Obedience To Policy

[halconero]

The more I study the scriptures, the words of the general authorities and the nuances of Church history I'm coming to understand in a better way the difference between doctrine and policy.

The question I have is this: Is someone blessed for obedience to policy and under condemnation for disobedience to the same.

I'll use the priesthood ban as an example. I have my own opinions on the origin of the ban, which I'm not going to state here, but lets say that a boy with some african descent presents himself to a Melchezidek priesthood holder for ordination pre-1978.

I take the position that the priesthood holder would be under condemnation from God were he to ordain that person. Not because the policy was necessarily correct or incorrect, but because he had acted in an official capacity without the authorization of the necessary priesthood keys, which were enforcing such a policy.

This could be applied to plural marriage, the ordination of people depending on age, woman staying in the home, a strict or loose interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, etc.

Thoughts?

Edited February 26, 2013 by halconero

[BCSpace]

I take the position that the priesthood holder would be under condemnation from God were he to ordain that person. Not because the policy was necessarily correct or incorrect, but because he had acted in an official capacity without the authorization of the necessary priesthood keys, which were enforcing such a policy.

This could be applied to plural marriage, the ordination of people depending on age, woman staying in the home, a string or loose interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, etc.

I tend to agree. In these cases that you mentioned, the priesthood ban/ordinations, plural marriage, and the WoW, there is also actual doctrine behind those policies.

Now there are some policies I disagree with; MX missile basing in Utah. Nuclear waste in Utah. The smaller ward. Etc. Other than obedience to leaders, is there any doctrine behind those policies and would I be under condemnation if I disobeyed/disagreed? Is there a difference between a policy with doctrinal backing and a policy without? Perhaps are all policies considered to have doctrinal backing?

[T-Shirt]

First of all, in your scenario, the race of the individual is irrelevant. No Melchizedek Priesthood holder has the right to confer the priesthood on anyone without permission being granted by his bishop and stake president, after a sustaining vote. Anyone who chooses to do this (again, regardless of race) would certainly be open to, at least a gentle correction if done ignorantly, and possibly Church discipline if done defiantly.

[Saints Alive]

Rather than specifically responding to the PH ban issue I will speak in general principle:

If you follow policy instituted by God's chosen leaders (and not a commandment) you will not be punished (perhaps not blessed for it).

I think you are well within your rights to disregard any policy instituted by man that is in contradiction to a Command from God (and likely would be blessed for doing so).

[CV75]

The question I have is this: Is someone blessed for obedience to policy and under condemnation for disobedience to the same.

I think they are blessed for humility and under condemnation for pride. With the blessing of humility comes the discernment to make an exception to policy when the Lord calls for it, within the scope of one's righteous exercise of agency.

[cinepro]

This could be applied to plural marriage, the ordination of people depending on age, woman staying in the home, a strict or loose interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, etc.

Thoughts?

What is the current policy on "woman staying in the home"? I only ask because I frequently let my wife out of the home, and now you have me concerned.

[Closet Doubter]

I think you are well within your rights to disregard any policy instituted by man that is in contradiction to a Command from God (and likely would be blessed for doing so).

I agree but most Mormon's when they disect this would not. Per President Hinckley, "polygamy is not doctrinal", as quoted word for word from one of his interviews. If it isn't doctrinal, then it was only a policy. It is also in contradiction to a commandment, was in contradition to a section of the doctrine and covenents (removed in the 1870's), and is in contradiction to the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Until the 1870's, section 132 of the D&C wasn't even cannonized so it wasn't in effect. Even so, per Brigham Young and many of the other early apostles and prophets, any person not accepting polygamy would not be exhalted in the Celestial Kingdom. If disregarding a non-doctrinal policy was within our rights, it would not keep us from exhaltation.

[The Nehor]

I agree but most Mormon's when they disect this would not. Per President Hinckley, "polygamy is not doctrinal", as quoted word for word from one of his interviews. If it isn't doctrinal, then it was only a policy. It is also in contradiction to a commandment, was in contradition to a section of the doctrine and covenents (removed in the 1870's), and is in contradiction to the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Until the 1870's, section 132 of the D&C wasn't even cannonized so it wasn't in effect. Even so, per Brigham Young and many of the other early apostles and prophets, any person not accepting polygamy would not be exhalted in the Celestial Kingdom. If disregarding a non-doctrinal policy was within our rights, it would not keep us from exhaltation.

I am pretty sure President Hinckley meant that comment in the sense that we do not actively teach it which is one meaning of the word "doctrine".

