- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A couple of Sundays ago I was visiting a relative’s ward and asked to give a 10-minute historical introduction to the Doctrine & Covenants (first Sunday of the year). Despite an initial thought of presenting some of the ‘complications’ in the revelation process I was ‘good’ and instead focused on a more uplifting version, recognising Sunday School isn’t the time and place for that kind of discussion.
I used one revelation as an example of how the publishing of the revelations developed over time. I used the actual revelation to John Whitmer that lead to the revelations first being transcribed and collated in 1831.
I started by sharing how John Whitmer was called to be church historian and recorder in March 1831. As a result he started diligently sorting through all the revelations and records given up until that date and transcribed them into Revelation Book 1 (around 40 or so before the date of John’s call).
I shared a handout showing the handwritten version of the revelation leading to his own call as historian. You can find it on josephsmithpapers.org here:
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-book-1#65 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-book-1#65 I then told them how in 1833 the commandments were first put into print in the Book of Commandments as Section 50:
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-commandments-1833#118 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-commandments-1833#118 http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835#198 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835#198 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/47?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/47?lang=eng I talked about how the early stages of the transcriptions sometimes had mistakes and needed correction or sometimes Joseph would review the revelation and adjust the wording slightly if it didn’t fully represent what he’d felt or intended to say at the time it was given. We also see changes in grammar (you to he), verse numbers and names (John to John Whitmer). There are also changes to the order of revelations included and some, over time, were added or omitted.
I talked about how the corrections and omissions remind us that revelation is received through imperfect people. From the Prophet Joseph through to local leaders, God works with human hands and minds and that revelation needs thought, work and consideration rather than some ‘floating quill’ idea of God’s will being poured straight onto paper.
It was interest to see closely some people looked at the three versions I had printed out (Revelation Book 1 ’31, BoC ’33, D&C ’35). There were some furrowed brows at the small differences and corrections in the 1831 record. I didn’t intend to challenge faith, but to give a realistic depiction of the process. I avoided discussing the fact that John Whitmer was initially reluctant to be historian without a revelation (after which a revelation was given). I also didn’t mention that most of the Whitmer family later left the church while Joseph was still living.
I then sat at the back and stayed quiet for most of the rest of the lesson. I tend to do this to avoid making unhelpful observations… until… a lady in the row in front of me said (in answer to something about life or problems or something). “Whenever I hear this I just remind myself it doesn’t matter because the church is perfect…” – I didn’t even let her finish her sentence and almost jumped from my seat saying “The church isn’t perfect and that’s a dangerous presumption to make. It’s an organisation, established by an imperfect men with God’s guidance. It’s a structure to help us live the gospel. It has changed from time to time based on the cultural needs or even ideas and weaknesses of the members. It is not perfect and anyone who expects perfection will eventually find themselves disappointed by either the history or the people.” I feel bad for being rude to the woman and being overbearing with my comments. But I could let it pass… the comment almost jumped out of me.
There was a bit of a mosh-pit of comments flying around after I said that, some saying the church was perfect but the people aren’t. Some saying God restored it exactly how he wanted. An old lady saying that rather than intellectualising people should just focus on the basics and remember it is all perfect because it’s the way God made it. One guy saying the gospel is perfect but the church is a vehicle. I tried clarify what I was saying, that there’s a difference between “being true” and “being perfect.” I pointed out that if you had pure water and poured it through an impure filter, the water in the glass would no longer be pure. Given revelation and even the written gospel came through the mental filter of imperfect, impure men, it couldn’t possibly remain perfectly pure. The water from our tap isn’t perfectly pure because of the pipes it travels through… but it’s still very refreshing, usable, useful. But not perfectly pure.
A couple of responses that troubled me was one person who said “we shouldn’t say things like that, especially around investigators and new members who just need to learn the basics” and another who said “you might be right but we shouldn’t be telling the youth that the church isn’t perfect, otherwise they might think it’s ok to go and try out any old church.” Nothing like a bit of blinkers and blinds!
I’m finding Sunday School… even the 3 hour block… increasingly frustrating. Priesthood tends to be better in my home ward. I’m finding real meaning in the scriptures and articles I read in the week. I’m finding great ways to not only ‘stayLDS’ but develop deeper meaning to
beinga Christian in a Mormon theology. Unfortunately the talks and lessons on a Sunday just seem increasingly banal and short-sited. I find myself switching off and reading stuff on my phone instead. I appreciate that may be in part due to my own sense of superiority/pride, which I need to address. But it can still be difficult at times. I’m worried I’m putting myself on my own Rameumptom. That sounds like a class I would have enjoyed sitting through! I can relate to all the frustration. I think it’s great that you are concerned about building your own Rameumptom, and I think that concern will keep you in a productive place.
Over time I have been able to internalize the idea that some personality types need to see things the way they see it, and they really cannot tolerate any serious challenge to their views. We need to not disrupt these people. They are often out-spoken in class (they may be aging women
:shh: but not always) and our most charitable actions toward them will be to smile and nod as we try to understand better where they are coming from.On the other hand I think there are also personalities that want and need to hear things that will allow them new personal growth. The challenge is how do we frame things in an artful way that will not ruffle the “cozy” while giving those searching new fruit to chew on? On some occasions I have seen this done well.
