- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s certainly been a year of change. 1. Combining of elders quorum and high priests quorums (essentially eliminating the high priest office except in particular situations)
2. Converting home teaching to ministering (still a bit confused about that one)
3. Two hour church meetings and its accompanying home study program (and suddenly informal study groups are A-OK)
4. Essentially eliminating the role of Boy Scouts in the LDS Church programs (okay with that one)
5. Advancement policy in Aaronic Priesthood and Young Women (makes sense)
6. The admonition to no longer refer to ourselves as “Mormons” (and refer to our selves in a rather unwieldy manner).
7. Significant changes to the temple ordinances (that should increase temple attendance for a while)
I probably missed one in there. I know in my ward these changes are greeted with profound testimonies about continuing revelation and signs of the guidance of God in his Church. I also know that many people have found these changes inspiring and relieving in many different ways (particularly the change in temple ordinances). I would not detract from anyone’s pleasure or celebration regarding these changes but….
I personally have greeted each change with mild interest or mild dismay (I’m really not a fan of the two hour church idea but maybe I’ll change my mind when I experience it). All these changes seem cosmetic to me. Sensible and practical changes yes but, in some ways, superficial (except maybe the changes to the endowment which
couldbe signaling some deeper doctrinal adjustments to come). The basic doctrines of the gospel remain essentially untouched (whether that’s good or bad depends on who you are). I suppose I would like to see these changes viewed and discussed as what they are: needed adjustments to church procedures. When members describe these as revelatory, it would seem to trivialize the whole idea of revelation (Is God really offended when the world calls us “Mormons”?) These are not the aspects of the gospel that resonate with me. The idea of an atonement for our sins and our burdens, of improving ourselves and our relationships with others, of seeking a greater spiritual dimension to our lives, the acknowledgement that all human beings have value, etc. These are the doctrines or ideas that I would like to see focused on…not the Boy Scout program.
If I had courage, this is the kind of testimony I would bear in Church today…but since I’m too cowardly
š³ , I guess I’ll just bear it here….In the Name of Jesus Christ. Amen.Quote:The basic doctrines of the gospel remain essentially untouched (whether that’s good or bad depends on who you are).
My RS President said essentially the same thing. Now her point of view was more of a “don’t panic, none of the doctrines have changed (that was before the temple changes.)
Quote:When members describe these as revelatory, it would seem to trivialize the whole idea of revelation (Is God really offended when the world calls us “Mormons”?)
I am with you on this. Last Open Mic Sunday a bunch of ward members were waxing on about the revelatory nature of it. How we are chosen, God trusts us, etc. I had to leave and get a long drink of water.
Quote:(Is God really offended when the world calls us “Mormons”?)
Don’t even get me started on this one. I started a thread somewhere on here about that. Really?? Starving children in Ghana or the use of “Mormon”. I am going with starving children in Ghana are more offensive to God.
Quote:If I had courage, this is the kind of testimony I would bear in Church today…but since I’m too cowardly
š³ , I guess I’ll just bear it here.Thank you for bearing it here. You are not being cowardly, you are being respectful. Also, I find I can share my feelings drop by drop and it helps. Happy Sabbath
Similar to Wilford Woodruff’s, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” maybe framing the changes as revelation is the only way for some members to accept them. Heard lots of praise at SM today. Lots of testifying that this truly is gods church and that this new 2 hour block plus the teachings at home, is divinely inspired. It really annoys me. If I had suggested the exact same things a year to early, people would think I was weird.
I view this as purely cosmetic and has NOTHING to do with revelation. I’m sure the leaders prayed about it and felt good etc but I just don’t get it.
Feels like (on a much smaller scale) when the blacks got the priesthood. If I had advocated for it a year to soon, I could have been exed. Now a year later, it is divinely inspired.
I don’t know. Every time something changes in church, I see it being blown out of proportions and continuing a disingenuous narrative. Or the changes come so slowly (but deliberately) so no one will notice. It’s very dishonest to me.
