"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

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).

Cool, I’m exactly the same way.
 

I just wondered if you had received messaging from leadership that we should or should not challenge statements made by general authorities or what have you. 
 

My experience is that Elder C’s words are a breath of fresh air.  

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2026 at 12:50 PM, smac97 said:

Saw these yesterday and today (YouTube videos on the "A Thoughtful Faith" channel) :

Why People Leave The Church - Part 1: The REAL Problem

Why People Leave The Church - Part 2: The REAL Solution

Grok summary of Part 1:

Grok summary of Part 2:

Also saw these this morning (Deseret News) :

Opinion: Moving from a deficit-oriented to a data-driven perspective on Latter-day Saints

Latter-day Saints continue to demonstrate uniquely high religiosity, according to a new BYU report

Very interesting reads, both of these,

Here is a consolidated Grok summary of all four of the above items:

I would be interested in your thoughts on these items.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see anything in the summaries that I would disagree with.

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2026 at 2:21 PM, smac97 said:

That's an interesting perspective, and perhaps involves some presuppositions about the Church that are understandable from an "on the outside looking in" perspective.  

"Navel gazing" is an interesting characterization.  It "refers to pointless, excessive self-contemplation or self-absorption. It describes a state of being so intensely focused on your own thoughts, feelings, or internal problems that you become oblivious to the outside world."

If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and leaving it are important, even momentous, decisions.  The frequency at which disaffiliation occurs is, in my view, not a particularly helpful metric relative to importance.  Lots of people get married and divorced, both of which are important decisions.

I think what is different for @Navidadis that for a large part of Christianity, what denomination you worship with and find a church home with is not really significant so long as they have the "essential" doctrine correct. Thus moving from Methodist, to Baptist, to Lutheran and so on is quite fine. But as you note in the bolded item above, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims, it then holds some exclusive items that is not  transferred to other denominations. 

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2026 at 3:58 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think this is too shallow. People stop attending because they don’t believe. Many do turn to secularism but this treats secularism as a cause instead of a symptom. Secularism is more common because in a pluralistic society with access to a wide world of contradicting religion and views and information at our fingertips, rigid religious claims can’t withstand scrutiny (obviously in my opinion). It’s a broad ecosystem of ideas out there and people choose what makes the most sense to them. 

That is accurate. I did not stop believing because of secularism at all. Though secularism does play a large roll in my beliefs now. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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.

I don’t read it literally. I used to read it much more literally. Now I consider just about everything before King David to be a legend that almost certainly didn’t happen. I suspect there wasn’t a God laying down the Torah word for word. I doubt the Torah as written was ever enforced as written in the Kingdoms of Israel or Judah. I do take it seriously though. This is what the people writing it wanted you to believe. It means I have a hard time seeing Israel as exceptional or possessing some special blessing. It was never a city on the hill that inspired the whole world.

My own private problems with my faith are much more fundamental in a way than a worry about scriptural reliability. I see what God wants or at least what I hope God wants for humanity and then I look at the conditions God set up to achieve them and I find it hard to believe that a God that wants those results set up this system. My study of history leads me to believe that authoritarianism was what the Earth was designed for. I have a little more empathy for the kings of the past that insisted God set up a tiered system with those that rule and fight, those that pray or propitiate God or the gods, and those who labor and generally have all their surplus taken away by the first two groups and that siphoning off is virtually required for military reasons if nothing else. Subsistence farming, once discovered, had to replace hunter-gatherer societies since they allowed populations to grow and if you didn’t get on that bandwagon you would lose to those who did. It is only in recent centuries that we could move beyond subsistence farming.

Yet my faith says that it is vital that humans have choice and yet reality gave humans throughout history very few life choices of any import. I am told that choosing the correct faith is vital when most of humanity had no such choice at all. I look at the virtues humanity has been asked to cultivate and see that the deck is stacked against developing them. It makes my faith seem like a bolted on afterthought added to fit only current conditions and pretending it is somehow backward compatible. And if I stop giving scripture the benefit of the doubt it loses its grandeur that I used to see in it and it becomes petty.

