"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[longview]

On 6/18/2026 at 12:41 AM, The Nehor said:

Its ardent establishment of slavery as a good and allowed institution?

Ardent? Only in your twisted and unbalanced review of scriptures.

There were many provisions in the Law of Moses that tried to mitigate various corrupt practices of human relations and point to a better way.

One example was indentured servitude. When two parties entered into an economic arrangement for exchange of goods or services, it usually is completed with the expected outcome. If not, then the the party that was "shorted" will "bind" the other party to various kinds of menial servitude.

The Law of Moses put a limit on the duration of servitude to 7 years.

Edited June 21 by longview

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Ardent? Only in your twisted and unbalanced review of scriptures.

There were many provisions in the Law of Moses that tried to mitigate various corrupt practices of human relations and point to a better way.

One example was indentured servitude. When two parties entered into an economic arrangement for exchange of goods or services, it usually is completed with the expected outcome. If not, then the the party that was "shorted" will "bind" the other party to various kinds of menial servitude.

The Law of Moses put a limit on the duration of servitude to 7 years.

Indentured servitude/debt slavery was used as a way of temporarily enslaving fellow Israelites. This existed in parallel with regular lifelong chattel slavery inherited by your children slavery that was (usually) limited to foreigners.

Debt slavery is a common feature of the ancient world and is not Israel or its God showing a ‘better way’. Debt slavery predates the Law of Moses. What you shared is an apologetic to try to defend God by trying to make debt slavery a humane institution (it wasn’t). Another common apologetic is to focus on this form of debt slavery and then try to politely ignore the lifelong slavery God tells the Israelites to practice on foreigners. Ignoring the more harsh form of slavery is a much more twisted and unbalanced review of scripture.

Debt slavery is still going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

Debt slavery is not a benevolent alternative to slavery. In some cultural contexts it is less harsh but it is still an evil and an offense to human dignity. God prescribes both debt slavery and chattel slavery in the Law of Moses and endorses their use. 

The Law of Moses is also inconsistent on the seven years thing. One account has seven years be the norm for all debt slaves while in another it only applied to men. Women sold into sex slavery were exempt from being freed after seven years. So you have to specify whether you are using the code from Exodus or the code from Deuteronomy.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Indentured servitude/debt slavery was used as a way of temporarily enslaving fellow Israelites. This existed in parallel with regular lifelong chattel slavery inherited by your children slavery that was (usually) limited to foreigners.

Debt slavery is a common feature of the ancient world and is not Israel or its God showing a ‘better way’. Debt slavery predates the Law of Moses. What you shared is an apologetic to try to defend God by trying to make debt slavery a humane institution (it wasn’t). Another common apologetic is to focus on this form of debt slavery and then try to politely ignore the lifelong slavery God tells the Israelites to practice on foreigners. Ignoring the more harsh form of slavery is a much more twisted and unbalanced review of scripture.

Debt slavery is still going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

Debt slavery is not a benevolent alternative to slavery. In some cultural contexts it is less harsh but it is still an evil and an offense to human dignity. God prescribes both debt slavery and chattel slavery in the Law of Moses and endorses their use. 

The Law of Moses is also inconsistent on the seven years thing. One account has seven years be the norm for all debt slaves while in another it only applied to men. Women sold into sex slavery were exempt from being freed after seven years. So you have to specify whether you are using the code from Exodus or the code from Deuteronomy.

Then there is the whole problem with why they would need to resort to selling themselves or their children into debt slavery, why the system didn’t have a better safety net for the poor.

And how often were debt slaves going to be able to be financially independent enough after 7 years of servitude to avoid debt slavery again?

Edited June 21 by Calm

[california boy]

On 6/16/2026 at 2:42 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

My point in citing The Man Who Would Be King is to show what happens when people make overreaching claims of authority to secure conformity, whether that do so naively (as often happens in every human community, time and place, as the Perry Scheme teaches me to expect) or as a conspiracy, in Carnahan's case.  What should I expect of Latter-day Saint leadership is a different issue than what some people claim for Latter-day Saint leadership, and what some people demand from them, or report that "this is not what I was taught."  So, "Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom," is a very different admonition than, "Trust me. If I heard it church, it is beyond question."  I read all the verses in D&C 1 in context, and that full context resists the very misreading that annoys you.  "This is mine authority and the authority of my servants."  Both kinds of authority are spelled out in detail.  D&C 1 does not say of Latter-day Saints leader that:

Rather the opposite. A significant question is, why do some readers skip over the relevant verses that bluntly spell out weaknesses, errors that will be made manifest, and that revelation comes from time to time based on inquiry and expedience, and jump to an over-reaching reading of just D&C 1:38?  In the Myers-Briggs Type indicator, SJ personality types clearly have a tendency to respect authority and tradition, and to favor conformity and sameness.  As with the Perry Scheme, that describes human characteristics, not Latter-day Saint peculiarity.

A better reading of Amos 3:7 is "surely the LORD God with do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" ought to consider the underlying Hebrew.

Should I just stop with "What I was taught" or seem to remember by whomever in Sunday School, or, like Abraham, "seek to possess greater knowledge," and "seek out of the best books words of wisdom," not just "seek out of official publications words of orthodoxy"?  In cultural context, the Hebrew tells me that the prophets ought to provide knowledge of the Council in Heaven (something Joseph Smith did in fact, provide), NOT that I should expect them all to be omniscient and inerrant, and eager to pour that knowledge into my waiting palm, according to my personal whims.  

D&C 1 overall does not blur the lines.  Rather, people who want absolute certainty without effort, blur the lines.  And that tendency is common to humanity, to human development, not due to any Latter-day monopoly on overreach.

Consider the opposite of the way D&C 121 encourages the Latter-day Saint priesthood holders to behave:

Who does that that picture bring to mind?  Anyone prominent?

Some people want their authorities to be perfect, as that removes from their lives any personal responsibility to think for themselves or question themselves.  See Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (New York Harper and Row, 1951). The
strength of the ''True Believer" mode is the zeal such persons possess, with an accompanying willingness to sacrifice all things, if necessary, for the cause. Hoffer claims that no mass movement ever succeeded without such people. The
weaknesses of the mode derive from its rigidity, the tendency to polarized thinking and brittIe background expectations. True believers can demonstrate what Joseph Smith referred to as a "zeal that is not according to knowledge." A number
of the most vocal critics of the Church are former true believers, who when their too-brittle faith shatters, become true anti-believers.  That is, they change direction but not their character. 

The claim of the Book of Abraham by the Latter-day Saint scholars is that it is a translation, not the original.  I have many books and have read many papers on the topic.  I personally think the Book of Abraham is one of the strongest parts of the restoration.  And frankly, when I read stuff that purports to blow down the entire edifice of Latter-day Saint belief via some Book of Abraham issue, I don't find myself impressed.  Inevitably, these days, I observe that there are telling gaps in what they tell me.  For example, I like the big FARMS volume on old Abraham Traditions that match the Book of Abraham, a large body of details that fretting over what "by the hand of Abraham" implies, does nothing to solve.  I can see how they see and why, but they don't ever account for what I see. 

You ask, "When the church speaks of Revelation from God, what do you think that even means?"  I find this relevant:

Mark reports that Jesus says of this parable, "Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?"

The revelations are not going to be received and nurtured in the same way, nor contextualized nor interpreted in the same way, nor will the same seed produce the same harvest in every case.  I have long been interested in the ones who produce the best and most impressive harvests.  And I did a study of the Latter-day Saint claims of religion in the context of World Religions and came up with this:

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

And personally, what I have experienced as revelation in my own life has born impressive harvests.  I consider sitting next to Brent Metcalfe at a Sunstone back in 1999, when he described how he was driving in Salt Lake and just realized all at once that all of faith and belief was a sham.  If I had trusted his insight into reality whole while just driving around Salt Lake City as decisive, I consider a great many books and experiences that I subsequently encountered and I personally value, and recognize that had I taken his view, I would not have even known what I was missing.  But in holding on to my initial personal witnesses, not just for the moments in which they occurred, but the harvest over many seasons that came as a result, I cherish what has come of them.

My own expectations of prophets, I don't think are lower, but are more accurate, and produce realistic expectations.  Again, "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  So "What should I expect?" is a question that leads to checking one's own eye for beams, which  in turn, leads to clearer vision.  When I personally searched and discovered that the Bible contains at least 28 distinctive tests for True and False prophets, I was a bit startled to realize that anyone could have done what I did, and no one had.  I was not included to toss it all in the garbage, because, after all, no one taught it to me at church.  Is what I learn on my own initiative of no worth, compared to what some person with no notable exertion or qualifications utters?  So when I see something that strikes me as inaccurate, I see people in process, humanity doing what humans in process do, not gathering grievances to use for leverage.   When I see you say "the church exploited what people thought" I consider that the Greek behind "church" is "eklesia" which refers to an assembly, a gathering of people, of individuals of all kinds, who behave in human ways.  So I see people in the assembly doing what they themselves thought best, rather than people who knew better exploiting the ignorant for malicious personal gain.  The church consists of individual people, and is not a personified monolithic Entity that acts from a single unified malicious motive.

You ask, 

Sure, if you realize that I always consider questions like these as particularly telling in light of two things.  First, Kuhn's observation that all paradigm choice involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  And second, this passage from an art book by Betty Edwards that to me remains the single most important insight I have discovered relative to why people differ on issues of faith and life.

First, 

The Latter-day Saint Temple ritual openly speaks of "becoming priestesses."  Clearly, "never" is wrong.  And then Apostle Oaks spoke in a General Conference a few years back on how when any woman in the Church accepts any calling, that calling involves their use of Priesthood authority because "What other authority could it be?"

Second,

Since such things obviously happen, clearly God does not prevent such things.  I have a brother and a best friend whose spouses left them to enter into series of such relationships.  One eventually left off that decade long series and entered into a temple marriage.  The other did not but remains in the other life style.  The Latter-day Saint faith operates under the principle that "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  The recent legislation in Utah supporting Gay rights has been cited as exemplary, and the cooperation of the church was involved.  The leaders obviously do not recommend such relationships, and cite the proclamation on the Family in relation.  

Neither question, to me, engages what Hugh Nibley called "The Terrible Questions."

I've been attending 12 Step Meetings for a little over 20 years, and one thing I notice is that typically a third to a quarter of those attending and sharing disclose same sex desires and experience.  In SA, many of these are men who are striving to stay in a heterosexual marriage, and in SAA, I see some who want to stay in a same sex marriage or relationship.  I do not assert that being gay is addiction, but that someone who is gay is just as vulnerable to addiction as someone bi or straight. One of the defining characteristics of sex addiction is the feeling that "sex is my most important need."  (Again, think of Kuhn and Edwards:  "Which problems are most significant to have solved?" and what do we decide is most important?).  It happens that physiologically speaking, addiction happens because at some point in life, a dopamine and other brain chemical "hit" became so profound as to trick the body into treating the cause of that hit to as equivalent to survival, as a physical need, rather than something optional even if desired.  (For the details, see the video "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction").   It happens that 12 Step Recovery actually addresses and heals the physiological changes in the brain that underlie addiction.   The group support and boundaries adopted helps a person go without long enough for the body to heal of the increased desire, and the "searching and fearless moral inventory", story sharing that reduces shame, and dismantling of grievance stories removes feelings of entitlement, actually changes the way a person thinks and allows them to respond to threats by considering experience and consequences, rather than being launched into acting out by "triggers" and deal with consequences later.  The point of this is to demonstrate that I know from personal experience that assuming that the existence of heterosexual marriage demonstrates the unfairness of God in allowing some people sexual fulfillment while eternally condemning others to permanent frustration is not accurate.  In many cases, due to a range of physical and emotional issues, people in a heterosexual marriage may choose to go without in order to preserve family relationships.  They can best do if they have found a way to understand and feel that "sex is not my most important need, but is optional."  

