Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[canard78]

Brigham Young emphatically and repeatedly urged the Saints to NOT trust their leaders blindly, but to find out for themselves. (See Nibley’s essay on Brigham Young as a Leader for many examples.)

I often quote the following as a response to 14 fundamentals type attitudes:

BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, January 12, 1862

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. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse 9:150)

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/27

I have to admit to cheating a little when I use that quote as I usually replace the italicised part (my emphasis) with '...' (What are they called again, ellipses?)

What appears to be a 'don't over-trust your leaders' quote is actually BY saying 'I want you to get a knowledge through revelation that I am walking in the path that God dictates so that I can have more influence over you' - not less. He wants the saints to get a personal revelation rather than a simple conviction in the man because then they will follow him even further down his latest doctrinal tangent.

This is 1862, by which time he has had 10-15 years of the black priesthood ban. If people follow his request above, it leads to less questioning of what the prophets says or does.

[canard78]

1st, 4th, and 13th are all we really need to know, the rest is sometimes up for grabs. As far as the Prophet not leading the Church Astray, I think that one can look at that in several ways -- the one I have always been most comfortable with is that the Prophet will never lead you into doing something that will land you in outer darkness, he creates a sort of safe harbor -- doesn't mean that where he leads the Church is necessarily the best route to anywhere it just that you won't be held accountable for following him.

4th, and the culture it creates, "the prophet says so, so I must do it" is a problem. Because if the expectation is "never lead astray" then we are setting a standard of inerrancy. An errant prophet (he's human so he has to be), means he must also, sometimes get it wrong. Based on Kevin's OP, that's ok. They are the errors of men and built into the system. So why teach that they are not. It sets us up for a fall.

Here's an interesting thought... If a Bishop had ordained negroes in 1950 he might have been excommunicated. Who would have been going against God's will? The Bishop for ordaining black men or his leaders for excommunicating him?

[canard78]

My suggested # 15:

"15. The previous 14 fundamentals are predicated on you having a testimony of each of them."

I don't think anyone is advocating "blind obedience" here, but it sure might sound like it.

You may... But they didn't.

So if I pray and get an answer that 4, 5 & 14 is not God's word on the matter, who is wrong? Me? Or the two leaders in 2010 and ETB who wrote them in 1980.

I know where most members would probably lean. And it's not towards me.

[canard78]

... doesn't mean that where he leads the Church is necessarily the best route to anywhere it just that you won't be held accountable for following him.

Just need to come back on this point.

So what you're saying is that even if the prophet gets it wrong, we as individuals will still be blessed for following him in his errancy?

Suppose the Prop 8 campaign is similar to the priesthood ban (errant prophets, not God's will), the people who joined it and funded it will still be blessed for their contribution? Even though they shouldn't have been asked and shouldn't have done it, they are still doing the right thing by following the prophet?

[Stroopwafel]

I am highly skeptical of such efforts to categorize people in the first place, and doubtful that the methods are reliable enough to be useful much. I don't like thinking of everyone I meet in such a manner. "What's YOUR grouping?" Etc....

You reminded me of this gem: "Myers-Briggs personality test results are horoscopes for people who think they are too smart to fall for horoscopes."

Found that actually quite funny first time I read it.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[Stone holm]

Just need to come back on this point.

So what you're saying is that even if the prophet gets it wrong, we as individuals will still be blessed for following him in his errancy?

Suppose the Prop 8 campaign is similar to the priesthood ban (errant prophets, not God's will), the people who joined it and funded it will still be blessed for their contribution? Even though they shouldn't have been asked and shouldn't have done it, they are still doing the right thing by following the prophet?

I think probably Prop 8 may well be a perfect example. When the people got the nudge from the pulpit at General Conference, the Prophet took full responsibility for the fiasco on his own shoulders. Those who followed the prompt are innocent. The difference in my view is that the people who didn't follow the nudge, but put religious freedom and civil liberties above the Prophet's suggestion were not, IMHO, wrong.

