Page 1 of 2 Next →
  1. From the quotes that you list it seems that “the only true church” is understood as “the only institution possessing authority to perform essential ordinances”. How does this claim differ from “new order” Mormon bloggers’?

  2. The “new order” bloggers attempt to show that our authoritative claim is not as strong as it may seem from our fast and testimony meetings or General Conferences, that it is not necessarily right for us to solemnly declare that we believe that the Church is the only true church on the earth. They claim a watered-down version of the restored gospel’s singularity, that all faiths have an equal share at truth and revelation, and that it is perfectly ok if someone leaves the Church to follow another course, and that God will reward everyone according to their beliefs and not according to their obedience to the words of the living prophets of the true Church or the true gospel. This is the feeling I’ve been getting recently from some in the Bloggernacle. I don’t believe it for a minute. I can just imagine how Joseph Smith or Brigham Young would blast these specious perceptions.

    Take for instance Andrew Ainsworth’s post at Mormon Matters. I do not disagree with the statements by the General Authorities, but I do disagree with the way Andrew states the case of the “myths” of the “one true church” claim. He lists the following as myths:

    Myth: God stopped communicating with mankind for hundreds of years during “the Apostasy,” when the priesthood was not found upon the earth.

    Was there a prophet found anywhere on the earth? A temple? A saving ordinance? An authorized blessing? Yes, God did stop communicating with mankind in large measure during the Apostasy. Was it a complete cessation? No. But that is not the point of the restored gospel.

    Myth: In Joseph Smith’s day, the Christian churches were completely corrupt and were an abomination to the Lord.

    Joseph Smith himself said: “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (JS-H 1:19). Were they completely corrupt? No. But, again, that is not the point.

    Myth: Because Mormons are the only people currently guided by true prophets with the priesthood authority, they are the only people eligible to receive God’s inspiration.

    How would you compare the amount of revelation and inspiration that God gives to the prophets and apostles of His Church as a whole compared with others? Do others receive inspiration too? Of course. But that’s not the point of the restored Church of Christ. It is through modern revelation to God’s chosen servants that we are to know God’s will today and receive the saving ordinances of His gospel.

    Myth: As God’s covenant people, Mormons are the people God has chosen to perform his great and marvelous work.

    Almost every reference that I’ve read from the General Authorities with reference to the the “great and marvelous work” or the “marvelous work and a wonder” is in relationship to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Are we doing all the work? No. But the redemption of the dead, for instance, can only take place in the temple of God.

    Myth: Although well-intentioned, leaders of other religions and churches are unwitting servants of the devil who are deceiving and leading God’s children astray.

    I don’t think any well-intentioned member of the Church truly believes that all leaders of other churches are servants of the devil, only deceiving people. While there are many leaders of other faiths that teach people to do many good things, there are also a great number that take people captive by false doctrine such that they cannot see truth and light anymore.

    Myth: People belong to either the LDS church or the “Church of the Devil,” also known as the “great and abominable Church.”

    This one has been worked over many times in the Church. Of course we don’t believe that anyone who is not a member of the Church is a member of the Church of the Devil. But we do believe that those who do not promote Christian values, moral standards, and goodness are not of God.

    Myth: If a person doesn’t join the Church after learning about it, that person must not be honest in heart.

    I don’t believe any member precisely knows at what point a person must learn about the restored gospel before they will be judged for not accepting it. There are many devout Christians in the world that would probably reject the Church the first hundred times of hearing it, and still be honest in heart. Our missionaries don’t dust their feet at every person they meet. This is an extreme view.

    If I didn’t know better, I would think these statements came from our critics’ perception of LDS belief, not LDS perception of LDS belief. I do not hear the prophets declaring the ubiquity of God’s blessings to mankind. I hear the blessings of God being poured out without measure on God’s covenant people, that we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, commissioned with preparing the Earth for the Second Coming of the Savior. If Andrew’s post is analyzing what the “one true church … does not mean,” then this post states what it does mean. And we are not ashamed of it.

  3. In what I hope will be helpful and in addition to my own essay on the subject a while back, I offer the following observation. Being an old guy and having been reading Mormon blogs and LDS email lists back to the early 90’s, I long ago learned that we have in the LDS blogging community two very distinct groups, the Iron Rodders and the Liahonas.

    The subject of the One True Church is one that clearly divides these two groups. On the one hand, the Iron Rodders will always agree with you and with the authorities y0u quote. By the way, I am an Iron Rodder and agree with the point of your essay. I love your blog. I read it every day and appreciate your strong testimony, eloquently expressed. On the other hand, a large portion of the Bloggernacle is made up of the Liahonas, who “walk by the light of their own conceit.”

    This conflict is not new to the rise of the NOMs. It has been around for a long, long time. You can read more about it in President Lee’s April 1971 General Conference talk, The Iron Rod. In it, you can read this quote, attributed to the Apostle John A. Widstoe, “The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations.”

    In other words, these people really do believe that they can and should endeavor to change the church by the things they write, by the attitudes they express and by the demands they make upon the leaders of the church. It is simply foreign to them to contemplate that the Brethren know what they are doing and do not need to be told how to run the church. They love to come up with their own theories and explanations for inspired changes in the church by saying, “See, I told you so. They changed that because we complained long and loud enough.”

    If I know anything about the Bloggernacle, what I have shared could easily be ripped apart by any number of prominent bloggers, many of whom I respect and read. Just as they are amazed at how “conservative, intolerant, unempathetic and exclusionary” I am towards their doubting and questioning methods, I am equally amazed at how disrespectful and less than faithful their methods of picking apart, questioning, and even mocking are towards the church leaders.

