- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The below list originally appeared in a Mormon Matters post: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/13/10-things-every-mormon-needs-to-know/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/13/10-things-every-mormon-needs-to-know/ 1.
Our current understanding is incomplete. One of our Articles of Faith is that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Ninth AF.) The key words being “will yet” (meaning it hasn’t happened yet), “many” (i.e., not just a few), and “great and important things” (i.e., not just minor details). Thus, the Church has officially acknowledged we do not have a complete understanding; we don’t claim to know it all. So if a particular doctrine or policy doesn’t make sense to you, it may be because we are still missing some important pieces of the puzzle. And because our current understanding is incomplete, we should expect to see changes in Church doctrine and policy as the Church grows “line upon line, precept upon precept” toward a more complete understanding of God’s ways. 2.
Church leaders do not claim to be infallible. Elder Faust said it clearly: “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.” (James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 8.) Similarly, Elder Hales has said: “I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call.” (Robert D. Hales, “The Unique Message of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, May 1994, 78.) So we should expect to occasionally catch our Church leaders being human, sinning, and making mistakes. 3.
Not everything a Church leader says is inspired of God. The Prophet Joseph Smith acknowledged that “some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.” (B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:163.) Similarly, the Church’s official website recently stated: “A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.” (See http://www.lds.org/newsroom .) So don’t be surprised if a well-intentioned Church leader mistakenly expresses his personal opinion as if it were doctrine.4.
The scriptures may contain human imperfections. When divine inspiration is reduced to imperfect human language, we should expect some things to get “lost in translation.” (See Eighth AF [“as far as it is translated correctly”]; BOM Title Page [“And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men”].) Also, don’t be surprised if a revelation or translation delivered by a man in the early Nineteenth Century sounds like something a man in the early Nineteenth Century would say. (D&C 1:24-25 [“these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language . . . [a]nd inasmuch as they erred it might be made known”].) 5.
Prophets do not claim that all their inspiration is received through face-to-face conversations with God. When we say that a prophet speaks for God, that does not necessarily mean everything he says was told to him by God directly or face-to-face. Rather, prophets have made clear that their inspiration typically comes from the Holy Spirit. Elder Packer has stated: “This guidance comes as thoughts, as feelings, through impressions and promptings. It is not always easy to describe inspiration. The scriptures teach us that we may “feel” the words of spiritual communication more than hear them, and see with spiritual rather than with mortal eyes. The patterns of revelation are not dramatic. The voice of inspiration is a still voice, a small voice. There need be no trance, no sanctimonious declaration. It is quieter and simpler than that.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Revelation in a Changing World,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 14.) So, as with the preceding point, we should expect some imperfections whenever someone undertakes the daunting task of reducing divine thoughts into human terms. And because there is some “room for interpretation” in discerning spiritual impressions, we should expect Church leaders to sometimes differ in their perceptions and views. 6.
Sometimes God gives Church leaders discretion to make their own decisions according to their best judgment. Brigham Young taught: “If I ask [God] to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, he is bound to own and honor that transaction, and he will do so to all intents and purposes.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 46; see also Hel. 10:5-10, D&C 80:3.) In other words, sometimes God lets Church leaders decide what to do and then puts his divine stamp of approval on it. So don’t be surprised if a Church leader’s decision seems to simply reflect that leader’s personal judgment, as opposed to a divinely-issued instruction. 7.
Doctrinal errors may exist within the Church. Elder Merrill C. Oaks of the Seventy has stated: “Our protection from erroneous doctrine lies in an overriding belief in continuing revelation to the current prophet.” (Merrill C. Oaks, “The Living Prophet: Our Source of Pure Doctrine,” Ensign, Nov 1998, 82.) I understand this statement to be an acknowledgment that doctrinal errors may exist within the Church, but that thankfully, those errors will be identified and corrected over time through continuing revelation. Of course, the possibility of errors existing within the Church should not surprise us if we keep in mind points 1-6 above. 8.