I don’t know. I am still puzzling it all over. it just seems like God deliberately set humanity up to fail and is then blaming them for it and I am tired of having to make excuses to make it all work.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is accurate. I did not stop believing because of secularism at all. Though secularism does play a large roll in my beliefs now. 

The first secularists in the societies most of us inhabit were Christians who found their belief system unsustainable. There is a Christian narrative that secularism is an external force. The first scholars who found huge problems with biblical accounts being historical were Christians trying to support Christianity but the data didn’t back up a lot of the hypotheses. When things that were inexplicable became more explainable Christianity had to retrench. It stopped being the default. Fundamentalism is a reaction to things like Darwin and biblical archaeology. Islamic fundamentalism has very similar roots.

[Calm]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I see what God wants or at least what I hope God wants for humanity and then I look at the conditions God set up to achieve them and I find it hard to believe that a God that wants those results set up this system. My study of history leads me to believe that authoritarianism was what the Earth was designed for.

I believe the earth is set up in part to rub our noses in what it would be like if we don’t humble ourselves and learn from God, turn ourselves over to him to be purified and sanctified and instead attempt to set ourselves up as the center of the universe so to speak.  It’s chaos.  

It’s to show us what we really want so that there will be no sidetracks or second guessing or rebellions in the later stages where more damage can be done because we will all have a tight focus on what we truly desire.

I think by the time we are done with mortality and the post mortality debriefing, those who can be convinced (in the sense of hearts and minds being fully committed, not manipulated into feeling that way, but freely choosing because they know the alternatives and don’t value them) to be truly selfless so that all may have joy will have their hearts set on that being our ultimate state of being and those who cannot be convinced it’s what they want will live a more isolated life where their lack of desire to do good won’t harm anyone and they can contribute as much as they desire, so as to have the joy they want as well if not as full as those who are willing to go all in. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I just wondered if you had received messaging from leadership that we should or should not challenge statements made by general authorities or what have you.

I haven't. But, I also try to respect the purpose, venue, and location of where I share my ideas (though, I'm not so out there that I really have to think about it at all).

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I haven't. But, I also try to respect the purpose, venue, and location of where I share my ideas (though, I'm not so out there that I really have to think about it at all).

Likewise!  
But I was really asking you about the bigger picture in reference to the original statement here on the thread “when the prophet speaks the discussion is over” - someone had said they had received this message from the pulpit often, but they were being told here that this was not actually a thing. I’m trying really hard to make sure that the person who made this statement doesn’t feel gaslit, because I feel like that happens too often on this site so when it does happen, I like to clarify.

But I feel like the moment has passed anyway. I don’t even remember who said what anymore 😅

[smac97]

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

I am not pushing an idea so much as I am attempting to better understand yours.  Again, 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?  Which "church leaders" said this?  When?  Where?

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Are you just blowing off the fact that the idea has been repeated?  

Not at all.  I am asking for references as to where this "idea has been repeated" by "Church leaders."

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

"{T}his idea" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."  

Pres. Tanner's message, from nearly a half century ago, said in part: “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over”

Am I correct in understand that you are treating this statement as functionally equivalent to "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?

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

Also, you referenced "Church leaders."  Do you have any other citations for "Church leaders" who said "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?  

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

This was discussed in various. church meetings as a result of his message.   Many members were troubled by his message.  

"This message" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?

