When the Prophet Speaks….
by AngryMormonLiberal
An interesting question was asked recently in the comments of Hera’s recent guest post, ‘Mormons for Marriage’ by Douglas Hunter:
So there have been a few comments expressing the basic idea that the prophet has spoken so there is no room for opinion, discussion, prayer or anything else really. It’s an argument often used in an attempt to put an end to discussion and thought in Mormon circles, to alienate those who for their own reasons feel the necessity of doing the work, of investigating their faith spiritually, intellectually and through open dialogue in the community.
Two things: First I wonder if any of the FMH folks have blogged on this topic? Isn’t it inherently a feminist concern when male authority is invoked in a way so as to suggest that women need to keep silent, that the male voice of authority is absolute and all compelling? Second: The specific language of the letter relied heavily on the word “can” a word never present without the possibility of negation. Why do pro prop. 8 folks so often dismiss the “can” in the statement? Or read it exclusively in terms of a narrow positivist notion?
I’ve done some research in this area and thought I’d provide at least a basic outline of the explicit statements I’m aware of.
The first, you will primarily find in evangelical Anti-Mormon tracts, due to it’s relative obscurity.
Ward Teachers Message June 1945
(quote) When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan– it is gods plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to god.
The second, you have to wait all the way into 1978, when Elaine Cannon gave a talk ‘If we want to Go Up, We Have to Get On’, published in the November 1978 Ensign. It came from a Young Womens Fireside.
(Quote) Personal opinions vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, Sisters, the debate is over
This was repeated the next year by N. Eldon Tanner in a sermon called ‘The Debate is Over’, published in August 1979. Cannon’s statement appears at the end of her talk, at the end of the Ensign. Tanner’s talk appears at the beginning of the Ensign. Home teaching message, folks.
(Quote) Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: “When the Prophet speaks … the debate is over”
… and again later
(Quote) We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.
There could be a solid argument to add the statements saying that the Prophet will never lead the church astray to these, however I haven’t checked those out. I also have not pored over Brigham Young’s statements on obedience.
You also might find Gordon and Gary Shephard’s book ‘A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism’, University of Utah Press, 1984. Their section on ‘Obedience’ tracks the use and emphasis of Obedience as a theme in General Conference addresses through the early 1980’s.
My opinions on the subject? I think the concept directly contradicts revealed scripture, viz D&C 121:41. I’m annoyed and troubled when it’s used on me, especially in an attempt to silence me.
To think that when the prophet speaks, all discussion must cease is to deny the basic principle of free agency. Why did God create the human race with intelligence if we are to stop using it once the prophet has spoken?
Comment by Molly — August 28, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
If you want to take quotes from our (past) leaders let’s make sure that we include the one from Pres. George Albert Smith wrote (to a local Christian leader) in response to this quote, “I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.
Comment by amanda — August 28, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
will proof next time before I send….
Comment by amanda — August 28, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
the unavoidable (if uncomfortable) truth is that sometimes prophets are wrong. (even prophets admit this!) Personally, I think that the “debate is over” belief isn’t practical, optimal, sustainable, or even doctrinal. I wish it wouldn’t keep coming back in style!
Comment by Isis — August 28, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Amanda
True, but that was in a letter that remained unpublished until Sterling McMurrin? (i’m 75% sure) spilled the beans.
So, we have a public statement in an official church magazine 1945, as obscure as it is. Then we have an un-published letter repudiating it. To be honest, I think it’s way to obscure to have any real bearing on the discussion. The apologists case is really weak, but so are the evangelical anti’s on this point.
Far more difficult to deal with are Elaine Cannon and N. Eldon Tanner. This was during the ERA, which the Shephard’s noted as being somewhat responsible for the massive upswing in obedience rhetoric in General Conference.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — August 28, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
I’ll share what I have found and my interpretation of it. Quote by Brigham Young (shared by a person on another blog):
“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
This quote is like another one given during general conference this year (from Elder Oaks’ talk Testimony - I’ve shared it several times):
In closing, I refer to the relationship between obedience and knowledge. Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.
Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).
We all act upon or give obedience to knowledge. Whether in science or religion, our obedience is not blind when we act upon knowledge suited to the subject of our action. A scientist receives and acts upon a trusted certification of the content or conditions of a particular experiment. In matters of religion, a believer’s source of knowledge is spiritual, but the principle is the same. In the case of Latter-day Saints, when the Holy Ghost gives our souls a witness of the truth of the restored gospel and the calling of a modern prophet, our choice to follow those teachings is not blind obedience.
Both quotes say that we should pray about it and get a witness for ourselves that what the prophet teaches is true. However, (in my reading of both quotes) neither quote really leaves it open for the prophet to be out of line with the Lord’s will. Brigham Young said, “getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord”. Elder Oaks says “Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church” and “We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience.” He doesn’t seem to leave it open to “we might be subject to their decisions and directions (if we decide it is true)” or “this channel might result in obedience (if we decide it is right)”.
Anyways, that is how I read it and interpret it. Interpretations are up for debate, but I that is how I read it.
Comment by Stephanie — August 28, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Exactly. The notion of praying to get a witness of the truthfulness of what the prophet says is starting from a faulty premise: Of course what the prophet says is true, and if you get a different answer then there is something wrong with you and you better get in line.
So instead of starting at a completely neutral spot, Oaks and others want you to start from the end and work backwards to the beginning proposition: Of course what the prophet says is true. What’s wrong with you?
Comment by Phouchg — August 28, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
i love this discussion. we actually had a “when the prophet speaks” conversation in relief society last sunday. i was teaching from a conference talk and it was kind of my way of getting some prop. 8 ideas flowing the other direction in our very, VERY conservative ward. i was very glad that everyone who spoke up more or less agreed that the conversations should START when the prophet speaks.
Comment by makakona — August 28, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
angrymormonliberal…. thank you for posting this. this notion, the unquestionable-ness of the prophet (and by extension, church leaders, and The Church) has been at the root of my crisis of faith (hate that term, but it gets the point across.)
the household I was raised in stringently held to the concept given in those quotes you gave- that when the prophet has spoken, that is the end of the discussion. Which made for horrific inner turmoil when I could no longer silence the questions I had. specifically, this was ingrained in my thinking: “To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to god.”
literally… I was terrified of my questions.
And, since my questions eventually led to disagreement with statements by the prophets… my background of “all or nothing” acceptance has made continued participation in the church extremely challenging.
whereas, perhaps, persons raised with more open attitudes towards questioning leadership are able to weather those questions AND continued membership a little easier.
just my observations.
Comment by G — August 28, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
A big part of my testimony has to do with the reality and the necessity of paradox in our lives. For me, almost all spiritual ideals exist on a spectrum between two extremes. The most obvious example is justice and mercy. We are expected to be quite committed to both of these principles, yet one can easily work to exclusion of the other in real interactions. There is no elaborate calculus we can perform in order to find the perfect balance between the two. We have to listen, be sensitive and choose our response- again and again. This is the place where grace is needed and can become mature in our spirituality. I think these types of paradox exist on almost every level of gospel observance. Grace vs. works, obedience vs. agency, faith vs. questioning, strength vs. sensitivity. The list goes on.
So, I guess I don’t have a hard time with someone saying “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”. It is an expression at one extreme end of a (quite crucial) gospel principle (direct revelation). Taken alone, it is kind of jarring and absolutist, but it does not exist in a vacuum. The importance of obtaining individual knowledge of truth and taking responsibility for it has always loomed large in my spiritual life. I have long understood it as crucial to our theology. Taken together, these two extremes form a spectrum, and one without the other is woefully incomplete. If I can commit myself to both ideas, each will play a part in keeping my life in a sensible balance. At times I will have to deal with dissonance between the ends of the ideal. I think it’s all part of the plan- it’s how we become spiritually actuated.
Wendell Berry wrote a great essay called “The Burden of the Gospels” in which he addresses some of this idea. Jesus gives a gospel of surpassing love and then teaches “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Berry posits that such things “are not solvable but can only be lived with as a sort of continuing education”. Failure to recognize the whole ideal, with all of its inherent contradictions is what breeds false myopic interpretations and fanaticism.
I find that the more I internalize this idea, the less I feel a need to parse words or reconcile every statement. It makes me free to pursue a much simpler approach to the gospel- one I hope is more whole. The same thing also helps me to feel that there is room for everyone in the gospel. Some people thrive on “the debate is over”. Some people need that kind of assurance and can live quite happily closer to that end of the spectrum. And some of us need more room to explore independently and plant more seeds to find out which fruit is tasty. Some of us will experience both in totally authentic ways at different times.The gospel can contain us all.
Comment by Brian — August 29, 2008 @ 1:16 am
brian, I ask this out of curiosity, and not to be snarky or contentious in any way: When you say “the gospel can contain us all”, how do you view one who does not believe in the divinity of Christ and is agnostic or atheist in their beliefs about God and, with specific regard to the LDS church, doesn’t believe its leaders are any more or less entitled to “revelation” than anyone else?
I guess I am just wondering if by “us all” you are referring to believing members of the LDS church, or do you interpret on a broader spectrum?
again, I am not trolling with this question, I would really like to know your take .
Comment by G — August 29, 2008 @ 1:27 am
I actually think there is a pretty clear way to process this whole concept. Understanding how revelation works and the order in it all can help a lot, imo.
When the prophet speaks, the debate is over in the sense that NONE of us has authority to decide for the Church and the world what is Right and Wrong, in a general sense. If they teach something and we struggle with it, it’s not up to us to decide if or how we think they are wrong in general; it’s up to us to decide what we should personally do with what they have taught. Agency is about our PERSONAL choices, and that is what personal revelation is about. We can seek and gain testimony of what they teach (that may only come after lots of time and faith and patience and trying to live what they teach), and get direction about what to do about it.
But if we don’t yet have a testimony of what they teach, that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
That said, I believe that God understands honest struggle, and can help us line upon line if we go to Him. I think when one struggles with something prophets teach (I think that prophetic teachings have always been at times hard to follow, so we should expect that sometimes it might be hard!), one can take that struggle to God, with a question of “What should I do, or what can I do, given where I am and how I feel and what my circumstances are?…etc.” We can always pour out our souls and ask for help and guidance.
But if one believes one has received an answer to do something other than what they teach, I think it’s important to simply recognize the limits of personal revelation. We simply won’t be told something that isn’t within our stewardships. To go from “I don’t feel I can do this right now” (given personal struggle or circumstance or whatever) to “therefore, they must be wrong” (as in, wrong for everyone!) is a leap that isn’t consistent with how revelation and authority works, and it in a sense risks seeking to justify instead of own personal choice. Agency cannot exist without accountability and, imo, recognizing the limits of our authority in the process of making choices.
So, take Prop 8. Some are struggling with it all. It’s one of those issues that can tug at the mind and heart. Some feel that they “can’t” do anything at this point. That is between the individual and God. But a feeling, even what one believes is an answer, to not actively respond in a positive way to the prophets’ invitation is *not* the same thing as an answer that they are Wrong. We can humbly seek for and get personal guidance line upon line, and still support the general teaching (even if by simply keeping our answer to ourselves, or at least recognizing the limits of our revelation and authority and respecting the order of things). In a sense, Pres. Eyring noted that a key part of our covenants and faith is to sustain our leaders. We can sustain them even as we struggle with their counsel, or even if we feel we are an exception. No exception or personal choice, though, gives us authority to change or declare incorrect what prophets teach. (That won’t stop some people from going there, but they simply have no authority to do so.)
This is especially true when what prophets are teaching strikes at the heart of the plan of salvation, which is one of their key roles. So, for example, with this issue, marriage is central to God’s plan. Prophets may get an opinion on less essential topics here or there wrong (they are human and once in a while we might get an isolated opinion on something), but besides teaching and testifying of Christ, there is nothing more important that they teach than the plan of salvation, which includes the central role of marriage and family as declared by our prophets. And the law of authorized witnesses has been invoked here, which is one way that God has said He works to declare His truth and keep us as a Church on the path. We simply can’t change the doctrine to fit our choices, because that’s not any of our stewardship. But we can go to God for help, line upon line, to know how to move forward in faith, letting the leaders do their job while we do ours.
Understanding the order of things, imo, can help us keep some clarity about what our individual answers might mean (they are individual!), and why perhaps individuals get different answers along the way (think about answers about birth control, or staying home or working, or how and when to get an education, or about a whole host of other controversial topics — general counsel is the prophets’ job, personal choice is ours — but personal choice cannot dictate Truth for others when that choice runs counter to prophetic teachings). It can also protect us from deception and confusion.
[As a side note, realize that the quotes above are not inconsistent with what we continue to hear. Pres. Eyring, for example, recently reminded us that when we go against prophetic counsel, we put ourselves at risk. BUT, if we struggle with that counsel, we can hold onto it, let it sit, like sand in which we can’t yet see gold flakes, as Pres. Eyring so beautifully put. Don’t shut the door on what they teach if it’s not yet something you feel you can follow. You might eventually find gold that you didn’t think was there if you hold onto it in faith.]
Comment by m&m — August 29, 2008 @ 1:45 am
Whew. That was long. And if I sound preachy, I’m sorry. I realize that some people may see things differently. So the above is how I interpret it all. Your mileage may differ.
Comment by m&m — August 29, 2008 @ 1:49 am
G
I guess ideally I believe it is does contain us all. My understanding is the plan of salvation is for all humankind, and that it will in reality save all of us. We are participating whether we want to or not. But practically speaking, I mean those who have some desire to be in the church, however small it may be. It is a principle that I try to make inform my interactions with others at church. Too often we size each other up and make judgements about the way we perceive the gospel operating (or not) in the lives of others. Believing that the gospel is inclusive helps me to knock that off.
Comment by Brian — August 29, 2008 @ 2:06 am
m&m -
That is the sort of mental gymnastics I see every day in members minds that I just cannot understand. So, we can question and decide something is wrong - but we should respect the authority (’order of things’) anyway? Just ignore what we believe and stand quietly by? Just keep telling ourselves that maybe they know more than we do?
I have been seeing this attitude ‘respect the order of things’ in a broader application in the US as well and I find in scary. If more people were willing to follow their conscience and do what is right, then no authority would ever be able to abuse its power.
What you are describing is not blind obedience - but it is mute and deaf obedience and blind ‘faith’- people remaining obedient to something that they personally feel is in the wrong simply because they want to respect authority. This attitude is incredibly frightening to me and was a criticism of Romney’s religion during his campaign and a very valid one.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 2:55 am
Brigham Young spoke pretty emphatically about blacks and their supposed inferiority. But that certainly did not end the debate. As a nation, since the 1850s when Brigham Young said those things, our nation suffered a Civil War over this issue, and then 100 years of segregation, and then still nearly fifty years before we even have a black candidate nominated for president of our country. Racism is still alive and well, but the view of nearly all has turned radically against what Brigham Young said. I don’t blame Brigham Young for his thoughts. He is a product of his time. The debate shifted though after his time, because we weren’t reconciled to that view as a nation. Until there is near unanimous reconciliation, nothing is “over” even though a prophet says it is.
Comment by Dan — August 29, 2008 @ 3:52 am
I guess the fundamental question is whether we trust our leaders to always make the right decisions or not.
Comment by Matt W. — August 29, 2008 @ 6:18 am
I personally don’t feel that “they will never lead us astray” extends beyond the apostles who are called as prophets, seers, revelators. I don’t think it extends to stake presidents, Bishops, etc. We aren’t promised that our stake president will never lead us astray, only our prophet.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:41 am
I guess I don’t see the difference between blind obedience and de facto blind obedience.
Dan, I recognize that BY was a product of his time, but I wonder at our use of that defense. In everything else, we say we are exceptional, the only true church. But in racial relations, and class relations we are militantly average. Church policy follows the standard conservative party line with only minor deviations.
M&M, I can grasp your position, but like I say above, I don’t see the difference between the two types of obedience. I can trust my own internal reactions to things because I can observe them and I alone am responsible for my actions. However, I cannot observe other peoples internal motivations. So, when a church leader says OBEY, I don’t know their motivations. I have been placed in situations, in the Mission Field, where the motivations were a painfully obvious ‘Make me look good’, and the individuals actions produced intimidation, guilt and fear .Thus, I have to depend on my own internal barometers of right and wrong. I cannot, and will not give that responsibility to anyone else. I think that the ‘I’m just following orders’ defense has no moral foundation for anyone above the age of 12.
I’m really impressed with your thoughtful input m&m, Brian, G, Dan, Stephanie and Julie. Thanks.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — August 29, 2008 @ 6:58 am
“When the prophet speaks, the debate (for the general membership of the Church as a whole) is over.” I have no problem with that construct, and I see it as the foundation of the quotes given, especially since “debate” implies active and public arguing to most people.
“When the prophet speaks, the decision-making process for each and every individual member is NOT over.” I believe that strongly. Each of us must decide whether or not we can accept what is said individually - but, if we truly believe the words are coming from a prophet, we should be very, very careful if we decide to set it aside personally that we are confident the decision to do so is inspired by God.
I have done so myself (chosen to do something contrary to the general counsel given by the prophets), but I have done so rarely and consciously and only as an exception. Also, as someone else said, I think it is critical to distinguish between what is given as counsel (”can, may, should, usually, often, etc.”) and what is given as command (”must, will, all, always, etc.). I have found there is relatively little “must” and much “should” and “can” in what we are told - and a whole lot of responsibility for adapting general counsel to our own unique situations.
I still believe, however, that we carry a responsibility to not reject the words of the prophets and apostles automatically and out-of-hand, simply because we initially don’t like them. I believe our first obligation is to attempt to understand exactly what is being said, without the interpretive bias inherent in emotional reactions, and do our best to find a way to understand how we can support what is asked - even if only to a relatively small degree or a certain part. If we can’t do that and are confident our decision is inspired, fine; that is our right. We simply should give the prophets the benefit of the doubt and make an honest and sincere effort to understand how their words might apply to us.
Knee-jerk, automatic, hyperbolic rejection is never justified, imo.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:16 am
aml, as someone else said, there is nothing that says when any other priesthood leader speaks the debate is over. A Mission President isn’t a prophet. Period. We still owe other leaders the courtesy of carefully considering what they say, but that is true for anyone. To extend the idea of the quotes here to non-prophets is going beyond the mark, methinks.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:27 am
I used to have this approach with my children - I knew best and when I said it, arguments were over. I have since questioned this approach, even when I think I’m right. Now, respectful questioning and negotiation work well for us (for heavens sake we can even appeal laws in this country, who made me the dictator?). At the end of the day, what I say may still be the end result for the family, but it doesn’t mean everyone has to agree to be part of the family, and it doesn’t mean everyone has to necessarily go or do (with a few practical exceptions due to safety or babysitting limitations). It doesn’t mean we don’t have rules, it just means everyone’s needs are considered, not just what I think is best.
And it means we are all a family - fighting the same big cause, striving to get to the same place. I expect them not to speak poorly of our family to others, and not to rub my bad decisions in my face. I have (for the most part) the respect of my children, because I offer that respect to them (for the most part). I am trying to teach them to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not because they want to please me or avoid punishment.
I have thought a lot about this as Prop 8 has come up. I want to be the loyal family member to the church, so I will not speak poorly of my leaders, which does not mean I won’t disagree with their decisions respectfully. I have no doubt the prophet is making the best call as he sees it. But all people are fallible, mothers AND prophets. So, to leave no room for individual revelation from the perfect source (albeit our interpretation may not be so perfect) doesn’t teach us to do the right thing for the right reason. Christ doesn’t force us to follow him, he entices and succors and asks. He never asks us to abandon our conscience or our relationship with God. I find it interesting that none of your quotes came from an actual prophet. Maybe they are not requiring the blind obedience our brothers and sisters think we should have.
Comment by Mel S — August 29, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Our leaders have never claimed infallibility, so I think we can conclude that they don’t trust themselves to always make the right decision.
I think the position that m&m has laid out is correct. Sometimes it takes years for the leading councils of the church to reach consensus on a topic. When they announce it to the membership, I don’t think they expect instant, 100% obedience. I think they do expect, and deserve, careful, prayerful contemplation, and for us to not actively oppose them.
Comment by Mark IV — August 29, 2008 @ 7:49 am
MattW (#17) hit the nail on the head. And to me the obvious answer is, of course not.
Where in the world do we get the idea that a prophet can never be wrong? Even a cursory reading of the standard works illustrates that on many occasions prophets have screwed up, sometimes in huge ways over key issues. Why do we expect more of our modern day leaders? It is a horrible burden to place on their shoulders. They are men. They are susceptible to every weakness and prejudice we are. They aren’t connected to God by a fax machine. Anyone who has worked closely with General Authorities will tell you that they disagree all the time, and debate decisions, sometimes fiercely. They have been wrong in the past (in all ages) and they will be wrong again in the future.
In my opinion, people place leaders on a pedestal because it is easier that way. It allows you to stop thinking for yourself. The difficult aspects of the gospel can be forgotten or glossed over. Maybe this is overstating things, but to me it is nothing short of idolatry to expect perfection from the brethren.
There is a big difference IMO between blind obedience to the prophet/GAs and loyalty to the church. One can be completely dedicated to the church and the gospel while still disagreeing vehemently with some of the leaders’ decisions. In order to agree with every single teaching of every single prophet, past and present, we’d all have to be schizophrenic.
Comment by Chelsea — August 29, 2008 @ 7:50 am
brian- thank you for responding to my question.
Comment by G — August 29, 2008 @ 7:52 am
angrymormonliberal,
#19,
I make the argument that BY was a product of his time like all of us are products of our time. I doubt many others hold this view. I don’t think there is anything exceptional about us. We’re not elitist. We’re not above the rest. It is not the individuals who make this church that make it the “peculiar people,” the “royal priesthood.” That comes from the principles of the Gospel that we follow. That is what is exceptional. But the individuals are products of the time in which they live. We are shaped by the environment in which we live. Even prophets.
I most likely would not have joined the church pre-1978. Which is probably why the Lord had me born in 1974 in Romania, and to come to the United States in 1982, to be bapized in 1987. Well away from the racist past.
Comment by Dan — August 29, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Matt,
#17,
Not. Your key word there is “always.” I’m sorry but our leaders are as imperfect as we are. They too make mistakes. Let me ask you this, did Joseph Smith make the right decision to give Martin Harris the 126 pages of the translation? I’m going to guess that you answer no, it was not a right decision. If you claim “always” then they must always be right. If not, then don’t claim always.
No human being, outside the Lord Jesus Christ, always gets it right.
Comment by Dan — August 29, 2008 @ 7:55 am
We have our agency; we do not have to follow the prophet.
But, if we actually believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church and directs the Prophet by revelation, it logically follows that we will respect and follow the Prophets council unless we receive personal revelation to the contrary.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 8:28 am
RE Ray - viz Knee-jerk, automatic, hyperbolic rejection is never justified, imo.
Ray, sometimes it is. The John Birchers in the 80’s go that reaction from me, no matter what level in the church they ascended to, when they started talking about government policy as church policy. Even if I agreed, I would not do as they said because they said it. I might if I felt the same way, but I had to agree and I had to be convinced, not threatened.
I remember as a child sitting in General Conference in the 1980’s and hearing the church state its recommendation (no longer a position at that point) that people marry and date within their own racial and economic group. I felt it was wrong. I rejected it. Knee-jerk and automatic.
I appreciate your nuanced view. I think I’m a fundamentalist at heart, and I tend to drift towards a black and white view of the world regardless of what position I’m looking for.
