How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 7161
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by DarkJedi » 27 May 2019, 05:05

BJE wrote:
26 May 2019, 21:14
Curt Sunshine wrote:
26 May 2019, 19:13
There also is the view that someone can't apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.

I don't accept that view fully, but I understand and can't condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
I am in the camp of not being able to apologize for someone else. Here's a specific example. During my time of inactivity the SP at the time tried to apologize for something the bishop had done. The bishop was still here and there's no indication he was willing to apologize. I was polite and told the SP how I felt - that he couldn't apologize on some else's behalf, especially when I knew the bishop wasn't sorry for what he did. The SP accepted that and the matter was dropped. The bishop never apologized on his own behalf. Could the SP just have been saying "I'm sorry this happened to you?" Certainly, but he didn't indicate that, and that's different from an apology. That said, I think it might be appropriate for the current church leadership to offer some sort of "We're sorry" for something that happened 150 years ago and those involved are all gone. Those people can't apologize on their own behalf.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7334
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by SilentDawning » 29 May 2019, 15:53

DarkJedi wrote:
27 May 2019, 05:05
BJE wrote:
26 May 2019, 21:14
Curt Sunshine wrote:
26 May 2019, 19:13
There also is the view that someone can't apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.

I don't accept that view fully, but I understand and can't condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
I am in the camp of not being able to apologize for someone else. Here's a specific example. During my time of inactivity the SP at the time tried to apologize for something the bishop had done. The bishop was still here and there's no indication he was willing to apologize. I was polite and told the SP how I felt - that he couldn't apologize on some else's behalf, especially when I knew the bishop wasn't sorry for what he did. The SP accepted that and the matter was dropped. The bishop never apologized on his own behalf. Could the SP just have been saying "I'm sorry this happened to you?" Certainly, but he didn't indicate that, and that's different from an apology. That said, I think it might be appropriate for the current church leadership to offer some sort of "We're sorry" for something that happened 150 years ago and those involved are all gone. Those people can't apologize on their own behalf.
For me, the BP's SP making the apology carried weight. He was more senior than the Bishop, and his is a higher apology from an organizational perspective.

Interpersonally, it's inadequate as the BP isn't at all sorry.

For it to be a complete apology, I would need the SP to indicate he was sorry for what happened, and had also spoken to the BP about it. As the SP, if the infraction was severe, I'd also encourage him to apologize to the wronged person. But if the BP was unwilling, there would be little I could do.

I had a BP apologize for atrocious behavior from LDS Social Services. It didn't matter to me. What I needed was an apology from the guy who did it as the BP and LDS Social Services were two different organizations.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 7161
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by DarkJedi » 30 May 2019, 04:54

Just to clarify my earlier post, the bishop was still around but not bishop. I didn't take the "offense" (for lack of a better word) as an offense perpetrated by the church, rather it was more personal using the church "authority" and policy as a pretext. The SP couldn't do (and probably wouldn't have done) what the bishop did. And just from another perspective, the SP was in fact barking up the wrong tree at the time on the assumption that the offense was the cause of my inactivity - it was not, as others were figuring out when I did not return to activity when the bishop was released. The whole thing with the bishop was sort of a side show. If the SP were apologizing on behalf of the church/organization or if it were clear he was just saying "I'm sorry this happened to you," I would have seen the apology in a different light but that was not the case. (FWIW there was no consequence for the bishop and I'm pretty certain that even now, 15ish years later, he likely thinks he did no wrong and would remain unapologetic because that's part of his personality. He moved away several years ago and Utah is welcome to him.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

nibbler
Posts: 4450
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by nibbler » 30 May 2019, 07:12

I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can't help but think:

How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?

Roy
Posts: 6112
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by Roy » 30 May 2019, 08:54

Good point nibbler. The church can change too much and people may question the "unchanging" nature of the doctrine. If the church doesn't change enough it can cause people to question the claim of continuous revelation and the church loses relevance for our modern lives.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3532
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by hawkgrrrl » 30 May 2019, 11:40

nibbler wrote:
30 May 2019, 07:12
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can't help but think:

How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
+1000

BJE
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 May 2019, 13:02

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by BJE » 30 May 2019, 20:44

nibbler wrote:
30 May 2019, 07:12
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can't help but think:

How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
As the “living gospel” with a “living prophet” there should be change as often as needed. What concerns me is that after having a living prophets for 175 years since Joseph Smith’s death and only three sections and two declarations have been added of the Doctrine and Covenants that we’re not written by Joseph Smith.

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7334
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by SilentDawning » 31 May 2019, 12:14

If I were a prophet, and I didn't have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything.

First, it's weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We're already marginalized enough. it's way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.

Second, I'd feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.

Third, I'd be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.

Those are just a few reasons I wouldn't do it -- and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

Szajda
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 08:23

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by Szajda » 31 May 2019, 22:17

The main problem is if the church goes to a more liberal church and they accept more things that older prophet declared as a sin!
Sec the church don’t explain why the did change the policy!

The church doing the same mistake as the Protestant church and Catholic Church giving in from pressure from outside!

So I think church losing big in credibility because of all this adaptation to external pressure and not following the doctrine!

Another question popped up is how modern revelation that contradict earlier revelation of early prophet of the church fits! Did the early prophet revelation been wrong or the new revelation is wrong, because both can’t be true!


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

BJE
Posts: 36
Joined: 24 May 2019, 13:02

Re: How much can the church change yet still remain credible?

Post by BJE » 31 May 2019, 22:28

SilentDawning wrote:
31 May 2019, 12:14
If I were a prophet, and I didn't have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything.

First, it's weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We're already marginalized enough. it's way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.

Second, I'd feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.

Third, I'd be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.

Those are just a few reasons I wouldn't do it -- and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.
The prophet doesn’t just decide to add revelations to our scriptures. Here is the process by which revelations are added to our standard works of scripture as outlined on lds.org

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.
The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:
“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.
“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:
“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’
“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.

Post Reply