A friend of mine in an online forum used an interesting analogy in describing his evolving relationship with the Church in his life (he’s a little older than I am, which means he’s lived *most* of his life at this point and can look back). I thought this was an interesting thought experiment to share with you, dear reader.[1]
Making the analogy of one’s life to a theater production is an old idea. One of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches is about this analogy:
All the world’s a stage,
As You Like It, William Shakespeare
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
As implied in this speech, our life stages alter the play and alter its characters, but if we think of the role the Church plays in our lives, it certainly alters over our lifetime as well. It may retain an important role throughout one’s life, or not, but certain stages of life as well as how our own character develops and alters through the events in our lives can change the role we allow the Church to play. Here are the roles I brainstormed and what they might mean for individuals:
Director. This feels like the role the Church would most like to play in the lives of members, interpreting the plot that has been laid out, giving direction on how the characters should look (including dress), act, react, what the words they speak mean, and how they relate to one another. In certain periods of life, this role is probably more likely to make sense than in other times of life. For example, if you are serving a full-time mission, the Church as director probably feels fairly natural. The Church is literally putting words in your mouth, telling you what time to get up, how to dress, who to talk to, how to feel about it, etc. A mission is the most Church-directed phase I ever had in my own life. Once I got home and normalized, though, that role just didn’t work for me. I think it does for some. There were times in my actual mission where it didn’t work for me, and I suppose that’s why (which readers of my memoir The Legend of Hermana Plunge will know).
Playwright / Author. For some, the Church may be in a more foundational role, but not involved in how the play is interpreted and unfolds. The Church provides the “text”: doctrines, policies, manuals, scriptures and General Conference talks, but the individual member is in charge of how the play unfolds with these as a starting point or a set of assumptions that require implementation and personal interpretation. I have a good friend who is a believing member, but no longer attends church due to some very bad blood over a messy divorce, and the Church still plays this role for her. It forms her belief system. She reads her scriptures and abides by Church teachings. She just doesn’t attend.
Producer. This is a role that is more removed that the Director, but still has oversight over the production. There are routine check-ins to ensure that the play stays within the bounds agreed upon (budget, for one). For many in the Church, this role describes their relationship to the Church. It’s not involved in every relationship and interaction, but it’s still got a lot of control at the end of the day. The member equivalent might be someone who goes to tithing settlement and keeps a temple recommend, but doesn’t really think much about the Church from day to day.
Executive producer. The big difference between a producer and an executive producer is that the executive producer is even less involved in the daily and routine check-ins. The executive producer may simply be the “money” or the financial approval if the production is going to have an issue. As such, the role is more transactional. They only get involved when the play needs something from them. The member equivalent to this might be someone who really only thinks about the Church’s involvement for weddings and funerals. Given the Church’s demand for oversight (through regular worthiness interviews), this low-level involvement is less easy to manage than in other sects.
Casting director. Just as it sounds, this is the person who decides which actors are performing which roles in the play. In terms of a Church member, this would be someone who relies on the Church to create their social network, their friendships. There was a recent Church survey someone shared online in which members were asked how many of their friends were “not church members.” The highest number the survey could fathom was “more than four”(!). I scoffed at the idea that there were people with fewer than 4 close friends who were not members of the Church. Don’t they make friends with co-workers? I guess if you lived in a place where nearly everyone is Mormon, that might be possible, or if you don’t consider many of your friends “close,” then OK. As a 53 year old woman who grew up in a place with almost no Church members and then had a 30 year global career that involved very few Church members, it just made no sense to me. So Church as “casting director” is perhaps a common role the Church plays in some members’ lives.
Love Interest. Hear me out. This role is the most important role to the protagonist, in many ways the end goal of the play (to reconcile the lovers and imply a happy future). The love interest is the protagonist’s desire. They may be separated by misunderstanding, evil interlopers, and other plot devices, but ultimately the play isn’t over until they reunite. The love interest in the play has a gravity that attracts the protagonist, altering how we interpret all the actions (whether they bring the characters closer or force them apart). And if you can’t see the parallels to the Church in all that, well, bless your heart.
Villain / Antagonist. Like the love interest, this role creates gravity in the plot, usually by balancing against the protagonist. The antagonist acts as a foil for the protagonist, thwarting them, holding them back, undoing the good they try to do, and ultimately propelling them forward toward whatever they must become. The antagonist and the love interest often provide a similar tension or type of energy to the production. There is an orbital effect on the protagonist that is relative to the actions of the antagonist. Consider Les Miserables, in which Jean ValJean (our protagonist) tries to do good works, but is constantly chased down and thwarted by rule-bound Javert. Without that struggle, the play could end in the first five minutes. At times, the Church’s pull functions with this type of resistance, one reason some like to say, “They can leave the Church, but they can’t leave it alone.” Jean ValJean left the prison, but Javert could not leave him alone.
