As I see it, there are basically two Mormon Churches. There is the "Institutional Church" that sometimes uses high pressure sales tactics and is often basically a "high demand" religion; for example, putting pressure on members to pay tithing and attend invasive boundary-violating "worthiness" interviews before they're eligible to enter temples; which they are told are required to enter the highest Degree of Glory. This Corporate Church is not the "true church" spoken of in LDS scripture. This is a social club run by a Corporation.
Then there is the "true church" which is all disciples of Christ collectively. The word "church" in Greek is ekklesia, which just means assembly or a gathering, or a group. When the Doctrine and Covenants talks about the only true and living church it is referring to the ekklesia (assembled Christians/Saints); it's what Paul calls the "body of Christ." I believe that the true church (or ekklesia) is separate from the Corporate/Institutional Church.
Many LDS scholars themselves distinguish between the little "c" church (ekklesia) and the big "C" Church (the Corporate structure with its correlation committee, etc.).
The “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth ...” (D&C 1:30), can be translated or interpreted as Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6). So Jesus is the living way of truth in embodied form and living example; hence, the only "true church/ekklesia" would be the only ekklesia with Christ at the Head directing His body (the ekklesia) which would entail somebody like Paul revealing the voice of Christ as the way and the truth.
The ekklesia that formed through the revelations of Joseph Smith were on par with Paul for the believer. This made The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the mid 1800s, the only Christ-driven ekklesia acting out the spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12, with a spiritual leader (Joseph Smith) acting just as Paul did. I interpret D&C 1:30 as Christ is the living way of truth as expressed in His spiritual body on earth (the ekklesia or the Body of Christ), which is His will being manifest through the Gifts of the Spirit; including the revealing of the voice of Christ just as Paul did. The "church" is Christ's Mind/Spirit (or Will) dwelling in human tabernacles (the saints) and living and speaking through them as the Head of this collective body of limbs He directs (See 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; John 15:5). So what we have in the New Testament is the language of Christ as the Head of a body, like the trunk of a tree and the branches as described in the Gospel of John. Therefore the church (ekklesia) is a spiritual organism like a tree trunk with roots and each branch carrying the same sap flowing from the same roots and tree trunk. We see that throughout all LDS Scripture, the word "church" in context means ekklesia and and can be translated "spiritual organism."
D&C 1:30 is thus saying that the assembly of Latter Day Saints under Joseph Smith's apostolic guidance (just as Paul accomplished) was the only truly living spiritual organism, because it was the only ekklesia at that time that was (for the believers) legitimately engaged in prophetic prophesying and revealing new scripture through the voice of the Lord. All the other (or most of the) Christian sects were claiming a closed canon.
Joseph Smith took seriously 1 Corinthians 12:31 (EXB), "But You should truly want to have [eagerly desire; be zealous for] the greater gifts. ..." The greater Gifts of being a prophet, apostle, teacher, ect., in the Body of Christ, was something Joseph Smith obviously eagerly desired as he stepped into the role of prophesying prophet, seer and revelator; and backed up his claims with an outpouring of revelations and directions from the Lord.
Joseph Smith, like the apostle Paul, was claiming to be a conduit of the living Christ and thus Mormons believe(d) that Christ was speaking through Joseph Smith to his spiritual organism, His body, the collective Body of Christ. So that, for the Latter-day Saint, the truth of Christ's headship (the True Vine guiding the Branches in Alma 16:17) was speaking through his only legitimate conduit Joseph Smith (just like through Paul in the 50s AD) to reveal new scripture and the Restoration; in other words, Joseph was given the gift of prophetic utterance to Christ's unified-body (His spiritual organism or the "church"). Joseph Smith simply had the greater Gifts of the Spirit just as Paul had before him. Both were "spiritual masters" (See 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount).
This did not mean that other saints did not have access to the same spiritual gifts as Joseph Smith. For example, the Lord encouraged Oliver Cowdery to have the gift of seership and translation but he was not ready with that gift (see D&C 9). But just as the Apostle Paul did not tolerate rival revelators to his gospel (Gal. 1:8; 5: 10-12), nor did Joseph. As the article, Seer Stones and Prophetic Authority by John Turner, explains:
In September 1830, church member Hiram Page (husband of David Whitmer’s sister) challenged Smith’s authority with a “roll of papers,” revelations he had received through a seer stone ... Apparently Oliver Cowdery (Smith’s principal Book of Mormon scribe) and the Whitmers were pondering the validity of Page’s “papers.” ...
