Ark Steadying What Is It?

[cinepro]

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:

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

Lehi

Assuming the story actually happened as reported, it's all rather silly.

The ark isn't God. The ark is a heavy gold chest, and apparently it was being pulled around the countryside by some oxen. The ark didn't fly around on its own power, it didn't have legs like a horse. It was a heavy box that people had to lift and carry, or animals had to be employed to move.

So Uzza is transporting a valuable gold chest, and the oxen stumble, apparently putting the ark at risk of falling to the ground. Are we really saying that if we were in his positition, we would stand still and watch the ark fall to the ground, spilling its contents? Was Uzza supposed to have faith that even though the Lord had allowed the oxen to stumble, he would miraculously save the ark from falling?

And since the Lord works through His followers, how was Uzza to know he hadn't been placed in that position to act for the Lord in steadying the ark?

It's even more silly how we try to apply some assumed lesson from Uzza's tragic death in our day. Instead of using the principle of "ark steadying" to label those who we wish would be happier with the status quo, let me present some real-world scenarios:

- A seminary teacher arrives to the Church building early one morning and sees water running out from underneath the bathroom door, soaking the carpet in the hallway and seeping to the wood floor in the cultural hall. Since the facilities are not part of his stewardship, he decides not to "steady the ark" and shut off the water, and instead trusts in the Lord.

- While waiting for a Temple recommend interview in the foyer on a Wednesday evening, a man notices the Scout troop from another ward is meeting with only one adult leader two boys (in violation of the strict "two deep" adult leader policy). He sees some other things that make him uneasy about the situation, but since it isn't his stewardship (or even his ward), he decides not to "steady the ark" and doesn't mention it to anyone, trusting in the Lord.

- While visiting his brother's ward, a man attends Gospel Doctrine class and in the course of the lesson, the teacher forcefully expresses views on the origin of the Priesthood ban that, while in harmony with teachings from 50 years ago, are out of step with current thoughts on the subject. The man's brother later mentions that this subject comes up regularly with the teacher, and the same views are always reinforced, as well as some unusual beliefs regarding polygamy and other Church doctrines, policies or teachings. Instead of bringing the issue to someone in authority, both brothers decide it is out of their stewardship and to trust in the Lord and not steady the ark.

Those are all actual situations I have seen. Does anyone think that a person taking action outside of their stewardship in these cases is "steadying the ark"? How would it be any different than Uzza seeing the ark falling and instinctively trying to help.

It should also be noted that 1 Chronicles 13:7 says Uzza was driving the cart:

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.

That being the case, it could be argued that the driver of the cart does have the stewardship to ensure safe transport of the cart's contents.

If the Relief Society President asked me to bring a crystal punch bowl to a Relief Society dinner, and it started rolling around in the backseat of my car, should I deliver the punch bowl in pieces, and explain to the RSP that I didn't secure it because the punch bowl was her stewardship, not mine, and I didn't want to "steady the punch bowl"?

Edited February 15, 2012 by cinepro

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've been wholeheartedly agreeing with you quite a lot lately, Cinepro. It kinda confuses me. *grin*

[The Nehor]

I do sometimes wonder about the story of Uzza. I believe it was Skousen who postulated that he was killed so we could have that lesson in scripture and not due to any sin. While the ark was a wonderful thing I don't think God would kill to protect anyone from touching it. To my knowledge he has never immediately struck dead anyone who violated a temple in our dispensation.

I think ark-steadying has been stretched way too far. While God does in scripture seem to punish those who presumptuously try to gain authority not entrusted to them he also in those same scriptures uses others to prompt change in consultation with leaders. You have Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah the daughters of Zelophed approaching Moses about injustice in the law costing them their inheritance. Jethro advises Moses on priesthood organization despite most likely having no stewardship over him. You have Paul disagreeing with Peter who led the Church. I am sure there are more examples.

This does not mean that every member in the Church who has an idea should rush to Salt Lake to let the prophet know. It does mean that Cinepro's stories are bad examples. A wise Bishop once explained how the Ward Council works. It is not a democracy. The Bishop has the final word on everything but those there can present ideas, share thoughts, make suggestions, etc. He also made clear that even if he had seemed to have made a decision if we had information or thoughts we thought he should consider that he hadn't heard to speak up.

In other words, don't let not steadying the ark be an excuse for laziness and indifference.

[Calm]

Assuming the story actually happened as reported, it's all rather silly.

The ark isn't God. The ark is a heavy gold chest, and apparently it was being pulled around the countryside by some oxen. The ark didn't fly around on its own power, it didn't have legs like a horse. It was a heavy box that people had to lift and carry, or animals had to be employed to move.

