I love history. I often spend Sunday afternoons watching PBS specials, and programs like History Detectives. Today has been no exception. The program was "Secrets of the Dead," an episode about the translation of the bible by William Tyndale. The program, like most, was fascinating, but brought thoughts to my mind which really concerned me.
Of course, Tyndale lived in the 1500's in the days when the Catholic Church was the "all-mighty" political power throughout Europe. The Church could do no wrong..... Their control over life far-reaching. Their desire to keep the bible from being Translated into other languages took many to their death. Thus was born the Reformation. Martin Luther and others fighting for the translation of the Bible into German, English and other languages.
As I watched, I could see and feel the inspiration these men felt. They were enlightened. They knew their cause was just, and gave their time and sometimes their lives in service to that cause.
Of course, their struggle is documented well by history. Henry the 8th and his multiple wives, divorces, and creation of the Church of England. The Puritans later deciding the church of England wasn't pure enough, and heading out for New England in search of a place where they could create a land whose government matched their beliefs. (ie a theocracy). Of course, it didn't quite work, and thus were born dozens of different versions of protestant faith within the United States.
Our own faith was born of this environment. Joseph Smith grew up in the midst of a fervent religious revival. His work, his ideas, were all influenced by these things. "Enlightened" is a good word for the man. The result of his efforts is a new faith, a new priesthood, a new church, and new scripture. Was it all perfectly laid out? Nope. Not at all. The version he left has changed and evolved over time. Beliefs have evolved over time. Do I think the fundamentals have been left behind? I'll let you study that out and decide for yourself.
But here's my concern. We now have a church which is led from the top down. It leads by edict. It states, and the rest follow. It interprets what scripture means, and what God's will is for us. The belief is that the church is led by a prophet of God. Hence, the common belief amongst the faithful is that it can do no wrong. Did you catch that? It can do no wrong. Either it is led by God or not, so it can do no wrong.....
The Church provides a handbook which guides local wards and stakes in terms of how they deal with things. It changes with each printing, and the latest one has some surprising new rules about exercising priesthood authority. It basically says you can't do it without Temple Recommend. http://invictuspilgrim.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-longer-worthy-enough-one-fathers.html Why is that? Some would probably say its an issue of moral worthiness. I'm not so sure. Is it just a matter of making sure that people are willing to state their acceptance of the First Presidency and General authorities and their views? See the trouble? I just almost feel like we are headed for the full circle.
What began as inspiration and enlightenment now becomes authority and power? Something seems strange about all of this....
Of course, Tyndale lived in the 1500's in the days when the Catholic Church was the "all-mighty" political power throughout Europe. The Church could do no wrong..... Their control over life far-reaching. Their desire to keep the bible from being Translated into other languages took many to their death. Thus was born the Reformation. Martin Luther and others fighting for the translation of the Bible into German, English and other languages.
As I watched, I could see and feel the inspiration these men felt. They were enlightened. They knew their cause was just, and gave their time and sometimes their lives in service to that cause.
Of course, their struggle is documented well by history. Henry the 8th and his multiple wives, divorces, and creation of the Church of England. The Puritans later deciding the church of England wasn't pure enough, and heading out for New England in search of a place where they could create a land whose government matched their beliefs. (ie a theocracy). Of course, it didn't quite work, and thus were born dozens of different versions of protestant faith within the United States.
Our own faith was born of this environment. Joseph Smith grew up in the midst of a fervent religious revival. His work, his ideas, were all influenced by these things. "Enlightened" is a good word for the man. The result of his efforts is a new faith, a new priesthood, a new church, and new scripture. Was it all perfectly laid out? Nope. Not at all. The version he left has changed and evolved over time. Beliefs have evolved over time. Do I think the fundamentals have been left behind? I'll let you study that out and decide for yourself.
But here's my concern. We now have a church which is led from the top down. It leads by edict. It states, and the rest follow. It interprets what scripture means, and what God's will is for us. The belief is that the church is led by a prophet of God. Hence, the common belief amongst the faithful is that it can do no wrong. Did you catch that? It can do no wrong. Either it is led by God or not, so it can do no wrong.....
