Discussions about why women in the LDS church are not ordained to the priesthood have been going on for a long time, certainly longer than I've been alive. The interesting thing is that these discussions in church classes and meetings don't seem to be generated by any feeling among the sisters of actually wanting to be ordained, but rather have the feeling of trying to reassure women that they are valued just as much as men and hold the same esteem in God's eyes and heart.
Men seem uneasy about the topic of men's and women's responsibilities as well, and often seem to go overboard with flowery praise of the sisters, which results in them putting themselves or men in general down and elevating the women as to as what their basic natures and capabilities are in an effort to verbally close that gap. It's not just the brothers either. The sisters, off in our own meetings, will indulge in some half humorous, half serious talk about the frailties of men and the capabilities of women.
In church settings when the topic of men/priesthood, women/? comes up, among other thoughts and explanations, a main rational involves women being mothers. The basic idea put forward is that the ability to bear and be the primary nurturers of children is so important to God that He wants our time and energy to be available for that. It is usually pointed out that partnering with God in creation by bearing a child is something no man can ever do, and that the rearing of healthy faithful children is His most important work, reserved for women with some help from men.
This can go to the point of making it sound like Priesthood is the consolation prize for men because they can never experience pregnancy and don't have the main task of raising children. To me, as sacred and important as motherhood is, and I totally believe that and have lived my life by that belief, it still feels like this line of reasoning is both incomplete and has the effect of minimizing or marginalizing both men and women in the process.
I also worry that we use this as a quick, shallow explanation because it is hard to delve into important and true principles that go deeper than most of these discussions can go, mostly because the majority of us only partially understand them, and because they are hard to articulate in a sentence or two or even a 40 minute lesson time.
When those who are pushing for more 'equality' by sharing priesthood ordination with women point out that this is not a valid comparison (IE. men get the priesthood, women get to be mothers) they are making a valid point. It is what I have always thought in these discussions. As much as I value my role as mother, and dedicated the years when my children were still at home to mothering, this line of reasoning doesn't add up. The next logical thought is, 'What about when we are not in our mothering stage? What if we never get to raise children? There are a lot of women in the church who are not currently mothering children, so if that were the Reason, that leaves a lot of women with nothing, while men are active priesthood holders from 12 on, whatever their other circumstances, married, single, father, or childless.
However, rather than say the solution is to give the priesthood to women, I think we need to look deeper, and to re-evaluate the explanation. It is human nature to want to know why, so if we have something that hasn't been fully explained to our satisfaction, we will use our experience and ability to reason to come up with explanations. If our reasoning seems sound to ourselves, or others reasoning seems sound to us, we may go on to take that as truth. In the church we have some good examples of that. The most striking lately being; 'Why was priesthood ordination withheld from men of African negro descent?' I won't go into this topic, but it turns out reasons were given that attempted to explain the policy that in hindsight were speculation and not true. Recently the LDS.org site published a good history of the issue of ordaining black men to the priesthood that refutes for good the faulty explanations that had been given in the past. This is a good example of how when our understanding increases, myths and untruths are laid to rest.
The issues of understanding or only partially understanding Priesthood/Women may be resolved the same way. When we discuss this issue we are making some points that are part of the truth and maybe some that are a type of myth reasoned out from things we do understand. As time goes on we may come to understand it more completely than we do now. One thing I have noticed is that this reason is not being used in the recent talks and articles about Priesthood and women that are coming from our general leadership. I'm referring to Elder Oak's talk in the Priesthood session, the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood and Sister Burton's article in the June Ensign priesthood-power-available-to-all
I think the mind of God is deep, complex, and beyond our understanding. He doesn't reveal all to us, but gives us enough to make decisions on, based on faith and trust. The decisions we make are part of our mortal test. When we don't have complete or satisfying explanations, then our response comes under the heading of faith and obedience.