Do you feel this message is troubling?  If so, could you clarify your perspective.  I would like to better understand it.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

So we have the June 1945 statement in a Church pamphlet that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."  In my view, this statement

• 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 think you and I may disagree about whether this 1945 statement has been "repeated or endorsed in the 80+ years since its publication."  You appear to be conflating it with statements such as

1. Sis. Cannon's November 1978 Ensign article ("When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over").
2. Pres. Tanner's August 1979 Ensign article (referencing Sis. Cannon's statement with an elision: "When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over”).
3. Elder Romney's April 1942 statement: "{T}hose who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the leaders, are assuming an indefensible position.  Such a spirit leads to apostasy."
4. Pres. Faust's October 2005 statement: "The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen."
5. Elder Benson's October 1966 statement: "Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray."
6. Elder McConkie's 1963 statement: "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."

You seem to view items 3-6 as effectively synonymous with items 1-2, and all of them as effectively synonymous with the June 1845 Ward Teacher's Message.  Is this a correct summary of your position? 

If so, I respectfully disagree with that characterization of these various statements.  I see significant distinctions between Church leaders declaring "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" (which, as far as i can tell, has never happened) and the other statements you have provided above, as well as large numbers of other scriptural and prophetic statements encouraging the Latter-day Saints to seek out light and knowledge via study and prayer and personal revelation.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

No need.  I am familiar with, and agree with and endorse, this statement.  From one of my previously-linked posts:

Quote

 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."

I can affirm that repudiate the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message (as Pres. Smith later in 1945).

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

You may disagree or have figured out a way to work around this concept that the prophet is always right

I do not accept or agree with the "concept that the prophet is always right."  I think that statement is not an accurate characterization of Latter-day Saint doctrine and belief.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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?  

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Are there some Latter-day Saints who endorse the sentiment that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?  Perhaps.  I have never heard any such sentiment from observant Latter-day Saints, and the only time I have heard the above-statement repeated is by critics.  I think Daniel Peterson's rejoinder from years ago is fairly apt (from a previously-linked post) :

Quote

{John Smith} 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."

{Daniel Peterson} 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?

DCP's comment is a bit dated (it references "more than a half a century ago," and we are now 81 years from the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message).  However, the point remains worth some consideration.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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 would like to better understand what you mean by "this."  

I acknowledge and understand that the June 1945 statement ("When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done") is "a big deal."  I think critics dredge it up precisely to make it so.  

What I do not really understand is the apparent conflation of the June 1945 statement with other statements from leaders of the Church which, in my view, vary substantially and fundamentally from the June 1945 statement.

I also do not understand your statement that "Church leaders" (notably plural) "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'"  I just don't think that is an accurate or fair statement about or characterization of the Church.  I have asked for examples of "Church leaders" saying "'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done,'" and so far you have not provided even a single instance (unless, of course, you dispute Pres. Smith's 1945 statement that the statement "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that instead "one or more of them inadvertently permitted" the statement to be published (during the waning days of World War II, the most destructive conflict in the history of the world)).

At present, I am surmising that you do not actually have any such citations, and that you are instead justifying the June 1945 statement which you are attributing to "Church leaders" by conflating it with other statements such as those enumerated above.  Am i correct on this point?

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

I think you have major blind spots when it comes to these kinds of things.  

Well, I suppose that could happen, hence my various inquiries.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Are you expecting every other person to have come up with the same conclusions as you have?  

No.  I was hoping to better understand your perspective.  

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Is their conclusion to be easily dismissed because it is not the same as yours?

What "conclusion" are you referencing here?  I don't think I have "dismissed" any conclusions.  Disagreed with some, yes.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

I have asked, and addressed, that issue.  I would be happy to share my thoughts about it if you are interested.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

I don't know about that.  

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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,  

I think think words matter, and so does intent.  And I don't think the "intent" of Church leaders has ever been to endorse the statement/sentiment that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."  Again, from one of my prior posts:

Quote

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. 

I think the June 1945 message typifies what Elder Andersen was talking about back in 2012.

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Some might take a scalpel, like you and see a difference in intent which you may very well believe.  

I appreciate the acknowledgment.  That is meaningful.

However, I don't think a "scalpel" is necessary.  I have studied the scriptures and modern prophetic counsel for many years, and I just do not see any sort of thematic element congruent with "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

But what you do have difficulty with is believing that someone else may consider both statements as a similar statement in meaning.  

