- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How do you processes all the messiness of the early church. I mean you have all the stuff going on such as polyandry, banking scandals, high level ex communications and apostasy, and just a bunch of crazy stuff. It all seems so contrary to the whole concept of God maintaining a house of order. I must admit it is not one thing but put them all together and it really seems like this is a house built on sand. If you want a solid foundation built on hard concrete, you have to take sand and cement mix and water and mix it and let it set up. It is this early process that leads to the solid foundation upon which you can further build upon. While mixing, it might look like you are building the foundation on sand, but it’s part of the plan. It’s a work in progress. I don’t know why the Lord doesn’t just come down Himself and set up His Kingdom perfectly right from the start, and instead chooses to work through imperfect mortals to do His work, but it seems to be His way.
Probably has something to do with some of the things that are a mess are not eternally important, and that more important is the growth and learning of those enlisted to do the work, despite imperfect practice and explanations for things.
My opinion — I once set up an activity/project at Church and it ended in backbiting and dysfunctional conflict — and the whole thing was called off. When I reflect on what happened, a big part of it was the lack of knowledge of the people on the committee. They didn’t understand basic rules of heirarchy and reporting, or the responsibilities of various parties in the project. They have since shown repeated tendencies toward what I might call “natural man” character.
So, even the most perfect setup can lead to failure when you have human weakness in the mix.
Also, anytime you ask people to go outside the realm of their experience, they make mistakes….I think the early Church was a lot like that.
Just to add more of the same, organizational creation is messy – period, pretty much regardless of size. The only exceptions are when a very strong leader is almost dictatorial and ruthless, and even then it often isn’t clean and precise at the beginning. This is true especially of “revolutions” – where “recruitment” occurs of others from existing organizations. Everyone brings their own ideas and biases and perspectives to the table, and it takes a lot to work out how the organization should be built and function. Strong leaders want their own ideas implemented, and things are a bit chaotic until a consensus is reached.
The LDS Church is one of the best examples of this in existence, frankly. When you look closely at all of the elements that existed (and they are legion) and the overall philosophy Joseph employed (correct principles and self-governance encapsulated in a Zionist organizational philosophy that reacted only to extremes, essentially) and his willingness to try just about anything (literal speculation and experimentation almost without limit) – there really isn’t any other result that makes sense than free-flowing messiness. That only stopped when a more authoritarian manager like Brigham Young took the reins.
For those who can’t “see it” at the macro-organizational level, look at marriages. Often, the first few months or years consist of trying to figure it out and make it work, while those that last for over 5-7 years often settle into a comfortable pattern – which then becomes an issue after about 20 years, when one of the partners begins to want some of the excitement that existed at the beginning. It’s a natural, human pattern no matter the size of the “organization”.
Finally, read Jacob 5 with this issue in mind. It’s quite direct in its description of the inevitability of “wild fruit” being a historical constant.
OK good points but it just seems to prove the obvious. The church is another creation of man with human problems and issues associated. There is little to differentiate it from any other man made organization other than the claims it makes of divine origin. I guess I erroneously expect more of a church that has Gods stamp of approval on it. If you expect perfection in the church or the church members, you won’t be happy, at least that’s how I feel. Like most here, I have completely accepted the idea that many, many things that have been and are done and said in the Church are completely the ideas and opinions of man. Where to draw the line between revelation and opinion/tradition/culture/pressure/administration, etc seems almost impossible at times. But it does seem a bit strange that a God who seemingly provided our early leaders with revelation regarding literally anything they asked about – Joseph in particular – would not more regularly step in to minimize the damage done by those things that were obvious speculation or even mistake. It seems odd for example that the Lord would (apparently) give long revelations about where someone was to serve a mission and yet sit back and allow Joseph to engage in the debacle of plural marriage that has negative lasting effects to this day.
The best way for me to reconcile this is to assume that much of what Joseph attributed to revelation actually was his opinion. I think Joseph quickly developed the habit of beginning his opinions and speculations with “thus sayeth the Lord” – and we are left to sift through the results of that.
I am almost at a loss to distinguish revelation from anything else it may be except to rely on what feels right to me. I really have become a Mormon that largely relies on my own sense of what the Lord wants me to do – even if it goes entirely against the current handbook or puts me squarely contrary to Oak’s recent conference talk. I simply have little faith anymore in past or current leader revelation. I have a great deal of respect for these men and women as people with good intent. But I currently do not see them as regularly speaking the will of the Lord.
I have to agree. This is one of those issues where the whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me. If this is the true and restored church of Jesus Christ, and if it was restored for the “last days,” that we might know the fullness of the gospel, why would the Lord have made it so difficult for Joseph and the others? And then subsequently for us, who are expected to believe despite all of the problems that exist with the church’s history? I know that the common answer is that we must be tested and so on, but the test is really almost beyond the pale. Especially since the church has proved so dishonest about its past. I mean it is really taxing to ask us to believe when we can so readily see the cover-ups and attempts at white-washing. And I have asked myself many times, why would God make it this difficult? Why would the church, if it is true, not have been always totally open? Why were we always told, and probably it is still the basic teaching of the church, that there was always only one version of the first vision, for instance, such that once we found out this wasn’t true (among many other things), it caused many of us to question deeply the church itself? Why would a true church led by God and Jesus do that to us? It’s almost as though God is playing tricks on us to see if we really believe, which just doesn’t comport with my view of a loving God. It would be cruel to do that. Quote:I guess I erroneously expect more of a church that has Gods stamp of approval on it.
Think of the admonition to beware of the idea that “all is well in Zion”.
If one takes the story of the city of Enoch as figurative (which I do), it is instructive that the only example in our entire canonized scripture of a society that was able to sustain “Zion” for any great length of time occurred in the Book of Mormon – after tremendous destruction and a visitation by the Lord in unmistakable and undeniable manner. That’s it. Period.
It wasn’t sustainable past four generations.Just to consider:
Maybe we really are unrealistic in our expectations, even if God was and is involved. Maybe personal agency really is honored, and maybe God really does step in only when He needs to lay out the border pieces of the puzzle and/or arrange a particular puzzle piece. Maybe the description in Jacob 5 of Him checking in on the vineyard only occasionally and then having to graft and replant to save the trees from the otherwise inevitable “wildness” is more universal and “eternal” than we understand.
Quote:Especially since the church has proved so dishonest about its past.
curt, I understand frustration, but as bluntly as I can put this, let me frame it this way:
You said:
Quote:Why were we always told, and probably it is still the basic teaching of the church, that there was always only one version of the first vision, for instance, such that once we found out this wasn’t true (among many other things)
Are you comfortable with the following alteration to your comment?
Quote:Why does curt insist that it’s the basic teaching of the church that there was always only one version of the first vision – since that’s never been the stance of the church, and since many, many, many members know about the multiple versions of the first vision. Why does he prove to be so dishonest about things like this?
Understand, I’m NOT saying you are being dishonest – not at all.All I’m saying is that your own comment is no more “correct” or “true” than statements from the Church that emphasize the version they want to present as the primary, official one. They publish the one Joseph chose as the one he wanted published as his official one. That’s not dishonest; it’s just selective – and it’s no more selective than a statement saying the Church teaches that there was only one version of the first vision. Anyone can take anything with which they disagree and make a charge of dishonesty. Maybe it really does boil down to unrealistic expectations.
I agree that it is a house run by mortals and prone to error. That does not mean there is never inspiration in the mix. On a side note I enjoyed hearing Pres. Eyring referring this past conference to Joseph going to the grove to seek forgiveness – or maybe his words were to make use of the atonement. I realize those few words won’t mean the same thing to most members as they do to me, but I enjoyed them.
Cadence wrote:How do you processes all the messiness of the early church. I mean you have all the stuff going on such as polyandry, banking scandals, high level ex communications and apostasy, and just a bunch of crazy stuff. It all seems so contrary to the whole concept of God maintaining a house of order. I must admit it is not one thing but put them all together and it really seems like this is a house built on sand.
Old-Timer wrote:…Maybe it really does boil down to unrealistic expectations.
The only way I can make any sense of some of the haphazard changes in doctrine or policy and unflattering history surrounding the Church is simply to assume that whatever revelation or inspiration there may be is almost certainly not nearly as reliable and trustworthy as many Church members have been led to believe. Sure some apologists will concede that prophets and apostles are only human with their own opinions and limitations regardless of any legitimate revelations, but the problem is that the Church continues to insist that we should always follow the prophet no matter what because he will supposedly never lead the Church astray.
According to the Church, exclusive authority and continuing revelation through living prophets and apostles is supposed to be one of the main advantages that distinguishes the LDS Church from all the other religious sects out there. As long as they continue to make claims like this, I think it is perfectly reasonable and realistic to expect to find more consistency and “prophetic” judgment than they have demonstrated so far and to really doubt their credibility if the evidence doesn’t really support their claims. As soon as I started to look at the Church as just another man-made institution rather than some kind of divinely guided “kingdom of God” everything about it suddenly made a lot more sense to me.
Personally I think the unnecessary myth of nearly infallible prophets really is like trying to build on a weak foundation because this belief relies too much on ignorance and denial to consistently sustain. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley’s answer to some of these hard questions was simply that people shouldn’t worry too much about these
“little flicks of history”because all this is “behind us”now. To me, that sounds almost like the Wizard of Oz when he said, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” To me the problem here is not really past mistakes we can’t really change now, the real problem is the fact that they continue to claim that everything is supposed to work a certain way that is completely different from what we have seen in practice. That’s why I think they should stop harping on the idea of unquestioning obedience to authority so much; they just haven’t shown that they really deserve to be trusted to this extent. Quote:Personally I think the unnecessary myth of nearly infallible prophets really is like trying to build on a weak foundation
I agree totally with that perspective, DA.
