Council: To Obey Or Not?

[Sine Saw Square]

I believe everyone should choose to live by principles that they find compelling, reasonable, and applicable to their own life. Hence, I believe every commandment and every piece of counsel is open for scrutiny. Counsel should be followed if one finds a compelling reason to do so - following advice that is not applicable to your situation may result in a negative outcome to whatever situation you are in.

H.

Every commandment as well? Seems like this would lead one to just believe what is comfortable and self-justifying. Aren't commandments there to align our wills with God's and not the other way around?

[Sine Saw Square]

Do you think these verses might help clarify the issue a bit:

Those are good thank you. Do you then maintain that all counsel is commandment? Is everything publicly said by GAs done so by the Holy Spirit? Just trying to think through these things and get clarity.

[BCSpace]

Those are good thank you. Do you then maintain that all counsel is commandment? Is everything publicly said by GAs done so by the Holy Spirit? Just trying to think through these things and get clarity.

I just went on lds.org and searched on "counsel you". After looking through the results, I think one must be careful of one's reasoning because one might come across things like: "If your priesthood leaders counsel you to be chaste, listen and follow". Chastity is of course a commandment, not just some counsel from someone who is older and wiser.

[zerinus]

Those are good thank you. Do you then maintain that all counsel is commandment? Is everything publicly said by GAs done so by the Holy Spirit? Just trying to think through these things and get clarity.

Well, those scriptures I quoted don't quite say that. Let me quote them again, with the relevant bits highlighted:

D&C 21:

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory.

D&C 68:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

This doesn't say that they will always speak by the Holy Ghost. They are supposed to; and I dare say that most of the time they do. But they are also human, and liable to the weakness of human nature, and may not always be perfect. That places the burden on us to always have the Spirit, and be able to discern at all times if they are speaking by the Holy Ghost or not.

[Cobalt-70]

D&C 21:

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory.

This is saying that the early members of the church were to give "heed" to all the words and commandments of Joseph Smith, and that members should receive his words with the same kind of patience and faith that one would receive the words of Jesus. This does not mean that every word that Joseph Smith ever said is canonized scripture. The word "heed" means to "pay attention to, and to take notice of" his words. It doesn't necessarily mean that you must always agree with them, or follow them. Notice that the scripture makes a distinction between Smith's "words" and his "commandments."

D&C 68:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

This scripture was directed generally to missionaries, and it means that when a missionary is teaching, their inspired words are scripture to the investigators being taught. That does not mean that whatever a missionary feels inspired to say is canonized scripture. A missionary may be moved to say one thing to one investigator, and something completely different to a different investigator.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

Those are good thank you. Do you then maintain that all counsel is commandment? Is everything publicly said by GAs done so by the Holy Spirit? Just trying to think through these things and get clarity.

I'm going to interject even though my first post didn't seem to generate much interest.

To me the Beatitudes are counsel and the phrase “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect…” doesn’t sound like much of a command. On the other hand, the “doctrine of Christ” and not contending about it (as laid out in 3 Nephi 11) do seem to come across as commands.

I don’t know if everything said publicly by a GA is inspired, but when it is, I hope to recognize it as something to observe, just as I hope to observe it when the Spirit tells me to in the possible event that his words are not inspired. I think it best to orient myself to the side of observance because I am confident the Spirit will correct or compensate for my course as necessary.

I can’t think of a single occasion where even less-than-wholehearted observance has kept me at a disadvantage for spiritual development and progress. I think your OP correctly framed it as “striving” and not “succeeding” because we can have extremely limited perspective as to what the Lord considers success.

[zerinus]

I'm going to interject even though my first post didn't seem to generate much interest.

To me the Beatitudes are counsel and the phrase “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect…” doesn’t sound like much of a command. On the other hand, the “doctrine of Christ” and not contending about it (as laid out in 3 Nephi 11) do seem to come across as commands.

I don’t know if everything said publicly by a GA is inspired, but when it is, I hope to recognize it as something to observe, just as I hope to observe it when the Spirit tells me to in the possible event that his words are not inspired. I think it best to orient myself to the side of observance because I am confident the Spirit will correct or compensate for my course as necessary.

I can’t think of a single occasion where even less-than-wholehearted observance has kept me at a disadvantage for spiritual development and progress. I think your OP correctly framed it as “striving” and not “succeeding” because we can have extremely limited perspective as to what the Lord considers success.

I think the discussion is a bit confused because a clear distinction is not made between counsel, commandment, and doctrine. It is often a doctrine taught that has been controversial, which has had little bearing on conduct. The counsel that has been given has been rarely controversial; but doctrine has been. I think the OP is confusing a lot of things.

[blackstrap]

There is a commandment to be chaste. There will also be counsel to follow the commandment usually from someone who has experience with the results of not being chaste.

[CV75]

I think the discussion is a bit confused because a clear distinction is not made between counsel, commandment, and doctrine. It is often a doctrine taught that has been controversial, which has had little bearing on conduct. The counsel that has been given has been rarely controversial; but doctrine has been. I think the OP is confusing a lot of things.