I'm not sure what "both statements" you are referencing here.

I think a serious student of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ will have a pretty hard time justifying a thematic element within it that is congruent with "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."  We simply have too much scriptural/prophetic counsel to seek and obtain light and knowledge through study and prayer and personal revelation.  Again, 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.

I see the foregoing as fundamentally incompatible with the long-repudiated statement in the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message that "{W}hen the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

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.  

I do not think I have expressed such an assumption, and I reject it.  

As I said previously: "In the end, we each of us must do what we think is right."

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Why do you think so many make the decision to leave the church?  

I think there are a variety of reasons, some more justifiable and reasonable than others.  If you want further explanation, please 

On 6/22/2026 at 5:08 PM, california boy said:

Do you think they just haven't read what you have?

I think there is quite a mixed bag.  Some study and pray a lot, some little or not at all. 

Some allow this or that issues and ideological commitments, and whether or not the Church's doctrines and/or policies are congruent with said issues / commitments, to become a litmus test for remaining in the Church.  

Some just drift away, having lost or mislaid incentives to remain.

I am giving some credence to sociological research on these matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 5 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

I stand all amazed honestly.  Smac if I ever need a lawyer I’m calling you.  
 

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I had to read this about five times. I think maybe you didn’t intend this.

[manol]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am told that choosing the correct faith is vital when most of humanity had no such choice at all. I look at the virtues humanity has been asked to cultivate and see that the deck is stacked against developing them. It makes my faith seem like a bolted on afterthought added to fit only current conditions and pretending it is somehow backward compatible...

I don’t know. I am still puzzling it all over. it just seems like God deliberately set humanity up to fail and is then blaming them for it and I am tired of having to make excuses to make it all work.

 

Is it possible that religions are incorrect about what this earth life is actually for? Is it possible that much of what you have been told was either skewed or invented by humans, however well-meaning they may have been?

Is it possible that the spark in your heart which inherently knows right from wrong is more correct than however many thousands of years of religion and scripture?

What would happen if you start all over and only allow into your belief system that which tastes delicious to your soul? 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by manol

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Am I correct in understand that you are treating this statement [on debate] as functionally equivalent to "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?

I expect most people would interpret it that way, some nitpickers like myself would point out nuances that debate is about discussion, thinking is about what goes on internally, but since I do a lot of my thinking verbally in discussions, that can often amount to the same thing for me functionally speaking and I wouldn’t be surprised if others are like that…so even a more nuanced view might be pretty much the same thing in personal interpretations or practice, imo.

I don’t take that teaching in isolation though, so I suspect most would see me as ignoring it, lol.

Quote

Do you feel this message is troubling?  If so, could you clarify your perspective.  I would like to better understand it.

It is for me because too many in my experience take it as instruction to diminish the purpose of personal revelation when it comes to church doctrine to only confirm what comes from the pulpit at conference or even locally (they hear leaders quoting the prophet and assume whatever goes along with the quote is in the same league). It can even get extrapolated in my experience to a belief that they shouldn’t be exploring ideas themselves because all that should come from authority.

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I stand all amazed honestly.  Smac if I ever need a lawyer I’m calling you.  
 

I had to read this about five times. I think maybe you didn’t intend this.

Correct.  I have corrected the error.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

see significant distinctions between Church leaders declaring "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" (which, as far as i can tell, has never happened)

Except it has with local church leaders in mine and others’ experience according to their reports.

It would be best to avoid misunderstanding to specify when you are talking about official church publications including conference talks.  I am assuming you mean general authorities and officers.  I suspect most here would understand if you used “general church leaders” where they won’t with just “church leaders”, since common usage includes local church leaders in that category….though it might be best given meanings of general to be precise and say “general authorities and officers” if that is what you actually mean.

