- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I find this comes up in a lot of threads as people discuss certain matters. There appears to be a fluid definition of what “the church” actually is. To some it’s just a concept. To others, it’s the policy in the manuals. To others, its the leaders. Others think it has nothing to do with the people who are individual agents and whose actions have no reflection on the church as a whole. I’m sure there are other definitions. So, what what IS the church?
Great question! I take an “institutional” view. The church is a organization that includes promotion of religious ideals and influences the culture and beliefs of its followers. As such, it would include the definition of beliefs (doctrines) and policies and procedures it expects it members to follow. That said, I know what you’re asking and I’m not sure I really answered. We so often hear things on forums like this (and to an extent at the physical church) things like “the church teaches” or “the church believes” or even “the church hides its history” and of course the venerable “I know this church is true.” The institutional view doesn’t really cover that because, despite its definition, a figurative organization can’t influence anything – it’s not real. So that leads to the question,then, is the church the sum of its membership? is it the GAs? Is it just specific GAs (the Q15)? Is it the prophet? Is it none of those, but rather the sum of scriptural teachings?
Again, great question!
Excellent point DarkJedi, and that is exactly why I conflict with most of those statemtents: The “church” can’t teach anything, it is the people in the church that teach. No two people will have the exact same understanding, so the most accurate statement will be “some” people in the church or even “most” members may see a topic in one light.
“The church” believes…
“The church” asks us…
All of these statements are best changed to “some members” or “church leadership.”
It really can rub me the wrong way when some members or leaders say “The Lord” wants or has asked… I translate that to “MY understanding of the Lord’s will is…” but it can be a difficult situation when they are in a position to pressure their interpretation upon me.
It seems like lots of people separate the gospel from the church. So maybe the church is the organization, the programs, manuals etc. and people (leaders) run the church. That would make it the conduit for the gospel. Does that sound possible? A cult? 
Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk 4
Quote:1. a building designed for public forms of worship, esp Christian worship
2. an occasion of public worship
3. the clergy as distinguished from the laity
4. ( usually capital ) institutionalized forms of religion as a political or social force: conflict between Church and State
5. ( usually capital ) the collective body of all Christians
6. ( often capital ) a particular Christian denomination or group of Christian believers
7. ( often capital ) the Christian religion
There is value and difficulty in each of the definitions above, but I think it’s critical to understand and remember that when one person says “the church” or “The Church” that person often means one of the above definitions, while the person hearing it often thinks of a different definition. That alone causes as much confusion and disagreement as anything else.
Upon reflection, I think “The church” is 1. The consistent decisions and announcements its leaders make.
2. Policy documents such as church bulletins, and the CHI that direct behavior
3. Shared values the average member displays through their behavior.
In short, the church is the behavior of its members that policy, culture and leadership encourage, as well as undesireable behavior the leadership chooses not to correct.
To the extent that members display consistent behaviors in church contexts and calling positions the leadership does not correct, they are the church. When one person does something strange, and out of character, then I think we can give the church a pass — provided the church censures the action. If they let it stand, without correction or apology, then that behavior also represents the church. The church cannot cherry-pick what it is. Picking only the outstanding and wonderful aspects of member and leader behavior while disowning behavior it does not try to correct is not a priviledge we can grant the church.
Then, SD, how far are you willing to go in asking The Church to enforce a particular action or belief or viewpoint or doctrinal understanding, if what it allows it thereby endorses? Are you saying you want The Church to allow less, so it will be seen as endorsing less? How would you characterize allowing local leaders to act very, very differently in essentially the same situation? Do you want more tight “correlation” or a more hands-off approach – or, as is the case with most people, do you care less about that and more about having The Church enforce what you want enforced and not enforce what you don’t want enforced? I don’t know the answer to those questions, but it’s a good exercise to think through them.
Personally, I would rather they allow local leaders to make their own decisions rather than implement a tighter control from the top – even though I know that’s a messier approach. By and large, with some exceptions, I think that’s what happens in most places.