These comments stick out to me and make me think about all the crazy stuff: FIRST:
curt wrote:…why would the Lord have made it so difficult for Joseph and the others?
curt wrote:And I have asked myself many times, why would God make it this difficult?
Is God really the one making it difficult? I love the Jacob 5 allegory, as Ray mentioned, because I get out of that story that at certain stages, the trees would not survive on their own without the wild trees for a time. And then the lord of the vineyard, when the trees were more mature, could prune and cut away the imperfections a little at a time.So I guess I wonder to your comments, curt, if God is really making those difficult things happening, or if God set in motion a plan which allows for opposition, and then is working within the confines of the parameters set (free agency, faith, etc) to achieve His purposes, accepting the wild branches are a natural course of life along the way. In other words, wild branches aren’t useless. Neither are the mistakes that church leaders made along the way, or the persecutions that happened along the way. God may not have caused those, but He didn’t see wisdom in eliminating them either.
SECOND:
curt wrote:Especially since the church has proved so dishonest about its past. I mean it is really taxing to ask us to believe when we can so readily see the cover-ups and attempts at white-washing.
…
It’s almost as though God is playing tricks on us to see if we really believe, which just doesn’t comport with my view of a loving God. It would be cruel to do that.
I think those are opinions or perceptions. I think they may be shared by several people. But there are also just as many or more people that don’t see things as “white washed” or dishonest or “cover ups” or a twisted god with a cruel sense of humor.I guess I go back to the way that Ekhart Tolle or others have hypothesized about us understanding our existence. Things happen. But our nature as human beings is to want to put meaning to things…so whatever happened in the 1800s with church history are events that just happened. They are not inherently good or bad, they are events, or choices by people to do things that led to events. But in trying to understand them or put meaning to them so we can learn from them, we develop our own stories of what happened, and place meaning (ie. polygamy was wrong, revelations were perfect, persecutions were the result of the devil trying to stop the work, etc.). We all do it, but I have found some peace breaking things down and at some point being at peace or being still and allowing myself to just say…things happened. What meaning I place on what happened is about me, my understanding, my wishes and wants and needs and hopes and faith…but that is different from the event of what happened. It is why my perception of an event can differ completely from someone else experiencing the exact same event…because we put meaning to those events from our mind telling our stories.
The other factor in understanding history is accepting we didn’t see it…so we only go by the accounts that we hear and read..and what seems to logically be inferred by the evidence we’re exposed to even if we don’t have the full picture.
If God really wanted to make everything fool proof (as we sometimes place expectations on Him for having a true church on the earth)…He should just setup the video cameras, hold the First Vision event, and then have it documented for everyone to see exactly what account of the First Vision is exactly correct. Surely He has the knowledge to have that kind of technology (or better) to make sure everything is fool proof for us…why doesn’t He do that? It would make missionary work so much easier!!? It would eliminate the need for this website. It would probably help spread the gospel to billions instead of just millions that have now accepted it. He could ensure that not a single child of His be lost.
There must be some rational reason for why an all-powerful and all-knowing loving Heavenly Father isn’t more exact and efficient with delivering His truth, isn’t there? (I believe there is).
Quote:Ray wrote: “Why does curt insist that it’s the basic teaching of the church that there was always only one version of the first vision – since that’s never been the stance of the church, and since many, many, many members know about the multiple versions of the first vision. Why does he prove to be so dishonest about things like this?”
Well, it is just what my experience was in the church. I mean I am certainly not the only one who felt deceived or what not upon learning that there were different versions of the first vision. Clearly, the church has upheld an official version of it and has tried to promote that version alone (and still does). When I told my father (lifelong member born in 1938) about this in the early 1990s he full out rejected that it was even possible. I don’t think he ever accepted it as reality. When Chessman first brought the 1832 version to light, many people rejected it as untrue until they had to contend with the fact that it was authentic. I don’t remember who it was at the moment (I can find the info) but one of the church leaders went so far as to say at one point that (paraphrasing): “Joseph always only told one story of the first vision.” I suspect the leaders themselves didn’t even know there were other versions. So, I guess I just totally disagree that it was never the basic teaching of the church that there was always only one version. You seem to have the ability to wrestle with the problems, make sense of them for you, and then recreate some version of the church that never existed for the vast majority of people who were (have been) involved in it. Obviously, things have changed, and even Ensign did a piece on the various versions. So the info is now out there. But I question whether most Mormons really know that there are different versions and/or the problems posed by them.
At any rate, I was merely using the first vision to highlight a larger point–that the church’s troubled history, if the church is in fact true, does test our level of believability beyond what one would expect of the “restored church.” Why would God put us through the wringer like this? That seems to me what the original poster was getting at, and I just offered my own view.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.