Obedience To Leaders

[cinepro]

Can you give an example from Church history, or from your own experience, when a Prophet or Apostle has commanded a Church member to do something that was manifestly wrong?

I was just pointing out that, since some LDS might use the words of God (as they understand them to be delivered through the Prophet) as a standard for "morality", it could be impossible for a Prophet to ask you to do something that is immoral, since the very act of them asking would render the request to be "moral".

Edited March 15, 2012 by cinepro

[KevinG]

I was just pointing out that, since some LDS might use the words of God (as they understand them to be delivered through the Prophet) as a standard for "morality", it could be impossible for a Prophet to ask you to do something that is immoral, since the very act of them asking would render the request to be "moral".

If we didn't include the Holy Spirit and Scriptures as part of the Iron Rod then that might hold water. The words of the prophets are only a part of where we seek revelation and truth. While "some LDS might" it is a poor Latter-day Saint who uses only the words of the Prophet as guidance without knowing for themselves. (See Brighams quote above)

Edited March 15, 2012 by KevinG

[Cobalt-70]

As far as I can tell, every current talk, article or curriculum published by the Church teaches 100% obedience to Church leaders (with no preference given between "faith" obedience and "blind" obedience).

In other words, it is never even acknowledged (even in theory) that there could be a situation where a Church member might be justified in not following a Prophet or Apostle.

Statements from the Times and Seasons and apologetic arguments are great, but when it comes to "obedience" in the Church, the concept of "justified disobedience" just doesn't exist.

I think this M.G. Romney statement is a counterexample to what you are saying. It is in current use within official LDS literature, and it acknowledges at least the theoretical possibility that the President of the Church would tell you to do something wrong. Romney (quoting Grant) said, in effect, "don't worry about whether or not the President will tell you to do something wrong, because the President doesn't make mistakes, and even if he does, your duty is to obey him anyway."

I agree with you, however, that there is no concept of "justified disobedience" in modern Mormon discourse, and while Romney's statement acknowledges the theoretical possibility of the President telling you to do something wrong, it denies that this is a practical possibility and encourages unquestioning obedience.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[The Nehor]

As far as I can tell, every current talk, article or curriculum published by the Church teaches 100% obedience to Church leaders (with no preference given between "faith" obedience and "blind" obedience).

In other words, it is never even acknowledged (even in theory) that there could be a situation where a Church member might be justified in not following a Prophet or Apostle.

Statements from the Times and Seasons and apologetic arguments are great, but when it comes to "obedience" in the Church, the concept of "justified disobedience" just doesn't exist.

I like to think that this is because any case of "justified disobedience" that did happen would be done at the direct command of God. When those are the circumstances the righteous will follow the command of God no matter what the Prophet says because their faith is in God alone.

If the Brethren acknowledged the possibility that someone could be right to disobey a command every crackpot member with delusions of grandeur (i.e. not a small sample) would be convinced that they, despite being mentally unstable and incapable of obeying the simplest of the commandments consistently, are the glorious exception to the rules and not only should they disobey, they must actively proselyte for and trumpet their feeble disobedience to any poor soul within earshot. They are the chosen ones, gifted to lead us all in righteous rebellion against the Brethren. The Brethren acknowledged the possibility which proves them right. Bi-monthly Home Teaching is the will of God and they are here to see it done.

Excommunications follow, many eyes roll, and Bishops get less time home with their families dealing with the nutters. Do the Brethren want to explain to poor Mike why dad is not going to be able to come to his school play because he has to deal with crazy Brother John the Revelator wannabe? No sir, they do not. So they keep quiet and the will of God carries on.

While written in a satirical manner this is pretty much what would actually happen.

[zerinus]

I was just pointing out that, since some LDS might use the words of God (as they understand them to be delivered through the Prophet) as a standard for "morality", it could be impossible for a Prophet to ask you to do something that is immoral, since the very act of them asking would render the request to be "moral".

Okay, can you think of instance where in your opinion a Prophet or Apostle has commanded Church members to do something that was evidently wrong?

[Duncan]

Okay, can you think of instance where in your opinion a Prophet or Apostle has commanded Church members to do something that was evidently wrong?

move to utah...haha!

[Cobalt-70]

This is how I've seen it:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. . . . When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78.)