So many things come from our leaders as directed by the Spirit--counsel, commands, doctrine, policy, procedure, practice, testimony, instruction, judgement, discipline, callings, translation, administrative decisions, etc., and on worldwide, unit, general, individual and situational bases that it might be difficult to tease it all out. It will be interesting to see what sticks for the purposes of this thread.

Edited December 24, 2011 by CV75

[LDSToronto]

What I admire is the desire to be obedient. I don't think that is easy. Those that I know who try to live this way don't get there out of naïveté or stupidity or fear. The people I refer to do so from a position of spiritual strength. I'm not saying that all people who strive to live in strict obedience do so from this position, though I find it remarkable that one could maintain such a lifestyle without thoughtful conviction. But even if that is the case... What harm is there in doing so?

If one put's obedience above one's own ethical system then we can do harm to ourselves and others. Here is a story that illustrates when I mean (this happened on a John Dehlin podcast). A college girl was friends with many gay/lesbian classmates; she was LDS, but was very close to these friends and loved them dearly. During the Prop 8 happenings, this girl phoned in to John's live Prop 8 podcast and was in tears. She loved her LGBT friends, but felt she had to obey her church leaders and vote as they had asked her.

I think this happens more than we think - we place obedience to commandments and to counsel above our personal ethics, replacing our own set of morals with one crafted for us. Is this healthy? Debatable, I'm certain. But, if one can't ever reconcile personal true north with assigned true north, it is hard to see how that is a good thing.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Every commandment as well? Seems like this would lead one to just believe what is comfortable and self-justifying. Aren't commandments there to align our wills with God's and not the other way around?

I see no reason to dispense with reason. This is the problem with obedience - one can easily throw out inquisitiveness.

[Sine Saw Square]

I think the discussion is a bit confused because a clear distinction is not made between counsel, commandment, and doctrine. It is often a doctrine taught that has been controversial, which has had little bearing on conduct. The counsel that has been given has been rarely controversial; but doctrine has been. I think the OP is confusing a lot of things.

Sorry to confuse things Zerinus. I'd like to understand where members draw lines of obedience. On the "top" end and "bottom" end if you will- I don't mean that disparagingly. Admittedly, I don't know how to exactly define what is counsel, commandment, doctrine, policy, procedure, etc. I welcome your help in this. Maybe the issue is really when is counsel optional to follow? DC 21 and 68 say you can know because the leader speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit. It still comes down to what you believe is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and so we're back at square one again. Are you saying that it's up to each individual to decide that?

[Sine Saw Square]

I'm going to interject even though my first post didn't seem to generate much interest.

Didn't mean to leave you out! I thought your initial post was great. Gave me something to think about- I like how your relationship between council and command works together. I have limited time to spend on here so I can't respond to everything.

To me the Beatitudes are counsel and the phrase “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect…” doesn’t sound like much of a command. On the other hand, the “doctrine of Christ” and not contending about it (as laid out in 3 Nephi 11) do seem to come across as commands. I don’t know if everything said publicly by a GA is inspired, but when it is, I hope to recognize it as something to observe, just as I hope to observe it when the Spirit tells me to in the possible event that his words are not inspired. I think it best to orient myself to the side of observance because I am confident the Spirit will correct or compensate for my course as necessary.

Do you consider it possible to go too far in observance of counsel? For example if someone decided that if wearing more than 2 earrings was wrong, no earrings was even better? I guess there is no harm in thinking that so maybe that would be ok?

I can’t think of a single occasion where even less-than-wholehearted observance has kept me at a disadvantage for spiritual development and progress. I think your OP correctly framed it as “striving” and not “succeeding” because we can have extremely limited perspective as to what the Lord considers success.

See, I admire that perspective

[blackstrap]

Everything is optional. You can get into the boat or not.If you get into the boat you can paddle or sit and let others paddle. You can swim beside the boat.You can stand on the shore and mock those passing by in a boat for the foolishness of even trying to travel on water.It does seem a waste to spend much time trying to define a boat.Sorry,this discussion has rendered me a bit seasick>

[Stargazer]

Sometimes the sheer volume of counsel and advice that we receive can be overwhelming. This can be a real problem for many women. I have close friends who feel a tremendous amount of guilt because they are not able to do EVERYTHING that is taught or counseled. I also have friends that are on anti-depressants, in part because of guilt they feel for not living up to the image of what we have been counseled/taught is the ideal woman in our Church and closely knit communities here in Utah.

In our Gospel Doctrine class is an elderly sister who is new to the Church (a year? or less? something like that). On one Sunday, the instructor brought up the exhaustive list of Kosher laws (something like seven or eight hundred different rules) to compare them the few which we have to pay attention to. Upon his proclamation that we only have a few rules to worry about, this sister (who isn't shy of expressing herself, which is a good thing) gave a surprised exclamation, something like "We don't??? Seems to me that we do!"