    I’ll stop now. I could go on and on. If this is off the mark of your post, just go ahead and delete it. I’ll pick it up on my blog sometime in the near future. It’s one I’ve been wanting to write for a long time. I hope I have not detracted from the wonderful uplifting message of your testimony and your clear love of the Lord, the Church, the leaders and especially of the Temples. We are indeed a part of the One True Church, the only one with the keys of the priesthood. Cheers!

  4. This is an appropriate post for this time. Wasn’t this the crux of the First Presidency message for July as well? Sustaining the priesthood means supporting even when you don’t understand or don’t agree. If you hold that body to be inspired, then you have to remain consistent or else you come to selective inspiration, which is never good when the storms of life come, and come they will.

  5. Aha

    In D&C 1:30, the Lord uses “only” to describe not just “true,” but “true and living.”

    Do you think this is significant? Is there a difference between a “true church,” and a “true and living church?” If so, a more nuanced approach to this scripture may be appropriate.

    I’ve always thought that “living” as describing a church, implies the presence of the Spirit…because spirit brings life. Joseph Smith taught that a distinguishing feature of the Church was the gift of the Holy Ghost, hence making the church “living.”

    So do you think its possible for a church to be true and dead? To be false and living?

    In any case, the Lord makes clear that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only “true and living” church, but somehow I think that means something different than what Latter-day saints mean when they toss around the phrase “only true church.”

    The 10th Article of Faith makes clear that there is truth yet to be revealed, implying that the current church is at some level “truth-deficient.” Does this have any bearing on how we quantify “true” in reference to the Church? Or does it mean void of falsehoods? Later prophets have corrected, amended,or even discredited statements of past prophets, suggesting that even with revelation, the Church is on a journey and quest to obtain truth, but may be associated with falsehoods along the way.

    Maybe I’m thinking too hard about this, but a cut-and-dry “one true church” vs. multitudes of “false churches” seems like a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the scriptures and the words of the prophets.

    I do believe that Church is the only repository of legitimate priesthood authority, and as such, ordinances can only be divinely recognized if performed within the Church. However, as proxy temple work suggests, this is more of the Church’s universal responsibility to process the paper-work and validate the procedures for all of humanity, rather than a pronouncement that all other belief systems are little more than highways to hell.

    I think the general notion is that those of other faiths will be taught in the spirit world and once their ordinance work is complete, they can join the Shepherd’s “one true” fold, but I think Latter-day saints will also be instructed and taught on very similar levels. The ordinance work will have already been done, but I wonder if the rift between the members and non-members will be as wide as we like to think….

  6. Thank you for your comments Aha. I have always believed that “living” meant continual revelation to living prophets and apostles. I have heard some authorities say this as well. For this reason alone I don’t believe it is possible for a church to be true and dead, or false and living. I believe they go hand in hand.

    Yes, we don’t have all truth. Yes, we have continual revelation that changes for our day and time. Yes, there is much good being done in the Christian world. But I believe that one God has sanctioned and organized one true faith, and one true baptism for a divine purpose. I don’t think it is appropriate to muddy those waters, which are quite living.

  7. I’m not sure why you characterize Bloggernacle blogs as liberal or “new-order” blogs, and I disagree that they criticize the one true church claim. Sure, they downplay the harsher sectarian implications of the Great Apostasy as it was previously depicted in LDS talks and publications, but so have more recent remarks by LDS leaders, to the extent they address the topic. Read Elder Ballard’s remarks in his recent book Our Search for Happiness, for example. It’s a much softer line than was previously preached on the topic of the apostasy. So maybe the Mormon Matters take on the present LDS view deserves a hearing.

  8. Dave, I don’t characterize all Bloggernacle blogs as liberal. But, yes, there are some that are.

    I don’t think President Eyring’s remarks in our recent April General Conference downplayed the implications of the Great Apostasy. We are still the “only true church,” as he put it, and shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with saying it.

  9. Kevin Christensen

    Curious about why that “and living” was so oddly interupting the flow of the “only true church” phrase I had been submerged in from my youth, I investigated what it is doing there. When I looked at all the uses of “true” and “living” in the Bible, I found that the passages in which those themes occurred correspond point for point with the themes of D&C 1. For example, Jer. 10:10 speaks of “the true God, the Living God” in a Voice of Warning passage. “True vine” occurs in discussions of priesthood. “Living waters” refers both to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the ordinances of sacrament and baptism. Scripture is also “living water.” “Tree of Life” is a temple image, as is the context of the “living way” in Hebrews. There is more, but it all points the same direction, and accounts for every verse and theme in D&C 1.

    So I think “true and living” functions as a merism, a succinct way of expressing the themes of D&C 1 overall. Notice that “only” is modified by “with which I the Lord am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.” “Well pleasingness” relative to the themes encompassed by “true and living” is the distinction, not exclusiveness.

    D&C 1 expressly states that the voice of the Lord us unto all men, that besides speaking to Joseph Smith, he also spoke to unspecified others, and that he is willing to reveal his word unto all flesh. In three places, the Lord expressly refutes the notion of exclusive truth and revelation.

    D&C 1 states of LDS leaders that “inasmuch as they have erred, it shall be made manifest: and inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed.” So he expressly refutes the notion of static, unchanging understanding and infallible leadership. It means that human imperfection is part of the package, and not a reason to reject the LDS message. It is going to grow and change as we do. The seed grows into a tree, not a giant seed.

    D&C 1 does not contain the popular phrase “only true church.” Do those three words accurately convey what D&C 1: 30 takes 30 words to say? Are the extra words mere verbosity, mere rhetorical flourish, or do they have meaningful content. The “only true” phrase implies, “exclusive, perfect, correct.” Yet we are told expressly that that the leaders can make mistakes, and that truth and virtue are not exclusive to the LDS church. “I the Lord am no respecter of persons.” “Speaking to the church collectively, and not individually…” I think the context of D&C 1 expressly undercuts implications the common-place cliche, “only true church.” D&C 1 spells out distinctions that are expressly non-exclusive with respect to truth, virtue, and even revelation. We are not yet perfect as indivuals, which is a relief. We don’t have to be perfect to be gathered in. Just repentant and repenting.