I am not advocating any path in my statement above for leaders. I am simply stating what I believe the church to be. It is the behavior of its leaders and members that the church encourages. It can also be found in the behavior it discourages. If there are repeated wrongs by leaders and members alike, and the church allows them, then that it is the church. If there are repeated positive behavior the church encourages, and supports, that is the church. Values, beliefs, etcetera mean nothing without behavior.
I am trying to find an example. In one area of the world I lived for a lot of my life, everyone was repeating in talks that it’s easy to receive revelation in your efforts to help other people. It’s a lot harder to receive it for your personal benefit (ie, to solve a personal problem). Our SP taught it, our BP taught it, HC taught it, and I think I even taught it a few times. Many head nods from the members and leaders when I taught it.
I believed it was a principle. I would say it’s fair to believe that “The Church” taught that principle, because it was encouraged and promulgated by its leaders who represent the church. (I later went to a new country for my mission and when I taught it, people looked bewildered and I realized then, that there is such thing as local doctrine).
I believe that the church is the widespread behavior of its leaders, its policies, and even local doctrine that everyone accepts and believes.
Here is another example. The church has publications that describe its history (like Truth Restored). That history does not mention a lot of the tarnish on our history. It focuses only on the positive facts, the faith of the pioneers, etcetera. I only learned about Mountain Meadows when someone challenged me about it on a doorstep three months into my mission. I didn’t have a clue and the person looked amused and appeared more committed to the idea that maybe we were a cult after all — since no one had ever bothered to let me know the truth about our history. We are told NOT to address topics that are not faith-promoting at church (I am not challenging that belief).
Therefore, I think it’s fair to say that at that time, the church was not committed to educating its members about its factual history. It was also committed to whitewashing it. That is because its leaders, publications, policies illustrated that through the actions of its authors, correlation committe, and the censure members received when they focus on negative, non-faith-promoting aspects of our history (Such as Church333 received when he gave a talk on the different accounts of the first vision).
I am not, in this thread, advocating more censure, or less censure, or less freedom or more freedom to members and leaders, I am simply saying that a church is defined by the behavior of its leaders and members.
I agree with that – but I think it’s important to point out that “The Church” in your examples can be the global church or the local church – and, quite often, those two churches aren’t the same thing in the way that the leaders and members act and in what they teach and believe. I think we all know that there are lots of local congregations, for example, where very different attitudes are encouraged by the leadership and exhibited by the members. I’ve attended very different “churches” over the course of my lifetime, when your definition (which I like very much) is used – all of which were part of the LDS Church. I think that’s an important part of the answer to the question in the title.
This is a fantastic read. I wish this could become a general conference talk. Meh Mormon wrote:I usually cringe when I hear people say the church is true. It’s not, the gospel is, but not the church.
I feel similarly.Also, I see truth now more as a journey or process, than a destination to arrive to.
The “church” is loosely the body of followers, specifically a congregation in a limited geography. But now it’s kind of like the church is the correlated culture, the product that is put out to the wards from HQ. I think that’s as close as it gets. The local groups can push back on some of what is received, but there is also a strong push to accept it all as is and give no thought or interpretation to it. Which is to say, we don’t acknowledge that it is already an interpretation. The “church” isn’t true. The gospel is true in that it’s a good way to live. The church tries to make the gospel a product, but it isn’t always great at it. journeygirl wrote:It seems like lots of people separate the gospel from the church. So maybe the church is the organization, the programs, manuals etc. and people (leaders) run the church. That would make it the conduit for the gospel. Does that sound possible?
Actually, I’m not sure a lot of Latter-day Saints do separate the gospel from the church, and that’s part of the “problem.” I know you said this in your other post, (that it’s the gospel that’s true, not necessarily the church), but I really do think many members lose that in the translation. I think most members see the gospel, what they perceive as “church teachings,” actual doctrine, and the church as all intertwined and all “one.” To some this ball of stuff in the gospel, to others it is the church, and still other see it differently or see its components. In my own rebuilding of faith, I am managing to separate these things, and it is apparent others here have done the same.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.