None of the above should undermine our testimony that the scriptures are the “word of God,” or that Church leaders are inspired by God. The fact that a book of scripture or prophet may be mistaken about one or more things does not prevent them from being inspired about many, many other things. Nothing says a prophet’s spiritual discernment must be perfect or he is a total fraud. As Elder Faust stated: “I witness humbly that I know the Lord still guides his church through his servants, regardless of any individual imperfections.” (James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 8.) The idea that we can disregard everything a book of scripture or Church leader says if it can be proved that it/he was wrong about one or more things is the classic “throw the baby out with the bath water” fallacy. 9.
Questioning and examining Church leaders’ statements is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Brigham Young said: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150 [quoted by James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 8].) Of course, there is a big difference between honest inquiry motivated by a sincere desire to know the truth, and a pre-determined effort to prove the Church is wrong. The former is encouraged, while the latter is disingenuous. 10.
It is unwise to conclude that Church leaders are “wrong” about something we don’t understand or disagree with. Humility and intellectual honesty require us to recognize that we are at least as capable of being mistaken in our judgment as are Church leaders. Accordingly, it would be unwise to conclude that Church leaders are “wrong” about something, or that a certain teaching is “false.” The most we should say is that we don‘t understand something, or that we have not received a testimony of the truthfulness of something. This may seem like semantics, but there is an important difference between telling a Church leader “you are wrong” or “you are teaching false doctrine,” as opposed to saying, “I don’t understand your position” or “I have a different point of view.” So here is the paradox: while we acknowledge the possibility (and probability) of errors existing within the Church, wisdom and humility should prevent each of us from concluding that our judgment and spiritual discernment is superior to that of our Church leaders. Accordingly, none of us should conclude we possess the superior judgment necessary to identify those errors; that task has been assigned to our leaders. Are any of these points useful to you in your quest? Were/are any of these things that have tripped you up?
Thanks Hawk. I really liked this post when I read it as well…something I wish was taught more in church to truly educate people like myself. I wonder how the missionary messages could adopt these things, and prepare for building stronger, longer-lasting converts. 
The two that struck me:
#7 requires maturity to understand
#10 requires humility to practice
Hate to be the stick in the mud but, from my experience, these concepts would be considered apostate in a typical ward SS class. swim, as I constantly say, I think that would depend on the way in which they were presented. I’ve said much the same as each principle on numerous occasions in multiple wards (inside and outside of Utah), and I’ve never gotten any backlash. I’m just very careful how I present them, and I also reference “authority figures” whenever I can. I agree that you are right if they are used in a way that comes across as challenging or argumentative (or as a chastisement), but that’s true of just about anything anywhere. People aren’t accepted no matter what they say if they go in swinging their fists and screaming.
Excellent! Thanks Hawk! Old-Timer wrote:I’ve said much the same as each principle on numerous occasions in multiple wards (inside and outside of Utah), and I’ve never gotten any backlash.
I totally get what you’re saying Ray, I was referring to the list as a whole. If little 12 year-old deacon Martin Luther posted this list on the bishop’s door on mutual night after a brisk game of jungle basketball….😈 #7 is definitely a big one. I haven’t come to terms with it at this point – at least not to the extent that I can believe the church is “true” while still acknowledging that major doctrinal errors exist. If it’s a matter of human error, I can forgive it and move on much easier. But if it’s a claim to divinely inspired doctrine, it’s much harder to get around. Nice, swim. I can agree with that wholeheartedly. 
MapleLeaf, what if you look at it as the best that can be received by that individual or group at that particular time? I understand the desire to have God’s pure word flow from His mouth through a Prophet’s mouth to our ears. I really do. I would love that. I just don’t think it happens more often than with one person here and there – and one moment here and there – mixed up with lots of best guesses and intuitions and “through the glass darkly” impressions most of the time.
