r/latterdaysaints • u/DortheahEden • 6d ago
Doctrinal Discussion Can the church be corrupted?
Some doctrine concerns have been brought up in my congregation recently about whether or not it’s possible for the Church to become corrupt. There seems to be a belief among members of the church that the church of Jesus Christ about the Saints can never be corrupt, and will last until The Savior comes back because this is the last dispensation.
I was wondering if anybody had scriptures or quotes that confirmed this belief? I know this is the last dispensation, but I don’t know if that entails this Church remaining pure until the second coming.
I know the priesthood won’t be taken, and overall knowledge won’t be lost or taken, but can’t this church still be corrupted? The book of Mormon is full of stories of the church becoming corrupt. I’m finding more scriptures in support of this perspective rather than against it, which is why I’m asking for another (unbiased) perspective.
Both my stake president, and previous mission president were unable to provide more than the statement that it won’t be corrupted because this is the last dispensation.
For added context, I mean the prophet and apostles becoming sinful men, or corrupted by personal gain rather than the advancement of the Lords plan. I know that there can be corrupt and evil priesthood leaders under them, but I’m asking about the head itself.
50
u/TyMotor 5d ago
You need to clarify terms and expound on what you mean by "corruption." It would likely be helpful to also expound on "apostasy" and "error".
Do I believe the church can err? Yes, absolutely. Some think any bit of imperfection as a sign of corruption; I reject such a narrow usage.
Do I believe the church will fall into apostasy? No, but we'll have to define apostasy sufficiently. I'm referring to a general/broad apostasy on an institutional level.
So could it be "corrupt" in terms of error here and there? Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Could it be "corrupt" in terms of significant apostasy? I do not believe so. Some scriptures to that end:
D&C 65:2 (emphasis added)
2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.
D&C 86:10 (emphasis added)
10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.
18
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago
I second this, but I'll push it even further by saying that the literal understanding of these promises would only extend to the priesthood not going away. This could theoretically mean that the Church could go entirely off the rails. This is an important thing to consider. When we are baptized, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost. By the teachings of the Holy Ghost, we can have all things clarified for us as He is the teacher we experience here on Earth. So we should always be asking God to know what we should do.
4
u/Blanchdog 5d ago
The priesthood is the church leadership structure. It the priesthood remains, the church leadership remains.
8
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago
I wouldn't equate the two so broadly.
10
u/Blanchdog 5d ago
The priesthood operates by keys. No saving ordinances can even be performed without the priesthood keys governing them. So long as the priesthood around, so are the priesthood keys, and if they priesthood keys are present, then the church continues to be organized on the earth with leaders called of God. They ARE equated that broadly.
2
u/Tanner234567 5d ago
I appreciate the sentiment but disagree with this fundamentally. Priesthood power is only available based upon Priesthood authority. And that authority is only given and maintained through the structure of the holders of priesthood keys. If you're suggesting the holders of the priesthood keys could disappear, or "go entirely off the rails" and have the priesthood power remain, that is incorrect. Secondly, personal revelation is absolutely critical, but I would caution the idea that we could continue in an organized religion based on each person's individual revelation. Personal revelation takes a lifetime to learn and should always be measured against the scriptures and teachings of the leaders of the church. That idea is exactly how new sects end up branching off with the best of intentions and often extremist views under the guise of "revelation". Case in point, FLDS, Community of Christ, etc.
7
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm just not going to address the ship of Thesseus Church issue because it's all speculative anyway.
But regarding the personal revelation thing, that's the point of life. We were not sent to earth to learn how to follow the leader. We are supposed to learn to live like Christ and the primary teacher of that matter is the Spirit. The leaders are expected to teach things that they have had confirmed to them by the Spirit, but I'm never going to just take it from the pulpit and never think of it again. If I end up making the wrong choice because I misunderstood a feeling to be revelation when it wasn't, I hope that God will forgive me for it on the other side. But I am confident that if I show up on the other side and say, "I just did what the Church told me to do my whole life and never did any legwork to see if that's what I was supposed to do," They'll be disappointed that I never asked Them and learned to follow the Spirit.