So, "Which problems do I see as most significant to have solved?"  That God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the Restoration is Real, that the Book of Mormon is authentic, and that the Book of Abraham is very very cool indeed.   And also that beyond the boundaries of the Latter-day Saint community that "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."  (Alma 29:8)

FWIW,
Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

You have certainly spent a LOT of time trying to figure out a way to dispel some of the previous messaging by church leaders.  And your reading on Amos 3:7 may very well be a better interpretation of the original intent of what Amos wrote.  But that is not how the church leaders used that verse.  For example, that verse has been a part of the missionary discussions at least since the 70's and is still a part of the missionary discussions and is used even today to convince investigators that prophets and apostles are necessary to receive revelation from God and are the only ones that are authorized to receive revelation concerning church doctrine and policies.  Rom 

From the current missionary discussion manual 

 

Quote

 

God Reveals the Gospel through Prophets in Every Dispensation

Prophets Are God’s Representatives on Earth

One important way that God shows His love for us is by calling prophets, giving them priesthood authority, and inspiring them to speak for Him. Prophets are God’s representatives on earth. The Old Testament prophet Amos recorded that “the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

 

 

 

From the current church's web site 

 

Quote

 

Amos 3:7

This verse teaches us about the essential role of prophets.

The Lord God

“Because our Father loves his children, he will not leave us to guess about what matters most in this life concerning where our attention could bring happiness or our indifference could bring sadness. Sometimes he will tell a person such things directly, by inspiration. But he will, in addition, tell us these important matters through his servants. … He does this so that even those who cannot feel inspiration can know, if they will only listen, that they have been told the truth and been warned.”

President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, “The Family,” Liahona, Oct. 1998, 12; Ensign, Feb. 1998, 10.

He Revealeth

How does the Lord communicate with His prophets? There are many ways, including:

• Inspiration through the Holy Ghost (see 2 Peter 1:21).

• Visions and dreams (see Numbers 12:6; 1 Nephi 8:2).

• Visitations by heavenly beings (see Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17; D&C 110:8).

His Secret

The original Hebrew word used in the Bible for secret literally means “counsel,” so it has to do with the Lord’s plans or intentions.

His Servants the Prophets

“Repeatedly the scriptures declare that the Lord gives His commandments to the children of men through living prophets. No committee, assembly, or any other authority has the right to dictate to Him doctrine that is contrary to His law. God’s eternal blessings are contingent upon our obedience and adherence to the word of the Lord that is revealed to us through His holy prophets.”

Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “We Believe All That God Has Revealed,” Liahona and Ensign,Nov. 2003, 88.

 

 

There is clearly an expectation created and taught by church leaders that God speaks to prophets of the church to reveal His will and messages.  Church leaders. have even gone so far as to say "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done".  So yeah, I am glad you have figured out a way out of this very narrow box of members expectations of the role of a prophet in todays church, but there are clearly a LOT of members who have had very different perspectives that they were taught and continue to be taught that there is an expectation of revelations coming from God and the prophet is His mouthpiece.  This expectation has caused a lot of difficulty when the internet has made those teachings of past prophets so easily available some of which are very troubling to them.  It is why past teachings is the number one cause of many leaving the church.  I don't think you can lay all the blame on them for both being upset and feeling lied to about the church's narrative they were taught.  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Church leaders. have even gone so far as to say "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done".  

Could you provide some references to where Church leaders have said this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Then there is the whole problem with why they would need to resort to selling themselves or their children into debt slavery, why the system didn’t have a better safety net for the poor.

And how often were debt slaves going to be able to be financially independent enough after 7 years of servitude to avoid debt slavery again?

It is also worth noting in the Code of Hammurabi that debt slavery was allowed but they could not be held in bondage for more than three years. The Torah allowed for over twice that. It is hard to see this as God softening the institution of slavery.

It is in question whether the Torah was ever actually the law of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and even if the ancestral texts that came to be the Torah were around they likely weren’t the law “on the books” that were enforced. It might be more of an aspirational thing.

To be fair there weren’t social safety nets available pretty much anywhere in the ancient beyond family and friendship bonds and the vertical networks the subsistence farmers had with the “big man” that ruled the area. Debt slavery was the safety net and it was brutal and horrible. You can find a reference to the system itself in work in Genesis 47 during the seven years of famine where Pharoah (and Joseph) acquire all the herds of the people first in exchange for food. Then they give up ownerships of all of their land. Then they give themselves into slavery for food. So God’s salvation plan for Egypt was to enslave all the Egyptians…..yikes. It also seems a little horrible that the food they sold to the people was taxed out of them during the years of plenty (sort of). So they bought back their own food in exchange for their freedom. Joseph was sold into slavery and then rose to power to become the enslaver. What a heartwarming story.

There was a provision in the Torah that when you let the debt slaves go you had to liberally provide them with resources to start over. This was almost certainly aspirational and not how things were practiced. More likely they went back into debt trying to survive. In the Book of Nehemiah we have stories of the Israelite aristocracy using a famine to consolidate lands and enslave the poor. Nehemiah forces them to stop it and let them go. There is also a story of freeing slaves as commanded by the Law and then kidnapping them and forcing them back into slavery and being stopped. I have no idea if these accounts are historically accurate but the anxieties behind them are very real. The powerful tended to push the subsistence farmers down to bare subsistence and try to leech off any surplus. They would also use tricks to acquire more lands and enslave their peasants to try to increase their ability to extract from them.

In the Old Testament many of the prophets railed against these practices where the poor were oppressed so the wealthy could consolidate land ownership and deny the poor any hope of an inheritance.

 

The ancient world was an unforgiving place. I am not trying to suggest that Israel was some kind of regressive state surrounded by relative utopias. It wasn’t a hellhole polity (that would be Sparta actually). Things were rough everywhere. Israel was also not substantially better morally or economically compared to other nations unless you listened to their own propaganda that insisted they were. Just like the propaganda of all the other nations.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some references to where Church leaders have said this?

Thanks,

-Smac

This teaching has been around as early as 1945 when the church used to print a message that was to be delivered by the home teachers to the members for June 1945.  The message was centered around sustaining church leaders.  The last paragraph reads.  

Quote

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is Gods plan.  When they point a 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 in the kingdom of God

This idea was also taught by Elaine Cannon at a churchwide fireside and reprinted in the Ensign in November, 1978.  

It was repeated by N. Eldon Tanner in the First Presidents Message that appeared in the Ensign on August 1979

 

Quote

 

First Presidency Message

“The Debate Is Over”

By President N. Eldon Tanner

First Counselor in the First Presidency

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” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).

I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet. Why else has the Lord placed prophets on the earth throughout the dispensations of time? In his infinite wisdom, and as part of the plan of life and salvation for his children, God has given us the blueprint to follow, the leadership to direct us and keep us on course, and the Church organization to help us lay the foundation and develop the skills, or make the preparation necessary, to lead us back to our eternal home.

It is foolish to suppose that men can be left to their own devices and accomplish what God intended for them. That is just as unreasonable as it would be to leave a newborn babe on its own and expect it to learn to walk and talk and feed and clothe itself without assistance from those responsible for its care and training. A child so neglected and left alone would soon perish.

So it is with us. Without a knowledge and understanding of the gospel, or God’s plan for his children, we cannot live according to the law which is necessary for our salvation; and therefore, those who neglect their spiritual training or fail to heed the warning voice of the prophets will suffer a spiritual death.

It is difficult to understand why there are so many people who fight against the counsel of the prophet and for the preservation of the very things that will bring them misery and even death. As one example, let us consider the Word of Wisdom. Soon after the restoration of the gospel and organization of the Church, the Lord gave a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith which we call the Word of Wisdom. It warned that tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, among other things, were not good for man, and should not be used by the Saints.

Now this was quite revolutionary at that time, for the use of these things was not considered detrimental to health. For many years after the revelation was given, people thought the Mormons peculiar because they abstained from these seemingly harmless substances. Then scientists began to discover many harmful effects of tobacco, and today we are made increasingly aware of the health hazards caused by the use of tobacco, tea, coffee, and alcohol, with additional warnings about the risks involved for the unborn children of pregnant women.

Latter-day Saints should be able to accept the words of the prophets without having to wait for science to prove the validity of their words. We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages.

Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval.

Why should there be any debate over the moral issues which are confounding the world today? From the beginning God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which are clear on these matters.

History and experience have proven that whenever and wherever there is departure from following the word of the Lord, calamity occurs. Civilizations have fallen; there has been general and individual destruction; there have been weeping and wailing and great sorrow; there have been famine and pestilence. Only Satan and his cohorts have been left to rejoice. He is the author of the debates on moral issues. He has sworn to thwart the purposes of God. He it is who deceives and lays in wait to promote his cunning schemes, promising the riches of this world as a reward to those who follow him.

To gain these riches many engage in the debates on moral issues. The alcohol and tobacco industries and dealers in pornography are accumulating great wealth at the expense of the people and to the detriment of their health. With all the evidence of child pornography, it is deplorable that any parent would allow any child to be so exploited. Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home. Many fathers are more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children.

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.

 

 

I remember this idea being talked about after N. Eldon Tanner wrote this message from the First Presidency for the Ensign.  This concept is reinforced by the idea that one should follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray.  It was taught in primary by teaching the children this song, 

 

Quote

 

1. Adam was a prophet, first one that we know.

In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow.

Adam served the Lord by following his ways.

We are his descendants in the latter days.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

2. Enoch was a prophet; he taught what was good.

People in his city did just what they should.

When they were so righteous that there was no sin,

Heav’nly Father took them up to live with him.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

3. Noah was a prophet called to preach the word,

Tried to cry repentance, but nobody heard.

They were busy sinning—Noah preached in vain.

They wished they had listened when they saw the rain.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

4. Abraham the prophet prayed to have a son,

So the Lord sent Isaac as the chosen one.

Isaac begat Jacob, known as Israel;

Jacob’s sons were twelve tribes, so the Bible tells.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

5. Moses was a prophet sent to Israel.

He would lead them to the promised land to dwell.

They were slow to follow, or so it appears.

They were in the wilderness for forty years.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

6. Samuel was a prophet chosen as a boy.

Hannah promised God her son would serve with joy.

In the tabernacle, Samuel heard his name;

He was called by God and answered, “Here I am!”

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

7. Jonah was a prophet, tried to run away,

But he later learned to listen and obey.

When we really try, the Lord won’t let us fail:

That’s what Jonah learned deep down inside the whale.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

8. Daniel was a prophet. He refused to sin;

So the king threw Daniel in the lion’s den.

Angels calmed the lions, and the king soon saw

Daniel’s pow’r was great, for he obeyed God’s law.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

9. Now we have a world where people are confused.

If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.

