Obedience To Leaders

[CV75]

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.

Obeying God and obeying His servants are not mutually exclusive, which is clearly part of the basic doctrine of Christ as He declared it (other scriptural references include 3 Nephi 11: 21-23, 41; 12:1; 13:25; 18:5, 36, 37; 19:6; 20:32; 26:17; 27:21-27).

Portraying these two principles as otherwise in general principle and practice (there are mechanisms to remove a general authority for transgression, apostasy, or leading the church astray, which are exceptional cases) misrepresents how things work. The examples you cite do not constitute grounds for removal from office or membership, as many prior threads on these topics have demonstrated as the facts and truth of such matters are brought forth. I do not see how making mere accusations legitimately supports the notion of not obeying the Lord’s anointed in the manner taught in the scriptures and by latter-day prophets.

[Deborah]

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"?

CFR from documented and corroborated sources.

[Verum]

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?

How would we ever know that we were in apostasy? If we can't even question living church authorities, every thing taught by them in the present would be accepted as doctrine and true. So, even if we were in apostasy, meaning that the church has drifted away from God's truths, if living church authorities tell us that the drift is justified because its God's will, we would have to accept it.

For example, if the prophet dramatically changes an ordinance, or even a fundamental doctrine, we would all be asked to sustain it, and since they are living prophets, we wouldn't question it. I just don't think there would be any way to know if we were in apostasy given that fact the it is not justified to question a living church authority...

Edited March 16, 2012 by Verum

[Gohan]

Sounds like the topic for another thread other than this one, but according to the always reliable and accurate Wikipedia...

There was a 'rude monument' already built in 1859 by members of the U.S. Army, which supported a wooden cross on which was inscribed: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord"

On seeing it, Wilford Woodruff reputedly - I say this simply because I don't have access to the book the article cites for this - recorded Brigham Young as saying, “it should be vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

I don't know anything about the Winter Quarters claim.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Gohan

[zerinus]

Obeying God and obeying His servants are not mutually exclusive, which is clearly part of the basic doctrine of Christ as He declared it (other scriptural references include 3 Nephi 11: 21-23, 41; 12:1; 13:25; 18:5, 36, 37; 19:6; 20:32; 26:17; 27:21-27).

Ah, a nice long scripture reff! I have a passion for nice long scripture reffs!

Trying it in the old scripture site and in the new!

[KevinG]

How would we ever know that we were in apostasy? If we can't even question living church authorities, every thing taught by them in the present would be accepted as doctrine and true. So, even if we were in apostasy, meaning that the church has drifted away from God's truths, if living church authorities tell us that the drift is justified because its God's will, we would have to accept it.

For example, if the prophet dramatically changes an ordinance, or even a fundamental doctrine, we would all be asked to sustain it, and since they are living prophets, we wouldn't question it. I just don't think there would be any way to know if we were in apostasy given that fact the it is not justified to question a living church authority...

This perspective explains the mindset of those who worry about being led astray.

I talk to God daily and hourly and know for myself the path that I should be on - it is very consistent with what the Prophets and Apostles have taught. Not perfectly consistent mind you - but certainly not so different that I worry that the church or I are in apostacy.

I question and ponder all revelations before I raise my hand to sustain them. I also pray mightily to God when I do not understand or find myself in disagreement with the Prophets and Apostles. Heck I do that when I'm not in agreement with my wife. This is the mindset of faithful members who regularly pray and follow the admonition of Brigham:

“I have often said to the Latter-day Saints - Live so that you will know whether I teach you the truth or not.Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are NOT of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or NOT That is the way we want all Saints to live.” Brigham Young (JD 18:248)

[CV75]

Ah, a nice long scripture reff! I have a passion for nice long scripture reffs!

Trying it in the old scripture site and in the new!

Somebody stop me!

P.S. Thanks for the tip with how to link it!

Edited March 16, 2012 by CV75

[cinepro]

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.

Can you provide an example of the Church acknowledging that a living Apostle might be in error and that agency is the remedy for that?

The concepts of "agency" and "fallibility" as taught by the Church only reinforce the principle that we should be 100% obedient to our leaders, and that there is never a situation in which we are justified in being disobedient.

