Christian??? Only true church???

[sock puppet]

Matthew 18:20 provides

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

LDS gather in groups of 2 or more in Jesus' name. So, Jesus will be there, according to Matthew 18:20. Sounds like the basic requirement for a church to be Christian. So the rest of the Christian world, while sure of their stripes of Christianity, should respect the LDS as a Christian church.

On the other hand, the LDS church claims to be the one and only "true" church. If Jesus will be wherever two or more are gathered in his name, the LDS do not have an exclusive with Jesus. So the LDS should drop this silly trope claiming to be the only true church.

Perhaps it would be more Christ-like if both the LDS and the other Christian world would stop with this nonsense--in both directions. After all, Jesus will be wherever at least 2 people are gathered in his name.

[Shulem]

...After all, Jesus will be wherever at least 2 people are gathered in his name.

The LDS apologetic response is easy, pat, and to the point:

They don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost and lack the authority to preach the gospel. They will quote Jesus who said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

[sock puppet]

...After all, Jesus will be wherever at least 2 people are gathered in his name.

The LDS apologetic response is easy, pat, and to the point:

They don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost and lack the authority to preach the gospel. They will quote Jesus who said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Oh, I think the two Biblical passages are congruent. If someone alone professes in the name of Jesus, Jesus might not know him or her. But, if those that have gathered with other believers, in Jesus' name, Jesus will be there at such meetings and Jesus will know them. Also, Jesus doesn't know those 'that work inequity.' How about those not working inequity?

[Limnor]

To agree that Mormons are Christian is to give credibility to theological claims I’m not comfortable with. They can call themselves what they want but I don’t feel like I should have to agree. In fact there are probably several denominations that wouldn’t accept my self-identification.

There’s probably more to “I never knew you” and “iniquity” that could be explored.

[Gadianton]

To agree that Mormons are Christian is to give credibility to theological claims I’m not comfortable with. They can call themselves what they want but I don’t feel like I should have to agree. In fact there are probably several denominations that wouldn’t accept my self-identification.

There’s probably more to “I never knew you” and “iniquity” that could be explored.

To me Mormons are mostly gathered in the name of Joseph Smith or the corporate church. They say they are gathered in the name of Jesus but it strikes me as a pretense. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Jesus is God any more than any other religious figure, so I don't believe that people gathered in the name of Jesus are any better off as people than those gathered in the name of somebody else, including a corporate church. Megyn Kelley recently gathered with her fellow Christians in his name in order to exclaim that the US is superior to Hatti. If Jesus was in the midst of that I'm not sure it's any better than the corporate church getting the focus. I'm just saying that for the most part, when Mormons talk about Jesus, I get the feeling they are paving the way with "common ground". It's not what they are really excited about. They are excited about Joseph Smith. This makes sense because at the end of the day, they must differentiate themselves from the crowd. It makes no sense for Mormons to have Jesus as their central message since their target audience already believes in Jesus. What's the point? It makes perfect sense to "build on common beliefs" by emphasizing Jesus in order to make the target audience comfortable to hear more.

[Limnor]

To agree that Mormons are Christian is to give credibility to theological claims I’m not comfortable with. They can call themselves what they want but I don’t feel like I should have to agree. In fact there are probably several denominations that wouldn’t accept my self-identification.

There’s probably more to “I never knew you” and “iniquity” that could be explored.

To me Mormons are mostly gathered in the name of Joseph Smith or the corporate church. They say they are gathered in the name of Jesus but it strikes me as a pretense. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Jesus is God any more than any other religious figure, so I don't believe that people gathered in the name of Jesus are any better off as people than those gathered in the name of somebody else, including a corporate church. Megyn Kelley recently gathered with her fellow Christians in his name in order to exclaim that the US is superior to Hatti. If Jesus was in the midst of that I'm not sure it's any better than the corporate church getting the focus. I'm just saying that for the most part, when Mormons talk about Jesus, I get the feeling they are paving the way with "common ground". It's not what they are really excited about. They are excited about Joseph Smith. This makes sense because at the end of the day, they must differentiate themselves from the crowd. It makes no sense for Mormons to have Jesus as their central message since their target audience already believes in Jesus. What's the point? It makes perfect sense to "build on common beliefs" by emphasizing Jesus in order to make the target audience comfortable to hear more.

I’d agree with this view. And more—if the hypothesis is correct that the Book of Mormon reflects real 19th-century lives and arguments, then the Book of Mormon itself can be read as a model in which invoking Jesus’ name serves to establish authority and legitimacy for Joseph Smith, and perhaps by extension themselves through the “priesthood.”

I don’t think that was accidental, rather it was part of the design.

Could you describe why members get excited about Joseph Smith? I don’t get it.

[Gadianton]

the Book of Mormon itself can be read as a model in which invoking Jesus’ name serves to establish authority and legitimacy for Joseph Smith

I think this is dead on. Jesus's main role is to legitimize Joseph Smith as a prophet.

When leaders and members go on about how they need to put Jesus first, it's all about knowing that's what the sales pitch needs to be and if they don't do it, they're failing the marketing campaign.