So Uzza is transporting a valuable gold chest, and the oxen stumble, apparently putting the ark at risk of falling to the ground. Are we really saying that if we were in his positition, we would stand still and watch the ark fall to the ground, spilling its contents? Was Uzza supposed to have faith that even though the Lord had allowed the oxen to stumble, he would miraculously save the ark from falling?

And since the Lord works through His followers, how was Uzza to know he hadn't been placed in that position to act for the Lord in steadying the ark?

It's even more silly how we try to apply some assumed lesson from Uzza's tragic death in our day. Instead of using the principle of "ark steadying" to label those who we wish would be happier with the status quo, let me present some real-world scenarios:

- A seminary teacher arrives to the Church building early one morning and sees water running out from underneath the bathroom door, soaking the carpet in the hallway and seeping to the wood floor in the cultural hall. Since the facilities are not part of his stewardship, he decides not to "steady the ark" and shut off the water, and instead trusts in the Lord.....

I do agree that the story seems problematic in my view, but wasn't there a commandment given not to touch the Ark unless one was appointed to do so? That is different than it just not being in one's stewardship or not doing anything because one assumes/has faith God will take care of it.

[Cobalt-70]

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:

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

I don't think this characteristically LDS interpretation of the "steadying the ark" episode is at all what the writer of the story was intending to convey. To understand this part of the Old Testament, we have to understand ancient Hebrew religion, which was very different from either later Judaism or Christianity. Before the YHWY cult of the Hebrews, all gods were idols, and people expected every god to be represented, or reside in, a graven image. The ark was intended to meet that need of the people for an idol, except that it was an anti-idol. By design, the ark featured a big empty space between two cherubim, instead of an idol, and the idea was that YHWH would dwell there invisibly, without the need to represent him with a graven image.

Nobody, even a priest, was ever supposed to touch the ark (Num 4:15). When the ark was made, rings were placed in the side so that the priests could move the ark with poles, without touching it. It was, by any sense of the word, a magical object. Uzzah was struck down, not for usurping the role of anyone in the priestly hierarchy (because not even priests could touch the ark), but simply because the ark was magically charged to strike dead anyone who touched it. When Uzzah touched the ark, as if it were a common earthly object, YHWH was profaned. I don't think there's any lesson in the story other than this: don't profane or otherwise YHWH, or he might strike you dead.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[The Nehor]

I do agree that the story seems problematic in my view, but wasn't there a commandment given not to touch the Ark unless one was appointed to do so? That is different than it just not being in one's stewardship or not doing anything because one assumes/has faith God will take care of it.

Yes, but there are lots and lots of commandments. I've broken a few myself and never been struck dead.............yet. Buy maybe I'm playing Russian Roulette

I can't see accidentally touching a sacred object being a death sentence when breaking marriage covenants made over an altar serving the same purpose does not seem to cause immediate death. Maybe God had a reason for this one. Maybe Uzza was looking for an excuse to touch it so he could brag about it while hanging out with friends later. Then he kicked the oxen pulling it so he could 'save' it.

[Calm]

Yes, but there are lots and lots of commandments. I've broken a few myself and never been struck dead....

Not arguing with this, just pointing out the analogies being used weren't applicable due to the commandment being in place. A better analogy would be when David and his men ate the bread set aside for temple use, IIRC, though an excuse is added to the story that the young men are holy since they hadn't sexually been with a woman for three days or more. Or where Christ healed on the Sabbath.

[The Nehor]

A better analogy would be when David and his men ate the bread set aside for temple use, IIRC, though an excuse is added to the story that the young men are holy since they hadn't sexually been with a woman for three days or more. Or where Christ healed on the Sabbath.

Ah, one of my favorite stories. The justification that just keeps on giving. You have no idea how many times I used that one to justify doing things on my Mission. If you're on the Lord's errand you can break the rules. It says so in the Bible when David ate the shewbread.

I'm going to hell aren't I?

[wenglund]

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

I think you got it exactly backwards. My question was in answer to yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The problem I see in this matter is when good folks take what are rare exceptions and turn them into a rule for themsleves rather than rare exceptions.

I would think it would go without saying, but we are all best served to make it a rule to mind our own business, and trust God to mind his, and not the other way around. If you doubt this, just try minding the ark-steadiers' business and see how they react.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I has one Ward Sister who chastised me for playing cards with an autistic boy in our foyer during Scouts. He was doing great at "go fish" and very engaged- something of a challenge to get him to do.