Agency is the power each of us has to choose to be obedient or not. If we are obedient, we get blessings. If we are disobedient, we are punished. As President Uchtdorf said:

]You have agency, and you are free to choose. But there is actually no free agency. Agency has its price. You have to pay the consequences of your choices.

I'm especially interested in anything that has been taught to Primary-age children about situations in which it might be okay to not follow the Prophets or Apostles if the Spirit tells you not to. As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that possibility in any official publication.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cinepro

[KevinG]

Can you provide an example of the Church acknowledging that a living Apostle might be in error and that agency is the remedy for that?

The Apostolic debates over evolution. The First Presidency said to knock it off because it was not germaine to our Salvation.

Elder McConkie being censured for some of his writings in Mormon Doctrine.

Among the 70s - the baseball story guy and Elder Lee are two I can think of.

Examples like this will be hard to find because most correction in the church happens confidentially and public censure is rare even for the most humble member.

The concepts of "agency" and "fallibility" as taught by the Church only reinforce the principle that we should be 100% obedient to our leaders, and that there is never a situation in which we are justified in being disobedient.

Agency is the power each of us has to choose to be obedient or not. If we are obedient, we get blessings. If we are disobedient, we are punished. As President Uchtdorf said:

I'm especially interested in anything that has been taught to Primary-age children about situations in which it might be okay to not follow the Prophets or Apostles if the Spirit tells you not to. As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that possibility in any official publication.

You are still telling one side of the story here. There are few religions that teach agency as a fundamental blessing from God as frequently and strongly as the LDS church.

Where I see us falling short is not in our teachings but in how families fail to respect their children's agency out of embarassment or desire for control.

[Mehrdad]

The Apostolic debates over evolution. The First Presidency said to knock it off because it was not germaine to our Salvation.

Elder McConkie being censured for some of his writings in Mormon Doctrine.

Among the 70s - the baseball story guy and Elder Lee are two I can think of.

Examples like this will be hard to find because most correction in the church happens confidentially and public censure is rare even for the most humble member.

You are still telling one side of the story here. There are few religions that teach agency as a fundamental blessing from God as frequently and strongly as the LDS church.

Where I see us falling short is not in our teachings but in how families fail to respect their children's agency out of embarassment or desire for control.

You make an excellent point. Respect for personal choice and decision is something we have to recognize as parents, our Heavenly Father respects our agency whether our choices be good or not, He still loves us regardless.

[KevinG]

You make an excellent point. Respect for personal choice and decision is something we have to recognize as parents, our Heavenly Father respects our agency whether our choices be good or not, He still loves us regardless.

I thought this was a natural and somewhat easy thing to do.

Then my children grew up to become teenagers. It was still possible but a noble effort.

Now they are entering into adulthood and making decisions that will set the course for the rest of their lives. I now know it is a difficult and arduous task to keep my mouth shut (unless asked for counsel) and love them unconditionally.

Love means giving hugs and wiping tears when you really want to say "I told you so".

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR from documented and corroborated sources.

Good luck getting Cobalt to respond to a CFR.

[CV75]

I'm especially interested in anything that has been taught to Primary-age children about situations in which it might be okay to not follow the Prophets or Apostles if the Spirit tells you not to.

“Do not follow the prophet if the Spirit tells you not to” would be like Christ saying “Don’t keep my commandments if the Sprit tells you not to.” It does not invite the application of faith, as does “Follow the prophet and you [will have the Spirit with you and] you will not be led astray.”

Christ does say, “Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments,” and in 3 Nephi 15: 10 takes it a bit further and adds, “And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.” Heeding the prophets is a commandment.

Another example might be the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” We know from Nephi’s experience that it was permissible for him to kill since the Spirit told him to (and explained why). That instruction did not have to come to Nephi from a prophet. This shows why divine instruction not to follow a prophet is not presented as a general message. In the event it might ever be made to an individual, it would be according to their agency and accountability. But like Nephi, they would need to live so as to be inclined to obey the general commandment and thus have such integrity that scripture would vouch for it.

I don't think the Lord works in such as way as to satisfy your request.