That being said, I was really happy to be home earlier today. Didn’t have to bring lunch for the kids!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From the FPM on the recent changes to the endowment:
Quote:Over these many centuries, details associated with temple work have been adjusted periodically, including language, methods of construction, communication, and record-keeping. Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to His servants.
This to me looks like no revelation is being claimed for the “adjustments” (with some wiggle room in the “as directed by the Lord to His servants” clause should the claim of revelation need to be retroactively applied at some future date.)Kinda blowing my mind right now that temple ordinances can be changed without revelation.
IMHO, they are being smart and calling it “revelation”. It used to annoy me how liberally the word “revelation” is used in the Church, but it’s one of the cornerstones of the Church I’ve come to accept. Though I don’t believe in it, you can’t have the Church without it. But I am all in favor of being smart. I appreciate their openness to recognizing what isn’t working, and make changes. Things will be bumpy, there will be plenty of trial and error, and going “back to the drawing board”. It’s a much better system than going with whatever pops into your head and doubling down, which is what I’ve historically felt certain past revelations have been (no offense).
You’re right, the core of the Church will always stay the same: God calls prophets, who He directs through revelation to lead His people. That’s not going to change. But this:
Gerald wrote:
The idea of an atonement for our sins and our burdens, of improving ourselves and our relationships with others, of seeking a greater spiritual dimension to our lives, the acknowledgement that all human beings have value, etc. These are the doctrines or ideas that I would like to see focused on…
These gets talked about a LOT in Church. I’d say way more than any of the other “changes”. If there’s no system-altering revelations on these areas, it’s either because there’s hardly anything new to be said. The policy changes are meant to help us incorperate those doctrines better, or at least that’s their intent. A lot of the bigger issues, such as the poverty in Africa, are so complex and systemic… it’s not so much a matter of willingness to help, so much as how complex and systemic those issues are. Simply throwing money at an issue can cause a LOT of problems. Inducing social reform, can likewise lead to devistation if done incorrectly. It’s a delicate situation with no easy solutions.Sure, God “could” give revelation to fix all our socio-economic ills. But for some reason, He doesn’t. Maybe it’s because we wouldn’t accept it. Maybe he wants us to figure it out. Maybe he knows that with the imperfections of men, we’d botch it up. Maybe its because He knows we wouldn’t be willing to pay the price to make it happen. Maybe the GAs are much wiser than to lay claim to a “revelation” which could end in such disaster.
Quote:Sure, God “could” give revelation to fix all our socio-economic ills. But for some reason, He doesn’t. Maybe it’s because we wouldn’t accept it. Maybe he wants us to figure it out. Maybe he knows that with the imperfections of men, we’d botch it up. Maybe its because He knows we wouldn’t be willing to pay the price to make it happen. Maybe the GAs are much wiser than to lay claim to a “revelation” which could end in such disaster.
I totally agree. In fact, this nicely sums up my thoughts about revelation.
Just to be clear, my beef was with the
memberswaxing long and enthusiastic about the changes being revelation. I don’t think any of the recent changes have been presented that way by the general authorities. (Though I think they have implied that God supports the changes) Maybe the focus on the name of the Church comes close but I don’t recall President Nelson referring to it as revelation but rather a needed change (again, whether you agree or disagree is a different story). Gerald wrote:
Quote:Sure, God “could” give revelation to fix all our socio-economic ills. But for some reason, He doesn’t. Maybe it’s because we wouldn’t accept it. Maybe he wants us to figure it out. Maybe he knows that with the imperfections of men, we’d botch it up. Maybe its because He knows we wouldn’t be willing to pay the price to make it happen. Maybe the GAs are much wiser than to lay claim to a “revelation” which could end in such disaster.
I totally agree. In fact, this nicely sums up my thoughts about revelation.