    And what does it mean by “church”? Only true body of doctrines? No. Only virtuous people. No. We are warned in D&C 1 against such thinking. The only people that God cares about? No. What then? A calling out, a gathering of people, who are given much and are accountable for what they have been given of what is “true and living” provided through the calling of Joseph Smith. Called and given commandments, given power to translate the Book of Mormon and proclaim the gospel, given priesthood which authorizes ordinances. The very things that distinguish the LDS faith in practice, claims to modern revelation, priesthood, and temples, are the very true and living themes that distinguish the LDS faith as “well pleasing” in D&C 1.

    That is how I read it, FWIW. I gave a presentation at a Sunstone on the topic many years ago. The difference makes for more tolerant and robust reading, in my view. And the distinction of “only well pleasing, true and living church” is quite sufficient for me.

    Kevin Christensen
    Pittsburgh, PA

  10. Let me see if I’m understanding you correctly.

    The claim that we are “the only true church” to you means:

    1) We are the sole institution possessing authority to perform necessary ordinances to allow people to gain salvation/exaltation.

    2) We have more truth than other churches/religions do.

    3) We have more communication from God than other churches/religions do.


    If I’m following you correctly I don’t see how 2 & 3 follow from the claim about being the ‘only’ true church. Don’t these sound like they should fall under a claim of being ‘the most true’; rather than the ‘only’ true church? It seems that it would make more sense to say that, “I believe our church to be the only institution with the authority to perform essential ordinances to allow human beings to enjoy eternal life. I also believe that our church has the most ‘good’ when compared with other churches/religions in terms of ‘truth’, ‘inspiration’, and ‘direct access to God’.”

    Is this essentially your position? If it is, it would seem that your disagreement with ‘new order’ Mormon bloggers would not be over the ‘only’ claim at all; but instead to what degree ‘most’ is an appropriate label for ‘goods’ such as ‘truth’, etc.

  11. SmallAxe,

    1) Yes.
    2) Yes.
    3) Yes.

    As I’ve shown above briefly, I’m not the first to use the term “only” to describe the “true Church.” Prophets and apostles have used the term. I’m not going start bearing my testimony that I believe the Church is the “most true” church. I have never heard that out of the mouths of the prophets. It seems to me like a compromise for the sake of inclusivity. The Church has never been “inclusive” in the sense of broadening our doctrinal belief to include those who believe differently. In fact, that was the problem with the early Christian church that caused it to fall into apostasy. The Church is, by definition, exclusive. We are a peculiar people, called, chosen, set apart, anointed, a royal priesthood, very different from the world around us.

    It is the most foolish thing that people ever attempted to tell us that if we were to do so and so, take such and such a course, that we should not be persecuted. Men who make such assertions do not know this Work; they cannot comprehend it; they know nothing about the characteristics of this people, nor the work which they are connected with; if they did, they would know that the world would love its own, and that it would hate everything that is not of the world, and that comes in contact with religious popularity in the world, and that everything of this kind is hated by the world and by him who is the master of the world. (Elder George Q. Cannon, Tabernacle, May 6, 1866)

  12. tk

    Thank you for your post. I agree with your observation on comments made by some people on the bloggernacle that try to minimize the authority of the leaders.

    Just as a child grows to adulthood and is taught precept on precept, so are the Church leaders and its members. Just as Christ grew and waxed strong in spirit, Luke 1:80, so does the Church have to grow and wax strong in preparation for the second coming of Christ.

    Because the Church has not received all of the truth to be revealed, doesn’t diminish the truth that the Church does have, nor does it diminish the authority of the Church. There is no other Church on the earth that has been given this authority from God.

    Article of Faith # 9, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

    Aha, I would like to comment on a couple of your points.

    “Maybe I’m thinking too hard about this, but a cut-and-dry “one true church” vs. multitudes of “false churches” seems like a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the scriptures and the words of the prophets.”

    “…a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the scriptures…”. – I’m confused by your statement. Please show me in the scriptures where the Lord opens the door to many churches and a wide path to return to him. “The Old Testament is filled with stories and experiences to help the people understand there is one true God. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph 4:5. Christ even warns the apostles in Matt 16:6, 12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod…”

    Also your comment, ” However, as proxy temple work suggests, this is more of the Church’s universal responsibility to process the paper-work and validate the procedures for all of humanity, rather than a pronouncement that all other belief systems are little more than highways to hell.”

    I guess I missed that part in the temple.

    1. The plan of salvation is based on glory. All kingdoms will be a glory to the people who receive them. D&C 76:89 – 92; 1 Cor. 14:40 -41.
    2. I know you know this, but we are among the few Christian churches that do NOT believe that people who are not of our faith will be condemned to hell. Many of these Christian churches even condemn innocent children to hell if there weren’t baptized.

    Of course everyone will be learning in the next life including members, I don’t think anyone disagrees; that is what it’s all about.

    The Church leaders have never claimed: we know everything, we don’t make mistakes, and we are perfect. Just the opposite, we are in this mire knee deep with the entire human race. We’re learning, we’re growing, and we are striving to give more , be more humble and be less selfish. By no means do members of the Church hold the corner on good works, charity or good people.

    However, what the Church does hold is the authority to perform ordinances, teach with authority and receive revelation.

    Aha, perhaps there is confusion between authority and perfection. The church has the first, it does not have the latter.

