- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As we discussed covenants in another thread, I was wondering, what do you consider to be the church’s end of the bargain? Normally covenants are between God and Man, and most of the covenants that we make are promises to the church and god, and the only obligations to us personally are given by God, or by members at large, not the institutional church (such as to bear each others’ burdens). The church doesn’t appear to have much obligation to do anything in those equations. Not formally anyway, at first glance. So, what is the church’s end of the bargain? Or do they stand as beneficiary only of our commitment, with no obligation to do anything? That’s one of my doubts, SD. I’m not so sure we actually make any covenants with God in that God is taking any active part on the other side. These covenants we make are purely symbolic on our part, I think, and are an outward (or inward) recognition of a commitment. I haven’t really thought this part through, but I’m not aware that we actually ever make any covenants directly with the church, but the church certainly does benefit from covenants we make. And those who are more “strict obedience” thinkers do tend to try to use that to the advantage of the church (i.e. guilt). To do the best we can to be loving and helpful and godly. (I used “we” as a collective for “the church”, since the church is nothing but a collection of people.) I think the LDS Church leadership has a responsibility to try to teach and preach of Jesus (whatever that means to each person), to provide places to meet and worship (in the LDS context, that means meetinghouses and temples), to continue to support education for the membership (in whatever way makes the most sense organizationally), to provide a structure where individual growth can occur (in whatever way makes the most sense organizationally), to try not to wreck the organization, to try to meet the needs of a diverse, global membership (which is WAY harder than most people realize), etc. In the end, I think it is to have a vision and try to follow it to the best of their ability.
SilentDawning wrote:As we discussed covenants in another thread, I was wondering,
what do you consider to be the church’s end of the bargain?Normally covenants are between God and Man, and most of the covenants that we make are promises to the church and god, and the only obligations to us personally are given by God, or by members at large, not the institutional church (such as to bear each others’ burdens). The church doesn’t appear to have much obligation to do anything in those equations.Not formally anyway, at first glance. So, what is the church’s end of the bargain? Or do they stand as beneficiary only of our commitment, with no obligation to do anything?Good question; the Church certainly makes quite a few future promises but it seems like they are mostly in vague terms like blessings, happiness, etc. that could easily happen or not at random anyway or they will supposedly only happen after we die (eternal families, the Celestial Kingdom, etc.) so they generally aren’t something the Church will ever actually have to directly deliver on as far as we know. In fact, to me it looks like whatever tangible benefits the Church typically provides for members are largely coincidental rather than being something Church leaders were specifically aiming for.
I guess Church leaders like to think that the Church provides priceless divine direction (“the gospel”), essential saving ordinances, and the “kingdom of God” on earth but suppose the Church actually produces bad advice as well as pointless inconveniences and suffering for many Church members instead. In that case, is there any way to hold the Church accountable for the actual real-life results produced? It would be nice if there was a suggestion box at church where people could provide feedback and then someone could forward some of the most common concerns up the chain of command.
As it is, you can complain to your bishop and stake president, vote with your feet, etc. and practically nothing you do will make any difference because the Church will typically just continue doing things exactly the same way they always have in recent memory either way. Basically it all looks a little too one-sided for my taste in terms of the communication (top-down), use of resources, expectations, etc. where the Church asks for so much without providing anywhere near proportional value in return but I guess that’s what happens when sacrifice and obedience are pushed as if they are such worthwhile virtues by themselves.
Old-Timer wrote:To do the best we can to be loving and helpful and godly. (I used “we” as a collective for “the church”, since the church is nothing but a collection of people.)
This is similar to a thought I had. I’m not sure where I’m going with this so I’ll just jot it down for future pondering so I don’t forget.
When considering that the church is a collection people we are really covenanting with our neighbor as opposed to some entity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.