- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rob4Home’s James 1:5 thread inspired me to start a new one on a related topic. What can we do with contradictions in the gospel?
In studying some of the early Christian church, there were some men that (based upon their experience) would gravitate toward a particular couple of scripture verses and develop a gospel framework out of that. I remember that there was one that had always had an easy time of living the commandments. He gravitated towards works and accountability. Another lived a life of sowing wild oats until one point in middle age he felt called to the gospel. Based upon his experience and a few scriptures he championed the idea of irresistible grace (more or less that God calls who he calls and we mortals are powerless to resist). Both men became influential enough to have a significant impact on the early church and the understanding of millions of individuals as to what the gospel teaches.
The LDS book where I read about these early Christian church thinkers/fathers painted them as evidence of the apostasy – that the scriptures and the gospel were being reinterpreted by unauthorized individuals building support and factions unto themselves.
OnOwnNow makes a great point that disagreement existed at the highest levels and earliest days of the early Christian church.
“But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned” – Paul to the Galatians, relating tales of the dispute between those who followed the Law and those who wanted the Gentiles to be Christians without it. (Galatians 2:11 NRSV).
What then do we do when the proverbial Iron Rod splits or forks? In our TBM days this was less of a problem because we felt that as long as we were moving with the group all would be well with us (I have even seen this worded explicitly by one of the 12). Now that we are taking a more self-guided spiritual tour things get a little muddier. Should we turn left or should we turn right. What criteria should we use to make our decision? Does God see all sin as the same or does he rank them from least to worst? Are there specific individuals in whom I should trust unquestioningly to give me the answers I seek or should I weigh the words and ideas for individual merit despite the source? If I am to follow the living prophet even when the direction of past prophets has been proven wrong – how can I have confidence that the counsel of today will not likewise be proven incorrect at some future date? Does it even matter? Is it just a test of loyalty and obedience?
What about when a concept that I find personal beauty and meaning in is downplayed or contradicted by current leadership? Early in my FC I was overcome by the message of mercy and grace that Stephen Robinson (through his book Believing Christ) showed to me in the passages of the BoM. I was dismayed when the Institute manual gave GA quotes minimizing or explaining away the importance of those same verses in favor of a more works based understanding. Should I follow the BoM which we believe to be the word of God and whose message of mercy and grace grew within my heart like a good seed? Should I “Believe Christ” – taking Him at His word that His infinite atonement is big enough for all my imperfections? Or should I follow the brethren in their modern interpretation of these same scriptures? Maybe Bro. Robinson was wrong. He isn’t a GA after all. Maybe I should just disregard his perspective. OTOH there does seem to be a shift in the church towards mercy and grace. Is it possible to be right but too far ahead of the church on certain issues? (Meaning that your current position is where the church may be in 10 or 20 years?)
What does the “church’s position” even mean? Is it what most members believe? Is it what is in the CHI or lesson manuals? Is it black and white or is it more of a range of correlated thoughts? Aside from core doctrines, how much diversity of opinion is allowed? How do we determine what is core non-negotiable doctrine vs. current opinion or cultural assumption?
I could list hundreds of examples but I think you get my point. Even in the scriptures, I am aware that there too are different and competing principles and opinions as mostly good and holy men set about to put into words their understanding of God and His plan for us. I do not try to reconcile the differences as though they were all in agreement. I imagine that if we put Jesus, Moses, Paul, and Brigham in the same room the differences might come to blows. Even Jesus was known to get out the whip when necessary.
So I ask the question – How do you handle contradiction? With competing principles, scriptures, church leader quotes – how do you determine which one should take priority or emphasis over the other? Is it situational for you? Do you have a general rule of thumb that you follow? Please share?
Quote:
What then do we do when the proverbial Iron Rod splits or forks?When you look at the LDS Church as a cultural phenomenon, and a product of the religious fervor and religious creativity of the time (when all men were free to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience), it make sense. When you see the church as an evolving organization (slowly, given its gerontocracy), influenced by cultural and social forces (like the human rights movement that liberated African Americans), or the slow softening of its patriarchal approach to leadership, all this makes sense.
If you can also look at the church as a product of the influence of a few men who rise to the top, and who have influence, that also makes sense. It seemed that for a while, everyone loved Bruce R. McConkie. And so, blacks became fence-sitters, and people started looking at it as doctrine. It made it into lessons, and people believed it.
When there are splits, and forks, it’s because someone got hold of a concept that resonates with the general membership. It doesn’t mean it’s true — it means we have to be forever vigilante in making sure nothing eclipses our own judgment and conscience, after seriously considering all spiritual, organizational, and personal “inputs” into what we, as individuals, choose to believe.
