Being Farther Along than the Church - and the Nature of Proper Pruning

"Farther along than the church" - Steve Evans (By Common Consent)

 Normally, I would link to a past post from someone else on a Tuesday or Thursday, but I want to do so now in order to give the proper foundation to a couple of comments I made about the nature of pruning in an organizational setting.  This post is focused on those comments, but I wanted to provide a link to the post that prompted for my comments below.  I want, especially to highlight two things from those comments, so I will bold those things. 

I think of the allegory of the olive vineyard in Jacob 5 and the idea that there will be bitter fruit that will need to be pruned right up to the very end – and I see that bitter fruit as corruptions or lack of pure knowledge that causes beliefs in the Church that don’t match what God would grow if he micromanaged everything solely to preserve pure, eternal doctrine. In other words, I see corrupted understanding existing naturally as a result of the human nature of the membership (including myself) – and the need to prune imperfect understanding according to the strength of the root, even if that means experiencing long-suffering as a result of recognizing some bitter fruit and not being able to remove it completely through radical surgery.

The issue for me, personally, is trying to make sure I am attempting to prune along with the Master of the Vineyard as he works incrementally and cautiously – even if I personally think a more vigorous pruning wouldn’t kill the tree. If I’m going to make a mistake, I think it ought to be on the side of the type of patience Jacob 5 describes as being the Master’s focus.  

Btw, fwiw, Elder Oaks’ talk [April 2014 General Conference] is a major move forward – although it stops short of what many people would like. It took me four weeks in the youth Sunday School class I teach to go through it this month (since the topic this month is the Priesthood), averaging only six paragraphs per lesson. I am MUCH more concerned about so many members not understanding and accepting what is said in that talk than about any perceived lessening of fathers and husbands.
I also see intense irony in not accepting what Elder Oaks said in that talk (or what is said in the Proclamation) and clinging to former understanding and then criticizing someone else for wanting more than what Elder Oaks and/or the Proclamation was able to give. One wants less; one wants more. Both are natural and unavoidable for anyone who does not give up all agency and will and thoughtful consideration and personal accountability. When one side says, “You are rejecting the words of the prophets and apostles,” while simultaneously dismissing, diminishing or not accepting different words of those same prophets and apostles . . .

Perhaps, in some ways, relative to some issues, all of us are both behind and ahead of “the church”. Perhaps, part of the pruning is allowing ourselves to be pruned and not insisting on being only a pruner – and performing the pruning we feel we must do with the same approach we hope is used in pruning us.

A Few Random Thoughts about Faith, Understanding, Change, Sharing the Gospel and Love

I allow myself to believe whatever I come to believe and try to live according to the dictates of my own conscience.

I don't try to force or convince others to believe as I believe. I try to help them figure out what they personally believe and then live according to the dictates of their own consciences.

I try to study and understand every conceivable view about something - to sort through them as carefully and thoughtfully as I can and then craft my own understanding.

I allow myself and others to change their minds about anything - to continue to believe and live according to the dictates of our own consciences, understanding that even our own consciences can change with time and experience.

I share what works for me, but I do so without any expectation or requirement that others agree and/or comply.

More than anything else, if I have to err, and I know I will err, I try always to err on the side of love.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

A Very Short Post about God and Change

Maybe part of learning how to be like God is learning to take responsibility to change things that are in our power to change - but also learning to do it patiently and in the proper time frame.

Maybe that proper time frame is much, much longer than we want it to be in many cases and much, much shorter than we are willing to make it be in many other cases. 

The Only Religious Constant in Scripture Is Change

Although God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the structural, moral, social and symbolic has changed multiple times throughout scripture. Baptism replaced circumcision; animal sacrifice was discontinued; genocide no longer is seen as the will of God; the Jewish dietary system was modified in the early Christian Church; women in one society were told to remain silent, but almost no Christian denomination still follows that prior constraint; Paul dictated comparative hair length (again, at least in one society), and that has been abandoned in our day; polygamy was practiced by many Old Testament prophets but not by later societies; understanding of the very nature of God has evolved over time. The list goes on and on and on.  Eternal principles (which I believe are far fewer than most people assume) might not change, but the practical lives believers have led throughout time have changed in nearly innumerable ways. 

I understand the difficulty of many in accepting the changes that mark the history of Mormonism, but I am struck by the double standard this imposes on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every other Christian denomination that has been around for as long as our church has some aspect of its current practice and belief that is different than when it was founded - and different than what is described in the Bible. The fact that change occurred (even major change) is not the issue; whether or not we are open to change, even radical change, is. 