This can be what we might call an 'Abrahamic Trial' to some of us. God asked something inexplicable of Abraham, something that would break his heart and went against what he knew about the way God looked at the sacrifice of humans. But he knew he had received a command from the only true God, and he understood enough to know that obedience was the only right choice he could make, whether he understood why or not. So he did it, and though an angel stopped him from the final act, he left us his example to use in our own Abrahamic trials. When God tries us this way, he makes sure we have principles to guide us to do the right thing, even when we don't understand why.
My main point is that if we are looking for an explanation for this issue, can we agree that saying 'Men get the priesthood, and women get motherhood' may be a faulty comparison, or it may be an incomplete explanation, part of a larger truth that we only partially understand? That doesn't say that the next logical step is to give women the priesthood. To me it says, let's look deeper, let's look at what is currently being said at the general leadership (Priesthood and women leaders) level, and let's take all we can understand in an intellectual way, and a spiritual way, and add faith to that in realizing we probably don't know all of God's reasons. Then if we still feel the explanations we get are not adequate, and our reasoning doesn't cover all our concerns, and we aren't getting full explanations from answers to prayer, then we continue to question, think, study and pray, and we continue to live the gospel, serve, and trust that we will someday understand. In my mind, I leave issues like this 'open' and continue to add and discard ideas as my understanding increases.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
What About the 'Uchtdorf Principle'?
Yesterday I followed and contributed to an interesting, thoughtful and thankfully civil thread of discussion on Facebook that prompts my thoughts in this post.
The post from one of my nephew's wife (is there such a thing as a niece-in-law?) concerned the excommunication of Kate Kelly, how sad it is that it came to this for her, and whether or not excommunication is something Christ would do. (I weighed in that he would, indeed, revelations from Christ in the Doctrine and Covenants are the guidelines for the excommunication and re-baptism policies that exist in the church today.)
Within the discussion another nephew referenced a talk by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the governing body of the church at it's highest level in the first presidency. In this talk, which was a call for all to join with us in this church, he was frank that there are some blemishes in church history and some statements and actions by members and leaders that can be sources of doubt.
The quote in the post went, 'And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members of leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrines.'
He goes on to point out that the church is made up of imperfect people and imperfect people make mistakes, and that 'It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not tarnished, diminished or destroyed.' He then bears witness as an apostle that 'no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father.....God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course...'
Additional points in the discussion were made about what one writer referred to as 'The Uchtdorf Principle', an idea that maybe some would use President Uchtdorf's statement to let us cherry pick the things the leaders say in conference or elsewhere, discarding those we don't like as being the errors of men. If errors can be made, then how do we trust anything we are told?
There is a principle that governs this dilemma, and it is encompassed by the principles of faith and obedience. Not blind obedience, but faithful obedience, which doesn't rule out continuing to question. Essentially this means that when we don't understand something, when we question what has been asked of us, we seek further understanding, and while seeking understanding we continue to be obedient, even to the things we question. In course of time, either the issue will be clarified, or it will be changed as new understanding comes. The onus is on the leaders. They are accountable to God for what they do and say. If they are in error on something and we are obedient to it, we are not at fault for following their direction. Similarly, when we or they try to explain something we don't understand using limited knowledge, our explanations can be faulty. In due time this will be corrected, but meanwhile we don't choose disobedience just because explanations are not adequate.
We have a very pertinent case in point that I can refer to. I lived in Atlanta, Georgia throughout most of the 1960's and had a front row seat to the civil rights movement. Sympathies in our family were firmly on the side of integration and elimination of prejudice and unequal treatment. Being faithful in a church that practiced its own form of exclusion towards black men was very uncomfortable and hard to understand. At the time as far as anyone knew black men had never held the priesthood. Explanations included speculation about spirits who were less valiant before birth being the ones born with black African heritage. Even so, it was general knowledge that the priesthood would be extended to worthy black men at some point in the future.
In spite of a lot of pressure from outside the church, things were quiet within the church, even among black members. As far as I recall, there were no demonstrations, no organized protests or pressure from within. Black members were anxious for a change, but those with testimonies had the faith to continue being active, humble and patient.