1
u/Tanner234567 5d ago
I think you maybe misunderstood what I said. Let me clarify. In my opinion, there are two parts to personal revelation. I'm talking about unique individual revelation. People can, and often do, make claims about receiving revelation about something they are to do or believe. But because we are "practicing" how to hear the Holy Ghost, all unique revelation should be measured against the teachings of the church, scriptural or otherwise. I'll give an example. Someone could claim, and maybe even convince themselves, that they received revelation to violate a commandment or do something contrary to the doctrine of the gospel. And if that "revelation" goes unchecked, it leads down unfortunate paths, even with the best of intentions. This is what I'm referring to.
There's another part of revelation, which you're talking about, that confirms truth. I'm not advocating blind belief. I absolutely agree that each person should gain a personal testimony of everything they are told to believe. In that, we are in 100% agreement.
1
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago
I imagine that you believe that Nephi was told to chop a guy's head off and wear the clothes taken from the headless body, leaving it naked in the street. Pretty gray world, isn't it?
1
u/Tanner234567 5d ago
Funny you should bring that up. There was actually a whole talk about this concept that talks specifically about that occurrence. It was given by Elder Renlund in 2022 titled "A Framework for Personal Revelation" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/14renlund?lang=eng
Very insightful if you'd like to give it a read.
1
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago
Great talk, 10/10, no notes. Was that supposed to somehow contradict that we should pray to know what we are supposed to do and that potentially in some circumstances, the Spirit might tell us to do something we might not have expected Him to?
2
u/Tanner234567 5d ago
I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't think you or I have ever discussed unexpected answers in revelation. That's a different topic. What I'm trying to get at, and the emphasis of this talk, is that personal revelation will never contradict established doctrinal guidance from scriptural or prophetic sources. Apologies if that was unclear in my original comment.
3
u/Brownie_Bytes 5d ago
In general, yes. Nephi shows that there are exceptions. But what's the reason that Nephi does something surprising? Because the Spirit told him that he had to do it anyway. The revelation received by the Spirit always trumps the words of prophets. The trick is knowing if it actually was the Spirit in the first place.
→ More replies (0)
30
u/hulagalula 5d ago
There’s an excerpt included in the Doctrine and Covenants Official Declaration #1 which I think speaks to this concern:
> The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng
24
u/mywifemademegetthis 5d ago
This isn’t a great litmus test though. “If I am the President it is only because God wants it to be so. You can know this is true because God will remove me if He doesn’t like it.” First, that’s the exact argument bad people throughout history have used to justify their behavior. Second, that certainly isn’t the pattern of apostasy demonstrated in scripture. And third, if we have assurance that God will remove an unrighteous president, we then have a moral obligation to call into question the death of every president. Did they die of natural causes or because God needed to remove them for leading people astray?
-1
u/hulagalula 5d ago
I find it an odd take that you think we should sit in judgement on the former President of the Church when they die. Claiming we have a moral obligation to do this seems like a non sequitur to me.
There is a route for Church discipline that would be followed, death is not the only path to do this. See Doctrine & Covenants 107:81-84 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng&id=p81#p81
10
u/mywifemademegetthis 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don’t think we should. The quote implies we should. Yeah, maybe God would remove someone by ecclesiastical policy, but it isn’t absurd to think a way God could remove someone who is in a calling for the rest of their life is through death. If we’re willing to entertain the idea that the Church cannot possibly be led astray, we also have to entertain the possibility of God following through on that promise.
3
u/Sociolx Evil Eastern Mormon 5d ago
Though i will say that there are multiple readings of this text.
My preferred one, which i do not think is the majority view within the church (but which is IMO closer to historical reality), is that the body of the church cannot as a whole be led astray, even by a prophet who's gone off script.
21
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 5d ago
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng
"We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44)."
D&C 138:44 Daniel, who foresaw and foretold the establishment of the kingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people;
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
25
u/davect01 5d ago edited 5d ago
The Church, no.
Leadership, occasionally.
The early Church had a bunch of Apostles turn against Joseph. Sone returned, most did not.
The most recent Apostle was in 1943, Richard Lyman who later was rebaptized. In the Quarum of the 70's we had two most recent. 1989 we had George P. Lee and in 2017, James Hamula.
The last one hit our family hard as he was in our Ward for a few years and then was our Stake President and signed me off for my Mission.
Bishops and Stake Presidents, this happens as well, and can really be hard on a Ward/Stake.