For example, Elder Nelson appears to be describing a local leader who only later became a mission president under the section in his talk headed “Church Leaders” here:

Quote

Church Leaders

Members, learn to listen, and listen to learn from Church leaders. Faithful members love the Savior and honor His servants, having faith in the Lord’s declaration that “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

One day in Italy I met a wonderful priesthood leader and his wife. In him I saw a man with great potential. But my language was foreign to them. Through an interpreter, I challenged them to study the English language. They listened obediently and studied diligently. Now six years later, ably sustained by his wife, Carolina, Vincenzo Conforte is faithfully serving his second assignment as a mission president, interviewing missionaries well in Italian or in English.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/listen-to-learn?lang=eng

My guess is if you don’t specify you are not talking about local leadership, you will get pushback and many will see you as intentionally misrepresenting reality on this topic.  If your point is to be persuasive, avoiding that is pretty easy and straightforward, imo.

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[MustardSeed]

(Perhaps this is already been mentioned, but I’m growing weary of the topic so I’m being lazy.)

 

AI helps, but these statements are very old. But personally, having heard the sentiment over and over throughout the years by local leaders and teachers and comments in Sunday school often enough that I’m part of this conversation today, I would imagine that these original statements have been sticky enough that it’s become part of culture for our church. Maybe not in Smacs ward but ok: 

 

Ai: “The most famous is not actually “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done,” but:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”

“When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.”
— Ward Teachers’ Message, Improvement Era, June 1945, published under the supervision of the Presiding Bishopric.

This was an official teaching message for ward teachers, not merely a private opinion piece. It generated controversy at the time. A Unitarian minister, J. Raymond Cope, wrote to Church President George Albert Smith expressing concern. Smith replied that the Church does not expect blind obedience and that members should use their reason and judgment.

A later statement is even closer to your wording:

“When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.”

This phrase was quoted approvingly by N. Eldon Tanner in an August 1979 First Presidency message. He was referencing a statement made by Elaine Cannon at a Church fireside.”

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except it has with local church leaders in mine and others’ experience according to their reports.

Okay.  For my part, I generally think of "Church leaders" as General Authorities.  What this or that bishop has to say is not "general."  Moreover, even if I include local leadership, I have never encountered "the thinking has been done" as a concept in the Church.

I guess we all have different experiences.  I acknowledge those claimed by others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  For my part, I generally think of "Church leaders" as General Authorities.  What this or that bishop has to say is not "general."  Moreover, even if I include local leadership, I have never encountered "the thinking has been done" as a concept in the Church.

I guess we all have different experiences.  I acknowledge those claimed by others.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is so fascinating to me honestly. I take you absolutely as One Who would support the idea that whatever the prophets says, your prayers are going to result in the same message so just listen, follow, and do and it will all work out. 
You strike me as One Who might even say, “ when the prophet speaks, You now know what to think, so adjust accordingly, no debates needed.” 
 

And yet here you are saying that you have never come across this Messaging in the church.  That tells me that you seem to have adopted this message organically. That’s remarkable. Unless I misunderstand who you are?

Edited 4 hours ago by MustardSeed

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

(Perhaps this is already been mentioned, but I’m growing weary of the topic so I’m being lazy.)

 

AI helps, but these statements are very old. But personally, having heard the sentiment over and over throughout the years by local leaders and teachers and comments in Sunday school often enough that I’m part of this conversation today, I would imagine that these original statements have been sticky enough that it’s become part of culture for our church. Maybe not in Smacs ward but ok: 

 

Ai: “The most famous is not actually “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done,” but:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”

“When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.”
— Ward Teachers’ Message, Improvement Era, June 1945, published under the supervision of the Presiding Bishopric.

This was an official teaching message for ward teachers, not merely a private opinion piece.

And yet we have a statement from Pres. Smith in December 1945 stating that the above statement "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that "one or more of them inadvertently permitted" it to be published.

Does that factor into your assessment?

