Obedience To Leaders

[cinepro]

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.

Can you find a single thing on the Church website to support your theory?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

If you have to question whether each and every statement by church leaders is "inspired" or not, that is not "unquestioning" at all. That interpretation of Oaks destroys the entire thesis of his article. Oaks says that "the words of modern prophets" are an example of inspired instruction. In other words, the words of modern prophets are by definition inspired. Therefore, if you have sufficient faith, you need not question them. You can be unquestioningly obedient.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

But if using a few quotes by LDS leaders is a "perverted view," then what does that say about the view of those leaders who made those quotes?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

The OP quote said, "When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience [that they should be obedient even if they knew something was wrong, or that they should not question what they are told to do by their presidents] as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." So Heber J. Grant taught Marion G. Romney to obey the President even if he was wrong, and Robert C. Oaks and Thomas S. Monson praised "unquestioning obedience." That means that either the quote in the Millennial Star is wrong, or Grant, Oaks, and Monson "ha[d] it in their hearts to do wrong themselves."

[rongo]

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.

You're forgetting D&C 68:2-3 (a crucial scripture when considering this question). D&C 1:38 only applies when God speaks through prophets, apostles, etc. It is not LDS doctrine that they have an "always on" DSL connection to God, or that prophets, apostles, etc. are simply human fax machines through which revelation is sent.

You really need to read *all* of the paper I linked to earlier. It gives examples of Wilford Woodruff and others discussing when they knew through revelation that things the Prophet said are not true:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

The Brethren have been very, very clear from the beginning to the present, through numerous statements, that infallibility is not what makes them prophets and apostles, priesthood keys do. They have been clear that even the Prophet or the First Presidency can be wrong, and that it is up to individual members to discern whether this is the case. In fact, this is actually the real source of the Church's power ----- that we are capable of and must discern this for ourselves (cf. Charles Penrose, George Q. Cannon, etc.). The casualties that leave the Church and make shipwreck of their faith are well worth the net positive of those who question, test, and know for themselves.

[KevinG]

But if using a few quotes by LDS leaders is a "perverted view," then what does that say about the view of those leaders who made those quotes?

third times the charm...

It says that picking a few quotes to prove a point without using the balance of our teachings, which includes a heavy dose of agency, is a perverted (as in distorted) view of the whole.

Is says nothing about the content of the quotes of those authorities - which I agree with.

Context is important.

By the way - why do you feel the Brethren have felt the need to preach obedience so often?

[selek1]

third times the charm...

I suggest either a bigger hammer....

....or an honest interlocutor.

Without one or the other, your quest will be fruitless.

[KevinG]

In reality the brethren preach about agency and obedience. There is a balance to be struck and if we're always finding why we should be excluded from taking counsel that says something about our state of mind and intentions.

When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, in that moment God will endow us with power. - President Ezra Taft Benson

[KevinG]

I suggest either a bigger hammer....

....or an honest interlocutor.

Without one or the other, your quest will be fruitless.

I have a secret...

Sometimes I write for the lurkers in the audience who want to know about our beliefs. Not the people who have already convinced themselves of a plot behind every Apostolic utterance.

[selek1]

I have a secret...

This explains why you went so quiet in the Utah Mormons thread the moment someone mentioned platform shoes, disco-balls, and white tuxes.

I am- thankfully- young enough to remember much of the 70's as something inflicted on my mother's generation rather than experienced first hand.

Ironically, though, I tend to share your methodology (uhmmm.....writing as much to third-parties as the anti-Mormon, that is).

While I cheerfully suggest that (in Cobalt's case) you're beating a drum in vacuum, I applaud you for continuing to beat proudly.

[KevinG]

This explains why you went so quiet in the Utah Mormons thread the moment someone mentioned platform shoes, disco-balls, and white tuxes.

I am- thankfully- young enough to remember much of the 70's as something inflicted on my mother's generation rather than experienced first hand.

Ironically, though, I tend to share your methodology (uhmmm.....writing as much to third-parties as the anti-Mormon, that is).

While I cheerfully suggest that (in Cobalt's case) you're beating a drum in vacuum, I applaud you for continuing to beat proudly.

I wish I caould attribute my cautious approach to the Utah Mormons thread as wisdom and restraint. In reality I was getting some work done or I would have prattled on continously.

