- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Right now all over Mormon America apoplexy is setting in. As one of our own stated, Quote:How could these men think that the 2015 revelation was a good thing and inspired and now not? It did so much harm.
This is a painful question for the ages. I don’t have answers. Nor do I dismiss those whose lives have been torn a second or third or millionth time.
But I also can not dismiss the courage it took to get this change to happen. And so quickly.
This would have been the last team of people I would have imagined that this would happen under. For all the rhetoric and stances they had taken – it was unthinkable that even a softening would happen. Let alone a shift.
My dad is their age, life has calcified for him. His right and wrongs are set. Nothing or no one changes them from him. The world has been a certain way for 90 years. It was a good world, safe world, a blessed world. It lived beyond the horrors of war. The years of severe depression and fear. For my dad to assimilate the possibility of an about face would take an act of God. I am not joking.
Millions of lives have worked tirelessly on behalf of the hurting and marginalized to get this to happen. There was no guarantee.
I pray acres of joy are over those who have wearied God, wearied leaders, wearied friends and family to get here.
I also pray for acres of insight, understanding and abundant joy on these men who took the full risk of losing many more souls than had already been lost and courageously, publicly u-turned.
Of all the moves yet by RMN this one was the riskiest. I wish all of us well.
There will be cognitive dissonance because of this quick reversal. I have no doubt, shelves are going to break. And I doubt most of those who’s shelves “broke” when the Nov 2015 policy came out, aren’t coming back. The usual LDS reaction when faced with adversity is to double down, which makes me surprised the Q15 didn’t with this policy. That took a lot of gut. In a way, they didn’t disavow the past revelation, just had a new revelation that superseded it. The Church has made it very clear, God doesn’t cave to social pressure, so for whatever reason it was right then but not now. It’s a tough message to swallow.
In the future, I hope the Church is a little more careful with what they declare as “revelation”. Most members would do well, to do the same.
I agree, mom3. I have mentioned seeing signs of change even before the change train came rumbling down the track, but this one blind-sided me – and I honor what it took to do it, no matter what that was.
Right now, I care only that it changed – and I honor both those who spoke out and those who listened.
I also want to add that we don’t hear about the input from the newer apostles – and I believe their voices were important.
There’s so much to give encouragement here. It seems that reason prevailed over a very strong stance, and that RMN is willing to rescind something everyone knows was his doing (except those members who stay off line or don’t look too closely). They haven’t exactly apologized and nothing will bring back the people who were lost. But the real shelf-breaker here is for those who believed church leaders are infallible and that “revelation” is reliable. Only the dumbest of the dumb will be able to hold on to that incredibly naive idea in the wake of this. And they will. But they will be a minority. hawkgrrrl wrote:
But the real shelf-breaker here is for those who believed church leaders are infallible and that “revelation” is reliable. Only the dumbest of the dumb will be able to hold on to that incredibly naive idea in the wake of this. And they will. But they will be a minority.
FWIW, isn’t that what the Church is *still* claiming? Or at least that the “revelation” Church leaders claim is infallible? Last I checked, the Nov 15 policy is still considered revelation. Not to mention, prophetic revelation is the bedrock of this Church. I also wouldn’t call them “dumb”. It takes a LOT to shift a paradigm, especially when your whole life is built on it.
Quote:“prophetic revelation is the bedrock of this Church.”
Is it? I thought it was just revelation, something all of us have access to. This calls into question the reliability of such.
Quote:“I also wouldn’t call them “dumb”. It takes a LOT to shift a paradigm, especially when your whole life is built on it.”
Maybe a better word is irrational. We are all irrational, after all, as humans. But it’s got to take some spectacular mental gymnastics to go from defending the PoX (and attacking those who didn’t buy it was revelation) to defending it being rescinded (and attacking those who say it never should have existed). But there’s a subset of church members who will do just that.
So, I was around and substantially impacted by the March 1982 Policy of 18 month missions for Elders. It was reverted in December, 1984, 2.75 years later; less time than it took to revise the Nov 15 policy (just under 3.5 years). As far as I could tell, people took that in stride. It made sense to undo it. What I came away with from that affair was the idea that the Church could make and rescind policy and it was fine, and that every action wasn’t the express command of God (which was healthy).
Quote:
As far as I could tell, people took that in stride. It made sense to undo it. What I came away with from that affair was the idea that the Church could make and rescind policy and it was fine, and that every action wasn’t the express command of God (which was healthy).Perhaps.