  13. Bryce, I’m curious about your equation of “liberal” Mormons with “New Order Mormons.” Is there a difference between the two in your mind? Can one be a liberal Mormon but not be a NOM?

  14. As I’ve shown above briefly, I’m not the first to use the term “only” to describe the “true Church.” Prophets and apostles have used the term. I’m not going start bearing my testimony that I believe the Church is the “most true” church. I have never heard that out of the mouths of the prophets. It seems to me like a compromise for the sake of inclusivity.

    You’re missing my point. It’s ridiculous to say “we are the only true church” when you mean “we have more truth than other churches do”. This is equivalent to taking “John was the only graduate from BYU this year” to mean “John graduated summa cum laude from BYU this year”. In the quotes you employ above, prophets use the “only true” language to refer to authority, and not the #2 or 3 (incoherent) sense that I list above. I don’t see the bloggers you admonish using it any differently. In this light it seems that everyone involved agrees on the “only institution with authority” usage of “only true”.

    In short, the disagreement you have with these bloggers is not over the “only true” language, but understanding our church as having “the most truth”, etc. IMO you should instead provide a way to argue for us having “the most truth” rather than trying (ineffectively) to lump it in with the discourse of “only true”.

  15. Christopher,

    I have not yet distinguished the difference between liberal and “new order” Mormons, if there is one. How would you define them? My father-in-law is a Democrat and more “liberal,” but I would not say he is a “new order” Mormon. I think the “new order” thing has been defined over the last 10-15 years probably, but I haven’t pinpointed it.

  16. SmallAxe,

    If the Church has the most truth of any denomination on Earth, then I don’t think it is ridiculous to say that it is “the only true church.” God didn’t restore the “mostly” true church. He restored the “only” true Church. It is the only true Church because it is the only church which holds the authority of God’s priesthood, His divine sanction and commission, with prophets and apostles called of Him. That alone qualifies it for the use of the term, since everything we do in the Church is by virtue of the priesthood. We believe that man must be called by prophecy, by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances thereof. It is all authority. The truths (2) of the restored gospel are taught through the priesthood, and revelation (3) for mankind is received through the priesthood. You can’t separate them. This isn’t a game here on Earth. Everything that God reveals from heaven is calculated to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. And the Church has exclusive rights to ultimately bestowing those blessings, through the priesthood. The Church has always been defined by the existence of keys of authority on the Earth, just as in every other dispensation throughout history. It is precisely the keys that make the Church the only true Church. No other church has any right to these keys. They are as exclusive as it gets.

    And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:17)

    That includes His Church which He organized expressly for the purpose of saving the children of men. There is no other way, nor means, hence the “one” and “only” true Church.

  17. To be clear, I’m not saying that “the only true church” is an unclear designation, but that it is a claim about authority and not about “truth” amounts.

    If the Church has the most truth of any denomination on Earth, then I don’t think it is ridiculous to say that it is “the only true church.” God didn’t restore the “mostly” true church. He restored the “only” true Church.

    Personally I tend to take God’s word at face value. So when he says that A) This church is the only true church, and B) If there is anything lovely or of good report or praiseworthy we seek after it; I take it to mean that there are ‘truths’ outside of the church, and they are good. (A), therefore does not mean “truth only comes from the church”, but the church is exclusive in a different sense. This ‘sense’ seems to be understood by today’s prophets as authority.

    Now, if your position is that “only” is close enough to “most”, then I would say that you are manipulating the language of the revelation and the quotes of the brethren to suit your needs.

    The truths (2) of the restored gospel are taught through the priesthood, and revelation (3) for mankind is received through the priesthood.

    How does this not contradict your initial admission that “there is much truth found in all religions of the world”?

  18. I find it interesting that the concept of keys is absent from the ‘keystone’ of our religion, the Book of Mormon. As a counter-example, we have Alma the elder who was one of the priests that King Noah installed after he ousted the priests that his righteous father had put in place. After Alma fled and began teaching the words of Abinadi, he established a church of Christ. Where did he get his authority? Not from wicked King Noah. He got his authority from God. I see no substantiation for the idea of keys in the Book of Mormon.

    Is this important? Considering that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the Gospel,’ I think it does merit consideration of just what God intended for those who bear His ‘authority.’

  19. SmallAxe,

    I think it is a statement about truth amounts as well. I don’t believe there is any other church on the face of the earth that has nearly the same amount of truth that God has chosen to bestow on His own Church. In comparison with all other churches, the Lord’s Church is supreme in this regard.

    Yes, there are truths outside of the Church, and they are good. But this does not diminish the Lord’s Church. It is still the only true Church, the only church with His sanction. God has deemed it proper to also give some truths to others, but they do not have a “fullness” to the extent that God has chosen to give to His Church. I don’t think there is another church on the earth today that the Lord would call a “true church” because of the truth and revelation that they have. On the contrary, He called them all false! That means that the LDS Church is His “only” true church.

    “Only” is not close enough to “most.” Only means only. The LDS Church is the only church on the face of this earth with the authority of God’s priesthood, with living prophets and apostles, and with the saving ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m not sure how much more clear I can be than that. While others can receive truth and revelation, it is in small proportion to that which He has given and continues to give to His restored Church. In other words, no one is going to receive sufficient truth and revelation outside of the Lord’s Church to merit salvation and exaltation. That only comes by obedience to the restored ordinances and laws of the House of the Lord, either in mortality or in the spirit world.

  20. Spektator,

    The concept of keys is not absent from the Book of Mormon. Whenever God has chosen to give authority to man to perform ordinances in His name, it has been by ordination and a dispensation of keys.