Red Herring. A red herring is a character who looks like the villain, and we may become convinced they are the villain, but ultimately, they aren’t. Sometimes a person who has left the Church blames the Church for negative outcomes that were inevitable from other sources. The red herring allows us to waste plot time misunderstanding the deeper causes.
Supporting role. This is basically all the characters that aren’t main roles. It could be the best friend / side-kick, or it could be someone with even fewer lines than that. Supporting roles are sometimes so great that they up-stage the main characters. An example of a supporting character is Alfred the Butler to Batman. Alfred is sometimes really well cast and lights up the scenes he’s in, but at other times, he’s just kind of some stiff British dude showing up and giving the main character messages. We forget he’s there.
Extra. This is a character that is just there for background, but doesn’t speak. These roles might be important and indispensible to move props from place to place on stage or to make the setting more realistic, but they are needed in the way that scenery is. For a Church member, this would indicate minimal interaction, but it’s still there in the background making things move smoothly.
Comic Relief. A character inserted for comic relief releases the dramatic tension in the play by distracting the audience with something amusing and engaging, different from the regular actions in the play. This role could really be any of the characters, or even a prop or animal actor. In terms of the Church, some folks like to attend because of the quirky Church members and the funny anecdotes that come from interacting with them. I’m sure Primary teachers can relate.
Understudy. They say there are no bad ideas in brainstorming, but this one might stretch the analogy beyond its limits. The understudy steps in whenever a “more important” actor is unable to perform, so the characteristic of the understudy is a wannabe, someone insecure but striving to become more important to the play. I suppose in this way, all missionary work is “understudy” mode, trying to insert ourselves into someone’s life to make our mark. For Church members, this could look like someone who would like the Church to have a more limited role, but who is constantly sucked in by needing the Church or by getting involved in charity or Church callings (a deliberate way to make the Church’s role larger in the lives of members).
Orchestra. This one feels a bit like the setting, the extras, and the playwright, in that it’s in the background, and something we seldom think about directly, but the music (remember live theater with an orchestra? Those were the days!) sets the tone for the play. It stirs the soul. It adds emotion, meaning, and connection to what unfolds. It can even add whimsy at comedic moments. It doesn’t require thought. It is to be experienced. At its best, certainly this is the role religion plays in our lives, something that adds meaning, that connects us to meaning, that colors the otherwise bland occurences of our lives, imbuing them with emotional.
To apply this analogy to myself, I think the Church wants to be the director, the producer, the casting director, the executive producer, and even the love interest! There have been times in my life when the Church has certainly felt like the casting director, and if the actors it puts forward fit the play I’m trying to create, that’s been fine with me; lately, though, that’s not who’s showing up for the casting calls. As I get older, the Church occasionally pops into my life as comic relief, particularly some of the eccentric or outlandish views that crop up among the members. These characters can be amusing like an oddball Steve Buscemi type, spouting conspiracy theories, or non-serious actors for their outlandish racist or sexist comments, characters unrelated to the play of my own life, but who shout their non-sequiturs from the sidelines in Archie Bunker fashion. At times, those views are so opposed to my own moral values, that it borders on a villainous relationship. How can anyone actually be so misogynistic, racist, or clueless about their own privilege in 2021?
- Which of these roles do you see the Church playing in your life? Has this changed over time?
- Is that the role you think the Church plays in others’ lives around you? If it’s different, why?
- Have I missed some important roles that make sense to you and would improve the analogy?
Discuss.
[1] H/T to “Judge Me, Dear Reader,” a book about Emma Smith, but also, calling people “dear reader” kind of creeps me out.
Wheat & Tares 
thoughtful and interesting and entertaining. well done
Hawk girl makes some interesting analogies here. Very insightful.
It must be acknowledged that many young members want to play the part of “extra.” They want to be in the background with no active role and no responsibility. That way, they hope to avoid the attention of the director that would cause them to have to work hard to fill important callings.
Some relish playing the part of the antagonist, including the entertainment industry itself. The greatest example was the latest Hofmann documentary that went out of its way to attack the Church.
And then we have the protagonists. Those who are willing to put in the time and effort to carry the whole production. Those who reject a life of substance abuse and wanton sexuality in order to serve others for the greater good.