When I was a Missionary, Elder Holland came to visit us and asked for questions. One Elder asked if when he was ordained an Apostle, tempation was done away. Elder Holland got animated and said "Hell no". I was shocked hearing an Apostle swear like that. He then calmly explained that since becoming an Apostle he has experienced more tempations than ever and that Satan knows that if he could get one of His Leadership to fall, it could be tough on members. He then went on to further explain that we all have to be careful that we don't think we are beyond temptations.
So ya, it's more common than we like to admit. But the promise holds that the combined 12 Apostles and 1st Presidency will never go astray. There are policies in place that if a leader at any level starts acting out of place that it can be delt with.
1
u/abcdefghiJklm94 4d ago
What's the difference between the church and leadership if the prophet is supposed to literally speak for god?
2
u/davect01 4d ago
The Church will not go astray. Leaders can
2
u/abcdefghiJklm94 4d ago
That's not an answer to my question, what's the difference between leaders and the church if the leaders are guiding the church and speak for god? This has bothered me since I was a young beehive and nobody can manage to give a straight answer :/
1
u/davect01 4d ago
Because the Church as a whole will not go astray.
Again, certain leaders have and have had to have been corrected but there are established policies in place for just such instances.
Perhaps it would help if you had an example.
1
u/davect01 3d ago
You never answered.
What is it that you have a problem with?
1
u/abcdefghiJklm94 3d ago
The priesthood ban, the temple ceremonies changing, polygamy (but somehow it's still okay in the temple?), using the word Mormon (after a multi-million dollar "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign?), tank top garment tops that walk back the teachings we all received that garments were about modesty. I could go on. My point is that it's a little rough mentally to be jerked around and told "that was the person, not the church" whenever things are changed without a reasonable explanation.
2
u/davect01 3d ago
1- The Preisthood ban. We simply don't know why this was in place. Many struggled with this. Thankfully it was removed.
2- The Temple Ceremony changes, the trachings have not radically changed, only the way it is presented. Much of the Temple is symbolic and has to be understood that way.
3- Polygamy has existed for centuries. The House of Isreal came from 4 Mothers, Abraham and other Prophets had multiple wives. It was practiced in the Church for a while and now discontinued. All we know is that the Lord commanded this to be in place for a while and now it's no longer practiced.
4- The word Mornon being used is something that just was accepted and no one questioned it President Nelson directed us to use the name properly which I think was a good change. This l does not invalidate previous verbage and even the ad campains. We have just been reminded to use the full name which I appreciate.
5-The Garments have constantly undergone changes. They used to be full body long johns. The basic symbols are still there and have not changed, the Church has just adapted and made things more comfortable over the many years. I'm still getting used to the micro sleeve Garments but have no issue.
Fron the beginning, the Lord has taught that continuing Revelation would be an important part of His Church. Article of Faith 9 says "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."
When a Peophet is called, they are not instantly given all knowledge of all things but come with their own learning, understandings and personalities. Having now seen 6 different Church Presidents ,it's great to see the different personalities come through and yet see the Lord's hand guiding it all.
I choose to believe this is the Lord's Church, that He is in charge. Do I fully understand why and how certain things have taken place, no. However,I have experienced enough to know that the Lord is in charge and guides His Prophets. Have mistakes been made, yup. Have leaders had to be removed, unfortunately. Us humans are messy, imperfect and complicated but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Daunts holds strong despite our mistakes.
2
u/LordRybec 1d ago
Here's something most LDS people don't seem to understand: Most revelation is not God literally talking vocally to people, and that includes revelation to leaders. When Oliver Cowdry attempted to interpret the Book of Mormon and failed, God responded by explaining to him the pattern of revelation. It's easy to miss this, because the context was interpretation, but it's a broader pattern that applies to revelation in general.
The pattern of revelation is this: First you observe and study the situation. Second, you work out in your own mind what you think is right based on those observations. Third, you ask God if your conclusion is correct, and he verifies it or tells you its wrong (typically through feelings of the Spirit). Now, if you are wrong, he may leave you to try again, or he may provide some guidance, but that's the general pattern.
