My wife and I and our family are visiting a different state and attended Church today with some extended family. The gospel doctrine instruction was quite good. Though I was surprised by the confusion generated when, in the context of Church organization and government, the teacher asked who would be the most important person. The question (and answer) seemed straight-forward enough): the Prophet, the one who holds and exercises all priesthood keys. Members starting giving the most random answers that the most important person is a child, or the humble, or... Now, these are all good answers, but they are not in context with the lesson (Church administration) and don't answer the question. When the instructor clarified his point (again restating that he is referring to the Church organizationally), some people then said that it would be followers that are the most important in the Church, the idea being you can't have a prophet without followers. I tossed in my two cents, trying to explain the fallacy of such an argument (no followers = no prophet). If anything else, I felt that perhaps this was worth an entry.
I used Joseph Smith as my example. I said that if he didn't have any followers, it would not change the fact that the Father and the Son appeared to him. If no one sustained him as the prophet, it would not change the fact that Peter, James, and John, as well as John the Baptist and many other angels (later) came to Joseph and gave him priesthoods, authorities, and keys. And so it seems that if the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't have any followers, it would not mean that he was no longer a prophet; rather it would mean that he wouldn't have any followers. More likely, if Joseph Smith had't been sustained or upheld by his followers, he could not have been their president. But in the extremely unlikely (and clearly moot) event that this would have happened (for arguments sake), Joseph and Oliver would have been lead by the Lord to another group of people who would have sustained them both as their duly authorized leaders.
Another part of this argument (again, no followers = no prophet) that is inherently mistaken in its line of thinking, is the seeming absence of an understanding of priesthood keys. I wish I had had time to explain this, but not being the teacher, obviously it was not my place. The whole LDS position is based on the principle that there was a general and universal apostasy after the Twelve Apostles were taken from the earth in the Meridian Dispensation (and in the Last Dispensation those priesthood keys were restored to Joseph Smith). With the absence of the Apostles, priesthood keys were also removed from the earth. I do not believe that the sincerity of the early Christians in general wavered. However, sincerity does not make up for the loss of priesthood keys and authority. And so to contend that in a Church administration and discussion on priesthood government, the followers are key is a contention that betrays a lack of understanding of the doctrine of priesthood keys. At best.
Now, of course, it is more likely that the other members of the class simply misunderstood the instructors' question. In fact, it seems that if he had restated his question, or even said it differently, everyone in the room would have nodded their heads and we would have moved on. Instead, people weren't listening and we spent too long going over something that we have all known and understood since we were in Primary. Probably.
In the end, regardless of the reasons for the confusion, it was a very good opportunity to once again think about the reasons for the Restoration and the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ restored through his prophet, Joseph Smith, Jun.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment