Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[MustardSeed]

I used to think this way. 
 

I believe it was what I was taught on the primary level. I never graduated to critical thinking.  Unfortunately, real life is complicated, as is religion IMO.  Presently, I can live with the “nuance” as they say.  But it does require me to think for myself and be clear with myself about what I actually believe other than an automatic following. It would be much easier to operate from that primary way of understanding. 
I also get it that many folks do believe that it is wrong to question anything that the 12 might say because they are men of God and they are speaking for God at all times.  I mean, we are kind of taught that aren’t we?  Isn’t there a song about that?

 

[MustardSeed]

Sorry about the title. I’m from Seattle after all. Yeah Hawks

[Pyreaux]

You can edit the title. Must we fully agree with the 12 to fully sustain them? I don't suppose. They disagreed with each other. B.H. Roberts, John A. Winstoe and James Talmage disagreed with the Prophet Joseph Feilding Smith on evolution and successfully left the matter open, that is with the Prophet still disagreeing. But I'll be thinking about it for a while.

[rpn]

We are obligated to confirm what our leaders (or anyone else for that matter) with the Spirit.    I don't think any of us ever are obligate to simply accept because even a general authority says so.

[bluebell]

I'd say no, it's not sinful.  They are called as special witnesses of Christ and as watchmen on the tower.  Believing every word they utter about God or the gospel is dictated to them by the Spirit would be looking beyond the mark, in my opinion, and would also mean a belief that they were infallible.  And they clearly aren't.

[Pyreaux]

50 minutes ago, rpn said:

We are obligated to confirm what our leaders (or anyone else for that matter) with the Spirit.    I don't think any of us ever are obligate to simply accept because even a general authority says so.

In the administration of the church, they have the absolute right to make policies, if we value our membership, we must comply with even if they are wrong and we might disagree. I'm thinking of the priesthood ban, while wrong, those excommunicated for openly violating the policy were also wrong. 

The military "Lawful Order" doctrine, if a culture allows individuals to choose which orders to follow based on personal judgment, the chain of command dissolves. When they give an order, it happens. Order must be followed, even if it seems tactically "stupid" or "wrong", as long as it is legal.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I used to think this way. 
 

I believe it was what I was taught on the primary level. I never graduated to critical thinking.  Unfortunately, real life is complicated, as is religion IMO.  Presently, I can live with the “nuance” as they say.  But it does require me to think for myself and be clear with myself about what I actually believe other than an automatic following. It would be much easier to operate from that primary way of understanding. 
I also get it that many folks do believe that it is wrong to question anything that the 12 might say because they are men of God and they are speaking for God at all times.  I mean, we are kind of taught that aren’t we?  Isn’t there a song about that?

 

Never thought this way and very, very grateful for parents that didn’t support this way of thinking.  I know it was at least implied, if not taught outright at church, but I have never viewed anyone in my life as a role model that I can remember or someone I admired to the point of accepting them as an authority, I have never idealized people in that way.  I have always picked individual aspects out to adapt and adopt rather than assumed because I liked this about them, they must be doing other stuff well as well.

When young I did believe if leaders came out and said it was from God, that part of what they said was from God as if God had spoken it, but I shifted smoothly to recognizing they had to interpret the Spirit themselves and then find words to convey that interpretation.  Probably at least by midteens, if not a few years before.  Mom talked to me a lot about Joseph’s spiritual experiences and I interpreted his experience as more struggling for words to describe and share what he knew through personal experience.  Whether this was more a reflection of Mom than Joseph, I don’t know. 

Edited February 20 by Calm

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The military "Lawful Order" doctrine, if a culture allows individuals to choose which orders to follow based on personal judgment, the chain of command dissolves. When they give an order, it happens. Order must be followed, even if it seems tactically "stupid" or "wrong", as long as it is legal.

As long as it is legal is a big condition though.

Whst would that look like in a religious context?

[Pyreaux]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

As long as it is legal is a big condition though.

What would that look like in a religious context?

Hmmm. A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness. My deep thoughts about Priesthood Ban are I wouldn't be the surprised God let it happen just to humble the Saints.

Though in the military, you follow the orders first and complain later. In LDS doctrine, there is a concept of dual testimony. The leader receives the revelation for the group. The individual is expected to seek a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit that the leader's direction is correct. If a member feels the leader is "wrong," the cultural suggestion is often the member should check again or check at least their own humility rather than publicly correcting the leader. Like "insubordination" in the military.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I used to think this way. 
 

I believe it was what I was taught on the primary level. I never graduated to critical thinking.  Unfortunately, real life is complicated, as is religion IMO.  Presently, I can live with the “nuance” as they say.  But it does require me to think for myself and be clear with myself about what I actually believe other than an automatic following. It would be much easier to operate from that primary way of understanding. 
I also get it that many folks do believe that it is wrong to question anything that the 12 might say because they are men of God and they are speaking for God at all times.  I mean, we are kind of taught that aren’t we?  Isn’t there a song about that?

 

I guess if we at least "sustain" the Apostles as the 4th temple recommend asks we are OK:
"Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?"

Does sustain mean we don't question everything they say? It means we support them as leaders of the Church and as prophets, seers, and revelators.
For me it's easier to believe most everything they say and if it turns out they are wrong they will be held accountable for it; not me. 
But I still study things and receive my own witness that what they say is true. I have never had the feeling that they were ever wrong; especially if they all agree on a certain point of doctrine. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness

At what point does suboptimal become unlawful in a religious context?  So one doesn’t wait to complain, but rejects.

[The Nehor]

If it is then I sin a lot.

I also sin a lot in other ways too though.