I’m not sure I do handle contradictions. I was probably like most members and ignored them or at least didn’t pay much attention to them. As I grew older, I started to see some of those contradictions. The conclusion I have reached is that God is not as active a participant in our day to day lives as we make him out to be. Today, one of the counselors in our bishopric related a story (a version of which I’m sure everyone has heard) about his son losing the brand new baseball he had received for his birthday in the tall grass. He couldn’t find it and prayed and immediately found it. Such stories are heartwarming but they seem a mass of contradictions. I vividly remember having something similar happen to me. A favorite toy was lost and I prayed for it but never did find it. So God selectively listens to children’s prayers? So God ignores the prayers of those wishing for loved ones to heal or wayward children to find hope but will help a boy find a baseball? That doesn’t work for me. But if God is a bit more passive than we make him out to be, intervening only here and there, and any more involvement than that is simple misinterpretation by the Church members, then it makes more sense to me. Then there is room in my paradigm for an intervening God and members who weave stories that create a God that is far more involved than He need be. Thus many of the contradictions spring from members’ attempts to make sense of life events rather than a capricious and a contradictory God. Don’t know that this works 100% of the time but it does ease my concerns in some areas of the gospel. I accept the idea that there has to be opposition in all things. It helps me keep it simple and not expect any easy answers.
I like the contradictions. I did before FC and find I love them even more now. The contradictions give me a place to stand. I brought up a couple today, just gently. We had a lesson on a Bednar talk about fear. Early in his talk he uses Peter’s walking on water moment, and looking down to remind us not to look down. I let it roll along a bit, but the conversation was getting a little to perfection driven so I went back to Peter and explained that Peter’s life didn’t end there, he didn’t lose his place in the Kingdom, and pointed out that Peter fell repeatedly but God wasn’t worried. He’d work with whatever pottery clay he had. I actually wish as a church we would use them more. I loved the Prodigal son talk in GC because it contradicted the standard good son, bad son. It makes us choose, reflect and grow.
Contradictions in the Gospel can make for some interesting discussions in SS, PH & RS. Otherwise I can doze off.
I finally read the article “What is Official Doctrine” (which is on the stay Lds homepage) and that really helped me understand and know what to do with the contradictions of the church. I would encourage everyone to read that if they haven’t already. I seem to handle it fine for myself. It is when I have to find agreement with family or ward members that I struggle, because my tolerance is not reciprocated to others tolerating my views. I’m open to many things being false because contradictions don’t make sense, and many others seem to be offended by me suggesting such things because it is not possible to them.
And when I find the contradictions that dont’ seem to be easily talked through or agreed by others, I focus on the common gospel theme (like love or faith or progress) and work down until I find where we part ways. That way I know what common ground I have to speak to with others.
But me personally…I seem to accept there are so many contradictions, it is just part of religion. By having the contradictions…it forces us to study and think and work through it…and those are the benefits of having faith to keep trying.
I’m not as concerned about this or that, but that we are having a discussion. I accept some things as they are. Paradox is interesting to me, not scary.
This is a great question, and since I am pretty clearly on “the outside” in my FC situation…I am really surprised at where my own struggles have taken me… This scripture has baffled me for years….but it seems to make sense for the first time in my own life…
Moroni 7: 46-47
46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all,
for all things must fail—(Hunh?) 47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
All things must fail? Not,
mightfail…but absolutely must? I’m sure this means different things to different people,…but to me it means that doctrines fail, people fail, the Church fails, the ordinances can and often fail (like priesthood blessings that have no spirit)…etc. But “LOVE” doesn’t fail.
I find hope in this scripture. A LOT of hope…because I have love in my heart–I can feel it in there,..and it feels warm and vibrant and alive. And that gives me hope. So, when all is said and done, maybe things won’t be unbearable for me.
Ray, to answer your question…I find myself dealing with contradictions by focusing down on the very basics. I feel myself spending less time on details and more time just trying to love and warm people’s hearts. Doesn’t mean the questions don’t bother me, or I feel strange and weird about some things (like Section 132)…but my heart “resonates” (I love that word) when I can just try to have love in there.
