Fascinating, and thoughtful piece in the SLTrib today; give it a look. For me, the money quote came from Philip Barlow:
Disillusionment with LDS leaders “would evaporate,” says Philip Barlow, Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, “if people saw the church not as essentially divine, marred only by the weaknesses of human administrators, but rather … [as made up] entirely of human beings — with all of their limitations — who are trying to respond to the divine with which they have (in faith) been touched.”I'm not sure if he's right, but it's an intriguing thought. Could such a change in paradigm be accomplished organically, or would it require active support of Church leaders? If the latter, then I don't ever see it happening — who would intentionally undermine his/her own influence? It's like congress voting to lower their own salaries: highly unlikely.
5 comments:
I think you're right about the catch 22 situation; it's a tricky balance to strike. (And you're right, my congressional comparison was a bit crude.)
However, your comment does illustrate one of the difficulties of the subject: you use the term "apostolic counsel," (noun: advice, esp. that given formally). But what do we mean by "counsel" in the GC talk sense? Would we call Isaiah's many foretellings of doom to nations various and sundry "counsel" in the same sense? All do-it-or-God'll-kill/damn-you commandments are, by definition, good "counsel" -- but is all "counsel" commandment? Hence the question of "Scripture" (canonized by common consent) and "scripture" (talks and GC editions of the Ensign). Personally, I need to be able to dismiss some of what is said in GC settings -- otherwise the content of the Journal of Discourses presents a huge problem for me; there's just too much doctrinal wackiness there that I could never swallow.
I suppose that such tensions are (part of) the price of admission to a faith tradition that is so vibrant, not least because it is so much in flux. :)
Also, the notion of losing faith and disagreeing with the Brethren is something of a "chicken and egg" problem. (Eggs, of course, came first -- but which, in this analogy, is the egg?)
If a statement by a church leader seems off-base to me, I just interpret it in whatever way will allow it to reconcile with my understanding of the Gospel. ([D&C 132:26] doesn't make any sense unless you assume that the basic truths of the Gospel are unchanged.)
Ay, there's the rub. Have you read Loyd Ericson's paper on the problems of determining what is doctrine (i.e.: "the basic truths of the gospel")?
Tangentially, re: D&C 132:26, I think this verse is probably talking about more than sealing per se (Joseph Fielding Smith suggested as much). See this article for starters. Boy howdy, don'cha just love Mormon esoterica!
I think there comes a point when things can be way overanalized. Either you have a testimony or you don't. The prophet and his words are true or there not.
I think there comes a point when things can be way overanalized.
Agreed.
Either you have a testimony or you don't.
True.
The prophet and his words are true or there not.
Which words? All of them? Because then we have a problem, given that some of the things Brother Brigham taught have since been contradicted by other prophets (the progression of God in knowledge, for instance). The Church manifestly teaches that our leaders are not perfect, not infallible, even in the exercise of their duties. The linked article explores what that means in LDS praxis and culture.
It's fine if you're not interested in the discussion. But I do object to your implication about the testimonies of those who are interested in the discussion.
Post a Comment