[LeSellers]

I'm especially interested in anything that has been taught to Primary-age children about situations in which it might be okay to not follow the Prophets or Apostles if the Spirit tells you not to. As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that possibility in any official publication.

The Church has never published anything telling Primary children to disobey their parents either, but we all know that our children are not expected to rob their neighbors even if their parents tell them to.

At the age of such a child, the rule ("follow the prophet", "obey your parents") is given as an absolute. Exceptions are, by their nature, exceptions, and these children are not able to distinguish when the rule should be superseded. By and large, and the ratio is remotely tiny for both, children should obey their parents and follow the prophet. For the cases where the exception does appear, the fallen parent or prophet will be the one held to account.

Lehi

[cinepro]

The Church has never published anything telling Primary children to disobey their parents either, but we all know that our children are not expected to rob their neighbors even if their parents tell them to.

At the age of such a child, the rule ("follow the prophet", "obey your parents") is given as an absolute. Exceptions are, by their nature, exceptions, and these children are not able to distinguish when the rule should be superseded. By and large, and the ratio is remotely tiny for both, children should obey their parents and follow the prophet. For the cases where the exception does appear, the fallen parent or prophet will be the one held to account.

Lehi

Why are we talking about children and parents? Based on the OP, I was assuming this thread was discussing the Church's attitude towards our obedience to Church leaders. And when it comes to obedience to the Prophet and Apostles, that is something about which the Church has published a great many talks and articles, and they all reinforce one basic concept:

If we obey, the Lord promises, “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 21:6). When we do as our prophet directs, blessings pour down from heaven.

The Church does not acknowledge the possibility that a member may be inspired to not do as the "prophet directs." No where is there a lesson or talk helping members know what to do if the spirit tells them not to follow the prophet, because that possibility does not exist.

There have been a lot of interesting theories about "obedience" offered in this discussion, but most of them do not represent what the Church teaches on the subject.

[LeSellers]

I'm especially interested in anything that has been taught to Primary-age children about situations in which it might be okay to not follow the Prophets or Apostles if the Spirit tells you not to. As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that possibility in any official publication. Emphasis added.

The Church has never published anything telling Primary children to disobey their parents either, but we all know that our children are not expected to rob their neighbors even if their parents tell them to.

At the age of such a child, the rule ("follow the prophet", "obey your parents") is given as an absolute. Exceptions are, by their nature, exceptions, and these children are not able to distinguish when the rule should be superseded. By and large, and the ratio is remotely tiny for both, children should obey their parents and follow the prophet. For the cases where the exception does appear, the fallen parent or prophet will be the one held to account.

Why are we talking about children and parents?

Eh, you brought up Primary children. That's why I answered as I did.

The situations are exactly parallel: both prophets and parents act in their God-given stewardships. Paul counseled: "Children, obey your parents." Modern prophets say the same thing. Paul never said, Children, obey your parents, but first stop and ask the Holy Ghost if it's correct." Nor do God's modern servants. We read in scripture, ancient and modern that following the prophet is a good thing. We don't have much suggesting that we should ignore their statements until we get confirmation, even though we know we should.

Were this to be a point of emphasis in Primary, where you're "especially interested", the discussion would not be enlightening, it would be confusing. Children of Primary age do not see the world in shades of gray. It's all black and white.

Lehi

[zerinus]

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.

Actually they have. But first things first: you are now changing the subject. There is a difference between making a mistake in doctrine, and telling someone to do something that is wrong. The argument began with whether a Church leader will ever tell someone to do something wrong or not. Now you are changing it into whether he can make a mistake in doctrine or not. The two aren't the same. Church leaders have acknowledged that errors in doctrine can be made; and counselled us what we can do to avoid being misled by it. Here are some quotes:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

“I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” only when we, ourselves, are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.” (Ibid., 68-9.) [J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2.)]

This amounts to admitting that Church leaders can make mistakes in doctrine; and we are in a position to detect it if (a) we are well versed in the standard works, and (b) we have the Holy Ghost to guide us in what we think and do. Provided that we fulfil those conditions, we can be assured that (1) we will not be misled by an error that they might make; and (2) God will not allow them to give us a commandment that is wrong. But they can make mistakes in doctrine; and it is acknowledged that, on rare occasion, they might have.