To me this one is stickier based on RMN’s Hawaii Fireside where he specifically used “revelation” as the guiding force. I believe even comparing it to the 1978 Priesthood Revelation. If he had not gone out on that limb it would feel more like a policy, as Elder Christofferson presented it at the press conference.
And if my memory was correct, in my area the 18 month change was presented as a financial and economic need, more than a policy or doctrine. As it continued to roll on, and then roll back it took on a cultural life of “God’s Divine Plan” or “More Worthy” “Less Worthy” issue. And yes we did make it through with less bumps. Part of that was because we weren’t singling out one group or another. All missionaries got the same treatment. This one was group specific.
Certainly, it is stickier. But my perspective is that the Nov 15 policy was not loved by hardly anyone. There was a lot of visible frustration, even among the faithful. Hardliners, maybe, but the average member was more than a little troubled, IMO. So, I think people will be more willing to move along and not look this gift horse in the Urim and Thummim. Quote:But my perspective is that the Nov 15 policy was not loved by hardly anyone. There was a lot of visible frustration, even among the faithful.
Agreed. Just weeks ago I had lunch with a core believer who was working on that frustration. I let her fish without biting.
Maybe if the word revelation wasn’t thrown around it would help. Yes it was a horrific policy and the blood letting it is continuing to have may not dry quickly, but if it had been policy would it have helped or hindered?
Either way I am glad it’s done.
I know someone that resigned over the PoX and I’ve got mixed feelings over this one. While I want to take some time to celebrate I’m also holding back a few less than positive feelings. hawkgrrrl wrote:
But it’s got to take some spectacular mental gymnastics to go from defending the PoX (and attacking those who didn’t buy it was revelation) to defending it being rescinded (and attacking those who say it never should have existed). But there’s a subset of church members who will do just that.
I know the type. I’m already seeing the battle over “But that was never revelation, that was never doctrine.” It’s human nature to be on the defensive when you feel threatened but that defensive behavior can serve as another layer of abuse.
Culturally we are still far from giving the rank and file member breathing room to be out ahead of the leaders (or behind them for that matter). If you disagreed with the PoX when it first came out you were apostate. The leaders made it clear that it was the revealed mind of the lord. If you are against the policy, you’re wrong. Period.
My takeaway is that I think I’ll use this as an example the next time we have a lesson on personal revelation. People can receive personal revelation that is in direct conflict with church leaders and that revelation is every bit as valid.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Is it? I thought it was just revelation, something all of us have access to. This calls into question the reliability of such.
Only if it aligns with the Church.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
But it’s got to take some spectacular mental gymnastics…
Humans are spectacular.
nibbler wrote:
My takeaway is that I think I’ll use this as an example the next time we have a lesson on personal revelation. People can receive personal revelation that is in direct conflict with church leaders and that revelation is every bit as valid.
“…And when everyone’s super… No one will be.”
On Own Now wrote:
So, I was around and substantially impacted by the March 1982 Policy of 18 month missions for Elders. It was reverted in December, 1984, 2.75 years later; less time than it took to revise the Nov 15 policy (just under 3.5 years).As far as I could tell, people took that in stride. It made sense to undo it. What I came away with from that affair was the idea that the Church could make and rescind policy and it was fine, and that every action wasn’t the express command of God (which was healthy).
I was around for that, too. I was an 18 month missionary and may not have even considered going if the 18 month thing hadn’t been introduced. I think the big difference there was that neither implementing nor changing 18 month missions was presented as revelation. The explanation for reducing to 18 months had more to do with allowing people in countries who otherwise wouldn’t be able to serve because of military obligations, etc. And I do recall it being a financial consideration (in those days there was no uniform cost – if you went to Mexico it cost you $50/mo. and if you went to Alaska it cost you $450/mo. and you didn’t know how much you needed until you got your call AND $450 was a lot more money then). Also at the end (I was out when it changed back to 24) the explanation was that mission presidents didn’t like it because 18 months was when a missionary was at his peak and they had to put people in leadership positions with less experience. I didn’t buy those by the way, and I think there were a couple other similar lame things I can’t recall. Anyway, it was only ever presented as policy change then, no revelation claimed.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Quote:“prophetic revelation is the bedrock of this Church.”
Is it? I thought it was just revelation, something all of us have access to.