[selek1]

I wish I caould attribute my cautious approach to the Utah Mormons thread as wisdom and restraint. In reality I was getting some work done or I would have prattled on continously.

The difference between blind luck and tactical brilliance is often as thin as mere perception.

[KevinG]

The difference between blind luck and tactical brilliance is often as thin as mere perception.

Change often to usually and I agree wholeheartedly!

[CV75]

So Heber J. Grant taught Marion G. Romney to obey the President even if he was wrong, and Robert C. Oaks and Thomas S. Monson praised "unquestioning obedience." That means that either the quote in the Millennial Star is wrong, or Grant, Oaks, and Monson "ha[d] it in their hearts to do wrong themselves."

I think you need to accept the actual lesson being taught and not limit the doctrine to the teaching technique.

Heber J. Grant did not teach Marion G. Romney to obey the President even if he was wrong. If he did, there would be no "twinkle" in his eye.

According to the quote, he taught him he would be blessed for doing whatever the prophet told him, and not to worry because the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.

I see no problem such a lesson since obedience, in a spiritual sense, means doing God’s will.

[cinepro]

They have been clear that even the Prophet or the First Presidency can be wrong, and that it is up to individual members to discern whether this is the case.

Can you find a single instance of a Church leader saying this in any talk, article or lesson on the Church website? Even a single one?

"Fallibility" as applied to LDS leaders by the Church is used to explain that they are not perfect men, and will not always act perfectly. But it is never, ever used to say that their words, when presented in conference or Church publications, might be in error.

Edited March 15, 2012 by cinepro

[rongo]

Did you read the link (that I have now posted twice)?

----edited to add:

Sorry --- too hasty. My sources are from books, not Church website-accesible sources. This doesn't change the truth of what has been taught, even if it is not emphasized. I have found it to be extremely helpful in helping people who have real concerns about this. My chosen title (from B. H. Roberts) is good: it is well nigh as dangerous to believe too much in our leaders as it is to believe too little. "I pause as to which is worse."

Edited March 15, 2012 by rongo

[Verum]

Verum:

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

Very true. The fact that sometimes church leaders have been mistaken actually gives me hope that mercy will be extended to me as well..

[Verum]

Can you find a single instance of a Church leader saying this in any talk, article or lesson on the Church website? Even a single one?

"Fallibility" as applied to LDS leaders by the Church is used to explain that they are not perfect men, and will not always act perfectly. But it is never, ever used to say that their words, when presented in conference or Church publications, might be in error.

I definitely agree. I think there are talks and quotes in the church saying that church leaders have been wrong in the past (I am thinking about the letter that was read in sacrament meeting a few years back that said that not everything said by a church authority is considered doctrine), but nothing on the idea that it's sometimes justified to question a living church authority.

[Cobalt-70]

By the way - why do you feel the Brethren have felt the need to preach obedience so often?

I understand why they might feel the need to teach righteousness (i.e., faith and repentance), but I think that teaching people to obey their leaders implicitly is over-reaching. Ultimately, you want people to have a relationship directly with God, and follow the Holy Spirit, regardless of what any leader tells them. If you don't believe that people can be trusted to follow the Holy Spirit and ignore what any leader tells them to the contrary, then you don't believe that the Holy Spirit is an infallible guide. If the Holy Spirit is an infallible guide, then there is no such thing as "follow the Prophet" in Mormon theology--only "follow God."

If you focus on following the leader, and you discourage people from questioning their leaders, and especially if you say "follow the leader even if he is wrong," or "when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done," then you are not teaching righteousness. "I was just following orders" is not a form of righteousness. Every utterance of a general authority or the President of the Church should be thoroughly and mercilessly questioned, maybe not publicly, but at least in the mind of every member, and the ultimate question should be directed to God. Moreover, I don't think you have "sustained" your leader if you allow him to make what you feel is a wrong choice without speaking up. And no Mormon should ever follow their leader to do something against their own conscience.

[Cobalt-70]

The Brethren have been very, very clear from the beginning to the present, through numerous statements, that infallibility is not what makes them prophets and apostles, priesthood keys do. They have been clear that even the Prophet or the First Presidency can be wrong, and that it is up to individual members to discern whether this is the case. In fact, this is actually the real source of the Church's power ----- that we are capable of and must discern this for ourselves (cf. Charles Penrose, George Q. Cannon, etc.). The casualties that leave the Church and make shipwreck of their faith are well worth the net positive of those who question, test, and know for themselves.

