- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This quote is from an article about the one year anniversary of the new missionary age in today’s Deseret News. Being quoted is Elder David S. Evans of the First Quorum of the Seventy and Executive Director of the Missionary Department. The emphasis is added.
Quote:“The Lord has promised that revelation would come line upon line and precept upon precept,” Elder Evans said. “The implication is that when one revelation is given, the next revelation is needed.
“So you have this dramatic announcement by the president of the church, which he describes as having been prayerfully considered and
inspired of the Lord,” he continued. “With that, then the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have the important obligation of facing each of the issues and finding out how the Lord would deal with them.”
link:http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587616/One-year-later-Looking-back-at-the-worldwide-impact-of-a-prophets-announcement.html?pg=all ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587616/One-year-later-Looking-back-at-the-worldwide-impact-of-a-prophets-announcement.html?pg=all Here’s What President Monson really said:
Quote:I am pleased to announce that effective immediately all worthy and able young men who have graduated from high school or its equivalent, regardless of where they live, will have the option of being recommended for missionary service beginning at the age of 18, instead of age 19. I am not suggesting that all young men will—or should—serve at this earlier age. Rather, based on individual circumstances as well as upon a determination by priesthood leaders, this option is now available.
As we have prayerfully pondered the age at which young men may begin their missionary service, we have also given consideration to the age at which a young woman might serve. Today I am pleased to announce that able, worthy young women who have the desire to serve may be recommended for missionary service beginning at age 19, instead of age 21.
Link:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2012/10/welcome-to-conference?lang=eng&clang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2012/10/welcome-to-conference?lang=eng&clang=eng So, Pres. Monson did say the age change was “prayerfully pondered” but almost as an afterthought – when actually getting around to the change for sisters. He did not claim it was inpsired, but Elder Evans apparently believes either that Pres. Monson said that it was or he just believes on his own that it was inpsired. I did do a search and I couldn’t find any reference to Pres. Monson, the mouthpiece of the Lord, making any claim that the change was anything more than “prayerfully pondered.” I did find some other references by others who seem to believe it was revelation.
I am obviously a little annoyed by this or I wouldn’t have posted. I don’t disagree with the age change – it does affect my sons in a way (my current soon-to-leave son is 19, the next one has decided a year of college – probably BYU – is better for him at this time) but I really couldn’t care less at what age they go. From my point of view, this is a policy decision, and while I am sure that Pres. Monson and the rest of the Q15 did “prayerfully ponder” it, Pres. Monson has not actually said it was inspired. There is a clear difference in my mind, and this is how myths that confuse the gospel and the church begin.
I try not to be critical, but am I really off base here? Am I being overly sensitive because of my own status, questions and doubts?
We all come to the table with our own sets of definitions, that’s what makes life and discussions so interesting and sometimes challenging. I’m getting the idea that compared to you I have a “low” bar definition of inspiration and revelation. If I feel right or peaceful about something I am comfortable in saying I feel inspired that it is right. Does that make all my “inspiration” perfectly reliable? Not even close, but I still feel it is an honest definition and comparable to what others offer.
[edit:] It may help the context further to understand that I view all revelation as personal, so there is no problem with one person’s revelation “contradicting” with someone else’s. It is given to each according to circumstance, and our interpretation of pure revelation is always skewed by our imperfect human state. Revelations given to the entire church are meant to be seen as promoting the vitality or stability of “the church” and will not automatically be the best default choice for each individual member. This is why we seek our own individual confirmation.
I really am fine with gut feelings, Orson. Everybody has them and our instincts are mostly right – it’s usually good (as in “Trust your feelings, Luke”). I do have questions and doubts, obviously, about revelation. I am even open to the idea that this might have been revelation, although I think God has bigger things to worry about than policy and procedure. I believe the prophet can speak for the Lord and I believe TSM is the only person who is authorized to receive any revelation for the church. I don’t think he needs to say “thus saith the Lord” but I do think it needs to be more than an almost casual mention of prayerfully pondering. If they didn’t change the age for women too, would he have even mentioned the prayerful pondering? I know my point of view is different from anyone else’s, we all see things differently, but I think if he really meant for us to believe it was a revelation he would have been more clear about it. So, yes, I have a comparatively high bar for revelation.
Yes. Another difference may be I view this particular change as mostly procedural — many policies can be for convenience and don’t necessarily require a strong level of divine sanction. Quote:I try not to be critical, but am I really off base here?
Yes, imo.
