Ark Steadying What Is It?

[stemelbow]

I believe I've been accused of ark-steadying before. I'm not sure exactly what it is. I've seen it used in what seems to be a couple different ways. Any clarification?

[LeSellers]

5 So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjathjearim. 6 And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it. 7 And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. 8 And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.

9 And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. 11 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day. 12 And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? 13 So David brought not the ark home to himself to the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obededom the Gittite. 14 And the ark of God remained with the family of Obededom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obededom, and all that he had.

The saying is quite common among Saints because Uzza was acting outside his stewardship (if, indeed he had any at all).

We apply it to those people who go beyond their legitimate stewardships and attempt, typically, to counsel the Brethren about how to run the church. They steady the ark who call for the Brethren to admit women into the Priesthood, who decry the Scouting program, who want to use tithing funds for welfare and a host of other "causes". They all plead, as did Uzza, necessity: their concerns are so important, and the Brethren so obviously blind to the matter, that they simply must pressure God's anointed to act as they, the activists, see fit, they being so impressively intelligent and filled with common-sense.

To some degree, we all steady the ark from time to time. But there are those who make a career of it. It reminds me of this saying:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.

We know nothing of why anyone called you an ark-steadier. But, if the shoe fits, change shoes!

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[stemelbow]

This:

To some degree, we all stedty the ark from time to time. But there are those who make a career of it.

I suppose that's where I'm confused. I get worries when labels are bandied about, particularly when they seem to fit the bandiers in some ways.

I really like the Joseph Smith quote:

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

Thanks. I do feel its a precarious road we follow sometimes. How do we reasonably disagree with others but also keep ourselves in line? Or are we to seriously just hop in line without any question, concern, or disagreement? Is the operative phrase in this quote, "while he himself is righteous"?

[wenglund]

To me, ark-steadiers are often well-intended busybodies who avoid addressing their own personal problems by sticking their nose into the affairs of the Church--and this even though they are out of the loop and uninformed, and who tend to think they know what is best and right for the Church than God and those he has called to lead his Church on earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 15, 2012 by wenglund

[stemelbow]

To me, ark-steadiers are often well-intended busybodies who avoid addressing their own personal problems by sticking their nose into the affairs of the Church--and this even though they are out of the loop and uninformed, and who tend to think they know what is best and right for the Church than God and those he has called to lead his Church on earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it possible that God is not behind each and every pronouncement, idea, policy, or practice within the Church? I ask because, since we all can play this role sometimes, I wonder if God wants us to ask, question and figure out if some things are said by men rather than by inspiration. Ideas kind of change in the church from time to time and it seems like they do after some in the Church question whether its a not getting the issue correct.

[mercyngrace]

This:

I suppose that's where I'm confused. I get worries when labels are bandied about, particularly when they seem to fit the bandiers in some ways.

I really like the Joseph Smith quote:

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

Thanks. I do feel its a precarious road we follow sometimes. How do we reasonably disagree with others but also keep ourselves in line? Or are we to seriously just hop in line without any question, concern, or disagreement? Is the operative phrase in this quote, "while he himself is righteous"?

Stemelbow -

I think you should ignore those intent on labeling others. Sometimes labeling is a just used as a way to marginalize someone with whom a poster disagrees. In which case, the best response to such is simply to consider the source.

Also, we (as a religious culture) use the phrase ark-steadiers but we usually fail to acknowledge that there were also men who directly disbeyed an explicit command from the prophet Moses and were praised by him for doing so!

Don't worry about what some stranger on the intent says - even if he/she claims to speak with authority (probably especially if he/she claims authority!). Worry about what the Lord thinks of you.

MnG

Edited February 15, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

Is it possible that God is not behind each and every pronouncement, idea, policy, or practice within the Church? I ask because, since we all can play this role sometimes, I wonder if God wants us to ask, question and figure out if some things are said by men rather than by inspiration. Ideas kind of change in the church from time to time and it seems like they do after some in the Church question whether its a not getting the issue correct.

