Mormons As "blind Followers"

[The Nehor]

Could someone in authority please tell me what I'm to think about this so I can make a reply???????

My Danite squad leader said the appropriate response is a bullet through the temple.

[jadams_4242]

In the thread about whether pioneer Mormons were more "bloodthirsty" (referring to MMM), an explantion of the cultural context noted there was a very strong emphasis on obediance (with a note about someone's great grandfather getting excommunicated for going to a dance, or something like this).

Fast forward to today - anti-Mormons accuse LDS of being "blind sheep".

Beyond the pejorative characterization, isn't the basic assertion correct?

There is an emphasis on obediance, and an admonition to support & follow local leaders, so why are TBMs so defensive when others assert many Mormons will blindly follow their leaders' direction? It's not as though this is some kind of dramatic accusation that parts widely from reality.

Understood the direction today is more along the lines of individual interpretation in following the spirit, but cultures rarely make 180 degree turns. In the case of the priesthood ban, the LDS people have impressively done a turnabout, but in the case of obediance, it's not as though there has been a revelation & direction to "forget everything we've said about obediance, make your own decisions".

I just don't understand why TBMs get so upset when others point out the LDS emphasis - and effective result - regarding obediance. The historic & (many) contemporary examples are overwhelming.

Do other Chirstian sects not abide by what the holy bible tells them, or the pope,or billy graham

or pat robertson?

Why do we ask this question only of mormans ? People litteraly get on the ground and kiss the steps

that these other preachers walk on. Why does it have to be just mormans?

people send milions upon millions of dollars to other christian preachers, And pray for there

well being evey day. why does it have to be just mormans?

Are we the only God worshipping peoples whom follow and abide by our spiritual leaders?

Lets be fair about this?

[Tsuzuki]

My Danite squad leader said the appropriate response is a bullet through the temple.

Isn't the whole body a temple?

[Zakuska]

My Danite squad leader said the appropriate response is a bullet through the temple.

What... no Knifes...? no Jugular veins being cut?

Your leader seems to be way to mello for a finatical scrotum slicing danite.

[Dale]

What are some specific examples of where LDS are following leaders blindly? In what areas are LDS leaders stressing to much obedience? In which of these areas should LDS members be making independent decisions for themselves?

Is following the word of wisdom an example of blind obedience? Is it? Us Community of Christ/RLDS do not observe the word of wisdom as something that has to be done to be in good standing. We observe it if at all without commandment, or constraint. One person in my denomination explained it as great advice, but not a mandated commandment. But in the LDS Church coffee drinking is something you arn't supposed to do. Perhap's some might feel this is an area where LDS should be making decisions for themselves.

[bluebell]

But in the LDS Church coffee drinking is something you arn't supposed to do. Perhap's some might feel this is an area where LDS should be making decisions for themselves.

Perhaps so, but that is something for LDS members to be concerned with. I can't, for the life of me, think why non-LDS would even care about LDS beliefs concerning the WOW.

[The Nehor]

What... no Knifes...? no Jugular veins being cut?

Your leader seems to be way to mello for a finatical scrotum slicing danite.

Pop culture has totally misrepresented us. In truth we murder people by sucking out their blood to fulfill the requirements of blood atonement. Luckily for us we can only be killed by a stake through the heart, decapitation, sunlight, and crosses.

Isn't the whole body a temple?

Even the godless heathens who drink tea and only tithe 5%. Kill them all

[Zakuska]

Yet... Every Church builting has a Stake pointing out of it to do just that?

Crosses? Ah?! Now I get the aversion.... I just wish someone would tell the Portuguese Saints to quite using so much Garlic.

[Deborah]

"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 directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

But the question is does the article go on to say that one shouldn't receive a confirmation for himself? Usually when LDS try to get an answer, it's really a confirmation of that has been taught, not thinking of some alternative to the proposition but to ask "Heavenly Father is this truly thy will?"

I think of the pre-mortal Plan as presented by the Savior. What he presented was what was tried and true and was the means for retaining agency and allowing men to experience for themselves opposition. When 2/3 of the Hosts of Heaven accepted the plan, were they blindly following or did the by instinct and personal revelation recognize the truth of what had been presented. Satan on the other hand in proposing another plan chose the way which was not "safe" and which controverted that which was apparently tried and true. Without repentance it did indeed destroy him and leave him "a stranger to the kingdom of God." Likewise all those who followed him.

We are all free to chose and there are times when we all have a little bit of rebellion about what is being asked. But if we recognize that indeed the "thinking has been done" because God has directed it and if we immediately repent of our rebellious thoughts, we will recognize that it is wise to follow the council of God's appointed representatives. This is not following blindly nor accepting blindly, but simply acknowledging that there is a proscribed path that is safe and will lead through the maze of life's difficulties. Furthermore when one has accepted the baptismal covenant and all other covenants one has already made the choice to follow the Lord's annointed and this does not have to be rethought each time something comes up.

