How Do You Obey A Fallible Prophet With "Exactness"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks mfbukowski, but the thread focused on following the prophet with "exactness".

I maybe wrong, but I don't see that being possible unless "blindly".

Or how else do we justify seeking spiritual confirmation (which i support), before jumping to obedience?

I think the obeying with exactness comes after the spiritual confirmation. At the same time one is wise to to avoid wholesale rejection of the prophet's words just because the spiritual confirmation hasn't come yet -- or to be open to the possibility that one's own prideful attitude might be delaying it.

[cesc101]

How not?

You said it.

Ok help me out, how does following a prompting that leads you to ignore a prophet's opinion, align with you following the prophet with exactness?

[The Grimace]

I think the obeying with exactness comes after the spiritual confirmation. At the same time one is wise to to avoid wholesale rejection of the prophet's words just because the spiritual confirmation hasn't come yet -- or to be open to the possibility that one's own prideful attitude might be delaying it.

Or being open to the possibility that the revelation or counsel is not for you. That is an option, isn't it?

[cesc101]

Or being open to the possibility that the revelation or counsel is not for you. That is an option, isn't it?

Your point being...?

{no spiritual confirmation yet = no obedience yet?!}

[zerinus]

I find them bad. I find them pedantic and simplistic. The question they suggest are unlikely to lead to real discussion and for bad teachers they are a crutch used where they just read them. Following them generally leads to a class where the teacher asks people to read scriptures from the lesson and hold shallow discussions based on leading questions.

If the Saints could be trusted to teach well (something I am unsure of) the lessons should instead be taught by saying discuss chapters such and such and giving the teacher a quad.

I like what Nibley said. Sometimes it seems that Church Meetings and lessons are designed to test the saints' tolerance of boredom. I am not saying we need to wander off into what some people call "deep doctrine" and we shouldn't. Most people who want to teach or be taught that are reveling in a kind of intellectual vanity. I am saying that we nibble at topics like faith and repentance in a shallow way instead of feasting.

I don't agree. I find that those who put the manual aside and chart their own course end up teaching very bad lessons, whereas those who use the manual intelligently as intended teach very good lessons.

[TAO]

The simple answer to this simple question is you follow the Spirit, which will tell you all things which you should be doing if you listen to it.

[The Grimace]

Your point being...?

{no spiritual confirmation yet = no obedience yet?!}

I think the original question needs to be two separate questions:

1. How do we follow a fallible prophet with exactness?

2. How do we know when a fallible prophet is communicating God's will to us, and when is a fallible prophet speaking his own will and thoughts to us, specifically in his counsel to the church or to the world?

3. Should we follow a fallible prophet with any degree of exactness, ranging from 'no exactness' to 'complete exactness'?

I have been swinging from limb to limb on these questions. Sorry for the confusion.

[DBMormon]

CFR on the indirect quote from Givens. A direct quote with a reference, please.

His interview With John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. He says it plain and simple. I know it is part 3 beginning at 35:08 where John Dehlin ask him about how we are taught in the church

http://mormonstories.org/terryl-givens-an-approach-to-thoughtful-honest-and-faithful-mormonism/

[The Grimace]

I think the original question needs to be two separate questions:

1. How do we follow a fallible prophet with exactness?

2. How do we know when a fallible prophet is communicating God's will to us, and when is a fallible prophet speaking his own will and thoughts to us, specifically in his counsel to the church or to the world?

3. Should we follow a fallible prophet with any degree of exactness, ranging from 'no exactness' to 'complete exactness'?

I have been swinging from limb to limb on these questions. Sorry for the confusion.

Allow me to answer:

1. It is easy to follow a fallible prophet with exactness - do exactly what he says at all times. Never deviate from his counsel.

2. According to Dallin Oaks (quoted in an earlier post), the Holy Ghost will always validate what a prophet says; thus a fallible prophet can never be wrong, so long as you use the Holy Ghost as your guide. This sets up a paradox - prophets are fallible, the Holy Ghost always confirms a prophets words as the words of God, God is never wrong, ergo, a prophet is never wrong. Therefore, a fallible prophet is never wrong.

