Sunday School: "Why Do Some Of Us Occasionally Disregard Our Church Leaders’ Counsel?"

[cinepro]

In the Gospel Doctrine (Sunday School) lesson on Paul, it uses the story of his sea voyage and shipwreck in Acts 27 to get class members to think about obedience.

Specifically, in the story Paul warns the ship captain not to head out to sea, but his premonition is ignored.

9 Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them,

10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.

11 Nevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul.

Acts 27

Now, setting aside that Paul's suggestion didn't indicate any form of Godly authority or revelation, the Teacher's manual encourages teachers to ask class members this question:

• 
  What happened when the master of the ship rejected Paul’s warning that it was too dangerous to sail from Fair Havens? (See Acts 27:7–20.) What motivated the centurion to disregard Paul’s counsel? (See Acts 27:11–12.) Why do some of us occasionally disregard our Church leaders’ counsel? How have you learned the importance of following Church leaders’ counsel?
  

Upon reading the question, several logical answers came to mind.

"Because our leaders are fallible and sometimes express their own opinions"

"Because God wants us to each have our own thoughts and opinions, and we are allowed to disagree with our leaders' counsel if we feel it is uninspired"

...and so on.

But it occurs to me that, from the wording in the manual, the line of questioning is presuming that it is never okay to "disregard our Church leaders' counsel", and that responses from the class aren't supposed to offer advice on when to disregard and when not to, but instead to reinforce that we should always regard.

Unfortunately, our lesson only covered the first half of the lesson plan, so we didn't get to this part (I mentioned what my response would have been to the teacher afterwards had this question been asked, and he suggested it was inspiration that led him to run out of time and not be able to cover it ).

But for those who did cover this part of the lesson, did anyone have any discussions that acknowledged the possibility that sometimes we might righteously disregard our Church leader's counsel, or was it taught from the approach that it is never okay to do so?

[shalamabobbi]

In the Gospel Doctrine (Sunday School) lesson on Paul, it uses the story of his sea voyage and shipwreck in Acts 27 to get class members to think about obedience.

Specifically, in the story Paul warns the ship captain not to head out to sea, but his premonition is ignored.

I think the inspiration was given so that the centurion, recognizing it was inspiration after the fact, would choose to spare their lives.

Acts 27

11..the centurion was more persuaded by the helmsman and the owner of the ship than by the things spoken by Paul.

42-44

And the soldiers’ plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim away and escape. But the centurion, wanting to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded that those who could swim should jump overboard first and get to land, and the rest, some on boards and some on parts of the ship. And so it was that they all escaped safely to land.

[KevinG]

We can always find reasons to ignore counsel (note that word does not mean direct order). Of course we should pray about it and gain verification from the Holy Spirit that it is inspired.

Even then we should remember that if we obey reasonable consel the Lord will bless our efforts. Zions Camp is a great example of the blessing of obedience in the face of human decisions by leaders.

If one is inclined to rationalize disobedience I can see how any lesson on following counsel would be an affront.

Edited October 17, 2011 by DaddyG

[Verum]

This was discussed briefly in the GD class I taught as well. I think one perspective is that in the event bad counsel is given from a prophet to a church member that it is better to obey and let judgment fall upon the leader than upon you for disobeying one of the Lord's anointed. In other words, even if the counsel turns out to be wrong, you will be blessed for following it.

I personally believe that each person must build a relationship with God in order to be able to righteously discern for themselves. If we believe that prophets are fallible men, then it is only natural that they could also be fallible in their giving of counsel or command.

[thesometimesaint]

"I personally believe that each person must build a relationship with God in order to be able to righteously discern for themselves. If we believe that prophets are fallible men, then it is only natural that they could also be fallible in their giving of counsel or command".

Agreed.

[Deborah]

There is a difference between "ignoring" and evaluating such counsel. It may be that counsel doesn't apply in certain cases. Certainly counsel to families with small children doesn't apply to me so I may choose to "ignore" it, not because the counsel is wrong but simply because it doesn't apply to my situation.