A few Brethren have been clear; others (Oaks, Romney, Benson, Monson, etc.) not so clear. That's the problem. Plus, you have to go far back in time for examples of church leaders like Woodruff or Orson Pratt who acknowledge that the leadership of the LDS Church can be wrong, and that if you feel convinced by the Spirit, that you have a right to respectfully disagree, or to abstain from participating as a matter of conscience.

[CV75]

I understand why they might feel the need to teach righteousness (i.e., faith and repentance), but I think that teaching people to obey their leaders implicitly is over-reaching.

I think Christ’s Intercessory prayer indicates that He intends Hs anointed to be obeyed and in a certain way:

“For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me… I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world… As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world… Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

And Mark 16: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

Leading the church and individuals astray cannot be accomplished by exercising the restored priesthood keys, which is our leaders do. They are general authorities, so extreme and hypothetical examples I’ve seen as cause for general concern really do not apply (naturally the rare misguided soul needs correction if occasion requires).

They (the keys, the covenants, the spiritual gifts and blessings) are part of the narrow way that leads us to Christ. The mere mortals handling them are not perfect but still possess and properly exercise the keys that bring forth that which must be obeyed in order for our blessings to be realized. We are assured that the Lord will remove them from office if they do not.

In your critiques you seem to be missing the point that obedience, in a spiritual sense, means doing God’s will. We do this when we follow those He has anointed in the way He intends, which He fairly well articulated (as cited above) and which our leaders don’t deviate from without being removed from office (I'm sure there are examples). This allows plenty of room for imperfection, but not in interfering with the effectiveness of the keys in behalf of the church (or mankind for that matter), or sufficient to discourage the saints from obeying their in a way that brings about God's will.

[KevinG]

Can you find a single instance of a Church leader saying this in any talk, article or lesson on the Church website? Even a single one?

"Fallibility" as applied to LDS leaders by the Church is used to explain that they are not perfect men, and will not always act perfectly. But it is never, ever used to say that their words, when presented in conference or Church publications, might be in error.

I don't think the critics would ever be satisfied short of burning dead prophets in effagy and self-flagellation for the priesthood.

We have open discussions about our doctrines and practices without fear of censure or excommunication short of open apostacy.

There were open debates between apostles until the evolution vs. creationism debates prompted the first presidency to say it was not germaine to our salvation and to knock it off.

I have a better question. Has a Prophet or Apostle led the church astray? Are we in apostacy yet? Do we have arguments over our basic doctrines of Salvation?

[KevinG]

Very true. The fact that sometimes church leaders have been mistaken actually gives me hope that mercy will be extended to me as well..

It makes appreaciate Abraham, Noah, Jacob and Moses.

[KevinG]

I have a funny feeling those who claim the LDS church primarily teaches obedience over agency stopped listening or attending past primary singing and sharing time.

Either that or their parents or local priesthood really screwed them over with a my way or the highway approach and they have no concept of counsels and priesthood keys.

Edited March 16, 2012 by KevinG

[Cobalt-70]

They (the keys, the covenants, the spiritual gifts and blessings) are part of the narrow way that leads us to Christ. The mere mortals handling them are not perfect but still possess and properly exercise the keys that bring forth that which must be obeyed in order for our blessings to be realized. We are assured that the Lord will remove them from office if they do not.

You say that, but how many times has a member of the top LDS hierarchy been removed from office after leading their followers down the wrong doctrinal path? Why didn't God remove Brigham Young from office after he started teaching the Adam-God doctrine, or blood atonement, or racial discrimination? What about when Brigham Young directed bishops at Winter Quarters to decapitate people accused of theft and to dump their bodies in the river? What about when Brigham Young stated he thought that the plaque on the monument to the Mountain Meadows massacre should read "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little"? The fact is that church leaders often make errors, and sometimes gross errors, and lead their followers down the wrong path, but God lets them keep their jobs anyway.

You can't rely on the "he must be right because otherwise God would strike him down with a bolt of lightning" theory. There is a mechanism for removing church leaders who drift too far astray, and that is a vote by the church body (D&C 26:2), or by other priesthood quorums. And the fact that we can legitimately withhold common consent for our leaders presupposes that we have a right to question them.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70