Do We Still Believe The Lord Directs His Church?

[Stone holm]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

[Tacenda]

No to both on the last question. I think some men took place of God for awhile, did what they wanted. Now maybe they're more on track. Our church is still in infancy compared to other world religions. That's my response, take it or leave it.

[Stone holm]

No to both on the last question. I think some men took place of God for awhile, did what they wanted. Now maybe they're more on track. Our church is still in infancy compared to other world religions. That's my response, take it or leave it.

I'll take it, although I don't agree, because it is honest.

[why me]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

I think that we must separate what people are saying and what the church is saying. I see no backtracking by the church on polygamy or the ban. But I do see some members backtracking. For example, the youtube church member who apologized. Or members who claim that polygamy was not from god but from Joseph Smith. I think that your confusion comes from being an internet commenter on boards such as this. One must separate the internet from the church and realize that the church has more or less stuck to the script.

[Storm Rider]

I don't know. In my heart I wish that God directed all things in the Church at all times. The problem is that faithful, willing men are placed in positions of power. I believe that power corrupts...everyone and everything. It takes a very strong person to overcome the heady control that power provides individuals. My feeling today is that what it has been for a long time; polices, all polices that affect doctrine or direct who is and is not worthy, are wrong and should be rejected in total. These areas should be directly solely and completely by revelation. If there is no revelation there should never be a policy or a directive in these areas from Salt Lake.

 

These are my feelings, my thoughts, and I don't think they have any value to anyone else.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think there is a huge difference in expectation and perception when a person expects perfection.  Does the Lord micromanage his church, especially at the bureaucratic level, personally seeing to it that everything that comes through institutional channels fully represents his personal desire?   In D&C 1, as part of a formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants," we have a blunt statement of what we should expect.:

 

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;
And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;
And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;
And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

 

If that happens to be what I should expect, I should not be dismayed if that is exactly what I see.  I've also given some thought to what things might be like if a micromanagement program were in place. Instead of inspired men, we'd have divine puppetry.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[JLHPROF]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

 

I believe God directs the Church, but I also believe God directs all things.  He has a hand in the course of nations too, but that doesn't mean they are always doing his will either.

And I think as a result of this people pick and choose which decisions of the Church they like and which they don't like and then attribute the good to God and the bad to men according to their own preferences.  For example - "I hate Polygamy so it was all Joseph & Brigham's idea"  or "I love Polygamy so it had to come from God".  There are those who believe the Church is more perfect now than it has ever been, and there are those who believe that it was more perfect in the days of Joseph.  Also, really just people's preferences cause this and not what God has said.

 

We really need to learn to stop following our own desires and our own preferences and figure out when something is the word of the Lord, even if we hate it.  And that is easier said than done.

[Vance]

Do We Still Believe The Lord Directs His Church?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

I am convinced He did. I believe that He allowed/commanded their institution to promote the growth and strengthening of the Church. And when polygamy became a hindrance to those ends, He stopped the practice. And when the priesthood ban became a hindrance, He ended it.

[Nofear]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can?

 

Yes, most definitely, the Lord directs his church. I do not, however, think he micromanages it. I suspect most administrative revelation is more of the nature "improve this", "something about this  needs to be done", "watch out for this", etc. It then becomes the responsibility of the leaders of the Church (local to general) to come up with a way to affect the Lord's direction. Our leaders then frequently ask for confirmation if such and such a plan is agreeable. While it may not always be the way an omniscient being would go about doing things, I believe the Lord is frequently tolerant of, or even sustaining of, our imperfect efforts to implement his will. And sometimes the Lord even tolerates wrong roads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQC-_srxH8&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL4E784EC0770935C0). That's not to say specific revelation does not occur, it does. I suspect it probably just isn't the norm in the administration of the Church.

 

 

PS: As to polygamy and the priesthood ban, I echo both of Vance's position.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Nofear

[ChristKnight]

No to both on the last question. I think some men took place of God for awhile, did what they wanted. Now maybe they're more on track. Our church is still in infancy compared to other world religions. That's my response, take it or leave it.

 

Do you think that this view would be relevant to the Great Apostasy of the primitive Church of Jesus Christ?