I am wondering how many people are now wishing they hadn't questioned the counsel given over the years to get and stay out of debt.

[KevinG]

There is a difference between "ignoring" and evaluating such counsel. It may be that counsel doesn't apply in certain cases. Certainly counsel to families with small children doesn't apply to me so I may choose to "ignore" it, not because the counsel is wrong but simply because it doesn't apply to my situation.

I am wondering how many people are now wishing they hadn't questioned the counsel given over the years to get and stay out of debt.

I tried to get out of debt... I really tried!

General counsel is just that- and we need to liken it unto ourselves. Balking against counsel from church leaders seems counter productive to me in a voluntary system. It either applies to us and we follow it or it does not apply.

[Deborah]

I feel your pain Daddy G. When I had young kids at home I was never out of debt. For me the counsel made me stop and think before I bought that new car, which I ended up not doing.

[sjdawg]

They were speaking as men and not under divine guidance?

Edited October 17, 2011 by sjdawg

[Sky]

I don’t know of any Church sanctioned doctrine that says it’s sometimes okay to disregard counsel from church leaders. That sounds like selective obedience to me. It gives people an excuse to not follow the prophet when it’s not convenient.

[Verum]

I don’t know of any Church sanctioned doctrine that says it’s sometimes okay to disregard counsel from church leaders. That sounds like selective obedience to me. It gives people an excuse to not follow the prophet when it’s not convenient.

Unfortunately, church history has shown that sometimes church leaders have spoken as men, and have done so over the pulpit. I think one must be in communion with the Spirit to be able to discern between when one speaks as a man or as a mouthpiece for God in that moment.

[Jaybear]

I don’t know of any Church sanctioned doctrine that says it’s sometimes okay to disregard counsel from church leaders. That sounds like selective obedience to me. It gives people an excuse to not follow the prophet when it’s not convenient.

If it were not okay to disregard "counsel", it wouldn't be called "counsel." It would be called an order, or a command.

You "obey" orders.

[Sky]

Unfortunately, church history has shown that sometimes church leaders have spoken as men, and have done so over the pulpit. I think one must be in communion with the Spirit to be able to discern between when one speaks as a man or as a mouthpiece for God in that moment.

What about when the situation arises where a church leader gives some piece of advice, and Person A interprets it as divine inspiration and Person B interprets it as being total nonsense? Could both Person A and B have been in communion with the Spirit? Who is right? Do we get to individually decide for ourselves?

Rule of thumb: follow the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles and you won’t be blown away by every wind of doctrine. You'll stay on solid ground.

This scripture comes to mind:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matt. 7:13–14.)

[Sky]

If it were not okay to disregard "counsel", it wouldn't be called "counsel." It would be called an order, or a command.

You "obey" orders.

Sometimes church leaders give counsel and sometimes they give commandments - we are highly encouraged to obey both.

[Calm]

I don’t know of any Church sanctioned doctrine that says it’s sometimes okay to disregard counsel from church leaders. That sounds like selective obedience to me. It gives people an excuse to not follow the prophet when it’s not convenient.

There has been counsel that there is a proper place and time for all things. A mother with young children or a family with limited resources and no family history center need not feel guilty about not doing their genealogy at that time. Students were counseled to have limited food storage due to lack of finances, room, and constant moving.

If you know something is bad counsel, I think the Lord will hold you responsible for following it. If you are unsure and have not received your own witness on the value of the counsel one way or the other, eternally you may be blessed for obedience, but I don't think the Lord will protect you from others' error anymore than he will protect you from your own.....a very good reason to take the time to study and pray about any significant decision.

[Scott Lloyd]

In this day and age especially, there is a far more imminent danger that one will experience heartache and regret from disregarding Church leaders' counsel that is wise and sound than there is that one will be disadvantaged from obeying counsel that is not sound.