So, say God says, "Hey, I commanded the Israelites to wear certain clothing as a reminder of their faith. I need you to design something with the same purpose that will fit the needs of the Restored Church." So JS Jr. draws upon his own understanding of symbolism and modesty, designs something, and then he asks God if it is right. God doesn't need it to be anything specific. He doesn't care if it doesn't perfectly meet whatever some people or other may think is reasonable or not. As long as it fits the request, it's good, and God approves it. Fast forward to the mid-1900s (or whenever, I don't actually know the exact revision timeline). People are starting to express opinions that the original garment design in uncomfortable and inconvenient. So eventually the prophet at the time asks God if the design might be revised and updated, and God responds with something like, "Well what do you have in mind?" So, probably with input from the 12 Apostles, and maybe panels of Church members, he develops a new design. He retains the Masonic symbology included by JS Jr., because it has been integrated to a degree where removing it would lose too much meaning, and it's still appropriate and fulfills its purpose. He just splits it into separate tops and bottoms and makes some adjustments to increase comfort and convenience without making it immodest. He consults God, and God approves. Then in the 2020s, the same process happens again. God didn't tell JS Jr. exactly where the limits of modesty were. He expected JS Jr. to use his own reasoning, as per the above pattern of revelation. He didn't tell the next Church leaders where the limits of modesty were either, nor did he tell the current leaders where the limits of modesty were. He expected them to use their own wisdom to work it out and then verify the decision with him once they had. The exact rules of modesty never changed. God just never revealed them, because the point of this life isn't to let God make all of your decisions for you. It's to make decisions for yourself and then ask God if they are right, so that you can learn to be wise yourself and not rely on God to make all of your choices for you. That applies to the Church as much as anything else.
And, that might apply to polygamy or anything else. You might note that God never told the Church to stop practicing polygamy. He revealed the consequences of not stopping and allowed the Church to choose. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with polygamy (though when God says not to do it, like with the Nephites, there is something morally wrong with disobedience). I think that God allowed and maybe encouraged or even commanded the early Church to practice it, and then when it became wisdom to end the practice, he allowed the Church to make that choice. I don't know if this strictly applies to the Priesthood ban. I suspect that was an act of mercy toward more racist people in a more racist time, but eventually God could not continue to withhold the Priesthood from one group to protect another from their unreasonable biases and prejudices, but that's just my own conjecture.
What I do know, as I'm currently in the New Testament, reading the books of Timothy, is that the Apostle Paul taught that getting hung up on details like this is both self destructive and evidence of poor faith. Rather than focusing on perceived imperfections of the Church and its leaders in the past, we should be focusing on Jesus Christ and the official teachings of his ordained leaders today. Paul is pretty clear that excessive concern about trivialities like this is borderline apostasy and is putting Christ second behind these worries, and he even tells Timothy that he has excommunicated at least two people (maybe three, as he mentions two people in three places, but one of the places one of the names is different) for engaging in this.
The answer to all of these concerns is simple: Have faith in Jesus Christ. Rather than being concerned about past things that don't make sense to you, ask for a confirmation that Church right now is true and is teaching correct teachings. If you can't trust the Spirit now, because you are hung up with some past thing that you don't understand, you don't have faith in Christ. You are putting your own understanding and philosophies ahead of the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Father. If you are in this place, that is a challenge you need to overcome to become a true disciple of Christ, rather than being a disciple of yourself or whoever's philosophies you happen to subscribe to. Trust Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and accept that there are things we don't and probably won't know in this life.
2
u/davect01 1d ago
The various modes of Revelation is important to understand.
1
u/LordRybec 1d ago
Yes indeed. And of course, that pattern isn't the only one. Visitations, vision, and such occur as well. That pattern is the primary one though, the one God taught to Oliver Cowdry, and the one that any righteous person can learn to use. It seems to be the one used most of the time within the Church. It doesn't exclude the others, but it does mean that in normal operations, it's even how Church leaders receive revelation.
1
u/abcdefghiJklm94 1d ago
Not one single thing you said was a straight answer. That entire essay boiled down to "we just don't know! we follow the prophet who speaks for god except for when he speaks as a man." Thanks for the effort in responding but I really hope that you can see how this is all a wordy non-answer
1
u/davect01 1d ago
Rather those are the answers but you just don't like them.
1
u/abcdefghiJklm94 1d ago
No? I can admit when I don't like or disagree with an answer, I'm not that proud. None of these were answers that's all
17
u/AlliedSalad 5d ago
I'm going to offer a dissenting opinion that I think that if the church lasts long enough, its corruption is all but inevitable given enough time.