Since the historic day when the restriction was lifted there has been a kind of forensic look at why the restriction existed. I saw a documentary a couple of years ago on PBS that explained essentially what the church recently published about how the policy was established. I won't go into all of that, but we understand now that the explanations were faulty and the restriction based on cultural and political situations at the time previous to the civil war and Utah's bid for statehood.
All the things I'm talking about are illustrated here, including the role of modern day revelation in making the change at the right time and leadership being willing to discern and abandon faulty explanations. While understanding is incomplete, faithful obedience is appropriate and can take place alongside continuing questions and doubts. As a teenager I made a conscious choice to put this issue 'on the shelf' with the belief that the time would come when I would understand. And now I do. I believe my faith was justified.Obedience in this case didn't have anything to do with my obeying the restriction, that wasn't in my power....it meant that I would continue to have faith and sustain the leadership of the church and remain an active, contributing member. It also meant that while I kept the feeling that this policy didn't seem right, I didn't become an activist to pressure the church into changing it. I trusted that the leadership were authorized and inspired, and that they would know when the time was right to change it.
As far as the concept of an 'Uchtdorf Principle', knowing that there is sometimes error in idea and action doesn't say to me that I can pick and choose what I'm going to be obedient to or what I have faith in. That is certainly far removed from the point he was trying to make in the talk, that we shouldn't put our members and leaders on such a pedestal that if any of us makes a mistake it casts everything into doubt. I think it boils down to whether or not I believe the church is true and has the guidance and approbation of God through worthy and inspired leaders. If I believe, I will trust enough to be obedient even with the chance that there might be error in there somewhere, and trust that in a true church with inspired leaders, corrections will eventually be made to any errors as soon as they are discovered to be error.
The post from one of my nephew's wife (is there such a thing as a niece-in-law?) concerned the excommunication of Kate Kelly, how sad it is that it came to this for her, and whether or not excommunication is something Christ would do. (I weighed in that he would, indeed, revelations from Christ in the Doctrine and Covenants are the guidelines for the excommunication and re-baptism policies that exist in the church today.)
Within the discussion another nephew referenced a talk by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the governing body of the church at it's highest level in the first presidency. In this talk, which was a call for all to join with us in this church, he was frank that there are some blemishes in church history and some statements and actions by members and leaders that can be sources of doubt.
The quote in the post went, 'And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members of leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrines.'
He goes on to point out that the church is made up of imperfect people and imperfect people make mistakes, and that 'It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not tarnished, diminished or destroyed.' He then bears witness as an apostle that 'no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father.....God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course...'
Additional points in the discussion were made about what one writer referred to as 'The Uchtdorf Principle', an idea that maybe some would use President Uchtdorf's statement to let us cherry pick the things the leaders say in conference or elsewhere, discarding those we don't like as being the errors of men. If errors can be made, then how do we trust anything we are told?
There is a principle that governs this dilemma, and it is encompassed by the principles of faith and obedience. Not blind obedience, but faithful obedience, which doesn't rule out continuing to question. Essentially this means that when we don't understand something, when we question what has been asked of us, we seek further understanding, and while seeking understanding we continue to be obedient, even to the things we question. In course of time, either the issue will be clarified, or it will be changed as new understanding comes. The onus is on the leaders. They are accountable to God for what they do and say. If they are in error on something and we are obedient to it, we are not at fault for following their direction. Similarly, when we or they try to explain something we don't understand using limited knowledge, our explanations can be faulty. In due time this will be corrected, but meanwhile we don't choose disobedience just because explanations are not adequate.
We have a very pertinent case in point that I can refer to. I lived in Atlanta, Georgia throughout most of the 1960's and had a front row seat to the civil rights movement. Sympathies in our family were firmly on the side of integration and elimination of prejudice and unequal treatment. Being faithful in a church that practiced its own form of exclusion towards black men was very uncomfortable and hard to understand. At the time as far as anyone knew black men had never held the priesthood. Explanations included speculation about spirits who were less valiant before birth being the ones born with black African heritage. Even so, it was general knowledge that the priesthood would be extended to worthy black men at some point in the future.