[cinepro]

My suggested # 15:

"15. The previous 14 fundamentals are predicated on you having a testimony of each of them."

I don't think anyone is advocating "blind obedience" here, but it sure might sound like it.

Except there's no such thing as an optional fundamental.

[Stone holm]

Except there's no such thing as an optional fundamental.

Yep, just sheep and goats.

[canard78]

Yep, just sheep and goats.

We raised a few of both when growing up. I much prefer goats. Far more independent and interesting. They have a lot more personality than sheep (who tend to just be a but stupid and 1-dimensional).

Unfortunately goats get a pretty bad rep in the scriptures.

[Stone holm]

We raised a few of both when growing up. I much prefer goats. Far more independent and interesting. They have a lot more personality than sheep (who tend to just be a but stupid and 1-dimensional).

Unfortunately goats get a pretty bad rep in the scriptures.

Yep, and in the Church as well. We too raised both and I agree, except I noted a personality difference with bottle fed bummer lambs, so perhaps their is hope for some sheep who are not raised in a flock of other sheep.

[Ahab]

Without a testimony, it is just somebody talking, so why listen?

Because by listening to somebody we gain our own testimony. It's all about which somebody we choose to listen to.

[mfbukowski]

You may... But they didn't.

So if I pray and get an answer that 4, 5 & 14 is not God's word on the matter, who is wrong? Me? Or the two leaders in 2010 and ETB who wrote them in 1980.

I know where most members would probably lean. And it's not towards me.

There is no objective way of knowing what is "right" in this context.

We need to follow our consciences or we cease to be fully human- we are automatons if we do not. That is a core principle. If one is to NOT follow the Holy Ghost, one has no reason to think the church is true anyway.

It becomes a cult following a leader mindlessly- nothing more. So the bottom line is that we all must follow our consciences or head for the door. It's not all that complicated. It is absurd to follow a religion in which one finds no value

[mfbukowski]

Except there's no such thing as an optional fundamental.

Of course there is. There is always the door. If you don't have a testimony, the alleged "fundamental" is at least wrong for you and you should not follow it.

I really don't care much what the fundamentals of Hinduism may be because I do not accept them as fundamental.

[mfbukowski]

There are of course principles we cannot know are "true" until we have lived them, tithing being one example. So that is where obedience comes in- not blind obedience, but Alma 32 obedience.

"Try it- you'll like it!"

[Calm]

There must be a physical age at which all possibility of changing our understanding of reality freezes into stone. Anybody know anything about that?

College students seem to be convertible, but forget about the older guys. Anyone know anything about that?

I think it greatly depends on the person. I have known people who do not appear to change their paradigm of the world since they barely left their teens. OTOH, I know at least one 70 year old who is still willing to see things in a new way and gets rather excited about it when she does.

[Calm]

So what you're saying is that even if the prophet gets it wrong, we as individuals will still be blessed for following him in his errancy?

I don't see how people can be blessed when it comes to error...though they may be blessed for having pure intent, they are not blessed for the mistakes they make even if they have pure intent while doing so. However, I can see the Lord protecting people from the eternal/spiritual harm that comes from that error if the error is due to following their spiritual leaders who he has given them a witness of their authority as well as some of the natural consequences. Edited June 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Danzo]

4th, and the culture it creates, "the prophet says so, so I must do it" is a problem. Because if the expectation is "never lead astray" then we are setting a standard of inerrancy. An errant prophet (he's human so he has to be), means he must also, sometimes get it wrong. Based on Kevin's OP, that's ok. They are the errors of men and built into the system. So why teach that they are not. It sets us up for a fall.

Here's an interesting thought... If a Bishop had ordained negroes in 1950 he might have been excommunicated. Who would have been going against God's will? The Bishop for ordaining black men or his leaders for excommunicating him?

You keep talking about dead prophets (exactly what was warned against in the talk being discussed).

Can you give me an example of how following the living prophet would lead one astray?

[Stone holm]

You keep talking about dead prophets (exactly what was warned against in the talk being discussed).