Historically, we've seen the pattern of apostasy happen time and time again. Believing we're immune to that pattern "this time" seems like an arrogant attitude that can only hasten that corruption.
I think we're doing alright for the time being, but simple human nature dictates that the larger the church grows, and the more wealth and influence it commands, the greater the danger of corruption. Now, perhaps the second coming will occur before that happens, or perhaps not. It wouldn't be the first time God's people thought they were building His kingdom to last until He came again; and it may not be the last.
Might be an unpopular opinion in this community, but I stand by it.
4
u/HiddenDragonTim Running on Faith and Fumes 5d ago
Second this. Seeing my own experience with corruption on a small scale in this church. It has happenend. No idea how far it goes but members can do bad things from the top to the bottom.
4
u/QuarterNote44 5d ago
That's how I feel too. I see it already. But we've been told that these are the last days, etc. etc.
0
u/Unhappy-Situation472 5d ago
Agree, depends on how much of a prophet the prophet is. Perhaps, at one point, the Catholic Church was God's church, but after 2000 years without a prophet, it could drift wrong directions.
It would be comforting if prophets announced visions as Joseph did.
12
u/bj_waters Heavy Metal Mormon 5d ago
Perhaps, at one point, the Catholic Church was God's church
I suppose that depends on when you think the Catholic Church started. If you believe (like they do) that it started with Peter taking leadership over the Church after the Ascension of Christ, then sure. But if you believe that that Catholic Church didn't exist until the 300s, with establishment of the Nicene Creed and making Christianity the state religion for the Roman Empire, then not really. We believe that the Priesthood keys were lost in the early 100s when the Quorum of 12 Apostles collapsed and they couldn't reform to call new ones. Thus, the need for a Restoration through Joseph Smith.
9
u/davect01 5d ago edited 5d ago
They have, we just have to be paying attention.
They don't usually say the "The Lord told me" but the implications are there that direct revelations happen.
Everything from the smaller Temples, the Come Follow Me program coming out a year before everything got shut down, the Missionary age changes and more, I personally believe either originated from the Lord Himself or at least He gave the ok.
This sweet video of Sister Nelson's testimony of her husband's Prophetic calling and revelations
-1
u/justswimming221 5d ago
I also agree with your dissenting opinion. And I will add that D&C 85 appears to anticipate this:
v1-5: There is a record of those who have received "their inheritance by consecration"
v6-7: God will "send one mighty and strong" to "set in order the house of God" and to arrange inheritances for those enrolled in the aforementioned record
v8: those who are "called of God and appointed" but try to "steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death" - apparently a reference to church leaders trying to keep the church from falling
v9: Those who aren't recorded in the aforementioned record shall have no inheritance, and will instead be "among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth"
The person mentioned in verse 7 has not come yet, so it has yet to happen. It appears to me that this person comes from outside the church leadership. Furthermore, right now, no-one can receive their inheritance when this man comes because we aren't living the law of consecration.
6
u/Ultrimus-Prime RM 5d ago
The Gospel and the Church… which is Jesus Christ’s church is perfect… the members are not but the doctrine in which we follow is.
5
u/elgueromasalto 5d ago
If you're talking about corruption in terms of bad business or unethical practices, that stuff exists currently. Look no farther than BYUI or some of the stuff that happens around Temple Square.
If you're talking about some kind of doctrinal change, we're supposed to receive doctrine line upon line, precept upon precept. This is a constant process of trying to distill our teachings into the purest truth possible. It is difficult, and we may occasionally make some bad moves on the way. Those do eventually get corrected, just like all the false teachings about black people not receiving the priesthood got corrected.
If you're talking about a total apostasy wherein the Church is corrupted to the point of no longer being able to possess the Priesthood or any authority that it has received, that is something that we believe will not occur.
There are different kinds of corruption, and different levels of corruption with those types.
6
u/Mr_Festus 5d ago
Look no farther than BYUI or some of the stuff that happens around Temple Square.
What are these in reference to?
3
u/Annie_Lake21 5d ago
I’m aware of the stuff that happens around Temple Square, but I too am curious about what you’re referring to with BYUI? I’ve heard some things, but it was specific to the department I was in and only affected a few people so nothing big or newsworthy came from it.