In spite of a lot of pressure from outside the church, things were quiet within the church, even among black members. As far as I recall, there were no demonstrations, no organized protests or pressure from within. Black members were anxious for a change, but those with testimonies had the faith to continue being active, humble and patient.
Since the historic day when the restriction was lifted there has been a kind of forensic look at why the restriction existed. I saw a documentary a couple of years ago on PBS that explained essentially what the church recently published about how the policy was established. I won't go into all of that, but we understand now that the explanations were faulty and the restriction based on cultural and political situations at the time previous to the civil war and Utah's bid for statehood.
All the things I'm talking about are illustrated here, including the role of modern day revelation in making the change at the right time and leadership being willing to discern and abandon faulty explanations. While understanding is incomplete, faithful obedience is appropriate and can take place alongside continuing questions and doubts. As a teenager I made a conscious choice to put this issue 'on the shelf' with the belief that the time would come when I would understand. And now I do. I believe my faith was justified.Obedience in this case didn't have anything to do with my obeying the restriction, that wasn't in my power....it meant that I would continue to have faith and sustain the leadership of the church and remain an active, contributing member. It also meant that while I kept the feeling that this policy didn't seem right, I didn't become an activist to pressure the church into changing it. I trusted that the leadership were authorized and inspired, and that they would know when the time was right to change it.
As far as the concept of an 'Uchtdorf Principle', knowing that there is sometimes error in idea and action doesn't say to me that I can pick and choose what I'm going to be obedient to or what I have faith in. That is certainly far removed from the point he was trying to make in the talk, that we shouldn't put our members and leaders on such a pedestal that if any of us makes a mistake it casts everything into doubt. I think it boils down to whether or not I believe the church is true and has the guidance and approbation of God through worthy and inspired leaders. If I believe, I will trust enough to be obedient even with the chance that there might be error in there somewhere, and trust that in a true church with inspired leaders, corrections will eventually be made to any errors as soon as they are discovered to be error.
Monday, June 23, 2014
The LDS Disciplinary Council-Loving or Punitive?
I first started trying to learn about and understand church disciplinary councils when I was in my mid 20s. I was living in Southern Germany at the time and attending the local military branch. We shared a meeting house with the Augsburg German Ward.
I was waiting in the hallway outside the presidency offices and council room for a meeting with my branch president, who was finishing up with a disciplinary meeting scheduled prior to my appointment. I could hear the murmur of voices, and eventually a sister from the branch who was serving there in the military came out and walked by me. I have no idea what the problem was, or what the decision was, but I went away troubled by the reality that church membership can be suspended or revoked. I saw it as harsh and punitive, and worried about the effect punishment like that would have on someone struggling with weaknesses.
Since then I have come to a much different viewpoint. Although the loving nature of a council is probably greater or lesser according to what is in the hearts of the leaders who conduct it, there is no question in my mind that it is intended to be administered in love and concern for the individual who is being considered for judgement, and I would speculate that it almost always is done in a spirit of love, concern, and regret for negative actions that are decided upon.
There are two main factors that form my opinion.
First
The goal is to bring a focus on the things in the life of the person brought before the council that are causing concern so that they realize exactly what they are doing wrong, why it is wrong and serious enough to jeopardize full membership, and offer a chance to turn these actions around so that full membership can be retained or regained. The objective is to bring that person back into harmony with the gospel and allow them to repent and move forward in their progression again.
In some cases the restriction or revocation of membership is part of a penalty required as part of the repentance process and allows that person to 'pay the price' and prove themselves faithful before being restored to full membership again. Often the council action is not initiated until the person comes to their bishop wanting to resolve the sin and complete a repentance process. That might be the case for members who decide to live together before marriage. No action will be taken until they express a desire to clear this sin from their lives. I knew one sister who had carried the burden of having had an abortion for many years. When she finally went in and confessed it, she was excommunicated because of the nature of the offense, but encouraged to continue to faithfully attend and live a righteous life for a period of time, after which she could be re-baptized, which she did.
