When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Jason]

How many mentally ill persons have killed someone over the years because they were convinced God told them to?

Who knows? What we do know is that God has in fact commanded some people to kill some other people before.

[semlogo]

"Morm. 9: 9

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?"

That's not an answer.

[semlogo]

Who knows? What we do know is that God has in fact commanded some people to kill some other people before.

Anyone in the last millennium?

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Going public should be the furthest thing from any LDS mind. I was thinking more along the lines of disagreeing with some obscure point of discussion or philosophy. I believe we are all entitled to our opinion on a great many subjects. I believe as members of the Church it is our obligation to think through ALL things and seek confirmation by God for ourselves. I further believe it is opposite of Church counsel to posit that once the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

It has always been my understanding that we are supposed to think (and pray) to receive confirmation that what the Prophet has said is true. Meaning, the only acceptable outcome of that process is agreement with the Prophet. If we receive any other result, then we must continue to "think" and pray until we are in harmony.

I have never heard it acknowledged that there is even the possibility for the Prophet to be wrong and for us to be justified (or inspired) in not following him, as noted in the quote from the Church website.

The issue of what to do upon learning the Prophet is wrong is a moot point, since the possibility has never been acknowledged in Church publications. It might make for an interesting lesson at Church though!

[Jason]

That's not an answer.

Yes it was. Your objection was that my precedent was 2,600 years old. My response was that God is invariable, so it doesn't matter how old the precedent is.

If God could command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or Nephi to kill Laban thousands of years ago then He can command someone to kill someone else tomorrow.

Has He actually commanded anyone to kill anyone else within the past millenium? I don't know. It doesn't matter either. Invariable, unchanging, etc.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Jehovah: the Godfather of deities. Only on Fox....

[semlogo]

Yes it was. Your objection was that my precedent was 2,600 years old. My response was that God is invariable, so it doesn't matter how old the precedent is.

If God could command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or Nephi to kill Laban thousands of years ago then He can command someone to kill someone else tomorrow.

Has He actually commanded anyone to kill anyone else within the past millenium? I don't know. It doesn't matter either. Invariable, unchanging, etc.

That's not really true. If it were, we'd still be subject to the Law of Moses. God changes the rules, and changed them in a big way 2000 years ago.

Anyone prepared to kill for God really isn't much different from those extreme Muslim fanatics. The difference is they have bad leadership telling them that God wants them to kill. We have the good leadership of ethical modern prophets who tell us not to kill, and a gentle savior who told us not to even strike someone across the cheek.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

As there is nothing so far that I have disagreed with when the Church officially puts it out. I have no experience with it.

However I am unwilling to say that nothing ever will come up. What I do recognize is that prophets are human and entitled to their own opinions. What I don't accept is that just because some one, be they high or low, in the Church says something I must accept it, or that I'm not entitled to my own revelation on the subject, and yes sometimes disagree with their opinions.

[semlogo]

Oops

[Jason]

That's not really true. If it were, we'd still be subject to the Law of Moses. God changes the rules, and changed them in a big way 2000 years ago.

But God Himself doesn't change, and if it was okay once to command the prophet to kill someone then it can be okay again.

If God changes the rules once He can also change them back.

Anyone prepared to kill for God really isn't much different from those extreme Muslim fanatics. The difference is they have bad leadership telling them that God wants them to kill. We have the good leadership of ethical modern prophets who tell us not to kill, and a gentle savior who told us not to even strike someone across the cheek.

The same one who told his apostles to buy swords? The same one who said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

The Savior is gentle to the righteous, certainly, but he isn't weak.

The primary difference between Nephi & Abraham & other past prophets and Muslim fanatics today is that God really was speaking to Nephi and Abraham.

[semlogo]

But God Himself doesn't change, and if it was okay once to command the prophet to kill someone then it can be okay again.

If God changes the rules once He can also change them back.

The same one who told his apostles to buy swords? The same one who said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

The Savior is gentle to the righteous, certainly, but he isn't weak.

The primary difference between Nephi & Abraham & other past prophets and Muslim fanatics today is that God really was speaking to Nephi and Abraham.

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

The quote about peace on earth isn't an endorsement of violence - Christ was simply stating that the Gospel (which is a gospel of peace) will incite others to derision and violence. Which was obviously true given the persecution of the early Christians. Being unwilling to use violence isn't weak. It takes more courage and strength to meet violence with non-violence.

