I have been writing on Macintosh computers since 1984, when they first came out. Consequently, I have used every major operating system (OS) that Apple has ever released. My current computer uses OS 10 (dot something). Much has changed in the Mac, but a Mac still feels like a Mac to me. Will the Mac ever evolve into a new species? That's a side-track, because I really want to ask: If the Church were a computer operating system, then how many versions has it gone through?
The LDS Church has evolved over many years, maybe not at light speed, but the changes have been significant. Latter-day Saints believe in "continuing revelation," and thus no one in this Church should be surprised by expanded knowledge and revised practices over time. (Yet, like the Mac, the LDS Church still is the same basic species).
Over at one of my favorite blog sites, "The Mormon Organon," SteveP recently has posted an essay entitled, "The Church and the Ship of Neurath." In the post he raises the question of how many changes can you make on a ship and still claim it is the same ship. The post implicitly raises the question: Given all the changes, are we the same Church as in the past? I posted this response:
Because the LDS believe in “continuing revelation,” we are constantly rebuilding the ship of Neurath — it is an EVOLVING structure. It will always be the same ship, but it will NEVER be restricted to old technologies that have become irrelevant or obsolete. The ship can be adapted and shaped to the current conditions, staying afloat amidst the largest storms. The thing is: the ship needs to be rebuilt from time to time, lest it be stuck too strongly in the past.
In a related vein, a post by Matt W. (read his engaging self-description) at "New Cool Thang," entitled "We've had enough?" discusses the question: How do we deal with past Church teachings that are "superseded by new instruction?" Matt W.'s response to this question is:
Do we lose confidence in our Medical Doctors because they used to use leeches? Do we lose confidence in our contractors because they built with Asbestos? I say no. We have to accept instead that we are on a journey here, with ebbs and flows and we are doing the best we can.
Surely, there are eternal issues that never change. God is stable, but humans are NOT. Everything about human beings changes: our earth; our food; our likes and dislikes; and even our levels of understanding. LDS theology recognizes the dynamic changes that face human beings. Thus, our theology is sensitive to the continuing need for divine inspiration, which ultimately is revelation.
To the modern non-LDS ear, "revelation" sounds dangerous, whacky, mystical, magical, and outright anti-democratic. Yet, the Church, like science, has the need to legitimately expand its knowledge bases. There is a foundational methodology that leads to revelation, and that methodology eliminates most concerns for danger.
In a recent essay, "What Constitutes Mormon Doctrine?", the following criteria for doctrine were explained:
1. Doctrines have evidence of being "established" by a modern First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.
2. Doctrinal statements are "consistently" (repeatedly) taught through modern official Church publications.
3. All doctrines must be based in the "standard works" of scripture, or in official declarations / proclamations affirmed by both the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in modern times.
It is by these criteria that theological doctrine can expand with integrity. In any case, it is historical fact that the Church has evolved.
The Church might be considered as a computerized operating system that evolves and is enumerated. Given the changes in the Church, how might we number the "versions?"
Here is my listing:
Version 1: 1830 (Church established; Book of Mormon in print);
Version 2: 1835 (Apostles organized, D&C revelations updated & released);
Version 3: 1842 (Nauvoo's temple theology);
Version 4: 1852 (Reformation Mormonism and its counter-culture);
Version 5: 1890 (Transitional Mormonism; dropping polygamy; bringing Church into the mainstream);
Version 6: 1951 (David O. McKay & the international Church; temples placed abroad);
Version 7: 1978 (Spencer W. Kimball & the opening of the priesthood to all worthy males);
Version 8: 1990 (Ezra Taft Benson & the renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon; redesign of temple ceremonies);
Version 9: 1995 (Gordon B. Hinckley & the vast expansion of temple building; improved public relations and openness).
Readers are welcome to argue with me that I have either divided the Church into too many versions, or that I have missed critical versions.
In any case, it is essential to note that the integrity of the Church is maintained by the lineage of its priesthood, which has NEVER changed. Church authority and proper identity comes from its ancient priesthood.
The Church has changed (in many significant ways), but NOT its identity, purpose, mission, commission, or divine charge. It has merely changed in order to remain relevant to contemporary problems and needs. Yes, Mormons have a dynamic Church. If so accused, then we plead guilty.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
13 comments:
I agree, the church is as much and evolving structure as an operating system is.
But this is a good thing! We want to always be progressing which implies an evolution.
I think this is a fatal flaw with religious fundamentalism (people who think LDS 1.0 is the only correct version.): it is religion without progression.