I have reached this conclusion largely for three reasons:
1) I have been touched by certain things that certain prophets have said (inside and outside Mormonism) in ways that made my entire soul vibrate in a way that is beautiful and essentially indescribable. The overall theology taught by Joseph Smith does that for me, for example.
2) Even more importantly, I have experienced exactly that in my own life. Most of the time, I muddle around in the semi-darkness doing the best I can to understand what God would say to me if only I would let Him. Then, once every so often, I have an experience that blows my mind and knocks me to my knees and threatens to expand my soul beyond measure – and I realize once again that God really does know me in a truly intimate and magical way. At least twice in my life, I literally have spoken the word of God without filter – so I am fine if those who function as my church leaders have that happen two or three times more often than I do.
3) I’m MUCH more enamored of the concepts of on-going revelation and restoration, gradual progression and universal ordination than I am of the messy stuff that fills our daily lives. Therefore, I tend to ignore or shrug and accept the more petty stuff in order to maintain the lofty, soul-expanding stuff. Iow, in order to soar, I let lots of the distracting stuff slide.
MapleLeaf, what if one of the “errors” has to do with a common conception of the level of perfection regarding “truth”? Can we still take the good and the worthwhile, leave what appears to be human and perhaps misguided, and travel/serve with our tribe as we try to lift each other in love to higher connections with the “divine”? My mental shelf holds most items of “exclusivity” at the moment, and I have been surprised at how rewarding my participation in church has been as I just let them sit there. I treasure the symbols as symbols, and try to let any deeper meanings work their way into my heart.
Best wishes.
I really like the list. I think many members who struggle or even many members who don’t struggle should probably “Know” and understand this list. The problem is I persoanlly see 10 reasons why “You” (The doubter, Struggler etc.) should continue believing The Church is what it says it is, is True and to follow regardless of history, present mistakes or future mistakes. Maybe I’m being negative today.
I believe if The Church really were “True” (in a One true Church on the Earth kind of way) that The Church would want people to know this stuff. But at the same time I don’t think they like to put it in such simple terms like that b/c it might scare people. I think people really love the “Perfection” idea they have about our Church and it’s leaders . This is stuff they probably know exists but don’t want to hear about.
If I saw this when I was TBM it would probably throw me off. Like why do I need 10 reasons to not freak out about our past and present Church? Did something happen that I should know about? It would make me a little nervous I’m sure.
Orson and Ray, I may be approaching this issue with more of a “left-brain” mentality, so forgive me if I sound a little formulated in my thinking. You both appear to be abandoning the notion that empirical truth exists or is important, and are more concerned with the experience that the religion brings:
Orson wrote:MapleLeaf, what if one of the “errors” has to do with a common conception of the level of perfection regarding “truth”? Can we still take the good and the worthwhile, leave what appears to be human and perhaps misguided, and travel/serve with our tribe as we try to lift each other in love to higher connections with the “divine”?
Old-Timer wrote:I have been touched by certain things that certain prophets have said (inside and outside Mormonism) in ways that made my entire soul vibrate in a way that is beautiful and essentially indescribable. The overall theology taught by Joseph Smith does that for me, for example.
Perhaps we should distinguish between the goodness of the religious experience vs the truth of the religion. Because if you are only concerned with the goodness of the experience (“connections with the divine”, rewarding participation in church, soul vibrating), contradictory claims or whatever else will not matter. You will be at home with whatever organization provides that experience for you, regardless of the truth of their claims. But if you are more concerned with the correctness or falseness of the religion, claims do matter.
Old-Timer wrote:
I understand the desire to have God’s pure word flow from His mouth through a Prophet’s mouth to our ears. I really do. I would love that. I just don’t think it happens more often than with one person here and there – and one moment here and there – mixed up with lots of best guesses and intuitions and “through the glass darkly” impressions most of the time.I think seeing “through a glass darkly” (ie, not having the full picture/understanding) is one thing. Providing contradictory revelation to your followers is a completely different matter. Two examples:
If you were Roman Catholic a generation ago, you would have grown up with the idea that an unbaptized infant who died in your family would have gone to a post-mortal realm called “Limbo”. Today the RCC affirms that there is no such place.