We can get direction all along our way,

If we heed the prophets—follow what they say.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

Words and music: Duane E. Hiatt, b. 1937. © 1989 IRI

 

This same concept was taught that what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012

Posted on June 14, 2012 by ldschurchquotes

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following while serving as a mission president in Australia:

Quote

 

”I am called of God. My authority is above that of the kings of the earth. By revelation I have been selected as a personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my Master and he has chosen me to represent him. To stand in his place, to say and do what he himself would say and do if he personally were ministering to the very people to whom he has sent me. My voice is his voice, and my acts are his acts; my words are his words and my doctrine is his doctrine. My commission is to do what he wants done. To say what he wants said. To be a living modern witness in word and deed of the divinity of his great and marvelous latter-day work.” Bruce R. McConkie.

 

You might also be interested in this article about how many times church member have been taught to just follow the prophet, he will never lead you astray.

 

Hope that helps.  Do you not remember hearing such teachings from church leaders about their role in leading the church?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair there weren’t social safety nets available pretty much anywhere in the ancient beyond family and friendship bonds and the vertical networks the subsistence farmers had with the “big man” that ruled the area.

Don’t disagree.  Holding up the Old Testament in general as an example of how one should relate to our fellowman when we have resources and tech that allows for much more now is my difficulty.  Again treating it like a textbook without the need to adapt it is at least careless and possibly dangerous  in my view and not what God intended (continuing revelation isn’t just about adding new knowledge, but also correcting errors of men).

The Old Testament is fascinating, but not exactly because it shows shining examples of human behaviour.  My mother’s view, who also studied it, was it was in part to show that Christ vanquished all sin, he carried every kind of sin in his bloodline.  Sin was his heritage, but he still managed to be sinless himself.  

Edited June 22 by Calm

[smac97]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

Church leaders have even gone so far as to say "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done".  

Could you provide some references to where Church leaders have said this?

This teaching has been around as early as 1945 when the church used to print a message that was to be delivered by the home teachers to the members for June 1945.  The message was centered around sustaining church leaders.  The last paragraph reads.  

Quote

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is Gods plan.  When they point a 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 in the kingdom of God

I am familiar with the origins of this quote.  I commented on it at some length back in 2019 here.  Included in my comment was this information:

Quote

1. The Source: The 1945 message was first addressed by Pres. Smith when he was responding to this 1945 letter from a Unitarian minister, which stated in pertinent part:

Quote

Last June there was delivered to my door a short religious editorial, prepared by one of your leaders, entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church.” Its message amazed me a great deal, and with the passing of weeks my disturbance became very acute. It might have passed, except that several members of your Church have come to me to discuss the subject. The most recent was a prominent doctor, who, because of this tract, he affirms, is losting [sic] his religious faith. He is a large man, and I became impressed with his deep sincerity as he broke down and wept like a boy. I am convinced that he is undergoing a very dangerous experience.

Permit me to quote the passages which seem to be brought most in question:

“He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking[.]”
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy….”

I do not know who is responsible for this statement, but I am sure it is doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders. 

Pres. Smith responded to this inquiry in December 1945:

Quote

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on “a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'”. You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

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.

The key bit: "The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed."

I am curious if you are familiar with this information, particularly that the letter "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that the message had been "inadvertently permitted" into the Ward Teacher's Message, and that "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church, that "{e}ven to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church," and that this "ideal" 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," and that every person is given "the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every {them} to choose or to reject His teachings."

FAIR has had all this information on its website for some years now.  In fact, that article is the first Google search result for that phrase:

Having spent my entire life in the Church, I have never heard this idea announced or endorsed.  In fact, the only times I have heard about it are from critics of the Church.  Again, from my 2019 post (which in turn was quoting a 2016 post) :

Quote

5. Critics and Dissidents Need to Get a Sense of Proportion: I think the critics and dissidents of the LDS Church need to gain a sense of proportion and perspective when discussing those five controversial words published 70+ years ago ("the thinking has been done").  Daniel Peterson aptly summed things up here (a 1999 email response to John Smith, an evangelical anti-Mormon):

Quote

{JS} I have 2,500 books on Mormonism (by far the most pro-Mormon).

{DP} But have you understood -- actually mastered -- their contents? I do not wish to be uncharitable, but I've seen no sign in your writing that you have. Nor any sign in the Evangel and the Inner Circle that anybody there really has much of a clue.

...

{JS} My collection includes years of LDS Church News, years of the Ensign, and also quite an assortment of the Improvement Era, but it does not go back as far as June 1945 - the issue in which the "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done, when they propose a plan it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe, when they give direction, it should mark the end of the controversy."

{DP} Odd, isn't it, that that statement, if it is so central to LDS belief and self-understanding, can only be found in a ward teacher's message -- a ward teacher's message! do you realize how far down the totem pole that is? -- from more than half a century ago?

By the way, though, do you think that turning your mind over to Matthew, Peter, Luke, Paul, John, and Mark makes you an independent thinker? Or do you -- as consistency might demand -- denounce the fundamentalist Protestant insistence that one has to believe what they wrote, and that their pronouncements are inerrant? Are you a slave to those old dead guys? When they speak, has the thinking been done? Is the question settled? Or do you feel free to disagree with the Bible?

 

Fast forward to 2026, and we are being told that "Church leaders" (notably plural) "have even gone so far as to" repeatedly teach this snippet from a 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  I just don't think that is an accurate or fair statement about or characterization of the Church.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

This idea was also taught by Elaine Cannon at a churchwide fireside and reprinted in the Ensign in November, 1978.  

It was repeated by N. Eldon Tanner in the First Presidents Message that appeared in the Ensign on August 1979

I assume you are referring to this talk by Sis. Cannon: If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On

I assume you are speaking of this excerpt (emphasis added) :

Quote

I’m going to share an experience I had with President Kimball to help you understand what a choice human being he is, besides a powerful prophet, and perhaps base the rest of my remarks on this incident. I stood alone in the basement of the Church Office Building about two years ago, waiting for an elevator. It was very early on a Monday morning, well before the influx of office workers. As the elevator lowered into place, suddenly two Church security officers appeared from out of somewhere and held back the opening doors. Now, nobody does that for me, so I looked around just in time to see President Kimball and his personal secretary, Brother Haycock, entering the area. They moved quickly into the secured area, and I quickly moved out of the way. Well, as President Kimball turned and faced the front of the elevator, he saw me standing out there waiting for the next one. And he said to me very graciously, “Good morning.” And I said, “Good morning, President Kimball.” And he said, “Aren’t you going to get on?” And I said, “Well—” and hesitated for a few moments—“I didn’t think I was supposed to under the circumstances.” And then he said, “Aren’t you going up?” And I said, “Yes.” And he said, “Well, tell me, how do you intend to get there?” And then he said, “Come along.” So I got on! At the prophet’s invitation I was happy to ride up with him.

Tonight President Kimball extends an invitation, with some specifics, I am sure, for all of us as women to follow him as he follows the Savior. If we want to “go up,” we must “get on.” It is that simple. He is our leader, in all the world of would-be leaders, who can guide us back to the presence of God.

Sisters, this church is the saving remnant of the world. And what is our part as women in all of this? The girl is the future mother of the man. The woman is companion to the priesthood. She is molder of the next generation. As women ours is the gift to love, to influence for good, to marry, and to mother—but according to the timetable of the Lord for us. (So hang in there, sisters. If it hasn’t happened yet, it may a little later than sooner. And when the time comes, if you have lived for it, have no regrets that you prayed so fervently for a good man who now is always off to a meeting or filling some celestial assignment, depending upon the timing.) You see, the details of your life and the timing really aren’t all that important. They just point up differences to us—married or single, living alone, barren or bulging with blessings. These are just details. What does matter is our personal relationship with the Lord and our own unshakable testimony that he cares enough about each one of us to be there when we really need him.

Though we are women with different cultural backgrounds clear across the span of my voice, some with varying differences in personal situations (we may even clash at times on opinions regarding temporal trends or how to bake a loaf of bread properly), my firm feeling is that we must pursue a course of a covenant people. We must secure those traditions which are sacred to good people everywhere. In each country as you hear this program by direct line, your course should become clear, your priorities ought to be known to you as a daughter of God. Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over. So I urge us all to provide powerful unity as women for those things we can agree upon—family, chastity, accountability to the Lord, responsibility in the community, sharing the gospel. To help us, it seems there are at least two critical areas to concentrate on—for all of us of all ages, whether we are whole or lame, at peace or troubled, privileged or seemingly deprived. The first is to strengthen self. The second is to serve the Lord by serving others. This is the way it works: We gain a personal testimony. We share it with others. We learn the principles of the gospel. We apply them as we associate with others. We keep a personal record, and we do our genealogy. And, sisters, we emphatically and happily declare, “I will be obedient! I will help strengthen others that they may be so too!”

Do you see "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" as being effectively synonymous with "When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over"?

I did a search on the Church website for "thinking has been done":

The one result, a 2023 worldwide devotional address by Elder Holland, does not include this phrase.

I also did a search for "the debate is over."  All results are for an August 1979 First Presidency Message by Pres. Tanner, in which he quotes Sis. Cannon and then proceeds to comment on "debate" in the Church (emphases added) :

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” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).

I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet. Why else has the Lord placed prophets on the earth throughout the dispensations of time? In his infinite wisdom, and as part of the plan of life and salvation for his children, God has given us the blueprint to follow, the leadership to direct us and keep us on course, and the Church organization to help us lay the foundation and develop the skills, or make the preparation necessary, to lead us back to our eternal home.
...
Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.
...
Why should there be any debate over the moral issues which are confounding the world today? From the beginning God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which are clear on these matters.

History and experience have proven that whenever and wherever there is departure from following the word of the Lord, calamity occurs. Civilizations have fallen; there has been general and individual destruction; there have been weeping and wailing and great sorrow; there have been famine and pestilence. Only Satan and his cohorts have been left to rejoice. He is the author of the debates on moral issues. He has sworn to thwart the purposes of God. He it is who deceives and lays in wait to promote his cunning schemes, promising the riches of this world as a reward to those who follow him.

To gain these riches many engage in the debates on moral issues. The alcohol and tobacco industries and dealers in pornography are accumulating great wealth at the expense of the people and to the detriment of their health. With all the evidence of child pornography, it is deplorable that any parent would allow any child to be so exploited. Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home. Many fathers are more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children.

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.

Pres. Tanner, as with Sis. Cannon, did not say "the thinking has been done," and instead said that "the debate is over" as to "moral issues ... in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women ... alcohol and tobacco ... dealers in pornography ... child pornography ... children {} being neglected and abused ... {fathers being} more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children."

Nearly 50 years later, Pres. Tanner's comments seem quite relevant.  I note that one comment has become somewhat dated ("Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home"), but then, the financial circumstances of the world have changed.  For example, this chart shows that the "Home Price / Medium Household Income Ratio" was 4.12 in August 1978 (when Pres. Tanner published his message), and today it stands at 7.12.  Hence the current counsel in place since 1995 (emphasis added) :

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

In all this, I have no recollection of or experience with the notion that "the thinking has been done."  Not only is that phrase entirely absent from the Church's website, so too is the concept.  The closest phrase I could think of would be "blind faith."  But that concept is likewise not congruent with our doctrines.

