Blind Obedience Vs Faith Obedience

[DBMormon]

We often use the talk 14 fundamentals of a prophet and in our ward this section often gets emphasized

 

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

 

This seems to teach that even when a leader is wrong or asking us to o something not right, we are to obey and will be blessed for doing so. 

 

Yet we also have these quotes and frankly these match my own perception

 

 

“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” Joseph Smith. (Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595)

 

 

Lorenzo Snow -   "There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise".

 

 

 

BH Roberts - The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted

by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine. When in the revelations it is said concerning the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Church shall “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith”—(Doc & Cov., Sec. 21)—it is understood, of course, that his has reference to the word of God received through revelation, and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word spoken.

 

 

 

There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storm of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. : Edwin B. Firmage's "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown" (1988)

 

 

- How do you reconcile the 14 fundamental talk with the quotes I have shared?

 

- If you like the quote from 14 fundamentals - how do you define "blind obedience"

 

-  What are faithful ways  in which one can sustain leaders and yet still dissent when what is being done violates their perception of right and wrong?

Edited March 17, 2014 by DBMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Coming from me, I don't suppose any of my answers will be surprising:

- How do you reconcile the 14 fundamental talk with the quotes I have shared?

I don't worry about it. I see the 14 Fundamentals talks a representative of Position 2 thinking, not canonical and binding inspiration. Because that thinking represents a human way of dealing with complexity, I would be surprised if there were no members that did not show that human position. The other quotes represent a different Position that is also human, but also strikes me as more inspired and appealing.

Plus, I did my own detailed study of True and False Prophets at the FAIR wiki that provides a rather different approach.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

- If you like the quote from 14 fundamentals - how do you define "blind obedience"

I don't like the quote. But sometimes life offers dark and dreary wastes and mists of darkness. There is nothing wrong with holding on to something that feels solid, say an iron rod that leads to a tree of life, till vision improves.

- What are faithful ways in which one can sustain leaders and yet still dissent when what is being done violates their perception of right and wrong?

Look up sustain in a good dictionary:

1. to keep up; maintain prolong.

2. to supply as with food or provisions.

3. to hold up, support

4. to bear, endure

5. to suffer; experience: “She sustained a broken leg.”

6. to allow: to admit, to favor

7. to agree with; confirm

If I permit myself to consider the full range of meanings for the word “sustain” I can also see a full range of options to employ in dealing with other LDS members in all their varieties of temperament, maturity, and level and quality of knowledge. If I select and apply only the last meaning when I sustain someone, I may be letting myself in for a world of pain.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[thesometimesaint]

I really do dislike the 14 fundamentals of Ezra Taft Benson. They sound just as irrational to me as anything as I've heard from other fundamentalist religions. Have we really gone from "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" to "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time"?

[DBMormon]

Kevin, I hear you but I run into several who have a "obey at all costs".  and they seem to look down on my perspective as a dissident view.  We just today had a General authority say at a Stake conference that one of the ways we stone prophets today is to be selective in which of the leaders words we choose to follow.  It just isn't that simple.  I wanted to get multiple opinons from others how they reconcile and deal with these conflicting ideas of follow at all costs versus then be confident in dissenting

Edited March 16, 2014 by DBMormon

[canard78]

 

- How do you reconcile the 14 fundamental talk with the quotes I have shared?

 

- If you like the quote from 14 fundamentals - how do you define "blind obedience"

 

-  What are faithful ways  in which one can sustain leaders and yet still dissent when what is being done violates their perception of right and wrong?

 

Simple. I play the Uchtdorf Card:

 

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

 

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

 

 

Of all the things that I've let go of, a "14 fundamentals" prophet paradigm is probably the strongest.

 

It made my Gospel Principles lesson today (Chapter 9, Prophets of God) quite challenging to prepare. Here's what I ended up with:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-thoughtful-gospel-principles-chapter.html

 

As usual, same rules apply:

1. Use multiple quotes from the manual

2. Only supplement with additional quotes from LDS sources or General Authorities.

3. Teach what I believe with authenticity

[thesometimesaint]

"O, that way madness lies;".

 

KING LEAR:
Thou think'st 'tis much that this contentious storm
Invades us to the skin: so 'tis to thee;
But where the greater malady is fix'd,
The lesser is scarce felt. Thou'ldst shun a bear;
But if thy

flight lay toward the raging sea,
Thou'ldst meet the bear i' the mouth. When the
mind's free,
The body's delicate: the tempest in my mind
Doth from my senses take all feeling else
Save what beats there. Filial ingratitude!
Is it not as this mouth should tear this hand
For lifting food to't? But I will punish home:
No, I will weep no more. In such a night
To shut me out! Pour on; I will endure.
In such a night as this! O Regan, Goneril!
Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all,--
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.

[canard78]

Kevin, I hear you but I run into several who have a "obey at all costs".  and they seem to look down on my perspective as a dissident view.  We just today had a General authority say at a Stake conference that one of the ways we stone prophets today is to be selective in which of the leaders words we choose to follow.  It just isn't that simple.  I wanted to get multiple opinons from others how they reconcile and deal with these conflicting ideas of follow at all costs versus then be confident in dissenting

 

Unfortunately this isn't just the isolated area 70 at a stake conference. The message of not being selective is also found in Gospel Principles:

 

 

We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of His prophet:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god?lang=eng

 

You'll be unsurprised to know that I didn't use this quote in my lesson!

[jaxenro]

Obedience in anything is always an individual choice. I will try to say this delicately:

If the President of the Church, speaking as the Prophet for the Church, sets a policy for the Church that you disagree with I think it is your individual choice to disregard it in your private life but not in a Church calling. If you can not reconcile the two then I think you need to resign that calling.