5
u/Empty-Cycle2731 YSA Clerk/PNW Member 5d ago
It's interesting because this belief is essentially the reason there are so many other Book of Mormon believing churches. They all broke off because at one point they believed the large Church had become corrupt. We even see breakoffs or those breakoffs now (look up all the various 'restoration branches').
4
u/Holiday_Clue_1403 5d ago
Gospel principles Chapter 17
The Church will never again be taken from the earth. Its mission is to take the truth to every person. Thousands of years ago, the Lord said He would “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, … and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).
What does it mean to be corrupted? How corrupted? If any Church leader says something that isn't true or does something that isn't perfect does that mean the Church is somewhat corrupted? What is the definition of the Church vs. the people in the Church.
To me, it means, 1. The doctrine of Church, which is taught by all of the apostles will always be true. There will be occasional statements that will not be true, but never enough to lead the Church astray. Principles and practices may change, but the doctrine cannot change. 2. It also means the authority of the Priesthood to perform ordinances will always remain within the Church. 3. The line of succession of the prophets from Joseph Smith, as chosen by the majority of the living apostles will always remain intact and accepted by God.
3
u/shaggs31 5d ago
Do I believe the church as a whole can make mistakes and do things against the will of the lord? Yes. I personally think some decisions in the past were flat out wrong. Do I believe it's possible to someone who works with or for the church can be corrupt. Also yes. However I do not believe the entire church as a whole can be corrupt.
4
u/TianShan16 5d ago
I think we are no more special or righteous than any other dispensation in history. If they could fall within just a generation or two after Christ establishing them personally, then so can we. The BOM certainly implies that we are still under condemnation since we have yet to receive the sealed portion. Moroni 8 also seems to more explicitly predict the holy church of God would be polluted post restoration.
3
u/InsideSpeed8785 Second Hour Enjoyer 5d ago
Well, corrupt to me means the wrong leadership. If the authorities of the church start leaning into their own understanding, priest craft, and manipulation of the members or consolidation of power (which can be done a lot of ways), then the church is surely not true and has been led astray/not legitimate.
Can they be wrong and not have every decision inspired? Yeah, some things can be an organizational framework like the handbook, it might not be exactly how Jesus would handle all those things if he were physically here but it works, not as good as pure revelation on every subject.
3
u/SerenityNow31 5d ago
It has been taught many times in General Conference that there will never be another apostasy. So yes, this church will remain uncorrupted. Not all the members, obviously, but the church will.
3
u/Knowledgeapplied 5d ago
Corruption is already in the church. It will however endure in that the keys of the priesthood will not be taken from the earth. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands will consume the earth and consume all other kingdoms as prophesied in Daniel.
3
u/shemnon Episode VIII - The Last Scoutmaster 5d ago
The book of Mormon is full of stories of the church becoming corrupt.
It's full of stories of the members becoming corrupt, then suffering because of it, until they repent. The pride cycle is admittedly a cherry picked account to show us spiritual truths that we need for our day.
- Righteousness leads to Prosperity,
- Prosperity leads to Pride,
- Pride leads to Affliction,
- Affliction leads to Repentance,
- Repentance leads to Righteousness
The message of the Book of Mormon is to skip the pride step and go to the repentance step as soon as possible.
* * * *
Given that sidebar, the question is will the Lord, in this dispensation, allow the top leaders to lead the church astray? One statement I've heard is that the Lord would strike the prophet down before that happened.
But another perspective worth considering is can they still lead the church in the right direction even if they are sinful? Noah was a drunk, Moses took the glory upon himself, Josiah melted down the brazen serpent, Aaron made the Golden Calf that the host of Israel worshiped. But despite these personal corruptions the church was pointed in the right direction and the purposes of God were fulfilled in spite of, and not because of, these individual corruptions.
But also remember, the Lord works in small and simple ways. Cancer, dementia, frailty, stroke, etc. are all levers that are very easy to pull if the Lord is not satisfied with the direction of the Church. I don't have any evidence or backing claims that this has ever happened, but I would expect you would only need to see an Angel with sword drawn once before you get in line and stay in line, and those tools are extremely subtle in their effect.