A thought-provoking post. The Church certainly wants to be everything good and the center of attention for every member, with a life-long “love is blind” perspective on any faults, problems, or issues. And now that you mention it there is certainly a life cycle component to the relationship people have with the Church.
For many, the older you get, the less relevant the Church is. Big exception for older temple workers. But many older members eventually reach the condition where they can no longer physically attend church. That really changes the relationship in most cases. Now with Covid, that effect has been extended to almost the entire LDS population for a certain period. Some will come back; some won’t. Some will discover their relationship to the Church has changed as a result of an extended absence; others won’t. I expect we’ll get a dozen hand-wringing accounts of good and bad examples of this in the next General Conference.
It must be acknowledged that many middle-aged and older members want to play the part of “extra.” They want to be in the background with no active role and no responsibility for the organization and meetings of the Church. Some of them are tired. Some are not well. Some are tired of those things about our Church culture that are not inspiring to them or even contrary to the gospel of Christ and the greatest commandments He identified. Some of them put in a great deal of time and effort elsewhere to serve others for the greater good. Some even avoid uncharitable judgment of others. Some are content to provide comic relief that can make others’ burdens lighter. Thanks, JCS
In Hollywood most actors and actresses work until they can’t get work. The fame and fortune is too good. But every once in a while you read about an actor who left the stage while on top. Maybe he or she found something more meaningful in life or maybe just got sick of the Hollywood rat race. Maybe life inside the Hollywood bubble isn’t as glamorous or real as we are lead to believe on the outside.
Some of us in the Church have walked away after allowing the Church to fill all the roles described so cleverly above. We were good to the Church, and the Church was good to us as long as we played by the rules . But then we discovered some things about the Church that made us reassess. And we also discovered some things about the world outside of the Church that (contrary to what we were told) weren’t so bad after all.
I’m sure most x-actors are grateful for the money and public acknowledgement they were able to acquire during their peak acting years. But for some of them, who left while on top, they are probably just as grateful for their x-acting lives. They’ve entered a new chapter which is probably just as satisfying, especially when they consider how inauthentic and phony some of their past life’s decisions and behaviors were. They don’t hate Hollywood. They aren’t lazy. They are simply happy to have moved on.
I’m somewhat adverse to ascribing anthropomorphic characteristics to “the church”. It isn’t a decision making entity in itself, but a group of individuals with a shared purpose. As with most group entities, the “character” of the group is most influenced by those in charge, although there is often lag between the examples of the leadership and the corresponding behavior in the membership.
I’m not sure senior leadership in the church all agree on what the church’s role should be. Some leaders seemed to take a more directorial, authoritarian role (e.g. Bednar). Others seem to beleive in a role more akin to an acting coach, teaching by example (e.g. Uctdorf). Some leaders are comedians, some live life like it’s a tragedy. Many like to dramatize history into propaganda. I actually think that this is a feature and not necessarily a bug since different leaders will resonate with different individuals. Christ’s body needs all kinds, and we all need Christ in our own unique and special way.
This is a delightful post! Some possible roles that were left out:
Censor/S&P–the Church likes to dictate moral boundaries on what we are not allowed to do as members (WoW, Law of Chastity, etc) but as members we sometimes test those boundaries to see what we can get away with. They decide what profanities to overdub with sanitized alternatives. That, and the whole cultural thing about avoiding R-rated films.
Craft Services–for some, the Church is their primary source of food, whether through potluck suppers or the bishop’s storehouse.
Streaming Service–the Church endeavors to be the exclusive source of your favorite content, and locks you into a paid monthly subscription to get it.
Some of the comments refer to the role as the member’s relationship to the church, but I took it the opposite way – the church’s relationship to the member. The church is totally an extra in my life. It’s sometimes there in the background, and has stuff to do, but most of the time it’s not visible at all. I literally do not think of church at all except on Sundays, and then it’s only because we are doing home church.
So what of we flip the analogy and ask what play best represents the church’s performance on the stage. Let’s stick with Shakespeare.
Church leadership provably thinks it is perfoming The Tempest, a tale of a wronged, but sagacious exile aided by supernatural entities, who rescues a group of lost souls shipwrecked on a lone a dreary island.
Yet I’m beginning to wonder if The Taming of the Shrew best represents the church. A tale about the subjugation of women into mindless obedience to their husbands, yet the whole tale is a prank played upon an unsuspecting commoner who tricked into thinking he is a nobel and great one.