So the question is, is the quotation from Millennial Star in the OP correct that Heber J. Grant probably "had it in his heart to do wrong himself"? I don't think so. You can't conclude that those who demand unquestioning obedience, whether the act is right or wrong, are doing it because they intend to do wrong. In fact, once the leader says that "you will be blessed by obeying me even if what I tell you is wrong," then right and wrong become relative. Error by the leader translates to righteousness for the follower.

[KevinG]

Believing that we are encouraged to follow unquestioningly is a perversion of LDS doctrine and practice. Study up on counsels, and re-re-re-read Brigham's admonition.

[KevinG]

Okay, can you think of instance where in your opinion a Prophet or Apostle has commanded Church members to do something that was evidently wrong?

This CFR is begging for an answer. Really - why dance around it. Otherwise we're just throwing around spooky hypotheticals.

[blackstrap]

IIRC in the Nibley book Approaching Zion ,he tells a story of a bro. Wooley who came to SLC and built a dance hall. It was a success,so much so that Pres.BY told bro Wooley to give it to the Church so it could have the revenue. Bro. Wooley refused until he was threatened with excommunication.He then gave in. After the meeting Bro.Young then said to Bro.Wooley that he supposed that bro.Wooley would now go off and apostatize.Bro. Wooley said that if the Church was the Church of Brigham Young he would,but since it was the church of Christ,he would not. I am paraphrasing some,but it pertains to the OP with respect to obedience to leaders.

PS. guess who was Bro.Wooley's decendent

Edited March 15, 2012 by blackstrap

[Sky]

Okay, can you think of instance where in your opinion a Prophet or Apostle has commanded Church members to do something that was evidently wrong?

I'm not saying I agree with it, but an obvious area where a lot of people feel the leaders of the Church were completely wrong was in regards to Proposition 8. Many of the objections to the Church in coming years will center around the Church's doctrines regarding homosexuality. So brace yourself, friends, because we are in for a bumpy ride!

[Duncan]

IIRC in the Nibley book Approaching Zion ,he tells a story of a bro. Wooley who came to SLC and built a dance hall. It was a success,so much so that Pres.BY told bro Wooley to give it to the Church so it could have the revenue. Bro. Wooley refused until he was threatened with excommunication.He then gave in. After the meeting Bro.Young then said to Bro.Wooley that he supposed that bro.Wooley would now go off and apostatize.Bro. Wooley said that if the Church was the Church of Brigham Young he would,but since it was the church of Christ,he would not. I am paraphrasing some,but it pertains to the OP with respect to obedience to leaders.

PS. guess who was Bro.Wooley's decendent

Sheb Wooley of Purple People eater fame?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheb_Wooley

[blackstrap]

Ahhhhhhh...no,try again!

[Duncan]

Ahhhhhhh...no,try again!

oh, nuts! haha!

[zerinus]

I'm not saying I agree with it, but an obvious area where a lot of people feel the leaders of the Church were completely wrong was in regards to Proposition 8. Many of the objections to the Church in coming years will center around the Church's doctrines regarding homosexuality. So brace yourself, friends, because we are in for a bumpy ride!

I was careful enough to say evidently wrong. It is not at all "evident" that that is wrong. I would guess that 90% of lds believe it is right. I would guess that 90% of Catholics believe it was right. Perhaps even 90% of Baptists think it was right too. It is something about which it is possible to have more than one opinion. I am not aware that the Church has taken any disciplinary action against any Church member who has disagreed with Prop. 8.

[Cobalt-70]

Believing that we are encouraged to follow unquestioningly is a perversion of LDS doctrine and practice. Study up on counsels, and re-re-re-read Brigham's admonition.

If that's true, then Robert C. Oaks (Presidency of the Seventy) is guilty of perverting LDS doctrine on the pages of the Ensign: "Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction--whether it be recorded scripture, the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost--to be worthy of obedience." http://www.lds.org/e...things?lang=eng

In other words, he is encouraging everyone to enter a state of unquestioning obedience--where one has developed enough faith in one's leaders that there is no longer any need to ask whether what the leader says is right or wrong.

Likewise, Pres. Monson praised Abraham as a "model of unquestioning obedience" for following, without question, the direction to commit a human sacrifice by murdering his own son. http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/they-marked-the-path-to-follow?lang=eng. If the President of the Church or your bishop asked you to commit a human sacrifice, would you be able to live up to Abraham's "model of unquestioning obedience"? Or would you question why?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[altersteve]

Likewise, Pres. Monson praised Abraham as a "model of unquestioning obedience" for following, without question, the direction to commit a human sacrifice by murdering his own son. http://www.lds.org/l...follow?lang=eng. If the President of the Church or your bishop asked you to commit a human sacrifice, would you be able to live up to Abraham's "model of unquestioning obedience"? Or would you question why?