I Will Change the World

My family took our second daughter to her college orientation last week, so I didn't teach Sunday School.  In place of my normal Saturday recap of the previous lesson, I am posting something from our youngest daughter who is almost 11 and just finished 5th Grade - graduating from elementary school on her way to young adulthood.  She wrote the following poem this year in her Language Arts class, and I read it for the first time last week.  It is an example of why she was given the award for outstanding performance in Language Arts at her school. 

I am proud of her - not just for her ability as a writer but, more importantly, for what this poem says about her and her vision:

We may be children and teens,
But we can be reigning queens. 
They say we can't help;
They think we will melt,
But we are solid.
We have knowledge.
If you join me,
We can flee
So many times of war.
Join me form door to door.

I will change the world.
No one can stop me.
I will feed the poor.
If you follow through,
Then we can win
and rule the population.
Though we must wait,
It's very fine;
We wait for a reason,
And that reason is
That we don't have the power . . . yet. 

But when we do,
I hope we will
Change the world.
Maybe you could
Just speak up.
You could help by
Making Earth cleaner,
Safer, kinder, and a
Better place to live.

We have a great amount
Of stingy people
Who just won't share.
Why do so many people
Leave their families
When they could be happy?
If only we weren't
So proud of ourselves,
So many more families
Could be happy.

Why not just make peace
Between other countries.
Ambassadors, Presidents,
Children, Adults -
What's the difference
When we are all human?
So many people think
They are better than another.
Is that really necessary?
Is that why there is
So much name calling?

Why do we title
Everyone else and point out
So many small problems?
Help to stop all
Of this horrible behavior.
Help stop pollution;
So many animals
Have to suffer,
Because we throw
Our trash in rivers, woods
And other different places. 

So, stop smoking,
And start spreading
Joy instead of grief.
Stop hurting children;
Take care of them.
Stop using drugs.
Please join me
And change our lives. 

I will change the world. 
Will you help me? 

Feeling Like an Alien at Church

Elder Wirthlin said in his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", that some people leave the Church because they feel different - that they don't fit in and can't be accepted.  As I have worked with those who are struggling with some kind of crisis of faith, his words have resonated deeply with me.  The following is something that hit me recently as I was discussing this very topic with a group of friends:
----------------------------------
Feeling like an alien is hardest for those who didn't feel like an alien for most of their lives. For someone who has spent years feeling comfortable and accepted and "normal" within the Church, it's extremely hard to go through a crisis of faith and suddenly feel like they don't belong anymore - and that is magnified and exacerbated when those around them downplay or criticize them for their change in perspective. What could have been a wonderful opportunity to grow a more mature and personal faith turns into a "conflict" that drives them away - and much of the responsibility for which way they go rests with those around them and how they react. 

I have an advantage in a real way, since I've felt like an alien pretty much my entire life - and my "alien-ness" is related directly to how I view and interpret history, doctrine, scripture, etc. One of the reasons I can view myself as orthodox even though I have a number of heterodox beliefs is that I've been dealing with that paradox (being a peculiar person in an already peculiar group) for so long that it now simply is part of how I view my own condition of "I am".

Jump in with Both Feet, but Don't Feel Like You Have to Swim at the Deep End Immediately

I sent the following message to a friend who is returning to activity in the Church after an extended absence.  He had expressed concerns about being overwhelmed and "flooded" by everything that can be asked of someone who is active in the Church - and having almost to re-learn many principles he has forgotten in his time away. 

I remember a few years ago watching the Chilean miners who had been underground so long being rescued. One thing struck me as I watched.  

The miners were all given sunglasses to wear as they emerged from the tunnel - since they had been over 2,000 feet underground and away from sunlight for over two months. If they had come out of the ground without eye protection, the increased light would have been very damaging - and they needed to wear the sunglasses for a while until their eyes adjusted. It was important not to rush the process - to take whatever time was necessary to avoid overexposure.

That reminded me of Pres. Uchtdorf's amazing talk in General Conference a few years ago about turbulence and the need to slow down while experiencing turbulence. (It might have been around the same time that the miners were rescued, which might be why thinking about one triggered memories of the other.)

The common message is that when new views hurt old eyes, it's important to slow down, wear protective eye gear AS LONG AS NECESSARY and gradually adjust to the increased light and truth.

So, take your time.  Jump in with both feet, but don't feel like you have to swim at the deep end immediately.  Enjoy getting acclimated to the water once again - at whatever depth is comfortable for you as you develop your swimming muscles again.