Could you describe why members get excited about Joseph Smith? I don’t get it.

I don't have a good answer as to why Joseph Smith per se. However, I can answer from a broad sociological point of view. We would expect in any religious movement for the movement to get excited about something that differentiates themselves from other movements. Even within Christianity, there is excitement about different parts of the message or alternative interpretations of what's under the common umbrella. For instance, some get excited about the charismatic gifts. Psychologically, these attract the nutters of the world. I can't find an equivalent psychology that makes Smith relatable, however, it's just a brute fact that a basket of tropes got bundled together to construct Smith and he is what this group of people relate to, however, it could have been otherwise with somebody else. Smith was the kid who turned down alcohol and toughed out a painful leg surgery. He ran down a mountain with 250 lb plates and fought off thieves all the way down, as Dan Peterson insists. I recall a middle-age woman in F&T testifying to Smith's broad shoulders and how that kind of man is essentially the fantasy of every women. Then again, look at someone like my dad who frequently said things like, "Joseph Smith taught..." and his level of authority was so implicit that I don't recall dad ever really getting into Joseph Smith life stories as a means to prop him up due to Paul Bunyan characteristics. He was more about Book of Mormon stories. I think my dad liked stories where Joseph Smith "silenced the room" and got authoritarian, laying down the law. That is a similar trope to Jesus schooling the Pharisees.

The interesting thing is that this is not ideal for the church leaders. Smith at the center of it all is broadly, in my opinion, a community construct. The church leaders promoting Jesus is a marketing campaign. Look at Denver Snuffer, getting into Joseph Smith is perhaps the biggest risk to their authority that there is. They commonly say things like the Ensign with the latest General Conference edition should rest next to the Standard Works and be consulted first. The Church leaders want the power and glory for themselves, they want to be the "kings of the hot tub" so to speak. But they can't be stupid about it, they must take a page out of the playbook of Joseph Stalin who fiercely deferred to the authority of Lenin. I suppose in this case it's a two step process, they defer to Jesus to promote Joseph, and promote Joseph to establish themselves as the law.

[Limnor]

The Church leaders want the power and glory for themselves, they want to be the "kings of the hot tub" so to speak. But they can't be stupid about it, they must take a page out of the playbook of Joseph Stalin who fiercely deferred to the authority of Lenin. I suppose in this case it's a two step process, they defer to Jesus to promote Joseph, and promote Joseph to establish themselves as the law.

Could this extend to bishops and other positions of authority?

There seems to be an evolving process in the Book of Mormon, with authority at first being related to the ability to see and translate, which later seems to shift to “taking upon you the name of Christ,” which, if intentional, mirrors Joseph’s own process, complete with warnings against priestcraft and secret combinations.

So i’ve wondered if sharing the priesthood authority was more related to increasing opposition, designed to retain followers through offering positions of power.

If the Book of Mormon first established Joseph as God’s chosen prophet, then priesthood is the tool that reinforces his position.

[Gadianton]

I think you must be right to an extent as we'd expect such a transformation in any movement where promoting one's personal brand is the object of the effort. Of course, Stalin is so interesting because he was quite committed to the party as a youth and a true believer. We don't really know the extent to which Smith ever believed his own tales (or anyone in the current administration believes in 'Merkia) but the investment appears on the low end. Perhaps that's what you're picking up on, is how easily the text may follow what's good for Joseph Smith vs. seriously contributing to the depth of the world building.

I'm the least of the Mormon historians, I believe I recall Quinn saying that the spiritual gifts had to be stomped out early on because anyone could claim revelation for anything and stake a claim to Joseph Smith's power. Do you see anything constraints on seership such as, it's a once-in-a-generation thing or something like that?

What do you see in the priesthood organization? How would the "king of the hot tub" best protect his access to indulgence? Was it a hollowed out organization that kept the power to as few as possible who were trusted or was it spread out to prevent any subordinate from going rogue?

[Limnor]

You’re right, it isn’t unusual for a cult of personality to be built around a charismatic founder. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that one seems to have been built around Joseph. Though it’s probably the far-fetched Paul Bunyan stories that influence me towards disbelief, ironically, so it’s hard for me to take the “thunder fell from his lips” types of stories seriously. And maybe equally hard to believe other people actually believe them. Turning that inward, maybe the same applies to belief in someone walking on water or turning water to wine.

I think there is much room within Christianity for abuse of power—one of the earliest reports speak of the “seven sons of Sceva” who used the name of Christ, though we aren’t explicitly told what their motives were. I suspect there was an underlying motive of power and perhaps monetary gain for doing so, but the text isn’t clear.

The latter part of your post includes every interesting questions. If, in my hypothesis, the inner circle who knew the true origins of the Book of Mormon—and, by extension, that Alvin’s death is reflected in the story of Abinadi—then the question of what kept everyone aligned with Smith as central could be “was it mutual guilt and fear of exposure?”

I’d think for that level of influence to repeat would require something at least equal to the initial “secret combination”, if accurate, that bound them all together in the first place.