39 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It generated controversy at the time. A Unitarian minister, J. Raymond Cope, wrote to Church President George Albert Smith expressing concern. Smith replied that the Church does not expect blind obedience and that members should use their reason and judgment.

And Brigham Young said that well before him, and many other GAs have said it since.  So it seems odd to point to a single - and repudiated - line from 80+ years ago, which clearly contradicts the great weight of modern prophetic counsel, and characterize it as a normative or authoritative statement about what the Church teaches.

39 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

A later statement is even closer to your wording:

“When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.”

This phrase was quoted approvingly by N. Eldon Tanner in an August 1979 First Presidency message. He was referencing a statement made by Elaine Cannon at a Church fireside.”

This has been quoted a few times now, apparently with the expectation that it be construed as effectively identical to the sentiment expressed in the June 1945 statement.  

I can see how some might reach that conclusion, but I don't see it that way.  For me, the two phrases represent meaningfully different ideas in Latter-day Saint thought, especially regarding the balance between personal agency, study and revelation, and following prophetic leadership.

1. "When the Prophet Speaks, the Thinking Is Done" (1945 Ward Teacher's Message)

• Origin and Context: This appeared in a monthly Ward Teacher's Message (June 1945). It was not an official First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve statement but a lesson outline for home teaching.
• Implication: It suggested that once a prophet speaks, members should cease independent thought, inquiry, or personal reasoning. The mind simply accepts and obeys without further processing.
• Church Response: President George Albert Smith repudiated it later that year. The statement was seen as an overreach that contradicted core doctrines of agency and personal revelation.
• Why It's Problematic in LDS Theology: It appears to short-circuit the process of "studying it out in your mind" (D&C 9:8), seeking the Holy Ghost, and gaining a testimony. It runs counter to Joseph Smith’s teachings on individual spiritual independence and the idea that "a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."

2. "When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate Is Over" (Elaine Cannon / President N. Eldon Tanner, 1978–1979)

• Origin:
  • Elaine Cannon (then Young Women General President) used a version in a 1978 talk.
  • President N. Eldon Tanner reinforced similar language in 1979.
• Implication: Once the prophet has spoken on a matter within his stewardship, the time for public debate, contention, or campaigning against the counsel has ended for faithful members. It emphasizes unity, order, and sustaining leaders after they have prayerfully decided.
• Nuance: This does not prohibit personal pondering, study, prayer, or seeking confirmation. It addresses disputation and opposition once a prophetic voice has been given. Members are still encouraged to gain their own witness, but they are counseled to align their public stance and actions with prophetic direction.

I asked Grok to sum up the key distinctions between these two statements:

Key Distinctions

Aspect	"Thinking Is Done" (1945)	"Debate Is Over" (1978–79)
Scope of Mental Activity	Shuts down thought, study, and questioning	Allows thought, study, and personal revelation
Focus	Internal cognitive process	External debate, contention, and opposition
Official Status	Repudiated by President George Albert Smith	Consistent with repeated counsel on unity
Alignment with Agency	Appears to undermine agency and revelation	Preserves agency while promoting order and faith
Practical Effect	"Stop thinking"	"Stop publicly fighting / campaigning against it"
Theological Fit	Significant departure	Reflection of stewardship, keys, and unity

/

 

From my perspective, Latter-day Saint doctrine consistently teaches:

 

• Study, Ponder and Pray (D&C 9:7–8; Moroni 10:3–5; President Nelson’s repeated invitations).
• Personal Revelation is expected and available to every member.
• Sustaining Prophets includes giving "earnest heed" to their words (D&C 21:1; 108:1) and trusting their stewardship, especially after one has sought confirmation.
• Unity and order in the Church are vital ("be one" — D&C 38:27), but blind obedience without thought is never the ideal.

The 1945 statement was an outlier that was corrected. The later phrasing better reflects the tension between individual spiritual autonomy and collective faith in living prophets — a balance that leaders like President Kimball, President Benson, President Nelson, and others have repeatedly affirmed: ponder, pray, and then follow.