JLM, I”d go further and say King Lear: A king who wants desperately to hold onto his authority without actually doing the things that led to the conferring of that authority in the first place. Or if we wanted to get really dark, Coriolanus: A tragic hero who is only good at one thing (combat) and cannot make any sort of adjustments to life off of the battlefield because of his pride.
“WONDERING” – Well done and well said. After all of these years giving myself to “the Church”…..I’ve finally reach a point where I’m asking “what has the Church, ever done for me”? Sadly, the answer is…..practically nothing. I’m still “kicking my own ass” that I didn’t learn – much, much earlier in my life – that’s there’s a huge difference between belonging to (or being born into) a religion…..and desiring a spiritual life.
If the church is creating a play, and it has no audience it is irrelavent, as a play it is a failure. Like a primary school play. Do the church improve the world, or influence others for good? By their fruits? No good fruit. Irrelavent!
At this point, I think the church generally occupies the role of film editor, which Wikipedia defines as “the creative head of the post production department … responsible for assembling the picture into a cohesive edited story.” They’ve been cherry-picking (or misrepresenting) historical bits for so long in an effort to assemble a “cohesive edited story.” That’s now a problem as it turns out someone found all the film left on the cutting room floor.
In my life, the church has certainly occupied a very central role for a long while—at times the director, at times the screenwriter. At present, it’s more like a character on a TV show that didn’t test well with audiences and is steadily being phased out with less screen time.
“Casting director. Just as it sounds, this is the person who decides which actors are performing which roles in the play.”
I consider the Casting Director to be the Bishop. Mother’s Day 2021 started out like any other. I consider it to be one of the finest days to attend Sacrament meeting. Boy, was I sorely disappointed last Sunday.
When you think of Mother’s Day at church, what comes to mind? IMHO, it is enriching songs that showcase mothers or families, speakers who focus on their own experiences as a Mother or on experiences of a Mother from the past. Sometimes a musical guest or selection is nice. And of course, a small trinket at the end of the meeting presented to all the sisters at the meeting.
Here’s where our “Casting Director” went a bit wrong. The “actor” he chose was a male member of the ward whose “role” was to speak on the following subject: The importance of being a card-carrying temple recommend holder. That’s it. No Mother subjects or musical selection or talks for our ward.
I am certain I was not the only one in the audience who found it a bit “off”.
Think, Casting Director. Think.
I’m not surprised that some women dislike a sacrament meeting that is not about mothers on US Mothers’ Day which is now more a Hallmark Holiday than a Christian one, despite its origin as a women’s activist event opposing war. I also know a good many women, some who are mothers, who hate sacrament meetings on US Mothers’ Day that are about women and/or mothers. There’s no way to make them all happy. But “the importance of being a card-carrying temple recommend holder” is an almost guaranteed disaster of a subject for sacrament meeting on any Sunday.
I am at least annually amazed at how little our Christian church makes of Holy Week and Easter without any significant fuss at that failure compared to the outrage and depression when a sacrament meeting on US Mother’s Day doesn’t please women and mothers.
I rather prefer the instruction one stake president gave the bishops in his stake: If you cannot readily relate your proposed sacrament meeting topic to the atonement of Christ, you either have not thought about the right things or you have the wrong topic.
Frankly, I think the church wants to play all the positions.
I’m on a team that produces 100+ industrial videos a year. They run from 30 seconds to 10 minutes or so. We’ve racked up 20+ national awards – so I think we do a good job.
One thing that we do not allow is ego. Not on set, not in the editing bay, not in the 3D studio. Anyone can speak up – from the make-up artist to the lowly production assistant to the teleprompter operator. We will consider any idea that could make the production better. We experiment and try on suggestions. These conversations happen every day and our processes facilitate them.
In my six decades in the church, I think that the latitude members have in most areas has narrowed: doctrine/policy, use of the building, lesson manuals, dress codes, youth activities, etc. In short – all-things-church has become less participatory and more proscribed.
Local leaders can have a big impact on how much input the rest of us have – for better or for worse – but I get the sense that everyone feels that they are on a short leash. For some, that is comforting. For others it is disquieting.
“Within the bounds the Lord has set” seems to apply to an ever expanding body of minutia.