    Taking your example of Alma, where did he get his authority? President Joseph Fielding Smith said this:

    We should take into consideration in the study of the Book of Mormon the fact that it is an abridgment taken from the records or history that had been kept by the prophets among the Nephites. Therefore, many of the details are lacking. This is equally true of the history of Israel as it has come down through the years to us in the Bible. We are left to accept the fact that Lehi, when he left Jerusalem, held divine authority and that this divine power was handed down from generation to generation until the time of the visitation of the Savior. Moreover, while the detail is lacking, the evidence is very clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood was possessed by the Nephites.

    There were none of the tribe of Levi among them, therefore it was by virtue of the Melchizedek Priesthood that they officiated. There are many passages in the Book of Mormon in which reference is given to the Holy Priesthood. We should also remember that the record that we have received is an abridgment, and therefore many of the details are of necessity missing. Moreover, we are informed that many important things have been withheld from us because of the hardness of our hearts and our unwillingness, as members of the Church, to abide in the covenants or seek for divine knowledge.

    In the case of Alma and his priesthood, we are left to surmise that he legally and divinely received it before the days of King Noah. We read that Zeniff, the father of Noah, was a righteous man. Alma evidently received the priesthood in the days of Zeniff, and at no time did he fully accept the teachings nor with full purpose follow the counsels and procedure of Noah and his wicked priests…

    Just at what time Alma received the priesthood is not clearly stated, but we may presume that it occurred before Noah came to the throne. Moreover, we must also conclude that Alma at no time truly entered into the wickedness of this wicked king…

    Where did Alma get his authority? Evidently he obtained it when he received the priesthood, which through his repentance he had not lost. There can be no serious question in relation to his authority, for it is written – “And it came to pass that Alma; having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Mosiah 18:18). (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 4, 161-162.)

    Whenever anyone is ordained to the priesthood, there is a conferral of keys. One does not hold the priesthood without a priesthood office. Every office holds keys of authority, or else there is no priesthood. Whenever Alma received his authority, it was by ordination from an authorized servant of God, and it contained keys.

    Consider these scriptures that contain the concept of keys of authority being used and conferred:

    Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people.
    Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people. (Hel. 10:6-7)

    And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people. (2 Nephi 5:26)

    And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. (Mosiah 8:16)

    And it came to pass that king Limhi and many of his people were desirous to be baptized; but there was none in the land that had authority from God. And Ammon declined doing this thing, considering himself an unworthy servant. (Mosiah 21:33)

    And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men. (Mosiah 23:17)

    I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things, behold, I say unto you that he began to establish a church in the land which was in the borders of Nephi; yea, the land which was called the land of Mormon; yea, and he did baptize his brethren in the waters of Mormon. (Alma 5:3)

    And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. (Alma 13:1)

    But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Alma 17:3)

    Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.
    And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:
    Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. (3 Nephi 11:23-25)

    Just because the Book of Mormon does not mention “keys” by name does not mean that they weren’t in use extensively, and being conferred from generation to generation, throughout Book of Mormon history, because they were.

  21. Eric Poulsen

    It is amazing to me that such a basic principle could be so controversial. Wasn’t Joseph Smith told to join “none” of the churches. Wasn’t the priesthood restored by heavenly messangers. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not the only true church then what is the point of belonging to it. Wouldn’t any church do? Anyone who has joined the church, as well as those who enter the temple are asked if they believe this is the only true church. You either believe it or you don’t and if you don’t I have a difficult time understanding how the church could be more than a social gathering place for you. Sounds to me like it’s the typical “buffet” gospel approach. Just choose the doctrines you like and pass over the others that are difficult for you to swallow.

    “The only true church” doctrine is a basic core belief of the restored gospel. If not true Joseph Smith was not a true prophet and was a hoax. So is the issue really about the “only true church” or about Joseph Smith being a true prophet of God?? I testify that he was. This is the ONLY true church on the earth today.

  22. I think it is a statement about truth amounts as well…. “Only” is not close enough to “most.” Only means only.

    Do you see why these two statements cannot both hold? If “only” means “only” and we have truth but are not the only source of truth, then we are not the only “true church” in the sense of “truth amounts”.

    My entire point has been that your disagreement with “new order” LDSs is about “truth amounts”. They do not disagree with you in the sense that the church is the only source of authority to perform necessary ordinances, but in the sense that the difference in “truth amounts” between our church and other churches/religions is not as large as you make it out to be. It seems that if you want to admonish them you should argue for a large gap in “truth amounts” between our church and others.

    My hunch is that you incorporate the language of “the only true church” to make the argument because it is easier to find current church leadership using the phrase. However, current church leadership use “the only true church” in line with claims to authority and not truth amounts. Why don’t you find some quotes from the current prophet/apostles that talk about the “falseness” or “lack of truth” in other religions? Or how our church is superior in truth amounts than these other religions?

  23. SmallAxe,

    Saying that we are the “only true church” does not mean that we are the only church with truth. Those statements don’t go hand in hand. What it means is that God has a single chosen Church, one to which He gives much more truth than any other denomination, church, people, faith, person, or organization in the history of Earth. The truth God has bestowed on His restored Church is infinitely greater than that which He has given to all the world combined. To not believe this is to have a weak testimony of His restored gospel and His restored Church.

    President Hinckley firmly warned the Saints:

    Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” April 2003 General Conference, link.)

    In the same talk President Hinckley said:

    The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16).

    Do you believe President Hinckley would call the Church “mostly true”? That it only contains “most” of the truth? It is absurd to even consider it.

    Almost every talk in General Conference given by the Brethren and hymns sung by the choir and congregation is literally permeated with the knowledge, and testimony, and witness of the fact that this is the kingdom of God on earth, blessed with truths and revelations beyond measure in comparison with the rest of the world. That is why the gospel was restored. The day dawn is breaking! The world is awaking! The clouds of night’s darkness are fleeing away! The morning breaks! The shadows flee!