[Ahab]

The more I study the scriptures, the words of the general authorities and the nuances of Church history I'm coming to understand in a better way the difference between doctrine and policy.

The question I have is this: Is someone blessed for obedience to policy and under condemnation for disobedience to the same.

What do you mean by "blessed" ? And by whom?

Most people like it when you do what they tell you to do, and don't like it when you don't follow their counsel. The question then becomes what can they deprive you of if they don't like what you did?

I'll use the priesthood ban as an example. I have my own opinions on the origin of the ban, which I'm not going to state here, but lets say that a boy with some african descent presents himself to a Melchezidek priesthood holder for ordination pre-1978.

I take the position that the priesthood holder would be under condemnation from God were he to ordain that person. Not because the policy was necessarily correct or incorrect, but because he had acted in an official capacity without the authorization of the necessary priesthood keys, which were enforcing such a policy.

But what if the person who had some african descent had been ordained to the priesthood? Wouldn't that have been a blessing to him if he had been so ordained? If it was a blessing for him, why would it not have been a blessing to the person(s) who had ordained him? Would the fact that some people didn't like it have made the priesthood of no effect? Would he or would he not have actually been ordained to the priesthood? Who would really know, and how would he know it?

This could be applied to plural marriage, the ordination of people depending on age, woman staying in the home, a strict or loose interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, etc.

As far as some people are concerned, it's against Church policy to watch R rated movies. What do you suppose happens to the people who do, though? Are they cut off from the Church? Do they actually lose any blessings in the Church? Or is it only that some people don't approve of it? What difference does that really make?

Thoughts?

You can't please all of the people all of the time, and it's pretty dang hard to please everybody even sometimes. Policies are rules people think other people should follow, for some reason. I know it's usually considered better to get along and go along than to go against someone's wishes, but since we can never please everybody all the time anyway what difference does it really make whether or not some people like it when we go against what they call or consider to be policy?

Just like it happens sometimes on this board, the worst they can do is throw you out of their club. How bad do you want to be in it?

[The Nehor]

What is the current policy on "woman staying in the home"? I only ask because I frequently let my wife out of the home, and now you have me concerned.

Invest in better security.

[Mark Beesley]

1. Obedience is better than sacrifices.

2. A policy that simply expresses an official opinion or stance of the Church (such as the MX missile or nuclear waste in Utah) is not something that requires obedience, i.e. it does not require an act or omission on the part of the individual member.

3. A policy that does require an act or omission by a member may result in consequences if a member acts contrary to the policy, but only if the Church knows about it. I don't think it constitutes sin, i.e. does not offend an eternal law. Various interpretations of the Word of Wisdom might be a good example.

[halconero]

What do you mean by "blessed" ? And by whom?

Given divine help and favour? I don't know...Vishnu maybe?

Most people like it when you do what they tell you to do, and don't like it when you don't follow their counsel. The question then becomes what can they deprive you of if they don't like what you did?

If it is the performance of ordinances without the approval of keys the normal deprivation would be first: speaking, praying or taking the sacrament in Church followed by the deprivation of baptismal, priesthood, and endowment rights.

But what if the person who had some african descent had been ordained to the priesthood? Wouldn't that have been a blessing to him if he had been so ordained? If it was a blessing for him, why would it not have been a blessing to the person(s) who had ordained him? Would the fact that some people didn't like it have made the priesthood of no effect? Would he or would he not have actually been ordained to the priesthood? Who would really know, and how would he know it?

Okay...let me make my question simpler...is policy determined by God? I don't care about the disapproval of most people but that's one guy I don't want to cross.

As far as some people are concerned, it's against Church policy to watch R rated movies. What do you suppose happens to the people who do, though? Are they cut off from the Church? Do they actually lose any blessings in the Church? Or is it only that some people don't approve of it? What difference does that really make?

I don't know.

You can't please all of the people all of the time, and it's pretty dang hard to please everybody even sometimes. Policies are rules people think other people should follow, for some reason. I know it's usually considered better to get along and go along than to go against someone's wishes, but since we can never please everybody all the time anyway what difference does it really make whether or not some people like it when we go against what they call or consider to be policy?

I'll rephrase my earlier question. Does God reveal and direct policy?

Just like it happens sometimes on this board, the worst they can do is throw you out of their club. How bad do you want to be in it?

Are we really comparing an online forum to the Kingdom of God on earth?