... In response to the challenge, Smith dictated a revelation that clarified that “no one shall be appointed to Receive commandments & Revelations in this Church excepting my Servent Joseph.” Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s principal Book of Mormon scribe, had previously sought the ability to translate like Smith. This revelation added that Cowdery would serve as Aaron to God’s latter-day Moses but would himself “not write by way of Commandment.” Hiram Page received a harsher rebuke. The “things which he hath written from that Stone,” the Lord stated, “are not of me & … Satan deceiveth him.” Through this revelation, Smith affirmed that no objects were necessary as conduits for revelation and that his prophetic authority was unique.[Revelation of September 1830 to Oliver Cowdery, D&C 28:2.]
A church conference toward the end of September 1830 affirmed the recent revelation and affirmed Smith’s as “seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” ...
... Over the course of Mormon history, other would-be prophets have challenged church leaders with claims of revelation. In the mid-1840s, James Strang mocked Brigham Young for his unwillingness to produce written revelations. ... Members and outsiders alike sometimes wonder why contemporary Latter-day Saint leaders no longer bring forth the “word of the Lord” as did Joseph Smith ...
I think it is obvious that the reason why the Utah-based leaders do not bring forth "the word of the Lord" like Paul and Joseph did, is because they are actually not prophetic seers nor revelators. They are leaders of a corporation and a social club. Nevertheless, the written "word of the Lord" from the apostles, Paul and Joseph Smith, (and the other writings of the Standard Works) is still respected as the ultimate authority (above even the teachings or opinions of General Authorities) in the Utah Church.
The way I see it, the Restored Ekklesia is different than say the Protestant Ekklesia. There are unique teachings and doctrines in Joseph Smith's revelations, like the Second Article of Faith, Degrees of Glory, the "Muscular Christianity" in the Book of Mormon, and God the Father's body and his more sex positive theology (that counteracted Augustine's "despising of the body"). So I identify as a member of the restored ekklesia because I have not found a better representation of the Christ-experience, nor a better synthesis of the Old and New Testament, in any other Christian sect or option. I am currently an Independent Mormon. But I recognize multiple options and ways of expressing belief in the restored ekklesia within the Latter Day Saint Movement.
It is obvious to me that the current Utah-based Corporate Church is not the organic ekklesia of Christ with a "spiritual master" speaking forth the will and word of the Lord (like the apostle Paul and Joseph Smith did). They are not actually prophets prophesying, or seers, or revelators. Instead, the current leaders of the Utah-based Mormon Church are basically a board of directors, or CEOs of a corporation, acting as gatekeepers with the "keys" to the antique shop holding Joseph Smith's Revelations, acting as basically managers of a social club. This does not mean however, that they don't often speak about important truths and ethical principles that if followed will improve the lives of individuals and families. But it does mean they are fallible and should not be followed blindly.
To sum up, the "institutional church" sometimes manipulates members, gaslights them, and puts unhealthy pressure on them to conform to "doctrinal orthodoxy" if they, say want to baptize their kid, or not be excommuicated, as John Dehlin experienced in 2014. This corporate-church is not the "true church." It is a social club and a corporation. But then there is the "true church" which is all disciples of Christ (or saints) collectively. In other words, the Mormon Church/Institution could dissolve tomorrow and the Restored Ekklesia (believers in the LDS Standard Works) would still exist; and thus the true church/Christ's "church" (ekklesia) would still be on the earth.