Change through Consensus

I think the rate of change in the Church is rooted in the principle that the tree only can be pruned according to the strength of the root. Traumatic surgery kills as often as it saves - especially if minor surgery is enough for the moment. I think the church's global leadership believes this and uses consensus as a means of not endangering the tree as a whole.

To use a different analogy, the band can continue to play on an ocean liner that is turning continually, but when a speedboat switches direction suddenly, passengers can get thrown around violently and even go overboard quite easily. I think there is an important purpose behind changing course only with consensus, and it is rooted in a concern for the safety of the passengers and not risking the boat capsizing.

Our history supports this position, frankly. Sure, Joseph's time was free-wheeling and exciting - but it also had the most schisms and most active, violent, dangerous persecution. It might appear to be exciting and appealing as we look back upon it, but people generally sank or swam - or died in the process. There is a time for explosiveness and sudden change in a young, evolving organization, but if such radical and constant change continues, those organizations tend never to mature - or they die. I understand the allure, and I would love to see more radical change in some areas, but I understand that it can't happen too quickly.
 
I think the world-wide training when the latest Church Handbook of Instructions was released is a great example of significant change accomplished gradually through consensus.

Accepting Slow and Incremental Change

The Church has moved somewhat slowly in some areas, but it also has moved quite quickly in others - and when it moves, it tends to move MUCH more quickly than other religions. It's a mixed bag in that regard, but I've seen too many organizations (including religious ones) that have moved too quickly and suffered terribly for it to want the Church to move more quickly on everything.

Of course, there are issues where I wish things could have happened more quickly, but as someone who has studied and implemented organizational change management, I recognize the principle articulated in the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 - that the bad fruit can't be pruned faster than the strength of the root to absorb the trauma.

Something for consideration:

That's true of individuals every bit as much as for organizations.  Radical surgery sometimes saves - but sometimes it kills.

An Evolving Church and the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times

A friend of mine once said the following:

The way I approach these difficult topics is to look at the church as a evolving system and allow it the right to refine its teachings over time.

I really like this.

I believe strongly that the term "Dispensation of the Fullness of Times" refers to the condition at the end of the dispensation, not the beginning. There are way too many scriptural passages and prophetic statements teaching that principle for me to believe otherwise - and it also is the only construct that makes sense for me personally. I also believe that the term "Restoration" refers to a process, not an event. Finally, I believe one of the central purposes of both is removing the natural elements of apostasy from the Church that exist through the simple fact that it is made up of people who bring and pass on their own "incorrect traditions" within the organization.

The early history of the Church was incredibly messy on many levels, not least of which was the need to sort through all of the assumptions early leaders (including Joseph himself) would make about the impressions and visions and revelations they were receiving in such a rapid-fire way. It's like they were riding a tidal wave of spiritualism and trying to figure out where it was taking them - trying to establish a firm foundation from everything that was swirling around them.

Personally, I don't fault those that couldn't take it and left - just as I don't fault those now who yearn for rock-solid, never-changing stability and leave for the exact same reason. I don't agree with them, and I wish they could "endure to the end" - but I don't condemn or fault them.

On-going revelation means on-going change - and that change often is radical and unsettling.

My Favorite Quotes from the World-Wide Training on the New Church Handbook of Instructions

The following are taken from my notes and are the best recreations I am able to make - since I can't record exact quotes when I take notes:

The women in the council were engaged in the conversation. We haven't always encouraged that as we should. (Elder Holland)

International areas don't have models for how to run the Church. The CHI generally is the only "model" they have. (Elder Gonzales)

My fondest wish is that we could remove the word "meeting" from our vocabulary - as in, "We are going to a meeting." I wish we could view them as "revelatory experiences" - and that won't happen unless we strive to make them such experiences and quit viewing them just as meetings.  (Elder Bednar)

There is great power in group synergy - when WE decide we will act together. Women are just as important as men in everything we do. (Elder Ballard)

We have to decide what counts. The Savior didn't count statistics and numbers. What counted to him was caring, love, service, ministering, blessing, etc. We need to make a new beginning in the Church and count as He counts."  (Pres. Julie Beck)

The following are from Elder Packer's closing remarks - and reminded me of why I sustain him as a prophet, seer, revelator and apostle: 

This CHI is meant to provide "simplification and flexibility". "Let me underline that."

Pres. Clark once said that too much regimentation can remove revelation. We are in danger of that happening in the Church.

ALL meetings should be conducted by the Spirit. It is time for our young men and young women to prophecy and for our old men and women to dream dreams.

There is a danger of establishing the Church and not the Gospel. Planting the Gospel in our hearts MUST accompany having the Church in our lives. Busy-ness can't replace testimony.