The Church provides a handbook which guides local wards and stakes in terms of how they deal with things. It changes with each printing, and the latest one has some surprising new rules about exercising priesthood authority. It basically says you can't do it without Temple Recommend. http://invictuspilgrim.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-longer-worthy-enough-one-fathers.html Why is that? Some would probably say its an issue of moral worthiness. I'm not so sure. Is it just a matter of making sure that people are willing to state their acceptance of the First Presidency and General authorities and their views? See the trouble? I just almost feel like we are headed for the full circle.
What began as inspiration and enlightenment now becomes authority and power? Something seems strange about all of this....
Not sure I agree here. When has the Church NOT been led from the top down? I think that's the whole point, if its Christ's Church. And if not from the top down, what do you propose that would work better? If each Ward or Stake "did its own thing" you'd wind up like the protestants with dozens of splinter groups and inconsistancies in doctrine, practice, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Handbook, its a necessary thing. The "cookbook". Did you hear about the Leadership broadcast that went along with it? They emphasized focusing on inspiration and people. They said to cut out programs or not fill callings in smaller branches or wards and focus on the basics. They said the Priesthood should include and listen to the women more. That the whole Ward Council had a right to reveleation on the affiars of the Ward and a right to discuss that revelation in the Council as equals.
And I've never heard any of the GAs say they were infallible or that we shouldn't get our own testimony of the work. Look up Dallin Oaks' talk he gave at Harvard Law School not too long ago where he said the Church hinges on the personal revelation and testimony of the individual members.
I guess I don't see where your concerns are coming from. God is a God of order. He's always had His leaders impose order and structure to things, from Moses on down. I wouldn't expect Him to have a chaotic Church with free-wheeling leaders preaching their own ideas. I would expect organization and structure and consistancy. And I would expect Priesthood holders to exercise their Priesthood worthily. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?
So what is it that you expect, if not what we currently have? I see people throw out these comments and concerns, but I don't see anyone propose a better way or hold up a better model of how the Church should be run.
I'm not really offering an alternative. But one can't help but see similarities which frankly are concerning. Do you really think that being $20 short on your annual tithing makes you unworthy to bless your sick child?
ReplyDeleteThe church may be top down, but remember, there is this little disconnect between the church in the real world, and the being led by Jesus himself. He hasn't showed up to General Conference in person lately.... I certainly agree that we do have to have our own testimony, and I'll be the first to admit mine is lacking.
I've heard the God of order speech, and I've heard plenty about following inspiration etc. But when does the God of order start explaining why he builds 5% or more of us as homosexuals and creates a church/gospel which is built to exclude us from something so vital in our mortal lives.
Sorry, but the disconnect creates doubt, and perception changes when doubt enters the picture. In fact, it stuns me how my perception of lots of things has been affected.
Hi Joe,
ReplyDeleteI only recently discovered your blog and will have to start reading it from the beginning.
I'm an atheist, and I can see that you are now thinking for yourself and quite rightly questioning what I would call "your earlier indoctrination" Keep on questioning. Whilst you may never reach my stage of not believing in a God, you will see that all religions and sects are interested in is control and power. Truth is the first casualty. The institution becomes more important than people. You only have to look at the Catholic Church's attempts to cover up child abuse (as well as other abuses) over the past centuries. I know little about the Mormon Church, but the sister of my great great grandfather, Sarah Verrinder Capener was one of the early members of the Kirkland Temple and travelled west with Brigham Young. My niece who lives in Provo is also a Mormon.
I have read about the origins of Mormonism, and fail to understand how anyone could possibly believe the nonsense and trickery of Joseph Smith. Questioning the foundations of Mormonism should be your first task. You'll soon realise that other belief systems are equally nonsensical. Don't listen to other Mormons trying to dissuade you from your path of enquiry. Before long you will be free to live your life as it should be lived.
I think you are already well on your way, and I wish you well.
$20 bucks? Do you know of such an incident?
ReplyDeleteI don't see the similarities you're talking about in the protestant reformation at all. People were being killed, silenced, etc. for their beliefs. Religion was directly tied to the government and, in many cases, WAS the govenrment. There is no such situation in the Church today, with Free Agency taught as the crowning principle of the Gospel. And as far as I can tell nothing has changed about Church goverment (in general) since the beginning of the Church. It was organized much as it is now and there has always been a "top down" approach. The exodus to the West is a prime example of Church organization at work.
