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

[cinepro]

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

That's the point of this thread. The lesson in Gospel Doctrine could be a springboard to a very interesting and illuminating discussion about such things, but it was my impression that it was intended to simply reinforce the idea of 100% obedience.

[Sky]

Scott Lloyd beat me to it, but I was going to say that getting an education is one of the things the prophets have said it is okay to go into debt for. It is justified. Also, having a house payment is justifiable.

That said, I believe the single most important thing we need to heed the prophets words is in the area dealing with sexual morality. It is a rampant sin in our day. It is talked about and emphasized in every General Conference, and also an area where I notice that many people have lax attitudes about. The prophets regularly get ignored or criticized or accused of being intolerant, even among some Church members who profess to be believing Mormons. This is not good.

[Duncan]

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.

I suppose

[LeSellers]

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!

Financial bondage, i.e., being in debt, is slavery of the worst kind.

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who understand interest and those who pay it. I dont recall t he author right now, but there was an Conference Talk a General Authority cited about interest: it never sleeps, does not get sick, does not tire or take vacations. It is your companion 24 hours a day, every day.

If you pay the minimum monthly payment on a credit card balance, it will take ~32 years to pay it off (at upwards of 20% for many people. Every three-to-five years, your bank will offer to "save you money" by refinancing your mortgage (because that's when you pay the greatest number of dollars in interest on the mortgage, and they want the interest, they do not want the principal). Saving $150/mo will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars over the live of your indebtedness.

President Hinckley counseled us to put our houses in Order ("To the Men and Boys", Priesthood Session Oct1997, iIr), and get out of debt, among other things. He related the story of President Faust who paid off a "cheap" 3% mortgage many years "early". People were telling Brother Faust that he was naïve for paying it off because he couldn't borrow money as cheaply as that any more, but Elder Faust said the freedom was worth the price.

Anyone with debt who has income can get out of debt. The path is not as difficult as many would have you believe. It does not take eating beans'n'weenies and you need not have a garage sale every week to do it. We, USmericans (especially, but we're far from alone) have come to see debt as a normal part of life. It is not. But is is fraught with some danger for those who do not understand the rules financial institutions and governments have established to keep us in debt forever.

Student loans can be justified, as can home mortgages and auto loans. "Justified", however, does not mean you should ever pay them off according to the bank's schedule. Always pay them off faster than the amortization schedule calls for, but do it wisely so you do not put yourself in a bind should unexpected events occur in your life. (If there is anything you should expect, it is the unexpected: transmissions have a way of knowing you just send in an extra payment to the car loan—that's when they have a tendency to fall out.)

About six months ago, the total amount of student debt in USmerica exceeded that amount of credit card debt. Student debt is even more diabolical than revolving (credit card) debt because you cannot escape it, not even through bankruptcy (which I rarely recommend, even in the worst case scenarios). But even worse are the "debt consolidation" scams running around. They can destroy your credit for far, far longer than a bankruptcy. Never, never, never go the consolidation route. Most of the "Companies" out there are really fronts for the credit card issuers, and they will take your money faster than a Three-Card Monty game.

Getting out of debt can be quick and relatively easy. But you must know the right tools, and be able to turn on a dime when those rules change (and they do, frequently). There are people who can do it themselves, but not many can, and fewer should try: the results can be catastrophic, and may last for years. However, an "average" person (who I believe does not exist) can pay off a 30-year mortgage in 5~7 years with the right plan. I know: I've shown hundreds of people how to do it.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the point of this thread. The lesson in Gospel Doctrine could be a springboard to a very interesting and illuminating discussion about such things, but it was my impression that it was intended to simply reinforce the idea of 100% obedience.

I suppose the operative question is this: How likely are Church leaders to give bad counsel? If the answer is "Not very likely," or if it happens only rarely, then propounding an attitude that one is justified in cherry picking what to obey and what to ignore could be harmful or even dangerous.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

There are times when it is perfectly justified to decline a church leader's counsel. For instance, if a mission president sent from the USA would attempt to tell the members in the mission not to protest against a certain candidate.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are times when it is perfectly justified to decline a church leader's counsel. For instance, if a mission president sent from the USA would attempt to tell the members in the mission not to protest against a certain candidate.

