Obedience To Policy

[Maidservant]

Well, blessing or condemnation, hmmmm.

I'm not sure these are the right two ideas to be thinking about things.

We most often think about God teaching us what we need to do to have eternal life, which we situate as something that happens in the future (I try not to, but generally church people of all faiths think on salvation as future).

So we ask ourselves, how does whether or not I have a beer or two on a Saturday night with the guys really make a difference on eternal life (in the future)? The answer is: it doesn't, ultimately speaking.

But the instructions from the prophet are not only, or even not primarily, about some future salvation.

They are offered as protections for our times. Which means they are likely to change often enough, in response to changing times.

So not drinking beer allows us to be free from the dangers and the captivity that would likely be a consequence of such in these times.

Is running a red light REALLY a bad thing? Why do we follow that rule? Is there something magical about red? Is there something magical about that whole set up? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disobeying a light just because of its color.

But the rules about red lights and other traffic rules are a system and a symbol to protect us from the REAL law, which is this: no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time; when one tries, one dies.

So the LAW is--don't crash, don't die. But we don't make people guess when these types of situations might arise--when we might crash and when we might die and trying to figure it all out without a traffic system. So we create an agreed upon set of rules that provide an opportunity for communication and that protect us in the case of being in danger of the REAL law. But we obey the 'don't run a red light' law as if it was the real law instead of the one we made up for protection, the one we made up to apply to EVERYONE even if we don't happen to see a car in OUR intersection at THAT exact time.

So a Red Light is a policy. We could have created another communication system, I suppose. But we have this one now, and to change it would be very difficult to get everybody on the same page to a new system and what would be the point? A new policy system wouldn't change the REAL law, so one set of traffic laws is as good as another.

But it's a very critical policy, because it can result in death if not followed.

I think a lot of the things we learn from society and from the Church are Red Light laws. But they do represent REAL laws. They are connected to them.

[Ahab]

I think a lot of the things we learn from society and from the Church are Red Light laws. But they do represent REAL laws. They are connected to them.

Good explanation, and an easy way of looking at a lot of things.

Looking at it that way, the Red Light law about using antiquated English is connected to the law of showing respect to our Father, in his role and position as our Father, rather than just thinking about him as anybody else we love and appreciate. He has a special standing in our lives, so a special way of talking to him can help to reflect that. Kinda like how I usually refer to him as Father, instead of just Dad or Daddy. Father is more formal, kinda like thee and thou is to us a more formal language and not just an "old" way of saying things.

When I first started to speak to him in a special language I usually thought of myself to be talking to him while he was in his throne room, as he sat on a throne in his official capacity, and while I had my best spiritual clothes on as he looked as majestic as I could imagine him as a King, and the best kind of King. Now I know I can be in tune with him wherever he is, like when he's in one of his gardens and dressed down for that work, but I still like to use the special language I know to use now in prayer.

The important thing is to try to show him the respect he is due, and the special language, or the Red Light language, just helps me to be able to do that a little easier.

[halconero]

Okay. I will correct myself here.

Women being in the home is not a policy, but a recommendation tha can sometimes reflect on policy.

Example: Women cannot currently be full time institute or seminary teachers as an occupation.

[Tacenda]

I lived in the era when women were past the stage of it being a given to stay at home and those that wanted to start working outside the home but it was frowned on. I believe it was during Pres. Ezra T. Benson's presidency. This was what I did, I stayed home or did things that would help me stay home to raise my 5 kids. Usually babysitting in the home, once sold Avon. I'm not talented enough to work in the home (business), but I did try and do fun things with the children I watched. Now I look back and realize those mother's that worked did fine, their kids are all doing well. Some women work because they have to but the woman I tended for worked because she said she couldn't stay home. Her kids turned out beautifully. I think that kids that are stuck at home with a miserable mom isn't going to do well. But enough of that.

The policy for one pair of earrings sticks out in my mind. That seems to be more policy than culture, and an obedience thing for sure! I remember when I was in a different thought process awhile back when I was in a stake meeting with the Stake RS Secretary and she had a second pair of earrings. I remember her not so much apologising but she brought it up as if to say just deal with it. I guess the looks on our faces told it all.

Another one that bothers me is the same one BD mentioned. The way we pray, recently there was a talk about it, can't remember where now, but it stressed the proper method. This just is wrong for me. I struggle as it is with prayer and I wonder if it's because of the "proper" way to pray that started the downward spiral. My sister and BD pray while jogging, walking throughout the day. But I'm a work in progress.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

Example: Women cannot currently be full time institute or seminary teachers as an occupation.

This is completely an aside that has nothing to do with anything else on here....but I've always thought that was super stupid. Especially when it's put into consideration that mothers (I'm pretty sure the policy specifies to women with children....so it's not out, but thoroughly illogical to follow through) are employed in other jobs correlated to the church. It just seems unnecessarily discriminatory. Of course I find it weird that it exists as a job period. My teens was outside of UT where seminary teacher was a calling that could be filled by either a man or a woman.

- end unnecessary rant -

With luv,

BD

Edited February 27, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

oops

Edited February 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

one thing with policies is how enforced are they? Like, a few years back a super duper guy, High Priest and all, died and his family simply couldn't afford to pay for a funeral , so they just had him cremated. I think...the Church frowns on that, why is beyond me but whatever. If anyone had a disgareement with the family , what was the alternative?, them shelling out 10K clams to pay for the funeral? just have him cremated, no big deal. If God can resurrect someone, he can resurrect anyone, cremated or not

[Tacenda]

one thing with policies is how enforced are they? Like, a few years back a super duper guy, High Priest and all, died and his family simply couldn't afford to pay for a funeral , so they just had him cremated. I think...the Church frowns on that, why is beyond me but whatever. If anyone had a disgareement with the family , what was the alternative?, them shelling out 10K clams to pay for the funeral? just have him cremated, no big deal. If God can resurrect someone, he can resurrect anyone, cremated or not

I think slowly this is being edged out, I've heard from a couple of people that are LDS & believing, that this is their choice of a burial. It's mine too!

[Ahab]

I think slowly this is being edged out, I've heard from a couple of people that are LDS & believing, that this is their choice of a burial. It's mine too!

Mine too! For a loved one, so much better for me to think of their body being incinerated instantly into ashes rather than slowly rotting with maggots crawling all over them until eventually their body breaks down into dust. And for me, I'd rather not have anyone think I'm slowly rotting away either. Incinceration is just so much cleaner, plus also a lot less expensive.

[BlueDreams]

Ahab I enjoy your post in general. Overall, after reading your post, I think the most important thing that I’ve learned is learning to seek out the true spirit of why something is practiced.

So for example on prayer: I don’t have a big problem with Thee and thou’s… I can appreciate that it is seen as a means to distinguish talking with God as opposed to your neighbor. I use it as a respectful way to address Him, especially when I’m speaking for a group or people and not just myself. To me it shows a sacred respect to them as much as Him. But it falls apart as a stringent rule. In Spanish, for example, LDS people pray in the familiar…the terms used to family and those close to Him. It couldn’t be laid out as some universal rule or policy….because it isn’t. The spirit of prayer, in my mind, is well stated in the bible dictionary: Alligning our will with God, in the spirit of the relationship of being His children, a form of work for obtaining the highest blessings, etc. If it fits that then it’s a sacred and special prayer, above all other forms of communication.

It removes the false dichotomy that it must be either this or that and allows for the recognition that both can be right and good within a given context.

On the home: I have still not had the opportunity to have this really play out. The decision for me is still largely in the future. I think it can be a really good idea. There are periods of time that I definitely would love to spend the majority of my time with my children. But for sacred, personal reasons I have had a conflict with it as a standard from a fairly young age. I just assumed, because of this experience, that I would have to be an exception because I was (mis)reading the Proc to mean that mothers should stay at home. But I was wrong. What is most important in the idea is the spirit of raising your children and having them/your spouse as your primary concern in your life. The family relationships are higher than any other relationship available to us on earth and all our decisions (male or female) must be made in accordance to our sacred roles and responsibilities to them. That is what is most pertinent. They can be fulfilled with or without a job outside the home.

Knowing the command, even a direct command, is not enough IMHO. We must seek out the meaning or it is limited in its power to change us as God would desire.

With luv,

BD

p.s. your description for your home sounded very cute

Edited February 28, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Ahab]

Ahab I enjoy your post in general.

Thank you. I do appreciate hearing that, at least sometimes.

Overall, after reading your post, I think the most important thing that I’ve learned is learning to seek out the true spirit of why something is practiced.

I try to do that too, but along with learning the why I also seek to understand if there might be a "better" way, and if not, why not.