Anyway, I don't want to belabor any of this. I have some thoughts on my blog about some of these issues if you care to read them. Don't want to hijack your post here...
I appreciate Joe and Neal's comments. I have some more thoughts on these subjects in a facebook note (about a ten pager), if you're interested let me know and either add me on fb or I'll email it to you. I will note superficially that "by common consent" is one feasible alternative to a rigid top-down hierarchy, and has some basis in scripture.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Joe I wanted to give you a heads-up about my book, I thought you might find value in some of the content (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/10/homosexuality-straight-byu-students.html). You're welcome to post a review of it on your blog if you'd like.
Thanks for your posts and thoughts!
No matter how nuanced the argument, the church is founded on the principle that the brethren cannot be wrong when they have pronounced doctrine. That was a concept I really struggled with for a very long time. We were entitled to receive personal revelation but only provided such revelation did not contradict the brethren. So, then, how is it that we are entitled to personal revelation?
ReplyDeleteI read and prayed and hoped for a response to Moroni's promise. Having never receive the promised confirmation, I then concluded that the church was nothing more or less than any other church. A group of men, often if not mostly, well intentioned and sincere, who share their interpretation of life's meaning.
But knowing LDS culture like I do, I realize that most members will view thus as my failure. I'm. It righteous or patient or whatever enough to have received the confirmation. Because, coming full circle, I'm entitled to revalation but only insofar as it is consistent with the church's official position as stated by the brethren.
And of course the church needs a handbook. There would be anarchy without it. Every organization that wants to prosper and meet it's purposes does. Nothing wrong in this at all. It's not some evil conspiracy against gays or women or whatever. But the handbook is written by full time, paid church bureacrats as all such things are. It is not, to my knowledge, canon or scripture or specifically designated as revealed truth.
Interesting conversation going on here...
ReplyDeleteAll clubs have their rules, imagine the power that churches feel when they claim to have the right to tell you which level of heaven you'll be going to. I served in bishoprics and high councils and I won't deny that there are good people with very good hearts but sadly the few who think that they wore the emperor's clothes ruined the whole experience for me and after a while it felt just like any other organization.
I don't know when/if the LDS church will come full circle. In order to get there first we'd have to see women receiving the priesthood and other major changes which I really don't see happening soon, perhaps they can follow the RLDS church's steps but they really see it like the red-headed step child of Joseph Smith, I doubt that they'll follow anything of theirs. Are they progressive? well maybe they are in some areas, but they're still a couple of generations behind, but that's just my observation. Still I'm glad that there are those who can find goodness and purpose in the church; I've heard many say that change has to be driven from within, maybe they're right, I don't know if I could do that.
Hugs,Miguel
The principle of common consent is among those concepts that I cherish within the LDS Church, though it is seldom used for much in reality. There are others--and many, many improvements over Catholic/Protestant doctrines.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should reframe the title of this post as "are we headed for full circle." I think I can honestly say I hope not. I also think that the world of western civilization has come a long, long way towards a better world, and our church (like all others today) doesn't operate in the same environment which existed centuries ago during the reformation.
I think a more modern example is excommunicating people who disagree. Dare to speak out on issues that cross the "brethren's" path and you risk excommunication. Frankly, I'd never want my Stake President or Bishop (though I love them both as friends and neighbors) to read this blog.
"I think a more modern example is excommunicating people who disagree. "
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on this issue. This is not a matter of doctrine, its a matter of policy. In the old days (yep, I'm old) they used to excommunicate people for almost anything. It was awful, really. Way out of hand. Plus, they would announce the fact that you had been excommunicated in Sacrament Meeting! I remember a letter came from the First Presidency with new guidelines about when it is and isn't appropriate to excommunicate, and rescinding the policy of publicly announcing Church disciplinary actions. It was a welcome relief.
Anyway, I think the Church should soften its stand on this issue further. I think its still too heavy handed. That being said, some of the most spiritual experiences I've ever had were in disciplinary councils when I served on the High Council. In cases where the person was truly repentant you could feel the atonement at work in an almost tangible way. The only way I can describe it is like pure love being poured out, almost like water, on that person. It was remarkable.