Families are not tools to staff the Church; the Church is a tool to serve families. Don't over-burden families!

In 50 Years, I Will Be Proof the Church is True - and False

Everything was more black and white when I was younger - and I see that in the Church, as well.

Everyone was a convert in the beginning, even Joseph Smith in a very real way, and I believe much of what drives some people nuts about the way that early Church leaders taught things that we no longer teach is no more than the maturation process that is unavoidable in mortality as we learn and grow and realize how much we really don’t know. (or, at least, that I wish was unavoidable - I have known some people and organizations that simply refuse to mature.)

All of you who read this blog probably realize I don’t see our changing understanding over time as a bad thing, but I also should make it crystal clear that I also don’t see any great, seismic shift in the CORE principles and doctrines of the Restoration. We still believe in a Great Apostasy, the restoration of the priesthood that can administer eternally binding ordinances for all of mankind, the reality of multiple prophetic sources and on-going revelation - both collective and personal - in all its messy glory, the centrality of Jesus in the Plan of Salvation as our Savior and Redeemer, the primacy of obedience (fruits) over work-less belief, the importance of establishing and serving in the Kingdom of God on earth, the eternal potential to become like God, and on and on and on. I don’t think we have abandoned - or even altered significantly - any of the Articles of Faith. How we express each of these core principles and doctrines has vacillated from time to time as we struggle to see through our glass less darkly, but the concepts themselves haven’t changed in ways that I would classify as significant.

I think it’s interesting that when I was most active on multiple Mormon-themed blogs I was classified as a skeptical believer on Mormon Matters, a conservative generally on Feminist Mormon Housewives, mostly conservative on By Common Consent and Times & Seasons, simply verbose on Trash Calls, insightful but occasionally heretical on Mormon Momma, a token male at Mormon Mommy Wars, etc. I think I am classified in each case in comparison to the general tone of the blog, which I believe is relevant to this post in an important way.

I don’t really care how I’m classified, since I know I am a “faithful, believing member” - and that’s all that really matters to me. I accept that 20-50 years from now members might read what I have written and agree, disagree, laugh or have any other reaction. My words might be dissected, if anyone even reads them, to prove how wrong the Church is - because someone in my position of local leadership was so badly mistaken; they might be read to show how right the Church is - because someone like me was correct. I have no idea how my words will be used, if they are used at all, but, if they are used at all, I’m fairly certain they will fill both roles - as “proof” that the Church was right by some and wrong by others. That’s just the nature of the human beast.

I’m just doing my best to explain (and evaluate) my own muddle in the middle as I make my way through life.

The Only Religious Constant in Scripture is Change

Although God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the structural and social and symbolic has changed multiple times throughout scripture. Baptism replaced circumcision; the Jewish dietary system was modified in the early Christian Church; women in one society were told to remain silent, but almost no Christian denomination still follows that prior constraint; Paul dictated comparative hair length (again, at least in one society), and that has been abandoned in our day; polygamy was practiced by many Old Testament prophets but not by later societies. Eternal principles might not change, but the practical lives believers have led throughout time have changed in nearly innumerable ways.

I understand the difficulty of many in accepting the changes that mark the history of Mormonism, but I am struck by the double standard this imposes on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every other Christian denomination that has been around for as long as our church has some aspect of its current practice and belief that is different than when it was founded - and different than what is described in the Bible. The fact that change occurred (even major change) is not the issue; whether or not that change was inspired is.

Mormonism Requires Comprehensive Change

I have said multiple times that the greatest weakness of the LDS organizational church is that it is run at the ground level by a bunch of untrained amateurs - with all the problems that includes; I also have said multiple times that the greatest genius of the LDS organizational church is that it is run at the ground level by a bunch of untrained amateurs - with all the amazing growth and passion and fellowship that entails. I understand completely the challenges that structure creates, but I wouldn’t change it for the world when I look around and see the people it produces that no other process produces in such high numbers.

The Mormon Church is not a place for those who want to continue the relatively stationary religious observance embodied in most of the rest of Christianity; it is a commitment that requires a radical change in action and perspective - a change in mind and body and eye - and it simply doesn’t “stick” for many who initially respond to the message - or, too often, the messengers. Part of that is directly the fault of the membership who fail to live the Gospel they try to accept, including those who lose sight of the people in the numbers, and part of that is a natural result of asking people to make such a radical change on little more than simple faith.

I wouldn't change that challenge if I could, but I can't condemn those who are unable to make such a comprehensive change. All I can hope is that those who stay live the core principles of the Gospel better and love everyone, inside AND outside the LDS Church, a little more fully and Christ-like.