[Tsuzuki]

Even the godless heathens who drink tea and only tithe 5%. Kill them all

What shall we do with those who drink it iced?

[Corky Wallace]

"Unquestioned Obedience"

Is that a gentler term? I would agree "Blind Followers" is an offensive term.

Regardless of the terminology, the notion that TBM individuals adhere to a fairly narrow, externally defined prescription for living is largely valid, in my opinion.

Certainly other churches have similar adherence to defined paths, but it seems the LDS "recipe" is more defined than most, and the pressure to conform is quite strong.

- Plan of Salvation

- Fairly dismissive responses by TBMs along the lines of "Well, that may be interesting, but it's not pertinent to my salvation".

- Expectations for following a rigid, specified path: Baptized @8, Priesthood @12, mission at 19, marriage expected soon after.

- Degree of detail in LDS outline for the purpose of this life & what can be expected in beyond it. (My wife asked "how do LDS know so much detail about the hereafter?" It seems like they've got it all figured out and there is really no real thinking required".)

When was the last time anyone here observed a negative vote to the raising of the right hand? (Put differently, how many have ever seen that?)

It seems there are very few admonitions to youth to "find your own way", and much more pressure to conform to an established, fairly narrowly defined path.

From an LDS perspective, these may be positive, reassuring traits, but to external folks observing, it seems a whole lot of thinking is really unnecessary within the LDS culture. Everything is lined up for success in this life & beyond - all you have to do is follow the recipe.

[Risingtide]

If we blindly obeyed our leaders it would radicaly improve our hometeaching statistics.

[poulsenll]

So, no one knows who wrote the quote?

No

But what evidence there is suggest that it was written by a committee.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Regardless of the terminology, the notion that TBM individuals adhere to a fairly narrow, externally defined prescription for living is largely valid, in my opinion.

Corky

There is a big difference between obeying God's commandments and blindly following Church Leaders. If as most TBMs believe, that our leaders are called of God to teach us about his commandments and help us to understand what it means to truly obey them, then to not follow them would be to not accept what God has commanded us to do.

Christ said

Matt. 7: 13-14

13

[Dale]

Perhaps so, but that is something for LDS members to be concerned with. I can't, for the life of me, think why non-LDS would even care about LDS beliefs concerning the WOW.

I was mainly trying to figure out something non-LDS could consider a true act of blind obedience to LDS leaders. The Word of Wisdom was something minor a non-LDS might consider LDS being blindly obedient to. I myself don't think that, but some could. The Word of Wisdom is in my Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants, and I believe in it also. Though how we interpret it is less strict than LDS beliefs about it.

The only way to escape the charge of blind obedience is hard. You would almost have to become a disobedient skeptic within your church. Anybody that tries real hard to follow LDS leaders can easily be accused of blind obedience.

[bluebell]

No

But what evidence there is suggest that it was written by a committee.

Larry P

Yes, that's what i got from the article as well.

[bluebell]

I was mainly trying to figure out something non-LDS could consider a true act of blind obedience to LDS leaders. The Word of Wisdom was something minor a non-LDS might consider LDS being blindly obedient to. I myself don't think that, but some could. The Word of Wisdom is in my Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants, and I believe in it also. Though how we interpret it is less strict than LDS beliefs about it.

The only way to escape the charge of blind obedience is hard. You would almost have to become a disobedient skeptic within your church. Anybody that tries real hard to follow LDS leaders can easily be accused of blind obedience.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Bernard Gui]

From an LDS perspective, these may be positive, reassuring traits, but to external folks observing, it seems a whole lot of thinking is really unnecessary within the LDS culture. Everything is lined up for success in this life & beyond - all you have to do is follow the recipe.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way.

Bernard

[LifeOnaPlate]

I remember my Bishop quoting a member of the 70 and said that, "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!"

CFR. This is a statement that has been denied and said to be wrong by a living prophet of God. Can you find the reference?

[erichard]

...There is an emphasis on obediance, and an admonition to support & follow local leaders, so why are TBMs so defensive when others assert many Mormons will blindly follow their leaders' direction? ...

My experience is that many present day LDS are too willing to automatically place their salvation in the hands of the heads of the church and not consider the intense controversies that others-- who still believe in the church-- have.

The D&C laws given to the church do not place the heads of the church-- men in the flesh, with blood in their veins-- above the law.

For instance, D&C 107 (after giving instructions on how to hold a trial over a President of the High Priesthood) says in verses 83-84:

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

However, my experience is that if someone claims to have a legitimate controversy over the President of the church it is automatically considered "apostasy".

If the correct principle revealed in this revelation was lived, then on a daily basis one could reconsider if they should continue sustaining the President of the church. One day it would be correct, and the next day-- because of something that happened-- it could be correct to NOT sustain him.

