I would not be alone in suggesting that the Church has undergone some massive shifts in the last 10 years.
Chiefly, these would include:
1. A fuller understanding of our history – including polygamy, Book of Mormon translation, the race and the priesthood and Pearl of Great Price issues
2. The shift in our narrative on homosexuality
3. Discussion on the role of Women
These issues will continue to be on the radar for some time.
What the prophets have said in the past is thought by members to be anything from “thus saith the Lord” to “you’ve got to be joking”, depending on what they said, how they said it and the context in which it was said. How do you feel about two ear rings, planting a garden or reading the Book of Mormon by a certain time???
Any organisation, religious or otherwise, goes through stages. Organisations learn and grow, develop and change. The LDS Church is no exception to that.
Some things our organisation has done range from stupid (Ponderise.com) to criminal (mountain meadows). How we deal with our history and move forward will determine the strength of our members, our public profile and the growth of our church. In some ways we have done a good job. Our social media presence is good as is addressing some prickly issues from our past. However, do we need to go further?
One example is homosexuality. We have a pretty poor track record in this area. I was reading recently one person’s assessment of The Miracle of Forgiveness regarding its narrative on homosexuality. Wow… Everything from masturbation causes homosexuality which causes bestiality to veiled and some not so veiled references to suicide and the death penalty being solutions. This person referenced current LDS official content on mormonsandgays.org as being in direct contradiction to the content in The Miracle of Forgiveness. They stand in direct opposition to one another, yet both remain as true and correct sources on information. It’s great that there is a new way to talk about homosexuality, however do we need to, as I have suggested, go further? Do we need to publicly rescind the previous content, have a prophet apologise for the past or at least acknowledge the harm done?? Do we need to stop publication of such documents and stop making reference to them?
Another example, previously discussed on this blog, was removing all or at least part of Section 132 from our cannon. Mormon Heretic smashed out a great post on this which spurred a massive conversation. Talk of concubines, virgins, not-virgins, threats of Emma being destroyed – no wonder it got people talking. Is it consistent with what we hear at General Conference, from the Apostles, the Proclamation? Do we need to take some of it out? Do we need to go that far?
On the subject of the Proclamation, do we need to add to our cannon as well. The last addition to our cannon was in 1978 with Official Declaration 2. We openly state that we have an open cannon – the fact that we are the only Church that has a Prophet of God. Yet the official narrative of the Church is a very dry river bed. To me it seems like the Church is hedging its bets. On one hand we are told the Ensign is scripture, and the Church PR Department occasionally releases information, and the Church even releases Proclamations. However when pressed, none of them are actually considered scripture. I feel a bit lost when I hear the Prophets and Apostles speak. The narrative around what is truth is not clear to me. I guess that’s another argument. My point here is that with the copious references to “The Family Proclamation etc” why not just make it scripture and be done with it. Make something scripture. Take a stand. Put it in the book.
So my (re) vision of the future is a mix of officially sorting out the past by removing, rescinding or at least revising the previous narratives. This will create a more consistent present and will solidify our future by officially clarifying our position. God is not a God of confusion. It is my feeling that the past and present are creating an inconsistency that needs formal resolution.
Questions:
What is your (re) vision of the future??
How would you reconcile official opposing church narratives??
Do you see the Church doing anything in this regard in the future??
No, pleasant, let’s not create new scripture to address the flavor-of-the-month issue.
sorry for auto-corrupt…
No, please, let’s not create new scripture to address the flavor-of-the-month issue.
My initial reaction to this post is that this could take a long time. You gave some examples of revisioning and that’s all fine and good, but to what end? What is the goal here? Once you know the goal, the church would have to prioritize the long list of what gets revisioned first. There are several fronts here (not necessarily in any order):
1. Church history.
2. Church policies.
3. Scripture (or as you say – open cannon).
4. Ecclesiastical procedure (e.g., priesthood & women; ordinances).
5. Financial (e.g., open disclosure of a supposedly non-profit org).
6. Missionary.
7. Official doctrine (overlaps with Scripture and Policies but seems somewhat different).
That’s just a start. Do you move on all fronts or does it need to concentrate efforts in some areas and not others?
BOB – yes it will take a long time – dead right. I guess my main issue was the incongruence between past and current narratives and how they are still being used concurrently. That causes confusion in members and those interested in our church.