One example of what I have noted as a disturbing tendency to ignore instruction, rationalizing that it is "only counsel, not commandment" is in regard to the very clear instruction from Church leaders against tattoos and body piercings. These amount to defilement of the body, a temple of God.

[T-Shirt]

I would respond with Elder Oaks's counsel on the matter:

If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.

I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.

He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”

The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

I'm not talking about exceptions to counsel (although those are also good examples). I'm talking about times when the counsel itself is just mistaken, and everyone is justified in ignoring it if they feel inclined or inspired to do so.

Had the question come up in class, I would have noted that sometimes Church leaders appear to offer counsel that can be safely ignored. As an example, I would suggest the issue of birth control.

For several decades, Church leaders were unanimous in their condemnation of the use of birth control. As far as I can tell, the only thing that changed was the acceptance of birth control in society, and over time Church leaders changed their counsel. So LDS couples who went against the Church leaders counsel against birth control in the 1920-80s weren't sinning (other than the philosophical argument that it is a sin to go against even mistaken counsel), they were just ahead of their time.

Edited October 17, 2011 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not talking about exceptions to counsel (although those are also good examples). I'm talking about times when the counsel itself is just mistaken, and everyone is justified in ignoring it if they feel inclined or inspired to do so.

Had the question come up in class, I would have noted that sometimes Church leaders appear to offer counsel that can be safely ignored. As an example, I would suggest the issue of birth control.

For several decades, Church leaders were unanimous in their condemnation of the use of birth control. As far as I can tell, the only thing that changed was the acceptance of birth control in society, and over time Church leaders changed their counsel. So LDS couples who went against the Church leaders counsel against birth control in the 1920-80s weren't sinning (other than the philosophical argument that it is a sin to go against even mistaken counsel), they were just ahead of their time.

The thing about counsel is that it can be and often is tailored to the time and setting in which it is given.

Much of the counsel against birth control was given in the '60s and early '70s, when the radical notion of "Zero Population Growth" and a limit of two children per couple was rampant in society. Latter-day Saints, on the contrary, see children as a blessing and regard it privilege to welcome as many spirits as they can reasonably care for from Heavenly Father into a nurturing household where they will be steeped in gospel principles and testimony. That much has not changed.

The former counsel on birth control was likely due, in part at least, to this rapidly advancing ZPG dogma.

And, according to the latest Handbook 2, surgical sterilization is still strongly discouraged except in very limited and defined circumstances. I don't expect that will ever change.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[William James]

In the Gospel Doctrine (Sunday School) lesson on Paul, it uses the story of his sea voyage and shipwreck in Acts 27 to get class members to think about obedience.

Specifically, in the story Paul warns the ship captain not to head out to sea, but his premonition is ignored.

Now, setting aside that Paul's suggestion didn't indicate any form of Godly authority or revelation, the Teacher's manual encourages teachers to ask class members this question:

Upon reading the question, several logical answers came to mind.

"Because our leaders are fallible and sometimes express their own opinions"

"Because God wants us to each have our own thoughts and opinions, and we are allowed to disagree with our leaders' counsel if we feel it is uninspired"

...and so on.

But it occurs to me that, from the wording in the manual, the line of questioning is presuming that it is never okay to "disregard our Church leaders' counsel", and that responses from the class aren't supposed to offer advice on when to disregard and when not to, but instead to reinforce that we should always regard.

Unfortunately, our lesson only covered the first half of the lesson plan, so we didn't get to this part (I mentioned what my response would have been to the teacher afterwards had this question been asked, and he suggested it was inspiration that led him to run out of time and not be able to cover it ).

But for those who did cover this part of the lesson, did anyone have any discussions that acknowledged the possibility that sometimes we might righteously disregard our Church leader's counsel, or was it taught from the approach that it is never okay to do so?