This calls into question the reliability of such. My thoughts exactly, except I drew this conclusion when they hid the gospel topic essays on LDS.org, and stated they didn’t know where the priesthood ban came from, and disavowed all racism. That statement, to me, threw into question the whole revelatory foundation of our church, or the statement that the prophet would never lead us astray.
I have seen scanned letters from the FP to a sociologist in Cuba in which they FP members called the priesthood ban doctrine (back in the 50’s or 60’s). The FP at the time even rebuked the sociologist when he questioned racism in the FP’s questions regarding blacks in Cuba. The sociologist also questioned their questions about the impact on expanding missionary efforts there due to the presence of blacks. The FP responded by telling the sociologist not to rely on the wisdom of men, and called the priesthood ban “doctrine”.
But I was happy about the implications it has for the revelatory foundation of our church. This is because it only justified the peace-inducing path I had taken a few years ago — lessening my commitment to the church, putting my own conscience ahead of any irrational revelation from above, and doing what made me happy (and wholesome) rather than what the church said I should do. (Remember, there have been ample talks about revelation seeming irrational to people, when it actually makes sense in the long run(( but often, never does)). I think my own commitment shelf was already broken, so more evidence that it SHOULD be broken is welcome.
And I can be somewhat active in our church without believing everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet or high level GA is pure revelation.
Again, so thankful for the Internet that really provides a lot of fast feedback on policies put forward by our leaders. I often wonder if our posts here — given by people who still have affinity for the church, but can also look at it with a naked eye –influence the leaders decision making even a tiny bit. I think they might.
I can even come up with a rationalization for the reversal of the policy. This is a rationalization from a StayLDS perspective -The reversal was necessary to show the membership that the church can grow and change, make mistakes, and publicly reverse them, thus projectingforward a kinder, gentler, less stubborn faith. This was direction from God to send that message. I am only rationalizing. It will be interesting to see what traditional believers do with this. What justifications will they give? I am looking on with interest.
dande48 wrote:
In the future, I hope the Church is a little more careful with what they declare as “revelation”. Most members would do well, to do the same.
Best to call as much as possible “policy” and leave it at that. LIke the difference between an executive order by the POTUS and actual legislation passed by Congress. Executive Orders are the temporary decree of the president and can be easily rescinded and invoked, Laws are permanent, hard to change, and passed by Congress and the Senate. Executive orders are like policy, legislation is like revelation (I am not saying our politicians are inspired! Just drawing an analogy).
Years ago, when they revamped the Handbook of instructions, someone said it wasn’t revelation, simply the current leadership’s best understanding about how it should all work. THAT is a good example of church change.
I am also a bit tired of leaders playing the “the Lord wants you to take this calling” card. And using the revelation card as a way of getting people to believe or at least, not object. It might sound good in the moment, but it makes it really hard to make change when the new revelation turns out to produce unintended, undesirable results.
I like the creed of the Dunkers, a religious group that existed in the time of Ben Franklin. Franklin refers to how the Quakers would routinely paint themselves into a corner over uncategorical statements of what is “truth” or “revelation”. In this case, decrying ward, and therefore, unable to support troops in the revolutionary war. Frankline believed the Dunkers had a better approach…
“These embarrassments that the Quakers suffered from having established and published it as one of their principles that no kind of war was lawful, and which, being once published, they could not afterwards, however they might change their minds, easily get rid of, reminds me of what I think a more prudent conduct in another sect among us, that of the Dunkers.
I was acquainted with one of its founders, Michael Welfare, soon after it appeared. He complained to me that they were grievously calumniated by the zealots of other persuasions, and charged with abominable principles and practices, to which they were utter strangers. I told him this had always been the case with new sects, and that, to put a stop to such abuse, I imagined it might be well to publish the articles of their belief and the rules of their discipline.
He said that it had been proposed among them, but not agreed to, for this reason: “When we were first drawn together as a society,” says he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truth. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now, we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive farther improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done to be something sacred, never to be departed from.”
This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them. To avoid this kind of embarrassment, the Quakers leave of late years been gradually declining the public service in the Assembly and in the magistracy, choosing rather quit their power than their principle.”
I think as Mormons we might take a similar approach if we want to keep the phrase “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” credible. The leaders are people, and they make the policies. Let’s acknowledge they are imperfect and keep our testimonies intact in the process!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.