That is my pathway for the time being…
R4H, “All things must fail” is indeed a bit arcane. Luckily, we can compare this passage to what Paul said in 1 Corintians 13. Since this passage in Moroni 7 is basically a reworking of that same concept (some might say “plagiarized from it”), then Paul’s words are relevant. Paul’s use of the term ‘fail’ means to come to an end. The KJV says, “Charity never faileth.” The NIV says, “Love never fails”. The NSRV uses, “Love never ends.” Paul’s words (NIV):
Quote:Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. — 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (NIV)
Paul’s point was that charity or love is a thread that runs through our temporal lives, but is part of the perfect lives we will live someday. Our human attempts at interacting with the divine (prophecies, tongues, and our limited knowledge) will someday be a thing of the past, but love (or charity) is something that we have now that will endure even after our present state is completed. In fact, in the end, three things will remain:Quote:these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.– 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)
Yep, all things except charity will fail (not reach perfection). Add to that Paul’s statement that we see through a glass darkly, and contradictions are inevitable in a mortal world. I love the concept of “I am” – and the attendant concept of “it is”. Somethings are best answered by nothing more complex than, “It is what it is.”
On Own Now wrote:R4H,
“All things must fail” is indeed a bit arcane. Luckily, we can compare this passage to what Paul said in 1 Corintians 13. Since this passage in Moroni 7 is basically a reworking of that same concept (some might say “plagiarized from it”), then Paul’s words are relevant. Paul’s use of the term ‘fail’ means to come to an end. The KJV says, “Charity never faileth.” The NIV says, “Love never fails”. The NSRV uses, “Love never ends.” Paul’s words (NIV):
Quote:Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. — 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (NIV)
Paul’s point was that charity or love is a thread that runs through our temporal lives, but is part of the perfect lives we will live someday. Our human attempts at interacting with the divine (prophecies, tongues, and our limited knowledge) will someday be a thing of the past, but love (or charity) is something that we have now that will endure even after our present state is completed. In fact, in the end, three things will remain:Quote:these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.– 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)
Very cool.
I learned when reading this. Thanks for the post. I enjoy reading what you all post out here, because you open up things that I hadn’t supposed, and when you do, it wets my appetite to keep learning.
OK Ray,…here is something else I want to bring up. I hope it keeps this thread moving forward as well. I live in SLC, and occasionally, especially during the Christmas season, I like to visit Temple Square. Last time I did, I went down into the North Visitor center, and went into the basement where they have the manikin displays of Isaiah (for example), and others. Over in the Book of Mormon display area, they have a table filled with all different types of translations of the book…it is impressive.
Now, directly north of that table, there is a picture hanging on the wall that concerns me, because I wonder how it got past “correlation”. This picture is of Joseph Smith translating the plates, and he has them on the table and is looking at them with Oliver in the background in plain view writing on the paper what is being dictated.
OK, that is the picture, and there are several problems with that pic–it is not accurate in MANY ways. But the concern is this: it seems to me that the church has plausible deniability on this false teaching of the narrative, simply by saying: “Oh, that is just an artists interpretation.” Fine,…they can say that, but the whole purpose of the display is to teach. It might be to “entertain” visitors to who come to Temple Square, but the primary purpose is proselyting and teaching.
Now, the only way I can reconcile this in my mind, is that the Church intentionally teaches some things in a way that they think will be more “palpable” for the average person, even though those things are false; and, the church recognizes (or perhaps hopes) that FC, when it happens, will be easily navigated and overcome.
That is where my feelings lean on this issue, and I find the picture just puzzling because it directly leads some to FC (those who feel the church lied about the seer stone, for example).
1) That’s not an example of contradiction in the Gospel, so it doesn’t fit this thread. 😆 
2) Having said that, it isn’t an accurate depiction of the entire process of translation – but, based on the record, it did happen at least once and possibly more often in the beginning of the process. The Church decided to use one of multiple images that could have been chosen – and, no surprise, they chose the least controversial / difficult one.
3) I don’t like it, since it gives the wrong impression of the entire process, but I understand why it was chosen over the other parts of the process.
4) Multiple statements and descriptions have been given about the other methods of “translation” used, so I don’t get upset about this one. Again, I’d like that image to be retired, but it doesn’t bother me now. I see it as a museum piece about how we humans tell stories. History is FULL of such examples.
Old-Timer wrote:
…- and, no surprise, they chose the least controversial / difficult one.
Well, that is kindof the point. How can it be the least controversial given it is pretty close to false?
I was taught that JS wasn’t allowed to show the plates to anyone EXCEPT the 3 witnesses and the others,…but NOT during the translation. This choice of a pic just sets a precedence, IMHO, for teaching falsehoods IF it is deemed more palatable for the listener.
The picture is a nice one. I don’t have a problem. I wish there was more information about WHY it was chosen. Do you know more of the details of the choice?
PS…this is not a contradiction in the Gospel,…but it is a contradiction in teaching the Gospel…from my perspective at least.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.