Follow The Prophet?

[Palerider]

I was just sitting here watching the BYU channel. Val Peterson? I believe was the speaker for BYU devotional. It was given June 21, 2011.

He made a statement that has been disavowed and explained away on this site many times and by many posters as being out of harmony with the current view of what it means to follow the prophet. It was, "When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over...etc." he went on to explain (generally) that it was not our place to question but only to be obedient to the counsel given. Obviously no one stepped up to correct his address, so one must assume that the leadership that were present didn't see this as a significant problem.

My question is: Am I in error to point this out as being confusing or an inconsistency in church teachings? I am fully aware that the speaker was not a general authority, but still the church chose to air this particular episode on their broadcasting network. Would I be wrong then to assume that this is what they actually want me to believe and follow?

Am I being critical for even bringing the matter up? Are all those on this website who have earlier gone to great lengths to disavow this teaching to be seen as in error and in need of repentance?

[Duncan]

Before you correct anyone make sure you have the supporting statement from Pres. George Albert Smith and maybe no one of few of them even know about that statement

[CV75]

I was just sitting here watching the BYU channel. Val Peterson? I believe was the speaker for BYU devotional. It was given June 21, 2011.

He made a statement that has been disavowed and explained away on this site many times and by many posters as being out of harmony with the current view of what it means to follow the prophet. It was, "When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over...etc." he went on to explain (generally) that it was not our place to question but only to be obedient to the counsel given. Obviously no one stepped up to correct his address, so one must assume that the leadership that were present didn't see this as a significant problem.

My question is: Am I in error to point this out as being confusing or an inconsistency in church teachings? I am fully aware that the speaker was not a general authority, but still the church chose to air this particular episode on their broadcasting network. Would I be wrong then to assume that this is what they actually want me to believe and follow?

Am I being critical for even bringing the matter up? Are all those on this website who have earlier gone to great lengths to disavow this teaching to be seen as in error and in need of repentance?

I think if having the Gift of the Holy Ghost we follow the first and second commandments, obeying the law and the prophets (including their counsel) becomes a function of our love of God and loving His children, and we obey in the right way.

[thesometimesaint]

Palerider:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/think.htm

"The thinking has been done" philosophy may have been crystallized as a result of a June 1945 Ward Teaching Message that all but our detractors have long since forgotten. They love dredging up little-known statements and trying to establish those ideas as church doctrine or position rather than the exceptions that they are.

Let us read a quote from the message and then see what the President of the Church wrote about that particular Ward Teaching Message, just a few months after it appeared. Obviously the detractors never quote the President's letter since it doesn't support their thesis. Is it too much to hope that once the detractors read this letter from the President of the Church, they would stop quoting the 50-year-old Ward Teaching Message?

First the June 1945 message: "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 discussion, it should mark the end of controversy," stated a part of the ward teaching message printed in the

Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345.

For the full story, a letter from President George Albert Smith, in response to a query about this particular ward teaching directive, needs to be considered. The message "was not prepared by one of our leaders," he writes. "However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed. I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church (President Smith's November 16, 1945, letter to J. Raymond Cope, Ph.D.).

[Palerider]

Just found this statement from Allen Wyatt on Fair blog

Does the Church Control Members?

by Allen Wyatt on November 24th, 2008 "One of the perennial debates that springs is how much control the Church exercises over its members. Ever since the early days of the Church, critics have charged that the Church exercises an inordinate amount of control over its members in their daily lives. Even today we hear resurgent claims that “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done” (which sentiment has been roundly denounced by—of all things—a prophet over 60 years ago) and the concept that Mormons are somehow brainwashed. (This last charge is particularly prevalent among those who need, for whatever reason, to classify Mormonism as a cult.)"

If this statement has been "roundly denounced" why is the church still teaching it through it's media today?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Palerider

[thesometimesaint]

We do have a Primary song "Follow the Prophet".

Edited July 4, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Palerider]

Palerider:

http://www.lightplan...swers/think.htm

"The thinking has been done" philosophy may have been crystallized as a result of a June 1945 Ward Teaching Message that all but our detractors have long since forgotten. They love dredging up little-known statements and trying to establish those ideas as church doctrine or position rather than the exceptions that they are.

Let us read a quote from the message and then see what the President of the Church wrote about that particular Ward Teaching Message, just a few months after it appeared. Obviously the detractors never quote the President's letter since it doesn't support their thesis. Is it too much to hope that once the detractors read this letter from the President of the Church, they would stop quoting the 50-year-old Ward Teaching Message?