God only holds us responsible for the understanding we have (or the understanding we should have obtained through diligent effort and honest contemplation). If a purported prophet or priesthood leader gives an instruction which contradicts our conscience or the understanding God has made available to us, then only a capricious god would punish us for failing to heed it. Many TBMs apparently believe in that kind of capricious God, but I for one do not. The "my priesthood leader told me to do it" argument may have worked at Nurenburg, but I doubt it works in heaven. We are duty-bound to follow our conscience so long as we are working to hone that conscience with study, contemplation, and honest inquiry.

[T-Shirt]

I'm talking about times when the counsel itself is just mistaken, and everyone is justified in ignoring it if they feel inclined or inspired to do so.

Who gets to decide when counsel is "just mistaken and everyone is justified in ignoring it"?

I think Elder Oaks's comments apply just as much to birth control, forty years ago, as they do to anything today.

T-Shirt

[Duncan]

I once went to my YSA Bishop just after my mission for advice about life and he asked me about schooling and I told him I can't afford it and he said why don't you take out student loans? and I was like well I don't want to get stuck paying them back and he said that what can you do without schooling? (entirely forgetting the fact the himself never went to any school post high school and was doing pretty good for himself) and so I took out the loan and within some months afterwards he said over the pulpit that anyone who is in any kind of debt is in "spiritual bondage" like I wouldn't be in "spiritual bondage" if you hadn't told me to do so! He was a fountain of bad ideas!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

I once went to my YSA Bishop just after my mission for advice about life and he asked me about schooling and I told him I can't afford it and he said why don't you take out student loans? and I was like well I don't want to get stuck paying them back and he said that what can you do without schooling? (entirely forgetting the fact the himself never went to any school post high school and was doing pretty good for himself) and so I took out the loan and within some months afterwards he said over the pulpit that anyone who is in any kind of debt is in "spiritual bondage" like I wouldn't be in "spiritual bondage" if you hadn't told me to do so! He was a fountain of bad ideas!!!

This passage is from the Church pamphlet "All Is Safely Gathered In":

Spending less money than you make is essential to your financial security. Avoid debt, with the exception of buying a modest home or paying for education or other vital needs. Save money to purchase what you need. If you are in debt, pay it off as quickly as possible.

So I daresay your bishop, in advising you, felt the counsel he was giving was consistent with what the Church has said on the matter, allowing two exceptions (a "modest home" and education loans) to the stay-out-of-debt principle. Moreover, he probably understood -- wisely -- that in this day and age those who can make a comfortable living and support a family without gaining a post-high school education are the anomaly, more so than ever before.

I agree, though, that even student loans should be avoided if possible. And all debt, including mortgages, should be paid off as quickly as possible.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

This passage is from the Church pamphlet "All Is Safely Gathered In":

So I daresay your bishop, in advising you, felt the counsel he was giving was consistent with what the Church has said on the matter, allowing two exceptions (a "modest home" and education loans) to the stay-out-of-debt principle.

I agree, though, that even student loans should be avoided if possible. And all debt, including mortgages, should be paid off as quickly as possible.

outside of having those loans I have no debt , but I was dismayed and him telling me to do something then doing it and now I am in spiritual bondage for doing so!

[Scott Lloyd]

outside of having those loans I have no debt , but I was dismayed and him telling me to do something then doing it and now I am in spiritual bondage for doing so!

I really don't think he had you in mind with the "spiritual bondage" comment, since the advice he gave you was consistent with Church teaching.

Take the example of a home mortage. It is extremely rare for a family or individual to be able to pay cash for a house, and it wouldn't make sense to say everyone who has a home mortgage is in spiritual bondage.

I'm thinking your bishop was referring to those who were irresponsible in their spending habits and had taken on credit card or other consumer debt.

I don't know your bishop. Perhaps he was, as you say, "a fountain of bad ideas," but counseling someone who otherwise could not afford an education to take out a student loan I don't think necessarily amounts to a bad idea.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd