The Church isn't perfect?


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

“The Church is perfect, but the people aren’t.”

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard some variation of this phrase. I’ve used it on several occasions, myself.

Here’s the thing: The Church isn’t perfect.

“The Church” vs. “the Gospel”

https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/the-church-isnt-perfect-and-thats-ok/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a poorly thought out article.

When we say The Church is perfect, we don't mean the individual person.  We mean the organization of this assembly of people.  The excommunication of the GA, for example, illustrates that an individual GA is in error.  It does not illustrate that the organization of General Authorities is in error.

How a Church can be in error - The Catholic Church proclaimed the authority of a Bishop as the Apostolic successor.  This Church is in error - and is, therefore, not perfect.  The LDS Church has no such errors (as we claim) and is, therefore, the most perfect organization on earth.

Writers tip:  Always be cognizant of word definitions and connotations.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pam said:

I get what the author is saying.  Can the Church make an error?  Sure it can.  Would there be errors in the gospel?  It's the gospel that is perfect.  The  Church is run by imperfect people.  

Like I said... Definitions.

So, let's start.  Define Church.

Note the usage:  "Can the Church make an error?", "The Church is run by imperfect people".

So, when you say the Church is run by imperfect people, is it the Church that is in error, or is it the people running the Church? 

Do you see?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I wasn't sure if it was just me or not, but @anatess2's response makes me think it wasn't just me, so...  To me, the author seems to be equating "the Church" with "the Church leadership" and/or "the Church membership".  I think they are three independent terms, and while it may be common in a given context to use "the Church" as shorthand when you mean "the Church leadership" or "the Church membership", that would / should only be done when context makes your usage clear, and that in fact, they are not synonymous.

6 minutes ago, pam said:

Can the Church make an error?

Actually, it can't.  It's an organizational structure, a concept (or a building, depending on your use) (unless it's clearly used as shorthand, see above).  Leaders of the Church can make an error.  Members of the Church can make errors.  The organizational structure is a non-agent.  It is not sentient.  It cannot act, therefore, it cannot err.  The author makes a point of saying that the words we use are important, and I agree.  Making a statement like "The Church is not perfect" can lead readers to an inaccurate conclusion and can be used by enemies of the Church in ways we wouldn't want...

"The  Church is run by imperfect people." <> "The Church is not perfect."  (The two statements are not synonymous.)

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't see it the same way.  I realize that Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church.  But I still see it as an organization that is run by imperfect people.  To me they are synonymous.  But I appreciate your comments.  I'm just not seeing it the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pam said:

I guess I just don't see it the same way.  I realize that Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church.  But I still see it as an organization that is run by imperfect people.  To me they are synonymous.  But I appreciate your comments.  I'm just not seeing it the same way.

They are not synonymous.  To say that the Church is not perfect is a direct chip at its authority.  This is very important and therfore, definitions are important.  Hence, a writer, has to be careful with such things.  (Okay, so I was the editor-in-chief of my high school and college papers.  This article wouldn't have passed without major qualifiers in the school paper).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

They are not synonymous.  To say that the Church is not perfect is a direct chip at its authority.  This is very important and therfore, definitions are important.  Hence, a writer, has to be careful with such things.  (Okay, so I was the editor-in-chief of my high school and college papers.  This article wouldn't have passed without major qualifiers in the school paper).

Yet I think of the Church as a whole.  Not just leadership.  To me it is anyone from the Prophet himself to the nursery leader.  I look at the whole organization not just the leadership that is leading the church.  I look at every calling as part of that structure of organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pam said:

Yet I think of the Church as a whole.  Not just leadership.  To me it is anyone from the Prophet himself to the nursery leader.  I look at the whole organization not just the leadership.

YES.  It is the ORGANIZATION with its corresponding authority.  That's the Church.  Each individual person holding a position in that organization is NOT the same as the Church.  They are MEMBERS or LEADERS of the Church.  Definitions matter.  A prophet in error doesn't make the Church in error unless such error causes a change in the Organization that causes it to lose its authority and standing with God.  We can't toy with this stuff.  This is the foundation of our claim that the Church is true.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In that case I'm going to elevate my critique of the article as not just poorly thought out to... WRONG.

Well you have your opinion and I have mine.  Have an awesome day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pam said:

I guess I just don't see it the same way.  I realize that Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church.  But I still see it as an organization that is run by imperfect people.  To me they are synonymous.  But I appreciate your comments.  I'm just not seeing it the same way.

The distinction is more clearly understood, I think, if we start asking some questions.  First, let's agree that the leaders and members are mortal and therefore imperfect, so we're done on that front.

This leaves the Church as an organizational structure.  Is that organizational structure perfect?  Do we believe that Christ revealed its structure to his prophets?  If so, did He reveal something imperfect?  Did the prophets misunderstand and therefore implement it imperfectly?  Did He reveal the entire structure, or just the skeleton?  Is the entire legal structure "the Church" or just the skeleton?

What is the organizational structure?  A prophet / president with two counselors, twelve Apostles, quorums of Seventy as established by the Twelve, High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers, Deacons, each in their quorums.  Bishops and bishoprics, Stakes and stake presidencies, Relief Societies, etc. etc.  This is the structure which makes up the Church.  I think this structure might actually be perfect (in its sphere).

Is the accounting department at Church Headquarters part of the structure?  Or Church Distribution?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  I think these are man-made appendages to accomplish worldly necessities (not unlike bathing and filing your nails).  I think these are probably not perfect, but are as good as mortal man (with the help of guidance from the Holy Ghost) can make them.

Then we populate both the perfect, revealed portion of the organizational structure, and the imperfect, mortally-required part of the organizational structure with imperfect people, and do the best we can manage.

Thus, I think it's OK to say that the Church leaders and members and even some programs are not perfect; but to say "the Church is not perfect" disturbs me and causes me all kinds of worry unless you add fine print to make perfectly clear what you mean by "the Church" - leaving it to the readers' assumptions is much too risky a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pam said:

Well you have your opinion and I have mine.  Have an awesome day.  

Yes, your opinion and my opinion are both ours and doesn't have to agree on.

Definitions, on the other hand, are not a matter of opinion.

Have an awesome day too, Pam.  Be careful with the sun today.  It can be tempting to look at it too long or forget to replenish the sunscreen as it is deceptively not bright.  Love ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's purely a definitional matter, isn't it? What is "the Church"? What constitutes perfection?

Personally, I fall on the side of disagreeing with the article. I'm not so much hung up on the wording in this case; it's more like, I don't trust when people want to highlight Church imperfections or attempt to draw unnecessary distinctions between "the Church" and "the gospel".

Sure they are different things: The gospel is the good news of Christ's atonement and our salvation, while the Church is the vehicle for proclaiming the gospel and the earthly Zion for an abode for the Saints. But without the Church, the gospel is unavailable to mankind, just as surely as without the gospel, the Church is useless. In my experience, drawing a bright-line distinction between the two is generally unhelpful and is often a step in pulling away from the gospel.

I understand the author's point, and I concede there is some truth to what she says. But I dislike the way she says it, to the point that I think she should rewrite the article. In fact, the very 1984 talk she references was originally given in much the same way as her article, emphasizing the separation of and differences between the Church and the gospel. I remember it well; it was given at the first General Conference following my return from my mission, and I was surprised to hear a talk delivered at General Conference that emphasized separation rather than unity. Brother Poelman was reportedly quite unhappy with how his talk was received, and actually asked to re-record his General Conference talk to emphasize the connection between the Church and the gospel rather than the distinction between them. The archived talk is the updated version, not the original version presented at General Conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't like the way the article is phrased. To me, it sounded more like the author was arguing that church leaders are imperfect which I agree with. But I think its been pointed out in earlier posts that the Church is seperate and distinct from the people who run it. That means to me the saving ordinances, priesthood authority, scriptural accounts etc. Those are perfect so I'm content to continue saying the church is perfect even though the people aren't I think that's pretty clear.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is value, I think, in acknowledging to a certain sort Church member that occasionally individual Church leaders or--within certain parameters--the Church leadership as a whole, may disseminate teachings or make decisions that leave us scratching our heads.  All well and good so far.

But in this day and age, I think it's incredibly naive to just say "yeah, they're imperfect" and ignore the "so . . . what?" that a thoughtful member will immediately follow up with.

I'm a big fan of Terryl Givens.  I like his insight about D&C 21:5 standng for the proposition that prophets are indeed imperfect (else we might not need to approach them with "patience and faith").  But way too many people glom onto that whilst ignoring the preceding injunction in verse 4 to "give heed unto all his [the prophet's] words and commandments".

Maybe Sister Lee hoped that her article would in fact inspire individual church members to plumb the depths of prophetic counsel more thoughtfully and implement it into their own lifestyles more assiduously.  I hope so.  But I must confess, I just don't see it in the article as-published.  And since Elder Poelman's talk (and the editing thereof) is rather infamous in anti-Mormon/libertine Mormon circles; it's easy to come away from the article with a vaguely bad taste in one's mouth even though (IMHO) there's really nothing in it that's terribly "wrong".

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pam said:

I guess I just don't see it the same way.  I realize that Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church.  But I still see it as an organization that is run by imperfect people.  To me they are synonymous.  But I appreciate your comments.  I'm just not seeing it the same way.

I see it this way. The people ARE the Church. Therefore, the Church isn't perfect. The Gospel is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pam said:

“The Church is perfect, but the people aren’t.”

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard some variation of this phrase. I’ve used it on several occasions, myself.

Here’s the thing: The Church isn’t perfect.

“The Church” vs. “the Gospel”

https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/the-church-isnt-perfect-and-thats-ok/

This is so true. "The church" is a living, breathing organization that, while inspired of God, is entrusted to be run by his valiant, yet imperfect servants. Trusting man with anything always leaves room for error.  The Gospel, however, is static. It is was it is. It does not change. The gospel is eternal truth, unwavering in its principles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that the church isn't perfect is obvious. Contrary to the claims of the article, I find the idea that people are always saying 'the church is perfect' suspect. It doesn't take any particularly grand insight to know the church isn't perfect. Neither has the church, realistically, ever claimed perfection. I have to wonder, however, what the objective and mindset is of someone who feels like it is important to point out this rather obvious idea. Of course, as stated, it depends on what one means by "the church" and by "perfect".

 

Edit: having fully read the article now,  I thought it was great, understand what the point was, and take back my critique as unfairly presumption. 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share