She decided to tell me that "Brigham Young instructed us we were not to play with face cards".

I was quite put out and retorted "Brigham Young also told us we were going to hell if we rejected polygamy. What do you propose I do about that?"

[BCSpace]

The Church doesn't seem to have published much doctrine at all on Uzza or "Ark-Steadying".

[Calm]

I has one Ward Sister who chastised me for playing cards with an autistic boy in our foyer during Scouts. He was doing great at "go fish" and very engaged- something of a challenge to get him to do.

She decided to tell me that "Brigham Young instructed us we were not to play with face cards".

I was quite put out and retorted "Brigham Young also told us we were going to hell if we rejected polygamy. What do you propose I do about that?"

Finish the story, what did she say or if she said nothing, how did she look?

[mercyngrace]

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.

I don't deny that you have good reason to be suspicious. People can be deceptive and self-justifying. They can also be self-righteous, condescendng, and a whole host of other unChristlike attributes. In my experience, very few labels, especially when applied to human beings, are anything but ill-fitting. Most of us are radically more complex than such black and white identifiers, however well intended, imply.

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?

Are we still talking about people calling other ark steadiers on message boards? It sounds here like you are broadening my comments beyond the scope for which they were intended.

In my opinion, if God's work and glory is the immortality and eternal life of man, then I trust He doesn't need me to steady His hand in the lives of my fellows with name calling. When He does call me, through the Spirit, to speak a hard word, I do it, but He explicitly states that I must show forth an increase of love afterward such that the brother or sister I have called out knows that my love for them is stronger than the cords of death.

For my part, I have found President Young's words to be true:

I am not going to drive a man or a woman to heaven. A great many think that they will be able to flog people into heaven, but this can never be done, for the intelligence in us is as independent as the Gods. People are not to be driven, and you can put into a gnat's eye all the souls of the children of men that are driven into heaven by preaching hellfire.

I also like the words of St. Augustine:

Preach the gospel always. If necessary, use words.

[KevinG]

Finish the story, what did she say or if she said nothing, how did she look?

She stood there with her mouth open, then snapped it shut, then walked away with a disgusted look.

I enjoyed every minute of it and have yet to repent!

P.S. in light of Mercyngrace's comments- this sister had a habit of lecturing those Saints who weren't as pristinely rightous as she - in other words everyone. I know I probably wasn't right to be a smart alek but it just came out at the time.

Edited February 15, 2012 by DaddyG

[blackstrap]

Uzza's story reminds me of the regular reports of some teenage kid who climbs the fence around the electric transformer station,ignoring the boldly posted signs: " Danger,do not touch fence,40,000 Volts ".They are usually killed too.

Edited February 15, 2012 by blackstrap

[Deborah]

It's interesting that David had a problem with what happened to Uzza. I Chronicles 13:

11 And David was displeased, because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perez-uzza to this day.

12 And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?

[Grundelwalken]

I do agree that the story seems problematic in my view, but wasn't there a commandment given not to touch the Ark unless one was appointed to do so? That is different than it just not being in one's stewardship or not doing anything because one assumes/has faith God will take care of it.

Numbers 4:15 -- And when Aaron and his sons have made and end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation.

D&C 85:8 -- 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.

Seems pretty clear that in ancient and modern revelation the Lord was very sincere about the command concerning the ark. This was not just a gold box holding some cool stuff, it was the Seat of God in the Tabernacle and was to be reverenced as such. Cinepro's examples are irrelevant because they are not tied to a commandment about the sacred object of the ark. Each of us have a duty to protect the innocent or the building or whatever but only specific priesthood holders were allowed to touch or enter the tabernacle. Very different circumstances. MW

[Cobalt-70]

Numbers 4:15 -- And when Aaron and his sons have made and end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation.

D&C 85:8 -- 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.

Seems pretty clear that in ancient and modern revelation the Lord was very sincere about the command concerning the ark. This was not just a gold box holding some cool stuff, it was the Seat of God in the Tabernacle and was to be reverenced as such. Cinepro's examples are irrelevant because they are not tied to a commandment about the sacred object of the ark. Each of us have a duty to protect the innocent or the building or whatever but only specific priesthood holders were allowed to touch or enter the tabernacle. Very different circumstances. MW

Nobody was supposed to touch the ark, appointed or otherwise. That's why it had rings on the sides so that Levites could put poles through and bear the ark without anybody actually touching it. And D&C 85:8 says that even the one who was "appointed" (probably Bishop Partridge) may not steady the ark. So the lesson of the Uzza story was not that only certain appointed people may steady the ark. It is that nobody must steady the ark. God is holy and you cannot alter his trajectory with your profane hands, or he will kill you.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[The Nehor]

She stood there with her mouth open, then snapped it shut, then walked away with a disgusted look.

