- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In some recent realizations, I’ve discovered that the church is not the end all be all. I don’t want the church to permeate every aspect of my life. I think it’s good and beneficial. I believe it is necessary, due to being the home of what I believe to be the only true priesthood of God with exclusive authority over salvation, and a true prophet of God who can help maintain purity of critical doctrines. But it’s not everything. It plays a few essential roles in God’s kingdom as well as some auxilliary roles. It is not always right. The church is not perfect. The Gospel, however, is not that way. I want to embrace it to its fullest and be able to separate it from the church. Jesus is the “end all be all”. I want Him to permeate every aspect of my life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ IS perfect. We ought to remember that the primary purpose of the church is to bring people closer to Christ.
When we want people to come to church, it’s not about the statistics; it’s about bringing them to Christ. But at the same time, there are many other ways for people to do that. Thus, the only essential purpose of the church is to perform saving ordinances that actually have effect. Why do we need to have a church? There’s your reason… Your one and only reason.
The church is a tool. It’s neither true nor false; it is merely the home of the true priesthood and the true prophet. I really don’t like the phrase “the church is true” because it oversimplifies things, paints things in black and white, and fails to capture important nuances. I will try not to say it anymore. (FWIW, I still hate the term “names” in relation to temple work even more because these are people, not just names)
This feels both revolutionary and oddly orthodox in contrast to the rest of the forum. I just really wanted to regurgitate my thoughts on the matter.
Just google “ronald e. poelman original talk” and if you read/watch the original talk, it agrees with much of what you say. The church didn’t like it and edited it and even re-videod the talk with background noise. I agree that the gospel and the church are not one and the same. C.S. Lewis described Christianity in terms of working with Jesus Christ to update your heart as if your heart were a house ready for remodeling. You invite him expecting a few more cosmetic repairs, only to find that he is taking down walls and expanding the footprint and making more drastic changes than you expected.
To expand on his analogy, I am beginning to view the church as the current fire regulation code for a designated area while using the title “Master Carpenter” to refer to Jesus Christ . A fire regulation code can be useful building/updating buildings in areas where there are lots of fires. The code may even define some of the attributes of the building. However, bear in mind that the Master Carpenter knows a few things about building and upgrading houses that may or may not be “to code”. In fact, the Master Carpenter knows a whole lot more about houses than the code writers (My Ways are not your ways neither are my thoughts, your thoughts.”. Sometimes the Master Carpenter and the fire regulation code say the same thing, and provide valuable instruction on how to build a better house (or heart), but that is not always the case. Just as owners can get ticketed when their buildings appear not to “code” or follow the “code” of the area, so can followers of Christ.
I have drawn inspiration from some mainstream Christianity in becoming a better Christian. C.S. Lewis is a favorite (his Screwtape Letters should be required reading for an Institute class, or the YM/YW awards), but I also listen to Christian music.
While on my mission, I had this experience. I was in my black/white thinking and was struggling with the concept that people could have strong spiritual experiences while having nothing to do with the church, or knowing anything about the church. We were out tracking and came across this nice lady who had just gotten home from work. As we started chatting, we found out that we had a lot in common and had the start of a comfortable conversation. She said that we could share a message with her if she could play this song from a popular Christian music band that had just come out called “I can only imagine”. My companion and I made the judgement call to listen to the song because of what we were talking about in the conversation and because of what we knew about her. That song had a profound influence on me because as we were listening to the song, we felt the Spirit more than I have felt in many meetings at church. It also taught me that while we use and emphasize different words and practices, we have more in common than not. Since then, I have gotten the CD with that song on it, and I listen to it not infrequently.
Does anyone else like Bill Reel’s tool belt analogy? I think it fits my current perspective pretty well. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/09/post-spiritual-walk-mormonism-better-analogy/ How do you define “gospel”? What does it mean to you? Here’s an exercise we can discuss:
If you were to take 2 circles, one as the church, the other as the gospel…how do they look to you? Are they same size or different, do they completely overlap, one on top of the other, or are there some areas of one that are not overlapping the other?
DoubtingTom wrote:
Does anyone else like Bill Reel’s tool belt analogy? I think it fits my current perspective pretty well.
Quote:Perhaps a better way is to say that for many, Mormonism is “the path”, or at least a path among many. For me this is a bad analogy. For me there is a path and this path is completely outside Mormonism but can utilize any religious paradigm to help people into growth and development. I feel myself on that path, and “my assumption” is that all of us (all human beings) are on that path and for me I wear the tool-belt of Mormonism as I travel that path.
I like that this analogy emphasizes the shared journey of humanity. I may use my Mormon tool belt to make sense of the world around me and help frame and overcome obstacles in the path. Other people are doing the same with their tool belts … maybe we can work together now and then to reach shared goals and to learn “best practices” in our walk.
Definitely not the same thing. Cleaning the chapel is not the gospel. Sharing your talents for the good of others is the gospel, and that can happen outside the Church. Just one example. interesting though, Elder Poelman’s talk was recorded over, so that’s why people are asked to watch the “original” talk, and not the one the official one that was released to the public afterwards. Apparently the released one was re-recorded.
Please read the classic Eugene England article “Why the church is as true as the gospel” http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel This article was truly very impactful to my faith journey.
Heber13 wrote:
How do you define “gospel”? What does it mean to you?Here’s an exercise we can discuss:
If you were to take 2 circles, one as the church, the other as the gospel…how do they look to you? Are they same size or different, do they completely overlap, one on top of the other, or are there some areas of one that are not overlapping the other?
