Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints entertain a belief that our leaders are human. We expect them to speak for a perfect God and to deliver a perfect doctrine yesterday, today and forever. We are perfectly fine with that. But we still claim to believe that our leaders are human. This only gets complicated when they do something human. Or when they don’t. Or when we’re not sure.
Since ancient times those who have led the Lord’s church have been stretched between the Lord’s high hopes for his children and the children’s lesser goals for themselves. The leaders have a generally fine record with this balancing act, but it has caused some curious adaptations. Consider some of the theological detritus: “curse of Cain,” the occasional extermination of several villages, polygamy, withholding “gentiles” from the fold; all the ‘weird’ things from the past.
Even a casual reading of the Scriptures shows that our un-changing God changes quite often. This should not greatly disturb those whose spiritual foundation is rock solid. The tectonic changes are too slow in most cases to be perceptible. But sometimes there is a tremor; and sometimes it is earth-shaking. Founded on our faith, we try to hang on.
There are two ways to fall off a rock: forward or backward. Either the Church has lost all credibility because of some change and we slide fundamentally off the back of the rock, or the Church has failed to change with the reality of the times, and we leap forward, liberating ourselves from that stodgy stumbling stone. It doesn’t matter which way one leaves–––the net result is the same.
A firm testimony of the divine direction of the Church sustains the member in the Church; it also helps the member sustain the leader in the Church. A weaker testimony causes fibrillation of faith. A member might reason: “God (or God’s appointed leader) has changed things in the past, so this-or-that issue may change today.” But this is a dangerous bit of reasoning. Whereas we are required to put our shoulder to the wheel and push along, those who anxiously forecast the divine vicissitudes are often the first to steady the ark against all those who have not yet heard the latest social buzz phrase, and are still “pushing along.” If we did not have social activists in the Church, then how would the Lord know what the issue-du-jour is?
I will refer to these collective (but, for now undefined) social doctrines as the Gospel New Age Theologies, or gnats, if you can swallow such a bad pun. They buzz about. They annoy. In large groups they can make an irritating noise. But pretending to strain at their issues is often just bad acting.
Some things have changed in this dispensation. When I was young (way back in the middle of the former century), there was a socially awkward practice of withholding the priesthood to those men of African heritage. But we were consistently consoled with a promise that the day would come when that restriction would be lifted. We knew that this was a practice that would change. Then in 1978 it changed and we were happy.
I have yet to hear any leader of the Church say that we can someday expect radical change to certain other issues-du-jour. No one has said that the Lord has promised to fill the Elders Quorum with our Sisters at some point in the future, so why are some members anxiously prognosticating? No one has prophesied that the restriction contra gay marriage/sealing in the temple will one day be lifted, so why do some members call out publicly to the Lord, trying to awaken him to this issue? We knew some things were going to change, but we have no reason to extrapolate any other type of change. And we have no authority to bug the Lord for any change we think appropriate for our modern age.
Some things change. Some things have changed back and forth. Some things have never changed. Some things probably never will. But then, who am I to know? After all, it’s not my Church. So I continue to sustain our perfect leader, and his imperfect emissaries.
Having read a lot of Emanuel Swedenborg of late, a man who , like Joseph Smith, gazed into heaven and discoursed with angels, I see a parallel in their description of the various degrees of light /intelligence possessed by those who inhabit the three levels. Those who have love “of ” God and “for ” God inhabit the Celestial, or inner kingdom where the light of the Lord shines, while those who have love for their neighbor inhabit the the spiritual, or middle kingdom and those who have love for themselves inhabit the lowest, or outer kingdom (hell). I place all discussions on these social matters as topics for the middle kingdom, where love of neighbor prevails. These are not bad people, they just want to do things their way (the popular way, so to speak), rather than the Lord’s way. I love it when Swedenborg says that angels in the Celestial do not argue about such things because their interiors know automatically what is right, while those in the middle kingdom and below argue endlessly and never get a resolution. This is something you either know, or you don’t. You can argue until the cows come home. Do I do things the celestial way, or the terrestrial way, that is the question?
BTW, I see on Wikipedia that the rogue historian, D. Michael Quinn attributes much of Mormonism to Swedenborg, a conclusion i reject outright. Quinn is very loose with the truth.
Excellent article! The Ordain Women group is a prime example. Though I have no ax to grind with them, I do feel sad about their misguided and supposed concern and yearning that women in the church be granted the priesthood. Theirs is a good object lesson of the cart trying to push the Ox. What are they thinking? Surely they must know that it’s not up to church leaders to grant that kind of change. Where’s the Lord in all of this? It’s like they set Him aside for the time being. Then Ms. Kelly expresses shock that she was ex’d. Considering her unrepentant attitude, I saw that one coming from a mile away. And I have to believe that, deep down, so did she.
I agree with your general points made. I do though take slight issue with the “…we were consistently consoled with a promise that the day would come when that restriction would be lifted. We knew that this was a practice that would change. ” Can you show that to be so? I expect you can, but there are also comments by some of the Brethren that things would never change. So the use of the word “consistently” is perhaps not appropriate in this article.
counsellorneil
Growing up, I lived in several provinces and states. Back in the sixties and seventies I frequently heard local leaders comment as to the eventual change to this policy. (Most often, there was an assumption that the change would come during the millennium; glad we didn’t have to wait that long.)
Craig, thanks for your post. In my experience the situation is more complicated than you seem to be presenting. I have had a profile on Ordain Women for more than a year and during this time I have also tried to serve faithfully in my various church callings. The reason I ask for prayerful consideration of change is because I see the hurt caused to people I love by some of the Church’s current policies and practices.
Anyway, I highlighted your post on our blog (www.outofthebestblogs.com) and would welcome any thoughts you may have on my more detailed response there.