One True Church Claim: 20 Year Phase Out Plan

[Hagoth]

I agree with those who say that without the one true church claim, the church becomes irrelevant. Why go on missions, wear secret underwear, perform Masonic gestures, let your loved ones sit in the parking lot while you get married, and all of the rest of those non-mainstream things if the institution itself stops claiming that they are essential and necessary?

There are a couple of ways the church could make itself more relevant. One would be to become a truly Christian church that uses its vast wealth to do charitable things, but I think they are moving toward another kind of relevance. I believe they see the potentiality of massive downsizing of their membership, and in preparation they have been really hammering the tithing message home for the past few decades - because they need as much money as possible now to move on to the next phase.

Tithing was an important principle when I was growing up and I remember getting the message that you should pay tithing before your other bills, but I don't remember ever hearing the message that you should pay the church even if you can't feed your children. I also don't remember a corporate emphasis on things like building malls and buying huge tracts of land for land for logging/strip mining/resort building. I see the church seeking capitalist relevance, rather than spiritual relevance in "building up the kingdom" to shore itself up against death by tithing loss. If the institution can survive as a corporate earning machine it can continue indefinitely even if everyone outside of the COB abandons the Good Ship Zion.

I don't think this is some kind of evil plan by any means, I think it is what you get when an ecclesiastical entity is run by businessmen and lawyers doing their best to serve God by applying their talents. It is not what you would get if it was run by theologians and social workers.

[RubinHighlander]

..."building up the kingdom" to shore itself up against death by tithing loss. If the institution can survive as a corporate earning machine it can continue indefinitely even if everyone outside of the COB abandons the Good Ship Zion.

I was hoping someone would bring this up, nice work Hagoth! This thought had crossed my mind, that the COB could very well survive without the current tax/tithing based income it receives because it has invested so much into other prophetable ventures. I think the tipping point will be when they stop building expensive temples and start closing them down. They might even resurrect the last days narrative as they do that in order to weave a story of justification in prep for the Lord. In the meantime, they'll just keep milking the cow they have and will try to quietly close down and consolidate branches and stakes where there's shrinkage outside of MorCor.

[Emower]

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.

What about food storage? I still get harped on by mom about it, but I feel like this is something that has faded into the background fairly quickly.

[Brent]

The Church could very readily start teaching that other churches have bits and pieces of the truth but only the LDS hold all "Truth". You could expand the "Fullness of gospel" argument to just about anything...i's a deal breaker for the most strident but it's the position used for the Book of Mormon...which "only" holds the "Fullness" but not "all Truth".

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... the_gospel

[Hagoth]

The Church could very readily start teaching that other churches have bits and pieces of the truth but only the LDS hold all "Truth". You could expand the "Fullness of gospel" argument to just about anything...i's a deal breaker for the most strident but it's the position used for the Book of Mormon...which "only" holds the "Fullness" but not "all Truth".

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... the_gospel

Good point. By saying "but we have the temple!" they maintain their speshulness and justify their primary source of income (selling their tokens for money)

[Korihor]

I think the tipping point will be when they stop building expensive temples and start closing them down. They might even resurrect the last days narrative as they do that in order to weave a story of justification in prep for the Lord. In the meantime, they'll just keep milking the cow they have and will try to quietly close down and consolidate branches and stakes where there's shrinkage outside of MorCor.

I've kinda wondered about this. As it currently stands, I can only imagine the temples today are a net loser. 150 temples plus all the expense to maintain them, I don't think this is a very good return on investment. I imagine it has to be a loss leader for the church, as opposed to only 10 +/- years ago when temples might have still been profitable. The unfortunate part is a temple takes several years to actually become operational. From membership activity requirements to site selection to permitting and the actual construction duration, it's 10 years from start to finish. Temples completed in 2017 are based on estimates from 2007, and their crystal ball was dark about this whole internet/Dehlin/essays/podcasts/Facebook/ issues.

Now they are in a tough spot. They have temples all over the place that are difficult to be self-sufficient. I can't imagine the temples in South America, Africa, Pacific Isles, Europe, etc are bringing enough tithing from the local membership districts. I think Utah must still be subsidizing them.

So, if they slow the rate of building new temples, it could look bad. If they close a temple it would look bad. They must continue building temples because we are a temple building people and the church has never been better. They've got a reputation to maintain.

[rosebud]

Has anyone ever watched the Sullivan's presentation from the 2014 exmormon foundation??

The couple had a meeting with a General Authority when they were going through their faith transition and during the course of them expressing their concerns he made this statement to them:

"I know, the one true church concept, you know, is a very tough sale. It’s something our public relations department has never been able to deal with very well."