3. According to #2, we should ALWAYS follow a fallible prophet with complete exactness because he can never be wrong. Of course, since we know prophets are fallible, and have a history of making bad decisions and giving questionable counsel, I'd suggest that you are better off trusting your own judgment in most matters.

Edited September 3, 2012 by The Grimace

[Tacenda]

Never read this offcially - where is this taught by leaders?

Like I said in my post, I'm older than you probably and this was awhile back. Not sure who it was that said it.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

Grimace - Nothing is black and white

Thous shalt not kill - Nephi/Laban : Moses/Egyptian : Eisha/She bears/ kids

Thou Shalt not lie - Abraham/Wife in egypt : Jacob stealing his brothers blessing : Joseph of Egypt tricking his brpthers

Thou shalt not steal - brass plates : Jacob taking his brothers blessing :

If you want black and white you will have a difficult time in any facet of life especially religion where at the onset it seems like all should fit perfectly and then we learn all of it seems like chaos.

Edited September 3, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Like I said in my post, I'm older than you probably and this was awhile back. Not sure who it was that said it.

is this prophets and apostles or ward and stake leaders?

I did a search online on LDS.ORG and came up with nothing. I am not being sarcastic but until I see a actual source from a Prophet or apostle I have to assume that was local counsel.

[Calm]

Never read this offcially - where is this taught by leaders?

I remember it being suggested that if someone stays in their Sunday best all day they will treat the whole day as the Sabbath as they should. Can't remember if it was ever taught anymore than as a suggestion though in my memory.

An example of the rationale: http://www.askgramps.org/sunday-clothing/

Brother Perry apparently stated immediately after the quote given in the example that one did not have to stay in Sunday best all day long:

http://www.mormondia...he-sabbath-day/

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-sabbath-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng

I believe He also desires us to dress appropriately. Our youth may think the old saying “Sunday best” is outdated. Still, we know that when Sunday dress deteriorates to everyday attire, attitudes and actions follow. Of course, it may not be necessary for our children to wear formal Sunday attire until the sun goes down. However, by the clothing we encourage them to wear and the activities we plan, we help them prepare for the sacrament and enjoy its blessings throughout the day.

Edited September 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Ok help me out, how does following a prompting that leads you to ignore a prophet's opinion, align with you following the prophet with exactness?

There is a difference in erring in doctrine, and issuing incorrect commandments. Whereas LDS prophets have been known to have erred in doctrine on rare occasions, I am not aware of any instance in which they have issued to Church members incorrect directives. I don't recall any instance in Church history where they have given advice to Church membership on how to live their lives so as to be approved of God that has turned to be wrong. On very rare occasions that it might occur (hypothetically), and a Church member was able to recognize it, I am sure the Prophet would be grateful to be corrected on the issue if brought to his attention, and make the necessary adjustments. That is part of "obeying with exactness".

That scripture from which the quote is derived refers to the Lamanite stripling worriers obeying their army commanders "with exactness". I am sure in that case also it did not mean that they obeyed blindly, without thinking. If they thought a command might not be advantageous, they would have reported it to the commanding officer, who might have made the necessary adjustments. Even in war lower ranking officers do not obey their superiors blindly. They have some autonomy to evaluate the situation, and exercise a measure of discretion if they think that the commanding officer is not sufficiently aware of the situation on the ground to give the most correct instruction. That is all part of "obeying with exactness".

You are confusing "obeying with exactness" with "obeying with blindness". That is never true in war or in peace. Obeying with exactness does not mean suspending your own personal judgement. You obey with exactness while exercising your own judgement at the same time.

[The Grimace]

Grimace - Nothing is black and white

Thous shalt not kill - Nephi/Laban : Moses/Egyptian : Eisha/She bears/ kids

Thou Shalt not lie - Abraham/Wife in egypt : Jacob stealing his brothers blessing : Joseph of Egypt tricking his brpthers

Thou shalt not steal - brass plates : Jacob taking his brothers blessing :

If you want black and white you will have a difficult time in any facet of life especially religion where at the onset it seems like all should fit perfectly and then we learn all of it seems like chaos.