There was no claim in Elder Evans’ statement saying the change was “revelation” or the result of a visitation or vision. All he said is that it was inspired – and it’s hard to say a decision made by the President of the Church and the top leadership after prayerful pondering can’t be chalked up to inspiration, even if someone doesn’t agree with the decision. Inspiration is a far lower threshold than revelation (since we talk even about a young man being inspired by his hormones, for heaven’s sake) – and, based on the way we define revelation in the Bible Dictionary, even that isn’t all that high a bar.
Quote:Am I being overly sensitive because of my own status, questions and doubts?
Yes, imo.
It’s really easy to become hyper-sensitive in the middle of a struggle of any kind, but it can be one of the most damaging and dangerous aspects of a struggle, since perspective dies in such a state – and perspective is one of the core things that can pull someone out of a struggle.
I do agree with your point, Ray, that revelation and inspiration do not necessarily equate. I do tend to blur them in my mind and I believe that’s common. FWIW, I don’t believe revelation necessitates a heavenly visit and that most often revelation is much more subtle – like inspiration. I’ll have to ponder your other point, but probably not prayerfully. I actually think I’ve gained quite a bit of perspective by being here….
Orson, I see the change as purely procedural, too – honestly, I’m pretty sure God expects us individually and as a church to figure these things out on our own and maybe ask for his approval – which is what I believe actually happened in this case.
Quote:“The Lord has promised that revelation would come line upon line and precept upon precept,” Elder Evans said. “The implication is that when one revelation is given, the next revelation is needed.
“So you have this dramatic announcement by the president of the church, which he describes as having been prayerfully considered and
inspired of the Lord,” he continued. “With that, then the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have the important obligation of facing each of the issues and finding out how the Lord would deal with them.”
Actually, I do find this to be a disturbing escalation to the divine for what was clearly a nuts-and-bolts policy matter. Here’s why:– ElderEvans (EE) talks about “revelation” then gives the specific example of the policy change, which either means that EE is not particularly articulate or that he believes the change falls into the category of “revelation”.
– His use of the term “revelation” is more than inspiration or intuition or good sense. In the LDS vernacular, I believe most would define “revelation” to be the direct action, by God, in providing eternal truths to us or to directing us to do certain works that God wants to be done as part of his work. For those that agree with that definition, EE is implying that the change in missionary age is itself a key component of Gods plan for the latter days, important enough to result in God’s direct involvement in the policy.
– EE broadens the scope of his discussion beyond the missionary age, and talks about “the issues”, saying that the FP and Q12 have as their obligation to find out “how the Lord would deal with” these issues. There’s the tie-in to the 14Fs. The policy change is “how the Lord” would have done it, if he, himself, were sitting in the room.
But the above statement quoted by DarkJedi isn’t all. EE was quoted further:
Quote:“One could just feel the rush of joy and excitement and faith and testimony,” he said, “and one could observe by looking out into the audience the absolute joy of this generation in receiving something from the Lord that they could respond to.”
Faith and testimony? Wait, is this a policy change or a “revelation”? “Something from the Lord”… oh, yep… revelation.Frankly, it very well could have been revelation in the classic, traditional sense. We don’t know, but people here tend to classify it as nothing more than a policy change. It might be nothing more than that, but it also might have been considered for a long time, been the subject of discussion and prayer, studied out in the minds and hearts of the leaders, taken again to the Lord in prayer and ended with what President Monson himself might classify as revelation. Again, we don’t know – except that President Monson said it was the result of prayerful pondering, and Elder Evans used the terms inspiration and revelation (which, again, based on our published definitions in the Bible Dictionary, isn’t a very high standard). Frankly, seeing it as reinforcing the 14 Fundamentals is a real stretch, imo – unless we are willing to see absolutely every statement claiming inspiration or revelation through the top church leadership in that same way. If we do that, we might as well ask them to shut up and never try to determine the will of God or share things with us that they consider to have come from God. It’s a black-and-white demand: Proclaim “thus saith the Lord” or say nothing at all – but face the same criticism if “thus saith the Lord” is used.
This is a Seventy saying he believes the change was in accordance with the will of God, determined through prayerful pondering. Do we expect a different perspective from someone at that level – and should we – and should we assume automatically that it’s not and complain that he sees it that way? For those of us who still believe in prayer and the possibility of inspiration / revelation from God to ourselves, how is this any different? Should we hang onto that belief / hope for ourselves and not let someone else believe it at their level?
I really believe that if we dismiss something like this, we are dismissing the very idea that people can receive inspiration / revelation from God and figuratively castrating divine communication and leadership of any kind.
I’m not willing to go that far, so I’m fine seeing policy changes as potentially the result of inspiration / revelation – at all levels, from the Church leadership down to myself.