Where to start…mate, I really dont know. In the past the story was pretty clear in the narrative. Still the same in reality, but clear in the narrative. Now it is like a dogs breakfast. I have been a member all my life (I’m in my 40’s) and I’m confused. God help anyone else..!!!
We can’t keep referring to a book (for example miracle of forgiveness) that is so dischordant to our current narrative and expect that our message will be clear, understood and believable.
I’m not saying forget the past – I am saying that its content must be interwoven clearly with our current narrative not being seperate from it…
Just my thoughts..!!
Ji – No, please let’s not create new scripture to address the flavor-of-the-month issue.
1. Isn’t that what most of the d&c is..???
2. Isn’t that what we get told the q15 are doing each general conference, albeit published in the ensign not in section 139 or od3..???
Most of the D&C is revelation from God. Joseph Smith’s sermons are not canonized scripture. Current conference talks are not canonized scripture. Let’s not turn teachings and policies into canonized scripture.
Besides, you probably only want revelation that agrees with your worldview. If the brethren did want to propose a new D&C section to formalize their opposition to gay marriage, well, you wouldn’t want that new scripture. No, let’s leave the canon alone and deal with current circumstances with teachings and policies.
Aussie:
Based on your last answer to my post, here’s my answers to your original questions at the end of your article:
1. What is your (re) vision of the future??
Answer: The items above in my list are all related. You change one and it affects the others. If you want consistency amongst them all, then the first thing that has to be done is the church must attend to its foundational stories and events (e.g., the First Vision, the BOM, Priesthood keys, etc.). Truth in those things from the best information we have – and not just opinions or different interpretations of those events – are the foundation. Every other change comes from that starting point.
2. How would you reconcile official opposing church narratives??
Answer: Here’s the hard part – on some things you can’t. Right now, official church narrative in many instances opposes the current information we have. Often, the church’s position looks ridiculous in some areas. The church has to get to the point of where some positions are no longer credible and justified. That takes a long time. On the other hand, conflicting information will never solve the problem. The church needs to honest on what solid information, accept that view if it contradicts their current narrative and change; otherwise, at least spell out the controversies and where things are unclear.
3. Do you see the Church doing anything in this regard in the future??
Answer: No, at least not on a massive scale. They’ve dipped their toes in the water with the recent essays on lds.org but they do it in a clandestine way w/o a general announcement. But I’m only referring to some church history issues here. There is a mountain of other stuff which you alluded to in your original post and also in each area I identified.
The church has its hands full. I wonder if the brethren even realize how big of a problem they’ve got. I see so many areas that need attention and change. If they don’t do something, they won’t keep members long-term except maybe in Utah. Just my opinion.
I think the idea of a written standardised canon is a product of any early or developing religion. It sets the standard and protects it from being destroyed or fizzling out. As the organisation grows there is less reliance on adding or developing a canon. I think the fact that we haven’t added to our scriptures is actually a sign of maturity not dysfunction. We no longer need to be commanded in all things. Truth is discernable at an individual level. The members are more guided by the spirit rather than by an institution. The role of a prophet is being redifined by the maturity of the church despite our best efforts to place more emphasis on following him. Perhaps this is an over compensation for his diminished role???
Ji – your original assertion was to not create new scripture based on flavour of the month issues. A quick look at the first 20 sections of the d&c reveal that sections, 4,5,8,11,15,16 and 19 possible fall into that category.
I am well aware that conference talks are not canonised and I feel that it is rather condescending of you to feel the need to state that. But they are referred to as being the word of God. The d&c 1:38 is used by many people to lend support to the notion that the q15’s words at conference are scripture for our day. I’ve heard it said and I’ve heard it taught.
I also find it presumptuous that you would add that I only want changes reflective of my world view. Where did you get that from..?? Most of the proclamation does not accord with my worldview, however it would not trouble me if they made it scripture.
The point of my post, which it looks to me like you have sailed right over, is that there is discord in the narrative and I asked YOU what was YOU see in the future of the church.
I’d be more than happy to hear your views rather than having you bash mine.
Happy emoji.
Miracle of Forgiveness was first published in 1969 by then-apostle Kimball. It was temporarily on the approved missionary list, but removed in the early 1980s. Many people love it for the explanation of repentance, but many of the ideas should be viewed in the context of when they were written. Mormonsandgays.org is officially backed by the church and incorporates both modern scientific and doctrinal positions. As one of my youth Sunday School teachers always shouted, “Living oracles supersede the written word!”