[stemelbow]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

 

It's a question we each need to be asking ourselves for sure.

 

If God is opposed to teachings of the Church that were promoted for decades (explanations treated as revelation as to why the ban), then what role does He have in the messages that come to us, generally?   If revelation is a key principle in the Church how does it really work? 

 

I don't know. 

[CA Steve]

I wonder how those people who desperately wanted the blessings of the priesthood would feel to see that God can be excused for them not having the priesthood for over a century because it would have been "micromanagement"?

 

Come on people, if a whole race of people are excluded from the Church, for unknown reasons, for over a century, it is silly to try and pass that off as God avoiding micromanagement, and it is insulting to those people affected by the ban.

[Kenngo1969]

Yes.  He's simply a repentant racist and a someday-to-be-repentant sexist.

[seriously honestly]

I'm courious how such policies relate to the idea the prophet won't be allowed to lead the LDS church astray.

[Nofear]

I wonder how those people who desperately wanted the blessings of the priesthood would feel to see that God can be excused for them not having the priesthood for over a century because it would have been "micromanagement"?

We don't know God's reasons. I personally don't think the priesthood ban is an example of his not micromanaging the Church's administration.

[Ahab]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

The Lord still directs his Church and most in the Church accept most of his direction most of the time, but still there are things we don't do or think about as well as we could.  He won't override our agency, you know, and we're not always ready and willing to accept everything he tries to teach us, so "the errors of men" can still creep in.  And sometimes we err by not realizing the Lord knows exactly what he is doing when he directs us to do something many people do not agree with.

 

The ban, for example, was at least partly due to the fact that not everyone would have been okay seeing blacks exercising the same power and authority of God as white people.  The majority in the Church would have been okay with it, I think, but many outside of the Church would have objected, and that could have caused problems for the Church just as the issue of polygamy would have caused the Church many problems that could have been avoided. I mean, let's not forget to mention the fact that blacks didn't receive authority to act in the name of God in other churches, either, other than those that were exclusively for blacks, so if the Church had ordained blacks way back in 1830 as a routine just as whites were ordained, it would have been the first church on the Earth to do so.

[thesometimesaint]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

I believe he still leads his Church. I also believe that the various Bans have been at Gods' Command. But no I don't believe any/all of the rationalizations/excuses/reasons given by mortal men for those Bans.

[DBMormon]

Comparing myself pre Faith Crisis versus now.  I still believe God leads the Church - but today I view it as exponentially less direct, less all encompassing, and much more human affected then I thought back then.  I no longer see everything as literal and recognize that with all the sources and hands that biblical stories have gone through I am tons less likely to use those stories as a justification for my actions.  I see God as almost entirely hands off with a rare exception here and there. 

 

 

I will also add that I would guess on average most members start with a very literal, God is involved very directly with the Church in it's work.  And that as people are aware of more and more history, it's complexity, and its nuance that that view of God being intimately and directly involved lessens.

 

amounts and where on the scale is up for discussion but this is my perception.

Edited December 20, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

These comments are very interesting.  As I said, my personal view is that Christ directs His Church.  I do not think that He micro-manages everything that gets said or written by GAs, nor do I believe that the Correllation system is micro-managed.  Having said that, however, if some policy gets adopted by the Church which has a major impact on how the work of the Church goes forth and that policy remains in place for decades -- then I do not think we can just brush it aside as being something that slipped through the cracks because the Lord didn't want to micro-manage the leadership.  I also don't believe that the Lord goes to sleep on the job, or leaves on Sabbatical, so now I don't think that the Church is just periodically truly directed by the Lord.  I also strongly believe that the Lord tweaks what is going on out in the general populace in order to make sure that things develop according to His plans.  The Pope Francis phenomenon, I believe is exactly that type of tweaking.  On the other hand, I think the Church is more than merely a subset of the world -- the Lord's direct involvement in the Church is greater than His involvement elsewhere.  That does not mean, however, that He doesn't sometimes work outside the Church in order to trigger change within the Church.  Although in many respects for example, the Africans were disenfranchised from the Church during the period of the ban, that does not mean the Lord just abandoned them.  He worked on the external culture to change opinions and he rose up leaders in the African communities around the world to help in their struggles and to change the cultures in which the Church operated.