    Truth eternal, truth divine,
    In thine ancient fulness shine!
    Bust the fetters of the mind
    From the millions of mankind!

    Truth again restored to earth,
    Opened with a prophet’s birth.
    Priests of heaven’s royal line
    Bear the keys of truth divine!

    Truth shall triumph as the light
    Chases far the misty night.
    Endless ages own its sway,
    Clad in everylasting day. (Hymn #4)

    Or how about:

    Awake and arise, O ye slumbering nations!
    The heavens have opened their portals again.
    The last and the greatest of all dispensations
    Has burst like a dawn o’er the children of men!

    The dream of the poet, the crown of the ages,
    The time which the prophets of Israel foretold,
    That glorious day only dreamed by the sages
    Is yours, O ye slumbering nations; behold!

    Oh, lift up your voices in song and in story.
    Let banners of peace in all lands be unfurled,
    For truth, heaven-born, in its beauty and glory
    Is marching triumphantly over the world. (Hymn #8)

    Elder Holland said in the last General Conference:

    Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.

    I don’t know how Elder Holland could have stated that a cessation of revelation or a closed canon was any more “false” in the other religions of the world than he did here.

    Furthermore he said:

    I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet, a modern apostle with the keys of the kingdom in his hands, a man upon whom I personally have seen the mantle fall. I testify that the presence of such authorized, prophetic voices and ongoing canonized revelations have been at the heart of the Christian message whenever the authorized ministry of Christ has been on the earth. I testify that such a ministry is on the earth again, and it is found in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    In our heartfelt devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the very Son of God, the Savior of the world, we invite all to examine what we have received of Him, to join with us, drinking deeply at the “well of water springing up into everlasting life,” these constantly flowing reminders that God lives, that He loves us, and that He speaks. I express the deepest personal thanks that His works never end and His “words . . . never cease.” I bear witness of such divine loving attention and the recording of it, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    How could Elder Holland state the superiority of the truth of the restored Church of Jesus Christ compared with the totality of the entire Christian world more succinctly or strongly than this?

    In the previous conference he said:

    It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

    Elder Holland is unequivocally denouncing the modern use of the term Christian. Every single other religions’ belief in a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead is utterly and totally false! What more does he have to say?

    And this is just from one of the apostles.

  24. The truth God has bestowed on His restored Church is infinitely greater than that which He has given to all the world combined.

    NONE of the quotes you provide from ANY of the living apostles/prophets substantiate this position. I reaffirm, this is YOUR own position, and you have been unable to demonstrate that it is in congruence with current church teaching.

  25. I’m sorry SmallAxe. We will have to disagree. I believe there is an abundance of evidence that is contrary to your position, but none of it will you be able to see.

    Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? (Mark 8:18)

  26. Perhaps you can explain to me how any of the quotes you use demonstrate your point.

    I take Pres. Hinkley to say, “If the historical or theological claims of the church are not true, then it is false.”

    I take Elder Holland to mean, “All who claim that the canon is closed is wrong.”

    I have no idea how you get to “The truth God has bestowed on His restored Church is infinitely greater than that which He has given to all the world combined,” from here.

  27. Kevin Christensen

    Bryce asked “Would you disapprove of President Eyring saying that “this is the true Church, the only true Church“?”

    President Eyring can say whatever he wants. I sustain him, and all the general authorities. I’ve even looked up “sustain” in the dictionary, so that I am fully aware of all the implications of what I do when I sustain them.

    All I offered is how I read the D&C 1, which I understand to be the Lord’s formal setting out the reasons for Joseph Smith’s call and the distinctions of LDS church. When I first found that I was seeing something I did not expect to see, I checked all the D&C commentaries I could find. What I noticed is that not one of the commentaries offered a close reading of the key verse nor of the overall context provided by D&C 1. All merely substituted the three word cultural cliche for the actual revealed text. My reading is my own, not authoritative. But I am trying to account for all 30 words in the verse, and their context in the section, not boiling them down to the three that say what I expect to hear. Multiplying opinions and authorities has its place, but it is not the same thing as conducting or providing careful analysis of the text in question.

    Others may read the text differently than I do. Fine. But in doing so, it would help to take seriously all thirty words in the verse. We could, I suppose edit actual text down to “only true church” deleting the source of potential disagreement, or, as I think, a source of potential enlightenment.

    Kevin Christensen
    Pittsburgh, PA

  28. SmallAxe,

    Does any other religion possess prophets of God? Does any other religion possess the authority of God? Does any other religion possess God’s holy temples? Does any other religion possess the truths of premortality, our purpose on earth, and the hereafter? Does any other religion possess men who may receive revelation and instruction from God that pertains to the entire Earth? Does any other religion possess the eternal covenants that God makes with us? Does any other religion have an authorized open canon? Does any other religion perform authorized healing blessings? Does any other religion have deacons, priests, teachers, elders, bishops, patriarchs, and apostles who have been called of God? Does any other religion know the true nature of God? Does any other religion know the mission of Elijah? Does any other religion have the gift of the Holy Ghost? Does any other religion know how the redemption of the dead occurs or are commissioned with it? Does any other religion know as much about Melchizedek as we do? Does any other religion have authorized patriarchal blessings? Does any other religion possess the gift of tongues, and prophecy, and revelation, and visions, and the interpretation of tongues? Does any other religion know why Adam fell? Does any other religion know our ultimate destiny to become like God? Does any other religion have the divine right to baptize or confirm? Does any other religion have the divine right to missionary work? Does any other religion understand the true relationship between grace and works? Does any other religion know the significance of the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Can any other religion exalt the children of God?

    Name one. And please make sure they have all of the above. We don’t want to compare apples and oranges here.

  29. Kevin,

    Thank you for your followup comment. I appreciate your analysis and opinion. It is certainly imperative to understand the details of every verse of scripture.