Do you believe that God in our hypothetical scenario, after commanding you to gun down a bus full of school children, will then command you to abstain from shellfish and pork once again? And stone those who don't? If so, should we all be preparing for such an eventuality by stocking up on kosher goods and assault rifles?

If you told me God commanded you to do it, I must admit I would have my doubts as to the authenticity of your revelation.

[Facsimile 3]

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

I'm really glad you brought this up. It was woken me up from my dogmatic slumber. I'm devising a system of categories right now that should straighten all of this out.

[amo]

It is the same standard we use to determine whether to believe and agree with our prophets: Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To the above, let me add this :

Joshua 1:

16. And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go.

17. According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the LORD thy God be with thee, as he was with Moses.

18. Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.

[cinepro]

Here's another good reference on how the Church wants us to think about the Prophet and his words:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire" (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

[Brenda]

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

If Pres. Monson gave his personal opinion that my green shoes go better with my gray dress, than my black shoes do ---- I'd feel okay about disregarding his advice. Other than that, do as he says.

And btw, IN HIS DAY interracial relationships were not good because the two races were too divided. It was not likely that a mixed marriage would succeed because of the inevitable pressures from society. In our day, society gives its acceptance and a mixed marriage doesn't have the same pressures upon it. Brigham Young was not wrong. His counsel was correct in the 1800s. THIS IS WHY we need a living prophets, to deal with current issues.

[Jason]

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

"So go buy swords."

The quote about peace on earth isn't an endorsement of violence - Christ was simply stating that the Gospel (which is a gospel of peace) will incite others to derision and violence. Which was obviously true given the persecution of the early Christians. Being unwilling to use violence isn't weak. It takes more courage and strength to meet violence with non-violence.

But God is not unwilling to use violence. Even Christ cleared the temple with violence. The scriptures are full of God killing vast numbers of people Himself (the entire population of the Earth, minus Noah's family at one time) and commanding the killing of others.

How many people did Ammon kill? Captain Moroni?

Do you believe that God in our hypothetical scenario, after commanding you to gun down a bus full of school children, will then command you to abstain from shellfish and pork once again? And stone those who don't? If so, should we all be preparing for such an eventuality by stocking up on kosher goods and assault rifles?

I thought we were discussing a serious subject, but mock if you must.

The end of the matter: God could in fact command you to kill others, and saying "I will not obey" is the wrong attitude.

[cinepro]

If Pres. Monson gave his personal opinion that my green shoes go better with my gray dress, than my black shoes do ---- I'd feel okay about disregarding his advice. Other than that, do as he says.

And btw, IN HIS DAY interracial relationships were not good because the two races were too divided. It was not likely that a mixed marriage would succeed because of the inevitable pressures from society. In our day, society gives its acceptance and a mixed marriage doesn't have the same pressures upon it. Brigham Young was not wrong. His counsel was correct in the 1800s. THIS IS WHY we need a living prophets, to deal with current issues.

If everyone stuck with the accepted status quo of BY's day, would we have ever progressed to the modern acceptance of such marriages?

[Brenda]

If everyone stuck with the accepted status quo of BY's day, would we have ever progressed to the modern acceptance of such marriages?

No. But the status quo on mixing blacks and whites was not BYs doing. It was what it was. He was just giving practical counsel for his day, for lasting marriages. There is nothing scriptural about mixed-racial marriages, so they were never against God's expectations. Fortunately today, races can mix to their hearts content with no objection from the Prophet. However, mixing cultures is still cautioned against for the same reasons -- it brings extra stress into the home and can be damaging to marriages.

[semlogo]

"So go buy swords."

But God is not unwilling to use violence. Even Christ cleared the temple with violence. The scriptures are full of God killing vast numbers of people Himself (the entire population of the Earth, minus Noah's family at one time) and commanding the killing of others.

How many people did Ammon kill? Captain Moroni?

I thought we were discussing a serious subject, but mock if you must.

The end of the matter: God could in fact command you to kill others, and saying "I will not obey" is the wrong attitude.

The story of Noah is a fable, as are, I suspect, most of the tales in Genesis. Based on true events, but exaggerated greatly. The other events you mention are self-defense, not instances of God actually commanding people to kill.

Christ's use of violence isn't really very violent. Overturning tables? Shooing people away? Not so violent.

Quick follow-up question: If I prepare myself, as you suggest, to be ready to kill for God, how many virgins will I receive in heaven? Does it depend on how many people I manage to kill?

