Take justice and mercy. Sometimes someone will give a talk about how "we place too much emphasis on justice and not enough on mercy, and it's giving us all too much guilt." Sometimes someone will give the opposite talk (there was one of those in this conference: Elder Hartman Rector said, "All too often, the justice of God seems to be relegated to the back burner, while the mercy of God seems to get the lion’s share of attention. I presume this is true because we are all hoping for mercy and trying to avoid justice if at all possible. But it is a fact that God is just, and mercy cannot rob justice. Justice will have her due!"). I guess it's because there are always people that need one message and others that need the other one? Or people who need to drift a little toward the other side in their thinking?
It's always interesting when I've been leaning one way in my understanding ("People always say ____, but really it should be ____!") and then I hear a talk emphasizing the other way! At least when it's a talk by a General Authority, I try (though often imperfectly) to use it as a chance to moderate myself and see if there's something I've been missing.
Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a very…forthright talk that might fall into this category for some people. It's about how we are "the ONLY true church." I like Elder Packer and I think I can understand where he was coming from in this talk, and I also think he would agree that we CAN learn from other faiths, and that other faiths CAN and DO bring people closer to Christ. I don't think any of that contradicts what he says here (in fact, in this very talk, he even makes the very President Hinckley-ish statement "We do not claim that others have no truth. The Lord described them as having 'a form of godliness.' Converts to the Church may bring with them all the truth they possess and have it added upon."). But he also doesn't mince words. That's part of what I like about him! Here's what he says:
One doctrine presents a particular challenge. It is our firm conviction that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, as the revelations state, “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”
This doctrine often generates resistance and repels the casual investigator.
Some have said, “We want nothing to do with anyone who makes so presumptuous a claim as that.”
The early Latter-day Saints were bitterly persecuted for holding to this doctrine. They were the butt of many clever stories. We, of course, are not free from that today.
Should we not then make one accommodation and set this doctrine aside? Would it not be better to have more accept what would be left of the gospel than the relatively few who are converted now?…
Some have recommended that we confine ourselves strictly to evidences of the gospel: happy family life, and temperate living, and so on.
Could we not use the words "better" or "best"? The word "only" really isn’t the most appealing way to begin a discussion of the gospel.
If we thought only in terms of diplomacy or popularity, surely we should change our course.
But we must hold tightly to it even though some turn away.…
A few weeks ago I was returning from the East with President Hinckley. We conversed with a passenger who said something to the effect that all churches lead to heaven. How often have you heard that—the parallel path to heaven philosophy?
They claim one church is not really better than another, just different. Eventually the paths will converge. One is, therefore, quite as safe in any church as in any other.He goes on to tell about an experience speaking at Harvard and wondering what people would think of our more surprising doctrines. He says,
While this seems to be very generous, it just cannot be true.
I determined that however preposterous talk of angels and golden plates and restoration might be to them, I would teach the truth with quiet confidence, for I have a testimony of the truth. If some must come from the meeting unsettled and disturbed, it would not be me. Let them be disturbed, if they would.…
As I grow in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.Ha. He's so great. I can't help but admire his fearlessness! I could learn a lot from it.
Other posts in this series:
Two really good reasons to fast—by Jan Tolman
Oh I do love his blunt fearlessness. Just like your opposites, I find myself wanting to somehow bear testimony in ways that stretch out and wrap around everyone and open their hearts. And that is good! But I have felt lately that I need to be more forthright at times and say straight forward truth!
ReplyDeleteOh but his example! The one and only church! I have long harbored a regret in regards to that. Years ago, somewhat in a passing comment related to something or other about her son, a neighbor said something similar to what he talked about here. Something about no church having a monopoly on truth or being the ONLY right church. I don’t even remember exactly what she said. Only that I just sort of mumbled agreement. But ugh! Ever after I have been so sad, even though I know she wouldn’t have agreed, that I didn’t pause the flow of conversation and resolutely say, “But you do know that’s exactly what we do believe, don’t you? That this is the one true church. That doctrines were lost and truth fell away and it HAD to be fully restored.” Sigh, I know God let’s us learn through our failings, but it is hard for ME to be OK with my having not leapt to defend truth!
Argh, yes! I feel like I've done that a hundred times--just sort of mumbled agreement to something I really do NOT agree with! And then later I think, "Sure I didn't need to be rude, but I could have at least said SOMETHING!" It's really hard for me. And I'm so anxious not to offend, even in stuff that probably doesn't even matter that much! I feel like I have so far to go in developing this skill.
DeleteI'm working my way through all of the Teachings of the Presidents manuals right now in my personal effort to develop my testimony of President Nelson as prophet right now. Prior to this study, I'd thought President Hinckley's invitation for people to bring what truth they have and have it added to was a new thought to him. It's not! I've read the exact expression President Hinckley used at least 3 times just in The Teachings of the Presidents manuals (and I just finished Joseph Fielding Smith--who is one of the prophets to invite people with this very invitation)!
ReplyDeleteI just thought it was interesting to discover that.
And I often think about the "contraries" you wrote about here. I've always called them "juxtapositions" in my mind. Either way, some of us need one message, and some of us need the other, and sometimes we need both at different seasons.
Right now I'm trying to figure out if I need rest or if I need to just forget myself and go to work.
It's hard to know.
Ah. Yes. That blasted "forget yourself and go to work." It's such good advice! And has helped me so many times! But...we really do need rest sometimes, all of us! And as you said, it's very hard to know when (especially with "forget yourself and go to work" ringing through your head all the time!). Haha. (But maybe the fact that I DO have that always going through my head means it SHOULD be what I'm remembering??)
DeleteThat is very interesting about the "bring all the good you have" idea too! There are so many things the early church leaders taught that I've never really learned/absorbed! It's part of why I'm enjoying reading these old conferences, but there is still so much more to learn!