I strongly endorse the notion that discipleship is predicated principally on faith.  But we have things which inform that faith.  We have evidence.  The Church does not advocate "blind" faith.  To the contrary, the Church strongly encourages Church members to study the Gospel:

• “And thou shalt teach [the scriptures] diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deut. 6:7)
• “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
• “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29)
• “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7)
• “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963) (quoted in 1993 by Elder Richard G. Scott)
• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry (2003)

These were all quite easy to find.  In contrast, I cannot substantiate the "thinking has been done" concept.  I am reminded of Elder Andersen's 2012 General Conference address:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

As noted above, the June 1945 Ward Teachers' Message which you reference was not “prepared” by a Church leader, but was rather "inadvertently permitted" to be published in the waning days of World War II, mere weeks after the surrender of Germany and while the was was still raging in Japan.  So I think context and proportion matter quite a bit.  From my 2019 comment:

Quote

6. Critics and Dissidents Need to Get a Sense of Proportion (Part Deux): I get that the Ward Teacher's Message was apparently not publicly disavowed by the Church, though it was disavowed in December 1945 in a private letter from Pres. George Albert Smith to a concerned Unitarian minister.  Perhaps it should have been, particularly since Pres. Smith acknowledged to the minister that "not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings" by the message, and that "General Authorities have been embarrassed."

But again, a sense of proportion and perspective is needed here.  The Ward Teacher's message was prepared in the first half of 1945, the last year of World War II.  Can we perhaps grant that Brethren, who prior to June 1945 were witnessing the conclusion of World War II, the most destructive and widespread war in the history of the world, which had been raging for many years and had resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide, just might have been a bit off their game in terms of editorial oversight of The Improvement Era?  

Can we, sitting in front of computers in 2019, really conceptualize the zeitgeist of early 1945?  

Are we really in a position to act as armchair quarterbacks and criticize what "should" have been done?

I am curious, then, as to your thoughts about the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message in relation to Elder Andersen's 2012 comment.

Would you agree or disagree that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" may qualify as "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"? 

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve"?

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement qualifies as being more or less "hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk"?

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught frequently and by many"?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I remember this idea being talked about after N. Eldon Tanner wrote this message from the First Presidency for the Ensign.  This concept is reinforced by the idea that one should follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray.  It was taught in primary by teaching the children this song, 

Could you elaborate on this?  How do you get from "the thinking has been done" to "he won't lead you astray"?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

This same concept was taught that what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012

Posted on June 14, 2012 by ldschurchquotes

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following while serving as a mission president in Australia:

Quote

”I am called of God. My authority is above that of the kings of the earth. By revelation I have been selected as a personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my Master and he has chosen me to represent him. To stand in his place, to say and do what he himself would say and do if he personally were ministering to the very people to whom he has sent me. My voice is his voice, and my acts are his acts; my words are his words and my doctrine is his doctrine. My commission is to do what he wants done. To say what he wants said. To be a living modern witness in word and deed of the divinity of his great and marvelous latter-day work.”

 

I would like to better understand your reliance on this quote. 

First, you are framing this statement as being "what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012."  Which "church leaders" said this in 2012?

Second, my understanding is that Bruce R. McConkie wrote this in 1963 when he was serving as a mission president in Australia (see, e.g., here).  He was in the First Council of Seventy at the time.  Is it your position that mission presidents (and/or members of the Seventy) have authority to declare "the words of God" to the Church?

Third, it has been my understanding that the above quote was not intended to be a statement by Pres. McConkie about himself or his calling as a General Authority, but was instead intended to reflect the importance of individual missionaries.  The "I am called of God" and such are all intended to characterize each missionary's authority and the importance of their message.  How does this relate to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

You might also be interested in this article about how many times church member have been taught to just follow the prophet, he will never lead you astray.

Thank you for sharing this article.  I am fairly familiar with the concept of following the prophet, but I do not see how it relates to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message.

I see some significant differences between "the thinking has been done" (which, I think, is antithetical to discipleship) and following prophetic counsel (which is quite congruent with discipleship).  As to the latter resulting in not going astray, I have commented on this a number of times.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

Of course, church leaders over generations have taught that we are to set aside our objections, moral or otherwise, and follow our leaders, who will not lead us astray. It's a bit of a pickle.

Well, not really.

First, you seem to be equating "lead us astray" with infallibility.  With the Brethren never making any mistake to any degree, ever.

Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric.  

Third, we should attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel:

Quote

An all-powerful judge is not much different than a king. Therefore, Mosiah wisely sets up a system of checks and balances. He does this not with three branches of government but with a system of accountability by which judges can be tried for not performing according to the law which has been given. In this system, the lower judge may be judged of a higher judge and the higher judge may be judged by a group of lower judges.

An analogous system has been set up in latter-day church government. When a priesthood leader transgresses, he is judged by a higher authority. When a president of the high priesthood (member of the First Presidency) transgresses, he is judged by a group of lower authorities:

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by the twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

…Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (DC 107:82-4)

See also here:

Quote

Suppose that Gordon B. Hinckley really started misbehaving, sinning left and right, and generally leading the church astray. Some might find this unlikely on theological grounds, after all President Woodruff said:

• 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.

The implication seems to be that the Lord will “call home” any prophet who strays too far from the divine “programme.” Looking at the scriptures, however, suggests another possibility: Excommunicating the President of the Church.

According to D&C 107:82-84:

• And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the Church who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and solemnity before Him, according to truth and righteousness.

The procedure from this passage is a little cryptic. The “common council of the Church” referred to is the Presiding Bishopric (See D&C 107: 74-76). In his book Priesthood and Church Government, Elder John A Widstoe had this to say about the judicial authority of the Presiding Bishopric:

• Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal.

A couple of interesting points about the procedure. First, the twelve high priests who sit in council with the Presiding Bishopric are not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although presumably despite their ordination as Apostles they could serve. (Although the First Presidency is made up of “high priests,” Apostles regularly serve as members.) Indeed, as far as I know, the only times that this judicial machinery has been used – to excommunicate various counselors of Joseph Smith – the twelve high priests were not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but rather the local high council. However, as Widstoe suggests, there is no reason that they need to be high councilors, and the Presiding Bishop seems to have the authority to select any twelve high priests, regardless of their current office. The second interesting point is that the First Presidency is afforded fewer procedural protections than are other members of the Church. There is no appeal from the Presiding Bishopric, furthermore it is not clear if the procedural requirements that apply to other church proceedings apply here. For example, would President Hinckley have a right to have his bishop speak on his behalf?

Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided.  As I have previously noted here:

Quote

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

When I was in the military, huge amounts of time and effort were expended to drill into us the concept of rank and structure, and of following orders.  However, these concepts are not absolute.  In fact, there can be extreme and unusual circumstances in which a solder is required to disobey an order.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It's generally called a "duty to disobey," and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:

• If the order is "contrary to the constitution" or "the laws of the United States."
• If the order is "patently illegal, ... such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

Paying the Price for Following Bad Orders

Over the years, there's been a recognition that "duty to disobey" is sometimes warranted. Former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, for instance, has suggested that military members could be justified in refusing to torture prisoners.

The most famous of them, perhaps, have been instances where prosecutors felt that people should have disobeyed orders. Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II argued, to limited effect, that they were just following orders. U.S. Army Lt. William Calley used the same argument in defending himself against murder charges following the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. (He ultimately served 3 1/2 years in military prison.)

The generalized statement of "When you are in the Army you are obligated to follow the orders of your superiors" is not incompatible with the foregoing "duty to disobey."  Virtually every law or moral principle allows for exceptions in extraordinary or very unusual circumstances.

Similarly, the generalized statement of "the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them" is not incompatible with the foregoing statements from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and others.  

Fifth, we have been given prophets and apostles for the express purpose of following them:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

(Ephesians 4)

The problem is when we rely on them too much, and/or when our reliance on them is predicated on tacit expectations of infallibility.  

Brigham Young really nailed it here:

Quote

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

These sentiments have come to mind in the past when I have raised my hand to sustain new leadership in the Church.  When Pres. Monson passed away, I was saddened for a time.  He was a good man, even a great one.  He will be missed.  However, a bit later I raised my arm and sustained Pres. Nelson.

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men.  But in the end, they are servants.  In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be.  "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..."

My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses.  My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses.  And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order.

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  

However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "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."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

See also here, here, here, here, here.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Hope that helps.  Do you not remember hearing such teachings from church leaders about their role in leading the church?

If by "such teachings" you mean "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," then no, I have no recollection of that concept being taught.

Alternatively, if by "such teachings" you mean

• to study and examine and  - generally - follow prophetic counsel,
• to obtain my own testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ,
• to keep the commandments,
• to acknowledge prophetic authority and stewardship (and limit myself from exceeding my own stewardship),
• to make decisions on moral issues and avoid being moved from them by the voices of the World,
• to foster intelligent - rather than "blind" - obedience in myself,
• to adhere to Elder Andersen's counsel about discerning "doctrine" and differentiating it from "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent" with it,
• to contextualize and understand what going "astray" means,
• to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption (which in turn leads to the possibility of setting aside a statement when that presumption is properly rebutted),
• to sustain the leaders of the Church despite their weaknesses (and not only if they lack any weaknesses),
• to make decisions regarding Daniel 2 and such, 

then yes, I remember all of these things.

I see the 1945 Ward Teacher's message as a likely well-intentioned (at the time), but clearly misguided, statement.  It was not from the General Authorities of the Church, was published during the waning days of the most momentous war in the history of the world (when, I think, the GAs may have been distracted from more studiously editing the Church's publications), was repudiated weeks later, has never been repeated or endorsed in the 80+ years since its publication, is amply contradicted by the vast cumulative weight of prior and subsequent prophetic and scriptural counsel, is - using Elder Andersen's wording - "incongruent with our doctrine," and is only invoked by critics of the Church, not its adherents and defenders.

I sense that you conflate "the thinking has been done" with other broader concepts pertaining to following prophetic counsel.  I don't think such a conflation is warranted.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 22 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am familiar with the origins of this quote.  I commented on it at some length back in 2019 here.  Included in my comment was this information:

I am curious if you are familiar with this information, particularly that the letter "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that the message had been "inadvertently permitted" into the Ward Teacher's Message, and that "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church, that "{e}ven to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church," and that this "ideal" 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," and that every person is given "the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every {them} to choose or to reject His teachings."

FAIR has had all this information on its website for some years now.  In fact, that article is the first Google search result for that phrase:

Having spent my entire life in the Church, I have never heard this idea announced or endorsed.  In fact, the only times I have heard about it are from critics of the Church.  Again, from my 2019 post (which in turn was quoting a 2016 post) :

Fast forward to 2026, and we are being told that "Church leaders" (notably plural) "have even gone so far as to" repeatedly teach this snippet from a 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  I just don't think that is an accurate or fair statement about or characterization of the Church.

I assume you are referring to this talk by Sis. Cannon: If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On

I assume you are speaking of this excerpt (emphasis added) :

Do you see "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" as being effectively synonymous with "When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over"?

I did a search on the Church website for "thinking has been done":

The one result, a 2023 worldwide devotional address by Elder Holland, does not include this phrase.

I also did a search for "the debate is over."  All results are for an August 1979 First Presidency Message by Pres. Tanner, in which he quotes Sis. Cannon and then proceeds to comment on "debate" in the Church (emphases added) :

Pres. Tanner, as with Sis. Cannon, did not say "the thinking has been done," and instead said that "the debate is over" as to "moral issues ... in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women ... alcohol and tobacco ... dealers in pornography ... child pornography ... children {} being neglected and abused ... {fathers being} more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children."

Nearly 50 years later, Pres. Tanner's comments seem quite relevant.  I note that one comment has become somewhat dated ("Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home"), but then, the financial circumstances of the world have changed.  For example, this chart shows that the "Home Price / Medium Household Income Ratio" was 4.12 in August 1978 (when Pres. Tanner published his message), and today it stands at 7.12.  Hence the current counsel in place since 1995 (emphasis added) :

In all this, I have no recollection of or experience with the notion that "the thinking has been done."  Not only is that phrase entirely absent from the Church's website, so too is the concept.  The closest phrase I could think of would be "blind faith."  But that concept is likewise not congruent with our doctrines.

I strongly endorse the notion that discipleship is predicated principally on faith.  But we have things which inform that faith.  We have evidence.  The Church does not advocate "blind" faith.  To the contrary, the Church strongly encourages Church members to study the Gospel:

• “And thou shalt teach [the scriptures] diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deut. 6:7)
• “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
• “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29)
• “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7)
• “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963) (quoted in 1993 by Elder Richard G. Scott)
• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry (2003)

These were all quite easy to find.  In contrast, I cannot substantiate the "thinking has been done" concept.  I am reminded of Elder Andersen's 2012 General Conference address:

As noted above, the June 1945 Ward Teachers' Message which you reference was not “prepared” by a Church leader, but was rather "inadvertently permitted" to be published in the waning days of World War II, mere weeks after the surrender of Germany and while the was was still raging in Japan.  So I think context and proportion matter quite a bit.  From my 2019 comment:

I am curious, then, as to your thoughts about the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message in relation to Elder Andersen's 2012 comment.

Would you agree or disagree that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" may qualify as "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"? 

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve"?

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement qualifies as being more or less "hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk"?

Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught frequently and by many"?

Could you elaborate on this?  How do you get from "the thinking has been done" to "he won't lead you astray"?

I would like to better understand your reliance on this quote. 

First, you are framing this statement as being "what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012."  Which "church leaders" said this in 2012?

Second, my understanding is that Bruce R. McConkie wrote this in 1963 when he was serving as a mission president in Australia (see, e.g., here).  He was in the First Council of Seventy at the time.  Is it your position that mission presidents (and/or members of the Seventy) have authority to declare "the words of God" to the Church?

Third, it has been my understanding that the above quote was not intended to be a statement by Pres. McConkie about himself or his calling as a General Authority, but was instead intended to reflect the importance of individual missionaries.  The "I am called of God" and such are all intended to characterize each missionary's authority and the importance of their message.  How does this relate to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message?

Thank you for sharing this article.  I am fairly familiar with the concept of following the prophet, but I do not see how it relates to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message.

I see some significant differences between "the thinking has been done" (which, I think, is antithetical to discipleship) and following prophetic counsel (which is quite congruent with discipleship).  As to the latter resulting in not going astray, I have commented on this a number of times.  See, e.g., here:

See also here, here, here, here, here.

If by "such teachings" you mean "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," then no, I have no recollection of that concept being taught.

Alternatively, if by "such teachings" you mean

• to study and examine and  - generally - follow prophetic counsel,
• to obtain my own testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ,
• to keep the commandments,
• to acknowledge prophetic authority and stewardship (and limit myself from exceeding my own stewardship),
• to make decisions on moral issues and avoid being moved from them by the voices of the World,
• to foster intelligent - rather than "blind" - obedience in myself,
• to adhere to Elder Andersen's counsel about discerning "doctrine" and differentiating it from "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent" with it,
• to contextualize and understand what going "astray" means,
• to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption (which in turn leads to the possibility of setting aside a statement when that presumption is properly rebutted),
• to sustain the leaders of the Church despite their weaknesses (and not only if they lack any weaknesses),
• to make decisions regarding Daniel 2 and such, 

then yes, I remember all of these things.

I see the 1945 Ward Teacher's message as a likely well-intentioned (at the time), but clearly misguided, statement.  It was not from the General Authorities of the Church, was published during the waning days of the most momentous war in the history of the world (when, I think, the GAs may have been distracted from more studiously editing the Church's publications), was repudiated weeks later, has never been repeated or endorsed in the 80+ years since its publication, is amply contradicted by the vast cumulative weight of prior and subsequent prophetic and scriptural counsel, is - using Elder Andersen's wording - "incongruent with our doctrine," and is only invoked by critics of the Church, not its adherents and defenders.

I sense that you conflate "the thinking has been done" with other broader concepts pertaining to following prophetic counsel.  I don't think such a conflation is warranted.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not claiming the quote is doctrine, but it was taught, and I definitely remember members bringing up this kind of thinking in Gospel Doctrine and other classes.  And the sources can be identified as coming from church sources.  It is not like it was made up out of thin air.

Perhaps you could point to me where church leaders expressly said that the prophet doesn't receive direct revelation from God to guide the church?  Do you believe they do not receive direct revelation?  And if the church leaders do claim to be guided by God in the running of the church and policies set, then don't you believe that you are obligated to follow their doctrine and policies or go against God's will?  

This is where things get messy in my opinion.  I think most people growing up in the church do believe that church leaders and specifically the prophet have been guided directly by God in the statements and actions the church leaders take.  

A good example of this is when Russel M Nelson made this statement concerning God prohibiting the baptism of children of gay parents.

 

Quote

 

President Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made the following comments Sunday, January 10, 2016, during a devotional for Mormons ages 18 to 30. The broadcast originated from the campus of Brigham Young University-Hawaii and can be viewed on LDS.org.  The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively. And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries, and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

So did the church leaders actually have a revelation from God as claimed by Elder Nelson?  Or did he just want the member to think that this policy came from God himself.  When the policy was reversed a short time later, did Elder Nelson ever say that he was mistaken?  Did the will of God change because the members were not ready to accept the revelation given by God?  Or were church leader just plain wrong about withholding baptism of underaged children of gay parents.

You might also be interested in this conference talk by Marion G. Romney when members get a different answer that is not in sync with what the prophet and other church leaders claim.

From President Romney
 

Quote

Some members assume that one can be in full harmony with the spirit of the gospel, enjoy full fellowship in the Church, and at the same time be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give. Such a position is wholly inconsistent. . . . Those who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the prophets are assuming an indefensible position. Such a spirit leads to apostasy.

Quote

When one brings himself to the position that he will pursue the truth wherever it may lead, even though it may require a reversal of his former position, he can, without hypocrisy, go before the Lord in prayer. Then, when he prays with all the energy of his soul, he is entitled to and he will receive guidance. The mind and will of the Lord as to the course he should take will be made known unto him.
I assure you, however, that the spirit of the Lord will never direct a person to take a position in opposition to the counsel of the Presidency of His Church. Such could not be, and I'll tell you why. The Spirit of the Lord is "truth.” The Prophet Joseph Smith says that "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."

The Presidency, in directing the Church and its affairs and in counseling the people, do so under the directing power of this "light and truth." When a man and the Presidency are both directed on the same subject by "light and truth,” there can be no conflict. And so, my brethren, all who are out of harmony in any degree with the Presidency have need to repent and to seek the Lord for forgiveness and to put themselves in full harmony. (bold added)

 

And then, of course there are a slew of statements made by church leaders assuring the saints that if they follow the prophet, they will never be led astray.

 

This statement by Joseph Smith which I think probably started this idea that what the prophet says comes from God.

“I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

 

 

This statement by James E. Faust, General Conference, October 2005

“The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen.”

 

This statement by Ezra Taft Benson, Conference talk October  1966

“Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.”

 

There are a slew of other general authorities repeating this same thinking.  Let me know if you want more, but I suspect as much as you study these kinds of issues, you are well aware of this repeated pronouncements.

So yeah, the church teaches its members to inquire for themselves what church leaders say.  But if you get a different answer than the prophet of God who has received a revelation from God concerning a policy or doctrine, then who has it wrong?  Or at least who is made to feel like they have it wrong?  

And what if you do disagree with what the prophet says?  Are you allowed to voice that opposition in church or will you be told to sit down and keep your personal opinions to yourself?

So yeah, like I said, this concept that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is definitely expressed in different ways by many leaders of the church since the  beginning and continues today.  I hope you can see that my statement and the ones that I quoted were not coming out of left field, but rather from experiencing this concept regularly while I was an active member of the church.  It is like one side of the mouth is saying that you should seek your own answers from God and the other side is saying that your answer better be in line with what the prophet says or as Marion G. Romney said, "you are on the road to apostasy".

I realize that you may have a different point of view, but I also hope that this helps you understand where these feelings of so many leaving the church are coming from rather than just dismiss the statements of those having difficulty dealing with past and current church leaders statements with what they personally believe to be true.

Edited June 22 by california boy

[Navidad]

I have known a few people in my life who I believe lived a life so close to God that they might indeed be considered speaking His words for Him in wisdom and in truth. One was Presbyterian, one was Anglican, one was Mennonite, one was Christian & Missionary Alliance, and one was LDS, who was at that time a local bishop.

What that observation has taught me is that closeness to God and knowing His mind is not the exclusive purview of any one group. Neither is it the result of belonging to this or that group. It is a measure of the sanctification and Christ-likeness of an individual, fed by their life's journey on a path of proximity to and humility before the Savior. This is my lived experience and personal truth.

I have also known some rascals in the faith. Rascaldom is also not a function of relatedness to this or that group. I would guess if we had a way to measure Christlikeness across each and every known Christian organization, we would find a normal curve of Christlikeness across the board. Each different church may make its own unique claims to Christ. However, until we can observe a significant difference of Christlikeness and fruits of the Spirit in the adherents of specific churches over others; I will continue to believe that wisdom, discernment, and judgment are individual, not group, traits. 

[MustardSeed]

I’ve heard several iterations from pulpit etc of “ when the prophet speaks the debate is over.” Less so since Covid (I have theories) but California Id hate for you to feel gaslit on this. It’s certainly been propagated. 

Edited June 22 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not claiming the quote is doctrine, but it was taught,

Okay.  I would like to see some documentation/evidence that "it was taught" outside of a single Ward Teacher's Message published in June 1945, and repudiated weeks later.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

and I definitely remember members bringing up this kind of thinking in Gospel Doctrine and other classes.  

By "this kind of thinking" you are referencing "the thinking has been done"?

You seem to conflate this with "the debate is over."  Am I correct on that point?  If so, do you see any difference between the two sentiments?  Between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"?

For my part, the former seems to excuse - or even prohibit - individual members from "thinking" about the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and to instead just reflexively and unthinkingly accept whatever the Presiding High Priest says.

In contrast, the latter seems to refer to prioritizing prophetic counsel over personal preferences ("Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do.") about well-settled matters of morality ("God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women," etc.).