Re 22 Mel S
I”m working through this with a 2 year old right now. When I stand up and tell her to do things, she doesn’t. When I get down to her level, talk to her in a level voice and explain, she may cry and fuss but it’s far less than if I order her around and drag her. She’s capable of far more understanding than I think she’s capable of at her age. Now, I can often stop, explain and talk about why we have to do something and she says ‘Yeah’ and goes along with it.
It is interesting that none of the most inflammatory rhetoric has come from a Prophet, however N. Eldon Tanner was in the First Presidency. That’s why I find that sermon so troubling.
I think it is respectful, proper and doctrinally correct to listen and consider carefully. However, I won’t deal politely with bullies on any level in any organization.
26 - Dan
Excellent point, however I’ve read some on Quaker theology and history. They do not view themselves as elite, and they have struggled very publicly through their history with a number of contentious issues (status of women, slavery) but were far ahead of society in finding solutions. What’s different on our end? This is not so much a black and white issue for me as much as it is a disappointment.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — August 29, 2008 @ 8:48 am
AngryMormonLiberal: I remember as a child sitting in General Conference in the 1980’s and hearing the church state its recommendation (no longer a position at that point) that people marry and date within their own racial and economic group. I felt it was wrong. I rejected it. Knee-jerk and automatic.
Are you saying in retrospect it is clear that you were right and the advice given at General Conference in the 80s was wrong?
If so I would like to point out that times change, what might have good advice then may not be good advice now.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 9:17 am
Howard @28
And if we are asking the same source that the prophet is asking then we will never receive personal revelation to the contrary.
Comment by kalon — August 29, 2008 @ 9:30 am
kalon,
Let’s use a hypothetical SSM example:
A close friend and I have had some very interesting discussions about why we are here as mortals, life after death and touching on the plan of salvation.
She is celibate but struggles with same sex attraction.
I prayed and asked to be guided in my discussions with her and also for guidance regarding my participation in SSM politics. I received personal revelation to remain politically neutral on SSM and continue my discussions with her.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
“To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony.”
So true. But is that a bad thing? To risk changing your mind in a quest to find the truth? Sure, it is scary to many members, but we each have to choose whether to question or not.
I chose to question and dig deep to find the truth, and lost my testimony. If you go about it by assuming the church is true, and read many of the quotes mandating no questioning allowed, then you’ll be a sinner to question. But step back, and for just a moment assume it isn’t true, and you may find that you feel it would be morally wrong NOT to question.
Growing up in the church, I for one wasn’t terribly suspicious until I felt a Mormon community message of “Believe it all. And if you dare to question or seriously re-evaluate then you are a sinner and will be ostracized. You cannot serve God and mammon, so choose one.” Even though we’d not accept that from other aspects of our life, for some reason when it is religion saying this we tend to let it slide.
So going back to my original point, yes, there is a chance you’ll lose your testimony if you seriously question. Maybe all at once. Or maybe on a few points until you decide the church by it’s own definition can’t be half true. It’s all or nothing, baby.
Comment by minnie mouse — August 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am
#33 - “I chose to question and dig deep to find the truth, and lost my testimony.”
I, however, chose to question and dig deep to find the truth, and strengthened my testimony.
That is the heart of this discussion, I think - that each of us has to come to a personal decision of what it is we believe, then follow whatever that is. The key, imho, is to remain open to change even after making major decisions - to avoid having decisions becomes “conclusions” (meaning changes have stopped).
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I have a sister who wishes sometimes that it was 2 or 3 generations ago, so she wouldn’t have so many choices to make. She is a highly educated scientist, mother, wife, etc… But hates all the choices she can make. She tells me, that she is great at doing what she is told, give her a job and its done. I am exactly the opposite. Tell me I can’t question and I am going to push and push. I hope and think there is room in the gospel for both of us. It may not be a comfortable position and for me it doesn’t need to be. I will question and I will invariably disagree at times. To say no one can question or do so is a sin or wrong takes away my agency and the mind I was given to develop in this life.
Comment by miles — August 29, 2008 @ 10:19 am
RE 30, Howard
If so I would like to point out that times change, what might have good advice then may not be good advice now.
Nope. I’m a fundamentalist at heart. There is Right and there is Wrong. As much as my liberal philosophies might make me a relativist, I’m not. Racism is a big wrong. There is no justification for it. It’s a violation, along with many others, of the supreme commandments, Love God & your neighbor as yourself. There is no time or place when it is acceptable or excusable, but it is understandable in some times and places. If there is one thing I have a testimony of, it’s that commandment.
Thus, I don’t have a problem with the church encouraging members to marry other members. That’s a choice. One’s race, sexual orientation and often economic standing is not.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — August 29, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Ray, do you find your testimony has changed? I find myself back from some pretty dark places, the dark night of the soul, that was elegantly put in GC.
I think my faith is less sure but more rooted, covering less but more solidly grounded in what I know is right.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — August 29, 2008 @ 10:23 am
I think one issue not brought up here is stewardship. Do prophets always make the right decision? Perhaps not. As someone mentioned, Joseph Smith gave the 116 pages to Martin Harris, which was NOT God’s will. But, everyone has their stewardship, and Joseph and Martin alone suffered the punishment for that decision. If anybody else follows a prophet’s wrong decision, they will not need to worry about being accountable for that.
A couple of important things I remind myself is that the prophet WILL be in line with God’s will MOST of the time–much more often than I will be. I’m safer to side with the prophet as much as I can. Second, if the prophet is wrong, I will not be held accountable for following him as he does his job the best he can. Whereas I MAY be held accountable for not following him if he is right and I am wrong. There is safety in following the prophet.
On a plane, your instruments will not always be 100% right, and there could be a time when your gut feeling or personal ability to navigate would be more correct than the instruments. But you would definitely be safer overall by sticking close to the instruments as much as you possibly can.
President Monson and other leaders have their stewardship, and they will have to face Christ to report what they do with it. If they feel there is revelation concerning Proposition 8, then that is their stewardship and they’ll be held accountable for it. I may disagree, but I do not have stewardship over others and should not try to persuade others to disagree with the prophet (kind of scary if you think about that). My stewardship is to gain my own personal revelation about what the prophet has said.
Comment by Rick — August 29, 2008 @ 10:42 am
@Ray: excellent point, your testimony can very well become more firmly rooted upon deep questioning. Now that you find out it is true do you have any guilt for so seriously questioning? What would you advise others that are considering questioning but concerned about the quotes provided by angrymormonliberal ?
Comment by minnie mouse — August 29, 2008 @ 10:57 am
AML; There is Right and there is Wrong.
Well, we like to believe that we are an enlightened generation. But enlightened as compared to what, the past? Are we enlightened compared to the future? Right and wrong may continue to evolve into something even more enlightened allowing future generations to look back on us with distaste.
We are a privileged generation, many of us born into relatively easy lives allowing us the privilege of contemplation. My ggg-grandfather and his two sons died with the Willy Handcart company, shall I look back and judge his attitudes about race, sexual orientation, etc? I think not. Where would I be had he not joined the church and left England for Utah?
Where would we all be without those who went before?
God uses who ever he has available at the time, we are all products of our time and all come with flaws.
Times change, fortunately the trend line is headed in a positive direction.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 11:00 am
All I am going to say on this is the first law in Heaven (and should be here on earth) is obedience. Plain, simple, true. Be obedient or not, your choice but you will be held accountable for those choices. Say what you will, quote what you will, but if you do not, or will not understand obedience it will be for you, US, whoever may not choose to be obedient to the principles, to be held accountable.
Plus, I would like to add there are a lot of times that the philosophies of men get mingled with scripture.
Humpf…
Comment by Sunshine — August 29, 2008 @ 11:56 am
And, I would like to add this quote by Harold B Lee:
Comment by Sunshine — August 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Sunshine, I thought the first principle of the gospel was faith in Jesus Christ . . . . ?