    However, I, personally, believe we must be careful not to just focus on a single scripture at the expense of everything the Lord has revealed through prophets and apostles throughout the whole of the restoration, even till today. I think sometimes we see the tree, even down to the individual seeds, at the expense of the mountain behind it. The seeds do not represent the mountain. They are an element, but not all. We must take a much more holistic view when trying to ultimately understand Church doctrine and belief, a perspective our critics are all to apt to fail at.

  30. Bryce,
    I have not yet distinguished the difference between liberal and “new order” Mormons, if there is one. How would you define them? My father-in-law is a Democrat and more “liberal,” but I would not say he is a “new order” Mormon. I think the “new order” thing has been defined over the last 10-15 years probably, but I haven’t pinpointed it.

    New Order Mormons define themselves as “those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons.” I consider myself a moderately liberal Mormon (both religiously and politically), but definetely not a New Order Mormon, as I still believe all LDS doctrine. I may have a more expansive or different view of what constitutes LDS doctrine, but I remain a firm believer in Mormonism. While I know many liberal bloggers around the bloggernacle, I know significantly less New Order Mormons who participate regularly around the ‘nacle. So I’m a little confused by your conflation of the two groups.

  31. Christopher,

    Thanks for the explanation. I believe you are right. I think the vibes I’m getting from the Bloggernacle on this issue are primarily from the new order Mormons, which are probably also mostly liberal, hence my use of the term “liberal new order Mormon bloggers.” I have found a significant number of such bloggers at Mormon Matters, for instance.

  32. Does any other religion possess prophets of God? Does any other religion possess the authority of God? Does any other religion possess God’s holy temples? etc.

    Given that the answer to your set of questions is “yes” in nearly every case, perhaps you are not qualified to speak to the question of what other religions do or do not have. Perhaps you would say, “Oh, yes, of course others have prophets, temples, etc, but OURS are true prophets, true temples, etc.” Of course, this simply raises the question of authority that SmallAxe has posed.

  33. TT,

    No. The answer is an unequivocal, unabashed, and unforgiving, no. As I’ve said before, divine authority, sanction, approval, permission, license, lawfulness, consent, and approbation given from God only to His restored Church places it on a superlative plain above the religions of the world. We have the keys of the kingdom. No one else does. Not a single, solitary, one. And that means eternally more revelation and truth given to this Church than any other.

  34. Hi Bryce,

    Can I encourage you to consider the possibility that by the “true church” we mean something more like the “authentic” church? This moves the issue onto grounds that more easily transition into the need for, and value of, claims of exclusiveness.

    Ideas like “truth” really resist attempts to somehow quantify them. This is particularly important when we consider that the central ideas of Christianity, that God has saved us through the death and resurrection of Christ and that we please God by responding in love and obedience, are pretty much available to anyone who cares to open the NT. Were we to somehow measure “truth” we could not do so by simply totaling up doctrinal points on each side.

  35. Hi Mogget,

    There are probably many ways in which we could compromise our statement of the truthfulness of the Church. We could say that it is “mostly true” or the most “authentic,” but the Brethren clearly have not made such a compromise of belief, and I will not either. Again, no truth or revelation in any other religion, however closely aligned with ours, will exalt man. It must come through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the restored gospel, and in no other way (Mosiah 3:17). Otherwise, why was the gospel restored? Can anyone take upon themselves the name of Christ except it be through His true Church? From my understanding of the temple, I would say no. As I’ve said above, I believe the truths that have been showered out upon the restored Church with regard to the purpose of life and the means to gain salvation and exaltation are incomparable to those that the world has received.

  36. Does any other religion possess prophets of God?…

    This is a different strategy to prove your argument. Instead of relying on quotes from general authorities you now compile a list of “truths” in an attempt to show that “our list is longer than yours”. It isn’t difficult to find living prophets testifying of these “truths”, but it is difficult to find them employing these truths in the manner that you are. Namely, to prove that the truths of our religion are “infinitely greater than that which He has given to all the world combined”.

    We don’t want to compare apples and oranges here.

    Exactly the reason your new strategy doesn’t work either.

  37. If you must always have a quote from a general authority, here is one from Elder McConkie:

    The mere statement that there are and have been true prophets is also an assertion that there are and have been false prophets. Our Lord’s counsel, “Beware of false prophets” (Matt. 7:15), is pointed instruction to weigh the claims of the prophets, accepting the true, rejecting the false.

    “When a man goes about prophesying, and commands men to obey his teachings,” the Prophet taught, “he must either be a true or false prophet. False prophets always arise to oppose the true prophets, and they will prophesy so very near the truth that they will deceive almost the very chosen ones.” (Teachings, p. 365.)….

    The mere claim on the part of professing religionists that they have the testimony of Jesus does not of itself guarantee or prove that they do in fact have the spirit of prophecy so as to be true prophets. Rather, truth seekers are commanded: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1.) “There are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world. … But wo unto them that are deceivers and hypocrites, for, thus saith the Lord, I will bring them to judgment.” (D. & C. 50:2-6.)

    A person claiming to be a true spiritual leader might present such a good imitation of a true prophet as to deceive those who do not themselves have the guidance and inspiration of the Spirit. But in addition to giving lip service to the assertion that Jesus is the Christ, a true prophet must conform his life to the divine pattern; he must conform to the laws and ordinances which the Lord has revealed. “He that speaketh,” the Lord says, “whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.” (D. & C. 52:16.)

    In this day and age true prophets will be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; they will be persons who have received the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost when they were confirmed members of the Church; they will be persons who have so lived as to merit receiving the promptings and whisperings of the Holy Spirit; they will be people who are in harmony with the prophets and revelators whom God hath chosen to govern and control the affairs of his earthly kingdom. They will not be found in cults or sects which are running counter to the established church order; they will not be in rebellion against the First Presidency and the Twelve, “for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” (1 Cor. 14:32.) (Mormon Doctrine, 607.)