So I believe that the true church (or ekklesia or the saints) is separate from the corporate/institutional church. So I expect the Utah-based leaders (or Brigham-led successors) to make mistakes and say misguided things. They are not the "true church" anymore than the Pope or the Vatican represents the "true church." For me, the true church is the collective witness of the ancient Hebrews and the Saints in the Scriptures (Old and New) that embody the word/seed of Christ (see LDS Topical Guide Seed of Christ). As this article points out, in the Book of Mormon, when the "Zoramites first approached Alma, they had a simple question: How can we worship God when we are not able to go to church?" We then learn "how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith (Alma 33:1)." In other words, they did not need to "go to church" (as if the "church" were a building) because they were the church: the seed/word implanted in them that bears fruit (see Alma 32). Also see this excellent article Who is the Church: What does the Book of Mormon teach? by latterdaythinking.org, that explains that the "church" is each individual Latter Day Saint and not the church leaders or Corporate Church in Utah.
The Utah-based Mormon Leaders do much that is good which I have discussed on this blog; but they also do much that is harmful because they are fallible and get caught up in the tradition of their fathers and are often the blind leading the blind: for example, their policy of withholding the priesthood to those of African descent, due to the traditions of men mingled with Scripture. It was not until 2013, that these false traditions (passed on by The Brethren in the Utah Church) were finally disavowed and declared mere folklore (in the essay Race and the Priesthood). They are not excused from their wrongs just because they say and do some good.
I do not believe in trusting in any religious leader completely; in fact, this was the main message of Jesus as he was often against the religious leaders of his day. I treat them all like a manager at a clubhouse. The clubhouse manager may have the "keys" and can make the final decisions for the club, but that does not mean that the clubhouse manager(s) can't sometimes be rude and insensitive, controlling, power-hungry, jerk(s). Or do manipulative things and not respect your boundaries.
Just as the Jewish Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders of his day, I see no reason not to criticize the Mormon leaders so that things can change from within and the Mormon Church can do better. This is one of the reasons why I am currently still voluntarily resigned from the LDS church and have not officially rejoined but just attend sacrament occasionally. Because I value my freedom of speech. The problem is that the current cultural situation in the Utah-based Mormon Church is that you are not allowed to criticize your church leaders even if that criticism is true. If you are too public or vocal about your criticisms (or disagreement with Orthodoxy/"Bretherenism"), they will likely try to excommunicate you; which could damage your family relationships and your reputation. However, to be fair there are many who tow the line between orthodoxy (loyalty to the Bretheren) and seeking to reform (or improve) the Institutional Church for the better (through what is called "trickle up revelation"). There is even a Mormon movement of signers of the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto, that seeks to be loyal to the Brethren but also avoid Religious Fundamentalism. The Midnight Mormon podcast has many episodes on the fallibility of the leaders.
All of this does not mean that the Utah-based Corporate Church (or the Brigham sect) does not contain the restored ekklesia or the Body of Christ within its legalistic formalism. For each Utah-based LDS member who believes in the restored gospel is a member of the restored ekklesia. Again, as even many Maxwell Institute scholars point out, there is the little "c" church (ekklesia) and the "C" Church/Institution. Keep in mind, that Jesus did not leave his Jewish religion but remained loyal to Judaism and the Torah, even while arguing with and disagreeing with the religious leaders of his day. So I don't see why a Latter-day Saint can't be loyal to Mormonism and the Standard Works even if they disagree with their religious leaders. One has to just keep in mind that just as Jesus was called in before the Sanhedrin, criticizing Utah-based Church leaders can get you called into a disciplinary court and possibly excommunicated.
I see nothing wrong with somebody realizing that the current Utah-based leaders are not actually "prophetic spiritual seers and revelators" like Paul and Joseph, but still treat the Utah-based organization like a Social Club and choose to follow the rules and conform (just as they would in any Social Club) out of respect and common decency, because they simply have not found a better Christian church or social club. After all, two prominent Ex-Mormons (John Dehlin and Shawn McCraney) both agree that you're not going to find a better Christian "Social Club" than the Utah-based LDS Church.
So I for one would never discourage anyone from being an active member of the Utah-based Church if it is psychologically healthy for them to do so. Even if they were a non-orthodox believer there are websites to help one maintain their membership and fit in and not be excommunicated or disfellowshipped or feel ostracized. See staylds.com for navigating your membership as an unorthodox member. For finding ways to believe in the Restoration even if you don't take a lot of the supernatural claims literally, see the website churchistrue.com.