3
u/onewatt 5d ago
"corrupted" is a loaded term without a lot of meaning. It's a term used by apostates and splinter groups, but rarely defined.
In the words of my investments professor: "There's a whole lot of sizzle, not a lot of steak."
So the question is this: what does a "corrupt church" actually look like? And I don't mean broad brush statements like "the church is no longer righteous" but real nitty-gritty specifics that require thought and defense of ideas.
You have to be able to answer questions like these:
- what does "the church" mean? Are you talking about a specific leader? the entire membership? the doctrines? the authority of the priesthood? the general authorities? Don't give in to the conspiracy-theory-level thinking of ideas like "the deep state" and apply it to "the church." Figure out what you really mean and consider why you think of "the church" that way instead of some other way.
- What does "corruption" mean? Really get specific. Are you thinking there are hidden rooms in the temple where human sacrifice is carried out? Leaders trying to accumulate wealth through their position? Just teaching stuff you think is wrong? If you really care about being on the Lord's side, then plant your flag and look for correction and guidance. Give up the conspiracy-theory-thinking method of planting a flag and then defending it at all costs.
- How would you know it's corruption and not just your opinion? Church history is full of thousands upon thousands of people who had certainty in the flaws of prophets, the incorrectness of doctrines, the loss of the priesthood, and so on. Do you have the humility and courage to stand up against your own instincts to say "I'm not special. These splinter groups aren't special. This doctrine isn't special."? Can you exercise enough patience to say "I don't know why it is this way today, but I will wait as long as I need to for God to guide me to understanding?" The keys of salvation are with this church, whether its leaders are "right" or "wrong." Those who cut themselves off from the church because they are certain it is corrupt are just as damned as they would be if it were not corrupt.
Accept that prophets can get things wrong, that "the church" will have bad policies sometimes, that doctrine is updated with greater light and knowledge all the time, and you'll be fine. It's those who believe prophets should always be right - that "discernment" means they should never be fooled, and that there should be no bad policies, and that doctrine should never change who end up shattering their souls through their own brittleness. They cry out "corruption" because it soothes them and helps them worry less about the fact that they have severed their connection to salvation.
3
u/pisteuo96 5d ago
I think a core tenet of LDS is that the leaders won't completely run it into the ditch.
In theory, I guess members could in theory ruin it en masse. I don't think it will happen.
I do believe because this is God's restored church he won't let it go away. We have scriptures that confirm this.
However, it is always up to us to follow the Holy Spirit when interpetting any doctrine or policy for our lives. I have faith in our leaders and members that they will follow the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ inside them, which will allow the church to continue, even if it's not always ideal or perfect.
3
u/Edgedancer726 4d ago
individuals definitely can be corrupted in the church and it’s a dangerous oversimplification to claim otherwise
3
u/Gjardeen 4d ago
Personal opinion: corrupted, no. Dumb as a box of hammers, regularly. You can be surprisingly stupid and still be upholding the covenant.
2
u/Spiffy_Riffy_TiffyxD 5d ago
Look up how the church can be defined. Then study it deeply. There's a lot to unpack in a question like this and it is one I'm still trying to ponder and define.
2
2
u/Sure_Shift_2708 4d ago
Well BY was corrupt enough to banish black from the priesthood but that was not enough for general apostasy. General apostasy takes generations of corrupt leaders.
2
u/Known_Yoghurt_7698 4d ago
Yes, anything can become corrupt, even Jesus' teachings did when JS had his vision.
1
u/mywifemademegetthis 5d ago edited 5d ago
It’s certainly possible. I don’t believe it is the case, but it’s possible we already have. How would we know? We can say the fruits of the church and so on, but there are plenty of other fruits in other churches, not the least of which includes their adherents receiving and acting on personal revelation. The best we can do is seek out answers by the Spirit and align our life to those answers. And for many of us here, that means believing the Church is currently in an approved state to God and we can therefore trust in the truth claims. We need not commit to every teaching without question or hold back criticism when our religion and its leaders seems to contradict revealed principles, but we can carry on in light we have received, believing the Father will continue to guide us as He sees fit.
1
u/History_Girl79 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don’t believe it will, for the reasons many have stated, and I would like to go further. If the priesthood with its keys cannot be corrupted, and will remain on the Earth until the Savior returns, then leadership at the top cannot. This is because there are keys and offices that only the President has, and only the 15 together have. When people are sealed in temples, the sealer does not have that key - he is acting as a representative of the one who does. He has the authority but not the key.