Hi Mackay11, I would have liked to hear your comments and I’d love to sit through a lesson taught by you.
Sunday School in my ward is really a mixed bag. We have – probably like many wards – a few true searchers for truth and a few hard core blow hards, and a most people in between. It’s difficult to teach a class like that I think. I’m thinking of two comments yesterday in my ward’s Gospel Doctrine class. The teacher asked a simple question “In what ways did Christ descend below all things?” and the Patriarch’s wife said “in every way” which may be doctrinally true but is really unhelpful from a teacher perspective. She insisted that it was the only real answer to the question. Another man said that Jesus personally visited every single one of God’s children during the 3 day period between His crucifixion and His resurrection. It’s a nice thought but I don’t know that there’s any evidence of it. I’m pretty sure I rolled my eyes with both comments. Unfortunately I don’t have much hair to pull out.
The difficult thing about church history is that you can’t get the whole story from a church sanctioned source and it requires personal research. I almost always prefer to attend Gospel Essentials because I’ve found it easier to frame my perspective in that forum. However, my bishop has asked me to attend Gospel Doctrine to help insure there’s no “blow up” and huge arguments which happens with some regularity. I expect it will happen more often with D&C / Church History being taught this year.
mackay11 wrote:it is all perfect because it’s the way God made it.
A member in the SP made a comment about the church being perfect in Priesthood. I later asked him to define what he meant by “perfect.” After several failed attempts to define it as “unchanging” or other things and several inquiries into my “doubts,” (can’t we have an honest discussion of word definitions without being a doubter?) he finally pulled out this definition as the church being perfect because God made it.
I actually like that one. If the church with all of it’s manifest blemishes can be perfect (not become perfect but
beperfect) because of its relationship to God, then I too am perfect because of my relationship to God. I may have ingrown toenails, funky moles, scars, and thinning hair (and that’s just the outside) – but I am also perfect because I am His. This for me is a very interesting way to look at the atonement. Perhaps God can cleanse the church in the same way that he cleanses me – by superimposing his perfection over it. I can live with that… even if that is probably not what he meant. 
Quote:he finally pulled out this definition as the church being perfect because God made it
A Jehovah’s Witness that came to my house told me the same thing about Adam.
Then I said that the earth and all of us were made by God, why aren’t we all perfect. She said it was because of the fall.
I can agree with that. God made the church, but it is administered by imperfect beings.
I talked to my daughter once and asked if she believed that her YW president was called of God, she said yes. I asked if she did wrong things in her calling, she said yes.
I asked the same two questions about bishop: Yes and yes
Stake President? Yes and yes
So I asked how high up in the church is this true for?
She thought and then said, everyone except the prophet.
Then I said, why not the prophet? If everyone else can make mistakes and we know no one is perfect, why do you think the prophet doesn’t?
Frankly, mackay11, would you rather have had the lesson not include your comments and the back-and-forth? Would you rather have had just the piccolos playing their shrill notes? I didn’t think so, so try to put your frustration in the context of the alternative. It’s easy for me to say, “Don’t be frustrated,” but, really, the result was GOOD!!
Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, mackay11, would you rather have had the lesson not include your comments and the back-and-forth? Would you rather have had just the piccolos playing their shrill notes?
I didn’t think so, so try to put your frustration in the context of the alternative. It’s easy for me to say, “Don’t be frustrated,” but, really, the result was GOOD!!
I guess. I’ve learned that I need to moderate the tone (and aggression!) of what I say.
It’s all well and good for me to feel that the outcome was good… but it still makes me the odd one in the corner that gets circled around after church because… well… “we don’t want our kids associating with the apostate”
My hand shot up in Sunday (yesterday) this week (about a comment that those who repent don’t suffer). My DW (who’s attending socially, occasionally) pulled my hand back down as we were visiting family. I was physically buzzing with frustration. My hands were shaking.
rebeccad wrote:Quote:he finally pulled out this definition as the church being perfect because God made it
A Jehovah’s Witness that came to my house told me the same thing about Adam.
Then I said that the earth and all of us were made by God, why aren’t we all perfect. She said it was because of the fall.
I can agree with that. God made the church, but it is administered by imperfect beings.
I talked to my daughter once and asked if she believed that her YW president was called of God, she said yes. I asked if she did wrong things in her calling, she said yes.
I asked the same two questions about bishop: Yes and yes
Stake President? Yes and yes
So I asked how high up in the church is this true for?
She thought and then said, everyone except the prophet.
Then I said, why not the prophet? If everyone else can make mistakes and we know no one is perfect, why do you think the prophet doesn’t?
As has been said before:
The Catholics are taught the Pope is infallible, but none of them believe it
The Mormons are taught the Prophet is fallible, but none of them believe it
It’s odd that we somehow feel that one man is magically exempt from making mistakes!
Roy wrote:mackay11 wrote:it is all perfect because it’s the way God made it.
A member in the SP made a comment about the church being perfect in Priesthood. I later asked him to define what he meant by “perfect.” After several failed attempts to define it as “unchanging” or other things and several inquiries into my “doubts,” (can’t we have an honest discussion of word definitions without being a doubter?) he finally pulled out this definition as the church being perfect because God made it.
I actually like that one. If the church with all of it’s manifest blemishes can be perfect (not become perfect but
beperfect) because of its relationship to God, then I too am perfect because of my relationship to God. I may have ingrown toenails, funky moles, scars, and thinning hair (and that’s just the outside) – but I am also perfect because I am His. This for me is a very interesting way to look at the atonement. Perhaps God can cleanse the church in the same way that he cleanses me – by superimposing his perfection over it. I can live with that… even if that is probably not what he meant. It’s a nice line of thinking. “Perfect” can mean two things:
– Flawless, without fault
– as good as it is possible to be, satisfying all requirements
I can accept a church that is as good as it’s possible to be (at a bit of a stretch), but not one that’s flawless. God didn’t make the church. He inspired a human to organise it. Even if we take a TBM perspective and presume that God’s hand was guiding Joseph, there was still lots of trial and error in the process. God gave Joseph (and the leaders that have followed) fairly free reign on how to establish the structure. As such, it can’t be flawless because a flawed man (men) were used to implement it.
I shared my testimony in sacrament meeting last week. It went like this: “I don’t believe the church is perfect; that it has never had problems. Maybe it’s like a marriage, and what marriage does not have issues to deal with? Yet a marriage can be true if it is based on love. Though church policies and procedures can change, its foundation is based on true principles and Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, so the church is true.” I really like that comparison to Adam and the Fall, btw.
Quote:“I don’t believe the church is perfect; that it has never had problems. Maybe it’s like a marriage, and what marriage does not have issues to deal with? Yet a marriage can be true if it is based on love. Though church policies and procedures can change, its foundation is based on true principles and Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, so the church is true.”
Love this, thank you!
Shawn wrote:I shared my testimony in sacrament meeting last week. It went like this: “I don’t believe the church is perfect; that it has never had problems. Maybe it’s like a marriage, and what marriage does not have issues to deal with? Yet a marriage can be true if it is based on love. Though church policies and procedures can change, its foundation is based on true principles and Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, so the church is true.”
I really like that comparison to Adam and the Fall, btw.
Like it Shawn. I think the marriage analogy is a very good one. Only problem is I currently feel this is a ‘marriage’ I’m staying in because of our previous time together, not our living relationship. I also feel I’m staying ‘for the kids.’ It’s better in the week when I forget about the relationship, or pretend its something different to the reality. But then I spend time on a Sunday feeling differently. It’s quite frustrating.
mackay11 wrote:
I’m finding Sunday School… even the 3 hour block… increasingly frustrating. Priesthood tends to be better in my home ward. I’m finding real meaning in the scriptures and articles I read in the week. I’m finding great ways to not only ‘stayLDS’ but develop deeper meaning tobeinga Christian in a Mormon theology. Unfortunately the talks and lessons on a Sunday just seem increasingly banal and short-sited. I find myself switching off and reading stuff on my phone instead. I appreciate that may be in part due to my own sense of superiority/pride, which I need to address. But it can still be difficult at times. I’m worried I’m putting myself on my own Rameumptom. I am with you there. I usually join the “Hallway” class for Sunday school. You will also find me reading my phone during various portions of sacrament and occasionally priesthood.
BTW, thanks for the Josephsmithpapers link
I saw this comment on BCC today, and it made me chuckle, because I often feel the same way. Quote:Chris H. Says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:50 pm
BTW, the best meeting during the third hour of the block is me in the foyer on my iOS device.
mackay11 wrote:Shawn wrote:I shared my testimony in sacrament meeting last week. It went like this: “I don’t believe the church is perfect; that it has never had problems. Maybe it’s like a marriage, and what marriage does not have issues to deal with? Yet a marriage can be true if it is based on love. Though church policies and procedures can change, its foundation is based on true principles and Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, so the church is true.”
Like it Shawn. I think the marriage analogy is a very good one. Only problem is I currently feel this is a ‘marriage’ I’m staying in because of our previous time together, not our living relationship. I also feel I’m staying ‘for the kids.’ It’s better in the week when I forget about the relationship, or pretend its something different to the reality. But then I spend time on a Sunday feeling differently. It’s quite frustrating.
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner. The way you continued the analogy is brilliant and I know what you mean there.I’ve been thinking more about this thread lately. I now compare the church to a blueprint. Christ made a plan for His church and then handed the blueprint over to some men and contracted with them to build the church. The contract gives them authority from the Savior to build His church. Because they are men, they don’t build the church perfectly according to the blueprint. They do what they can and improve upon it as they go. Because the Lord made the plan and gave men authority, it is His church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.