Second
This is my understanding. When someone is committing or has committed a serious sin, or is in rebellion or defiance against church doctrine and leadership, affiliated with apostate groups, or otherwise standing in opposition to the church and even trying to gain support and agreement from others, and is not repentant or willing to change what they are doing or promoting, then it is actually a kindness to release them from covenants they have made. When we make covenants like baptism and temple covenants we become held to a higher standard by the Lord and there are eternal consequences for breaking those covenants. When someone is excommunicated they are no longer liable for breaking those covenants and no longer have to have that weight of sin to pay for after this life. They are also not eligible for certain blessings, but serious sin, rebellion and apostacy would eliminate those blessings anyway.
The opportunity to repent and return is always there too, so someone who has been subject to church discipline always has an open door waiting to welcome them back in and they can re-make covenants and be eligible for the blessings again. (Not sure if this applies to first degree murder though, I'm not current on that)
Certainly, to the unrepentant, being disciplined in any way can feel punitive no matter how much love is expressed by those who are making the decisions. Someone can be so certain that they are right and the church is wrong that they feel the judgement and action of the council is wrong and that hardens their feelings against the leadership of the church as they see themselves as wrongly judged.
Case in point is the quote I read today in the Salt Lake News Tribune from Kate kelly, whose council has been held but the decision not made yet. She says, "I strangely enough feel a lot of hope...because it's not too late for them to do the right thing." My question is, what is the right thing? My opinion is that the right thing is for them to carefully weigh out everything that has been presented before them in their own minds, decide what they think about her possibly being in apostasy enough to be excommunicated or otherwise restricted in her membership, and then pray about what they have decided. That is the pattern we have been given for receiving revelation from God. Then, they should come together and see if their thoughts and impressions from the spirit give them a consensus of what course of action the Lord is in harmony with. This is our checks and balances. More than one person deciding, and taking it to the Lord for confirmation, repeating the process until they feel the approval of the spirit confirming their decision.
What seems 'hopeful' to me is that this council is taking extra time to get confirmation by personal revelation and mutual agreement before they make a decision. A faithful member of the church has the faith, Knowledge and trust (see my previous post) to be humble enough to take correction, and to trust and be obedient to the will of the Lord. She has the option to let go of deciding what is right or wrong for the council to do and seek in humility with an open mind herself to see what the Lord approves of. It is difficult to let go of a cause when there is so much gratifying warmth and support coming from followers, and I'm not surprised that she is not considering that. The only thing is, that having decided that the church leaders are wrong not to ordain women to the priesthood, and being unwilling to budge from that goal, she is proving the point that she no longer sustains church leadership. By not being willing to stop promoting her views to recruit followers and take down her web site, she proves it even more. She states clearly in her letter to the council deciding this matter that she will not comply with any of their conditions for retaining her full membership, and in that, she has proved their case against her.
Personally, I feel confident that the decision made about her membership, whatever it is, will be made not just by personal opinions, but by guidance and confirmation of the spirit and that it will be correct for her at this time. Correction by a loving father in heaven is not a punitive thing. It is an invitation to learn and align with his superior knowledge of what is best for us and lovingly sacrifice our own will to his so that we can hopefully go back and be with him forever. Not trusting Priesthood leaders to help with that is a significant clue to what is wrong in this situation.
I was waiting in the hallway outside the presidency offices and council room for a meeting with my branch president, who was finishing up with a disciplinary meeting scheduled prior to my appointment. I could hear the murmur of voices, and eventually a sister from the branch who was serving there in the military came out and walked by me. I have no idea what the problem was, or what the decision was, but I went away troubled by the reality that church membership can be suspended or revoked. I saw it as harsh and punitive, and worried about the effect punishment like that would have on someone struggling with weaknesses.
Since then I have come to a much different viewpoint. Although the loving nature of a council is probably greater or lesser according to what is in the hearts of the leaders who conduct it, there is no question in my mind that it is intended to be administered in love and concern for the individual who is being considered for judgement, and I would speculate that it almost always is done in a spirit of love, concern, and regret for negative actions that are decided upon.
There are two main factors that form my opinion.