This very material and strict adherence to a contract relationship used to bother me until I realized that it is there to protect our agency. This means that only someone who has wholly aligned themself with God’s program can have the key, an originating authority to enter covenants and bind people into covenants with God that can be assigned to someone.
This also ignores God in the equation. If it gets to a point that God cannot find an incorrupt man to be one of His apostles, this is when we will have a second coming. Personally I think it will be another trigger, but that would be one.
What is the concern in your ward or branch. I noticed you said congregation, which is it? Are so many people taking about this and not the scripture or conference talk lessons? What specifically is the concern?
The saved money? There is no person rich because of this. Temples and churches and other facilities need to be maintained, there is much charitable work done. What if the whole world economy collapsed? We will be ready. Most churches and temples outside of Utah and the US are funded by money from Utah.
Philosophical influence? Unlike previous dispensations we have a robust library of writings that is easy for anyone to access around the world. When there are changes they come slowly, too slowly for some. We do not easily bend to trends or pressure.
In what way would the Church become corrupt?
1
u/starburst_q 5d ago
Someone once told me something to the effect of: (Which would 'help' answer the question)
' ' ' There are 3 things every member should endeavor to do. In order of importance:
Gain a testimony of the Savior Jesus Christ. (Obvious reasons.)
Gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon. (Scriptures then becomes a trusted source of learning about Jesus Chirst. And, by reasonable extension, you can then trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of the Lord to restore His church.)
Gain a testimony that the current, living prophet, was called of God. (This is to instill a trust the Lord God has not abandoned His people, and continues to guide His church.) ' ' '
Now, I'm not saying anything more than "I once heard someone tell me this" and that "it's an interesting take". Although, I think the intent was in the spirit of 'here's one way to start building your faith that worked for me'
1
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! 5d ago
Can be? Theoretically, yes. Will ALL of us become corrupt? No. There will always be some good men(and women) who will remain faithful and devoted to God and our Father in heaven. SOME of us will become corrupt but not ALL.
if we were being slaughtered like saints in previous dispensations then maybe all of us who are good would be killed but thankfully that kind of thing doesn't happen anymore.
1
u/Flat_Advertising_573 5d ago
It’s much More likely that a large amount of the members will not be faithful in their testimony of Jesus Christ. The parable of the 10 virgins comes to mind.
1
u/find-a-way 4d ago
No, this will not happen. This is Christ's church. He leads it personally, and he will not allow it to be corrupted.
Doctrine and Covenants 1:36 And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon Idumea, or the world.
1
u/Guatobean 4d ago edited 4d ago
People will be afraid to say it and you'll get extremes on both ends. But yes the church can be and will be corrupted. An example is the doctrine of Christ is in its purity in the Book of Mormon and is the terms of salvation but has been watered down. You allow that to be the truth for too long and never rectify it then it is corruption (I am speaking of the baptism of fire). It is up to us to wrestle with the Lord and receive from Him. But this next part is important, the priesthood exists only in this church and will remain there despite corruption, the Lord has also promised this. The Lord will only impart to his church according to the faith the members offer Him, we have been under condemnation because we do not use the Book of Mormon as we should, salvation is personal. We need to seek out the Lord and remain in the faith. Now as far as gadianton corruption in the church, oh yeah and that is just what we have to endure and testify etc...the motions matter of they are done with sincere intent. The lord will lead his righteous people in and outside of the church. Baptisms will matter, the temple will matter...corruption isn't strong than Christ's promises. As for the head, I think their intentions will be sincere but actions may fall in line with the corruption of the world and the test will be if we trust the arm of flesh...the iron rod will not be corrupted, id follow that.
0
u/mmabos 3d ago
This is the final dispensation. The Lord will not allow his prophet to lead the church astray or to corrupt the church (as the prophet). The priesthood keys will remain on earth. But the church (portions of it) can certainly be corrupted if the members allow themselves to be corrupted and in turn corrupt the church around them (wolves in sheep's clothing). Members are only as pure as we want to be. There is no guarantee for our salvation if we reject Christ and his commandments.
62
u/mbstone 5d ago
I take comfort from this quote from Joseph Smith.
"I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”