- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
No. No. Yes.
When we went to Kirtland about 8 years ago, the missionary guides who were there shared a handout with stories of 9 locations in Kirtland where members – not just apostles – saw the Savior. Were these group hallucinations brought on by too much pipe smoke and not enough ventilation, fasting, sacramental wine? I think we are very dismissive of these things now, but I can’t help but wonder if these kinds of group (and even individual) spiritual manifestations have largely gone away because 1) the wrong people got “promoted” at some point (as happened in Catholicism) or 2) those things were necessary as a foundation only, not after. That is, if you believe they ever did happen in the first place. I’m inclined to take group manifestations more seriously than individual ones.
.
I understand that speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues particularly in the relief society meetings was not uncommon around the turn of the century. I bring this up because I tend to feel that if people are instructed that they should have these experiences and are placed in an environment where they are accepted, they will begin to have stated experiences. Whether they (the Kirtland members) personally believed the experiences happened to them or they just went along with the crowd is a matter of speculation. I would say that both are likely true and that there are interesting interactions between group think and phyco-sematic experiences.
What I think I can say confidently is that the current church environment is not very accepting of these experiences. Stephen Robinson in his book Following Christ (sequel to Believing Christ) says that any personal revelatory experience should be maintained private and secret. Bro. Robinson goes so far as to attack the credibility of anyone who has shared such experiences as either a liar or a commandment breaker (based on the D&C scripture that some know the mysteries but are commanded not to share).
PA – Catholicism went from early Christianity to (according to LDS and other restorationist traditions) apostasy in a few short hundred years. Even Catholics like to downplay the “bad popes” who got the job by killing off their predecessor or who had mistresses. The top jobs became political and highly secular in a fairly short time. Of course, that’s also when Catholicism amassed wealth and became much more popular, under the patronage of Emporer Constantine. Not comprehensive at all, but here’s an article on Five Bad Popes: http://relijournal.com/christianity/vatican-scandals-five-bad-popes-in-papacy-history/ That was an interesting read. I thought the final paragraph was a bit controversial, however: Quote:Based on the records of their primary deeds while in office, one can safely say that these Popes were really remiss in their sacred duties. In defense of the Catholic Church and in which every sensible individual will likely agree, the brunt of culpability entirely belongs to these people, not on the religious institution where they have served with incredible failures.
For me, the organization promoted these people to these positions. They DID punish them for what they did, it appears in most cases, however the logic that the organization is never responsbible absolutely holds no water with me.
SD – I agree with you. You’ll find that some of the arguments in defense of the bad popes are a lot like what some orthodox members say in defense of our own leaders. Same goes for some of the thorny Catholic doctrines. Catholic Answers often provides fascinating reading in this vein. Hawkgrrl: That is why I like the Church of Christ’s statement of beliefs about the role of history in their faith. They say their faith is independent of the history. They also say they are not afraid of inquiry (I posted their position in this regard in another thread). I think it allows for less frustrating commentary from members of the Church who can’t handle anything that calls into question the sanitized version of history we find in Truth Restored.
The other thing that bothers me is how these organizations, presumably the Catholics, but definitely our own organization, have little accountability whatsoever to their members. Is it really a characteristic of a divine organization to structure their affairs so they are free of accountability to the sheep? Free of any accounting of the resources committed to it?
For me, there is a huge disconnect here. We do espouse the principles of democracy and transparency in allowing the membership to sustain Church officers, yet this is as far as it goes. And if I personally was in a position to lead others, I would WANT it to be democratic. For me, that’s the only way to lead in such a way that speaks to the diversity and needs of the populace, and to get full buy-in. Perhaps I’m a product of our North American culture, but I sometimes find it hard to believe in a Theocracy (eventually) that uses a command and control mentality. The companies I have worked for don’t engender a lot of commitment using that methodology. The companies that take a more democratic approach that respects the individual are the ones that achieve high levels of commitment.
Or am I expecting too much of our little Church?
SD, why would you want the Will of God to be determined by the masses? That seem awfully problematic to me. I think the Church has some accountability because if they stop meeting the needs of the people, the people vote with their feet. I wonder if that is not currently happening and lots of churches are having to face this challenge.
Quote:SD, why would you want the Will of God to be determined by the masses? That seem awfully problematic to me.
Amen! That’s the biggest reason why I don’t care about financial transparency in the Church, especially for the corporate wing. I am convinced – and I mean convinced – that the suggestion / complaint box would be overflowing within days from active members, inactive members, ex-members, non-members, anti-Mormons, etc. screaming about how the funds were being used and distributed wrongly. It would be a no-win situation, imo – and the waste of time, energy and oxygen fighting and defending the use of those funds would be a shame.