And I wondered about that, because I had the same opinion as the instructor. Which brought me to consider that an awful lot of the rules we seem to think we MUST follow are in fact merely "counsel". Like the counsel to stay out of debt. Or, at least, unnecessary debt. The problem being, what debt is unnecessary? OK, you can't save for a house, takes too long, so that's necessary. Well, going into debt for education is necessary, of course (of course? why? when so many people never actually work in the field they get educated in?). Hmmm. Perhaps it is necessary to go into debt to start a business -- but is that actually wise when 4/5s of all new businesses fail in the first 5 years? Sounds like a gamble, not an investment, that. Which leads us to the "counsel" to not gamble -- for that matter, to bet money on things. But what if you bet on something you are certain of? "I'll bet you $5 that it's a full moon tonight!" when you know perfectly well that there's a full moon. Wouldn't that then be a "sure thing" and not a gamble at all? And do you invest in the stock market? Stocks go up and stocks go down, and if you time things wrong you lose your bet, er, "investment". Do any of the GA's who counsel against gambling own shares in any mutual funds? Well, in my humble opinion, they are gambling. And what about the "counsel" to marry in the Temple? I know lots of folks who did not marry in the Temple, but who were later sealed there. Same result, just a different route. Some have married non-members, thinking they can get them baptized later, discovering later that it hasn't worked. That's a gamble, but it is ultimately the same result that a couple get if they marry in the Temple and then one or the other gets excommunicated for something -- or just falls away. I have see all of the above.

This is why I regard "counsel" as counsel, not commandment.

[Frenchy]

My two cents.

For me. Commandments are the law. Break the law suffer the consequences. Counsel are the warnings. I don't belive there is any way to go overboard on following warnings.

The speed limit is 75. You break the speed limit by even 1mph you can get a ticket. Signs ahead telling you speed is being reduced, you slow down or not up to you. Possible some people slow down too much and annoy the drivers behind them.

I haven't thought this out to put it in terms of teachings of the Church, but give me time.

Again just my two cents worth.

[Sine Saw Square]

My two cents.

For me. Commandments are the law. Break the law suffer the consequences. Counsel are the warnings. I don't belive there is any way to go overboard on following warnings.

Ooh. I like that way of describing the relationship between the two.

[zerinus]

Sorry to confuse things Zerinus. I'd like to understand where members draw lines of obedience. On the "top" end and "bottom" end if you will- I don't mean that disparagingly. Admittedly, I don't know how to exactly define what is counsel, commandment, doctrine, policy, procedure, etc. I welcome your help in this. Maybe the issue is really when is counsel optional to follow? DC 21 and 68 say you can know because the leader speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit. It still comes down to what you believe is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and so we're back at square one again. Are you saying that it's up to each individual to decide that?

In a sense yes. Another thing that complicates this discussion is that we are dealing in generalities. If we reduced it to specifics, and discussed specific cases or examples, the question could be more easily answered. The "earrings" issue is a good example. I am able to understand and agree with the counsel he gave because I believe I have the same Spirit by which he understood and taught what he taught. In fact, I didn't really need Gordon B. Hinckley to tell me that, because I could have figured it out for myself by the same Spirit. The issue isn't about earrings. It is about disfiguring your body with tattoos and various distasteful body piercings etc. that has become the craze among some people nowadays. I can tell by the Holy Spirit that that is not something that God would approve of. I didn't need him to tell me that. Therefore I can understand and agree with what he was saying. But apparently there are some people in the Church who don't have the same level of discernment, therefore it was important for their benefit that he should give them the counsel he gave. It is not about earrings. Ladies decorating themselves with a pair of earrings isn't an issue, nor something that God would care about. But people disfiguring themselves, in the way that some people do, is. There is no "upper limit" or "lower limit". If you discern and understand what he was talking about, you will agree with it. If you don't, you may have a hard time.

[CV75]

Didn't mean to leave you out! I thought your initial post was great. Gave me something to think about- I like how your relationship between council and command works together. I have limited time to spend on here so I can't respond to everything.

Do you consider it possible to go too far in observance of counsel? For example if someone decided that if wearing more than 2 earrings was wrong, no earrings was even better? I guess there is no harm in thinking that so maybe that would be ok?

No problem—that’s why I interject (and often!)—

I think John 13:9-10 gives a good example about going too far in that it is really not observance and detracts from the purpose.

I was once counseled that if I wanted to double my blessings, I should double my fast offering. I did and it proved true. Should I double it again, and if I do, is it motivated by the material blessings I received for myself, or for the blessings of generous feelings and expanded love that I received for the poor, or for the blessings of realizing that their blessing is my treasure in heaven even without either aforementioned blessing? Which of these is true faith, or the Lord’s motive? Once I am detracted from the purpose of giving I’ve gone overboard and it is as good as not giving at all. In retrospect, my motivation for doubling my fast offering was obedience, regardless of the outcome, and that was just the starting point of the wonderful things I discovered on this principle.

I think the same holds true with earrings. Those who wear none, one pair or more than one pair will be blessed (and be able to bless others) only to the degree the thoughts and intents of their heart are in alignment with the Lord's. If anyone is preoccupied with being judged or judging others or others judging others then he is not approaching the situation in a way that he can meet the purpose of the counsel.

Also, I do think Frenchy’s post about speed limits is a really good way to show how keeping counsel is a good thing, and how people can can slow down too much, too little, too soon, too late, etc.