LDS Revelations

In an LDS Church News Article dated Jan. 9, 2010 LDS faithful were instructed to rely solely Church approved sources when teaching lessons in church meetings. While this is not anything that is really new it is worth discussing because, well, it is one of the biggest issues I have with the Mormon Church. Specifically that it attempts to control (and does a pretty good job) the information that members are taught about Mormon doctrine and history.

On another message board a poster responded quite differently to the announcement:

“I think it ridiculous to criticize the church. It is hypocritical for one to sustain the leaders of the church on one hand and then use the other to write in opposition to them. There are plenty of references and doctrine in the manuals provided by the church to provide a heartfelt and edifying discussion. I have never seen a need to expand the lesson material beyond the scope of church provided and approved lesson manuals. I think doing so leads to speculations. Every time I see a stray from the lesson manual it almost always produces the same result: tangents and contention.”

My response:

“heartfelt and edifying”
Often in the Church this is code for “everyone stays on script and doesn’t work to develop their own ability to gain understanding.” Well, then why all the talk about the “listening to the spirit?” If members are to just be prophet following robots whose conclusions are only valid if they agree with the leadership, then why do the Brethren go through this song and dance. To me this is what hypocritical.

“tangents and contention”
To me this is otherwise known as a ‘discussion’ or ‘the process of critical thinking.’ I personally think the Church is better for such engagement. A diversity of voices is good for Mormonism, IMO.

I understand why it’s important to the Church to be clear on it’s position— and to promote the teaching the approved message in lessons. All organizations want to control the message. The unfortunate, and I think, completely intentional side effect though, is a perceived prohibition on any study by members of unapproved sources…ever. For a Church that talks so much about the pursuit of truth, this is pretty sad.

I’ve learned more about Mormonism and it’s origins from reading non-approved sources for a few years than in 25 years of correlated lessons.

Also as I mentioned above, diversity of ideas is important in the Church. The most important “revelations” to come about in Mormonism in the past 100 years (the Manifesto and ending of the priesthood ban) have been because of of people within, as well as without, thinking differently about previously held ideas and expressing these thoughts. A correlated Mormonism works against this very process. It will have little hope of evolving and being relevant in the twenty-first century and loses the radical idealism that made it appealing to so many in the nineteenth.

As a disaffected member the value I still see in Mormonism is the people (and I mean all the people, not just the hierarchy). There is a wealth of knowledge and insight in any organization of that size and I think it would be a huge mistake for the leadership to discourage thought and open discussion among the ranks. I think the leadership could find that “revelation” comes from all sorts of places.

Or maybe not. The reasoning in the article given for correlation makes me think that allowing a free exchange of ideas goes against what the Church, or at least the Brethren, is/are about.

Since the early 1960s, Church members have seen the results of more than four decades of correlation efforts, established to:

Maintain purity of doctrine.

Emphasize the importance of the family and the home.

Place all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

Establish proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

Achieve unity and order in the Church.

Ensure simplicity of Church programs and materials.