Statement of Principles as a Guide and Standard – Part 2
History/Chronology of Events (from Jay’s Journal)
I received an invitation from Edwin Wilde on Thursday (22 Sep 2022) before the Stand Independent conference in Syracuse. Friday evening Edwin gave a presentation he called “Build a House Parable revisited,” As with any of the Lord’s parables, there is much we can learn from careful study of this parable given to us in T&C 176.
In the invitation to his meeting Edwin outlined what I consider some valid and even evocative questions.
After a vote for what has now become A Statement of Principles (T&C 175), Denver Snuffer was approached to inquire whether the document was acceptable by the Lord. In response to that inquiry, the Lord gave a parable for all to consider. Since that time, Edwin has had conversations about the parable with others. Many people expressed being confused about how to interpret the parable through the filter of historical events. Denver Snuffer interpreted the parable as clear reproof, but even this conclusion doesn’t seem so evident by the fact that in the parable the Lord accepted the House that was commanded. Yet “why compare a commanded document to a house?” arises to be answered, along with other questions:
- Even in his interpretation, Denver believed that the house was not a document but instead a family. So, if we accept that interpretation, then the next question that begs to be answered is, “Why talk about a family when the question that was submitted to the Lord was the acceptability of a document to fulfill the Lord’s command?”
- Two of the most important questions that arise out of the parable are the two bookend questions which the Lord poses to each of us, “what have you learned” and “what ought you to have learned?” The presence of both questions together presents an idea that we may have learned a lot of things, but that whatever we learned, we didn’t learn what we “ought”.
- If we didn’t learn what we ought, then the next obvious question becomes, how do we learn what the Lord expects us to, and also when and how will we know that has happened?
- Does something the Lord describes as “ought”, then relate to the Lord’s instruction that, if we fail to do and learn whatever it is that we ought, will we be able to complete the future tasks which will be necessary for us to live the Covenant? Are those two ideas (the one from the Answer to the Prayer for a Covenant and the other from the Build a House parable) inextricably connected?
In his presentation Edwin suggested that part of what “ought” to be learned, includes, as Denver said in The Religion of the Fathers talk in Aravada Springs:
“The Lord’s question is still pending. It seems apparent to me that these questions are designed to make us talk to one another.”
It is apparent that there are those in the movement for which there are issues that remain unresolved. We can’t continue to ignore there is a problem. It is important that we have conversations with one another. Edwin extended an open invitation for anyone to talk with him, to wrestle through some of these things if needed, and not be afraid to discuss these issues. Most importantly:
” Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part.” (T&C 157:54)
Near the end of the meeting someone asked Edwin point blank, “So you want us to do another guide and standard, is that what you’re saying? What are you saying, exactly?” To which Edwin responded that he doesn’t know what the answer is. But it is clear we need to recognize there is a problem, that the parable gives us evidence we are in unbelief, and there is a need for us to repent and talk to one another.
“I’m willing to ask,” he said. “There’s something to learn and I’m willing to ask… Let’s move on, let’s go to something else then. Let’s do something. Let’s acknowledge our error and let’s move on.”
Edwin’s presentation can be viewed here, and the transcript can be accessed here.
In the discussion that followed the presentation I made some comments that I worry may be interpreted as provoking division. I brought up the anxiety I felt over the Declaration of the signees that got posted on Keith Henderson’s site, and at the end of that statement can be found a list of people who would most likely fall in the category of those for whom the topic is done, and no further conversation is needed. I said this as if to suggest that “they” sit on one side of an issue apart from those of “us” who still have concerns. I want to stress that anything that can be interpreted as divisive is the furthest from my intentions. If I have given offense, please forgive me.
I would like to bring attention to three observations I made from reflecting on Edwin’s meeting.
Hard Conversations
I work for a large corporation and consequently I am subject to persistent “Diversity and Inclusion” trainings. I am frequently confronted with a strange dichotomy. On one hand we are encouraged to “get comfortable with uncomfortable conversations.” On the other hand, language that can give offense in certain situations cannot be tolerated. What actually underlies the rhetoric is that there is a certain group or groups for whom the expectation is that they be subject to “uncomfortable conversations”, while other “protected” groups are not allowed to be offended. This contradictory approach creates the very thing it claims as its agenda to seek to eliminate, i.e., an environment of polarization and divisiveness. We cannot permit this to become the case with us.
In case its not clear, yes, I am making a comparison between something we find in a culture we see in the world and our own movement. My intent is not to accuse but to point out that one thing we did manage to achieve in our Guide and Standard effort, was to create a division among us.
During Edwin’s meeting I found myself reflecting on the feeling that I had while I was sitting in the conference in Layton, Utah on September 30, 2018, for the final vote on approval for statement of principles. The choice before me was to vote either that, “If you are willing to adopt the Lots Statement of Principles and have it printed in our scriptures as a guide and standard, please vote yes.”
Or
“If you cannot accept the Lots Statement of Principles and do not wish to have it printed in our scriptures as a guide and standard, please vote no.”