How can one expect detractors to stop quoting the teaching when it was just taught over the church's media this very day? I just watched this 45 minutes ago........

[LeSellers]

How can one expect detractors to stop quoting the teaching when it was just taught over the church's media this very day? I just watched this 45 minutes ago........

The quotation usually goes "the thinking has been done... ." We might ask "which thinking has been done?"

Reflecting on Doc&Cov 9, we see that the Lord commands His servants to work it out in their minds (think).

When I hear this, the only thing that makes sense is that the thinking required by the commandment has been done. I have heard for decades that we are supposed to meditate, to pray about, to ponder such things as doctrine and policy. The Lord will respond to honest inquiries and sustain His ordained ministers. We should know, and this "teaching" reinforces it, that the Brethren do not make snap decisions, do not jump unencumbered by reflection and prayer, into positions that affect the entire Church.

There has never, in all that time, been a single instance where I was told to sit down, shut up and obey, except in the mission field, where I had given my previous consent to do just that.

This is just another example of a little knowledge's being a dangerous thing. It is also another example of trying to force an unauthorized bit of information down out throats as being binding on us when it doesn't even begin to reflect the reality of our doctrine and theology.

Lehi

[shalamabobbi]

How can one expect detractors to stop quoting the teaching when it was just taught over the church's media this very day? I just watched this 45 minutes ago........

When the Savior has been obedient, the obeying has been done..

Oh wait, wrong church..

Why not address the question to the church media responsible?

What can anyone on this board do about it? (Although I suspect Lightbearer is in reality Boyd K. Packer)

A friend who is very anti-mormon convinced me that I needed to read Lyndon Lamborn's book Standing for Something More.

Somehow they thought that would influence me. When they came over to visit after, I was wearing a foil hat.

When they finally asked why I pointed to the two chapters about mind control in the church..

[Palerider]

The quotation usually goes "the thinking has been done... ." We might ask "which thinking has been done?"

Reflecting on Doc&Cov 9, we see that the Lord commands His servants to work it out in their minds (think).

When I hear this, the only thing that makes sense is that the thinking required by the commandment has been done. I have heard for decades that we are supposed to meditate, to pray about, to ponder such things as doctrine and policy. The Lord will respond to honest inquiries and sustain His ordained ministers. We should know, and this "teaching" reinforces it, that the Brethren do not make snap decisions, do not jump unencumbered by reflection and prayer, into positions that affect the entire Church.

There has never, in all that time, been a single instance where I was told to sit down, shut up and obey, except in the mission field, where I had given my previous consent to do just that.

This is just another example of a little knowledge's being a dangerous thing. It is also another example of trying to force an unauthorized bit of information down out throats as being binding on us when it doesn't even begin to reflect the reality of our doctrine and theology.

Lehi

I fail to see where, or better yet, you have failed to address the issue and have tried to skirt the facts with excessive verbiage that in no way applies to the original post.

The church allowed this teaching into their curriculum. When there was an outpouring of sentiment against it they disavowed the teaching and said it was a mistake. When detractors use this against the church they are given to believe that the church no longer teaches it. Yet today I heard it taught from BYU on the church's media which I can only assume meets with leadership approval.

Can you explain this? And am I wrong or out of the way for bringing it up? Am I being disloyal to church leadership for pointing out the inconsistancy?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Double post

Edited July 4, 2011 by Palerider

[LeSellers]

The church allowed this teaching into their curriculum. When there was an outpouring of sentiment against it they disavowed the teaching and said it was a mistake. When detractors use this against the church they are given to believe that the church no longer teaches it. Yet today I heard it taught from BYU on the church's media which I can only assume meets with leadership approval.

You are wrong on both counts.

First, it was not in the Church's "curriculum". It appeared once, and was a mistake (even though I believe that the meaning I presented was a good take on what the original author was trying to say). Further, even if meaning was what you all take it to be, I ask why this one example must be the "truth" while all the hundreds of counter statements are ignored, and these from far more senior sources, beginning with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to George Albert Smith and Thomas S. Monson.

Second, just because it's on or in an "official" medium of the Church does not mean it has been approved by the leadership. I'd bet, if we were to seek it out, there is a disclaimer that sates that the opinions of the speakers on the BYU Channel are not official statements of the Church.

Can you explain this? And am I wrong or out of the way for bringing it up? Am I being disloyal to church leadership for pointing out the inconsistancy?

