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.
No comments:
Post a Comment