[the narrator]

Seems there was inspiration in early revelations to Joseph Smith requiring revelations and policies by top leadership to be adjudicated by the general membership rather than giving them unilateral authority. Perhaps much wrong could have been prevented over the past nearly two decades.

[rpn]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

we must comply with even if they are wrong and we might disagree

But that is materially different from the original question of whether or not it is sinful.   When you do wrongful things by compulsion of misguided or wicked leaders, they are the ones that bear the sin, not the member doing it.

[Pyreaux]

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

But that is materially different from the original question of whether or not it is sinful.   When you do wrongful things by compulsion of misguided or wicked leaders, they are the ones that bear the sin, not the member doing it.

Most certainly.

[MustardSeed]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Hmmm. A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness. My deep thoughts about Priesthood Ban are I wouldn't be the surprised God let it happen just to humble the Saints.

Though in the military, you follow the orders first and complain later. In LDS doctrine, there is a concept of dual testimony. The leader receives the revelation for the group. The individual is expected to seek a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit that the leader's direction is correct. If a member feels the leader is "wrong," the cultural suggestion is often the member should check again or check at least their own humility rather than publicly correcting the leader. Like "insubordination" in the military.

Exactly. There’s a tremendous amount of pressure to follow all directives given by leadership.

there is absolutely no way for these human beings who lead to be always correct. In fact, imo, there are times when such directives actually do damage. 
 

It is actually a cultish mindset in my opinion to believe everything that is said or to follow every directive.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

But that is materially different from the original question of whether or not it is sinful.   When you do wrongful things by compulsion of misguided or wicked leaders, they are the ones that bear the sin, not the member doing it.

So for all the talk of moral agency, we're just supposed to instead be blind lemmings and pass on moral responsibility to others?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

But that is materially different from the original question of whether or not it is sinful.   When you do wrongful things by compulsion of misguided or wicked leaders, they are the ones that bear the sin, not the member doing it.

What if you know they are wrong rather than just having doubts?

Iow, you know it will be a sin if you do it?

Edited February 20 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What if you know they are wrong rather than just having doubts?

I know you didn’t ask me, but I think in this situation you would have to turn to God to see what He wants you to do.  I think it would also depend on what kind of “wrong“ we were talking about. Policy wrong and morally wrong are vastly different things.

And I don’t think we should outsource our decision-making to the spirit either. I think we would have to really ponder and come up with a plan for how to proceed, but then I think we have a duty to go to God for confirmation if that’s how He would want us to handle it.

Knowing that they said something that is incorrect or want you to do something that isn’t what you should do doesn’t mean that we can then proceed based on our own beliefs or desires.

[Kenngo1969]

12th [sic] what?  12th [sic] who?   Does this mean we can ignore the other 11 apostles?   (Sorry.   Couldn't resist! )

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Exactly. There’s a tremendous amount of pressure to follow all directives given by leadership.

there is absolutely no way for these human beings who lead to be always correct. In fact, imo, there are times when such directives actually do damage. 
 

It is actually a cultish mindset in my opinion to believe everything that is said or to follow every directive.

Even if all 15 Apostles agree on the directive? That's why there are 15 of them. If any one does or says anything wrong they will be corrected, and that has happened a few times. So far trusting them has not done me any harm. 

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness.

I have found that this issue is a central part of my own faith crisis, and this does seem to be a common answer. Thoughts, in no particular order and questionable ability to make them make sense.

As noted, we often suggest that there are other virtues higher than "correctness." Humility and discipline, obedience, order, the perpetuation and growth of the church, sincerity, diligence. Early in my life, before it became more nuanced, I thought that truth (aka "correctness") was the highest virtue, but it seems that truth is not -- or not always -- the highest virtue. The question might then be, how do we know when to uncompromisingly seek truth, and when do we compromise our quest for truth in favor of one of these other virtues?

Others have brought up the question of superior orders ("Nuremberg defense"). Human courts have gone back and forth as to what level of accountability or absolution to offer subordinates who are just following orders from their superiors. I can't help but think that, if human courts can find that one cannot always be absolved of wrongdoing just because the commandment came from a superior officer, then God's courts will find that we cannot simply absolve ourselves of sin just because the prophet told us to do it.

In a couple of months, our SS curriculum will bump up against one of the ugliest examples, and build an entire lesson on the virtue of obedience based on that example -- 2 Sam 15 when the prophet Samuel claimed that God commanded him to command Saul to slaughter the neighboring Amalekites for various reasons, and Saul, out of greed, it seems, didn't follow through all the way on that commandment. Our curriculum doesn't suggest asking the question of whether it is ever appropriate to look a prophet in the eye and refuse to obey -- even when the commandment is genocide.

I don't think I "know" any answers to all of this. For myself, I find myself unconvinced that order in the church or the perpetuation/growth of the church are such high virtues if they must occur at the expense of moral integrity. I think God mostly wants me to follow my own moral compass and trust Him to be able to redeem me when my compass errs. Hopefully I will have the humility to seek His will when things are hard to discern.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

12th [sic] what?  12th [sic] who?   Does this mean we can ignore the other 11 apostles?   (Sorry.   Couldn't resist! )

Yes typo.  But hey, 12th man, go Hawks 

[MustardSeed]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Even if all 15 Apostles agree on the directive? That's why there are 15 of them. If any one does or says anything wrong they will be corrected, and that has happened a few times. So far trusting them has not done me any harm. 

I do think 15 people can be, and have been, errant. 

[Danzo]

I think any of us is entitled to seek and receive revelation on anything taught by the 12 apostles and First presidency.

If God can reveal it to them, He can reveal it to us.