Which Story is True?
The first story goes like this:
From the beginning, God has revealed the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to his servants, the prophets. Prophets taught and administered the gospel successfully for periods of time called dispensations. Almost every dispensation has ended in apostasy–a popular rejection and silencing of prophets and a great falling away from truth. When the people are prepared, God has again called a prophet, restored gospel truth, and ushered in a new dispensation. In the latter days, God has revealed his gospel one final time before the second coming of Jesus Christ. The gospel as we have it now is the same gospel that was revealed to and understood by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Hosea, Jesus, John, Nephi, Alma, Moroni, etc., and it is only misunderstood because of the effects of apostasy which take away plain and precious truth, now being fully restored in the fullness of times.
The second story goes like this:
From the beginning, humans have tried to understand why things are the way they are. They have developed various systems of knowledge and have told various stories that have helped them make sense of the world. At times, they have received revelations: life-changing experiences with divinity that both increase their understanding of an innate order to the universe and increase the number and complexity of questions they have about the supernatural forces that influence it. Having experienced such divine manifestations, inspired men and women (prophets) are generally unsuccessful at fully capturing the majesty and meaning of revelation. Human cognition and language is simply inadequate to either comprehend or convey it all. Their attempts to do so are shaped by their language, culture, politics, memory, relationships, and other factors. But in spite of it all, line upon line, precept upon precept, forward a little and back, humans have understood the divine in ever more sophisticated, useful, and enlightening ways.
Which story do you find more true? Which one is a better framework for faith? Which one is institutionalized preferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I’ve accepted and taught the first story hundreds of times. But these days I can’t bring myself to accept it or pretend that I believe it long enough to teach within its framework.
Humans are just too messy, their scripture too contradictory, their prophets too out-of-category, and their God too glorious for me to think the story is so straightforward.
And as contradictory as this may sound, I feel so much more enthused, challenged, and at peace when I embrace the second story. I don’t have to find a way to smooth over scripture that doesn’t mesh with my modern sensibilities, forfeiting complete understanding of an ancient (or even 19th century) text just to make it fit with the doctrine as it is taught today. I can say “oh, that’s interesting” instead of “well, what Paul actually means is [nothing close to what he said].” I can spend my time actually grasping the meaning of the Bible and other sacred works and in the end say “I disagree” and not feel bad about it if I do. I can even do that with modern prophets–men who are simply doing their best to understand God and God’s plan for us, with what I believe is privileged, but not exclusive or inerrant access to revelation. And I can live in the wonder of possibility, benefiting far more from the vast ocean of humankind’s response to revelation than I ever did from the shallow pool of assumed univocal doctrine.
The problem is, I feel like the first story is central to my church. It’s the basis of the “restoration.” It’s the assumption behind most messages from leadership and most church curriculum. My seminary students’ faith in it is unwavering. And who am I to tell them that they’re wrong when everyone in the church seems to be preaching it? I feel like there’s not enough time in seminary to unpack the big question: What is truth and how is it acquired? But then again, if a daily gospel study class isn’t enough, then what possibly could be?
I know this sounds like an exaggeration, but truly, other than my family, there is nothing I love more in the world than teaching and preaching the gospel. But what that means to me sometimes doesn’t feel compatible with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anymore. To be clear, I think it’s 100% compatible, even the correct view of revelation and doctrine. But combine these:
The deeply-ingrained dogmas of restoration theology
The political majority within the church
The lackadaisical attitude of so many
And I feel like I keep hitting a wall in my ability to progress, both personally and with those I serve. Sometimes I feel like I need to find a new religious community that has a looser, more nuanced view of scripture, but in spite of its flaws, what religious community can rival the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its saturation with diligent seekers and ability to innovate? But it just feels like it’s just not enough, somehow (though I’m aware that institutionally, dogmas are sometimes necessary for cohesion).
Does anyone else feel this way? How do I chip away at dogmatic thinking in appropriate ways? Where can I turn for community that not only allows for story two, but embraces it? Does rejecting the first story put me outside of my church?* What can I do?
*I’m pretty sure the resounding answer to this question will be no, just based on the kindness and warmth I’ve received in the past as I’ve wrestled with the gospel, but it’s one thing to stay an active member of the church and another thing to function authentically within a church whose underlying framework doesn’t resonate with you.
I'm glad you've found the LDS church saturated "with diligent seekers and ability to innovate". I've found such people online and in the past, but it can be hard to find a large concentration of them locally. In churches like Unitarian Universalists and Quakers, I've found people who reject dogma for open discussion. But they're not my community. I'm sure they have a great community, and I could probably build a similar rapport with them that I have with my ward, but it would take years and a level of work that I'm not ready to spend.
ReplyDeleteIt's a worthy goal to chip away at dogmatic thinking. And I believe doing so does make a difference. But I think it's also important to admit that it will only change things so far, so quickly. Rejecting the first story won't force you out. But staying in while being constantly being bombarded by the first story can get frustrating, even overwhelming, and it's ultimately up to you to decide if it's worth it.
Thank you for responding Tygan! I agree that the saturation is low, but I get the sense (that I'd be very happy to be wrong about) that there's even lower levels of diligence and innovation elsewhere. Like, I teach seminary, and I find myself wishing that my students were more rigorous. But I can't imagine a lot of other churches even get their youth out of bed for a religiously-focused class once a week, much less 5. And I wish the general population of the church was less dogmatic, but at least we don't have creeds or confessions that we enforce. And then I wonder if it's possible to have both low dogmatism and high commitment. Like maybe there's a church that holds dogmas less tightly--but do their adherents adhere as enthusiastically? And maybe there's a church where adherents are more diligent, but I bet that's correlated with stricter dogmatism! I know that devoted non-dogmatic people exist (in our church and outside of it) but is there a place where they aren't the outliers?
ReplyDeleteLike you, I would love to connect deeply enough with a community like the Unitarian Universalists or Quakers and find out--but there are so many barriers: time, bandwidth, family and social pressure, existing rapport, etc. I've kind of settled on a "do what I can with MY people" attitude, but like you said, that gets frustrating and overwhelming.