Oh, I don't think the world is black and white at all, and apologize if I've misled you. Hence my answer to #3: Of course, since we know prophets are fallible, and have a history of making bad decisions and giving questionable counsel, I'd suggest that you are better off trusting your own judgment in most matters. If I felt the world was black and white, I'd either say, "Always follow the prophet, he can never be wrong because he is in tune with a perfect God who perfectly communicates" or I'd say, "Never follow the prophet, he is always incorrect".

Really, what I am saying is the prophet's batting average is no better than my own. He's right on some things, wrong on others. Like my calculator analogy, I'd prefer to toss out the fallible calculator and just do long division by hand.

[DBMormon]

Oh, I don't think the world is black and white at all, and apologize if I've misled you. Hence my answer to #3: Of course, since we know prophets are fallible, and have a history of making bad decisions and giving questionable counsel, I'd suggest that you are better off trusting your own judgment in most matters. If I felt the world was black and white, I'd either say, "Always follow the prophet, he can never be wrong because he is in tune with a perfect God who perfectly communicates" or I'd say, "Never follow the prophet, he is always incorrect".

Really, what I am saying is the prophet's batting average is no better than my own. He's right on some things, wrong on others. Like my calculator analogy, I'd prefer to toss out the fallible calculator and just do long division by hand.

Perhaps they are no better on their opinions with the unimportant details, but I think when it comes to the Doctrine of Christ the bear witness of truth completely and without error or bad opinions.

But i do agree we can't expect them to be any more right in their human opinions then you or me. Does that mean they can't be called of God?

Edited September 4, 2012 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

Perhaps they are no better on their opinions with the unimportant details, but I think when it comes to the Doctrine of Christ the bear witness of truth completely and without error or bad opinions.

But i do agree we can't expect them to be any more right in their human opinions then you or me. Does that mean they can't be called of God?

I'm not talking about their regular opinions. And sure, I think they can bear witness of Jesus as well as any cardinal in the Catholic church. But those are not things I am expected to obey with exactness.

For instance, I'm told that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women. I am expected to obey this command with exactness. I have never received any spiritual confirmation concerning the validity of this teaching. I have never had the Holy Ghost witness to me that the prophet is correct in this teaching. And so I have openly stated that the prophet is wrong in this matter. I have said it to a bishop, a stake president, to my friends. As far as I can tell, the prophet is sharing his opinion on the matter.

There are many other instances where I've had the same experience. Should I discount those and just say I'm not in tune with the Holy Ghost? I've never been a hard-hearted or stiff-necked person. I've read my scriptures, paid my tithing, prayed, held callings, been to the temple, and all I can feel is, "No, he must be wrong, that must be his opinion"

Personally, I wish that leaders in ALL churches, not just the LDS church, but ALL churches, would stay away from commanding others to do this or not do that. Rather, focus on whatever love their deity has for his creation, how he brings healing, how he brings love. And keep away from controlling people through fear-based reward systems.

[The Nehor]

I don't agree. I find that those who put the manual aside and chart their own course end up teaching very bad lessons, whereas those who use the manual intelligently as intended teach very good lessons.

I find that those who chart their own course teach bad lessons too. Those who let the Spirit guide and mostly ignore the manual.....good.

[DBMormon]

For instance, I'm told that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women. I am expected to obey this command with exactness. I have never received any spiritual confirmation concerning the validity of this teaching. I have never had the Holy Ghost witness to me that the prophet is correct in this teaching. And so I have openly stated that the prophet is wrong in this matter. I have said it to a bishop, a stake president, to my friends. As far as I can tell, the prophet is sharing his opinion on the matter.

There are many other instances where I've had the same experience. Should I discount those and just say I'm not in tune with the Holy Ghost? I've never been a hard-hearted or stiff-necked person. I've read my scriptures, paid my tithing, prayed, held callings, been to the temple, and all I can feel is, "No, he must be wrong, that must be his opinion"

Have you ever wondered on why 1978? Why did God choose 1978 as the time to allow All worthy males receive the PH? It seems strange. It left many before 78' struggling to understand why...

nonmembers to not even look into the church because of being offended over it.