First
The goal is to bring a focus on the things in the life of the person brought before the council that are causing concern so that they realize exactly what they are doing wrong, why it is wrong and serious enough to jeopardize full membership, and offer a chance to turn these actions around so that full membership can be retained or regained. The objective is to bring that person back into harmony with the gospel and allow them to repent and move forward in their progression again.
In some cases the restriction or revocation of membership is part of a penalty required as part of the repentance process and allows that person to 'pay the price' and prove themselves faithful before being restored to full membership again. Often the council action is not initiated until the person comes to their bishop wanting to resolve the sin and complete a repentance process. That might be the case for members who decide to live together before marriage. No action will be taken until they express a desire to clear this sin from their lives. I knew one sister who had carried the burden of having had an abortion for many years. When she finally went in and confessed it, she was excommunicated because of the nature of the offense, but encouraged to continue to faithfully attend and live a righteous life for a period of time, after which she could be re-baptized, which she did.
Second
This is my understanding. When someone is committing or has committed a serious sin, or is in rebellion or defiance against church doctrine and leadership, affiliated with apostate groups, or otherwise standing in opposition to the church and even trying to gain support and agreement from others, and is not repentant or willing to change what they are doing or promoting, then it is actually a kindness to release them from covenants they have made. When we make covenants like baptism and temple covenants we become held to a higher standard by the Lord and there are eternal consequences for breaking those covenants. When someone is excommunicated they are no longer liable for breaking those covenants and no longer have to have that weight of sin to pay for after this life. They are also not eligible for certain blessings, but serious sin, rebellion and apostacy would eliminate those blessings anyway.
The opportunity to repent and return is always there too, so someone who has been subject to church discipline always has an open door waiting to welcome them back in and they can re-make covenants and be eligible for the blessings again. (Not sure if this applies to first degree murder though, I'm not current on that)
Certainly, to the unrepentant, being disciplined in any way can feel punitive no matter how much love is expressed by those who are making the decisions. Someone can be so certain that they are right and the church is wrong that they feel the judgement and action of the council is wrong and that hardens their feelings against the leadership of the church as they see themselves as wrongly judged.
Case in point is the quote I read today in the Salt Lake News Tribune from Kate kelly, whose council has been held but the decision not made yet. She says, "I strangely enough feel a lot of hope...because it's not too late for them to do the right thing." My question is, what is the right thing? My opinion is that the right thing is for them to carefully weigh out everything that has been presented before them in their own minds, decide what they think about her possibly being in apostasy enough to be excommunicated or otherwise restricted in her membership, and then pray about what they have decided. That is the pattern we have been given for receiving revelation from God. Then, they should come together and see if their thoughts and impressions from the spirit give them a consensus of what course of action the Lord is in harmony with. This is our checks and balances. More than one person deciding, and taking it to the Lord for confirmation, repeating the process until they feel the approval of the spirit confirming their decision.
What seems 'hopeful' to me is that this council is taking extra time to get confirmation by personal revelation and mutual agreement before they make a decision. A faithful member of the church has the faith, Knowledge and trust (see my previous post) to be humble enough to take correction, and to trust and be obedient to the will of the Lord. She has the option to let go of deciding what is right or wrong for the council to do and seek in humility with an open mind herself to see what the Lord approves of. It is difficult to let go of a cause when there is so much gratifying warmth and support coming from followers, and I'm not surprised that she is not considering that. The only thing is, that having decided that the church leaders are wrong not to ordain women to the priesthood, and being unwilling to budge from that goal, she is proving the point that she no longer sustains church leadership. By not being willing to stop promoting her views to recruit followers and take down her web site, she proves it even more. She states clearly in her letter to the council deciding this matter that she will not comply with any of their conditions for retaining her full membership, and in that, she has proved their case against her.
Personally, I feel confident that the decision made about her membership, whatever it is, will be made not just by personal opinions, but by guidance and confirmation of the spirit and that it will be correct for her at this time. Correction by a loving father in heaven is not a punitive thing. It is an invitation to learn and align with his superior knowledge of what is best for us and lovingly sacrifice our own will to his so that we can hopefully go back and be with him forever. Not trusting Priesthood leaders to help with that is a significant clue to what is wrong in this situation.
