For some reason I thought Terryl would look like Colonel Sanders
While reading People of Paradox, a History of Mormon Culture, I came across a few passages that interested me. I'm further into the book now but they keep nagging at me.
QUOTE
"Mormons by and large believe that God's revealing of himself to his prophets is just as literal as it ever was. In the face of such widespread rejection of Old Testament literalism regarding God's interaction with human beings, Mormonism is emphatically regressive. Joseph was inflexible in his insistence that his encounters with Deity involved in literal speech acts between divine persons and himself. The Book of Mormon he produced [I despise the secular use of the word produced] emphasizes as one of its cardinal teachings the urgency of embracing dialogic revelation as the birthright of righteous seekers in all ages. " pg. 14-15
Speaking of both Prophets and "righteous seekers" Terryl emphasizes what I think is one of Mormonisms greatest strengths; namely, the Church's insistence that members speak to God and receive personal revelation for themselves. Whilst the Prophet has always had a responsibility to speak to God and receive answers for the guidance and direction of the Church.
We are a prayerful people. And even more important than our prayerfulness- is that we fully expect to receive answers.
The point of all this is a bit disjointed; but these passages and my own personal desire to "become"(in the Maxwell and Oaks sense of the word) that I find myself at a weird crossroads in my relationship to Mormonism and Apologetics. Simply because my relationship to Modern Prophets and Apostles is shifting more towards that of a submissive role. This submission is always subject to my own relationship and communication with God; but to be honest, I trust the The Brethren completely.
Within Mormon Apologetics I think there may be a tendency to secularize what cannot be secularized. Example: Why couldn't people of African descent receive the Priesthood? Apologetic Answer: ...once the ban was in place —whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things. Six months ago that was the answer I would have given. However, there now exists a dissonance between my faith in God's Prophets and what I long considered a racist policy. Would God really allow such a racist policy to exist for so long? I think my answer right now may be one of 3:
1. It was a social construct for many different reasons.
2. It was given by God to one holding the office of Prophet and President.
3. I don't know.
#3 is my answer at the present. And so here I am back to saying (about a great many things) "I don't know but I'm praying about it. However, I trust and sustain Brigham Young and every other successive Prophet up to and including Thomas S. Monson, so I am at peace."
Back to People of Paradox:
QUOTE
"The last visitation acknowledged by a modern Mormon prophet was Christ's appearing to the fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, in the Salt Lake Temple in 1898...But what is important is that the heritage of encounters with a physically embodied Deity who speaks his will to a prophet continues to inform Mormon understanding of the prophetic role...As recent president, Ezra Taft Benson, declared, "today in Christ's restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [Christ] is revealing Himself and His will- from the first prophet of the restoration, even Joseph Smith, to the present"ibid pg 14-15
The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when God has revealed himself to me?
Recently I read a question regarding Biblical archaeology and BoM archaeology. One has more (Bible) and one has less (Book of Mormon) .I answered that both are records of Gods dealings with mankind. As such, both books should be viewed through spiritual eyes. I'm a firm believer in understanding context. But sometimes context and scholarship seem to overwhelm the plain and simple truths. I've heard both John Welch and Robert Millet say similar things.
I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics. I believe Apologetics has a place within the Church.
So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.
Big UP!
The Lamanite
10 comments:
Be careful, because "I don't know" can quickly become the enemy of a testimony.
There are certain situations where our belief is bolstered by the idea that the Church's version of an event is the most "logical", if only because the other theories seem to be even more absurd. So we feel compelled to believe the Church's version by default. But once we open up to the idea that "I don't know" is a permissible attitude towards stuff we don't know, we open up the option to withhold allegiance from the Church's claims.
That can be dangerous territory, and too many "I don't knows" can keep you from getting a Temple Recommend, depending on the interviewer.
I can't believe you got kicked off again! What the hell, do you do it on purpose? sheesh
I'd go back to MDB but it brings out the worst in me.
Anyway, I'm glad you stopped by.
The irony of the "I don't know" scenario is that that was the genesis of the Restoration. An "I don't know" question and then an appeal to God with the expectation that he would answer.
I'm very impatient with the individuals that insist we express belief in everything the Church teaches. I can only seek and know so much at one time. You can't force spiritual things. I know the basics. I know the Gospel is true...But to say the Institution of the Church is true....?
Of tangential/non-Salvational issues, I used to just chalk it up to man made mistakes and leave it alone. But lately I've been a tad bit more devout, and there is a sense of safety there as well. Either way I keep "not knowing" and therefore "keep searching."
Big UP!
Lamanite
The searching/finding would go a lot quicker except that God seems to operate according to His own sweet time. ;-)
One alternative (although the results may end up being the same) is to see yourself engaged in 'theology' rather than 'apologetics'. Apologetics, to me, is somewhat reactionary--you strengthen a particular interpretation in light of attacks brought on from other parties. Theology, however, defined as 'faith seeking understanding', while not ignoring weakness in its assertions, need not be done in reaction to the problems posed by others.
Small Axe,
I always appreciate your comments. I think I'm engaged in both. However, the majority of my efforts are indeed focused on the exploration of Church doctrine. I suppose that may be best described as theological in nature.
At times I may become the defender of the faith, which could be described as apologetics.
I think that you rightly describe the end result of such attempts as being more often than not-- the same.
In either case the search for truth is not a sprint but a lifetime process where the journey is indeed just as important as the end result.
And so I continue on in the journey, being honest enough to know when I'm unsure. The problem with Mormon Culture is that an answer of "unsure" or "I don't know" is usually translated as Doubt. Which is unfortunate.
Big UP!
Lamanite
small axe,
what is your web address?
The problem with Mormon Culture is that an answer of "unsure" or "I don't know" is usually translated as Doubt. Which is unfortunate.
Although culture is also something dynamic and often pluralistic. There are a many ("active") members I know, myself included, that are comfortable with a larger deal of unresolved tension, ambiguity, dissonance, whatever else you'd like to call it. By no way is this the majority (and I'm not sure the majority should live in such a way), but there are some. Mormon culture is multi-faceted and capable of change.
I blog at http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com
Although it's been a while since I've put up a post.
So how'd you get turned on to Marley?
Plus I'm excited to got through you learning Hebrew series!
There's actually a bunch of us that post at FPR; and I don't do the Hebrew series (believe me you don't want to know how bad my Hebrew is).
As for Marley, I really don't know too much. I've just read a couple of books and have downloaded a hundred songs.
I'm not sure if you find music theft morally wrong (I lack integrity in regards to media piracy), but you can download his entire discography from www.isohunt.com you just need utorrent to manage the process.
Out of every 10 songs I listen to, I think 6 are Bob songs. I'm really into his early 60's stuff right now.
Post a Comment