Lightbearer Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 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?Yes you are in error, because he was correct if he said: "When the prophet speaks the debate is over" Plain and simple, we have no right to challenge the authority of the prophet if we claim to be a faithful member of the Lord's Church. According to the D&C his comment while not "politically correct" or pleasing to the so-called "liberal Mormons" or the "cafeteria Mormons" yet see the following:(D&C 1:38)"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.' When God speaks by the voice of revelation to His servants the prophets, then no man has a right to disagree... He can choose to disbelieve, he can oppose and condemn and lift his heal against the Lord's anointed, but he cannot pretend to be in harmony with God and reject His servants. The Church is not a democracy, it is a monarchy with God as the King, we can pledge our allegence to Him or we can become His enemy... but we cannot oppose Him and claim to follow Him at the same time. We must choose one or the other. If this offends the feelings of some here I am sorry, but I will never agree with the critics or enemies of God, they must needs be offended. As for being accused of blind obedience, I say it is not blind obedience when the spirit of the Lord tells you what to do... therefore when the prophet speaks I KNOW by the Holy Ghost when it is from the Lord.
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Lightbearer:It is not about being liberal or PC. There was only one man that ever lived on this earth that was/is infalible and LDS Prophets aren't him.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 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.Since when did BYU devotionals constitute speaking for the church or making church doctrine? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you reported is accurate and true.
Franktalk Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 The Church is either strong in its self or it is not. I would have to believe that if the Prophet were to have a stroke that the people around him would take him to a doctor and not place him in front of the Church to speak. If what the prophet said did not match scripture I am very confident that he would be removed. This is a Church of God and not men. If God stopped speaking through our prophet then he is no longer a prophet. No one in this Church is beyond removal. I am not so sure that some other Churches can say the same thing.Within the bounds of the Holy Ghost and scripture what ever the prophet says is truth or a commandment. It must be this way or there is no Church. Without the sure connection between God and the prophet this Church would drift as all others have over time. 1
mathilde Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Unless there was a public correction of the statement this speaker made, most of those BYU students in attendance or anyone watching online could in fact take that message to heart and assume it is good counsel. And BYU is where future leaders of the church are trained, isn't it? So if I can listen to his talk and say, "well, speakers are human and make mistakes and I know in his heart he means well and the church can't even begin to micromanage every speech and speaker" (and I do believe those things by the way) that means that I am thinking about his talk. That means that I am analyzing, sifting, taking in those concepts that I agree with and discarding those that I don't. No matter who the speaker is, the thinking is NEVER done. LeSellers, when you said: "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" -- I thought about my own mission. That was told to me in so many words too, and I hope with all my heart that it is never said to my own missionary in the field now. Here's the thing, if you're taught that on your mission, and then you have that mindset as you later attend BYU and hear a message like this talk we're discussing here, how able is the average young person, the specific audience of this talk, to think about this idea that if certain people tell you, your job is to believe it, no matter what.My view is that our thinking should never be done and we should not trust those who tell us it should be. Edited July 6, 2011 by mathilde
LeSellers Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 LeSellers, ...Please call me Lehi, as my mother-in-law does and as Presidents Carter and Clinton did. It's my real name. Honest.when you said: "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" -- I thought about my own mission. That was told to me in so many words too, and I hope with all my heart that it is never said to my own missionary in the field now. Here's the thing, if you're taught that on your mission, and then you have that mindset as you later attend BYU and hear a message like this talk we're discussing here, how able is the average young person, the specific audience of this talk, to think about this idea that if certain people tell you, your job is to believe it, no matter what.A mission is a completely different experience from anything else in the world. That's why the Returned Missionary should not "have that mindset as [he] later attend BYU". Besides, it is not about "belief", as you said. It is about action, policy; not about doctrine. That's a whole different thing.As I said, I had given my prior consent to this concept. If I had not, I'd feel, perhaps, as you do. But my two-plus decades in the military taught me the value of quick, unthinking, disciplined obedience in situations very much like those in the mission field. We, as missionaries, were/are "God's Army": we are there to do exactly as He asked us to do through His chosen servants, the General Authorities and mission presidents. Two or three hundred untried, unproven men and women each doing his own thing, would be a disaster. It's bad enough as it is, with two or three hundred men and women doing their own thing any way. The mission president has the keys there, and he is responsible for what the missionaries in his "brigade" do, and how they do it. He should be able to count on them. My Tactical Officer in OCS once said (I believed him then and believe him still) that if the commander had ordered him to paint the baracks with his toothbrush, he'd do it. Then, after he'd finished, he'd stomp into the office and demand to know why. That's how missionaries should react when they receive an unusual commandment from the mission president. Do it, then find out why. Lehi 1
cinepro Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) 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.I just listened to this talk, and while I really enjoyed his stories and life experiences that he shared, doctrinally speaking it is a spectacularly unremarkable reinforcement of the LDS principle of obedience that has been regularly taught for the last 180 years. Here is the context for the comment in question:Early in our marriage, my dear wife Ann introduced a motto for our family, which she has continually taught our children and occasionally has had to remind me: That when the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.This sound advice countermands all arguments, justifications and rationales. Following this simple motto will always be to our benefit.(23:50)Whenever this subject comes up, we seem to conflate two different ideas that are very different:1. When the Prophet speaks, the thinking is over.2. When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.The former is the statement addressed by FAIR, the latter appears at least a few times in Church publications on the website. Edited July 6, 2011 by cinepro
Palerider Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 I just listened to this talk, and while I really enjoyed his stories and life experiences that he shared, doctrinally speaking it is a spectacularly unremarkable reinforcement of the LDS principle of obedience that has been regularly taught for the last 180 years. Here is the context for the comment in question:Whenever this subject comes up, we seem to conflate two different ideas that are very different:1. When the Prophet speaks, the thinking is over.2. When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.The former is the statement addressed by FAIR, the latter appears at least a few times in Church publications on the website.I tried earlier to read one of the articles addressing the difference between the terms "debate" and "thinking" and the scripture "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" just kept coming to mind. Using the term "debate" is just a euphemism for the same concept. Aren't we thinking when we're debating? It just seems a thinly veiled attempt to continue teaching what leadership denied was being taught earlier when the statement was first made.Personally I would have seen leadership having more integrity if they had said, "Yes, that is what we teach because we are God's representatives and we make no excuses for that." At least then they wouldn't be seen as equivocating and then later trying to slip the teaching in under the radar. They would have been more consistent;..... more believable.
cinepro Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I tried earlier to read one of the articles addressing the difference between the terms "debate" and "thinking" and the scripture "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" just kept coming to mind. Using the term "debate" is just a euphemism for the same concept. Aren't we thinking when we're debating? I've heard the "debating" quote attributed to a past GA, who was referring to a specific instance when members of the Q12 and FP were discussing/debating an issue for quite some time, until the Prophet clearly explained the course of action that would be taken. His point was that in such a circumstance, the debate is over. The GA's might still disagree, but they all unite together in doing what the Prophet has said.I don't think the Prophet or anyone else in the Church is so bold as to assume that members will stop thinking about something just because they are told to. The real problem is when disagreement is voiced after the decision is made. It's also the way most businesses are run. If a manager is smart, he'll seek input from many different sources when faced with a decision, but once a decision is made, everyone needs to work hard to make it a success. Employees who continue to "debate" can become toxic. Obviously you don't expect (or want) your employees to stop thinking; it's just that when a decision is made, it's time to get working.
shalamabobbi Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I've heard the "debating" quote attributed to a past GA, who was referring to a specific instance when members of the Q12 and FP were discussing/debating an issue for quite some time, until the Prophet clearly explained the course of action that would be taken. His point was that in such a circumstance, the debate is over. The GA's might still disagree, but they all unite together in doing what the Prophet has said.I don't think the Prophet or anyone else in the Church is so bold as to assume that members will stop thinking about something just because they are told to. The real problem is when disagreement is voiced after the decision is made. It's also the way most businesses are run. If a manager is smart, he'll seek input from many different sources when faced with a decision, but once a decision is made, everyone needs to work hard to make it a success. Employees who continue to "debate" can become toxic. Obviously you don't expect (or want) your employees to stop thinking; it's just that when a decision is made, it's time to get working.Excellent post cinepro!
Palerider Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 I've heard the "debating" quote attributed to a past GA, who was referring to a specific instance when members of the Q12 and FP were discussing/debating an issue for quite some time, until the Prophet clearly explained the course of action that would be taken. His point was that in such a circumstance, the debate is over. The GA's might still disagree, but they all unite together in doing what the Prophet has said.I don't think the Prophet or anyone else in the Church is so bold as to assume that members will stop thinking about something just because they are told to. The real problem is when disagreement is voiced after the decision is made. It's also the way most businesses are run. If a manager is smart, he'll seek input from many different sources when faced with a decision, but once a decision is made, everyone needs to work hard to make it a success. Employees who continue to "debate" can become toxic. Obviously you don't expect (or want) your employees to stop thinking; it's just that when a decision is made, it's time to get working.I agree whole heartedly, that is a great way to run a business.
Recommended Posts