- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I agree that the gospel and the Church should ideally be two separate things but I don’t believe most members including top Church leaders typically make this distinction. When I hear “gospel” from the Church and Church members I read it as meaning all the main points the Church teaches including tithing, the WoW, temple ordinances, priesthood, and obedience to prophets. I understand that it is not really necessary to try to read other people’s minds and try to answer what we think they mean by these questions if we already understand them differently and feel comfortable with the way we want to answer them. However, to me “restoration of the gospel” and “restoration” don’t sound that different because the way the Church claims the gospel was restored still implies that the Church is special in an exclusive way because it supposedly has God-given doctrines and divine approval that others don’t which I don’t believe is true or even a very positive idea overall to focus on nearly as much as the Church currently does.
One reason I wouldn’t feel too bad about interpreting these questions differently than most active members do is because I think the real purpose behind all these questions as far as what the Church really wants out of us and why is basically to feel like Church members are alright and are willing to support the Church and show some token level of loyalty to it. So the answer they really want to get out of all of these questions is essentially, “I’m alright; you don’t need to worry about me.” In this case, I think they see lack of testimony as a problem that supposedly needs to be fixed mostly because they associate it with lack of commitment and members falling away from the Church permanently which is understandably very serious in their minds if they equate Church activity with potential salvation and blessings. So that’s probably the main reason why they want members with weak or non-existent testimonies to try to develop this exaggerated conviction about how important the Church supposedly is. It reminds me of an overprotective mother nagging her children to brush their teeth, eat their vegetables, clean their room, etc. So that’s how I would look at it; basically they mean well but I already know more than enough to make my own decisions without needing to involve them in it that much.
+1000
This question has been a stumbling block and barrier for me in the past. I would have answered “No” but after reading the other responses and pondering on it I am prepared to honestly answer yes. I’m not sure if my ecclesiastical leaders would welcome or be horrified by my micro-step towards temple attendance. The first step in the puzzle is in the understanding of the term Restoration of the Gospel. I can answer yes if I interpret this term to mean progress towards a better way (or The Way for short).
I believe that mankind has been making progress from the beginning. I do not believe that this progress is uniform or consistent; there are backsliding and false starts. Sometimes the progress seems to come in cycles (pride cycle anyone?). I also believe that in the past the progress of different continents and cultures would vary widely. I guess in this way you could say that the “restoration of the Gospel” is both global and local.
I believe that the dark ages represent a major protracted backslide or a complete system crash/apostasy at least from the European perspective. If we take the position that the enlightenment that helped us climb out of the hole of the dark ages represents a new movement or divine stirring separate and apart other previous movements, we can then apply the term “restoration of the Gospel in the later days” to this phenomenon.
I like that in this approach. The restoration can include the works of Galileo, Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, as well as the reformers like Martin Luther and Calvin. I believe that my understanding of the life of JS would fit in quite well with this premise. The emergence of Mormonism can make up but a small part in the tapestry of “restoration” and progress of mankind.
Quote:We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
The second half of this is that the restoration is a process. I believe that we continue to move forward, either through the sputtering efforts of humanity alone, the inspiration of the Light of Christ, more miraculous (but no less divine) prodding forward, or the jumbled combination of all three.
Perhaps in this way the manifesto was part of the restoration, extending the priesthood to all worthy males was part of the restoration, and the establishment of the perpetual education fund was part of the restoration.
Perhaps the membership and the leadership of the church today have a role to play in helping the restoration forward and opposing retrenchment, isolationism, and siege mentality.
In pondering and praying over this new approach, I feel ok. I wouldn’t suggest that this is the new truth. It is in some ways similar to my pondering and praying over a career path – I felt at peace with the decision but not a strong prompting in a particular direction. Perhaps God doesn’t have a strong preference on how I label things. He didn’t reveal to Adam the one and only names for everything – he allowed Adam to come up with names on his own.
In summary, I now answer “Yes” to this question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.