Is this a hypothetical, or did it actually happen?

[Calm]

I know of one person who went to school specifically to get the grants and loans to live off of and pay other debts as well as someone who went through school on loans stopping just shy of graduating because he decided it wasn't of value to him and never graduated, closing instead to live on welfare, minimum wage jobs and condemning his four children and his wife to live in a two bedroom apt. just because he was bored with school.

I think those are likely the only cases where school loans are likely to put one in spiritual bondage because the loans were misused.

Debt is hard to bear and weighs on the soul even when the cause was essential (catastrophic medical expenses for example or loss of a job). The question is whether the loan is not only for a worthwhile purpose but necessary in the long run (financial stability can be helped more if we can afford a house rather than renting, education leads to higher paying and more stable jobs, etc.). I doubt any church leader would suggest putting a second mortgage on your house to contribute to the temple fund no matter how worthwhile, better to put efforts into getting out of debt and then contribute generously.

[volgadon]

Is this a hypothetical, or did it actually happen?

It has happened. Rarely, thankfully. Good intentions and all, but absolutely improper.

[Scott Lloyd]

Student loans can be justified, as can home mortgages and auto loans. "Justified", however, does not mean you should ever pay them off according to the bank's schedule. Always pay them off faster than the amortization schedule calls for, but do it wisely so you do not put yourself in a bind should unexpected events occur in your life. (If there is anything you should expect, it is the unexpected: transmissions have a way of knowing you just send in an extra payment to the car loan—that's when they have a tendency to fall out.)

Dave Ramsey, who preaches being or becoming debt free, recommends having an emergency fund in place. His "baby step #1" is to have $1,000 in reserve. Then, baby step 3 or 4, as I recall, after paying off consumer and credit card debt, is to fully fund that emergency fund up to about the equivalent of six months worth of take-home pay. This has the effect of insulating one against having to take on more debt because of such eventualities as the transmission falling out.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Ares]

The "my priesthood leader told me to do it" argument may have worked at Nurenburg, but I doubt it works in heaven.

Godwin violations may work in your mind but on this board they do not. Comparisons of the Priesthood to Nazi leadership are not OK. Add that to your pro-porn discussion and you can take a time out. Read the board rules before coming back and posting again.

[Scott Lloyd]

It has happened. Rarely, thankfully. Good intentions and all, but absolutely improper.

I'm wondering, though, suppose the counsel was not improper. Suppose there was an instance when it was inspired of God. What would it matter whether the leader giving it was from the United States or was a native or citizen of the country itself? Shouldn't inspired counsel -- assuming it is inspired -- be regarded as transcending national or political boundaries?

I'm thinking of President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the First Presidency. He is not my countryman (I don't know whether he has U.S. citizenship; I doubt it, but that is beside the point). But he is my fellowcitizen in the household of faith, to use Paul's words. And he is the Lord's anointed, an apostle and prophet, part of the foundation on which the Church is built with Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. I regard President Uchtdorf's inspired counsel as valid, as surely as if he had been born in Salt Lake City.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

Dave Ramsey, who preaches being or becoming debt free, recommends having an emergency fund in place. His "baby step #1 is to have $1,000 in reserve. Then, baby step 3 or 4, as I recall, after paying off consumer and credit card debt, is to fully fund that emergency fund up to about the equivalent of six months worth of take-home pay. This has the effect of insulating one against having to take on more debt because of such eventualities as the transmission falling out.

Baby steps are fine for babies, but no one gets very far with them, or, at least, not very fast. Dave's methods work; but they work very slowly. There are better ways, much better ways, that work both faster and with more safety and flexibility.

As I said, it is not something that most people should try on their own, but anyone who is serious about getting out of debt will benefit from competent advice and coaching.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Baby steps are fine for babies, but no one gets very far with them, or, at least, not very fast. Dave's methods work; but they work very slowly. There are better ways, much better ways, that work both faster and with more safety and flexibility.

As I said, it is not something that most people should try on their own, but anyone who is serious about getting out of debt will benefit from competent advice and coaching.

Lehi

I can't think of any advice more competent or sound than making sure you have an emergency fund in place — even as you are endeavoring to get out of debt — to make sure you don't have to incur yet more debt.

[Verum]

I suppose the operative question is this: How likely are Church leaders to give bad counsel? If the answer is "Not very likely," or if it happens only rarely, then propounding an attitude that one is justified in cherry picking what to obey and what to ignore could be harmful or even dangerous.

The answer to this question is problematic in my mind as it applies to this discussion because most of the church's modern counsel is pretty straight forward--meaning that while people may still ignore counsel with their actions, the counsel if very fundamental in principle and easy to agree with. For example, very few people would disagree with the idea that one is supposed to avoid debt. While many people ignore this counsel and accrue debt, they probably still agree that staying out of debt is wise to do. The same applies for most of the counsel given today, (72 hour kits, read the scriptures daily, spend time with your kids, serve in the church, etc.) I still don't have 72 hour kit. Do I agree that this is probably a bad idea? No. Would anyone really think that following this would be harmful? No. Some may think its silly, but it would never be harmful.

The issue I have with counsel that could potentially be harmful or risky if followed blindly. Telling members that birth control is of the devil and that people should live together and "just let the children come" can be harmful counsel. If I don't spiritually evaluate this counsel but instead just completely follow blindly, there may be some risky marital and financial consequences for a couple that is not prepared. But If I evaluate the intent of the counsel, and I happen to discern through prayer that President Kimball is trying to teach a principle about exercising faith in family planning, I am able to receive my own inspiration on how to apply this principle he was trying to teach, which may even mean get on birth control (even if the prophet said it was evil). How do we know whether the prophet inserted his own opinion or not.? If he is fallible, he could have very well inserted his own opinion. The only way we can discern is by seeking God's counsel personally and how we can apply it.

[LeSellers]

I can't think of any advice more competent or sound than making sure you have an emergency fund in place — even as you are endeavoring to get out of debt — to make sure you don't have to incur yet more debt.

If the only resource imaginable is an "emergency fund", the imagination is not working up to spec.

Any emergency fund will earn essentially no interest at all, while debt is racking it up at 10~30%. Having cash (or a savings account) makes your money "sit in the corner, sucking its thumb".

If you get out of debt in six years with no emergency fund, but in nine years with it, how are you better off? Even in the (very few) cases I have coached where there was a true emergency that used these "other resources" and caused the family to incur more debt, the new debt did not make the same difference to the process as their having had a hypothetical emergency fund idling in the bank. The trick is to always make your money work for you twice; to make it work for you as hard as you have to work for it. When it's sucking its thumb, it is not working for you in the least.

There are much better ways to use your income than have it do nothing, and, in many cases, a thousand dollars (or even six month's income) won't cover the unforeseen cost anyway. An "emergency fund is not a particularly good idea if (and this is almost always the case) there are other resources available.

People confuse the concepts of "debt" and "credit". They are not the same, and may even be mutually exclusive. Credit is a resource; debt, needless to say (but I will anyway) is quite the opposite.

Lehi

Edited October 17, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ares]

Try not to let this topic devolve into discussions about specific types of counsel. Thanks

[volgadon]

I'm wondering, though, suppose the counsel was not improper. Suppose there was an instance when it was inspired of God. What would it matter whether the leader giving it was from the United States or was a native or citizen of the country itself? Shouldn't inspired counsel -- assuming it is inspired -- be regarded as transcending national or political boundaries?

Ok, I'll expand a little on it without making it obvious where or when it occured. Ruritania was having elections. The church members in Zenda, along with the majority of the town, were protesting because they were being forced to vote for R. Hentzau. These protests gained momentum in other parts of the country.

Hentzau was the darling of the town of Strelsau. The mission home and office were in Strelsau. The members in that town petitioned the mission president from the USA to stop the members in Zenda from protesting against Hentzau..

[LeSellers]

Try not to let this topic devolve into discussions about specific types of counsel.

Sorry if it seems I have done that.

I get really worked up about debt because it will be, as it has been since the dawn of recorded history, one of the principle causes of modern nations' descending into oblivion, and the descent is painful and devastating.

There is little any of us can do about our country's debt (irrespective of which country is ours), and not much more in re: the debt of states, provinces, or cities, but we can make a difference sitting around our kitchen tables. My 27 grandchildren deserve to grow up in a country that is not blighted by the scourge of indebtedness. Please, we all need to follow the prophets' counsel to "put our houses in order".

Then we can work on serving our fellows even better, spread the Gospel faster, and lead by example. It all ties together.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, I'll expand a little on it without making it obvious where or when it occured. Ruritania was having elections. The church members in Zenda, along with the majority of the town, were protesting because they were being forced to vote for R. Hentzau. These protests gained momentum in other parts of the country.

Hentzau was the darling of the town of Strelsau. The mission home and office were in Strelsau. The members in that town petitioned the mission president from the USA to stop the members in Zenda from protesting against Hentzau..

While I'm not competent or knowledgable enough to discuss this specific incident, I do stand by the general principle I've endeavored to express.

[volgadon]

While I'm not competent or knowledgable enough to discuss this specific incident, I do stand by the general principle I've endeavored to express.

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

[Scott Lloyd]

The answer to this question is problematic in my mind as it applies to this discussion because most of the church's modern counsel is pretty straight forward--meaning that while people may still ignore counsel with their actions, the counsel if very fundamental in principle and easy to agree with. For example, very few people would disagree with the idea that one is supposed to avoid debt. While many people ignore this counsel and accrue debt, they probably still agree that staying out of debt is wise to do. The same applies for most of the counsel given today, (72 hour kits, read the scriptures daily, spend time with your kids, serve in the church, etc.) I still don't have 72 hour kit. Do I agree that this is probably a bad idea? No. Would anyone really think that following this would be harmful? No. Some may think its silly, but it would never be harmful.

But that's the very reason why counsel is given: not everybody is wise enough on their own at any given time to understand what others may see as self-evident and "easy to agree with." Amazingly enough, not everybody agrees, for example that it is wise to get out or stay out of debt. So if one gets in a mindset of only heeding what one sees as "easy to agree with," one is on dangerous ground.

The example I gave earlier, of the counsel against tattoos and body piercings, evidently is something that many do not see as self-evident, judging by the resistance I have observed to it on boards such as this one.

As pertaining to birth control. I don't think the Church has become as laissez-faire on it as some people would like to believe. In recent times some couples, otherwise faithful in the Church, have acted contrary to the counsel against surgical sterilization, probably not understanding that the Church still does strongly discourage it.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Indeed.

[Sky]

I’m not sure what was said about birth control in the past, but here is what Book 2 of the current Church Handbook of Instructions says about birth control and surgical sterilization. Based on this information, it sounds like birth control isn’t a problem, but surgical sterilization is a no-go.

Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

[cinepro]

As pertaining to birth control. I don't think the Church has become as laissez-faire on it as some people would like to believe. In recent times some couples, otherwise faithful in the Church, have acted contrary to the counsel against surgical sterilization, probably not understanding that the Church still does strongly discourage it.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple.

LDS.org - Birth Control

That's laissez-faire enough for me.

Funny thing about the "surgical sterilization" policy. It shows up in the search results, but it doesn't seem to actually appear anywhere in the online CHI. If anyone can find it, let me know.

Frankly, as we've gotten older my wife and I have met more and more LDS couples that have shared their experience with "surgical sterilization". I can't remember a single one even hinting at any sort of concern over what God or the Church might think. I think all would have been surprised that there is such a discouragement.

Edited October 17, 2011 by cinepro