Interview With My Stake President
Excerpt from account given of Jan. 8, 2003 first meeting with my Stake President since moving
here 1.5 years ago.
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: [lds_reconciliation] Met with my Stake President yesterday
[...]
About half way through our time together, he asked me what my main
grievances were with the Church. This portion of our conversation probably took an hour.
I said that there were three that came immediately to mind, all of
which vied for first place.
The first is the teaching that "The prophet will never lead you
astray, its not in the program . . . " This non-scriptural belief creates a
spiritually lazy flock. Each person should be a prophet, and be encouraged to nurture an
independent link to the heavens.
The second grievance regards the role the Church is supposed to play
in establishing not just the gospel but also a government of God on the earth -- a
responsibility which they abandoned in 1890 in order to become a state; and ever since then, the
"kingdom of God," in Mormon culture, only refers to the gospel, not the government
aspect, when in fact we were supposed to be stewards of both. And in stead of building up
the government of God that would protect the freedom of all mankind, the Church tends to
persecute or marginalize the patriots even while giving their nod to the New World Order hot
shots among them. Focused on the first coming mission of Christ, they are rejecting Jesus
Christ's latter-day political mission, even as the Jews rejected Christ's first coming,
anticipating that the Messiah was supposed to be a political savior only. Truth is, he is
both.
The third grievance regards the mainstream's lack of understanding
the most fundamental aspects of the gospel, especially the doctrine of the mighty change of
heart, or being born again. The culture teaches that this is a long, drawn out process
over a lifetime. But the scriptures teach this baptism of the spirit to be an event as
real and encompassing as the baptism in water. Sure, the overcoming the flesh and putting
on a godly nature through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is a life-long process in its
perfection, but the mighty change is an event.
[...]
I commented that there are many other grievances that could be
listed -- a top ten list, a top 70 list, a top 1000 list; but that most of these were nitpicky
types of things, which in marriage could be compared to whether the toilet paper roll should be
placed one way or the other. I said that the 80:20 or 90:10 rule of marriage should
also be applied to the church -- 80% compliments to 20% critique. One of the problems in
the church is that they seem to have an almost zero tolerance for any kind of critique, when the
could benefit tremendously from loyal opposition given in love.
After that conversation, he asked me the question of just how
closely I felt I was aligned with the "core" teachings of the Church. He drew
three overlapping circles similar to what you see in the Olympics logo, as an attempt to ask how
much overlap I considered myself to have with the Church's position.
I then pointed to the three circles and said that it was a great way
to illustrate. The middle/offset of the three represents the truth. The overlapping,
but not concentric circle to the upper left represents where the Church is at. The
overlapping, but not concentric circle to the upper right represents where I am at. There
is some overlap between all three, and some overlap between the top two that do not also overlap
with the bottom one (representing the truth).
We discussed this analogy at length. At first response, he
disagreed that the Church would change to move closer to the truth. Part of this came from
the conditioning he has built in that teaches him that the Church is synonymous with the
truth. Part of this response came because he doesn't believe anyone from the "lower
downs" in the church could possibly think to effect a change in the church.
I stopped him and called him on each of these points, and reasoned
with him why the model is appropriate. (1) The church is not completely aligned, but is as
a body aiming to become more so [or at least they would like to think so]; (2) The church can
and does change, including because of influence from the lay membership. [...]
Next, his question to me was regarding those "core"
teachings that make the church what it is. He asked me if I thought I was close enough in
alignment with those to be comfortable coming back into full fellowship. If so, he said he
would be my advocate to do everything he could to help me get back. If not, he said I was
wasting my time and his and would only want back out once I got in, if I ever got back in; and I
would be better off to just stay in the circles where I am best suited for my mission in life.
I replied that first I needed to point out that his understanding of
what those "core" teachings are, and my understanding might be a bit different; but
that the important thing was how close I am in actuality; and that the experience I had last
month tells me that no matter how impossible it might seem at the moment, the Lord had a miracle
in store to bring about a reconciliation. [...]
He then brought up the issue of "keys" which he felt to be
probably the most impacting of the "core" issues relevant to the Church. I said
that I used to believe in the keys issue [that the President of the church, and only he, holds
all keys on earth], but that I probably need to take a good hard look at that one before I can
feel comfortable with it. Using the illustration drawn on the paper in front of us, I put
a K with a small circle around it within the "truth" circle and the
"church" circle, but half way in and out of my circle.
[...]
Sterling
Post-Interview Reflections
January 14, 2003
I had intended on composing a well-thought-out list of prioritized core grievances in
preparation for my interview with my Stake President, but did not get around to it. So when
he asked me the question, it kind of hit me flat-footed. In some ways I'm grateful for that
because I had to reply from the gut, and not so much from the head. In retrospect, I have
come to feel that the sequence in which I gave these answers on the spot is exactly as they should
be.
The first pillar of apostasy (placing so much trust in the prophet -- an amount that God alone
is worthy to receive) is the root of all others, for it removes from the people the need for them
to be spiritually keen and discerning, whereby the other aspects of apostasy could be identified
and remedied, but without which the apostasy is denied by definition of the prophet being always
on target no matter what.
The second pillar mentioned touches on our primary mission to the world in the latter-days,
which we have all but abandoned except on an individual level.
The third pillar mentioned addresses the foundation of our personal walk with God -- the mighty
change of heart whereby we become anchored on the rock of Jesus Christ, which is the only sure
foundation.
I am satisfied in retrospect that these three points are indeed the most fundamental. I
am also confident that each of these three is in keeping with core LDS teachings that have been
given since the time of the Restoration through Joseph Smith, and which even find their way into
the most current General Conferences of the Church.
In other words, I believe that any sincere mainstream member of the Church can awake and arise
to their duty when it comes to these three pillars, and shake off the slumber that has come from
departing from them. And if enough were to do this, the repentance clause could and would be
evoked, and the destructions averted or at least diminished in proportion to the extent to which
that repentance took place.
Sterling D. Allan
No Need for "One and Only One" Prophet
Jan. 15, 2003
With the false dogma "the prophet will never lead astray" also comes the corollary
that there can only be one such person at a time.
In reality, that one such person is God (which is in each of us); and when we each are responsible
for ourselves, we can each be prophets and no head honcho is going to get his feathers ruffled
because his flock isn't paying homage.
Sterling