Interesting topic and questions. What was missing from the job listing was that of drama critic. While the Church has many external critics, which its leaders claim they ignore, I can’t see that they have much in the way of internal critics. People on the inside who can provide honest feedback on Church policies, practices, and priorities. People who are in touch with the membership and can provide straightforward recommendation to the Q15. The Church needs an ombudsman or ombudsmen. The Church has sent out opinion surveys to members, but I wonder how seriously they are taken/
While at BYU-Provo, I was introduced to 2 interesting dramas: En Attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot) and J.B. I took a class from a visiting profession on 20th-century French lit. There we studied the writing of Samuel Beckett (an Irishman, who wrote in French). A Church production of Waiting would be fun. Except Church leaders would want to rewrite the ending. They would have Godot (think God) shows up.
BYU, in the early 70’s, staged J.B., Archibald McLeish’s Pulitzer-prize-winning update of the Book of Job. If my memory is correct, the ending of the production was altered. So BYU profs or administrators were comfortable messing with a widely regarded, important piece of literature. I suppose the Church would be best as a rewrite organization. And, of course, director and executive producer. The problem is: they don’t trust their audience.
I like Roger D. Hansen’s suggestion that the Church would do well to have an internal ombudsman. I would love to see it. But even if the Church did have such a position, I question how effective it would be. It is very hard for any organization to accept messengers who bear unwelcome news that not all is well. The Chinese recognized this problem long ago, and the language has an idiomatic phrase describing this: one should report only good news to one’s superiors; never report bad news.
I worked for the Department of Defense for 40-odd years. It’s version of Ombudsman is the Office of the Inspector General (IG), which is tasked with uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse. Sometimes, its work is valuable and helpful. Sometimes, though, people in high positions of power choose, for political reasons, to ignore the discoveries of waste, fraud, and abuse. I have also seen innocent people damaged by IG investigations, even as wrongdoers are exposed.
During my career, I learned that the bearer of unwelcome news often bears the brunt of management anger. It takes an exceptional manager to be willing to absorb unwelcome data.
I also learned that telling the truth can be controversial. I once participated in a military exercise, in which the real-life careers of some of the players were damaged, because they had played their roles in the exercise scenario too well.
I work in banking compliance and am well trained in searching for the honest facts – such truth is always useful.
Back to the cinema analogy – as a missionary I grew extremely tired of “Together Forever” and the like, although there is a soft spot in my heart for Brother McLean.
I’ve been thinking about this and I think the ultimate problem is with the script. It was written in an era when patriarchy was the accepted way and a whole bunch of structures were set in place to accommodate that – temple rituals, hierarchy etc. We were all required to fit into that narrative even though there were many things didn’t fit this prescribed script like racial equality, sexual gender variations etc.. Over the years there has been some gradual tweaking of the script but that comes with a cost too because wasn’t the script supposed to be perfect?
There are so many great actors on this stage and I will always value their efforts and talents and goodness but the script has sorely failed for me.
“Over the years there has been some gradual tweaking of the script but that comes with a cost too because wasn’t the script supposed to be perfect?”
I sometimes wonder who invented the notion that the script was supposed to be perfect. It wasn’t JS or BY, both of whom made significant “tweaks” to scriptures and temple proceedings. Is the “perfect script” notion folklore from the general membership?
@wondering – I get what you say and you make a valid point but the church was also founded on a claim of ‘restoration of all things’ with prophets even. It makes for a rather complicated God who changes his minds on things – I don’t think that’s how the COJCOLDS teaches about God – that he changes his mind? I tend to think we create God in our own image rather than the other way around. Just my thoughts on the subject.
Or is it the human prophets’ perceptions and attempts to articulate those perceptions of God’s mind that changes? I would agree that our perceptions are significantly influenced by our culture, understanding, and wishes, but I don’t believe those are the only influences. I rather think that because we (and the prophets), with Paul, “see through a glass, darkly [ and] now … know [only] in part…” I don’t think that amounts to creating God, nor do I think it has been supposed that the “restoration of all things” has been completed — or ever will be. Just my thoughts on the subject.
The amazing Carol Lynn Pearson wrote “I’m the one who writes my own story, I decide the person I’ll be …” in My Turn on Earth. The lyrics go on to describe a partnership with the divine (a gift of an eraser and a wise co-writer- Jesus). We should all feel empowered to be the author of our own destinies, the captains of our souls. We are the Shakespeares. Additionally, at the end of the day we account to our maker regarding our lives, not the church. So we are the house owners, responsible for the bills after all is said and done. We can delegate certain roles to the church in our show, but it’s important to keep in mind that we alone are accountable for what happens.
So what is the church? Maybe an employed acting coach to help us refine our craft and polish the rough spots. Maybe it is the stage manager that tries to organize whatever is happening backstage.
This interesting exercise (great post!) draws out the tension between man being made for the sabbath, or the sabbath being made for man.
I lean toward the sabbath being made for man, in a individualistic and self-determined model. And the n that model, I hold the pen and the house belongs to me.
Wondering and Di: Thanks for that recent flurry of perspectives. I’m responding because this brings up something I’ve always puzzled over and which remains a sort of fundamental dilemma for me. If people we label prophets can never do any better than fumbling around and making mistakes (Is this a misrepresentation of “seeing through a glass, darkly”?), which is basically the human experience, what are we to believe about their supposed connection to divinity? Do they have any or, rather, any more than the rest of us? The church seems like they are caught in this contradiction. We have access to divine inspiration like prophets, but prophets are necessary because (????), but they also see through a glass, darkly, so we should give them a break.
Honestly, when someone says the church is necessary and valuable because it enables people to build community around shared faith, I completely get that. But the church always adds this subhead in which it is the only organization led by Christ, authorized to speak for God, with living prophets in modern times. Getting back to Di’s point, I just don’t see how the contradictory ideas and periodic tweaks fix the script in a modern world. Hattie McDaniel may have been happy with her role in Gone with the Wind given the times in which is was produced, but she probably wouldn’t be now.
Jaredsbrother, I think the “one true Church” thing is often overplayed and perhaps widely misunderstood.
You might be interested in the Statement of the First Presidency Regarding God’s Love for All Mankind issued February 15, 1978. It says, among other things: “… The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come. …”
You can find It on the net here (and other places):
https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/Feb%2015%2019798%20First%20Presidency%20Gods%20Love%20for%20all%20mankind.html
It was discussed to some extent over at BCC in 2009: https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/10/truth-claims/
Also of relevance is Apostle Orson Whitney’s teaching that “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people” (Conference Report, Apr. 1928, 59), quoted by Ezra Taft Benson (Conference Report, Apr. 1972, 49) who elaborated: “God, the Father of us all uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.” More recently Whitney’s been quoted again in general conference, I think by Elder Todd Christofferson who also remarked publicly that “truth is scattered liberally across the globe.” (Speech given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson at the University of Oxford on June 15, 2017. https://www.deseret.com/2017/6/16/20614250/transcript-elder-d-todd-christofferson-reflects-on-watergate )
Whitney’s view shows up again in a devotional talk given on January 12, 2012 by Robert L. Millet, Professor of Religion and Emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, and in the Ensign in 2013. https://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-december-2013/2013-12-00-ensign-eng.pdf?lang=eng
A somewhat restricted view of “only true church” was set out in the Ensign in 1988: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-relationship-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-to-the-non-christian-religions-of-the-world?lang=eng
Even that view may be overstated as to “only organization led by Jesus Christ” if one forgets the qualifying end of that sentence: “through the earthly ministries of prophets and Apostles” which does not exclude others being led by the “light of Christ”
Some of us think the curriculum committee, local, area, and general leaders, and teachers in our wards might do well to teach more often the broader views expressed at times by some of our leaders and a lot less often that “Follow the Prophet” jingle many of us learned in Primary.
Jaredsbrother, I collected some potentially relevant quotes and citations for you, but the comment doesn’t show up. Maybe it was too much for the spam filter. Maybe somebody will fish it out of quarantine. The first and last sentences are:
I think the “one true Church” thing is often overplayed and perhaps widely misunderstood.
Some of us think the curriculum committee, local, area, and general leaders, and teachers in our wards might do well to teach more often the broader views expressed at times by some of our leaders and a lot less often that “Follow the Prophet” jingle many of us learned in Primary.
Wondering, thanks. I would be hard pressed to differ with you that the one true church moniker is overplayed. And I get that the church can’t walk it back because it is a foundational belief for so many members. Paraphrasing Tip O’Neill, all religious connection is probably local.
I really like Jack Hughes’s point about the Church as streaming service, where it provides unique content (“If you leave, where will you go?”) and hopes to lock down members’ financial contributions. In that sense, the Church sees itself as the financial backer of the production of our lives. God (which the Church helpfully sees itself standing in for) gave us the raw materials for our lives, so shouldn’t it be a small price for us to pay just a bit off the top of our profits back to God (with the Church again helpfully standing in as direct recipient).
I know this probably sounds like a super cynical take. I’m sure that GAs see tithing as not a central commandment, certainly not as important as loving your fellow person or the law of chastity. It’s just one needed to keep the lights on and the Church running. But as long as they make it a hurdle you have to clear to get to the temple, they’re making it gigantic in practice.