My experience in the Church has, it seems, been markedly different from yours.  I have never been told to not think, or that the thinking "has been done."  Quite the contrary, my experience in the Church has always been about individual members seeking out, through prayer and study and such, the validity of the truth claims of the Church, and to keep the commandments.  In my view, neither those truth claims nor the commandments contemplate that the "thinking has been done."

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

And the sources can be identified as coming from church sources.  It is not like it was made up out of thin air.

Okay.  So your statement was: "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

Apart from the June 1945 Ward Teachers Message, what other "church sources" can you identify as repeating this concept?

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Perhaps you could point to me where church leaders expressly said that the prophet doesn't receive direct revelation from God to guide the church?

I believe the Prophet does receive direct revelation to guide the Church.  I have not denied that.  I am, instead, seeking to identify what you refer to as "church sources" in which "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

I have previously presented evidence that the 1945 Ward Teachers Message was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders," which which was instead "inadvertently permitted" to be published" in a pamphlet during the waning days of the most destructive war in the history of world.

You have said that your claim was "{not} made up out of thin air," and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

So who are these "church leaders" who have said/repeated that "{w}hen the prophet speaks, the thinking is done?" 

What are these "sources" you are referencing?

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you believe they do not receive direct revelation?  

I do believe they received direct revelation.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

And if the church leaders do claim to be guided by God in the running of the church and policies set, then don't you believe that you are obligated to follow their doctrine and policies or go against God's will?

Please see my previous post, where I lay out my perspective on sustaining the leaders of the Church.  Broadly, yes, I have an obligation to follow their counsel.  Broadly, but not interminably.  See my prior post (quoting "Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided...").

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is where things get messy in my opinion.  I think most people growing up in the church do believe that church leaders and specifically the prophet have been guided directly by God in the statements and actions the church leaders take.  

Yes.  And unfortunately, some take that sensible precept to an unjustified extreme and impute notions of infallibility onto the leaders of the Church.  Such notions have been repeatedly rejected by the very leaders upon whom they are imputed.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

A good example of this is when Russel M Nelson made this statement concerning God prohibiting the baptism of children of gay parents.

So did the church leaders actually have a revelation from God as claimed by Elder Nelson?  Or did he just want the member to think that this policy came from God himself.  When the policy was reversed a short time later, did Elder Nelson ever say that he was mistaken?  Did the will of God change because the members were not ready to accept the revelation given by God?  Or were church leader just plain wrong about withholding baptism of underaged children of gay parents.

You might also be interested in this conference talk by Marion G. Romney when members get a different answer that is not in sync with what the prophet and other church leaders claim.

From President Romney

And then, of course there are a slew of statements made by church leaders assuring the saints that if they follow the prophet, they will never be led astray.

 

This statement by Joseph Smith which I think probably started this idea that what the prophet says comes from God.

“I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

 

 

This statement by James E. Faust, General Conference, October 2005

“The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen.”

 

This statement by Ezra Taft Benson, Conference talk October  1966

“Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.”

 

There are a slew of other general authorities repeating this same thinking.  Let me know if you want more, but I suspect as much as you study these kinds of issues, you are well aware of this repeated pronouncements.

I am.  I think I construe and apply them in ways differently from the ways you do.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

So yeah, the church teaches its members to inquire for themselves what church leaders say.  But if you get a different answer than the prophet of God who has received a revelation from God concerning a policy or doctrine, then who has it wrong?  Or at least who is made to feel like they have it wrong?

In the end, we each of us must do what we think is right.  Here's my take:

Quote

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst.  Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals.

A few thoughts:

1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity):

I've posted this a few times now:

Quote

Quote

 

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

 

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity.

3. My Attempt at a Framework:

Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) :

Quote

A) Consider the Duration of the Feeling:

 I read The Book of Mormon several times prior to this experience.  As a teenager, for an extended period I read it every night and prayed about it.  Over time I gained a cumulative spiritual confirmation that the book was true, that it is what it claims to be.  

After graduating from high school, I served 18 months in the military.  During this time I also had several spiritual experiences, mostly centered on The Book of Mormon, on Jesus Christ as savior, and also about Joseph Smith as a genuine prophet.  

Then I served a two-year mission and had more experiences, centered on the scriptures, on Jesus Christ, but also on the testimonies of people in Taiwan who joined the Church despite the language barriers, cultural impediments, and significant familial disapproval.  Converting from Buddhism / ancestor worship to Christianity was very difficult for many of these people, but they did so largely based on what they felt and determined to be the Spirit.  

Then I returned home and shortly thereafter had a very strong spiritual experience that, for me, solidified my previous cumulative experiences into a more cohesive whole, and also helped me differentiate "emotion" (which, as you have described, is "fleeting"), and the Spirit (which is "something more constant and which because a more permanent feeling of peace and comfort and enlightenment, etc.").

B) Consider the Circumstance of the Feeling:

A person may be able to determine whether a particular feeling derives from the Spirit or from mere emotional response to stimuli by looking at the source or circumstance of the feeling.  How did the feeling come about?  For example, every day there are sports fans all around the world who scream and shout in support of their particular team (we currently have a Brazilian exchange student living with us, and soccer looms very large in his life).  Are these people being influenced by “the Spirit?”  Generally not.  Sporting events are exciting, emotional.  My point in saying “consider the source” is to look at it from God’s perspective.  Does God communicate important and fundamental truths to His children through the emotional response they experience at a football game?  Probably not. 

So a person can, to some extent, differentiate “emotion” from “the Spirit” by examining the circumstances in which the experience occurred.  This is particularly helpful when you consider the teachings of the LDS Church.  For example, D&C 9:8 states: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”  Elder Oaks put it this way: “We should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. … We cannot force spiritual things … In most cases, ‘his own way’ is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light, but what the scriptures call ‘the still small voice’ (1 Kgs. 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Ne. 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). … We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper” (“Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 10–12).

I had a very important spiritual experience just after I returned from my mission.  It was “important” not because it was extraordinarily powerful, or overwhelming, or any of the other adjectives that we Latter-day Saints – perhaps on occasion inappropriately – apply to important spiritual experiences.  Rather, it was “important” because of its clarity.  And its “clarity” arose because it occurred in circumstances in which confusing the Spirit with emotion was pretty much not possible.  

C) Consider the Apparent Purpose of the Feeling:

Another way to distinguish “emotion” from “the Spirit” is to again look at the experience from God’s point of view, and this time try to ascertain the *purpose* of the feeling.  That is, if God is trying to communicate with you, is He doing so in circumstances which have a discernible purpose?  Or is the feeling more properly attributed to a mundane response to emotive stimuli?

Let me give you an example: In high school I was a huge fan of music, mostly classical (Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak), movie soundtracks (John Williams), and musicals (Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Stephen Sondheim).  My high school’s marching band, of which I was a part, once traveled to LA to participate in a competition, and while there we saw Michael Crawford perform “Phantom of the Opera” in the Ahmanson Theatre.  I returned to Utah and began listening to the soundtrack on a regular basis.  I would retire to a darkened room in our house and listen to most of the tracks on really good headphones, with the volume turned up, and I would re-visit the staged play in my head.  By the time I would reach the last track, with the full orchestra at a crescendo, and the Phantom singing “It’s over now … the Music of the Night…”, I felt a tremendous thrill.  (Yeah, this is geeky, I know.   If you question my masculine bona fides, I refer you to the last play of the 2006 BYU-Utah game, in which Johnny Harline caught the winning pass in the end zone.  Here’s a YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dflMnmCCZk.  I remember being pretty thrilled about that, too.)

So here I am, a guy who felt *something* very strongly when listening to “Phantom of the Opera” in high school and, later, when watching a football game on TV.  However, these circumstances were not ones which I would think God would use to convey spiritual promptings.  These were instead merely emotive reactions.

D) Consider the Feeling’s Effect on Behavior:

Another factor to consider is to evaluate a feeling’s effect on your behavior and ask whether the behavior prompted by the feeling is conducive to God’s will.  If yes, then it could be the Spirit, but if not, then the feeling is likely just an emotive response.  I think this principle is described well in Moroni 7:16-17:

Quote

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

So there you are.  I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior.

4. Defining Terms and Parameters:

I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony.  Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) :

Quote

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
 
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
 
3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
 
4. 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?

5. Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

5. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).
Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?
Do you obey the law of chastity?
 
6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
 
7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
 
8. Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
 
9. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
 
10. Are you a full-tithe payer?
For new members seeking a limited-use recommend: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing?
 
11. Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
 
12. Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?
If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
 
13. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
 
13. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
 
14. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc.

As Joseph Smith put it: 

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

And, of course, there is D&C 76:

Quote

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom?  Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?"

5. Additional Resources:

I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony."

I hope this clarifies things.

We human beings are really good at rationalizing misbehavior.  Here is one of the more egregious examples I have come across in the Church:

Quote

Albert Carrington (January 8, 1813 – September 19, 1889) was an apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
...
Carrington became an apostle and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve on July 3, 1870. He was the president of the European Mission four times—once prior to becoming an apostle (1868–70) and three times as an apostle (1871–73, 1875–77, 1880–82).^[3] Carrington was the tenth official Church Historian of the LDS Church between 1871 and 1874. From 1873 until 1877, he was a counselor to Young in the First Presidency and served as Young's personal secretary for more than 20 years.^[3]
...
Carrington was excommunicated from the LDS Church by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on November 6, 1885, for adultery, fornication, and "lewd and lascivious conduct".^[2] Carrington's extramarital relationships had begun in England while he was the mission president; he had hid these relationships from the leaders of the church for over 10 years and had lied to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles about them when rumors about Carrington began spreading.^[2] (The Salt Lake Tribune first accused Carrington of adultery in 1875.)^[5] In 1885, Carrington argued before the Twelve that because he did not ejaculate inside the women he had sexual relations with, he had technically not committed adultery, but had simply committed "a little folly in Israel".^[2] The Quorum disagreed and excommunicated him.

Then-Elder Carrington apparently managed to persuade himself that he had found "a different answer than the prophet of God" as pertaining to the Law of Chastity.  But really.  He kept his behavior hidden.  He lied about it.  And he sinned grievously over and over.  And he still managed to argue that he had not technically violated the Law of Chastity.

This sort of thing, in my view, strengthens my resolve to make sure all four of of the legs in Michael Ash's analogy are strong and sturdy: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  This is particularly important when the Law of Chastity is in view, as it seems to be one of the more-likely-to-be-rationalized-away-as-wrong-or-inapplicable commandments.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

And what if you do disagree with what the prophet says?  

That would depend on the circumstance.

By way of example: Some years ago I served as my ward's bishop, during which time I formulated an idea of having the young women in our ward provider welcoming/ushering services during Sacrament Meeting.  I felt pretty good about it, and approached my stake president to see if he had any concern about it.  He said no.  We had a discussion about it, as I had understood that there was no scriptural prohibition against it, nor was it addressed in the Handbook, nor had the concept been addressed by the Brethren (at least, as far as I could see).  The stake president said he felt that "ushering" was a priesthood function (apparently per D&C 84:111 and/or D&C 107:68, though I'm not sure he had these passages specifically in mind).

So, where the "four legs" in harmony?  Not exactly.  The scriptures were (mostly) silent on the issue, and I could not find any specific prophetic counsel on the topic.  What I could see, however, was clear instruction in both scripture and modern prophetic counsel in matters of stewardship and authority.  Consequently, I deferred to the stake president and did not implement the proposal.