The polygamy aspects in section 132 were overwritten by the 1890 and 1904 manifestos, because those were declared by sitting presidents of the church. McConkie bluntly declared that any statements concerning blacks and the priesthood made prior to 1978 were to be disregarded (knowing full well that he had propagated many of those ideas).
Our canon still contains the Mosaic Law, even though it was overwritten by the gospel preached in the New Testament. As much as I love to read the rules and regs concerning women in the OT, I’ve thankfully never felt they applied to me. However, Christian Jews of the New Testament were very unclear on whether Mosaic laws were still in force or were to be disregarded.
Official church publications are very particular about the teachings they contain from previous church leaders (prime example: Presidents of the Church manuals). While many are irritated at the streamlined nature, excluded sections pinpoint where church positions have changed (polygamy, communism, etc.). Other lessons are becoming even more flexible to incorporate evolving views and more relevant teachings.
Given our belief in continuing revelation, we should always expect a certain tension between what current leaders are saying and what was taught by previous leaders. If we are truly building precept on precept, then at some point we need to recognize previous teachings as incomplete. Copernicus improved on the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, but it doesn’t mean his understanding was complete. We continue celebrating new scientific discoveries which improve on older theories of the solar system. In the same way, we look forward to new revelation which will add and improve upon what we believe now.
Mary Ann said:
“Copernicus improved on the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, but it doesn’t mean his understanding was complete. We continue celebrating new scientific discoveries which improve on older theories of the solar system. In the same way, we look forward to new revelation which will add and improve upon what we believe now.”
Copernicus didn’t improve on the Ptolemaic model, it superseded it – completely! That is what needs to happen with some conflicting narratives. The old models need to be thrown out when it is shown to be erroneous. And we need to stop persecuting the “heretics” when they challenge them.
Scientific theories die hard and take time. Apparently, those that are supposedly “revelation” or policies from earlier times, shown to be wrong, die harder. We SEEM to celebrate new discoveries Mary Ann, but only when they don’t conflict with our current belief structure. When that gets threatened, we find that acceptance is not so readily available. This happens all across the spectrum and not just in religion.
This is why any sort of revisioning is so difficult. Any religious body fights to keep the status quo.
I’m fine with a little dissonance in the narrative. I don’t want us to create new scripture to solve all the perceived problems. I’m happy to wait on God for new scripture, and in the meantime, my vision for the future is a continuation of the present — good men magnifying their callings by sharing teachings and establishing policies that are appropriate for our times. That’s a beautiful vision, don’t you think?
Ji – good men..??? How about good wine as well…
Now that’s a auto correct…. Wine!!! I meant women!!!
You just need song now Aussie!
I think I would be deeply disturbed by canonization of the family proc. Paradoxically, there are sections of currently canonized scripture that should disturb me just as much (or more), but I’m not bothered.
I admit that I DO fall in a category that would more comfortably accept new scripture that conforms to my world view. However the predominant rhetoric right now serves to preserve the status quo which really does not require any new canon.
I actually think that a repudiation of certain harmful teachings and traditions could be more beneficial than new canon.
Hedgehog – 🍷💃🏻 🎶
Yes – I think the scriptures talk about all three.
Brother of Bared – you’re right. It’s hard to change. That’s why we needed two manifestos – people (including church leaders) were having a very difficult time internalizing the first. That’s why McConkie had to come out post-1978 and effectively say, “You know what? I was wrong. A lot of us got it wrong. We’ve got new info, though, and we need to accept it and move on.” Those of us who are younger look back and wonder, “Why did people have a problem with this? It’s obvious that blacks should get the priesthood. The only question is why this didn’t happen sooner.”
There will continue to be monumental shifts – it’s inevitable. We just don’t quite know what they’ll look like. And the next generation will think us idiots for not cluing in sooner.
I don’t really see the LDS Church as having undergone massive shifts in the last 10 years, specifically in the three areas you noted: history, homosexuality, and the role of women in the Church. In each of those areas, the position of the Church has remained basically the same, but it has become more vocal in addressing the issue and defending its position. In contrast, the Community of Christ has undergone massive shifts on those three points, starting back in the 1960s.