[Wanderer7]

Does it matter whether it's "policy" or "commandment"? If it comes through the chain of priesthood keys, we ought to receive it as if from the Lord Himself. Even if the Lord didn't directly give it, remember, by the voice of God or His servants, it is the same. If for no other reason, we ought to keep policy to preserve unity and harmony and to prevent dissension and apostasy. If you do have an issue with a policy, you should keep it to yourself and the appropriate priesthood leader (ie, if it's the Bishop's policy, take it to the Stake President if the Bishop won't listen to you). I know there is an issue going on with women praying in conference. Many members of the church are writing letters to the leaders of the church, petitioning them to change the current policy. While I understand taking issue with the policy, the public nature of the campaign is breeding dissension and disunity. These people ought to have discussed it with their local leaders first, and then appealed to higher authorities privately if they truly still felt it was an issue. Generally speaking, though, I do not believe the general membership ought to contact general authorities with most issues. If the Bishop or Stake President disagrees with you, there's a good chance you should just let it be. Of course some exceptions could apply, because man is fallible and some policies could truly be harmful. In those cases, though, one ought to be very certain (i.e. after careful prayer and fasting, or in obvious cases such as abuse) their issue merits the general authorities' attention.

[Saints Alive]

The whether from my voice or my servants line doesn't mean whatever the prophet or person in charge says is right, it is only the same if they are acting through the spirit. If they were always right no matter what there would be no need for us to pray for confirmation.

[Wanderer7]

The whether from my voice or my servants line doesn't mean whatever the prophet or person in charge says is right, it is only the same if they are acting through the spirit. If they were always right no matter what there would be no need for us to pray for confirmation.

This is true, as Brigham Young has advised--Always pray for a confirmation. However, according to Wilford Woodruff "No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." In other words, even if we do not believe the prophet is correct, we may be under obligation by their office to obey for the sake of obedience.

[Glenn101]

This is true, as Brigham Young has advised--Always pray for a confirmation. However, according to Wilford Woodruff "No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." In other words, even if we do not believe the prophet is correct, we may be under obligation by their office to obey for the sake of obedience.

I think there are limits to that. I would have to have a confirmation fro God for a lot of things. However, to this point in my life, I have never been told to do something by a church leader that I disagreed with in my heart after consulting the Lord. Most of the time I just do it because it is in line with already taught doctrines and principles.

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

This could be applied to plural marriage, the ordination of people depending on age, woman staying in the home, a strict or loose interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, etc.

Thoughts?

When did women staying in the home become church policy????

That's my only thought at the moment.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

That's my only thought at the moment.

You're not allowed to have those....

[Storm Rider]

The safest bet is always obedience. It can also be the most difficult path. It is not surprising that even the Savior was dealing with this at the very end, "not my will, but thine, be done."

[cdowis]

There is indeed safety in obedience.

I will let the church leaders, with the Lord, sort it all out. The caravan moves on and I am with it.

[Saints Alive]

"No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray."

That was his opinion, not doctrine.

[janderich]

This is true, as Brigham Young has advised--Always pray for a confirmation. However, according to Wilford Woodruff "No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." In other words, even if we do not believe the prophet is correct, we may be under obligation by their office to obey for the sake of obedience.

I am thankful for the president of the church and the apostles. They are men of God and I have had no reason to follow current council. However I believe we as church members must stop leaning on the arm of flesh. There have been a number of statements by apostles and prophets which say that the Lord will never permit the president of the church to lead us astray. I question such statements and it certainly is foolish to apply this to all church policy. Every policy or proceedure that comes from the church is not the mind and will of the Lord.

Apostiles and prophets are at times not clear and do contradict themselves. Take Brigham Young on this very matter. He appears to tell us to inquire for ourselves, then he says he has never given wrong council and that his words are scripture.

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Journal of Discourses, 9:151)

He also has said this:

I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161)

And again this:

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).

We need to lean on the spirit and trust in it's revelation to us, not in men. This is what the Lord has directed, "that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh -- but that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world" (D&C 1:19-20) Joseph Smith also said:

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel -- said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church --- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls --- applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall --- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were doarkened in their minds, ..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 237-238)

[BlueDreams]

Thoughts?

I don't know why, but something about this doesn't sit right with me about this....I can’t place my finger on it exactly. So this might ramble. It's not even entirely the idea that women staying at home is policy. Maybe I’m just naturally hard headed. But my main thought is that I don’t do anything unless I believe I’m supposed to. Someone telling me that I’m supposed to isn’t enough for me.