I enjoyed every minute of it and have yet to repent!

P.S. in light of Mercyngrace's comments- this sister had a habit of lecturing those Saints who weren't as pristinely rightous as she - in other words everyone. I know I probably wasn't right to be a smart alek but it just came out at the time.

In case no one told you this lately, you are amazing. Oh, and I wouldn't bother repenting. God was probably laughing with you.

[Loran Blood]

I don't deny that you have good reason to be suspicious. People can be deceptive and self-justifying. They can also be self-righteous, condescendng, and a whole host of other unChristlike attributes. In my experience, very few labels, especially when applied to human beings, are anything but ill-fitting. Most of us are radically more complex than such black and white identifiers, however well intended, imply.

My view of human psychological/characterological attributes and the problem of "judgement of character" is a bit different. While there is much complexity in the human psyce, and while human beings can change over time, it is also true that, at any given time, and with great stability over time, personality is generally "of a piece" and exhibits clear tendencies and qualities that fall into only a small body of general patterns. There are, in other words, an unlimited number of individual variations in manifestation of human psychological dynamics, but only a few patterns, and the way we negotiate our relationships effectively, as we mature and gain experience, is by learning to see those patterns and conducting ourselves accordingly with respect to them.

The idea that one cannot "tell a book by its cover" is a platitude and myth overlaying a grain of truth. One can never be fully sure, and especially fully sure over long spans of time, but if one's experience with a general pattern of human behavior, thought, characterologial attributes, dress, mannerisms, and self concept say "have a relationship with this person, but at arm's length," or "do not involve yourself with this person at all," or "move to the other side of the street," or, "no problems here," one might be well advised to follow one's intelligence and experience in these matters.

Likewise, when one sees apostasy in the making, one's responsiblity, and indeed mine as one who has taken the oath and covenant of the priesthood, is to "preach, teach, exhort and warn." It is not to stand by and let things take there course without comment or input. On the other hand, there really needs to be apostasy in the making for one to step in and make oneself heard, and that would seem to me to be the only real problem involved, a problem of judgement and balance.

In my opinion, if God's work and glory is the immortality and eternal life of man, then I trust He doesn't need me to steady His hand in the lives of my fellows with name calling.

Pointing out that one is steadying the ark (let's say, just for one example, by an attempt to import notions from feminist philosophy into LDS teaching with a view to "changing the church's policy" on something or another) is not name calling, nor is it in any way a violation of our responisbilities as members to each other to see that false teachings and corruptions in doctrine do not seep into the church from Babylon the Great.

When He does call me, through the Spirit, to speak a hard word, I do it, but He explicitly states that I must show forth an increase of love afterward such that the brother or sister I have called out knows that my love for them is stronger than the cords of death.

That's fine, and was not a part of my point.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Loran Blood

[ERayR]

It's when you think you know more than God.

[KevinG]

I can imagine it went something like this...

God: don't touch that.

God: really... it won't be good, don't touch that.

God: trust me you really, really don't want to go there and...

Uzzah: ZZZZZZZAAAAAAPPP!!! sizzle...

Prophet and scribe: In the news today, God smote Uzzah for touching the Arc of the Covenant...

[mercyngrace]

Came across these talks tonight and thought they were pertinent to the tangent of labeling:

Labels and Love Thy Neighbor

I particularly liked this quote by Elder Russell M. Nelson:

If a child, slow of speech, is declared a stammerer by others, he or she may speak with even less assurance than before. In fact, some evidence suggests that stuttering is aggravated merely by labeling one a stutterer. Unkind words exchanged between people can also injure deeply, especially if discourteous labels are applied in the process.

People tend to become what is expected of them. Labels convey those expectations. Pigeons may feel comfortable in designated pigeonholes, but people can be offended when labeled or classified.

Yet, in spite of the obvious dangers, we are prone to label one another. “Smoker,” “drinker,” “inactive,” “liberal,” “unorthodox” are but a few terms applied, as though we cannot separate the doer from the deed.

In the eyes of God, all are his children; all are brothers and sisters.

My point is simply that we can address problem behaviors by providing an example of Christlike behavior. We don't need to categorize individuals with labels that may ultimately cause an individual to actually become, as Elder Nelson suggests, what we expect of them.

[inquiringmind]

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!

Hi Cate.

I'm not familiar with that passage.

Where did Moses ever praise anyone for disobeying him?