 

When it comes to trying to understand the recent releases as to things they do not say, I believe we have to think through any argument or spin that we take in terms of the above context.  If we are about to make an argument which suggests that the Lord just shrugged His shoulders about a policy of major significance, then I think we have to rethink the argument and come back with an understanding which still leaves the Lord guiding and directing the Church.  That doesn't mean we have to put up with nonsense that may from time to time come out of the mouths of GAs, even if they are the Prophet -- but we do have to take into account the fact that once the smoke clears, the Lord's hand is in fact involved in those policies.  I cannot condemn the prior Prophets because of their explanations -- they were simply doing what they are expected to do, try and understand why the Lord institutes a policy -- sometimes they get it right, sometime the arrow goes flying wild.  To simply say BY instituted the ban tells us basically nothing, he was the Lord's Prophet -- so if he instituted it and it was left in place by Prophet after Prophet, then we pretty much have to assume the Lord had a reason for it.

 

I personally don't understand why there is so much sexism in the policies and pronouncements of the Church -- but as I struggle to understand why that is so, I do not reject the Church or that the policies are coming from the Lord -- but I can and often do question some of the spin given to that gets put out there to support the policies.

 

I really like the discussion that has occurred on this thread so far -- I think it is causing people to think.

[Tacenda]

The Lord still directs his Church and most in the Church accept most of his direction most of the time, but still there are things we don't do or think about as well as we could. He won't override our agency, you know, and we're not always ready and willing to accept everything he tries to teach us, so "the errors of men" can still creep in. And sometimes we err by not realizing the Lord knows exactly what he is doing when he directs us to do something many people do not agree with.

The ban, for example, was at least partly due to the fact that not everyone would have been okay seeing blacks exercising the same power and authority of God as white people. The majority in the Church would have been okay with it, I think, but many outside of the Church would have objected, and that could have caused problems for the Church just as the issue of polygamy would have caused the Church many problems that could have been avoided. I mean, let's not forget to mention the fact that blacks didn't receive authority to act in the name of God in other churches, either, other than those that were exclusively for blacks, so if the Church had ordained blacks way back in 1830 as a routine just as whites were ordained, it would have been the first church on the Earth to do so.

And the church should have lead in anti racism, that is the way a church led by God should behave, out in front not behind or late to the party.

[Buckeye]

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

 

The best answer I can give is to report on his direction to the very small portion of the church that has fallen under my stewardship.  I have served in church callings for about 25 years.  Many of these callings have been priesthood roles.  I have held keys four different times.  In other words, there have been many instances where God's direction was supposed to come through me.

 

I would estimate that in 1-2% of the decisions made under my direction I can comfortably attribute the decision as being directed by guidance from God.  The remaining 98-99% of decisions resulted from my best judgement, often with the input of counselors.  I never took an action contrary to what I thought was God's guidance, but most often he allowed me to make decisions of my own wisdom.  That is true even for many instances where I repeatedly sought guidance and none came. 

 

Looking back, I can also affirm that there were teachings and policies I gave under a good faith believe that they came from God, but which I now know were not from him.  For instance, as a FT missionary, I taught investigators that polygamy was instituted because there were not enough men around due to persecution against the church.  I now know that to be false.  But for some reason God didn't stop me from teaching it, even though I was his authorized servant at the time.

 

Because of my experience, I have no problem working under men/women in the church who are just as flawed and helpless as I am.  In fact, I find that I respect most those who allow their flaws to be known and keep perservering.  I have no idea what percentage of decisions made by general authorities are directly the result of revelation.  But if it turns out to be only 1-2%, as with me so far, I would have no problem with that.  So long as it is more than 0%, we will get to where we need to be with enough time.  Also because of my experience, I have not been bothered by huge mistakes - such as the priesthood ban - to the degree that it undermines my testimony of the overall work.  Yes, I am troubled by the ban because of the harm inflicted.  But I believe the mistake was made in good faith and is (slowly) being repented of by the church (leaders and members alike).  For me, the fact that the ban lasted so long does not necessarily indicate that God should have stopped it.  As bad as it was, there are frankly many worse things in human history which he did not stop either.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Buckeye

[Kenngo1969]

The Lord still directs his Church and most in the Church accept most of his direction most of the time, but still there are things we don't do or think about as well as we could.  He won't override our agency, you know, and we're not always ready and willing to accept everything he tries to teach us, so "the errors of men" can still creep in.  And sometimes we err by not realizing the Lord knows exactly what he is doing when he directs us to do something many people do not agree with.