Comparing God telling a prophet to sacrifice his son, to a prophet/bishop telling a member of the Church to sacrifice his son, is not a good comparison. President Monson was talking about "unquestioning obedience" to God, not to Church leaders.

Edited March 15, 2012 by altersteve

[oremites]

In other words, ...

Your spin on what Robert C. Oaks said doesn't match what he actually said, at least in the mind of this Mormon. There's a very important qualifier - inspired - that your "in other words" seems to skip right over.

Also, why don't we post a poll for all Mormons everywhere with the question:

"The standard of obedience we should aspire to is to be willing to commit a human sacrifice without question if asked by the Prophet or your Bishop. True or False?"

Honestly, do you really think that the response wouldn't be 100% "False"? (Other than the mentally unbalanced 0.001%, one of which happens to be my neighbor.) Why, I'll bet even President Monson would answer False. It's disheartening to think that the Church membership (even Pres. Monson himself!) would completely ignore the Prophet's counsel about obedience, but I guess that's the state to which the LDS church has sunk.

Edited March 15, 2012 by oremites

[CV75]

So the question is, is the quotation from Millennial Star in the OP correct that Heber J. Grant probably "had it in his heart to do wrong himself"? I don't think so. You can't conclude that those who demand unquestioning obedience, whether the act is right or wrong, are doing it because they intend to do wrong. In fact, once the leader says that "you will be blessed by obeying me even if what I tell you is wrong," then right and wrong become relative. Error by the leader translates to righteousness for the follower.

I’m not following. The OP isn’t talking about President Grant or his intent.

To me, the quote in post#19 reveals his intent to convey that obedience, in a spiritual sense, means doing God’s will. Obeying His leaders who obey Him amounts to the same thing. Anyone who has made and keeps covenants with God would obey accordingly.

[Verum]

I wonder how many church leaders who have passed the veil cringe at how we use their words today to prove our own agenda or to make an issue or to defend our own lack of faith. Too bad they aren't here to explain further.

I am sure Brigham Young is cringing because of all the back peddling current church leaders have done from his statements....

On second thought, maybe he isn't cringing ,since he may now have a real understanding that the whole Adam-God theory was all baloney...

[thesometimesaint]

Verum:

I just hope that God will disabuse me of any wrong ideas that I have.

[cinepro]

Comparing God telling a prophet to sacrifice his son, to a prophet/bishop telling a member of the Church to sacrifice his son, is not a good comparison. President Monson was talking about "unquestioning obedience" to God, not to Church leaders.

Seminary scripture:

D&C 1:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

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.

Edited March 15, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

[KevinG]

If that's true, then Robert C. Oaks (Presidency of the Seventy) is guilty of perverting LDS doctrine on the pages of the Ensign: "Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction--whether it be recorded scripture, the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost--to be worthy of obedience." http://www.lds.org/e...things?lang=eng

In other words, he is encouraging everyone to enter a state of unquestioning obedience--where one has developed enough faith in one's leaders that there is no longer any need to ask whether what the leader says is right or wrong.

Likewise, Pres. Monson praised Abraham as a "model of unquestioning obedience" for following, without question, the direction to commit a human sacrifice by murdering his own son. http://www.lds.org/l...follow?lang=eng. If the President of the Church or your bishop asked you to commit a human sacrifice, would you be able to live up to Abraham's "model of unquestioning obedience"? Or would you question why?

Unquestioning obedience to God and unquestioning obedience to man is two different things. God gave us sense and the gift of the Holy Ghost so we could strike a balance between obedience, faithfulness and self-direction. There are more than enough quotes in this thread alone to show that emphasising obedience to a people who struggle with it does not mean there is a lack of doctrine on agency.

Look at the whole picture and don't judge all LDS teachings by a few quotes. That is what I mean by a perverted view.

[Cobalt-70]

Comparing God telling a prophet to sacrifice his son, to a prophet/bishop telling a member of the Church to sacrifice his son, is not a good comparison. President Monson was talking about "unquestioning obedience" to God, not to Church leaders.

As Cinepro notes, D&C 1:38 states that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."? Therefore, if the President of the Church, or your bishop, tells you to commit a human sacrifice, it is (according to how this scripture is interpreted in Mormon literature) the same as if God had told you to commit a human sacrifice.