Fast-forward several years, and the Church amended its policies in August 2024 to direct that "Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3)."

So was I right or wrong in my course of action?  Should I have disregarded my SP's instruction and implemented the policy anyway, given that the Church eventually came around to it?  In my view, no.  "{S}ee that all these things are done in wisdom and order."  (Mosiah 4:27.)

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you allowed to voice that opposition in church or will you be told to sit down and keep your personal opinions to yourself?

Again, that depends on the circumstances.  I think then-Elder Oaks' 1987 article, Criticism, does a very good job of providing guardrails for this sort of thing.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

So yeah, like I said, this concept that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is definitely expressed in different ways by many leaders of the church since the  beginning and continues today.  

Okay.  That has not been my experience at all.  Hence my request for sources which substantiate the claim that "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I hope you can see that my statement and the ones that I quoted were not coming out of left field, but rather from experiencing this concept regularly while I was an active member of the church.  

I think you have overlaid some presuppositions and interpretations onto some statements here and there which are perhaps not universally shared or obvious.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is like one side of the mouth is saying that you should seek your own answers from God and the other side is saying that your answer better be in line with what the prophet says or as Marion G. Romney said, "you are on the road to apostasy".

I surmise that the "answers" here pertain to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.  Gender identity is similarly a topic about which people can have strongly-held sentiments which nevertheless diverge from the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church.

Have I ever encountered a situation where the legs of the stool are at odds with each other?  Where "Scripture, Prophets" are incompatible with "Personal Revelation" and/or "Reason"?  Overwhelmingly, no.  There are a few niche concepts/ideas with which I struggle, but nothing that would create some sort of moral dilemma in which I must choose one (my personal sense of right and wrong) over the other (obeying scriptural/prophetic counsel).  

It seems like the bulk of such dilemmas, when they arise, pertain to A) the Law of Chastity, B) matters outside the individual's stewardship, C) personal sociopolitical preferences being prioritized and characterized as "The Spirit," or D) some combination of A-C.

As to "big ticket" items, such as addressing matters of sexuality and gender, I think we in the Church are endowed with lots of counsel, both in scripture and modern prophetic counsel.  I think our efforts at utilizing reason and seeking personal revelation should be in conjunction with these resources, not sought in contravention of ("versus") them.  Each of us is, of course, "free to choose" (2 Nephi 2:27).

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.  

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I realize that you may have a different point of view, but I also hope that this helps you understand where these feelings of so many leaving the church are coming from rather than just dismiss the statements of those having difficulty dealing with past and current church leaders statements with what they personally believe to be true.

I am working hard to not "dismiss" such sentiments.  I may ultimately disagree on some things, but I don't think we ought to summarily dismiss each others' perspectives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve heard several iterations from pulpit etc of “ when the prophet speaks the debate is over.” Less so since Covid (I have theories) but California Id hate for you to feel gaslit on this. It’s certainly been propagated. 

Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"?

I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"?

I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think for the purposes of this conversation, I know what California is saying. I don’t need every little word to be perfect to understand his message. I understand what he’s communicating.

my relationship with California, and with you and with everybody else here is more important to me than rejecting a message based on a word. I know that words are very important to you. But to me, standing on ceremony with this inhibits actual conversations.
 

And yes, I do believe that the church wants us to think and ponder and ask questions. But I do not think they want any sort of debate. I think they want us to pray and receive the same answers that they have already provided. That is my opinion.

Edited June 22 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"?

I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective on this issue.

I think for the purposes of this conversation, I know what California is saying. I don’t need every little word to be perfect to understand his message. I understand what he’s communicating.

Sure.  I understand his perspective.  I am trying to better understand the statements he is attributing to the Church.

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

And yes, I do believe that the church wants us to think and ponder and ask questions. But I do not think they want any sort of debate. I think they want us to pray and receive the same answers that they have already provided. That is my opinion.

I have all sorts of thoughts about matters for which we have limited or no revealed light and knowledge.  I think the Church is fine with me having those speculations and inferences.  I think the calculus changes when I specifically and publicly contradict or speak against the scriptures and/or the leaders of the Church about clearly-delineated matters of substantive and important doctrines, with the intention of persuading others to listen to me rather than those who have stewardship over the Church.

For example, I feel free to publicly speculate about, say, progression between kingdoms of glory.  I am not declaring anything.  I am not attempting to exceed the bounds of my stewardship.  I am not setting myself as an voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.  I am not attempting to change other people's behaviors.  And so on.

On the other hand, I do not feel free to make public pronouncements about, say, the ambit of the Law of Chastity (such as its prohibition against fornication), particularly if I am attempting to declare doctrine, exceed the bounds of my stewardship, set myself up as an alternative/superior voice of authority, change other people's behaviors, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I would like to see some documentation/evidence that "it was taught" outside of a single Ward Teacher's Message published in June 1945, and repudiated weeks later.

By "this kind of thinking" you are referencing "the thinking has been done"?

You seem to conflate this with "the debate is over."  Am I correct on that point?  If so, do you see any difference between the two sentiments?  Between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"?

For my part, the former seems to excuse - or even prohibit - individual members from "thinking" about the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and to instead just reflexively and unthinkingly accept whatever the Presiding High Priest says.

In contrast, the latter seems to refer to prioritizing prophetic counsel over personal preferences ("Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do.") about well-settled matters of morality ("God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women," etc.).

My experience in the Church has, it seems, been markedly different from yours.  I have never been told to not think, or that the thinking "has been done."  Quite the contrary, my experience in the Church has always been about individual members seeking out, through prayer and study and such, the validity of the truth claims of the Church, and to keep the commandments.  In my view, neither those truth claims nor the commandments contemplate that the "thinking has been done."

Okay.  So your statement was: "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

Apart from the June 1945 Ward Teachers Message, what other "church sources" can you identify as repeating this concept?

I believe the Prophet does receive direct revelation to guide the Church.  I have not denied that.  I am, instead, seeking to identify what you refer to as "church sources" in which "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

I have previously presented evidence that the 1945 Ward Teachers Message was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders," which which was instead "inadvertently permitted" to be published" in a pamphlet during the waning days of the most destructive war in the history of world.

You have said that your claim was "{not} made up out of thin air," and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

So who are these "church leaders" who have said/repeated that "{w}hen the prophet speaks, the thinking is done?" 

What are these "sources" you are referencing?

I do believe they received direct revelation.

Please see my previous post, where I lay out my perspective on sustaining the leaders of the Church.  Broadly, yes, I have an obligation to follow their counsel.  Broadly, but not interminably.  See my prior post (quoting "Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided...").

Yes.  And unfortunately, some take that sensible precept to an unjustified extreme and impute notions of infallibility onto the leaders of the Church.  Such notions have been repeatedly rejected by the very leaders upon whom they are imputed.

I am.  I think I construe and apply them in ways differently from the ways you do.

In the end, we each of us must do what we think is right.  Here's my take:

I hope this clarifies things.

We human beings are really good at rationalizing misbehavior.  Here is one of the more egregious examples I have come across in the Church:

Then-Elder Carrington apparently managed to persuade himself that he had found "a different answer than the prophet of God" as pertaining to the Law of Chastity.  But really.  He kept his behavior hidden.  He lied about it.  And he sinned grievously over and over.  And he still managed to argue that he had not technically violated the Law of Chastity.

This sort of thing, in my view, strengthens my resolve to make sure all four of of the legs in Michael Ash's analogy are strong and sturdy: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  This is particularly important when the Law of Chastity is in view, as it seems to be one of the more-likely-to-be-rationalized-away-as-wrong-or-inapplicable commandments.

That would depend on the circumstance.

By way of example: Some years ago I served as my ward's bishop, during which time I formulated an idea of having the young women in our ward provider welcoming/ushering services during Sacrament Meeting.  I felt pretty good about it, and approached my stake president to see if he had any concern about it.  He said no.  We had a discussion about it, as I had understood that there was no scriptural prohibition against it, nor was it addressed in the Handbook, nor had the concept been addressed by the Brethren (at least, as far as I could see).  The stake president said he felt that "ushering" was a priesthood function (apparently per D&C 84:111 and/or D&C 107:68, though I'm not sure he had these passages specifically in mind).

So, where the "four legs" in harmony?  Not exactly.  The scriptures were (mostly) silent on the issue, and I could not find any specific prophetic counsel on the topic.  What I could see, however, was clear instruction in both scripture and modern prophetic counsel in matters of stewardship and authority.  Consequently, I deferred to the stake president and did not implement the proposal.

Fast-forward several years, and the Church amended its policies in August 2024 to direct that "Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3)."

So was I right or wrong in my course of action?  Should I have disregarded my SP's instruction and implemented the policy anyway, given that the Church eventually came around to it?  In my view, no.  "{S}ee that all these things are done in wisdom and order."  (Mosiah 4:27.)

Again, that depends on the circumstances.  I think then-Elder Oaks' 1987 article, Criticism, does a very good job of providing guardrails for this sort of thing.

Okay.  That has not been my experience at all.  Hence my request for sources which substantiate the claim that "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"

I think you have overlaid some presuppositions and interpretations onto some statements here and there which are perhaps not universally shared or obvious.

I surmise that the "answers" here pertain to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.  Gender identity is similarly a topic about which people can have strongly-held sentiments which nevertheless diverge from the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church.

Have I ever encountered a situation where the legs of the stool are at odds with each other?  Where "Scripture, Prophets" are incompatible with "Personal Revelation" and/or "Reason"?  Overwhelmingly, no.  There are a few niche concepts/ideas with which I struggle, but nothing that would create some sort of moral dilemma in which I must choose one (my personal sense of right and wrong) over the other (obeying scriptural/prophetic counsel).  

It seems like the bulk of such dilemmas, when they arise, pertain to A) the Law of Chastity, B) matters outside the individual's stewardship, C) personal sociopolitical preferences being prioritized and characterized as "The Spirit," or D) some combination of A-C.

As to "big ticket" items, such as addressing matters of sexuality and gender, I think we in the Church are endowed with lots of counsel, both in scripture and modern prophetic counsel.  I think our efforts at utilizing reason and seeking personal revelation should be in conjunction with these resources, not sought in contravention of ("versus") them.  Each of us is, of course, "free to choose" (2 Nephi 2:27).

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.  

I am working hard to not "dismiss" such sentiments.  I may ultimately disagree on some things, but I don't think we ought to summarily dismiss each others' perspectives.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be pushing the idea that the only time such an idea was expressed by the church was a single home teaching pamphlet.  Are you just blowing off the fact that the idea has been repeated?  

 

Quote

 

This idea was also taught by Elaine Cannon at a churchwide fireside and reprinted in the Ensign in November, 1978.  

It was repeated by N. Eldon Tanner in the First Presidents Message that appeared in the Ensign on August 1979

 

I was not around when the home teaching message came out, but I was around when N. Eldon Tanner repeated this idea in the First Presidents Message in the Ensign.  This was discussed in various. church meetings as a result of his message.   Many members were troubled by his message.  