 

The ban, for example, was at least partly due to the fact that not everyone would have been okay seeing blacks exercising the same power and authority of God as white people.  The majority in the Church would have been okay with it, I think, but many outside of the Church would have objected, and that could have caused problems for the Church just as the issue of polygamy would have caused the Church many problems that could have been avoided. I mean, let's not forget to mention the fact that blacks didn't receive authority to act in the name of God in other churches, either, other than those that were exclusively for blacks, so if the Church had ordained blacks way back in 1830 as a routine just as whites were ordained, it would have been the first church on the Earth to do so.

Juliann, et al, will be along any minute now to brand you a racist.

[stemelbow]

I wonder how those people who desperately wanted the blessings of the priesthood would feel to see that God can be excused for them not having the priesthood for over a century because it would have been "micromanagement"?

 

Come on people, if a whole race of people are excluded from the Church, for unknown reasons, for over a century, it is silly to try and pass that off as God avoiding micromanagement, and it is insulting to those people affected by the ban.

 

Except maybe He tried like crazy but no one would listen, well, no prophet until 1978 anyway.

[DBMormon]

The best answer I can give is to report on his direction to the very small portion of the church that has fallen under my stewardship.  I have served in church callings for about 25 years.  Many of these callings have been priesthood roles.  I have held keys four different times.  In other words, there have been many instances where God's direction was supposed to come through me.

 

I would estimate that in 1-2% of the decisions made under my direction I can comfortably attribute the decision as being directed by guidance from God.  The remaining 98-99% of decisions resulted from my best judgement, often with the input of counselors.  I never took an action contrary to what I thought was God's guidance, but most often he allowed me to make decisions of my own wisdom.  That is true even for many instances where I repeatedly sought guidance and none came. 

 

Looking back, I can also affirm that there were teachings and policies I gave under a good faith believe that they came from God, but which I now know were not from him.  For instance, as a FT missionary, I taught investigators that polygamy was instituted because there were not enough men around due to persecution against the church.  I now know that to be false.  But for some reason God didn't stop me from teaching it, even though I was his authorized servant at the time.

 

Because of my experience, I have no problem working under men/women in the church who are just as flawed and helpless as I am.  In fact, I find that I respect most those who allow their flaws to be known and keep perservering.  I have no idea what percentage of decisions made by general authorities are directly the result of revelation.  But if it turns out to be only 1-2%, as with me so far, I would have no problem with that.  So long as it is more than 0%, we will get to where we need to be with enough time.  Also because of my experience, I have not been bothered by huge mistakes - such as the priesthood ban - to the degree that it undermines my testimony of the overall work.  Yes, I am troubled by the ban because of the harm inflicted.  But I believe the mistake was made in good faith and is (slowly) being repented of by the church (leaders and members alike).  For me, the fact that the ban lasted so long does not necessarily indicate that God should have stopped it.  As bad as it was, there are frankly many worse things in human history which he did not stop either.

 

I second that.   For me less then 5% of anything I did in a Church in regards to direction to go or calling to extend felt as if it was most assuredly the mind and Will of God behind it.  That said I felt more influence putting a talk together or giving a lesson.  I felt more influence in counseling with someone or knowing who to reach out to.  But these are two different things Administering the Church and serving God's Children generally

[Kenngo1969]

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

I am convinced He did. I believe that He allowed/commanded their institution to promote the growth and strengthening of the Church. And when polygamy became a hindrance to those ends, He stopped the practice. And when the priesthood ban became a hindrance, He ended it.

Juliann, et al, will be along to brand you a racist any minute now.