Why not 1910 or 1930 or 1960 at least? Many people could see it for what it was... a bad policy. hmmm

How about the new testament. Peter the head apostle refuses to give Gentiles the gospel. They don't deserve it. They aren't worthy of it. I can see the same comments giving shape to the policy that the PH not given to African lineage initiated.

Other apostles called for Peter to change his mind. He was behind the times, he was prejudiced, blind to the progressive culture.

And yet...... It wasn't until some time later that God decided to give Peter a revelation, while Peter slept on a roof, instructing him to give the gospel to both Jew and Gentile.

I wonder what the Saints said.

"He only did it because Paul told him to" "It was the political pressure" "It should of happened 3 years earlier"

And yet God allowed his Prophets Seers and Revelators to have a policy that would eventually be corrected.

Article of Faith #9

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Maybe someday a revelation comes to change the policy on Homosexual behavior, maybe it doesn't. I simply know that if the scriptures have any merit at all, it tells us that God ways are not man's ways and that he will continue to try and bring his children and church closer to his ideals.

You mention praying about policies and feeling that are wrong. I bet many in Africa did the same prior to 78'. Some felt this policy was wrong. Some likely parted ways. Others also recognized that though this policy was wrong, they hung on knowing God would fix it in his own time. Then the revelation came. And the joy they and the Church felt was immense. Those who hung on knowing God would still reveal many great and wonderful things and did so with patience and long suffering were blessed.

Just some thoughts from one who struggles too. I hope you get that. I am not the absolute apoligist here... ask anyone else here.

[The Grimace]

You mention praying about policies and feeling that are wrong. I bet many in Africa did the same prior to 78'. Some felt this policy was wrong. Some likely parted ways. Others also recognized that though this policy was wrong, they hung on knowing God would fix it in his own time. Then the revelation came. And the joy they and the Church felt was immense. Those who hung on knowing God would still reveal many great and wonderful things and did so with patience and long suffering were blessed.

Just some thoughts from one who struggles too. I hope you get that. I am not the absolute apoligist here... ask anyone else here.

I get what you are saying, bishop, and have to hand it to you, you have more patience than Job on this thread. To boil it all down, I just can't turn my life over to a church that has great expectations of me without having those expectations returned. An imperfect prophet I can accept, what I can't accept is the expectation that I will obey his imperfect, unverifiable, and potentially incorrect words because he is supposedly the Lord's mouthpiece.

There just is no escaping this expectation in Mormonism. To say a prophet is wrong, especially a living one, is blasphemy in the LDS Church. wish it were different.

[supersnail]

I have thought about why 1978. I actually can think of speculative reasons (not racist reasons or PR reasons) that have to do with what was going on inside and outside the United States at that time and which may not have necessarily been at the forefront of the minds of even the First Presidency. The specific reasons may not be that relevant, because the possibility of a reason is enough. One can try to change a policy without defying it.

Regarding same-sex temple marriage, it is possible to think too provincially and too conventionally. The LDS Church is a global church like the RCC, not some little non-denominational church in NYC or San Francisco. There may be good reasons for continuing to have a policy at the present -- and good reasons for lifting it at some point in the future. I'm not saying anything new. I'm bracketing the issue of the relationship between policy and doctrine or scripture, and the relationship between same-sex temple marriage and secular same-sex marriage.

Are there a few nominal Mormons who are against homosexual relationships of any kind in any context but have no problem with heterosexual strip clubs, heterosexual premarital sex, adultery, etc.? I assume so, but this does not mean there cannot possibly be any good reason for the lack of same-sex temple marriages right now. I am not opining on whether the lack of such marriages is good or not, just saying that the possibility of a reason is relevant to this issue of following the Prophet on the few specific commands he may transmit to the whole church.

Edited September 4, 2012 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

Thanks mfbukowski, but the thread focused on following the prophet with "exactness".

I maybe wrong, but I don't see that being possible unless "blindly".

Or how else do we justify seeking spiritual confirmation (which i support), before jumping to obedience?

Alma 32.

You try it and either it becomes "sweet" to you or it doesn't. If it doesn't work for you- you leave.