If you were LDS in the late 19th Century (particularly 1852-1877) you would have been led to believe in a cosmology in which Michael (Adam) was the identity of our Heavenly Father and the literal father of Jesus. It would have been sung about (see “Sons of Michael”) and preached about in Sacrament meeting, and if you believed otherwise you may be threatened with disfellowship (see Orson Pratt). Today, only a few generations later, the understanding that our great great grandparents had is considered false doctrine.
If you define “truth” by the goodness of the religious experience – then it is both true that Limbo exists and does not exist, and both true that Adam is our Heavenly Father and that his father Elohim is our Heavenly Father (depending on the people and the time). Each of these “truths” can bring someone closer to the “divine”, perhaps, and provide feelings of comfort. But when we seek to understand “truth” as something that is not objective or changing, then it becomes important to peg down the answers to questions like “Does Limbo exist?” And “What is the identity of God the Father in LDS theology?”
I’m not attacking the notion of staying in a religion because you appreciate the experience – that’s what this site is all about. But I am saying that we should distinguish between the goodness of the experience and whether or not the doctrinal claims are sound.
Some of these, although technically correct, do not reflect reality (as I see it). Take Number 9 for example. The quote by Brigham is strong and I’m glad Faust reminds us of this principle…But in my experience it is generally not okay with other Mormons to question/examine the statements of Church leaders. I would be even more hesitant to say it is encouraged. In my experience it has usually made people worry or get defensive–even when presented in the most benign language I can come up with. MapleLeaf wrote:You both appear to be abandoning the notion that empirical truth exists or is important, and are more concerned with the experience that the religion brings. . . .when we seek to understand “truth” as something that is not objective or changing, then it becomes important to peg down the answers to questions like “Does Limbo exist?” And “What is the identity of God the Father in LDS theology?”
Is it even possible for humans to find answers to such supposedly objective and unchanging “truths”? Do humans have the capacity to answer questions about Divine Truths? Or are Divine Truths outside the realm of a rational scientific approach? I’ve gone back to the basics and tried to answer the question “Does God exist?” I’m still struggling to determine if humans have the tools to answer that question and the answer is a resounding “No.” so I must be athiest, or if humans are incapable of answering the question I must be agnostic.
Just more stage 4 ramblings as I hope I’m moving toward stage 5, but it’s so dark in the “dark night of the soul” that I’m not sure where I’m heading . . .
Quote:You both appear to be abandoning the notion that empirical truth exists or is important
Absolutely not, in my case. I believe they exist and are vitally important. I’m just not convinced we know exactly how to ascertain what they are in many cases.
Remember, I said I believe it DOES happen occasionally (God speaking through prophets to people generally and through people individually in their own spheres of responsibility). I’m just fine with it not being a constant flow – and with the best-of-our-understanding that I see as the rest of the time.
Also, just for the record, as I’ve said in numerous threads here in one way or another, I believe there is a “power” within Mormonism, generally, and the LDS Church, specifically, that I have not found in any other denomination / religion theology. I embrace the big picture of Mormonism gladly and without reservation at this point in my life; it’s the fine details and messiness of our best attempts to approach God with which I’m still working. The biggest difference I see is summed up in my latest post on my perception of prophets – and us. (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1050 When it comes down to it, I’m a true believer as much as anyone – even if I have my own way to see things and my own personal belief structure that makes it work on a personal level. I am Mormon to the core, no matter how unique my own views are on a lot of things – because I’ve made the conscious choice to be Mormon to the core. I don’t “belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in some ways – but I am a member of it and a believing Mormon, so I “belong to it” in other ways. To me, the ways I do belong to it are more important than the ways I don’t – and it really isn’t all that close. I’ve studied just about everything there is to study, and this is who and what I am. I am more than at peace with that; I have joy in it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.