Comment by Perpetually Amazed — August 29, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Perpetually amazed:
1st law of heaven is obedience
1st and greatest commandment: Love god (2nd: love your neighbor)
1st principle of the gospel: faith
All are acts of agency directed toward something else. In perfect form, that act of agency is directed toward God.
I think the real question of this post is whether or not an willful act (faith, love, obedience) toward the prophet (and by extension the apostles) is also directed toward God, and whether an act in opposition to those men acting in the office of their calling can still be positively obedient, loving, and faithful to God. Difficult questions, not sure if there are definitive answers that apply to everyone.
Comment by Observer — August 29, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
AML.
Thanks very much for taking up the question and providing the information. I have not seen the 1945 quote before. Reading the quotes and following the discussion in the comments. A few elements stand out.
1- the phrase “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” is interesting because of the word thinking. Why emphasize thinking? a cognitive / intellectual act? Is this to say that the leaders (in this case the leaders not just the prophet) think in our place? What kind of relationship does this imply between leaders and members? Does it imply that their thought takes priority over any individual member’s thought? That thought as such takes priority over prayer, scripture study and personal revelation? That those who may have questions about what the leaders say are guilty of reducing their efforts to thinking rather than praying, pondering, scripture study etc.
2- Agency was mentioned in the very first comment. And it does seem like the idea of the absolute nature of the kind of obedience described in the quotes negates the idea of agency. On a personal level, the problem I have is that I tend to conceptualize agency is fairly broad terms but the descriptions we have of agency tend to be rather narrow.
Agency is often described as the ability to choose between good and evil. So the characteristics of such a situation would be that there is a choice to be made between two options the nature of which are both known before hand. there is one good option, one evil option and we know which is which prior to the moment of decision. But that is only one kind of decision we face in life, we face many other choices of varying degrees of complexity so how do we describe those? It does seem that the notion of agency is often understood more broadly than the definition we apply allows for. What I think we don’t often admit is that in order for agency to be real, for the choice involved to be a real decision and an individual act, then we must allow as real the possibility that we are capable of making the “wrong” choice or that we will face choices of more complex structures.
3- The type of comment that Sunshine makes are typical of these discussions in a couple of ways. I can’t go into them all but an important one is found in the Lee quote. That the structure of disagreement will be personal and intellectual, that its a matter of individual “views” coming into conflict with teachings. Such an idea does not cover all the different possible structures of conflict that may be present. Lets admit that there are structural elements at work that include ethics, the promptings of the spirit, or conscious and other elements that are simply beyond the scope of the kind of description that Sunshine provides in her thought and her quote. If we really hope to understand moral / ethical accountability and the structure of disagreements we need to look at their spiritual, intellectual, and ethical structure rather than frame them as a simply conflict with authority.
Crying baby in other room gotta go! Thanks again AML.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Rick, I’m trying to figure out what you mean by “accountable”. Do you mean that at the final judgment, those wrong actions will be excused?
I guess if the only thing we’re interested in is avoiding being punished for sin, that might work out OK. But shouldn’t we also be just as concerned about following the “dictates of our own conscience(s)”? If our own experience with personal revelation indicates to us that we should act contrary to something the brethren have said, should that be followed, or should we overlook our personal feelings and follow orders?
The whole idea kind of reminds me of what Adam said in the garden - “the woman you gave me made me do it.”
Comment by Chelsea — August 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Sunshine,
For argument sake, I’ll go with you that the first law is obedience and I am accountable for being obedient - but the key is obedience to whom? I am obedient to God. I believe God uses prophets as a mouthpiece at times, but the scriptures and the prophets themselves don’t claim to know infallibly when that happens. So I expect God to confirm their positions to me. I need to be open to their counsel, and respect their right to determine where the church is going since they have been given responsibility for it, but I am ultimately responsible for my own conduct, and so I will not violate my own conscience or what I consider revelation.
Comment by Mel S — August 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
That is a really good point, Mel S.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
#46 - “The whole idea kind of reminds me of what Adam said in the garden - ‘the woman you gave me made me do it.’”
That’s NOT what Adam says in the narrative. He says, “The woman thou gavest me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit - and I did eat.” He said, in essence, “You told me that I was to stay with my wife no matter what. I chose to stay with her, even if that means I have to die as a result.”
That is a huge difference, and it changes the whole story.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
I was trying to be facetious with the Adam example.
Just pointing out that in other situations, saying “I was just following orders” isn’t an excuse for wrongdoing, no matter how well-intentioned.
Comment by Chelsea — August 29, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I don’t believe that when leaders speak, the thinking has been done. I don’t believe that what they say is always God’s plan.
Thought this following excerpt from chinoblanco.blogspot.com was applicable to illustrate the point:
“Six Quotes on Interracial Marriage from Mormon Leaders”
1. From the current LDS manual for young men (12-18 years old - i.e., the Aaronic Priesthood):
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”
2. From the 90’s: RUSSELL M. NELSON:
”The commandment to love our neighbors without discrimination is certain. But it must not be misunderstood. It applies generally. Selection of a marriage partner, on the other hand, involves specific and not general criteria. After all, one person can only be married to one individual. The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background. ”
3. From the 80’s: SPENCER W. KIMBALL:
“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”
4. From the 70’s: BOYD K. PACKER:
“We counsel you…to marry…within your race. Now interracial marriages are not prohibited but they are not encouraged, for the blood that’s in your veins is the blood of the children of the covenant.”
5. From the 60’s: BRUCE R. McCONKIE:
“…[I]n a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”
6. From the 50’s: MARK E. PETERSEN:
“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”
Comment by tesseract — August 29, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
#46 & #47: Well said!
#49: Yeah, she could have used a different example, though I always felt a sense of blame even though they are owning up to what they did. Always sounded to me kinda like: “Billy, did you hit your sister?” “Well she hit me so then I hit her back.”
Genesis 3:11-13 (yes, I know you are quoting a more recent source than this):
11 …Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Comment by minnie mouse — August 29, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
tesseract 51,
The first four 70s thru 90s quotes appear to be pretty consistent with one another. The 40 year old 60s McConkie and 50s Peterson quote are from the Civil Rights era, they reflect then current situation and support it with history.
In between President Spencer W. Kimball got on his knees, asked for and received revelation concerning the Priesthood ban. McConkie explained it this way: Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
Was it inconsistent? Yes it was. Was the inconsistency of God? I believe it was.
Joseph Smith 1842: That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Thanks, Howard for your input and beliefs regarding the inconsistency. I have a hard time understanding the inconsistencies and, personally, tend to think that cultural upbringing and personal biases occasionally leak into the leaders counsel to the Church.
Comment by tesseract — August 29, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Howard (#53): Way to use JS’s justification for polygamy!
No but seriously, doesn’t that just confirm to our minds that God and man can change their minds, and that we should all place following our consciences above falling back upon an appeal to authority? Nephi certainly didn’t. Neither did Alma, priest of Noah. Neither did Joseph Smith. So why us? Because we’re not prophets? Well guess what? No one made any one of the men I mentioned above prophet through a bureaucratic decision like the process currently in place in the LDS church. These men acted upon promptings of the Holy Ghost to reject authoritative structures that were not right, and to commit acts that under normal circumstances are prohibited by God.
Which brings me to another question. The book of mormon and the bible are filled with historical periods where unrighteous kings and corrupt priests led the Lord’s people (often to destruction). Why should things be different in today’s age? I’m not insinuating that the current leadership of the church is corrupt necessarily, but why should they be infallible? There is no historical precedent for it.
Comment by Observer — August 29, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
tesseract,
I think that you are right about cultural upbringing and personal biases occasionally leak into the church. But, I can’t imaging the Lord not knowing or caring that this is taking place. The Lord gives us the highest laws that we can live at the time and it is not uncommon for laws to be repealed because we demonstrate that we cannot live them.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Observer,
God and man change their minds because man has been given agency and man is far from perfect. I am not arguning infalliblity, my personal motto is follow the Spirit, no Spirit, follow the Prophet.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
This whole discussion got started with the Mormons for Marriage post. Let’s not so much focus on past issues but the one at hand. Let’s focus on the living prophet. That’s who we’ll be judged for following or not. In the letter to members of the Church relating to Proposition 8 the First Presidency (whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators) said:
“We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”
The Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is unequivocal (clear, without doubt).