    Again I say, no man or woman who is not a member of the LDS Church, not called and chosen by God as a prophet, seer, and revelator, has anywhere near the claim to truth and revelation as those who are. These are false prophets. They may teach much truth, but they are not the authorized conduit of the bounteous blessings of God’s saving truths. God doesn’t pour out his saving truths upon the false sectarian world!

  38. Hi Bryce,

    I think I must resist your suggestion that I have somehow compromised of the claim of exclusiveness. Perhaps you misread. I did not say that the church was “mostly true” or that it was the “most authentic” as you have asserted. I believe I used the definite article in both cases, while you have disingenuously inserted other qualifiers and attributed them by implication to me.

    When we talk about our church as “the true church” one way to unpack this claim is to say that it is “the authentic church.” Once again, note the definite articles, intact on both expressions. The latter expression, I believe, carries with it the idea that the church is unique in the sense that it is God’s church, designated by him as the means and manner by which we are organized to respond in love and obedience. Such truth as is necessary or natural to God’s own organization naturally follows, but there is really no need to try to tote them up for comparison.

  39. Mogget,

    I did not attribute “mostly true” or “most authentic” to you. I believe I said:

    We could say that it is “mostly true” or the most “authentic,” but the Brethren clearly have not made such a compromise of belief, and I will not either.

    Notice the quotation marks, and the previous discussion on this thread.

  40. In fact, the only reference from an authority that used the term “authentic church,” that I can find, was President George Q. Cannon in which he was teaching the exclusiveness of the truth revealed in the restoration.

    For instance, there are Christian churches to-day which believe in at least three forms of baptism. Now Paul has expressly declared that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Yet, as I have said, there are churches which are considered orthodox in christendom, that have three different forms of baptism. One believes in sprinkling, another in pouring, and another in immersion. And they differ as to the methods of immersion and the preparatory steps to be taken before being immersed, and before being sprinkled, and so with almost every cardinal doctrine of the Christian religion. There being this diversity, a man with the Bible in his hand going forth in the midst of the Christian sects with an anxious desire to know which is of God, would be puzzled beyond expression to find out which of the various churches laying claim to being divine, and to being the authentic church of Christ, was the true church. He, if he could not obtain knowledge from God, or some communication that would satisfy his mind, would be compelled to give up in despair, or to content himself with the idea that he would join that which suited him best and risk the consequences, hoping that he would fall into the hands of a merciful God. (Pres. George Q. Cannon, JD, vol. 22, 359-361.)

  41. Hi Bryce,

    If your first person plural pronoun was not inclusive, I find it hard to understand in what sense your post was a response to mine. And although the results of your search for “authentic church” are interesting, they are also not a substantive response unless you wish to advocate that we must invariably express ourselves in precisely those words used by church leaders.

    These things, however, are of no matter in the larger picture. Is there some sense in which referring to the true church as the authentic church is a compromise of the claim to exclusiveness?

  42. If my searches are any indication of how we should testify of the Church, given the example by the Brethren who are called of God specifically to proclaim the gospel to the world, then the score comes out zero for “authentic church” to thousands for “true church.” I will follow the Brethren in testifying that this is the true church. No apologies. Clearly the Brethren prefer the latter term over the former when testifying, teaching, and preaching. The former term apparently doesn’t even enter their minds.

  43. President Kimball taught:

    The membership of the Church will always be safe if they follow closely the instructions and admonitions and the leadership of the authorities of the Church.

    The authorities which the Lord has placed in his Church constitute for the people of the Church a harbor, a place of refuge, a hitching post, as it were. No one in this Church will ever go far astray who ties himself securely to the Church Authorities whom the Lord has placed in his Church. This Church will never go astray; the Quorum of the Twelve will never lead you into bypaths; it never has and never will. There could be individuals who would falter; there will never be a majority of the Council of the Twelve on the wrong side at any time. The Lord has chosen them; he has given them specific responsibilities. And those people who stand close to them will be safe. And, conversely, whenever one begins to go his own way in opposition to authority, he is in grave danger. I would not say that those leaders whom the Lord chooses are necessarily the most brilliant, nor the most highly trained, but they are the chosen, and when chosen of the Lord they are his recognized authority, and the people who stay close to them have safety.

    If we will live the gospel and follow the counsel of the leaders of the Church, we will be blessed to avoid many of the problems that plague the world.

    Let us hearken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended upon it, because it does! (Teachings of Presidents of the Church, President Kimball, 249-57.)

  44. May I suggest that being the only true church does not necessarily reflect what kind of condition it is currently in. As Verlan Anderson once said. Those who claim to be the Lords people can rest assured that it is not a matter of IF but WHEN they will go into apostasy.

    After reading section 84 one might refer to it as the only true church which is under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon and other scriptures lightly.

    After reading section 112 one might refer to it as the only true church which along with the rest of the world has been overcome by gross darkness and now ALL FLESH is corrupt… including Mormon flesh.

    After reading section 124 and acknowledging that the Saints were forced to flee the holy place and did not complete either the temple or the boarding house by the deadline given by the Lord, one might refer to it as the only true church that has been rejected by the Lord.

    After reading the consequences of not living consecration after being commanded to live it as listed in multiple sections of the scriptures…. well you get my drift.

  45. CRC, see President Kimball’s comments above. I don’t know how many times the Brethren, going back to Joseph Smith, have taught that the Church would never be taken from the Earth again, till the Son of God comes, but I’m sure it has been in the hundreds.

    There may be many members of the Church who are in apostasy, but you can guarantee that it is not the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.