And even then, we retain the right - even the obligation - to set aside counsel in particular instances.  Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

So 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 the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" has never been part of my calculus, nor have I ever heard it advanced by local or general authorities in the Church.  YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 4 hours ago by smac97

[Senator]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is so fascinating to me honestly.

It is, if not a bit frustrating also. This is one of the cases where the apologetic can be just as offputting as the original issue. You see in order to arrive at the “correct” understanding of the issue one needs to employ the wordsmithing skills of a seasoned attorney in order to parse out all of the fine nuances and meanings of words. And in the end, you just kind of feel manipulated.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is so fascinating to me honestly. I take you absolutely as One Who would support the idea that whatever the prophets says, your prayers are going to result in the same message so just listen, follow, and do and it will all work out. 

I think this is the likely outcome in most circumstances.  But I have, over the course of years, spoken of maintaining a "rebuttable presumption" about the leaders of the Church, 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.  

I have said this, or something like it, many times over the hears (just do a Google search and see for yourself).

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You strike me as One Who might even say, “ when the prophet speaks, You now know what to think, so adjust accordingly, no debates needed.” 

I am glad you are giving me the opportunity to clear up misconceptions about what I think.  The foregoing does not aptly describe my position.

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

And yet here you are saying that you have never come across this Messaging in the church.  

"This messaging" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"?  You are correct in that I have never encountered this statement or any ratification/endorsement of it in my experience in the Church.

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That tells me that you seem to have adopted this message organically. That’s remarkable. Unless I misunderstand who you are?

You seem to be significantly misapprehending me.  I have never endorsed "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," nor have I ever adopted it, "organically" or otherwise.  I have, instead, repeatedly spoken to repudiate it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 4 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

It is, if not a bit frustrating also. This is one of the cases where the apologetic can be just as offputting as the original issue. You see in order to arrive at the “correct” understanding of the issue one needs to employ the wordsmithing skills of a seasoned attorney in order to parse out all of the fine nuances and meanings of words. And in the end, you just kind of feel manipulated.

I think the FAIR article on this topic is about as far as most folks need to go to contextualize and understand the 1944 Ward Teacher's Message.

If further inquiry is warranted, folks could search for instances where it has been repeated or endorsed by the leaders of the Church.  As it is, that appears to have never happened even once.

Again, in my view, the two phrases under discussion represent meaningfully different ideas in Latter-day Saint thought, especially regarding the balance between personal agency, study and revelation, and following prophetic leadership.

Again, YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, manol said:

 

Is it possible that religions are incorrect about what this earth life is actually for? Is it possible that much of what you have been told was either skewed or invented by humans, however well-meaning they may have been?

Yes and yes.

4 hours ago, manol said:

Is it possible that the spark in your heart which inherently knows right from wrong is more correct than however many thousands of years of religion and scripture?

I don’t think it inherently knows right from wrong. If there is no divine design then it is a combination of advantageous instincts and drives and combined with that I picked up from the culture I live in.

4 hours ago, manol said:

What would happen if you start all over and only allow into your belief system that which tastes delicious to your soul? 

I’d probably be very gullible. I’d like a heavy dose of rationality combined with that deliciousness. I’d like to believe all kinds of things are true that just aren’t.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the FAIR article on this topic is about as far as most folks need to go to contextualize and understand the 1944 Ward Teacher's Message.

If further inquiry is warranted, folks could search for instances where it has been repeated or endorsed by the leaders of the Church.  As it is, that appears to have never happened even once.

Again, in my view, the two phrases under discussion represent meaningfully different ideas in Latter-day Saint thought, especially regarding the balance between personal agency, study and revelation, and following prophetic leadership.

Again, YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

In practice though prophetic leadership trumps all the others at least on a communal level. The others are encouraged only insofar as they bring you into compliance with prophetic leadership.