I think as long as someone actually goes to the Lord with his or her concerns and puts in the time for prayer and study (and worthiness to receive an answer), that is certainly acceptable in wondering what is and what isn't of the Lord in the Church and what is or isn't of 'men'. My mother did this when her health broke down and she had to make decisions on what she was going to commit herself and her family to. If one has received revelation, then it is appropriate to mold one's own life and the lives of those one has stewardship over based on that revelation that something is being incorrectly expected of the Saints. And there are ways to communicate with one's leaders to share one's concerns.

However, there are lines that should not be crossed and that is playing the role of complainer and detractor without making any effort to effect change in one's own life, another would be to take disagreements to the public stage in an attempt to pressure or extort leaders into changing. No one is truly persuaded if the change is forced upon them for one thing.

Edited February 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Loran Blood]

For me, it isn't so much that an individual member may have misgivings about some policy or practice within the church (that being between him and the Lord) so much as the case in which a member, say in a public messege board, or any other public venue, begins teaching something along the lines of, "Its high time that we as Latter day Saints begin doing x, and living under the conditions of x, and until we do we are not going to begin moving forward as a people toward a true Zion society." Or, "I believe the Church is true, but there are some areas (the priesthood ban, woman and the priesthood, full acceptance of open homosexuality, elements of feminist theory, 19th Century plural marriage etc.) where the Brethren have fallen from their responsibilities and been left behind by the surrounding culture (concerns with "social justice" etc.) that need to be addressed for the Church to move forward and progress ("Baptisms and retention rates are going to fall unless the Church changes its position on x." etc.)."

It is, in other words, not that individual members harbor ideas at varience with LDS teachings, practice, and counsel, but that they express them in a way that demands the Church and its membership alter fundamental principles so as to absorb their particular ideas into the Church and its teachings. This behavior also manifests itself in arguments that imply, either overtly or covertly, that the Church and its people, generally, are not truly living the gospel in an authentic or spiritually more enlightened manner if they are not living principle x as determined by a more enlightened, spiritually and intelletually evolved member.

The "ark must be steadied," or in other words, the Church must be kept on the straight and narrow by the ark steadier, lest it be left foundering on the rocks by the generally low browed and spirtually unperceptive Bretheren and general membership. It is the idea that one's own personal doctrines and philosophies are binding, or should be, upon the Church.

Scriptures as 19th Century inspired fiction? The Book of Abraham produced from the KEP? Food/Nutritional fanaticism as a sign of superiour spirituality? Pleas that the Church become politically correct across a plethora of social issues? North or South American geography? Plural marriage a mistake and spiritual fraud? The Church has no settled, official doctrine? LDS are not true, authentic Christians until they redistribute all of their wealth above basic necessity to the poor? When will the Church ordain open homosexuals as Bishops and stake presidents?

That's "ark steadying."

Edited February 15, 2012 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

Is it possible that God is not behind each and every pronouncement, idea, policy, or practice within the Church? I ask because, since we all can play this role sometimes, I wonder if God wants us to ask, question and figure out if some things are said by men rather than by inspiration. Ideas kind of change in the church from time to time and it seems like they do after some in the Church question whether its a not getting the issue correct.

Is it possible that certain member may lack sufficient trust in God and his chosen leader and may suffer somewhat from a savior complex?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Let's take another look at what the Church itself has said, in a nutshell:

"While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." (D&C 85:8.)

The phrase "steady the ark" refers to an incident in ancient Israel when the Ark of the Covenant, being transported over a rough spot, started to topple. Uzzah, who sought to steady the ark, was struck dead.The Church Educational System' Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual states: "However well-meaning his intentions, Uzzah approached casually what could only be approached under the strictest conditions. He had no faith in God's power. He assumed that the ark was in danger, forgetting that it was the symbol of the God who has all power. What man can presume to save God and His kingdom through his own efforts?" President David O. McKay wrote: "Let us look around us and see how quickly men who attempt unauthoritatively to steady the ark die spiritually.

"Their souls become embittered, their minds distorted, their judgments faulty, and their spirits depressed. Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities, spend their time in finding fault with others."

Edited February 15, 2012 by Loran Blood

[LeSellers]

The question is one of stewardship.

It's none of my business, or, in other words, I have no stewardship regarding, whether women receive the Priesthood. I have no stewardship that includes whether the Church supports and uses the Scouting Program as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. It's none of my business whether Plural Marriage is reinstated for the Church, or whether we start meeting on Tuesdays instead of Sundays, or if Easter becomes the LDS "Christmas".