So for example on prayer: I don’t have a big problem with Thee and thou’s… I can appreciate that it is seen as a means to distinguish talking with God as opposed to your neighbor. I use it as a respectful way to address Him, especially when I’m speaking for a group or people and not just myself. To me it shows a sacred respect to them as much as Him. But it falls apart as a stringent rule. In Spanish, for example, LDS people pray in the familiar…the terms used to family and those close to Him. It couldn’t be laid out as some universal rule or policy….because it isn’t. The spirit of prayer, in my mind, is well stated in the bible dictionary: Alligning our will with God, in the spirit of the relationship of being His children, a form of work for obtaining the highest blessings, etc. If it fits that then it’s a sacred and special prayer, above all other forms of communication.

Have you seen a movie called 'The King and I', with Yul Brenner? Something about what you said reminded me of that, and I think if you saw it you might understand why I don't agree that it's not always a good idea to have a special way to talk with God. It could be that KJV speech isn't necessarily always the best way, but the "Red Light" principle still applies. The point is to have a special way of talking with God, rather than to just talk to him as we would to anyone else. He's not "family" in the same sense that all of us are as brothers and sisters to each other. He has a special role as our Father, higher than all of our mortal fathers and even higher than those who have gone on to heaven and can also be called Fathers in heaven. I think it's the principle that is most important, and the KJV thing is just a way to put that principle into practice.

It removes the false dichotomy that it must be either this or that and allows for the recognition that both can be right and good within a given context.

I don't think it upsets our Father in heaven when we don't use KJV speech, when the reason we don't is because we feel very close to him and we want to reach out to him in a way that is familiar to us. I do think he notices when we use what to us is a special form of prayer, though, which we are using as a sign of special respect. He's our Father and he loves us no matter what we do, but there are still special things we can do which can give him an even more special kind of feeling.

On the home: I have still not had the opportunity to have this really play out. The decision for me is still largely in the future. I think it can be a really good idea. There are periods of time that I definitely would love to spend the majority of my time with my children. But for sacred, personal reasons I have had a conflict with it as a standard from a fairly young age. I just assumed, because of this experience, that I would have to be an exception because I was (mis)reading the Proc to mean that mothers should stay at home. But I was wrong. What is most important in the idea is the spirit of raising your children and having them/your spouse as your primary concern in your life. The family relationships are higher than any other relationship available to us on earth and all our decisions (male or female) must be made in accordance to our sacred roles and responsibilities to them. That is what is most pertinent. They can be fulfilled with or without a job outside the home.

If you have to spend time away from your children because you have to go outside of the home to work, though, then you have less time to spend with your children, and less time to take care of the house than you would if you didn't have to go outside of the home. It's not the fact that you're going outside of the home, though. It's that you're doing something else than spending more time at home and with your children doing those family-related things.

Suppose you had a billion dollars and didn't need to go outside of the home to earn money. What would be the reason you would want to leave, then? I think you'd be living your life more like my wife, does, even though we don't have a billion dollars. She doesn't have to spend her time at a "job" just to make money. She's not a "career" minded person, unless you consider taking care of a family a career. That's what she's into, and I'd be right there with her if I didn't have to go to a "job" to work. I have plenty of things to do around our home without needing to go to a "job" to work. I do it though because we need a certain amount of money, just because of the way things are in this world. There are things like property taxes, and home/auto/life insurance, and utility bills, and some other things we have to use money to pay for, because that is the way this world is. We try to keep our costs down, though, and we do as much for ourselves as we can to minimize how much we need to get what we need from others. I don't think there will be a need for money in heaven, so when we get there I don't imagine needing to go to a "job" just to make some money.

Knowing the command, even a direct command, is not enough IMHO. We must seek out the meaning or it is limited in its power to change us as God would desire.

Yeah, I strive to learn they whys too, but to me it's enough to know God said to do it because I know that if he said so then there is a good reason, even though I may not understand what the good reason is, yet.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Ahab

[omni]

That was his opinion, not doctrine.

This has been repeated by many church leaders since Wilford Woodruff originally said it. How many times does something have to be taught over the pulpit by church leaders before it becomes doctrine?

[Damien the Leper]

Okay. I will correct myself here.

Women being in the home is not a policy, but a recommendation tha can sometimes reflect on policy.

Example: Women cannot currently be full time institute or seminary teachers as an occupation.

What an excessively ridiculous policy.

[BlueDreams]

I try to do that too, but along with learning the why I also seek to understand if there might be a "better" way, and if not, why not.

Not a bad question to ask. I think I probably am one who plays devil's advocate to everything. When someone tells me the reasons for why something is I like to see if it really works in every (or at least most) situations. If it doesn't, then the argument falls flat to me. That's kinda what I see with the prayer thing. It starts to get pretty holely to more you look at it (see below).

Have you seen a movie called 'The King and I', with Yul Brenner? Something about what you said reminded me of that, and I think if you saw it you might understand why I don't agree that it's not always a good idea to have a special way to talk with God.

Sorry, if I have it was many, many years ago. I don't remember it beyond the basic premise

It could be that KJV speech isn't necessarily always the best way, but the "Red Light" principle still applies. The point is to have a special way of talking with God, rather than to just talk to him as we would to anyone else. He's not "family" in the same sense that all of us are as brothers and sisters to each other. He has a special role as our Father, higher than all of our mortal fathers and even higher than those who have gone on to heaven and can also be called Fathers in heaven. I think it's the principle that is most important, and the KJV thing is just a way to put that principle into practice.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't talking about the fact that people in spanish pray with a familiar tense. But that this same means of prayer are written into the Book of Mormon in spanish as well. Thee and thou used to have a more familiar sense, but became solemn over time. Spanish, which didn't lose the sense of the familiar singular "you" still uses it. It's the direct translation of Thee, but it has a very different connotation than the way we see "thee." So certain things come off more powerfully when translated. For example Alma 31 in English entails passive supplication for things: "Wilt thou comfort my soul..." Meanwhile the spanish translation becomes a command, closer to "comfort my soul!" Likewise the various thees in the prayer become tu and ti and te which connotates more of a familiar tone. It is a special means of communication...it's just more for communication with family, people in your age group, friends, etc.

And it's not because they haven't gotten on the bandwagon, it's that their bandwagon is simply different. And that's my problem with it, it's that it is advice that only works in english. And even in english use it doesn't always apply (ex. How Laman and lemuel address their earthly family not so respectfully is still in thee/thou terms). So though I agree with the reasoning and I think that it can be a beautiful way to pray, and I've utilized it and will in the future as well.... I don't feel the need to pray that way all the time. Especially when the only ones effected by the prayer are just God and I.

If you have to spend time away from your children because you have to go outside of the home to work, though, then you have less time to spend with your children, and less time to take care of the house than you would if you didn't have to go outside of the home. It's not the fact that you're going outside of the home, though. It's that you're doing something else than spending more time at home, and with your children, doing those family-related things.

Yes, I’m very aware of that. I have been pondering this for about a decade and I still have no solid answer. The only one I have for sure is that when the time comes it’ll be a matter of prayer and discussion with my husband and we’ll work what feels best depending the context, willing to change when the need arrives.

Suppose you had a billion dollars and didn't need to go outside of the home to earn money. What would be the reason you would want to leave, then?

That’s assuming my major motivation is money. It’s not. If I had a billion dollars I’d pay my bills, buy a good piece of land, have a house that satisfied my families needs and maybe a few of our mutual interests that weren't too big, give generously to charities that I respect and trust, and then I’d work still….probably for people who are disadvantaged and can’t afford therapy services, as a counselor. My motivation in life is helping people. That includes my family but certainly doesn’t stop there. It is a service to my community, which I see as my extended home and family and a subset of service to my God. My primary concern would still be my children and husband. It would still be to make sure their needs (not simply material, but emotional, spiritual, mental, etc) were met. But it doesn’t close down my interests….a number of which does not entail my immediate household and property.

I’m not a “career” minded woman either. I’m a service one. Just so happens that my prospective field of career interest is service oriented.

Mainly I prefer to rule my life based on a hierarchy of principle than simply policy. Policy can change, bend, alter, and not apply by time and context. The ultimate principle - listen to God and heed Him - does not. I have intentionally disobeyed policies before, I have gone against "good" cultural expectations before, and I will do both again I'm sure. In those moments it was because I heeded the ultimate principle instead.

With luv,

BD

[janderich]

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

If we follow the brethren without the spirit confirming the truth of what they say then who are we following? It might be that we are following the arm of flesh whether what they say is true or not, because we do not know from whence it comes. Now much of what they say can clearly be seen and felt as truth. But we must not blindly follow.

Even this idea of defining doctrine versus policy has no clear distinction in the LDS church. Sometimes because of this, members determine that everything from church headquarters is the will of the Lord. This ends up showing itself in the priesthood manual and other books. If a person veers from these books people feel we are going contrary to what the Lord would have us teach but is that true in all cases?

[emarkp]

Mine too! For a loved one, so much better for me to think of their body being incinerated instantly into ashes rather than slowly rotting with maggots crawling all over them until eventually their body breaks down into dust. And for me, I'd rather not have anyone think I'm slowly rotting away either. Incinceration is just so much cleaner, plus also a lot less expensive.

Then I strongly recommend not looking into the details of the cremation process.

[Ahab]

Then I strongly recommend not looking into the details of the cremation process.

As long as the body no longer has the spirit in it, I'd rather know it takes only a few minutes rather than days and days and days of slowly rotting until the body returns to some dust of the Earth. Even if it took as much as an hour, or even a few hours, I'd still rather go with that option.

How about you? Which option would you rather go with, either for yourself or one of your loved ones, and why in that way?

And why are we even talking about this?

[Tacenda]

One could always be mummified. We have an exhibit that is here in Utah for a few months that is fascinating. I've not attended but apparently it is being received very well, Utahn's love this stuff according to the news media that announced it. What if you were exposed to the world like this. I'll post a link!

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/Mummies-exhibit-breaks-record-attendence-in-Salt/D3PcyGTBz0SZBzDhqX6Mhg.cspx

[Ahab]

One could always be mummified. We have an exhibit that is here in Utah for a few months that is fascinating. I've not attended but apparently it is being received very well, Utahn's love this stuff according to the news media that announced it. What if you were exposed to the world like this. I'll post a link!

http://www.abc4.com/...BzDhqX6Mhg.cspx

Reminds me too much of taxidermy. Take out all the guts and innards leaving only a shell to put on display.

No thank you. Would you really want the body of your husband or wife or child put on display like that?

[Tacenda]

Reminds me too much of taxidermy. Take out all the guts and innards leaving only a shell to put on display.

No thank you. Would you really want the body of your husband or wife or child put on display like that?

no

[jbarm]

^{Actually there is a quasi-religion in Salt Lake called Summum that promotes getting mummified, among other things. Founded by an ex-LDS member, Corky Ra (who was mummified after he died).}

^{I think they also are into pyramids, as their HQ is a small copper colored pyramid just south of Welfare Square in Salt Lake.}

^{Corky is entombed in a sarcophogus in the pyramid, where they also make alcoholic 'sacramental' nectars for sale.}

^{Very expensive process, though. I think most of their revenue comes from mumifying pets.}

^jb

[canard78]

What if we take it away from something as controversial as the priesthood ban/polygamy.

It is church handbook policy that a man should not have a vasectomy. If someone does, do they need to repent?

[Glenn101]

What if we take it away from something as controversial as the priesthood ban/polygamy.

It is church handbook policy that a man should not have a vasectomy. If someone does, do they need to repent?

The actual wording says "strongly discourages" but goes on to give caveats and lastly that the husband and wife should consult with each other, their bishop, and lastly, get divine confirmation through prayer. So, the need for repentance would come if a person went against that policy without following the guidelines and did it for reasons that did not conform to what God's wishes were.

I have all too often been opposed at one level or another to some announced policy. And, all too often, when I examined myelf on the issue at hand, I realized that it was because it went against some personal feelings that I had, some personal paradigm. That is one thing that I have learned to do, to examine myself first and try to get humble enough to ask God about something while in the right frame of mind. If I have a knee jerk reaction to something that is peomulgated from a church leader, I am in no frame of mind to hear what God wants me to know.

Glenn

[WmLaw]

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.

Isn't this another example of policy?

[Wanderer7]

The actual wording says "strongly discourages" but goes on to give caveats and lastly that the husband and wife should consult with each other, their bishop, and lastly, get divine confirmation through prayer. So, the need for repentance would come if a person went against that policy without following the guidelines and did it for reasons that did not conform to what God's wishes were.

I have all too often been opposed at one level or another to some announced policy. And, all too often, when I examined myelf on the issue at hand, I realized that it was because it went against some personal feelings that I had, some personal paradigm. That is one thing that I have learned to do, to examine myself first and try to get humble enough to ask God about something while in the right frame of mind. If I have a knee jerk reaction to something that is peomulgated from a church leader, I am in no frame of mind to hear what God wants me to know.

Glenn

I wish this had a like button. I really like the last paragraph. I think if more people did what you do, apostasy levels would drop dramatically. The first paragraph is also excellent. I think the ultimate authority in our lives is the voice of the Spirit. If, and that's a big IF, the Spirit tells us to do something against the counsel of the Brethren, that is the ONLY time it is ok. And in those cases, we'd better be darn sure it's the Spirit and not our own preferences. And off hand, the list of reasons I can think of for the Spirit to tell us something contrary to the brethren is a very small list.