My view is that the Church will continue to slowly evolve, by emphasizing certain things and de-emphasizing others. I don’t expect a new revelation (like 1978) on homosexuality or women anytime soon (next 50 years), or any additions to the canon.
As far as competing narratives within the Church, that has always been the case. We used to be more open about doctrinal disagreements and difficulties, but now we mostly pretend that they don’t exist or can be reconciled. Maybe we are returning to the more open dialogue, but I doubt it.
I think a vision if the future needs to include a reformed communication system for the church and it’s members. Right now we have a one-way flow if information-top to bottom. We also lack intimacy and trust, which I believe is an essential component in building sacred environments and sharing sacred things. I think that messages to the saints rarely (if ever) come without the GAs being hyper vigilant about the potential convert hearing the message, or the anti-mormon world listening and criticizing. It’s difficult to not give sanitized and “vanilla” conference addresses when you perceive that the “persecutors” are listening. Consequently, everything we hear is pretty milk-toast. Meanwhile, generations have past and we are starving for the meat. We can eat like babies forever.
Intimacy has always been an important component of revelation. How many revelations in the D&C were a result of questions or problems brought to Joseph, which in turn were asked of The Lord? I imagine Joseph with a few close brethren by a hearth… Talking and prophesying. I imagine Emma in a moment alone, raising the spittoon problem.
In contrast, today GAs can’t even speak to regional conferences about regional needs without asking members not to record or blog about their words outside that context, which is a little like trying to collect feathers from a pillow scattered to the wind. I think they just assume now that they need to speak generally to all audiences.
So, without trust, without communication and with the world watching, is it any wonder that we havent sought after the sealed portion of the BoM, the keys to live the united order, additional scripture regarding women and heavenly mother, or other pieces of the gospel that would knit up the edges?
And which average-joe members have become friends -not just acquaintances, but intimate family friends of the 1st presidency or q12? I think we’d need to look back 60+ years for such interactions. We have a cloistered and segregated community, which isn’t what Zion is supposed to be.
So until we fix our communication and our social structures, I don’t see any chane or revision happening. And, since we have 15 million members, which probably create a bell curve of testimony and readyness for higher instruction, it’s not gonna happen.
We are stuck. The wagon train isn’t gonna move until the stragglers at the end of the line signal they are ready for the “ye-haw”.
Questions:
What is your (re) vision of the future??
How would you reconcile official opposing church narratives??
Do you see the Church doing anything in this regard in the future??
What is your (re) vision of the future??
I don’t have any. I don’t recognize any, anyway.
How would you reconcile official opposing church narratives??
It would depend on what I know to be the truth next what it compares to what they have said, always remembering that they are the Lord’s anointed.
Do you see the Church doing anything in this regard in the future??
That would be interesting. Remember President Uchtdorfs’ talk on grace? For over a 180 years the members of the Church from the top to the bottom sounded like they didn’t even have any holy scriptures when they talked about grace. Now that they have heard his talk they still can’t get it. They still want so much to be saved by their works. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn’t the Lord’s church, I would leave it in a second because they talk so stupid but I never will because it IS His church.
Well, actually I would miss them because I really like them.
Actually, the Church hasn’t done anything about this yet and that bothers me a lot that they’re to chicken to admit that we all botched it badly for so long and that includes Joseph Smith.
Can you imagine a grace oriented Mormonism??
“Can you imagine a grace oriented Mormonism??”
It’s not too hard to imagine, if you take the Book of Mormon seriously.
What is your (re) vision of the future??
Just as over the past decade, I see the church’s hand being forced on many issues. I expect if we don’t start officially changing doctrine we are going to have many confused as Aussie or as myself – unsure if I should stay associated with something I can’t understand.
How would you reconcile official opposing church narratives??
I thought this is where the top leaders were supposed to help, but I don’t feel they are. I hear in the last year or so Elder Packard in conference pounce again on gays, then I hear Elder Christopherson say a member can be in good standing and can be pro-gay rights, as long as they don’t say the church should change.
Where is the continuing revelation. I have started looking for it and the only official one is changing of the POLICY on blacks and the priesthood and temple attendance. Why do we have to have a revelation to change a policy?
Do you see the Church doing anything in this regard in the future?
