Imagine a scenario where someone has been called to a position and has the qualities of the average man; s/he makes mistakes, possesses an ego, and can be self-interested and partisan ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äù with the purpose of this calling being primarily for that individual’s personal and spiritual growth.
Now suppose the ordinances and decisions this person makes in their calling has a direct impact on other members of the congregation?¢‚Ç¨‚Äù they are in a position of oversight.
It’s already been stated that if there are personal or spiritual problems with the person conducting the ordinance, that the recipient of the ordinance will still receive the full effects of the ordinance ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äù God will know and make things right. For example, being baptised by a child molester would not mean your baptism is null and void.
This implies that it is not the letter of the law that must be followed but merely the spirit of the law; an exacting procedure is not required but instead just recommended because God can pull up the slack.
If it is the case that strict adherence is not required, then why is it that such an emphasis is put on perfect obedience of rules both written and un-written in the LDS faith?
There is a perception by non-members that there are many rules to be followed by members and the faith is fairly ‘rule-ladened’ when compared to other faiths which are less rigid when it comes to adherence to their respective rules ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äù lapsed Catholics, unobservant Jews, etc.
The other side of the argument being that the strict observance of ritual is an absolute requirement – i.e. temple work. If it *is* a requirement, it flies in the face of the ‘God will make it all correct’ argument and calls into question the concept of appointment to callings being for the called person’s personal and spiritual growth.
Any thoughts, on Our Thoughts, about this?