Now, you can discuss all you want but we were “asked” and “our best efforts are required.” Discussing, arguing, and pondering just waste time. If you don’t have a strong confirmation then you better work on it. The Holy Ghost is not going to contradict the living prophet.
D&C 58:29-33
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?
31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 29, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
“The Holy Ghost is not going to contradict the living prophet.”
*Sigh* - I am a STRONG supporter of Priesthood leadership, but history doesn’t validate that statement - in any era or dispensation - in any of our scriptures. I am NOT pointing this at the current Prop 8 situation, but our prophets are NOT infallible. That is the central issue on this thread.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Is it so much about the prophet being “right” vs. “wrong” or the prophet telling us what the Lord’s will is? Sometimes the Lord’s will is “wrong” (Nephi commanded to slay Laban, etc.)
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
#44 Observer. You and a few others are saying better and in few words part of what I was getting at.
You ask “whether or not an willful act (faith, love, obedience) toward the prophet (and by extension the apostles) is also directed toward God, and whether an act in opposition to those men acting in the office of their calling can still be positively obedient, loving, and faithful to God.”
While not a direct answer your excellent question, It seems that there are situations in which there are more than one proper action to be followed in service to God. Look at Romans 14. Paul tells the community that their beliefs should not present a stumbling block to the conscious of another. In this example the issue is keeping kosher, but its interesting how Paul states that for him the words of Christ are definitive regarding what is good to eat, yet keeping kosher is also considered to be an expression of faith and commitment to God.
The garden example is also a good one but for a different reason. Adam finds himself in a conflict in which obeying one commandment of God will mean breaking another. Either choice he makes will have the same result. We all know there is a great deal of LDS discussion about how and why Adam and Eve did what they did and why it was right. But in the immediate narrative context of the choice, Adam was in a situation in which he had to obey and disobey at the same time the structure of the conflict left no other option.
so the scriptures do contain examples where there is more than one way to be faithful, and at least one example of a case where us LDS folks take the breaking of a commandment as necessary and good.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 29, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Nephi being commanded to slay Laban is a excellent example of the JS quote in 53.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
“The Holy Ghost is not going to contradict the living prophet.”
What do you do when it does? Which is the greater sin? Disregarding the spirit or disregarding the prophet?
Comment by tesseract — August 29, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
#31—”And if we are asking the same source that the prophet is asking then we will never receive personal revelation to the contrary.”
I think this is the key. According to mortal logic, this is right. But God’s ways are not ours. That is why He asks us to have faith in Him and His methods. Something He tells us at one time may differ from what He tells us at a different time because we are different. We might tell a two-year-old to never touch the stove, but if that child continues to follow that command for the rest of her life, she’ll be in trouble.
Some might call it “mental gymnastics” to believe in the divine origin of a prophet’s teachings while still feeling a different genuine prompting by the Spirit for personal behavior, but it is simply humility. It is understanding that you may not know all things, and may not have the big picture. It is realizing that the Lord needs threads of different hues to weave the tapestry of the restored Church.
Comment by SilverRain — August 29, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Well said SilverRain.
Comment by Howard — August 29, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
#41
“All I am going to say on this is the first law in Heaven (and should be here on earth) is obedience. Plain, simple, true. ”
Cite?
Comment by Phouchg — August 29, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Elder Wirthlin gave a moving talk in which he pleaded with the Saints to welcome all who felt they didn’t fit in with the general active membership. He said that God values all the instruments in the orchestra, not just the piccolos (the mutant flutes with such a high pitched noise that they can be heard above all the other instruments, btw).
I have a hard time imagining that he would say, “It doesn’t matter what you think. Do what I tell you to do.”
In one of my favorite speeches of all time, Hugh B. Brown, of the First Presidency, said at BYU on March 29th, 1958:
“I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.
…Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that … in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, ‘From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us’.”
I have a hard time believing he would tell anyone to shut up and just do whatever he said, as well.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Douglas Hunter (#61):
Thanks for your comment. The Paul and Adam examples were really insightful for me on this subject.
Phouchg (#66): I’m guessing, but I suppose that #41 was referencing D&C 130:20-21: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” But I found a quote online attributed to Joseph F. Smith, who once said, “Obedience is the first law of heaven” (Journal of Discourses 16:247-248) (see ce.byu.edu/cw/cwfamily/archives/2005/Kofford.pdf) Additionally, there was an article in the January 2008 Ensign entitled “The first law of heaven” by William D. Oswald. I don’t know what to think of the way the Church has used this principle, but there it is.
Comment by Observer — August 29, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
When the Prophet speaks the debate is over… uh… no.
But when he sends a letter that is signed by the First Presidency and is read in your Sacrament meeting, the time for debate has ended and the time for prayerful seeking for a confirmation begins.
Outward expressions of contrarian agency above obedience is not the way. If you disagree with a letter read in sacrament meeting AND you feel you have a prayerful confirmation of a position in opposition of the First Presidency, then might I suggest you stay on your knees and pray for them.
If you are troubled about it, follow the Savior’s admonition to “pray on.” Then go see your Bishop.
Prop 8, is generating more discussion than it should within the church, those who find the request of the Prophet for support and assistance to be a direct commandment are “looking beyond the mark.” The Proclimation on the Family should have been sufficient to support the Prophet’s request without debate. That masterful document of doctrine should be your guide. If you disagree with the doctrine therein you might as well be debating the veracity of 1 Nephi 1:1.
Comment by David R — August 29, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
“The Proclimation on the Family should have been sufficient to support the Prophet’s request without debate.”
Is the POTF part of the scriptural canon, now?
Comment by Phouchg — August 29, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
Scriptural canon? No.
Word of God? Yes
Comment by kalon — August 29, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Just a few thoughts:
but the scriptures and the prophets themselves don’t claim to know infallibly when that happens.
and
I am NOT pointing this at the current Prop 8 situation, but our prophets are NOT infallible.
So, how can we know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet? Yes, we have the opportunity to pray about it, but we, too, are fallible and can be affected by weakness just as easily (if not more so?) as the prophets. To trust in ourselves alone has its own risk. (If we could figure it all out via conscience or even prayer, we wouldn’t need prophets or scriptures, but we have been told that without them, we would go astray).
So how does God help us get past the imperfection of humans to help us know and recognize His voice, to know when He really is speaking so we can know when and how to obey? There are a couple of things that come to mind.
1. The council system for one (15 prophets in united voice is pretty significant, for example, on this topic, with the Proclamation, etc.)
and
2. The law of witnesses (repeated concurrent voices and consistent, frequent teachings across time).
I often hear the argument that ‘well, a prophet was wrong about x, therefore they could be wrong about this.’ But not all counsel and teachings are alike, and therefore should not, imo, be treated alike. We simply can’t put an isolated quote or two by a past prophet that ended up not being accurate (rare though they are in the scheme of things) in the same camp as prophetic teachings that have been so consistent (both across current leaders and over time with past and present leaders), repeated (Pres. Eyring said that when words of prophets are repetitive, the law of witnesses has been invoked and we should rivet our attention!), and clear — and also focused on central elements of the plan, such as the nature of God, the role of the Savior, and the importance of marriage and family.
I think the prophets would be the first to tell us that they are human, but that in a sense is beside the point because we all are. IMO, we should be equally concerned about own weakness and tendency to be affected by cultural forces or bias or whatever else that might be used as reasoning to dismiss prophetic counsel. If we think they are prone to weakness and bias (given the council system and the law of witnesses, I think they are a lot less prone to it than some may think), why do we not more freely recognize our own tendency toward that. In my mind, it is because we are prone to weakness and being affected by cultural forces that prophets exist!