A small example entails kneeling prayers on my mission. I didn’t see the point for excessive kneeling all the time. People would tell I should more and I would ask why? They would pull out a scripture in 3 Ne about JC kneeling. I would point to the bible dictionary with varying scriptures throughout and the fact that just about every method of prayer was found throughout scripture Jesus kneeling and not included. And it wasn’t exactly the most super sacred form of prayer out there. It got to the point that I was resenting certain prayers, because I felt forced to acquiesce. That was unacceptable to me….I usually enjoyed prayer. So I prayed about it, read up every last scripture that mentioned kneeling. Still didn’t think that it was necessary, but it took away my irritation with it and for certain circumstances, I did see a deeper purpose to it. It represented to me exceptional humility…above and beyond the norm.

To this day, I rarely kneel in prayer. My favorite prayers entail me walking outside somewhere quiet and talking. I’m also not that big with thee’s and thou’s, unless it’s public prayer, for that matter.

Most the time I don’t have a problem with policies. But it’s not because I accept it. It’s because I believe it as good in the moment. If I don’t I study it out until I feel that it is sound or that I can be Ok with it.

Other times I don’t believe it’s “policy” in the first place….more along the lines with glorified culture that have become so strong that people assume it’s sound all on its own. That would be similar to the whole “women in home” thing. I don’t usually believe they’re flat out wrong. I believe that there’s certain validity and strength to many of these ideas. But that there are points they simply fall flat. They become something we just do. And my innate sense of curiosity, moments of discomfort, or lack of confirmation means that I will not accept it. Not solely on its own merits.

My primary policy is simple: What ever God tells me by the Spirit, I will do…even when it’s not convenient for me. 99% of the time that is not outside what I find in the faith. I don’t have major issues when Gen Conference comes around. I have had various confirmations that the Apostles and Prophets are men of God and truly have the authority by Christ to lead the Church on earth. But if I don’t and I just go with it, that’s not obedience in my mind, it’s compliance…and it is a worthless gift until I truly believe it myself.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 27, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Wanderer7]

I am thankful for the president of the church and the apostles. They are men of God and I have had no reason to follow current council. However I believe we as church members must stop leaning on the arm of flesh. There have been a number of statements by apostles and prophets which say that the Lord will never permit the president of the church to lead us astray. I question such statements and it certainly is foolish to apply this to all church policy. Every policy or procedure that comes from the church is not the mind and will of the Lord.

I would agree with you to the extent that 1) we should seek a confirmation for ourselves. This will enhance our willingness and testimony. Eventually we must learn all things by testimony to ourselves. 2) Not everything a leader says comes directly from the Lord. 3) We should seek our own revelation for our daily management. However, I believe that even uninspired direction from the leaders of the church ought to be complied with. Generally speaking, by virtue of their calling from the Lord, their counsel is to be received as if from the Lord. Again, if their counsel seems to be harmful, we should express our concerns in the proper manner so as not to encourage dissension. I agree that we can't rely on the prophet for our own salvation. Nor should we rely on the arm of flesh. I think Joseph's counsel was referring to the people always asking the prophet for direction on everything. We should get our own revelation for our daily lives. However, I would submit that when we follow the counsel the brethren do give us, regardless of whether we get a confirmation, we are not following the arm of flesh. This is because the Lord has called the prophets for that purpose. I base these beliefs off the following

“I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.” Heber C. Kimball.

‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’ Joseph Smith as quoted by William G. Nelson

[Ahab]

I don't know why, but something about this doesn't sit right with me about this....I can’t place my finger on it exactly. So this might ramble. It's not even entirely the idea that women staying at home is policy. Maybe I’m just naturally hard headed. But my main thought is that I don’t do anything unless I believe I’m supposed to. Someone telling me that I’m supposed to isn’t enough for me.

A small example entails kneeling prayers on my mission. I didn’t see the point for excessive kneeling all the time. People would tell I should more and I would ask why? They would pull out a scripture in 3 Ne about JC kneeling. I would point to the bible dictionary with varying scriptures throughout and the fact that just about every method of prayer was found throughout scripture Jesus kneeling and not included. And it wasn’t exactly the most super sacred form of prayer out there. It got to the point that I was resenting certain prayers, because I felt forced to acquiesce. That was unacceptable to me….I usually enjoyed prayer. So I prayed about it, read up every last scripture that mentioned kneeling. Still didn’t think that it was necessary, but it took away my irritation with it and for certain circumstances, I did see a deeper purpose to it. It represented to me exceptional humility…above and beyond the norm.