[cinepro]

No. But the status quo on mixing blacks and whites was not BYs doing. It was what it was. He was just giving practical counsel for his day, for lasting marriages. There is nothing scriptural about mixed-racial marriages, so they were never against God's expectations.

Really? That's what Brigham Young thought? Did he actually say that?

[jwhitlock]

Putting aside the question of whether it's ok to "disobey" a prophet who we know is called of God, it is clear that if you need some kind of guidance on what you should be doing, you can't do much better than to give heed to a prophet called of God - which is exactly what President Monson is.

Statistically, you will be right far more often than if you decide you listen to the counsel of critics, anti-Mormons, ex-Mormons and self-styled intellectuals who think that their embrace of trendy social causes is far more enlightened than anything the prophets can offer. Such self-proclaiming "lights" are nothing more than the drifting and shifting winds of the world, where no firm foundation is to be found.

I've been thoroughly entertained not only by some of the claimed "wrongness" of LDS prophets, but by the hyped extremes that come from a shallow reading of Old Testament stories. It's hard to know where to even start with some of the misrepresentations that have been stated.

Personally, I came to grips a long time ago with what it means to subject my will to God. I stand in amazement at how it has been demonstrated time and time again how timely the counsel of LDS prophets has been. That's what I choose to concentrate on; the question of splitting straws and rationalizing why we needn't obey because we have one foot in the world only leads to long term pain.

I'll stick with the prophets of God. They are far, far more reliable guides than anything else some of our posters who have embraced the world have presented. Come to think of it, most of those who are dissing the prophets haven't provided anything at all that would be more reliable.

Such is the essence of tearing down the Church.

[Skylla]

The story of Noah is a fable, as are, I suspect, most of the tales in Genesis. Based on true events, but exaggerated greatly. The other events you mention are self-defense, not instances of God actually commanding people to kill.

Christ's use of violence isn't really very violent. Overturning tables? Shooing people away? Not so violent.

Quick follow-up question: If I prepare myself, as you suggest, to be ready to kill for God, how many virgins will I receive in heaven? Does it depend on how many people I manage to kill?

Tone it down or you're out of the thread.

Skylla

[William James]

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

Some conservative Mormons answer this question with two main positions: (1) denial of either prophetic error altogether, or denial of the possibility that the current prophet could be in error; and (2) the fallback position that, in case we follow the errors of a living prophet, God will forgive us and only hold the leader responsible, but it is our duty nevertheless to follow the living prophet. I do not subscribe to any of the above views, and probably have not since I was about in elementary or middle school.

Above all else, (and subject to the limitations which I will describe) we have not only the right but the obligation to follow our own conscience, even if it contradicts the doctrinal pronouncements and behavioral edicts of the living prophet. But this right in and of itself does not give us a free moral pass to simply do whatever we please. We have an affirmative obligation to honestly seek truth and knowledge, to contemplate competing ideas, arguments, and information, and to make reasonable sacrifices for the betterment of ourselves and the world. So long as we are doing those things, and are striving to be good, then our own conscience trumps any purported doctrine or commandment. Were it not so, we could find ourselves subject to abuse, engaging in harmful behavior, or otherwise being misled in very dangerous ways. Brigham Young taught that members should think for themselves and not blindly follow.

[hagoth7]

LOL Sir, I am an anarchist and you just offended me.

? Take offense if you feel a need to do so, but...no offense was expressed, let alone intended. How else would you suggest I attempt to distill a belief (fx. the idea of being subject to secular gov't) without demonstrating an example of its opposite? (Or like the word "Ni!", was it the word "government" that offended you?)

I really don't see how you can come up with that conclusion. the 12th AoF says that we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, etc, etc.

That is the precise article I was alluding to. To resolve the supposed disconnect, if you generate a functional simplification of what that article is saying, you might see how I arrived at my conclusion. Try it and you just might like it. (

.)

Kings were hardly secular.

19th-century ones? Really? If you feel the explanation for such an assertion is sufficiently germane to your point or to the OP, I'd like to hear it.

[wenglund]

How many mentally ill persons have killed someone over the years because they were convinced God told them to?

I don't know. How many people have you killed? LOL

Bsides, the only contemporary member I know of who has contemplated killing other people at the request of Church leaders was Tal Bachman, and he is no longer LDS, but rather anti-LDS.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-