Besides, their humanness doesn’t change the fact that God has always used imperfect people to communicate with His children and that we will be held accountable for what we do with what they teach.
I sometimes try to imagine what it must have been like to hear Noah, or Lehi, or to stand with Moses at the banks of the Red Sea with the enemy closing in, or to have your life on the line waiting for something that seemed like an impossibility (a day and night and day without darkness). Following prophets has never been something that ‘makes sense’ to mortal thought or to immediate circumstance.
Ray mentioned Elder Hales’ talk. That was an awesome talk, but there is an important part of his talk that I think is worth mentioning here. Ray says: I have a hard time imagining that he would say, “It doesn’t matter what you think. Do what I tell you to do.”
Elder Wirthlin was very loving and kind, and he clearly acknowledged agency and God’s love and the desire to have open arms in the Church, but he also put some responsibility on individuals, and was also very clear about doctrine…that there are some things they can’t budge on.
There’s always tension where agency reigns supreme. We have never been told to check our brains at the door, but we are also commanded to be obedient to doctrine — even when it seems foolish, or perhaps even wrong.
Another thought … We are told that sometimes the way to know the truth of doctrine is to live it, to try it out, to experiment on the word. (John 7:17 and Alma 32 come to mind.) Each of us must decide how much to trust in our conscience/feelings/thoughts vs. how much to trust in prophetic teachings about doctrine, invitations, counsel, etc. And that’s a key part of the journey — to learn by our own experience.
But what is sobering to me about this issue in particular is that they are reminding us that our choices can go beyond just personal consequences or experience, but could affect nations and generations. What’s on the line here is not just personal spirituality but effects on society and generations to come — things that only seers are really in a place to warn about (and they don’t use the word ‘warn’ very often!). For me, that is compelling and sobering.
Sorry for the long comment again.
…And, imo, an important thing to consider is that as far as I understand it, we will be held accountable for what is taught now, not what we think or hope might be taught in the future. And prophets
Comment by m&m — August 29, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
I don’t disagree with anything you said, m&m. I just am bothered when the extreme gets taught - when the implication is that every word that a prophet speaks is straight from the mouth of God and must be followed by every member who accepts him as a prophet. None of our Prophets have taught that - ever.
I have a deep respect for prophetic counsel and command, and I very rarely disregard it, but I must leave open the possibility that I will need to do so again in the future - as an individual and based on my perception of the voice of the Spirit to me. I can’t shut off that conduit and place all the responsibility for my own actions on someone else - which is what the extreme does.
Comment by Ray — August 30, 2008 @ 12:32 am
Ray, I understand your concerns, but the challenge is that extremes can be taught at both ends of the spectrum. Frankly, in the ‘nacle, I think usually things swing too far to the ‘well prophets could be wrong’ end of things.
And I hope you can see that I don’t disagree with the importance of leaving space for personal revelation. As you say, we have never been told that following the prophet means not ever thinking or pondering or praying about what what to do to respond to what they teach. But by the same token, our covenants include sustaining our leaders, so following them should be something we take pretty seriously. Just like with so much in the gospel, balance is so important.
But the balance of all of this to me still goes back to what I said at first — personal choice and implementation (even revelation) are different from getting revelation about doctrine for everyone else or about the general value or rightness of the prophets’ words for everyone else. Personal revelation has bounds, and they end with our lives and our stewardships. Doctrine is not our stewardship.
If we use our agency to choose to disregard doctrine or counsel, that doesn’t change the legitimacy or trueness or rightness of the doctrine or counsel. Exceptions don’t change the rule. If one generalizes personal revelation, that is inconsistent with the order of how revelation works, and that can lead to problems, both for the individual and for others.
Comment by m&m — August 30, 2008 @ 1:19 am
This discussion and all of the discussions involving the recent Prop 8 actions of the church, seem to me often to miss the point. I do understand in what I’m about to say that there is probably little hope for me because I am (at least in my own head) a master rationalizer and have the heart (as well as the training) of a lawyer, always looking for religious loopholes. And I don’t live in California, so some of this is academic, but the greater principles aren’t, they are very practical.
In all these discussions, like the quoted comment, we quickly gloss over what constitutes doctrine and commandments. I don’t think any of the Prop 8 or ‘when the prophet speaks’ discussions have actually had much to do with doctrine or commandments, really.
A doctrine is like a fact, it requires no ascent from us. In this case, the doctrine, as best I can tell, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Actually, the FP letter refers to it as ‘the teaching and position” of the church, not doctrine, but let’s call it doctrine anyway. Similarly, the doctrine is that we should not drink alcohol. But the doctrine isn’t that members who fail to become politically active at the request of the church, whatever the issue, lose their temple recommends and go to hell. Is it? I know that the church views this, with no argument from me, as a moral issue, but what is requested is political participation.
The FP letter says: ‘we ask that you do all you can…” It doesn’t say “we command that you,,.” I think that is important. I don’t see this as a commandment, I see it as a request. Are they just being polite and am I just being dense? I don’t think so.
The church also asks that we obtain a year’s supply of food, to research our genealogy and submit those names to the temple for sealing, and to only pierce our female ears once, among other things my family and I aren’t probably doing either. I don’t disagree with any of those but you couldn’t tell by my family’s performance. We probably have a month or two of food and genealogy bores me to tears. I have two very active adult daughters with multiply-pierced ears. But I don’t see any commandments here at all. Good advice? Yes. The best practice? Sure. But no commandments, and, consequently, we are not motivated to do them in priority over things we actually enjoy doing. There are tons of things in the church we pretty much have to do even if we don’t like them, but I hate unnecessarily adding to the list. I also don’t feel my salvation or my temple recommend in jeopardy, at least for these examples.
I don’t see any negative consequences, either way, to simply sitting this one out. I don’t think the FP wants us insincerely to back their political requests. That would be worse, wouldn’t it? At least ineffective? I think responding to requests like this that one finds uncomfortable with “thank you, but I’d rather not, my heart really isn’t in this” without further explanation or argument should be adequate, and nearly always is. There seem to be plenty whose heart is in it to meet the need.
I do think that just as we aren’t compelled to adopt political positions we don’t share, we shouldn’t actively oppose the church in anything either. If you don’t want a pro-8 sign in your yard, fine. But don’t put up an anti-8 yard sign either. Just be quiet. I think that is the sacrifice required. That’s how the competing interests are balanced, at least for me. Vote your conscience, but be quiet. That isn’t dishonest. It isn’t disobedient. It is giving equal respect to one’s personal conviction and to the responsibilities of his or her church membership and testimony.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 30, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Jim,
My words that you quoted were more general than just Prop 8. FWIW.
Although I think this issue isn’t just a minor one (the document posted by the church repeatedly talks about the potential for serious consequences if gay marriage becomes legal), I think your last paragraph reflects some of the balance I was trying to get at. /if one has a differing opinion and/or chooses to “vote one’s conscience” in a way that is counter to the church’s position on this issue, that can be done quietly, while still respecting the position and actions of the church and others’ personal choices. Advocacy for an opposing position to me is problematic, and imo, inappropriate, for many reasons.
Comment by m&m — August 30, 2008 @ 9:24 am
and I agree with the distinction between support, non-support and opposition.
Comment by Ray — August 30, 2008 @ 9:28 am
m&m (#74): “Ray, I understand your concerns, but the challenge is that extremes can be taught at both ends of the spectrum. Frankly, in the ‘nacle, I think usually things swing too far to the ‘well prophets could be wrong’ end of things.”
I think the opposite extreme “follow the prophet no matter what/the prophet is always right” is actually “don’t ever listen to the prophet because he is wrong all the time”. A position that incorporates the possibility that the prophets could be wrong is actually “middle of the road” on the ideological spectrum. Just because a majority of LDS lie close to the extreme of “follow the prophet no matter what” doesn’t make a stance that rejects prophetic infallibility “extreme”.