For reasons that are not important to this discussion I had decided I could not vote either way. Here I was, a minority in a room full of others who were voting for approval of a thing that represented a milestone in the history of the movement (and in the history of the world, for that matter), and I sat while others stood in approval. It’s not unlike the feeling of division I felt when the LDS church was opened back up after COVID lockdowns. Everyone around me was wearing a mask while I remained unmasked. In that setting, however, it was not as unsettling to me as it was in a conference of equals within the fellowship movement where our intent is to avoid such divisions. The LDS church may provoke such divisions, but why would we be doing that? We may notice the spirit of God withdrawing from the world and men becoming increasingly more angry without good cause. But as between one another I believe it is possible we can choose not to dispute, and with love and acceptance embrace whatever differences we have as we move forward to achieve “something so foreign to this world, that there is nothing in the world to use to judge how we are doing.”
Denver put it this way. “Tolerance requires disagreement. Insisting on agreement is not tolerance, but its opposite.” In another place he said, “I like criticism more than praise.” To me this feels like good advice to live by.
For us, the subject of the Guide and Standard may be challenging, but other important “hard conversations” could include:
- Discussion over how to spend/distribute tithing funds.
- Differences over how sacrament should be conducted within fellowships.
- How to manage adding revelations to our canon.
Do we avoid such conversations? Are we supposed to be learning to engage in these discussions? What wisdom from Stephanie Snuffer’s talk might help make these kinds of conversations possible?
“The reason this is an important topic and the reason this is important to know is because this is a community of people who are engaged in a lot of good work: a lot of good work trying to do a lot of good things, a lot of conversations going around about a lot of really difficult subjects. … My observation—to the extent that I have the powers of observation—is that we are lacking in empathy and charity and self-awareness.” (“Self-Awareness“, Sep 25, 2022, “Stand Independent” Conference, Layton, UT)
I recently listened to a podcast where two intellectuals were discussing a controversial subject. They had differing opinions, but sat together on the same couch, working through their respective talking points. At the conclusion of a very respectful discussion, the one remaining unconvinced of the other’s arguments said, “I think we’ve achieved disagreement.” And they parted as friends. But, and to me this is the point, they parted, having gained a greater respect and bond between them, despite their differences. To me that is just beautiful!
We are “making a statement”
Back in 2017 I was struck by a comment made by Doug Larson (the member of the Lots group who got sick and was replaced by Kirk Strong) responding to Rob Adolpho on a thread “A Different Idea from One of the Lot Group.” I added it to my journal, 30 Nov 2017.
“I rather like what you said, [Rob], ‘the assignment seems to be for us to write a statement reflecting us, not a statement reflecting the Lord.’ If that is the case, we are indeed writing the statement at this very moment. Not by the seven, not by a committee, by Jared or myself. The statement presented is how we associate with each other. Is it through mutual agreement or do we draw near unto the Lord with our mouths, and with our lips honor Him, but have removed our hearts far from Him?
People might someday look back and say, ‘Boy, they really made a statement!’ It remains to be seen if it will be that we learned nothing from our history, or that we figured out a way to mutually respect one another in our sundry approaches.”
I laughed out loud at the comment, “People might someday look back and say, ‘Boy, they really made a statement!‘”
The blog this comment came from, having run on for over half a year, and increasing in contentiousness, was finally taken down. The full blog can be accessed from restorationarchives.com here, and is over 1100 pages long. What a ‘statement‘ indeed!
Present at Edwin’s meeting were some who came into this movement more recently. They expressed some confusion over trying to make sense out of some of the tension they have picked up on over the topic of the guide and standard. I wonder, if someone new to the movement were to read through some of the chaos of 2017-2018, would it help them understand why the topic seems noxious to some of us, even now? As embarrassing as this part of our history may be to us, might a *summary history of this period help inform them? If the subject itself has us divided into camps of differing opinions even still, who could write an unbiased version of these events? I don’t know how this might apply, but some familiar words come to my mind:
“Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit, and inform them — so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you.” (T&C 157:55)
Comparing Two Parables
A little over a year ago I was called to teach a lesson on the period in church history covering Zion’s Camp (1833-1834). In December of 1833, a revelation was given to Joseph Smith that included a parable (starting in T&C 101:8). I don’t know about you, but in light of our own current situation this resonated with me. So, I immersed myself in studying these events and the revelations that accompanied them. As is the nature of being expected to cover a large amount of material in only a short 45 minute lesson in an LDS ward setting, it was simply not possible to teach a fraction of what I gained from my study. As informative as this information can be to the broader LDS audience, how it applies to our circumstance and its relevance to the restoration movement is even more striking. So, I published what I learned on my blog. I think it is a worthy study and so much of it relates to things we can benefit from in our current situation, especially in what we can learn from how the Lord uses parables to teach us. You can read my study of Joseph Smith’s parable of the Nobleman here. For context I also recommend reading Part 1 as well.
Without taking any more space here, let me just conclude by saying that what I think important that we learn from Joseph Smith’s parable of the Nobleman is that by using the kind of imagery in the parable that He did, God exposed their hearts. If we are to do better in our day, then we need to have different hearts.
God bless us to learn what we ought from the parable we have been given in our day, is my prayer.
– Jay Ball, 28 Oct 2022
* I don’t claim that my own history of these events offers anything but my own bias, but it may nevertheless offer some perspective to this chaotic time.