I don’t think you are being over sensitive. Question…what percent of active lds believe that pres monson went to the temple and personally talked with God about this issue?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I guess my real question is this…can a active member question the change, question pres monson’s policy decision, without questioning the will of God? In this case, is the church policy and the will of God, one and the same?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I’m right there with you On Own Now (except the 14Fs part – not sure there). There is more to the article, and Elder Evans is more than implicating that this was more than inspiration, which Pres. Monson has not done as far as I can tell. The “other issues” Elder Evans expects are solved by revelation include opening the Mexico MTC, expanding other MTC capacity, where to put all the new missionaries, etc. It’s all in the article. I understand what you’re saying Ray, and I don’t disagree. I guess unstated in my OP is the idea that this was not stated to be revelation, and maybe not even inspiration, from the prophet, yet Elder Evans does imply so and I’m willing to bet that has been stated across more than one pulpit in the past year. This is how things that aren’t doctrine and aren’t gospel turn into things many in the church accept as gospel and doctrine when they really still aren’t. (I know that’s not exaclty clear, it’s hard to articulate.) Someone other than the prophet perpetuates it to that level, it becomes common thought and eventually we’ll hear people testifying that they know this to be a true revelation. Elder Evans is obviously a faithful and good man, and I’m sure his motives are pure. And while he is apparently speaking in his official capacity for this article, I think it’s one of those times we really have to ask ourselves if he is speaking doctrine. In my opinion he is saying more than what it appears you think he is saying.
cwald wrote:I guess my real question is this…can a active member question the change, question pres monson’s policy decision, without questioning the will of God?
In this case, is the church policy and the will of God, one and the same?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I think it is a policy decision, and that’s a good question cwald. Generally speaking I don’t think church policy is necessarily inspired or revealed and doesn’t need to be. If this is just a policy (and I think it is) then yes, one can question the policy without questioning the will God. If it’s revelation, on the other hand, then policy and the will of God are the same. I really do have a hard time believing that God is all that interested in trivial human policy, though. I think if it were one in the same, Pres. Monson would have made it clearer.
Ray, It wasn’t presented in GC as a revelation. It was presented as a policy change. The only reference to Divine Authority is that Pres. Monson mentioned that they had “prayerfully considered” it. Of course they had. I would be shocked if they hadn’t. There is no new doctrine in the statement. It was not presented to the membership for sustaining vote. The policy change allowed all YM at age 18 to serve, where before only a limited number served at 18, and it allowed YW at 19 to serve instead of 21… that’s it. It was exciting and has had an impact on the lives of many. But that is true of many policy changes. The 26th Amendment to the US Constitution lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
The point of the OP is that EE is now equating this with “revelation” and “from the Lord” and “how God would deal with” this issue. I have no problem with what was presented in GC last year or how it was presented. The issue, as raised by the OP, is that this is now publicly being given divine treatment by a GA. Because I am not a black & white thinker, I don’t buy into EE’s version of faith that assumes that God is the Great Orchestrator, controlling small details in our lives in a Grand Rube Goldberg in order to bring about his plans.
This is how policy becomes doctrine.
Quote:what percent of active lds believe that pres monson went to the temple and personally talked with God about this issue?
A very small percent, I’m quite sure.
On Own Now wrote:There is no new doctrine in the statement.
I agree with this.
My daughter, age 19 when it was announced, called me right after the conference session. She was so excited, she was so inspired and felt the spirit tell her to consider it. Many, many people had a wonderfully positive reaction to the announcement.
Aren’t all good things ascribed to God? So…it doesn’t have to be a revelation for us to thank God for something good that happens in life. Including policy changes. If it inspires us, we thank God, regardless of the classification of the medium. If it comes from a prophet, we thank Thee, O God, for a prophet in these latter-days. We want affirmation the heavens are open.
What I thought of from DJ’s OP, was the problem Pres Uchtdorf talked about:
Quote:there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources**—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”-Pres Uchtdorf
[**Note: I would even add “many coming from inspired sources also”]But there really won’t be heavy doctrinal debate on the age of missionaries. I don’t even see any kind of risk that some people will take this policy change and blow it out of proportion in a damaging way.
It is simply exciting for the lives of some people, and they will say, “Praise the Lord”. But it is always up to each of us to keep focused on the important eternal principles, and not get bogged down with all the “good ideas” or all the procedural matters.
But seeing how that happens, I could see how some other issue could start a myth, and start to become doctrine, and start to greatly impact people’s lives (insert discussion on the origins and policy on the Word of Wisdom here).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.