But no one is taught in the church to think that way. Rather, the thinking is that one can automatically assume that the President of the church will never be allowed to fall into any real controversy where it would be necessary to have a trial over him and remove him.

2 Nephi 28 seems to show that the adversary will cheat the souls of some members of the church in the last days-- who can see the error of those driven by anger-- but then fall into being pacified, and not facing up to the serious problems that exist in the church:

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is wellâ??and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

Richard

[Deborah]

However, my experience is that if someone claims to have a legitimate controversy over the President of the church it is automatically considered "apostasy".

I would first of all question what is "legitimate controversy." Does that mean that the person just doesn't like what is being said because it goes agains their philosophy or the society at large? If it is doctrinal on what basis to they define their interpretation?

Secondly, anyone has a right to hold to their own opinion on certain matters. I have my own pet theories on many issues. The problem comes when such persons begin to teach others and preach against the leadership, as if they had the answers and not those who are in position to make decisions affecting the church at large. It is all a matter of order and authority. Those in authority are accountable to God not to the disgruntled members.

[Dale]

What are some examples of such a legitimate controversy? In the past I recall Ezra Taft Benson's grandson's excommunication. Steve Benson is his name if I recall right. I think some of his gripe was that his grandfather should have been retired. That treating him as the actual head of the church was misleading as he was no longer really doing it. His criticism was so vocal they kicked him out as an apostate. I don't see him as being excommunicated for a legitimate controversy, but rather for being a discipline problem.

The LDS Church is not a free speech zone atleast on church property. Once off church property members in good standing do voice many controversial opinions. Van Hale an prominent LDS radio talk show host openly denies a belief in Book of Mormon historicity. The LDS Church has not excommunicated him for expressing his opinion in written statements or on his radio show. He has taught many other LDS, and non-LDS his belief, but he hasn't been denied his free speech.

[Corky Wallace]

My experience is that many present day LDS are too willing to automatically place their salvation in the hands of the heads of the church and not consider the intense controversies that others-- who still believe in the church-- have.

The D&C laws given to the church do not place the heads of the church-- men in the flesh, with blood in their veins-- above the law.

But no one is taught in the church to think that way. Rather, the thinking is that one can automatically assume that the President of the church will never be allowed to fall into any real controversy where it would be necessary to have a trial over him and remove him.

erichard,

Thank you for stating in an affirming LDS way a point I was trying to express. (As a non-LDS it's difficult to make points without them being taken in an offensive way, understandably. Also I don't have a good handle on LDS scriptures.)

It would appear the overwhelming majority of Mormons are on autopilot when it comes to following church leaders, at the top & local. Recalling from my upbringing and observing recently as a guest in LDS sacrament meeting, I would bet 80% of the right hands would go up even if the bishop were to say something completely outrageous.

"To all those who can join me in expressing gratitude for Brother Jones' vandalism conviction, raise the right hand."

Strait is the gate & narrow is the way

Aha. This appears to be a scriptural underpinning of the point I was attempting to make in the OP. "The thinking has been done, just follow the recipe, listen to your leaders - they're getting instruction from above."

To the extent this scripture has a high level of primacy in LDS theology & culture, this is how uniformity of thought & behavior arises, and how so much thinking is deemed unnecessary, really. "Check your brain at the door". This results in homogeneity of thought & behavior, on both religious & non-religious topics.

Even the General Authorities recognize the problem with too much group think, as they issued a very unusual statement a few years back that it's not a terrible thing to be LDS & a Democrat. It's almost like they were trying to say "you know, folks, on some things it's OK to think for yourselves!"

[urroner]

The LDS Church is not a free speech zone atleast on church property. Once off church property members in good standing do voice many controversial opinions. Van Hale an prominent LDS radio talk show host openly denies a belief in Book of Mormon historicity. The LDS Church has not excommunicated him for expressing his opinion in written statements or on his radio show. He has taught many other LDS, and non-LDS his belief, but he hasn't been denied his free speech.

Just a minor detail, but even if the Church does excommunicate Van Hale, they still won't be denying his free speech.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I think we have that reputation by the outsiders that we are blindly obedient to our leaders. I wouldn't call myself blindly obedient.

One can search the scriptures and also the prophets showing themselves that they weren't blindly obedient.

Nephi, for one instance. He wanted to know why Lehi was leading his family into the wilderness. He gains a testimony after he asks God, and First and Second Nephi shows that testimony growing throughout.

Nephi wasn't blind. He had God helping him out.

If there was anyone blind in all this it was Laman and Lemuel, not accepting the angelic visitations and denying the power of God though they could see it in front of their natural eyes.

To the natural man the stuff we do resembles blind obedience. One who has the Spirit can be guided by it, even though the natural self might not know what to do.

I can cite several more examples if you want me to. It's just that Nephi, IMO, is the classic one.