Pointing it out is no sin, but insisting that it represents anything like an official stand by the Church is; especially when you have absolutely no basis from which to make that claim. We have shown you that when it has arisen in an official medium, it has been repudiated. There is no doubt that this one will be, too. But even if it is not, it flies in the face of an overwhelming mound of evidence that it does not portray the stance of the Church in any way.

Why do you feel the need to point it out so vehemently? Why can you not accept that it was an erroneous statement and move on?

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., pp. 156-57.)

Lehi

Edited July 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[Storm Rider]

How can one expect detractors to stop quoting the teaching when it was just taught over the church's media this very day? I just watched this 45 minutes ago........

Well, Palerider I am glad you were watching the BYU channel...I guess. What other teachings have they given? To pray about what has been spoken to gain a testimony of it. To listen, contemplate, and follow the Spirit. Etc., etc., etc.,

Who taught it? Should the Church censor every speaker to ensure that only orthodox doctrine is taught? Or should they simply write every talk for people and demand they give it word for word to ensure that every word is doctrine?

Your standard is set so high that if the Church met it you would be screaming mind-control, cult, etc. The Church actually has members that have individual testimonies and thoughts. It rsults in some having a clear understanding of doctrine while others don't have an accurate understanding as of that day. It is hoped that we each are able to come to a full and complete understanding of all truth, but until that day we will just have to accept that some things said in some situations will undoubtedly by inaccurate to one degree or another.

[Flyonthewall]

When Moses was leading the Israelites out of Egypt, were they supposed to debate and hold council on everything Moses said?

[Deborah]

He made a statement that has been disavowed and explained away on this site many times and by many posters as being out of harmony with the current view of what it means to follow the prophet.

You mean the church allowed someone to actually do his own research, write his own talk and didn't try to censor him? Wow. How can they do that when all the thinking has been done.

There is so much written out there, not all of it completely accurate, and when people are researching for a talk they may not get the whole story. So yes sometimes people say things in church and even at BYU that may not be the most up to date and accurate information. I often hear stuff at church that makes me cringe, but I recognize the person is sincere and trying to convey a positive message. Most people don't get that uptight if something isn't quite kosher.

In any case the message in that kind of comment is simply this: a prophet of God has received revelation, has probably discussed it with his counselors and is conveying the message of the Lord. It is our job to receive our own revelation on that and sometimes we don't like what we hear and maybe try to rationalize it away rather than praying to find out if it is really the Lord's will or if it is something that applies to our circumstances.

[Duncan]

President N. Eldon Tanner, former member of the First Presidency wrote an interesting Ensign article in 1979,

http://lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

Duncan:

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

[Deborah]

President N. Eldon Tanner, former member of the First Presidency wrote an interesting Ensign article in 1979,

I would add that as members of the church, and as we grow in faith we may have already made the choice to follow the prophet's counsel no matter what. In my own life I have seen so many things that have increased my faith in this church and its leadership that I don't need to wrestle with their counsel like I once did. I have already made the decision that they really do have a reason for what they say and that it won't hurt me to follow them even if I don't understand it at this time. I think this is the point many who criticize the members for "blindly" following don't get. I think those who keep struggling with this haven't grown enough to not question everything, particularly if it conflicts with what they are doing.

I would also like to make an analogy. I remember in grade school being taught the proper way to make letters. Penmanship was important and I loved getting my papers posted for penmanship (yes, I was teacher's pet). However, as I became more adept at writing I changed my hand writing style (probably for the bad because sometimes if I'm in a hurry I can't read my own writing). Now we know there are handwriting experts who can tell things about a person by their writing. So after we learn the basics we develop our own style, still being able to communicate and put down our thoughts but not the school-room perfect lettering we learned in school. (BTW I'm always amused that you know who the school teachers are when they write on the blackboard).

The point is there are basic principles that are given us by the church leaders; they are for our benefit so that we have a building block. As we mature in gospel knowledge we may be able to put our own style to say for example how we keep the Sabbath or how we hold Family Home Evening, or how we study the scriptures. We are following the counsel but the way it best fits our lives. But without that counsel would we be doing those things at all?

[erichard]

...He made a statement that has been disavowed and explained away on this site many times and by many posters as being out of harmony with the current view of what it means to follow the prophet. It was, "When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over...etc." he went on to explain (generally) that it was not our place to question but only to be obedient to the counsel given. ...

Am I being critical for even bringing the matter up? Are all those on this website who have earlier gone to great lengths to disavow this teaching to be seen as in error and in need of repentance?

