Salvation is built into the "One True Church" narrative. It's as destructive as it is seductive. IF it turns out it's driving people out or off it will eventually change...like polygamy...or the priesthood ban.

[Emower]

I agree, the church needs and seems to be backing away from that attitude. But I think it more of an natural outgrowth of the pushback that leaders are experiencing. I find it hard to believe that there is a formal, or even informal understanding between the Q15, 70s, Correlation committee, and the PR dept that states the need to back away. I think just like the church evolved to become the way it has, it is evolving to the selective pressures currently facing it. Evolution is slow. It wouldnt work if it were fast. So we are not going to see a fast change, but change will occur all the same. I am just glad I have recognized it for what it is and can get away in my lifetime.

[RubinHighlander]

.014% of the population

Yes! I've run the numbers, even as a TBM for a GD lesson and that is the number I came up with. It's piss poor performance for the one true church and isn't even a gnat on the butt of the stone that's suppose to roll over the whole Earth. It was something I had to put up on my shelf. I think the general TBM population believes Mormons are the fastest growing and that 13m is a big number; sorry to disappoint.

Lots of good points made here. Giving up the on true church claim is a big dent in the "we are more special than anyone else" narrative and would have impact on the dedication factor for many. It's already hard enough for the average TBM to find all the things that support the special few are chosen narrative. What do you really have:
- polygamous treasure digging founder
- special scriptures that are being hammered on by evidence and lack of evidence
- funny undies
- expensive buildings of stolen masonry rituals
- ceremonies for dead people
- no tea, coffee, beer or margaritas
- made up priesthood authority that supports misogamy
- recent past bigamy of dark skin and current bigamy of sexual orientation
- Your shelf item here_____________________________________
...

[Enoch Witty]

.014% of the population

Yes! I've run the numbers, even as a TBM for a GD lesson and that is the number I came up with.

What number of Mormons are you using? 15,000,000 / 107,000,000,000 equals 0.00014%, not 0.014%. It's much more minuscule than y'all are giving it credit for.

[ulmite]

.014% of the population

Yes! I've run the numbers, even as a TBM for a GD lesson and that is the number I came up with.

What number of Mormons are you using? 15,000,000 / 107,000,000,000 equals 0.00014%, not 0.014%. It's much more minuscule than y'all are giving it credit for.

Math, Enoch.

I think that dropping the "this is the only way to be saved" line is very good. If they were to drop tithing to their basic needs (and have some transparency), as well as redefine chastity as "don't cheat", membership could be sustainable. Though you do have a looooot of past material to reverse to erase that doctrine. I mean, the whole founding narrative is built on that idea!

[wtfluff]

What is so compelling about the church if it is not actually the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" (D&C 1:30)?

Yep, they've got to change canonized scripture to drop the "One True Church" claim.

It's not like that hasn't happened before... Or I guess they could just completely ignore it D&C 1:30, a bit like they ignore pretty much the entirety of D&C 132.

[nibbler]

They could stop saying it tomorrow but it would take 100+ years for the echoes to die down.

It's one thing to stop teaching something and hope it fades away over time, which is top leadership's favorite way of dealing with things, but to change teachings you have to put in the same amount of effort into correcting the teaching as you put into the original teaching itself.

The Q15 and every GA could stop saying "one true church" right this very instant but I'd still hear it every Sunday for the rest of my life. Hell, for all I know they already stopped saying it years ago.

[RubinHighlander]

.014% of the population

Yes! I've run the numbers, even as a TBM for a GD lesson and that is the number I came up with.

What number of Mormons are you using? 15,000,000 / 107,000,000,000 equals 0.00014%, not 0.014%. It's much more minuscule than y'all are giving it credit for.

That's a good point Enoch! I had run my numbers about five years ago against the current living world population, not the total humans, including dead and it seems it came out to less than a 1/2 of a quarter percent, around .024 or something like that. Either way...very small indeed.

[RubinHighlander]

They could stop saying it tomorrow but it would take 100+ years for the echoes to die down.

I've found this to be true with the Armageddon crazy last days narrative. The COB hardly mentions it anymore but it's alive and well (Julie Rowe) at the local level. My theory is that folks in the trenches are desperate for the drama, that they are part of the big special generation to open the doors to the 2nd coming. They need this because it helps justify all the work, toil and guilt they deal with to tread the COBs wine press. I had these feelings/fantasies as a TBM.

You see the evidence of this when the strongest testimony Monson offers is that you the individual can pray to know the truth claims are true, but he never says he knows they are. It's a subtle way to state it in a way that might get the GA out of the legal truth claim, as an officer of the corporation, but still instill it the worker bees.