To this day, I rarely kneel in prayer. My favorite prayers entail me walking outside somewhere quiet and talking. I’m also not that big with thee’s and thou’s, unless it’s public prayer, for that matter.

Most the time I don’t have a problem with policies. But it’s not because I accept it. It’s because I believe it as good in the moment. If I don’t I study it out until I feel that it is sound or that I can be Ok with it.

Other times I don’t believe it’s “policy” in the first place….more along the lines with glorified culture that have become so strong that people assume it’s sound all on its own. That would be similar to the whole “women in home” thing. I don’t usually believe they’re flat out wrong. I believe that there’s certain validity and strength to many of these ideas. But that there are points they simply fall flat. They become something we just do. And my innate sense of curiosity, moments of discomfort, or lack of confirmation means that I will not accept it. Not solely on its own merits.

My primary policy is simple: What ever God tells me by the Spirit, I will do…even when it’s not convenient for me. 99% of the time that is not outside what I find in the faith. I don’t have major issues when Gen Conference comes around. I have had various confirmations that the Apostles and Prophets are men of God and truly have the authority by Christ to lead the Church on earth. But if I don’t and I just go with it, that’s not obedience in my mind, it’s compliance…and it is a worthless gift until I truly believe it myself.

With luv,

BD

All of that is as it should be for you, dear sister. I'm the same way while I try to make sure I'm asking enough for God's help to help me understand an issue. I don't think we're supposed to do anything just because someone (other than God) tell us to do it. That would be giving people more power than they ought to have in our lives, although at times it's not worth arguing about and better to just do something somebody wants us to do to avoid any trouble it may cause us if we don't.

Example: Using antiquated English in prayers. I once had a big problem with that because to me it just seemed silly to use an old form of English in prayers. Sometimes I did it anyway, though, like in public prayers or other prayers where people might hear me, just because I didn't want to get any hassle from not doing it. And then I read up on it some more and saw that the reasoning was so that we use a "special" language when talking with God, rather than just using our normal everyday way of speaking. That made more sense to me, although I still saw the language as an old way of saying things, but I do it now just to have a "special" way of talking to God. Nothing wrong with that, I figure, and I can more easily understand the reasoning behind it.

Another example is speeding, while driving. I know people say it's safer to drive slower, at or even a little below the speed limits, but for a long time I had a big problem with that. I can drive very well, even when driving much faster than the posted speed limits, so for awhile I usually drove about 10mph over the posted speed limits, unless I thought the police might be around the next corner. And then I got a ticket, which slowed me down for a little while because having to pay that money caused me and my family some financial discomfort, but not long after I was back at it speeding again. Not long after that I got another ticket and sta rted going only about 5mph over the speed at that point, unless I wanted to pass somebody. And then later I got another ticket while trying to pass somebody because I was trying to do it quickly not really caring about the speed limit. Now I usually go the speed limit just because I don't want to have to put up with the hassle of getting caught speeding again, even though I can drive just fine while driving faster.

On the wife staying at home thing: I have always seen that as a really good idea, if at all possible, just because my wife is such a natural homemaker. She loves it, or at least she loves the level of comfort it adds to our lives with her cooking and baking and cleaning and doing the laundry and gardening and canning and sewing and painting and making crafts to spruce up our house to make it feel more like a home. If she worked outside of the home she wouldn't have much time to do all of that, and it would cost us more money than we could afford to pay someone else to do that, so we'd have to do that ourselves after work and on Saturday instead of being able to enjoy doing other things when we are together. We do have less money to spend than we would if both of us earned money at a "job", but the trade-off is definitely worth it, to me. It would be nice to make more money than I get now, though, if I could somehow, but it's not worth upsetting the way we have things at home now. Plus, she's very thrifty, so we can spread the money we do have around pretty well to get the things we really want in our lives. Just less dinners out and less vacations, but she makes better food than any restaurant can make and home is the best place to be, anyway. No complaints, I just of course wish that we could have more things to enjoy than we have to enjoy right now.

Edited to add: And yes I do help my wife when I can, as much as I can, when I'm at home. I usually clean up the kitchen after she makes dinner, even helping her cook as her sue (sp?) chef, and I also like to paint and make things and keep things organized and do landscaping and gardening work. We have 2 acres to take care of, with a lot of stuff to do to make our house feel like a home, and there is never going to be any other place I would rather be.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Ahab