Comment by Observer — August 30, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Jim, wait.
Lawyers have hearts…?
Comment by hero — August 30, 2008 @ 11:27 am
ACK! The smiley-wink of “I’m just kidding” didn’t post because of my technological incompetence!! I didn’t mean it, JIm! Sorry!
Comment by hero — August 30, 2008 @ 11:30 am
“If you don’t want a pro-8 sign in your yard, fine. But don’t put up an anti-8 yard sign either. Just be quiet. I think that is the sacrifice required.”
Jim- I appreciate your post there. What do you say to homosexual friends/family members who view your sacrifice as being supportive of prop 8? I’m not being sarcastic- I just find myself in this position, and it’s an uncomfortable one. How do we show love and support for family members and friends and still not do anything that would risk church membership.
It frustrates me that there has to be a fear of losing membership. I understand why we shouldn’t criticize church leaders, and I wouldn’t, but I don’t like having my actions dictated by fear. It doesn’t seem right.
Comment by Alliegator — August 30, 2008 @ 11:43 am
I’d explain about divided loyalties, something like this:
I love you all (gay friends) and I love my church and I hate it that I’ve been put in a position where I can’t show my love to both. But I can’t. I’m sure you (gay friends, everybody) have been put in similar position sometime in life, even if it is only loyalty between two friends. I’m sure you wish that my regard for you was more important than my loyalty to my church, but it isn’t, and I’m not going to apologize for that either. The two of you (my gay friends and church) have forced me into inactivity and silence. I don’t like it, but that’s the best I can do now.
I have no idea how satisfying that would be to either your gay friends or your stake president with a quota to meet (probably not very), but realistically that is the best you can do. Pray that they both understand. If they love you as much as you love them, they will.
It sucks (that’s a legal term), I know.
…and hero (#79 and 80), no problem.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 30, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Here in the UK we have had civil partnerships for some time,without any of this here ballyhoo.We had a few amongst the gay community ‘get married’ in a post modern sort of way-all very tongue in cheek.My gay friends who have been committed to an alternative way of relating,and to each other,for longer than myself and DH have not felt the need to legalise their relationship as their intention was always to live outside of the mainstream.With legal rights come legal responsibilities-alimony,lawyers etc and I think most of the gay community is way too savvy to get themselves into all of that when the whole idea is to have fun.We are making way too big a deal over this,and playing into the hands of hysterics on both sides.
Comment by wayfarer — August 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
78
I see what you mean, but for most members, that really isn’t as extreme as it gets.
Comment by m&m — August 30, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Also take a look at this page. Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman give a lot of advice on how to handle similar situations. They talk about when the person is family but I think it applies well to friends as well.
Comment by kalon — August 30, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Hm. I didn’t really make that clear, did I? What I have been thinking about as extreme is those who are so sure the prophet ‘could’ be wrong that they will actively and publicly oppose them.
But I can agree with the notion that somewhere there is some middle ground as people try privately to sort through how they feel about what the prophets teach.
I hope that makes a little more sense of the kind of spectrum I have in mind.
Comment by m&m — August 30, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Please go to our site where we list quotes from the prophets that say that if they disagree with scripture, we are to ignore the prophets’ words and follow the scriptures.
We also show where the prophets made mistakes. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the Lord wouldn’t allow us to land on the moon or send spacecraft to other planets.
We also show that the Church’s push is contrary to D&C 134:4 & 1 Cor. 10:29.
We’d love your feedback. www.lds4gaymarriage.org
Comment by Captain Moroni — August 30, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
#87 Capitan Moroni,
Thank you for the link.
I went to your site and began reading; What We Are Proposing – A Summary & A Solution. The third sentence focuses on “over a thousand legal benefits which the Federal government gives married couples.”
California Proposition 8 has nothing to do with legal benefits. SS partners already have legal benefits in California.
Comment by Howard — August 30, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Joseph Fielding Smith said that the Lord wouldn’t allow us to land on the moon or send spacecraft to other planets.
Perfect examples of isolated comments that are very, very different from unified teachings and doctrine, taught consistently by all 15 living prophets and verified over time by the repetition across prophets and decads. Apples and oranges, Cap’n.
Comment by m&m — August 31, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Think for yourself and act as the spirt directs, because Church doctrine and the words of Church leaders (including prophets) DO change. Trying to justify or rationalize why doctrine and words change is irrespective to the point.
Comment by Kona — August 31, 2008 @ 5:56 am
Jim, Jim, JIm
They were just being polite. When has the FP used the word “command?” The Lord commands. Wow, if we don’t get the drift then we really must be dense. I’m here in CA and I can tell you the mood is very much “who’s on the Lord’s side, who?”
First, I wouldn’t want to be in the position of explaining to the Lord disobedience to his servants. Doing nothing is disobedience because we were asked to act. Also, this is definitely not a political issue and the FP has made this very plain.
D&C 1:14-16
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.
Comment by 8ButNoHate — August 31, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Like I said, there seems to be plenty who really do have their heart in it.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 31, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
#91 writes:
“I’m here in CA and I can tell you the mood is very much “who’s on the Lord’s side, who?””
I am in CA as well and I agree that this attitude is common.
I guess no one remembers Author Miller.
Comment by Douglas Hunter — August 31, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
In 2007, the LDS church published an instructive statement about church doctrine. In fact, it actually serves to legitimize whatever stance one would like to take on this (or any other) question. I know this likely makes many people uncomfortable (”if we can’t say for sure what church leaders have said are binding as doctrine, then what do we really know?”), but nothing has really changed. We are the ones who participate in “creating” doctrine by the ways in which we, at the local level, enact the gospel.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Comment by Perpetually Amazed — September 5, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
I’ve been catching up, more or less. I’ve missed a lot. I have two things, stories actually three, I would like to related.
1. I remember an election was when the press asked David O. McKay the prophet which presidential candidate he was going to vote for. He responded he thought he would vote for Nixon. Such an uproar followed that a short time later he came out and said he was not endorsing Nixon for President, neither was he tell the members of the church how they should vote, he was simply stating that he was considering Nixon as his personal choice and people should make up their own minds.
2. While Earnest Wilkinson was president of BYU a story circulated about his stubbornness and determination in getting what he wanted out of the Board of Directors. There was something he wanted really badly and had proposed it in various forms over rand over. Eventually his one of his versions reached the prophet. He and another member of the Board of Directors met with the prophet and he was turned down. On their way out of meeting Pres. Wilkinson began thinking out loud and coming up with a new frame of reference for the old proposal. His companion said to him , “When the Prophet speaks the debate is over.” It was only then that Wilkinson gave up his plan.
3. There was an article in Dialog quite some time ago that dealt with the time period when Ezra Taft Benson, then an Apostle, appeared in speaking engagements with the head of the John Birch Society. There was a good deal of divisiveness at that time. According to the article a group of these Birchers conceived of a plan to oust David O McKay from office of prophet. Their plan was to get enough people at general conference to vote against him when it came time to sustain the officers of the church that he would not be sustained The article further explained that the general authorities got wind of this plan and were able to fend it off.
It has been since that time that the brethren have closed ranks and we began to hear all the follow the brethren talks that were a clear departure from what had previously been the case.
It is my opinion and only my opinion that we are still free to believe what ever we want and be in good standing in the Church as long as we don’t teach it as doctrine. Others may not agree. That’s fine.
Comment by Claudia — October 4, 2008 @ 10:02 am
There are many other churches to join. Find one you agree with. Let go of your anger and move on. If you don’t believe in prophets this is not your church. Free agency is real. You may have something to say about that too. But it is so use it and find somewhere where you will be happy and move on and build instead of spending a miserable life tearing down. Good luck in the next life. Whew
Comment by sherry — October 11, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Doctrine and Covenents, Official Declaration 1,”The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)”
Comment by KingOfTexas — October 17, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Wow, reading all of this has sure made me think. Maybe you all are right. I think perhaps this church is not right after all.
Comment by Katie — December 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm