- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We were on the road last week so I missed the first D&C GD lesson. I later checked in on a blog I read now and then: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2017/01/quick-thoughts-dc-130-true-living-church/ Quote:What, then, does the LDS Church have a monopoly on? One thing.The authority to perform ordinances. That’s it. That’s not a small or unimportant thing, but it is more limited than many people have realized….
I know it’s one of his quicker posts, and, of course, this is not news to me, but it’s still had me feeling a little pessimistic this week. I was just struck by what a dead-end I think it is for us – not just a discussion-ender in class, but a stance that really does us no favors. I feel like the more we claim such pat legal authority to administer ordinances, the more moral authority we lose in the current climate. Someone like my husband might agree, but just expects the climate to change…or not, at which point we are just vindicated in a final conflagration.
I think ordinances are or can be very important, but do you think that in fifty years we’ll still be implying or expressing our authority to do them as a monopoly?
(I really liked his observation about the Iron Rod and Liahona: “The unambiguously certain Iron Rod only existed in the reduced reality of a dream state, whereas the actual day-to-day guidance was the changing, unpredictable, and fallible (in the sense that sometimes it failed to respond) Liahona.”)
The iron rod is also explicitly presented as a symbol to Nephi and Lehi, it wasn’t meant to be a literal rod people grab ahold of, it was the “word of God.” Now I just need someone to explain to me what the (lower case) word of God is. I’m pretty sure we interpret Word of God as Jesus. Maybe word of God is the scriptures. Meh, it is what you make of it. It’s interesting isn’t it? A symbol that helps people strike a definitive course and a tangible object that helps people plot a more nebulous course. You’d think it would be the other way around.
I’m not going to beat around the bush with this comment. I think it’s sad that when someone asks “But why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” the answer that usually floats to the top is that we’re the only church that has divine authority, as if there is nothing else compelling about the church. Unfortunately I think this attitude is buried in the subconscious of our culture. Maybe it’s just me but for the longest time I attended church and participated in the programs not because I found them relevant, interesting, or useful but because this was the True Church. Take the divine authority away and you’re left with a bunch of boring meetings that are not relevant to my life. Relying on our divine authority alone has made us lazy and complacent.
I know, I know. There are many people that legitimately enjoy church, divine authority or no. That wasn’t really me though. Before the fall I was finding church utterly boring.
When people ask, “but why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” I’d like to hear people start saying, “because I feel loved here and it’s a place where I can love people.” or “it helps me with life’s problems” or some similar sappy thing. It doesn’t really satisfy the person asking the question but I think it’s an answer that’s more spiritually sustaining than, “because god said so.”
I wanted to break my thoughts up into two posts. Quote:…do you think that in fifty years we’ll still be implying or expressing our authority to do them as a monopoly?
I have no idea. Weathermen are professionals in their field and they can’t predict the weather with any degree of certainty more than a day or two out. We were supposed to have some near 70 degree days earlier this week, as the coveted 70 degree days drew closer the weathermen adjusted everyone’s hopes downward. Those two near 70 degree days that were only 4 days away? Both turned out to be upper 40 degree days. Bummer. I’m just saying that while I’m a tea leaf reader, I’m no professional and 50 years is a long time.
I believe it would take
a lotto get away from the divine authority narrative, almost a complete overhaul of the church. What do we send our missionaries out to teach? The message we preach is join the church, it has divine authority. Key elements of the first lesson in Preach My Gospel is about convincing people that no one else has divine authority (great apostasy) then teaching them about how our church does (restoration). The lessons that follow the first are mostly centered around teaching people our doctrines, then the last lesson has a section that reiterates our divine authority (called Priesthood and Auxiliaries). The second question of the baptismal interview is:
Quote:Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
Second only to “Do you believe in god?” It makes sense though, the missionary arm of the church has the task of convincing people why they should join our church and not some other church or even no church.
The temple recommend questions are similar to the baptismal interview questions in that divine authority comes right after the questions about belief in god and the atonement. Divine authority is near the very top of our culture’s priority list.
So will the church gradually arrive at a place where less emphasis is placed on having divine authority? I have no idea. When I consider the group of men that have a high potential of becoming prophet some day (Nelson, Oaks, Holland, Bednar) I wonder which of them would place less emphasis on holding divine authority, they all come across as fairly authoritarian to me… maybe with the exception of Holland who has come across as ¿furious? as of late. Divine authority seems important to them and they set the tone.
If we de-emphasized divine authority what would become the primary focus of the church? I’d love to see outreach. A church known for service, not authority. A Nibblonian can dream.
I don’t think this will ever change because we are a restoration church. The entire narrative of our very existence hinges on the notion that the church had to be restored because it wasn’t on the earth: the Catholic church (and its ordinances) are not recognized by us and neither are protestant ordinances. Many other Christian churches recognize other sects’ ordinances, but we never have because of our restoration narrative. Take that away, and we have no reason to exist. We aren’t protestant because we didn’t break off of another sect. We aren’t from Catholicism. A different question I’ve sometimes wondered though is if the church would ever recognize ordinances done by other LDS restoration churches. They can also trace their priesthood to the same restoration. They have the same types of priesthood lineage charts our priesthood holders have (and some of their priesthood holders are women), leading back to Joseph Smith. But we don’t currently recognize their ordinances either, and they even in some cases have ordinances we have dropped, such as the washing of feet as a routine ordinance. Here’s a full list of LDS offshoots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement nibbler wrote:So will the church gradually arrive at a place where less emphasis is placed on having divine authority? I have no idea. When I consider the group of men that have a high potential of becoming prophet some day (Nelson, Oaks, Holland, Bednar) I wonder which of them would place less emphasis on holding divine authority, they all come across as fairly authoritarian to me… maybe with the exception of Holland who has come across as ¿furious? as of late. Divine authority seems important to them and they set the tone.
I can’t see a way for this to come about first from the top. It just isn’t in their interest. The only way I could see the top leaders easing off the authority gas pedal is if so many people are falling off the cart (leaving the church) that it threatens the very church’s long term viability. But if it gets to that point, I could also see it becoming so strict and authoritarian that we would be shocked today. But going the super strict “kiss my ring” authoritarianism will create a MUCH smaller church.Hawkgrrrl does bring up an interesting question on the sister churches of the restoration. The LDS church seems to have the MO of just never even mentioning them as a way of marginalizing them to most LDS. I wonder if any event could cause some of the branches to come together for strength. Interesting thought.
nibbler wrote:If we de-emphasized divine authority what would become the primary focus of the church? I’d love to see outreach. A church known for service, not authority. A Nibblonian can dream.
Or Bushmanians who like his vision of a “new persona” for the church as humble followers of Christ. I just don’t think leading with apostasy and restoration as hard and fasts works. I guess someone could ask what it matters to claim it as long as it inspires us to create loving bonds and serve each other, but I’m beginning to think the words matter. Does the “triumphalist” (Bushman description) rhetoric and claim to authority put off more people than it will attract in this day?
hawkgrrrl wrote:I don’t think this will ever change because we are a restoration church. The entire narrative of our very existence hinges on the notion that the church had to be restored because it wasn’t on the earth: the Catholic church (and its ordinances) are not recognized by us and neither are protestant ordinances. Many other Christian churches recognize other sects’ ordinances, but we never have because of our restoration narrative. Take that away, and we have no reason to exist. We aren’t protestant because we didn’t break off of another sect. We aren’t from Catholicism.
If North American growth flattens and we continue to lose a high percentage of young adults, would we simply try another tack? Emphasize “personal Restoration” or something, maybe (conveniently?) by leading with the 1832 FIrst Vision account?Quote:…a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the
opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy walk in my statutes and keep my commandments …. “Early members of the church did this in their way, and we today strive….” – something along those lines.
LookingHard wrote:I can’t see a way for this to come about first from the top. It just isn’t in their interest. The only way I could see the top leaders easing off the authority gas pedal is if so many people are falling off the cart (leaving the church) that it threatens the very church’s long term viability. But if it gets to that point, I could also see it becoming so strict and authoritarian that we would be shocked today. But going the super strict “kiss my ring” authoritarianism will create a MUCH smaller church..