As I weigh my options going forward, I am watching closely. It feels to me that they are more worried about loosing the person that still feels polygamy is God’s preferred way than to keep me from leaving because D&C 132 is still doctrine.
Come on Brethren – Own what is our doctrine and what is not. Let the chips fall where they may. The chips are already falling anyway.
I would like the church to be honest. I believe it is dishonest to sanitise the teachings of past prophets. I think we should be able to say this prophet was also, a racist and white supremacist, believed such about women, believed, black rights was a communist plot etc etc.
We need the truth so we can put into contest the political views of the present prophets when they are teaching them as Gospel. Just like they did in the past.
I believe there is an attempt to remove conservative politics from conference talks. Compare April to October. Some of them don’t recognise that all this wicked world stuff is politics and the opposite of the Gospel. I believe being honest is part of this.
I would like to have on line questions answered honestly by each of the 15. I expect that different Apostles will give different answers. At present we sanitise this so, for example one Apostle will give different emphasis, but not contradict another. Might it be that some support gay marriage but are prevented by some kind of solidarity oath to keep them quiet. Would it be more honest, and helpful to members to know this?
I expect within 10 years for gay marriage to be accepted, and perhaps even sealed. I believe women will hold the priesthood equally with men.
Part of this honesty will be to choose a Prophet who is dynamic and capable of leading, and receiving revelation. Whether it is Oaks or Uchtdorf.
I believe we must become honest and Christlike or we will not be able to grow and do anything like fill the earth.
Embrace religious pluralism by recognizing the vastness of God’s work among men (of which Mormonism represents a small part).
Geof – Aus:
“I would like the church to be honest.”
Good. So continue to be honest.
“I believe it is dishonest to sanitize the teachings of past prophets. I think we should be able to say this prophet was also, a racist and white supremacist, believed such about women, believed, black rights was a communist plot etc. etc.”
Whose sanitizing the teachings of past prophets? What they said and what they did is what God told them to do or has God revealed something different to you? If He has than start a new church under His direction and get these scriptures out to us. I don’t know anything about this communist plot business. If you don’t feel to any of this then trying reading the present scriptures with some other kind of interpretation.
“We need the truth so we can put into contest the political views of the present prophets when they are teaching them as Gospel. Just like they did in the past.”
Forget about anything in the past if you are troubled about the future. You have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Use it.
I would like to see the rest of your post rewritten or erased as the Holy Ghost works with you
Rich,
You have been having lessons from ET Benson for 9 months I assume. Look up ET Benson in Wikipedia and in the last paragraph of the politics section it talks a little about him asking, in conference, the membership to read material about the conspiracy theories he believed in. He was a rabid anti communist, he believed African Americans seeking equal rights was a communist plot to destroy American society. He reported President Eisenhower to the John Birch society as a communist because he supported subsidies for farmers.
Strange that having studied the manual all year you have not heard this. Could it be that the truth is being withheld. Is withholding the truth being dishonest?
These were his political views, which we now disown, presently we have Apostles whose politics causes them to oppose marriage equality, and priesthood equality for women.
I would like the church to be honest about the past, so we can also be honest about the present and the future. Realise that the present issues are just temporary political beliefs and as I said, we could have a future church where the Gospel is taught without the politics.
You seem to be using the Gift of the HG as a tool to say those who don’t agree with you are wrong. Could it be that the HG very rarely gives people “road to Damascus experiences” he is quiet and allows us to work with our understanding to grow from where we are. Perhaps you have a totally different understanding of how he works, or perhaps your understanding will grow to be more like mine?
This is a very intense reading of the patriarchal order. Puts the issue of womens ordination and gay marriage in a new light.
http://thegoateskids.blogspot.com/2009/11/chapter-sixteen-patriarchal-order-of.html?m=1
Geoff -Aus:
I knew about some of President Benson’s ways. On my mission I had a companion who said that President Benson a saw communist behind every tree. Maybe I’m like him. Maybe I’m not. Whatever! I’ve never asked God who to vote for in becoming the President of the United States. Maybe I should. I don’t know.
In the Church we need to stop worshiping the General Authorities. If I don’t like what they teach, I simply don’t believe it. That has nothing to do with their God-given authority and I better always remember that their authority is from God. With that authority I have received very important ordinances. Some of the other things he taught are a different thing to me. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. You seem to say they were wrong. I say I don’t know and really don’t care.