Sure, there’s an element of faith in my stance – but, from a totally practical standpoint, I don’t care one bit if there is not financial transparency.
Now that we’ve strayed from the actual question of the post . . .
🙂 Heber13 wrote:SD, why would you want the Will of God to be determined by the masses? That seem awfully problematic to me.
I think the Church has some accountability because if they stop meeting the needs of the people, the people vote with their feet. I wonder if that is not currently happening and lots of churches are having to face this challenge.
I don’t want the Will of God determined by the masses. I want the will of God to be a creative synthesis of the needs of the individuals and Godly requirements. I think He did a pretty good job of it with the Atonement and the Law of Justice and Mercy. I would like to see more of it in our contemporary Church — these synergistic, creative, contradictory solutions which in the end, benefit everyone, and don’t seem to be so skewed toward the organization’s needs alone. Again, when I see an organization claiming divine direction, I feel it’s reasonable to assume it does so in ways that are far above the world.
I can see why you assumed I was advocating a purely bottom-up philosophy of religion however. However, my meaning was more “participative” than democratic. Our Church is definitely not participative. Rarely do we hear the brethren say “we have listened to the voice of the members and there have made such and such a change to our policies”. If they do listen, and are influenced by the voice of the general membership, it is never announced as the originating source of the change. It is always portrayed as God telling us it is time for such and such a change. The only evidence I’ve seen of such participation is on page 143 of the latest GC Ensign issue. And even then, the call is for survey participants to answer questions about features of the Church magazines; not matters of Church policy. Matters of policy are the tight domain of the brethren in my view.
And yes, I guess we’re a bit off topic….sorry….been going where the discussion is flowing…
SilentDawning wrote:Heber13 wrote:SD, why would you want the Will of God to be determined by the masses? That seem awfully problematic to me.
I think the Church has some accountability because if they stop meeting the needs of the people, the people vote with their feet. I wonder if that is not currently happening and lots of churches are having to face this challenge.
I don’t want the Will of God determined by the masses. I want the will of God to be a creative synthesis of the needs of the individuals and Godly requirements. I think He did a pretty good job of it with the Atonement and the Law of Justice and Mercy. I would like to see more of it in our contemporary Church — these synergistic, creative, contradictory solutions which in the end, benefit everyone, and don’t seem to be so skewed toward the organization’s needs alone. Again, when I see an organization claiming divine direction, I feel it’s reasonable to assume it does so in ways that are far above the world.
I can see why you assumed I was advocating a purely bottom-up philosophy of religion however. However, my meaning was more “participative” than democratic. Our Church is definitely not participative. Rarely do we hear the brethren say “we have listened to the voice of the members and there have made such and such a change to our policies”. If they do listen, and are influenced by the voice of the general membership, it is never announced as the originating source of the change. It is always portrayed as God telling us it is time for such and such a change. The only evidence I’ve seen of such participation is on page 143 of the latest GC Ensign issue. And even then, the call is for survey participants to answer questions about features of the Church magazines; not matters of Church policy. Matters of policy are the tight domain of the brethren in my view.
And yes, I guess we’re a bit off topic….sorry….been going where the discussion is flowing…
Hey SD, I’m thinking of 3 things:
1) Remember in rough stone rolling where Oliver is about to be exed and he slips into the language of democracy, checks and balances, and “the people” as the highest authority. I think it is worthy to review, as Bro. Bushman discusses how some of our practices mimic democratic practices on the surface but are fundamentally different.
2) In some ways we are VERY participative in the local and regional level. I’ve even read theories of the general membership helping to determine doctrine (by ignoring doctrines we don’t like or understand [i.e. Adam-God etc.] and eventually they go away).
3) Finally your perspective is heavily skewed by your upbringing in the US. Depending on the degree of “power distance” in a given society people are more or less comfortable having an authoritative structure. Russians for example can be confused by attempts to get them to participate in goal setting and other management participation, because that is a “boss” function. I just think it is important to note that even if the church adjusted perfectly to the US trends of commitment solicitation, participative management, democratic leadership etc.- this structure would be “wrong” for people of varying cultures.
I think your last point is very important to remember, roy – and it’s easy to forget relative to LOTS of things we discuss. I quoted the last sentence and opened a new thread specifically about the idea that the LDS Church is not an American institution anymore.