How else could it possibly work? The formula is right there in Alma 32.

That's the way with my previous 2 or 3 faiths- depending on if you count atheism as a "faith"- they didn't completely work for me- this one does.

It's not complicated.

[volgadon]

Cinepro didn't, the manual did... right?

Never said he did, but the whole line of argument becomes irrelevant when context is considered.

Your fallacy of presentism, I presume? Yes, the historical context of the scripture was about an army of young men following with exactness a Nephite Prophet-Military Leader.

Following him as a military leader. I was conscripted and served for two years in the IDF. My father and brother are both war heroes who on principle refused the medals offered them. Both my grandparents served in the armed forces, and back in Irael, our nextdoor neighbour was an army officer. I say this not to boast, I am sure there are people here with more impressive credentials and family histories, but I do know a thing or two. After my military service, I served a mission for two years as well. The prophet is not a military commander, though he did serve in the navy. Do you want to compare and contrast military scenarios with what the prophets ask of us? If my commanding officer tells me to hold a certain bridge from dusk til the reinforcements arrive at dawn, I had better hold that exact bridge, not a different one further upstream because I like the scenery, or my best buddy will be stationed there, and I had better be in position by dusk, not at midnight, nor can I go fishing and swimming instead of defending the position. OTOH, if I am unable to make it to sacrament meeting when my branch/ward holds it at nine, I can partake of it at a different branch. I can also go to a different branch/ward if my best friend is blessing and naming his baby that day.

But this has nothing to do with our situation today. Nah. No army of the priesthood in the Latter-Days.

You are right, I don't believe that the "army of the priesthood in the Latter-days" is a military organisation. Military imagery in some figures of speech is one thing, but to claim that the priesthood is a military organisation, that is silly nonsense.

We certainly can't apply that lesson in the Book of Mormon to our day.

Not in the way it is being done.

The Book of Mormon was written for another people. Or for you, when you decide on obeying your Commanding Officer, as long as he's a prophet of God.

The BoM was written by a different people. Much of it isn't going to reflect exactly 21st century lives.

Yes, fallible prophets exist today, because of ignoring historical context of the scriptures. sheesh!

Where did I say that?

[mfbukowski]

Are there a few nominal Mormons who are against same-sex relationships in any context but have no problem with heterosexual strip clubs, heterosexual premarital sex, adultery, etc.? I assume so, but this does not mean there cannot possibly be any good reason for the lack of gay temple marriages right now. I am not opining on whether the lack of such marriages is good or not, just saying that the possibility of a reason is relevant to this issue of following the Prophet on the few specific commands he may transmit to the whole church.

No there are not. Seriously. Sex outside of marriage is considered a very serious sin- in fact it has been classified as second to murder in seriousness.

The entire church is based on the importance of the family and violating the sanctity of the family is a major sin. It is my personal belief that gay marriage will never be acceptable to the church because the strength of belief in the roles of gender and its importance in the metaphysical theology of the church. The imagery of the Bridegroom as Christ and the church as his bride is basic as also is the notion of men having the priesthood, and then there is the idea of the unity of opposites- or "opposition in all things"- a kind of Mormon version of yin and yang.

I know you are an investigator, but somehow you have missed this in your training. Culturally the mores against sex outside of marriage are very very strong- to the point that in serious cases, it is quite possible that one who flaunts these kinds of behaviors would be excommunicated.

If you read the gospels- Christ says that if one even looks upon a woman with lust, he "denies the faith". That sounds ridiculous in today's society but when you realize that anything which has potential to break a family is indeed a "denial of the faith" for a faith which literally deifies the family structure. It is a little hard to spread the idea that "families can be together forever" if indeed one is going to strip clubs and engaging in extra marital sex.

[zerinus]

I find that those who chart their own course teach bad lessons too. Those who let the Spirit guide and mostly ignore the manual.....good.

Ignoring the manual and guided by the Spirit don't go together. The curriculum is in fact the standard works, not the manual. The manual has been prepared by the Spirit to assist the teacher teach from the standard works. You cannot be guided by the Spirit if you ignore the manual or the standard works in your teaching.