Hi Palerider,

I for one believe the LDS church definitely has a problem with this "doctrine". Some teach it, others know it is not scriptural, so they unteach it.

When a member of the church defends the prophet indubitably it may sound like they are defending the Gospel and defending the church, but actually they are doing something much more human-- they are engaged in the politics of men.

The D&C law clearly allows legitimate controversies over even the President of the church. (See D&C 107:81-84.)

Every man is to "stand or fall for himself, and not for another" according to the Gospel. (JST Mark 9:40-48)

Those who say it is a "done deal" that the President of the church is above failing the church because the Lord would not allow it are simply denying the revelations of God. And yet this "done deal" doctrine is taught quite regularly, as you have seen, in the church.

Now I realize some will quote President Woodruff which has been put into the D&C. He said: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme."

I would bet, however, that President Woodruff would agree that his statement does not overrule the two scriptures I quoted above.

Thus, unless one adds the word "immediately" to his statement, it still is possible that serious problems could occur that would justify NOT sustaining the church President. It is in the Lord's program to eventually remove everyone (not just church Presidents) who tries to lead his people astray. But not immediately.

D&C 136:31 teaches that the Saints will be tried in "all things" before building Zion. The term "all things" surely could include a time when the instructions in D&C 107:81-84 will need to followed.

There are many promises about the success of the latter-day work. But we also know there will be intense testing of Saints. One can quote all the scriptures and promises that have been given, and it can be completely true that every one of these promises will come to pass. And at the same time, it can be correct to NOT sustain President Monson and other church leaders.

Nothing the Lord has promised guarantees the righteousness of the church leadership. It may be nice to have great leaders who are guaranteed to never lead you astray, but I am convinced if you want Eternal Life you have to seek guidance independent of any other person, and must be willing to stand alone with the Lord only if necessary.

Richard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

Who was the better servant of his father? The son who said "I will do" and didn't, or the son who said "I won't do" repented and did.

[erichard]

erichard:

Who was the better servant of his father? The son who said "I will do" and didn't, or the son who said "I won't do" repented and did.

We all know it was the son who said (to quote you) "I won't do", repented and did.

Richard

[rpn]

OP, I suggest you write to the speaker whose talk you heard and share with him the letter and ask why he is still teaching it at devotionals. That is the only way to know your answer. My guess is that obedience and seeking confirmation by the spirit are two sides of one coin. If we teach exclusively that we are always to get confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the things the prophets and leaders are teaching us are consistent with His will, then there are some church members who will interpret that as being able to reject the prophet's counsel when we don't recognize the confirmation or don't get the confirmation. That would not be good. And neither would it be good to take literally that when the prophets have spoken the time for debate is over, without having made the time to seek the confirmation.

[Calm]

If this statement has been "roundly denounced" why is the church still teaching it through it's media today?

One should be cautious in assuming that just because something is on church owned media that it is the church's view. BYU has nonLDS speakers and publishes their talks, for example though they may restrict devotionals to only LDS.

Also, bishops do not stand up and correct every mistake individuals make at the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting, only ones that are grievous and likely to lead to apostasy from what I've heard from others (never having experienced a bishop's correction in all of my years as LDS even though I've heard plenty of opinion taught both as opinion and as doctrine across the pulpit). I would assume the same level of correction exists at church activities like devotionals. As a student, I never understood that devotionals were the authoritative arena for teaching of church doctrine any more than Sunday School classes when the teacher or member expresses a personal opinion.

[Franktalk]

I do not think that every comment needs to be micromanaged in its presentation to the Church. In fact if all we talked about was surrounded in contextual comments we could never get a message out. If we always talked of milk and never meat how could members learn the difference? I think that comments that on the surface seem over the top need to be cast out occasionally. These provide teaching moments. If a child asks are we to blindly follow a comment from a Church leader what do we say? We say that Holy Ghost is our witness to truth. We say that scripture is our foundation of knowledge and doctrine. Then we say that if what the leader said is in agreement with the Holy Ghost and scripture then we follow. We tell them that no man is above God. We tell them of how Peter was informed by God that Jesus was the Christ. But we also point out a short time later Peter became weak and allowed a thought of Satan to enter his head. So each comment from all men is to be tested. Even an Apostle of God can have a weak moment. That is why we have the Holy Ghost and that is why we have scripture. It is the strong in spirit that test everything. A solid Church will not be swayed by some comment that may seem over the top by any member. We should not be overly sensitive to comments from distractors.

[thesometimesaint]

erichard

Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.