- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been mulling over this phrase recently. More than once, as I’ve reflected on the leadership of key people in the church over the years, I have often wondered — should followers of leaders in organizations that make great claims about their origins expect a higher level of responsibility than leaders in organizations that do not make such divine claims?
a) For example, the LDS claims to be “the only true church” with programs and policies that are “divinely revealed” and leaders who are “inspired”. Yet I do not see much evidence of the kind of heightened responsibiilty one would expect from leaders who belong to an organization that makes such claims. In fact, our organization does not commit resources to installing leaders who have the time to devote to their callings. Several Bishops I have spoken to indicate that if you strip away all the things a Bishop can delegate, there is still far too much for the Bishop to do — especially since they have families, jobs, etcetera.
And in my experience, this often leads to neglect of the flock. Imagine a shepherd who only tends sheep part-time while he runs a busy mercantile business. Jesus dedicated himself full-time to his ministry, and expected that of his apostles as well.
b) A landmark experience for me was when an ex-Stake President who was our High Councilor visited our HP Quorum leadership. He commented that “the President and Board of large fortune 500 companies make grandiose decisions in the boardrooms of america every day, but what goes on in the leadership meetings of this quorum is more important”.
And then, they later released me from my calling verbally, and left me wondering when the announcement would be official for four months. And when I called the HC over our Ward to ask about the status of the release he would indicate he “didn’t know anything about it”. When asked about possible timelines, the HC indicated our SP was away on business in Asia a lot and that he ‘moves at his own pace’.
That did not communicate importance to me. it communicated indifference.
We do not have to focus on the specifics of a) and b) — they provide mere examples.
But do you think that leaders of organizations with massive claims about their origins and divinity carry a much greater responsibility to their members than organizations that make no such claim?
There is no evidence in the last 120 years that the present church leadership have the same spiritual gift to receive Word of the Lord oracles that Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford claimed to have had, and gave evidence of having. Is there? But this gift was the central difference of Mormonism from the other churches today. How is Mormonism any different than the other churches without this gift?
The D&C is full of instructions, most of which are not against any law, which the church does not live. And the covenant to live “the law of the gospel as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants” is still being given to faithful members.
D&C 43:9-10 says:
9 And thus ye shall become instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me—10 That inasmuch as ye do this, glory shall be added to the kingdom which ye have received. Inasmuch as ye do it not, it shall be
taken, even that which ye have received. The D&C in these verses sets up a government by law, and that law is the D&C revelations. (also see D&C 42:59) These verses also show that if the church does not live by what they received in the D&C law that things can be
TAKENfrom the church. So by simple obvious logic: the reason there is no evidence of Word of the Lord oracles among the leadership of the church for the last 120 years is because the church does not take the D&C seriously enough as the above verses warn, so this gift of oracles, and surely other things also, have been taken from the church as promised by these verses.
Today, it appears to me and to many that the church has become a government by men. The leadership are said to be guaranteed to have revelation as good as the D&C, so one does not need to worry about living by the word of God in his revelations. But could not this be a mistaken path?
If the Lord were to give the church a revelation today it would probably start something like this:
“Not until the church again lives by the revelations they have will I instruct and guide this church with further enlightenment. For if you will not receive the word you have, what profit will it be if I reveal more to you? For you will treat it as naught and trample it under your feet.”
Quote:“The leadership are said to be guaranteed to have revelation as good as the D&C, so one does not need to worry about living by the word of God in his revelations.”
I have never heard that claim, or anything like it, in all my years in the Church. In fact, it is against almost everything I have ever heard. Seriously, when was the last time anyone heard someone preach that we don’t need to study and live what is taught in our scriptures? If there is a problem I would cite, it would be that we still take the scriptures too literally and, in some cases, get so caught up in that literalness that we miss the symbolic power of the scriptures.
As to your question, SD, I would agree that great claims bring great responsibility – and that we haven’t lived up to those claims in many cases. In some cases, we have failed miserably in our history. However, I also would say that such failure is inevitable, since we all are mortal men and women and not superheros – despite how badly we want to be led by superheros.
To me personally, the answer is to accept very good, sincere leaders (by and large) doing very good things (by and large), with occasional flashes of brilliance (and unavoidable mistakes) – all within a radiant theology that exploded onto the scene in the days of Joseph Smith. Part of that answer also is that brilliance cuts both ways and, almost always, is accompanied by extremes on both ends. In my own life, I would rather live in a church that is not as volatile as the early days of the Restoration. I’d rather lose the communal extreme highs in order to lose the communal extreme lows, as well – kind of like someone using antidepressants and learning how to create the highs individually in order to avoid the severest lows.
I understand the implications of that analogy, but I would rather work on having individual highs if that means the communal, group lows that killed and drove away so many people disappeared. Seriously, I have ABSOLUTELY NO desire to return to the tumultuous days of Joseph Smith, even if that meant I would experience more extreme highs. Call it what you will, but I prefer my current situation over the deprivation, persecution, polygamy, confrontation and general difficulty of that time. I’m not saying I want to be ordinary or to have the Church be ordinary, but I am saying I want my life and the Church to be more stable than was the case back in the wild days.
SilentDawning wrote:But do you think that leaders of organizations with massive claims about their origins and divinity carry a much greater responsibility to their members than organizations that make no such claim?
Generally, yes, but when leaders are put up as infallible gods, and when they act as if they do not have the “ability to respond” – then no.There is a saying that a king without his subjects’ support is nothing more than a commoner.
Kings and others in authority, are cut more slack than would normally be cut.
Sometimes authorities act & teach as if, they are above the rules – above respond-ability.
Or it could be that tradition has it that only everyone except them should respond to needs.
However, when people realize their own response-ability in spending sacred tithes & life energy & time wisely – they will be more likely to support only those who do likewise.
SilentDawning wrote:And in my experience, this often leads to neglect of the flock. Imagine a shepherd who only tends sheep part-time while he runs a busy mercantile business. Jesus dedicated himself full-time to his ministry, and expected that of his apostles as well.
If the Relief Society President had equal standing with the Bishop then the burden would be shared and we’d no longer have a problem with part time flock devotion.
I don’t know – if bishops or relief society presidents became paid and full time, it would make the church less genuine and maybe a little too anal. I just think of this study that was done to see what if any influence religious involvement had on physical healing.
Out of 3 groups, those who were not affiliated religiously at all & those who were extremely religiously involved, did worst.
Those who did best were moderately involved religiously.
Moderation in all good things!
One thing I would like to see is a gospel sunday school class about diagnosing and solving cases of extreme poverty, and much more humanitarian missionary work (including young missionaries).
Quote:But do you think that leaders of organizations with massive claims about their origins and divinity carry a much greater responsibility to their members than organizations that make no such claim?
I think the reverse is true in practice because the gravity of the claims *should be* enough to retain people, despite whatever human frailties leaders have and leaders would feel that way. Another way to look at it is this: do the leaders see themselves primarily as leaders or as followers (of Jesus)? I suspect the latter, which would mean they are less likely to feel beholden to the flock directly (they are part of the flock, working out their own salvation with fear and trembling also). But if they see themselves as the former, the downside is that they will probably start to suck at it, power goes to heads, and so forth. Beyond that, add to it that nobody thinks they are wrong except in very rare instances. We judge others based on their actions that we see, but we judge ourselves based on motives. That’s just human nature. Our leaders are just as prone to it as we all are.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:But do you think that leaders of organizations with massive claims about their origins and divinity carry a much greater responsibility to their members than organizations that make no such claim?
I think the reverse is true in practice because the gravity of the claims *should be* enough to retain people, despite whatever human frailties leaders have and leaders would feel that way. Another way to look at it is this: do the leaders see themselves primarily as leaders or as followers (of Jesus)? I suspect the latter, which would mean they are less likely to feel beholden to the flock directly (they are part of the flock, working out their own salvation with fear and trembling also). But if they see themselves as the former, the downside is that they will probably start to suck at it, power goes to heads, and so forth. Beyond that, add to it that nobody thinks they are wrong except in very rare instances. We judge others based on their actions that we see, but we judge ourselves based on motives. That’s just human nature. Our leaders are just as prone to it as we all are.
I have a real problem with this on reflection. It essentially means we grant church leaders, more than others, power without accountability or responsibility.
14 Fundamentals at work here maybe? The more I think about these the more it bugs me. These really illustrate for me what was being discussed about the D&C being ignored in this thread.
Here are the most egregious and related alleged fundamentals.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
Origami, we have some long threads about the 14 Fundamentals in our archives. I can’t remember if you were here when they were open for comment, but, if you haven’t read them, I suggest it highly. They are a great example of the diversity of opinion that exists among us. I agree that those three statements could lead some members to ignore our scriptures – but I haven’t actually heard anyone say that “
one does not need to worry about living by the word of God in his revelations“. At heart, the claim that not adhering strictly to formerly canonized scripture is a bad thing is fundamentalist in nature and reflects the infallible scripture standard I simply reject. I know we have dismissed many things that are in our scriptures as out-dated or replaced by modern revelation – but that certainly isn’t anywhere close to as comprehensive as the statement I quoted above. Also, just to point it out, the issue of ignoring the D&C isn’t in the post; it was added in the next comment. I am sincerely curious about which parts of the D&C are widely ignored by the membership, based on the belief that they don’t need to worry about God’s revelations – outside the obvious ones, like polygamy – and the Word of Wisdom being counsel rather than command. I hope we don’t want to use polygamy as an example of needing to accept everything written in our scriptural canon as eternally binding – as well as lots of examples I could list from the Bible. On-going revelation is messy, especially for people who want to be told one thing and never have to question or change it. As I said in the other threads, I don’t have a problem with the statements at the most generalized level; my problem is with the actual implementation level – when principle / concept is translated into action and, as a result, gets twisted and, in some cases, totally askew.
I don’t like the 14 Fundamentals and wish they would be retired from our church discussions – but that’s because of the interpretations to which they naturally lead too many people. In theory, I can make a strong argument for each and every one of them – but I refuse to do that, simply because they aren’t implemented in theory and, instead, can be highly damaging in practice.
Having said all of that, it actually isn’t relevant to the post itself, so I’ll go ahead and drop it now.
🙂 Quote:I have a real problem with this on reflection. It essentially means we grant church leaders, more than others, power without accountability or responsibility.
Did you think that we don’t? Srsly. Yes, the 14 Fundamentals is a classic example of this which I poked fun at here:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/215/hawkgrrrls-14-fundamentals/ I read your 14 points. I chuckled in a few spots. The overriding feeling I had was “What an arrogant piece of work!!!”. With all the talking about pride, and being puffed up in the Book of Mormon, as a sin, the 14F comes across as a prime example of pride and arrogance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.