I was in a meeting (at work) this week and a story was shared about David B. Haight. He pointed to a picture of the Savior and said (I wont’ quote) The Savior I know had a small neck and his clothing more tannish than red. (end of non-quote) This leaving the impression that he had actually seen Jesus Christ. This being told to us third hand. From Elder Haight to another church official who shared it with the person in our meeting (and his son). No idea what I think of it really. It’s not something I find particularly faith building but I think for a lot of people it is. Maybe if it was first hand…
This actually came up in a sacrament mtg talk today. The speaker relayed a story he’d heard which he prefaced with a disclaimer. Acknowledging that the story may be untrue, he recounted about a senior apostle leading a junior apostle in to a room in the temple (iirc) to meet “a friend”. It smacked of “faith promoting rumor” and was presented in such a casual tone as to border on disrespectful. For some reason, I can’t see the Lord saying “Hey Jeff, go get that new apostle and bring him in here. But don’t tell him I’m waiting. Let’s see how he reacts!” It just doesn’t jive with the “hallowed ground” experiences of the prophets in scripture.
I have been a member of the Church for 33-years and used to believe with all my heart that the apostles had indeed seen the Savior, imagining it as a rite of passage to apostleship. Over the years, though, I have listened closely and heard strong indications (such as from President Hinckley) that this in fact is not the case. (Or consider Elder McConkie’s final testimony in General Conference.)
I have no problem with this. The problem I have is with the manner in which this canard is propagated in the Church, even by the apostles themselves, who try to convey that they have seen Jesus Christ while not actually saying they have seen Jesus Christ, usually couched in an “apostolic witness” with a strong emphasis on the word “know.”
It seems apparent that the apostles know the message they are conveying and the faith-promoting rumour they are keeping alive by doing so.
I find this somewhat disconcerting.
All the Best!
–Consiglieri
I have thought for some time that it seems Elder Holland has made some interesting comments in Conference about the practical use of heavenly visitations. Quote:My beloved brothers and sisters, I testify of angels, both the heavenly and the mortal kind. In doing so I am testifying that God never leaves us alone, never leaves us unaided in the challenges that we face. … On occasions, global or personal, we may feel we are distanced from God, shut out from heaven, lost, alone in dark and dreary places. Often enough that distress can be of our own making, but even then the Father of us all is watching and assisting. And always there are those angels who come and go all around us, seen and unseen, known and unknown, mortal and immortal.
October 2008, The Ministry of AngelsQuote:Every man and woman you have heard during the past 10 hours of general conference has tried to be true to that prompting. Each has wept, worried, and earnestly sought the Lord’s direction to guide his or her thoughts and expression. And just as Brigham Young saw an angel standing over this place, so do I see angels standing in it. My brethren and sisters among the general officers of the Church will be uneasy with that description, but that is how I see them—mortal messengers with angelic messages, men and women who have all the physical and financial and family difficulties you and I have but who with faith have consecrated their lives to the callings that have come to them and the duty to preach God’s word, not their own.
April 2011, An Ensign to the Nations
To me, this is not denying that Apostles COULD see the Savior, or requiring they MUST see the Savior. But an emphasis on realizing God’s hand in the work, regardless of whether that is through visitations from beings of another world, or realization of truth found in this world.consiglieri wrote:I have been a member of the Church for 33-years and used to believe with all my heart that the apostles had indeed seen the Savior, imagining it as a rite of passage to apostleship.
Over the years, though, I have listened closely and heard strong indications (such as from President Hinckley) that this in fact is not the case. (Or consider Elder McConkie’s final testimony in General Conference.)
I have no problem with this. The problem I have is with the manner in which this canard is propagated in the Church, even by the apostles themselves, who try to convey that they have seen Jesus Christ while not actually saying they have seen Jesus Christ, usually couched in an “apostolic witness” with a strong emphasis on the word “know.”
It seems apparent that the apostles know the message they are conveying and the faith-promoting rumour they are keeping alive by doing so.
I find this somewhat disconcerting.
All the Best!
–Consiglieri
I agree. The reason I find it disconcerting is that it fosters other false ideas like:
Only apostles can see the Savior
Apostles are different, better, more righteous, etc than the rest of us
Apostles and Prophets are nearly infallible due to this special communion (and presumably divine advice on every official word and deed)
If you remember Pres. Uchtdorf’s “don’t inhale” story from the Oct 2010 (iirc) General Conference, it’s clear that some in the general leadership are aware of the cult of personality (or office) that surrounds these men. You’d think they would avoid anything that even appears to elevate themselves from the body of saints.
On the other hand, what should they say to discourage the repeating of these FPRs that wouldn’t sound as if it diminished the spiritual experiences they have had?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.