Edited March 17, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

I just taught lesson 6 in the GA Smith manual today in High Priest group..."Sustaining". This thread was a good exercise in pondering the balance between agency and obedience. I recommend reading that lesson in full. http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-george-albert-smith/chapter-6?lang=eng

[california boy]

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

Spencer W. Kimball

[california boy]

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.

You may find 90% of the church that agrees with the churches position on prop 8 was correct. I doubt very much you would find 90% of the church members who think the prophets and apostles decision to get politically involved in prop 8 was a good decision. I coubt you would find 90% of the church leadership that made the decision to get politically involved in prop 8 in hindsight think it was a wise decision. They should have counseled with God a little more on that idea. My support for that statement is the noticable fact that the church is not getting politically involved in this election cycle where similar propositions are on at least 5 states ballots. Evidently it was wrong guidance and counsel.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I think that the above recounting may be conflating two different occurrences in the life of Bishop Edwin Woolley. See http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=5185 The issue about the dance hall was that Woolley was renting the church hall of his ward out for dances, in order to raise money to refurbish the building. The problem was that this was competing with a church-owned dance hall. Woolley's punishment for offending the First Presidency was that he was sentenced to a life term as bishop. I think the quoted sarcastic comment by Brigham Young came after a heated conversation between Woolley and Young about a different matter, and I don't think there is a record about what that separate matter was about.

[Cobalt-70]

Sounds like the topic for another thread other than this one, but according to the always reliable and accurate Wikipedia...

There was a 'rude monument' already built in 1859 by members of the U.S. Army, which supported a wooden cross on which was inscribed: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord"

On seeing it, Wilford Woodruff reputedly - I say this simply because I don't have access to the book the article cites for this - recorded Brigham Young as saying, “it should be vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

I don't know anything about the Winter Quarters claim.

Thanks, Gohan. The Wilford Woodruff source is from his journal, vol. 5, page 577 (25 May 1861). Woodruff's information about what Brigham Young said on that occasion was independently verified by John D. Lee, from his diary, dated May 30, 1861. (This may be found in Clenand & Brooks, Mormon Chronicle, 1:314. Lee quoted Young as saying, "Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a litle of it."

As to Young's direction to bishops at Winter Quarters that "when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro him in the River," that is found in the diary of Thomas Bullock, dated 13, Dec. 1846. Bullock was a church historian and recorder, and was the assistant to Church Historian Willard Richards. Young's statement to bishops on this occasion was consistent with other statements he made indicating that suspected thieves should be decapitated because it was God's law. Obviously, we don't know how many (if any) suspected thieves were murdered in this way by bishops or those under the direction of bishops, because if any of them were, their bodies would have disappeared in the river and there would have appeared that the men disappeared mysteriously.

So I guess the way to bring this back around to the OP is to ask, if you were a bishop, and the President of the Church asked you to commit a vigilante murder, would you do it?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[zerinus]

You may find 90% of the church that agrees with the churches position on prop 8 was correct. I doubt very much you would find 90% of the church members who think the prophets and apostles decision to get politically involved in prop 8 was a good decision. I coubt you would find 90% of the church leadership that made the decision to get politically involved in prop 8 in hindsight think it was a wise decision. They should have counseled with God a little more on that idea. My support for that statement is the noticable fact that the church is not getting politically involved in this election cycle where similar propositions are on at least 5 states ballots. Evidently it was wrong guidance and counsel.

I don't agree that the Church became "politically" involved. The Church had a moral duty to support a decision it considered to be morally right and in the interest of society as a whole, and to urge all its members to give it their full support; and that is what it did.

[KevinG]

So I guess the way to bring this back around to the OP is to ask, if you were a bishop, and the President of the Church asked you to commit a vigilante murder, would you do it?

I guess Brigham had a severe obedience problem since the Mississippi river wasn't filling up with the corpses of pickpockets with slit necks.

(That was hyperbole too)

[ERayR]

It is. But my logon credentials to NFS has nothing to do with obedience. Like I said, if you are curious I will answer you openly and honestly on a relevant thread.

H.

You seem to be very good at compartmentalization.