It is not just that, I provided plenty of references of church leaders repeating variations of this idea that the prophet speaks for God and if you disagree, this, as Marion G. Romney said, will lead you to apostasy.   I also reference the mantra, "Follow the prophet he will never lead you astray" and the many variations of this theme.  I can certainly provide more references to this quote if I thought it would make a difference.  You may disagree or have figured out a way to work around this concept that the prophet is always right but is there any way at all that you can see how others might not have read a book, or sliced and diced this into an exact wording or it doesn't count kind of thinking?  You seem to want to dismiss this as, in your mind, not a big deal and can't understand how this would be an issue.  I think you have major blind spots when it comes to these kinds of things.  Are you expecting every other person to have come up with the same conclusions as you have?  Is their conclusion to be easily dismissed because it is not the same as yours?

I find it interesting that Russel Nelson can testify that the policy concerning  baptizing children of gay couples a revelation came from God and then when the policy is discontinued months later, you aren't asking why if it was a revelation from God was it so easily dismissed.  Can you at least see that others might not dismiss such a statement easily especially if they had a gay family member or were gay and had children?  Might be another area where you are a bit of a blind spot for you.

My point in even posting about these issues is because so many members think that those who are leaving the church are doing so with absolutely no justification.  They are just making up the problems about the past narrative the church taught.  All the sudden, anything that is not currently taught should be just forgotten as if it never happened.  Or, like you, members feel there is an explanation, they should just figure out a way to look at what was taught differently or changing the meaning of the intent of that teaching.  

I think a perfect example of this kind of slicing and dicing is your response to Mustard. "Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over?  Many would say the words maybe different,  but the intent is the same,  Some might take a scalpel, like you and see a difference in intent which you may very well believe.  But what you do have difficulty with is believing that someone else may consider both statements as a similar statement in meaning.  In the end, I think this assumption that everyone should come to the same conclusion as you have is the biggest issue in how you approach these discussions.  You seem to have a hard time understanding that other peoples life experiences has lead them to different conclusions.  (Example: See numerous post you have posted that go on for pages about women seeing men as potential rapists.  How could they possibly be wary of men just because they have been attacked in the past.  Yet you won't let go or even acknowledge that their experiences have lead to a different conclusion.)

I hope this helps you better understand why so many are leaving the church over past comments and teachings even if to you, their behavior is totally unjustified because you are still a believing member and you have been able to work through these issues, they should too or else they just want an excuse for leaving the church.  For many it is one of the hardest decisions they have made.  Some loose family connections because they left.  Some loose their entire social structure.  Some loose their faith in God.  Some struggle for years to finally cut the ties.  Why do you think so many make the decision to leave the church?  Do you think they just haven't read what you have?  Or come to the wrong conclusions because you have the right answers?

 

 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

kay.  I would like to see some documentation/evidence that "it was taught" outside of a single Ward Teacher's Message published in June 1945, and repudiated weeks later

Church leaders are more than just General Authorities in most members’ views, imo.  California boy didnt say as far as I remember he was limiting the teaching to official publications only or General Authorities only (he can correct me if I am wrong).

My experience is they include bishopric members, EQ, RS and youth leaders and teachers typically in most members’ views. Also stake leaders.  Pretty sure that’s how it’s taught officially, but won’t take time to doublecheck right now. 
 

Finding documentation that a local leader taught something will be practically impossible. 
 

I remember a variation on this theme.  A relatively new convert was a Primary counselor along with myself and it was her turn to give the teacher training instruction.  She added a small lump of dirt to a cup of sugar and shook it up and then explained if we added anything to what the lesson manuals were teaching in our lessons, we were taunting the truth like the dirt tainted the sugar and made it useless for cooking.  
 

I have no way to document that experience. 
 

I am grateful that FAIR has stuff up there demonstrating the origin and whether or not it’s actual doctrine (I don’t believe it qualifies).  However, that doesn’t mean it didn’t become part of our culture and that it has at times created tendencies to interpret teachings of confidence in our leaders’ inspiration to be certainty, including to the point we can skip looking for personal confirmation.  

The only way to remove error in our communities in my experience is to realistically recognize its presence first and not be dismissive of its impact just because we are confident it is wrong.  

Edited June 23 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And yes, I do believe that the church wants us to think and ponder and ask questions. But I do not think they want any sort of debate. I think they want us to pray and receive the same answers that they have already provided. That is my opinion

I believe a lot of leaders feel this way.  They believe it will create the best world not only for the Church as a whole, but also and especially for the individual members.  I think there are other leaders that are less black and white about it and see members at different stages in life needing different things even if we are attempting to travel down the road together.  I think that idea can be harder to convey while still teaching confidence (not certainty) in leaders and commitment to the faith.  It is very easy to slip into less nuanced teaching when time is limited, especially if one has taught the more nuanced positions in the past. It can be frustrating to feel like one has to start at square one with each talk instead of building on past talks.

 I get why leaders are forced to keep it simple though since even here on this board where we have documented conversations, some posters seem unable to grasp greater context and instead focused on certain details as if they exist in a vacuum.   Complicated ideas appear to need to be repeated over with all the previous details included and even then they can be misinterpreted by isolating them from surrounding context.  

Edited June 23 by Calm

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And yes, I do believe that the church wants us to think and ponder and ask questions. But I do not think they want any sort of debate. I think they want us to pray and receive the same answers that they have already provided. That is my opinion

I confess that I'm quite shocked at the idea that Church leaders hold a position about this or that because they think that opinion is correct. That it no way to run a theological autocracy.

That Elder Christofferson made it to the Quorum of the First Presidency means stuff is going very wrong. "We have individual members in the Church with a variety of opinions, beliefs, and positions on these issues and other issues... In our view, it’s possible to have a difference on these kinds of subjects or some direct opposition to a Church position and still be a faithful member in good standing." -- Elder Christofferson

[MustardSeed]

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I confess that I'm quite shocked at the idea that Church leaders hold a position about this or that because they think that opinion is correct. That it no way to run a theological autocracy.

That Elder Christofferson made it to the Quorum of the First Presidency means stuff is going very wrong. "We have individual members in the Church with a variety of opinions, beliefs, and positions on these issues and other issues... In our view, it’s possible to have a difference on these kinds of subjects or some direct opposition to a Church position and still be a faithful member in good standing." -- Elder Christofferson

This is a wonderful quote. I love it.
Is this your experience, overall, in our church?

[3DOP]

On 6/21/2026 at 7:32 AM, longview said:

Ardent? Only in your twisted and unbalanced review of scriptures.

There were many provisions in the Law of Moses that tried to mitigate various corrupt practices of human relations and point to a better way.

One example was indentured servitude. When two parties entered into an economic arrangement for exchange of goods or services, it usually is completed with the expected outcome. If not, then the the party that was "shorted" will "bind" the other party to various kinds of menial servitude.

The Law of Moses put a limit on the duration of servitude to 7 years.

Longview, hello. Thumbs up.

So much of the Old Testament is gradual mitigation (your word). We don't have to defend everything in it as Christians. Nor should we advocate everything in it. 

I submit that knowledge of revelation is still not fully understood. But you are LDS. Your own tradition calls for continuing revelation. There is parallel. Mine calls for continuing understanding.

Some of these so called liberals read the Scriptures like Fundamentalists! Everything is literal. No contextual ideas about gradual light. We can't go from midnight to noon. And because of the liberal/fundamentalist approach to revelation they end up in unbelief.

There is a middle way. Maybe, and even probably, I am being over optimistic about my interpretation about how we agree. My apologies if so. I am an agreeable fellow wherever I can see hope for agreement. For that matter, one like us (or me) cannot object to liberal objections to apparent slavery and genocide. We are on their side on the issue. But their fundamentalist understanding of Scripture makes them reject it. They are too simplistic.

 

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

This is a wonderful quote. I love it.
Is this your experience, overall, in our church?

I hold plenty of ideas that, while I consider most of them orthodox, are decidedly not mainstream. I've never been chastised, reprimanded, or even disdained for them.

Do I trot out such during sacrament meeting talks? No. There is plenty to talk about that is beneficial and helpful and upon which we, as a people, largely agree. That said, I have presented new ways of thinking about things and I've gotten compliments of gratitude for the new ideas/approaches.


At a recent stake conference during the adult session we had an unusually frank member of the Seventy leading a discussion. A member (of the high council) gave an insight that the Seventy disagreed with. Didn't chastise, belittle, or anyway reprimand.  He simply acknowledged that sometimes we have different opinions about things and moved on. There is so very much more upon which we can agree that getting hung up on minor disagreements is counterproductive to the work of Zion. I suspect, and it is my experience, that is the position of pretty much every member (at least in theory for everybody and in practice for the vast majority).

Edited June 23 by Nofear

[longview]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

But their fundamentalist understanding of Scripture makes them reject it. They are too simplistic.

And sometimes faithless or intolerant or not willing to ponder the overarching care God has for the world and His Work. Throughout History.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Church leaders are more than just General Authorities in most members’ views, imo.  California boy didnt say as far as I remember he was limiting the teaching to official publications only or General Authorities only (he can correct me if I am wrong).

My experience is they include bishopric members, EQ, RS and youth leaders and teachers typically in most members’ views. Also stake leaders.  Pretty sure that’s how it’s taught officially, but won’t take time to doublecheck right now. 
 

Finding documentation that a local leader taught something will be practically impossible. 
 

I remember a variation on this theme.  A relatively new convert was a Primary counselor along with myself and it was her turn to give the teacher training instruction.  She added a small lump of dirt to a cup of sugar and shook it up and then explained if we added anything to what the lesson manuals were teaching in our lessons, we were taunting the truth like the dirt tainted the sugar and made it useless for cooking.  
 

I have no way to document that experience. 
 

I am grateful that FAIR has stuff up there demonstrating the origin and whether or not it’s actual doctrine (I don’t believe it qualifies).  However, that doesn’t mean it didn’t become part of our culture and that it has at times created tendencies to interpret teachings of confidence in our leaders’ inspiration to be certainty, including to the point we can skip looking for personal confirmation.  

The only way to remove error in our communities in my experience is to realistically recognize its presence first and not be dismissive of its impact just because we are confident it is wrong.  

This is exactly what I was trying to point out.  When the attitude is that members should pray about what church leaders tell them came from God but if they get a different answer, then it is their fault and to keep praying means that the church's position is the only position a member should have.  

Not everything has sure answers even if it comes from church leaders.  We have learned that over time even church leaders change their minds about what they claimed God previously told them to do.  When church leaders can't even seem to determine whether something is a revelation from God or just a consensus of opinion, (Elder Nelsons proclaiming not baptizing children of gay couples was a direct revelation from God) then doesn't what they proclaim become even more fuzzy and the only acceptable answer to their prayers has to align with theirs?  If it doesn't align, then they should keep praying until it does.  Claims that every decision church leaders make comes from God doesn't seem too hold up over time.  If it doesn't all come from God then strict adherence should not be taught or expected in my opinion.  

A recent example of this is the decades church leaders taught shame about bare shoulders as being immodest and a style that faithful church women should never even consider.  I have to say, it was a bit shocking for me to see my daughter in law in a sleeveless tank top the first time.  Nothing is ever said about all the guilt trips young women lessons and control put on women for all those decades, them poof, it is all gone.  I have to ask, isn't it difficult for women to not resent all of those years of being shamed and controlled for something that evidently was just the opinion of old men that had nothing to do with the divine or morality?   I personally would be a bit pissed.