Can you give me an example of how following the living prophet would lead one astray?

So do you just throw the corpse overboard? I don't think so. We may believe in living prophets, but we give incredible deference to the Prophet Joseph. There are prophets and then there are prophets.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin, thanks for opening this thread.

There are two very interesting sub-topics in this. This issue of character types is very interesting and one I'd not considered. I will ponder 'pon it.

One of my favorite Brigham Young quotes, via Nibley's "Brigham Young and the Enemy" is this:

"There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."201

That is one of the reasons I like Type Theory. It helps me understand people as they are, and not as I am. The same goes for the Perry Scheme, and in trying to understand Brigham in his own context rather than mine.

One key is that pure knowledge will have the effect of enlarging my soul. What effect will impure knowledge have? If I feel my soul contracting towards someone, is that a clue about the nature of my knowledge?

Another helpful quote from the same essay:

"If brethren and sisters are overtaken in fault, your hearts should be filled with kindness—with brotherly, angelic feeling—to overlook their faults as far as possible."202

Is Brigham an exception? If he was overtaken in a fault, should my heart be filled with bitterness, devilish contempt, and focus all my attention his faults as far as possible?

I had planned to start a thread on the 14 fundamentals. I may yet do so. I would suggest that they are an overclaim of a prophet's actual role and abilities. I appreciate some of the quotes you've provided. I particularly like the self-deprecation of the BoM prophets. We could do with a little more of that and a little less of this:

These were read out twice in the oct 2010 General conference:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

and

https://www.lds.org/...rvival?lang=eng

I struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14

Do they fit your paradigm?

What fits my paradigm is that in any large organization there people that talk like this because they actually think like this. Hoffer's book The True Believer argues that no mass movement ever succeeded without such people because only they are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to build it up. In some aspects, the talk reflects ESTJ thinking. In others, just as important, it reflects the early stages of the Perry Scheme.

I don't struggle with it. It's not a talk I would ever quote. It's social history, and a barometer where certain types hold to for security and others fixate on for other reasons.

I just think are other ideas and thinkers what deserve my attention.

If Brigham did not introduce the black priesthood ban with a divine sanction and if many prophets after perpetuated it without one, how can we say the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Astray in general, as an absolute concept? As in wrong about everything all the time, or in a different sense. I pointed towards several articles that

point out Brigham Young's remarkably inspired and still relevant insights on education, leadership, education, economics, the afterlife and numerous practical issues.

Astray relative to the expressly defined "authority of my church" in D&C 1 which bluntly says of LDS leaders, "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest..." I don't any time scales defined. No "immediately" or even "within the month." I went through the D&C looking for any guarentees on prophets. It's "Expedience."

In my reading of the social context (the Stirling Adams essay in BYU Studies and more), Brigham Young may have been one of the agents in introducing the ban, but he did not invent the thinking. He was swathed in it, as were a great many other people. The Civil War was still fourteen years away. It was such a divisive issue that its effects are still evidenced in the existence a church called The Southern Baptist Convention. And even after the Civil War, it took another hundred years for most people to prepare their minds properly.

One astute LDS writer posted an article this year suggesting that one effect of delayed LDS response to the Civil Rights movement is that when the ban ended, the emotion of the overwhelming majority of members was elation and relief.

Joseph Smith once commented that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. The alternative, if you stop to think about it, would not produce a great deal of understanding.

Point 4 of the above is wrong as soon as it's said. It even is leading people astray by telling them he never will. And yet many more people seem to believe this paradigm than yours.

Consensus and truth may be very different things, due to a wide range of considerations. Were we born to align ourselves with consensus or with truth?

I like yours. I just don't think it's how most people see it. I also continue to have reservations about the extent of the depth of errancy possible. The implications for 130 years of non-inspired practice is pretty serious.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently. You've given me something to ponder.

You are welcome. I try. I'm just passing along thoughts I like.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 26, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Questing Beast]

Yes. My paradigm shifting is continuous. But as Poor Richard quipped, "An old young man is a young old man". I feel that way....

[cinepro]

Of course there is. There is always the door. If you don't have a testimony, the alleged "fundamental" is at least wrong for you and you should not follow it.

I really don't care much what the fundamentals of Hinduism may be because I do not accept them as fundamental.

I was just pointing out how absurd it is to classify some "fundamentals" as more true than others.

The definition of "fundamental" is "a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part."

Obviously you don't have to believe it, but let's not pretend the "14 Fundamentals" were intended to be understood as the "14 Suggestions".

[Danzo]

So do you just throw the corpse overboard? I don't think so. We may believe in living prophets, but we give incredible deference to the Prophet Joseph. There are prophets and then there are prophets.

Of course we give deference to them, but the living one is more important. That is the point of the talk. Listen to what the prophet is telling you to do now instead of what other prophets told other people.

It seems everyone is hung up about what brigham young said, and not enough on what president monson says.

No one seems to give me an example on what is wrong with the 14 points as it pertains to living prophets.

All anyone can come up with is why the 14 points are wrong when it comes to dead prophets. Which is the point of the whole talk

[canard78]

You keep talking about dead prophets (exactly what was warned against in the talk being discussed).

Can you give me an example of how following the living prophet would lead one astray?

I've typed, deleted and retyped, this reply.

I'll try to give examples of living prophets leads one astray but it is of course subjective. I don't want to cause a huge thread derail by a tangent around (for example) black priesthood and homosexuality. The OP is too good for a thread lock from an over passionate tangent. I would be very happy to discuss blacks and the priesthood as I think it's an example of how many people were lead astray by some of their living prophets and and apostles. Not living people by dead prophets, but living by living. But I'll not discuss the details of it in this thread.

The point is that if a living prophet is errant then he will (at times) say things that could lead people who lived at the time astray if they follow it.

It's often only with hindsight that we can see that those people were lead astray by the living prophet they were living under.

If we return to the OP and first accept that sometimes the prophets are speaking in error because they are susceptible to the "errors of men" then it also follows that they will sometimes lead their followers astray. It's simply not possible for it to otherwise. If it then is so, why do they teach that it's not with rhetoric like the 14 fundamentals?

[canard78]

Of course we give deference to them, but the living one is more important. That is the point of the talk. Listen to what the prophet is telling you to do now instead of what other prophets told other people.

It seems everyone is hung up about what brigham young said, and not enough on what president monson says.

No one seems to give me an example on what is wrong with the 14 points as it pertains to living prophets.

All anyone can come up with is why the 14 points are wrong when it comes to dead prophets. Which is the point of the whole talk

As I've just said. If BY can be shown to be in error with the benefit of hindsight (eg Adam/God or men on the sun amongst others) then it means the people living at the time of BY were being lead astray. Or if they ignored a dead prophet (Nephi1 or Jospeph) who taught that all were equal regardless of race and instead followed their living prophets who taught they were not then they were being lead astray.

I appreciate I just said in my previous post that I wouldn't discuss blacks and the priesthood on this thread. I guess I'm also errant.

So if BY can be shown to have lead astray people living at the time then it means a living prophet can lead living people astray.

BRM's "forget everything I said about..." statement/retraction also means that at the time they were said the people of the time they were first said were being led astray.

So how are we led astray today by our prophets? I'd hesitate to answer that as it's going to open a whole other list of hot-topics. Having said that, it seems that lots of what today's prophets say is a re-quote of dead prophets anyway. The scriptures and latter day (dead) prophets appear in almost every conference talk or Ensign article.

The point is that they can lead astray due to their errancy. So when they say they can't they are already leading people astray by even saying they can't.

[canard78]

So do you just throw the corpse overboard? I don't think so. We may believe in living prophets, but we give incredible deference to the Prophet Joseph. There are prophets and then there are prophets.

Presumably we would also have the scriptures put in the same circular file? All those writings of dead prophets could be dangerous y'know.