They had written it down from the interview verbatim as it was so shocking to them. If you want to hear them talk about it on the video it is about minute 36:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMQtQ3XJWs

It's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which abandoning the one true church claim wouldn't lead to people leaving in droves. However, I was born and raised outside of Utah/Idaho (or anywhere else it may be a familial/generational tradition) and it was never cultural to me - it was always about the truth claims of the church. If you take out the "one true church" claim I feel like everything else falls - Restoration of the gospel, keys of Priesthood, saving ordinances etc.

[oliblish]

They will never come out and say that we don't claim to be the one true church. But like they have done with other subjects in the past they will stop mentioning it in conference talks, remove it from lesson manuals, etc. They never admit they are backing away from a teaching, they just let it fade into the past.

[Anon70]

They will never come out and say that we don't claim to be the one true church. But like they have done with other subjects in the past they will stop mentioning it in conference talks, remove it from lesson manuals, etc. They never admit they are backing away from a teaching, they just let it fade into the past.

Won't they also have to change or adjust the temple recommend questions? Restoration of the....?

[Abinidied]

Great discussion thread, Rubin. I had one more thought on the math. Make sure your numbers subtract the inactive who are headed for lesser kingdoms so although their membership records are retained to elevate to the faithful that they are part of an unstoppable force to be I-reckoned with, they don't count, thus dropping total membership by 60ish%. Then don't forget to subtract those who arrive on Kolob but got nervous and forgot which handshake lined up with which token or those missing mandatory fingers or thumbs from chainsaw accidents less those who thought their secret name was Paul and it turned out to be Frank or Betty and such and the actual numbers that will pass the portal with bowels in tact to said planet are somewhere in the less than some very tiny parts per million or far more accurately describe by you (which is hilarious) "gnat on the butt of the stone that will roll over the whole earth (very big stone, very small and very dead gnat! Great visual!).

BS, I mean PS: Oh . . . and let's not forget to calculate in Holland who took the wrong road ending up at a dead-end where a vulture striking a satanic pose is perched upon a small sign-post that reads, 'Outer darkeness.' whereupon his son says, 'What the hell, Dad." and Jeffrey replies, 'That's not a vulture demon, son. That's God. And that's not how you spell darkness, which proves God is just messing with us, which means . . . um, when you really think deeply, son, and remember who your all-powerful father is, ending up here is the answer to your prayer."

Sorry. Had to get the Holland dig in. It seems to be featuring in a few of my posts regardless of subject matter. Speaks to the PO factor that I feel about this ridiculous story he somehow convinced himself would inspire the less than accurately calculated membership.

[Give It Time]

Two thoughts on this.

1) It needs to be done. It badly needs to be done.

2) Look on pretty much any Disaffected Mormon Underground Forum (DAMU) that is six years old or older and you will find that there was a lot of discussion about doctrines that were no longer emphasized and whether or not they were actually still doctrine. Three topics that come to mind are

Homosexuality
Polygamy
Women's inequality

I can see this effort to phase out this doctrine--and it is the very foundation of our church, with the first vision--as being seen as similar behavior to the de-emphasizing the true method of gold plates translation. This will get discussed ad nauseum in the DAMU. New long letters to seminary teachers will be drafted and circulated. People will disaffect and the church will be backed into a corner, once again into publishing another essay that it hides on its website that states that it is or doctrine that we believe we are the one, true church.

Much as I see this change needing to happen. There's also a part of me that thinks​ the church needs to come out of the closet and be its true self in all it's mysogynistic, homophobic, food supply stocking, law of consecration living, polygamist wacky controlling glory. They can also say, we believe we are the one, true church, but we also know we aren't for everybody. They can then tout themselves as the spiritual​ few and proud and anyone else who wants out of the crazy is free to head for the door.

[2bizE]

The Church could very readily start teaching that other churches have bits and pieces of the truth but only the LDS hold all "Truth". You could expand the "Fullness of gospel" argument to just about anything...i's a deal breaker for the most strident but it's the position used for the Book of Mormon...which "only" holds the "Fullness" but not "all Truth".

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... the_gospel

I thought this was already being somewhat taught. Didn't GBH tell people to bring what truths they have and let us add to it?

[Palerider]

I see the church seeking capitalist relevance, rather than spiritual relevance in "building up the kingdom" to shore itself up against death by tithing loss. If the institution can survive as a corporate earning machine it can continue indefinitely even if everyone outside of the COB abandons the Good Ship Zion.

I don't think this is some kind of evil plan by any means, I think it is what you get when an ecclesiastical entity is run by businessmen and lawyers doing their best to serve God by applying their talents. It is not what you would get if it was run by theologians and social workers.

To see the church morph into a corporate giant with no religious mission statement would gall a lot of people don't you think? Essentially the grifters would be taking the money and running. A mega Corp built on a fraud or hoax. Somebody might want revenge one way or another.

[Rob4Hope]

Its mentioned above that a general policy seems to be ignoring a doctrine,even though it is still written. Section 132 was mentioned. This type of waffling is a passive aggressive form of dishonesty--not taking responsibility for something said, and then ignoring it even though it is still out there influencing people.

This infuriates me, because it is dishonest,...just plain dishonest.

Where does the church get off! They preach honesty, and they slowly use policies and tactics that break their very teachings?...and yet have the gaul to judge someone on the merits of their honest or integrity?

What a load of horseSh!t...

[wtfluff]

I see the church seeking capitalist relevance, rather than spiritual relevance in "building up the kingdom" to shore itself up against death by tithing loss. If the institution can survive as a corporate earning machine it can continue indefinitely even if everyone outside of the COB abandons the Good Ship Zion.

I don't think this is some kind of evil plan by any means, I think it is what you get when an ecclesiastical entity is run by businessmen and lawyers doing their best to serve God by applying their talents. It is not what you would get if it was run by theologians and social workers.

To see the church morph into a corporate giant with no religious mission statement would gall a lot of people don't you think? Essentially the grifters would be taking the money and running. A mega Corp built on a fraud or hoax. Somebody might want revenge one way or another.

Behold, I give unto you: City Creek South™ : Mountain View Village

It's completely worth 10% of your income to have nice shopping centers all over the salt lake valley, isn't it?

Riverton absolutely has to compete with the neighboring cities for tax revenue! The fact that poor families in developing countries are helping "finance" such ventures is of no import to you. Shopping centers make Corporate Mormon Jesus HAPPY! HAPPY I TELL YA!!!

[Hagoth]

So is the new mall there to protect the gates of the Draper temple?

[wtfluff]

So is the new mall there to protect the gates of the Draper temple?

Nope, the new LDS Corporation™'s new shopping center is on the West side of the valley, it must be to protect the gates of the Oquirrh Mountain Temple. The thing is... There's ALREADY a shopping center literally RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Oquirrh Mountain Temple. The problem with that shopping center (The District) must be : The LDS Corporation™ doesn't own The District.

Maybe the corporation is hoping that after a hard-core mormon LARP session, folks will drive 5 minutes further South to an LDS sponsored shopping center to buy their ice cream?

Maybe the Corporation™ should just by The District, and not shut down one of their "welfare farms" and create more urban sprawl... That's not the True™ way to "build the kingdom" though, now is it?



I guess Draper isn't righteous enough to be blessed with an LDS Corporation™ shopping center. All in good time I s'pose...

[Hagoth]

The problem with that shopping center (The District) must be : The LDS Corporation™ doesn't own The District.

Maybe the plan is to kill it, like they did the Gateway, by offering free rent and other tithing-funded incentives (ok general fund - huge difference ) to lure away anchor tenants.

I wonder if they'll use boobs and booze to market this one too.

[Korihor]

What a load of horseSh!t...

My favorite quote of the day and I completely agree!

I wonder if they'll use boobs and booze to market this one too.

I never thought about this particular detail. Such sell outs!

Nope, the new LDS Corporation™'s new shopping center is on the West side of the valley, it must be to protect the gates of the Oquirrh Mountain Temple. The thing is... There's ALREADY a shopping center literally RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Oquirrh Mountain Temple. The problem with that shopping center (The District) must be : The LDS Corporation™ doesn't own The District.

Maybe the corporation is hoping that after a hard-core mormon LARP session, folks will drive 5 minutes further South to an LDS sponsored shopping center to buy their ice cream?

I guess Draper isn't righteous enough to be blessed with an LDS Corporation™ shopping center. All in good time I s'pose...

Wait, this is the first I've heard about this. I thought City Creek South was a thing, not City Creek West. When did the Daybreak Mall thing get announced?

[wtfluff]

The problem with that shopping center (The District) must be : The LDS Corporation™ doesn't own The District.

Maybe the plan is to kill it, like they did the Gateway, by offering free rent and other tithing-funded incentives (ok general fund - huge difference ) to lure away anchor tenants.

I wonder if they'll use boobs and booze to market this one too.

I don't know if the ultimate goal is to kill The District, but they definitely want to drive business from The District to Mountain View Village.

Looking at the new homes being built in the area, population seems be growing a lot, so hopefully there's enough business to support both of the shopping centers. If there isn't, I personally hope that the LDS sponsored shopping center fails.

Boobs and Booze? Man I sure hope they use that marketing strategy. Not that I personally like Boobs or Booze at all! Boobs and Booze could put weight on my believing family member's shelves.) Let's see... How many more times can I mention Boobs and Booze????

Wait, this is the first I've heard about this. I thought City Creek South was a thing, not City Creek West. When did the Daybreak Mall thing get announced?

If you've heard of a development lovingly (sarcastically) referred to as City Creek South, this is the development you are looking for. It's in the far South-Western part of the salt lake valley.

It's been talked about for a few years. I don't remember if we discussed it much here, but over on that reddit thingy there were some discussions. I"m too lazy to look up the length of time folks have been talking aboot it...