Just to be clear, my beef was with the
memberswaxing long and enthusiastic about the changes being revelation. I don’t think any of the recent changes have been presented that way by the general authorities. (Though I think they have implied that God supports the changes) Maybe the focus on the name of the Church comes close but I don’t recall President Nelson referring to it as revelation but rather a needed change (again, whether you agree or disagree is a different story).
I think there is some inference of revelation coming from the top. From Elder Cook’s address introducing the two hour block and new curriculum (emphasis added):
Quote:I testify to you that in the deliberations of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the temple, and after
our beloved prophet petitioned the Lord for revelation to move forward with these adjustments, a powerful confirmation was received by all. Russell M. Nelson is our living President and prophet. The announcements made today will result in profound blessings for those who enthusiastically embrace the adjustments and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. We will become closer to our Heavenly Father and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, of whom I am a sure witness. I’m not saying I agree it’s revelation but this is what it is.
When speaking of all the recent church changes in his December 2018 Ensign article, Jeffrey R Holand said the following: Quote:As our ninth article of faith declares, āWe believe all that God has revealedāļ»æāthatās often the easy part. It takes a special kind of faith to ābelieve that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom,ā and then to be ready to accept them, whatever they are.
DarkJedi wrote:
I think there is some inference of revelation coming from the top. From Elder Cook’s address introducing the two hour block and new curriculum (emphasis added):Quote:I testify to you that in the deliberations of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the temple, and after
our beloved prophet petitioned the Lord for revelation to move forward with these adjustments, a powerful confirmation was received by all. Russell M. Nelson is our living President and prophet. The announcements made today will result in profound blessings for those who enthusiastically embrace the adjustments and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. We will become closer to our Heavenly Father and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, of whom I am a sure witness. I’m not saying I agree it’s revelation but this is what it is.
Relating this back to a few other recent topics, this does sound another instance where they could later say, “Well,
technicallywe never said the new changes were revelation… you just assumed, through our selective wording.” :angel: “Ends and means”, I guess. If people assume it was revelation, the new policies do carry more weight and less questioning.
dande48 wrote:
It used to annoy me how liberally the word “revelation” is used in the Church, but it’s one of the cornerstones of the Church I’ve come to accept. Though I don’t believe in it, you can’t have the Church without it.
Yeah, I suppose that revelation can come from surveys, focus groups, pilot programs, and committees – with God’s stamp of approval.Still it is ironic with the backdrop of the “great apostacy.” When other churches make changes to adjust to the current environment they are corrupting the pure gospel and committing apostacy. When we make changes to adjust to the current environment we are receiving revelation and practicing eternal progression. Not that I am complaining mind you, I welcome anything that frees our leadership/membership from being painted into a corner by the statements and programs of other administrations long since outdated.
Roy wrote:
When other churches make changes to adjust to the current environment they are corrupting the pure gospel and committing apostacy. When we make changes to adjust to the current environment we are receiving revelation and practicing eternal progression.
It’s maintaining their “brand exclusivity”, so to speak. But luckily, I think we’re moving away from that mentality, as we should. We’re still going to maintain our stance as being the “one and only true Church” with God’s “exclusive” authority. But I think the Church leadership is opening up to the idea that other religions can be inherently good and can receive revelation much in the same way.
Thank goodness we took away the “Preacher” out of the endowment ceremony. THAT was a phenomenal change.
I can’t speak about the temple changes, but the rest of them are purely operational. They DO have the trend of being more updated to modern times, easier on the members, more sensitive to the ineffectiveness of previous programs. All that deserves kudos. I have a tendency to criticize most things, and sure, some of these changes could be better (like shortening the 3 hour block by reducing reducing sacrament meeting time, which is the most boring meeting of all), but overall, I like the changes. I wish we had a better name for ourselves. I think Latter-Day Christians has a nice ring to it, and is a nice big fat flap in the face to the traditional Christian world that tries to marginalize us by broadcasting the falsehood that we aren’t Christians, but “you don’t always get what you wa-ant”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.