As long as I stick to my own knitting, fulfill my legitimate callings as (grand)father, husband, home teacher, etc., it is of no concern how the Brethren (including local brethren) run the Church. If I start imagining that my stewardship has expanded to include that of my bishop or stake president, or President Monson's, then I would be on the high road to apostasy, unless I repent.

One of the things that ark-steadying seems to include with almost no exception I can recall, is that the steadier starts calling on the Brethren to repent and follow the (erstwhile) commandment "revealed" to him. We have seen it in this forum regarding tithing, particularly, and a host of others, not least of which is the use of non-tithing monies to build the City Creek Center/Mall. Oh, these critics cry, the Brethren cannot inspired because that money could be used for more deserving goals. ("Deserving", in this case, in the eye of the critic, as you probably recognize.) They even accuse the Brethren of using tithing funds for this purpose, which, even were it true, has nothing to do with their stewardships.

If my bishop were to implement a policy or start teaching a doctrine in direct conflict with Church teaching or practice, I have a responsibility to report that seeming discrepancy to my stake president. Failing a satisfactory response, I could then kick it upstairs to the Area Authority Seventy, or to the Quorum of the Twelve. But the instant I start preaching against him and his position in public, I have started steadying the ark, and wo! unto me for that—even if it turned out I was right. There is a procedure for correcting these kinds of errors, and writing open letters in the Salt Lake Tribune is not part of that process.

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

Stemelbow - I think you should ignore those intent on labeling others. Sometimes labeling is a just used as a way to marginalize someone with whom a poster disagrees. In which case, the best response to such is simply to consider the source.

Sometimes labeling can be a cogent way of expressing a meaningful point. Making a sweeping suggestion to ignore those supposeldy intent on labeling is, ironically, another way of marginalizing someone with whom you may disagree.

Also, we (as a religious culture) use the phrase ark-steadiers but we usually fail to acknowledge that there were also men who directly disbeyed an explicit command from the prophet Moses and were praised by him for doing so!

To some of us, those rare exceptions tend to prove the rule.

Don't worry about what some stranger on the intent says - even if he/she claims to speak with authority (probably especially if he/she claims authority!). Worry about what the Lord thinks of you.

Wise advise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Sometimes labeling can be a cogent way of expressing a meaningful point. Making a sweeping suggestion to ignore those supposeldy intent on labeling is, ironically, another way of marginalizing someone with whom you may disagree.

Agreed. The fear of "labeling" is, in many cases, simply a fear of being called out and called to account.

[stemelbow]

Stemelbow -

I think you should ignore those intent on labeling others. Sometimes labeling is a just used as a way to marginalize someone with whom a poster disagrees. In which case, the best response to such is simply to consider the source.

Also, we (as a religious culture) use the phrase ark-steadiers but we usually fail to acknowledge that there were also men who directly disbeyed an explicit command from the prophet Moses and were praised by him for doing so!

Don't worry about what some stranger on the intent says - even if he/she claims to speak with authority (probably especially if he/she claims authority!). Worry about what the Lord thinks of you.

MnG

Thanks. I didn't start this because some one called me something. I don't care, really, if someone chooses to call me something negative or not. I was just curious if there was consistency in this term and if it holds the type of meaning that people seem to use it for.

[stemelbow]

I think as long as someone actually goes to the Lord with his or her concerns and puts in the time for prayer and study (and worthiness to receive an answer), that is certainly acceptable in wondering what is and what isn't of the Lord in the Church and what is or isn't of 'men'. My mother did this when her health broke down and she had to make decisions on what she was going to commit herself and her family to. If one has received revelation, then it is appropriate to mold one's own life and the lives of those one has stewardship over based on that revelation that something is being incorrectly expected of the Saints. And there are ways to communicate with one's leaders to share one's concerns.

However, there are lines that should not be crossed and that is playing the role of complainer and detractor without making any effort to effect change in one's own life, another would be to take disagreements to the public stage in an attempt to pressure or extort leaders into changing. No one is truly persuaded if the change is forced upon them for one thing.

Very good post. Thanks.