I don’t think you could put the circles on the same plane… But I would say they intersect. That would mean the intersection between the two circles is a line segment. The ‘church’ circle is much larger than the ‘gospel’ circle and the gospel circle intersects the church circle along its entire diameter. Depending on your point of view (projecting onto a 2D plane), it may appear that the ‘church’ circle entirely and exclusively contains the ‘gospel’ circle; or it may appear that the two circles only intersect slightly, or rather that it appears merely as the intersection of two line segments.
The two circles complement one another. The line of intersection is still important- I would say that would be the ordinances, priesthood, and prophet- but the two circles serve fundamentally different roles.
To be fair, Elder Poelman’s talk was a long time ago, and multiple, current apostles have said from the General Conference pulpit that there is a difference between the Church and the Gospel. That realization can be a game changer, since it adds an important element of reality and can bring compassion toward the imperfect, even flawed, organization.
Beefster wrote:Depending on your point of view (projecting onto a 2D plane), it may appear that the ‘church’ circle entirely and exclusively contains the ‘gospel’ circle; or it may appear that the two circles only intersect slightly, or rather that it appears merely as the intersection of two line segments.
The two circles complement one another. The line of intersection is still important- I would say that would be the ordinances, priesthood, and prophet- but the two circles serve fundamentally different roles.
I hadn’t ever thought of taking it to that level, and adding other dimensions so the point of view plays a big part in how you see it…but I like that!!I have always thought about it in 2D terms, and think the Gospel is NOT equal to the church, and also something you can define separately from Truth (with a capital “T”).
Something like this…
[attachment=0]Gospel and Church Diagram.JPG[/attachment] I think there is a lot of good stuff in the church as it tries to teach the gospel, and lots of the gospel that falls outside the church, and maybe even a sliver of stuff in the church that doesn’t have anything to do with truth or gospel…just stuff or “ideas” someone made up and it got codified or is administrative or something.
I also think there is truth in life that isn’t related to the gospel. Maybe just wisdom of ages or science stuff that doesn’t directly apply to gospel teachings.
I define gospel as the “good news” or the plan of salvation, and the purpose of these teachings as it relates to salvation and exaltation. There is some of that in the church (like baptism and temple work) and some of that outside the church (like equally treating women in roles or allowing all kinds of marriages that foster loving relationships).
When I bear my testimony the church is true, I’m talking about that part that is inside the “truth” circle.
When I hear other say the church is not true…I can see they may be talking about a sliver of it that falls outside the gospel or the truth.
I haven’t resigned myself to require the red circle ALL the way fit within truth to believe in it.
Quote:Doctrine and Covenants 1:30
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—
The Lord seems pleased with it (even if it is not all perfect), and individually there may be parts that he isn’t pleased with, but collectively…it’s true. The rest is a process to work with it.
In that context of truth, I would say that diagram is also descriptive. The church contains a lot of things that can’t necessarily be evaluated as true or false, such as administrative practices. I don’t necessarily agree with the scale. The gospel itself is quite small in my mind because it doesn’t cover a very broad range of topics. It has nearly endless nuances, however, so I would consider it to have a very high density of truth. But the thing is: the gospel is essentially just the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, faith, repentance, and making/keeping covenants. It’s what you know and what you do on a daily basis in your quest to become like Heavenly Father. It’s fundamentally simple, yet poorly understood within the church because, all too often, the wrong approach is taken in teaching it. We’ve taken something so elegant and pure and reduced it to a checklist, part of which is the temple recommend questions. Instead of looking at church attendance, callings, scripture study, etc… as the tools they are, we make them into little checkboxes, and in doing so, we often send the wrong message.
Now, doctrine is something else. I think it’s something that completely contains the Gospel fundamentals, plus additional truths that are not necessarily applicable in every situation. These are the things backing up commandments, the teachings and example of Jesus, what is right and wrong, etc… Doctrine helps to give perspective and understanding of the finer nuances of the gospel but is not sufficient to extract all nuance. The doctrine is the knowledge and the gospel is its application.
Old Timer wrote:
To be fair, Elder Poelman’s talk was a long time ago, and multiple, current apostles have said from the General Conference pulpit that there is a difference between the Church and the Gospel.That realization can be a game changer, since it adds an important element of reality and can bring compassion toward the imperfect, even flawed, organization.
True that this one talk was a while ago, but it is interesting how much it bothered the leadership and they made him “redo” it, including going and re-taping with a cough track to make it seem realistic.
Yep, but, in many ways, we now attend a different church than the Church of my youth and early adulthood. I am glad of that, even as I hope my children can say the same thing when they are my age (and even earlier). Beefster wrote:But the thing is: the gospel is essentially just the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, faith, repentance, and making/keeping covenants.
Beefster wrote:
Now, doctrine is something else. I think it’s something that completely contains the Gospel fundamentals, plus additional truths that are not necessarily applicable in every situation.
Thanks for clarifying some definitions on how you see things. That’s good for me to think about.I probably was thinking my definition of gospel was more like what your definition is for doctrine. I see the gospel those fundamental principles Christ taught that go way beyond just the Atonement, plan of Salvation, faith, repentance and covenants. I see the gospel as contained in the holy scriptures to be all the teachings of wisdom of the ages like “do not lie, bear false witness, steal, kill”, etc…and love others and love God and how we do that.
The church doesn’t always do that perfectly, and so our experience with church gets frustrated. We have to find our personal testimony to deal with an imperfect organization, imperfect prophets and leaders, and yet still look towards the gospel standards we need to seek after and practice, even while the church evolves to seek after that truth.
The value of StayLDS to me, is to continue to practice how to be a better person myself, while realizing there is no perfect organization on the earth to go find. I need to try to improve in the midst of imperfection.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.