Joseph:
Thanks! I sometimes wonder whether the "Restoration" happened all at once or is still a work in progress. It sure seems like the process of restoration is best described as a "movement" more than just as an "event." I don't know if this view is correct, but I think it is an interesting thought.
I'd have to say "work in progress", what with information being given "line upon line, precept upon precept", as the Church has been ready for that new information.
My understanding of the LDS understanding of Matt 16:17-18 is that the Jesus founded his Church upon the rock of revelation and that continues to be our foundation, as evidenced by the continuation of living prophets in the Church.
.
About 25 years ago, I heard a useful presentation in a leadership-training meeting that distinguished between:
* principles
* policies
* programs
* practices.
The first do not change, the rest are more changeable as you go down the list. E.g. the priniciple of salvation through Christ's atonement is unchanging, program changes like MIA --> YW/YM do happen, and practices like meeting times and how many months before your temple recommend expires change almost without notice.
.
I heard an interesting talk in a Jehovah's Witness meeting we visited on my mission. The subject was "Being Up-to-Date with the Word of God." The speaker went through the OT, noting that in Adam's time, God's word was to avoid eating the forbidden fruit but that in Noah's time, it wasn't that but to board the Ark, and so on through Moses' Exodus, etc. I've since borrowed this example to illustrate biblically-established changeability of God's word in policies, programs, and practices.
.
I also talked later that week with the Jehovah's Witness speaker about how his talk illustrated the need for a modern prophet to receive the new directions from God.
Manaen:
Great comment. I am not sure there is a big distinction between policies, programs, and practices. They all seem very close to being synonymous to me. However, I understand your point. Fundamentals are eternal, but human implementations are not.
I love the example with the forbidden fruit and the ark.
Great thoughts, S. Faux. I like to think of the Church as a Mac (I am a late comer and had my Mac conversion just last year . . . oh, the years I wasted.)
Thank goodness that ours is a church that is updated from time to time with new revelation. And thank goodness we can allow this in our thinking. I liked your comparison.
An interesting thought is what the 'open source' world of the bloggernacle is bringing to the Church 'software.' Thanks!
As each new Bishop brings change to a Ward, each new Prophet brings his stamp of change to a new generation of the Church. To use your analogy... the gospel principles remains the same, but there occasionally needs to be a few system upgrades to make sure that it is delivered in a more efficient way to a more demanding and sophisticated user... if you will.
Thanks for the great insights. I just found you today and am sure to be a regular reader.
I think my ward has a virus. Could the church send a virus update?
Anonymous:
Virtual and non-virtual viruses, according to some creationists, are good for our oppositional experience in all things. Consequently, viruses must be endured. Just kidding.
As a teacher I work with a new set of students every year. Each class is different and requires different instructional methods, even though the state standards remain the same. I believe I am a good teacher who is able to adapt to the differing needs of each year's students. In much the same way I imagine that God, the Greatest Teacher, does much the same. The standard principles of the gospel are the same, yet how they are presented changes from generation to generation according to His children's needs. Does the church change? Of course I wouldn't expect otherwise.
Anonymous v. 2.0:
Great comment. God may be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, but we humans are NOT.
It has always seemed strange to me that some Church people expect the Bible to contain advanced scientific facts about the creation. Why would it? It seems to me that forcing a strict literal interpretation on some forms of communication is to miss the point.
I have always gotten a lot out of Genesis, and it is one of my favorite books. But, it was NOT written for modern-day geneticists or geologists. Its message is deeper and different than genetics or geology. It was written for a non-scientific, ancient peoples.
I respect the scriptures, but I do NOT read them to obtain science. It is nice to have modern prophets who can put things into a more modern framework.
Great post. One more thing to consider:
The central issue with updates is that it is easy to install an update that isn't stable and that, when installed prematurely, can cause all kinds of issues to the computer and those who use it. Whenever production is rushed, almost inevitably this happens.
Some people chafe at and criticize the LDS Church for moving more slowly on some things than the general population - but they fail to realize that the general population also tends to incorporate "updates" much too quickly, thus causing incredible difficulties that have significantly negative impacts on the populace at large and individuals particularly.
I would rather be sure the development bugs are fixed as well as possible before I install a major update. Windows might be the dominant system in the market, but Mac computers have been FAR more stable over time - and Windows users tend to throw their computers more often than Mac users, without any real difference in vital functionality.
There is an important correlation there, imo - even given the cases where I wish desperately that an update had been installed more quickly.
Papa D:
You are a wise man.
Post a Comment