Faith, Knowledge, Trust=Obedience
 |
| Temple Square with Salt Lake Temple, Tabernacle, and Conference Center |
There are a bunch of posts I want to make on some controversial topics being discussed by members of my church, the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints whose members are commonly called Mormons. Just to be clear I'm a member of the mainstream church, not one of the smaller groups that differ in some crucial ways from the church I give my faith and allegiance to.
I'm a little hesitant to blog on these hot button topics, having seen some pretty emotional and negative responses being experienced by others who are sticking their heads up in the public arena to express their views or share articles and quotes. I'm non-confrontational by nature and not eager to draw vitriolic fire from readers. However, I'm not so worried as I might be, because I don't actually get very many readers or views on this blog, so the chances are pretty low that this will be read by anyone besides a few of my friends and family. Mostly I am writing to get some of my thoughts down in print. and organized.
This post is my foundation post. Touchstones of truth let me look at things I want to understand and evaluate what I'm learning and thinking without drifting away into conclusions that don't line up with what I know is true.
The three touchstones that come to mind immediately are Faith, Knowledge and Trust.
Faith
I believe I was given the gift of faith by my Heavenly Father to help me navigate the perilous waters of differing opinions and beliefs. So far this has been a major thing that has carried me through any thing that I've found hard to understand in the doctrine and practices of my church. Not that I have needed so much, because for me, the doctrines, principles and practices of my church fit together in a harmonious whole that makes sense, feels good, and is bolstered by so many evidences of its truth that I can't deny it.
Knowledge
Over the years I've learned a lot about the church, and I feel like I have a pretty good grounding in the history, beliefs, doctrines and so on. In addition I have personal spiritual experiences and experiences putting the gospel into action in my life that have taught me how God actually interfaces with me personally. I've also witnessed the same things in the lives of others. Since it is so congruent, it leads to the next element.
Trust
Because of my faith and knowledge I have trust in God. I believe God loves me. I believe he is my father and I am his child. I believe he has a plan for me and for everyone who has ever lived on earth. I believe he is actively interested and involved in the lives of all his children, that he listens to and answers our prayers perfectly. I believe he can do anything he needs to do and knows everything so that he can plan ahead to accomplish his aims and provide blessings and help perfectly. I believe everyone on earth has access to his help and that he works with all of us according to the circumstances of our lives. I know that he has the time and the means in eternity to fix everything we mess up in this life, that he will correct injustices and that he is the perfect administrator of justice and mercy.
 |
| Presidency of the church, President Monson and his counselors at General Conference |
 |
| The Prophet, his counselors and the twelve apostles at the end of a General Conference session. |
Everything I know and believe leads me to want to be obedient to God and to his authorized representatives on earth. That means commandments and official guidelines. That doesn't mean I am always able to do the right thing. Like everyone, I make lots of mistakes and bad choices and struggle with personal weaknesses. Does that mean I do it blindly, as in "You say jump and I'll ask 'How High?' " Nope, sorry. I am not a mindless robot. I am not brainwashed in any fashion. I have always applied thought, analysis and evaluation to what I've been taught and asked to do or not do. Because of my beliefs, I'll try to obey even when I don't totally understand, but that doesn't mean I don't continue to question and try to get understanding. My attitude is that if I don't understand, God does, and since I can't always fathom his mind or his plan, I can trust that when I do know I will agree with it.
 |
| Members raise their hands to indicate support of the leaders and officers of the church |
Bottom line, it is so cool to have that foundation that lets me go forward even when I don't understand everything and know that there are some things I can absolutely count on. So when I explore some of the things that others in and out of the church are questioning and the things they think are true, as well as things I myself wonder about, I have a way I can evaluate what is being said against my own understanding of what is true. Do I think I know all truth and can figure every question out? Of course not. But whatever I can't resolve will go on my mental 'for future consideration' shelf. I suspend needing to know right now and trust I will understand someday, maybe before I die, but certainly after I die.
Next post I'll start exploring and discussing some of the issues I've been looking at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)