[wenglund]

Just to clarify, ark-steadying doesn't so much apply to decisions for oneself, but rather to decisions for the church as a whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Is it possible that certain member may lack sufficient trust in God and his chosen leader and may suffer somewhat from a savior complex?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

of course. But my questions still seem germaine.

[stemelbow]

The question is one of stewardship.

It's none of my business, or, in other words, I have no stewardship regarding, whether women receive the Priesthood. I have no stewardship that includes whether the Church supports and uses the Scouting Program as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. It's none of my business whether Plural Marriage is reinstated for the Church, or whether we start meeting on Tuesdays instead of Sundays, or if Easter becomes the LDS "Christmas".

As long as I stick to my own knitting, fulfill my legitimate callings as (grand)father, husband, home teacher, etc., it is of no concern how the Brethren (including local brethren) run the Church. If I start imagining that my stewardship has expanded to include that of my bishop or stake president, or President Monson's, then I would be on the high road to apostasy, unless I repent.

One of the things that ark-steadying seems to include with almost no exception I can recall, is that the steadier starts calling on the Brethren to repent and follow the (erstwhile) commandment "revealed" to him. We have seen it in this forum regarding tithing, particularly, and a host of others, not least of which is the use of non-tithing monies to build the City Creek Center/Mall. Oh, these critics cry, the Brethren cannot inspired because that money could be used for more deserving goals. ("Deserving", in this case, in the eye of the critic, as you probably recognize.) They even accuse the Brethren of using tithing funds for this purpose, which, even were it true, has nothing to do with their stewardships.

If my bishop were to implement a policy or start teaching a doctrine in direct conflict with Church teaching or practice, I have a responsibility to report that seeming discrepancy to my stake president. Failing a satisfactory response, I could then kick it upstairs to the Area Authority Seventy, or to the Quorum of the Twelve. But the instant I start preaching against him and his position in public, I have started steadying the ark, and wo! unto me for that—even if it turned out I was right. There is a procedure for correcting these kinds of errors, and writing open letters in the Salt Lake Tribune is not part of that process.

Lehi

Good post. Thanks.

[wenglund]

of course. But my questions still seem germaine.

So does mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

Sometimes labeling can be a cogent way of expressing a meaningful point. Making a sweeping suggestion to ignore those supposeldy intent on labeling is, ironically, another way of marginalizing someone with whom you may disagree.

It sure can be. That's why I was careful to use the word "sometimes" and also explicit about those who are "intent on labeling" rather than any or all who use labels.

To some of us, those rare exceptions tend to prove the rule.

Indeed but the point is well made by Moses that Joshua's condemnation was based on a lack of awareness and understanding of the disobedient seventies and their personal experiences.

Wise advise.

Thanks.

[mercyngrace]

Agreed. The fear of "labeling" is, in many cases, simply a fear of being called out and called to account.

Choosing to ignore someone who uses labeling to marginalize others isn't fear, it's prudence and, some would argue, charity.

[Loran Blood]

Choosing to ignore someone who uses labeling to marginalize others isn't fear, it's prudence and, some would argue, charity.

A label is a linguistic attempt at nomenclature and taxonomy; its an attempt to clarify and conprehend meaning and context, and I am inherently suspicous of attempts to avoid and circumvent clear meaning and one's position with reference to core concepts. Some things are not classifiable because not enough is known about them, or they defy clear description (like cetain musical genres), but when clear articulation of meaning is possible, and one bobs and weaves, I become a bit concerned regarding motive.

Don't you see a measure of subjectivism here in your caviet of ignoring those who "use labeling to marginalize others."? How does one know when this is taking place and when such labeling is appropriate? When can such ignoring of others who may be "calling out" someone to clarify a point, assertion, or position be known to be legitimate or self serving?

Edited February 15, 2012 by Loran Blood

[stemelbow]

So does mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's why I answered your question. I don't know why mine were ignored.

[stemelbow]

So does mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's why I answered your question. I don't know why mine were ignored.

[wenglund]

It sure can be. That's why I was careful to use the word "sometimes" and also explicit about those who are "intent on labeling" rather than any or all who use labels.

Now, if your "sometimes" had been used instead of the blanket advise to ignore those "intent on labeling" (whomever you may suppose that to be), you might have avoided the irony of marginalizing the opposing views of those intent on labeling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-