I think it won’t come from the top. I guess the question is timing, how much ground they can each cover to meet in the middle of a still-healthy church.I know in other settings this talk is considered presumptuous ark-steadying, but, hey, I’m an interested, invested party wondering if my kids will be LDS five years from now. And that’s how the post in the OP got me thinking. He’s a fairly young, very scholarly person, and I was struck by the idea that we simply might never change.
Ann wrote:do you think that in fifty years we’ll still be implying or expressing our authority to do them as a monopoly?
Yes… absolutely. After all, the Church wouldn’t hold much value for the general membership if it said, “you need to be baptized… or not… and anyone can do it. We can do it too, if you like, but you must commit to paying 10% of your gross income (ut sis minus) for the rest of your life and people will never stop with the how-many-wives-do-you-have jokes.” Remember, the Church doesn’t think of itself as boasting, but rather blessing, when it says it has authority from God.
On Own Now wrote:Remember, the Church doesn’t think of itself as boasting, but rather blessing, when it says it has authority from God.
And that’s a pretty common issue; the Church spends so much time moving goalposts I don’t think they know where the real end zone is anymore.
I doubt it’s ever occurred to any of the top brass to follow a day or so behind the missionaries and ask the folks who aren’t interested what their impression of the sales pitch was. Probably afraid they’d hear things that don’t fit the usual echo chamber.
I liked this from “Thoughts on Mormon Exclusivity” at Rational Faiths: Quote:Finally, our ultimate reward isn’t tied to clear, objective rules since God is the ultimate Judge and each person, we’re taught, is represented by Jesus, the mediator who argues for mercy to whatever extent possible. In the end, religious affiliation in mortality doesn’t really mean much in the determination of reward and punishment. And God certainly knows whether we’re being honest and authentic within our sphere of understanding.
God wants to reach us, no matter how many religions it takes.
I wish we could just officially say, “And it’s going to take a lot, not just ours.” To me that’s mature, gracious, realistic. And just on a real personal note, it’s something my kids could believe in.Quote:“If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the Church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Aristotle has told us that a city is a unity of unlikes, and St. Paul that a body is a unity of different members. Heaven is a city, and a body, because the blessed remain eternally different: a society,
because each has something to tell all others– fresh and ever fresh news of the ‘My God’whom each finds in Him whom all praise as ‘Our God.’” -C.S. Lewis “I doubt it’s ever occurred to any of the top brass to follow a day or so behind the missionaries and ask the folks who aren’t interested what their impression of the sales pitch was.” I’m not sure that’s the right group to ask. Missionaries talk to everybody, including people not even remotely at a point in their life when they are seeking. There’s almost no lead qualification in that sales approach. What I’d be more curious about is maybe finding out why people joined anychurch they did–what was it that they felt, what attracted them to the congregation, how long did they think about it, etc. But we also have this narrative that our church is “harder” and therefore “better” than those weak Christian churches that barely require any sacrifices. So we have a tendency to discount every other choice as “wanting to sin.” Aint happenin’. There is no way they will give up the only one true church concept. One thing is for sure, the church is very concerned about retaining members, and to do an about face on that issue would rock the foundations of the church. People would leave, I’m sure, and who wants to pay 10% of gross for something that isn’t even true? hawkgrrrl wrote:But we also have this narrative that our church is “harder” and therefore “better” than those weak Christian churches that barely require any sacrifices. So we have a tendency to discount every other choice as “wanting to sin.”
Our model is that the truth of our doctrine/exclusive authority will motivate you to endure the environment and experience of the church (for your own good). Some churches have a model where the environment and experience of the church is so inviting and welcoming that you are motivated to stay even if you do not quite buy 100% into the doctrine.
Quote:
I think it won’t come from the top. I guess the question is timing, how much ground they can each cover to meet in the middle of a still-healthy church.I know in other settings this talk is considered presumptuous ark-steadying, but, hey, I’m an interested, invested party wondering if my kids will be LDS five years from now. And that’s how the post in the OP got me thinking. He’s a fairly young, very scholarly person, and I was struck by the idea that we simply might never change.
I know I didn’t like have my world rocked. It wasn’t fun. Because of it I don’t mind if the church doesn’t make a big swing. My fantasy is that we would take a more 3rd Nephi approach and let everyone come from where they are and grow into the place that fulfills them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.