I don't agree with all the decisions we make at work, some I argue vehemently against. But once the decision is made, right or wrong, I work to implement it.

I could not in good conscience go against Church policy in a calling in the Church, or simply ignore it. I would tell the appropriate authority why I personally couldn't support the decision and asked to be released.

[DBMormon]

Obedience in anything is always an individual choice. I will try to say this delicately:

If the President of the Church, speaking as the Prophet for the Church, sets a policy for the Church that you disagree with I think it is your individual choice to disregard it in your private life but not in a Church calling. If you can not reconcile the two then I think you need to resign that calling.

I don't agree with all the decisions we make at work, some I argue vehemently against. But once the decision is made, right or wrong, I work to implement it.

I could not in good conscience go against Church policy in a calling in the Church, or simply ignore it. I would tell the appropriate authority why I personally couldn't support the decision and asked to be released.

 

What you are saying seems to butt heads a little with the quotes above.  I especially like the 1st one from Bro. Joseph as well as # 3 from B.H. Roberts who seems to say we are obligated to follow and support those Doctrines that are official and have been adopted officially by the church in the proper manner.  Outside that he seems to leave room to not further things we disagree with.

 

Also I am not talking about being a good councelor to a Bishop or high councilman in sustaining and supporting my leade when I disagree but rather when a leader teaches generally a incorrect principle.  Am I bound as a lay member to obey.

[CV75]

We often use the talk 14 fundamentals of a prophet and in our ward this section often gets emphasized

 

This seems to teach that even when a leader is wrong or asking us to o something not right, we are to obey and will be blessed for doing so. 

 

Yet we also have these quotes and frankly these match my own perception

 

- How do you reconcile the 14 fundamental talk with the quotes I have shared?

 

- If you like the quote from 14 fundamentals - how do you define "blind obedience"

 

-  What are faithful ways  in which one can sustain leaders and yet still dissent when what is being done violates their perception of right and wrong?

To me, all the quotes are about aligning ourselves with the Lord and His servants based on the principle that “intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.” (D& 88:40).

 

I like the quote. It has nothing to do in my mind with “blind obedience,” which I define in this context as compliance with prophetic counsel without thought or faith. A lack of thought or faith seems more often at the root of sins of omission and ignoring (conveniently or otherwise) other counsel, but I suppose for obedience it applies to doing whatever doesn't require too much vested thought, faith, personal resources, etc.

 

I see many ways to sustain a leader we might not agree with; it depends on the severity of the disagreement and the case. I think the basic principle is that humility and charity counter pride and enmity. In this way, the Lord guides us according to D&C 88:40.

[CV75]

when a leader teaches generally a incorrect principle.  Am I bound as a lay member to obey.

I would say no, but by all means we are obligated to behave charitably and work along the channels the Church has for grievances over incorrect principles (as defined by the Church, of course!) to be settled.

[DBMormon]

Also, I was just informed that the first quote which is all over the internet and is attributed to Joseph Smith, may have indeed came from the editor of the Millenial Star's editor Samuel Richards and the quote is printed in 1852 which also raises a red flag.

[jaxenro]

" I especially like the 1st one from Bro. Joseph as well as # 3 from B.H. Roberts who seems to say we are obligated to follow and support those Doctrines that are official and have been adopted officially by the church in the proper manner."

 

So if, as a teacher, we leave out parts of th manual we disagree with, are we following and supporting official Doctrines that have been adopted officially by the church in the proper manner? That was the thrust of my comment. I think you are free to make choices in your own life but when acting in a official capacity you are not so free.

[rpn]

They are not incompatible.   Every member has an obligation to do their due diligence ---- seek confirming revelation that the instructions are from God and how they apply to the member.     I have had the experience of not getting confirmatory revelation OR the opposite.   In the absence of scripture that condemned the action, in those cases I might very well do my best to follow the prophet in the interim.  

 

But my own need for immediate revelation may not be the same as the Lord's timetable, and during that gap when one exists, it would be foolhardy indeed to go out and shoot the innocent men and women in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, for instance, when I knew darn well that one of the ten commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill.

[DBMormon]

" I especially like the 1st one from Bro. Joseph as well as # 3 from B.H. Roberts who seems to say we are obligated to follow and support those Doctrines that are official and have been adopted officially by the church in the proper manner."

 

So if, as a teacher, we leave out parts of th manual we disagree with, are we following and supporting official Doctrines that have been adopted officially by the church in the proper manner? That was the thrust of my comment. I think you are free to make choices in your own life but when acting in a official capacity you are not so free.

i am in agreement but even in official capacity, there is a line.

Edited March 16, 2014 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

I am wondering what a prophet in our day and age has asked the membership to do that could possibly lead us astray.Both Pres. Benson and Pres. Hinckley asked the membership to read the Book of Mormon, Pres. Hunter asked us to get a valid recommend and to attend the Temple more and Pres. Monson asked us to reach out to others, give service. Pres. Kimball asked us to share the gospel with our friends and neighbours. Unless I am missing something I don't see how these things could possibly lead someone astray.

[jaxenro]

"i am in agreement but even in official capacity, there is a line"

 

Agreed just I think in official capacity if you can't support something you resign that capacity. I left the Church because I couldn't state, at the time, I beleived in it. And I couldn't hold the Preisthood if i didn't support it 100%.

 

Then again my sense of what is honorable is a little strange for some
 

[Wanderer7]

I don't see a contradiction between Joseph and what President Benson said unless we assume that at some point the prophet and the 12 will advise us to do something really bad. If I was told to murder innocent children, yeah, I'm not doing that even IF I go to hell for it. I don't really see that happening though. In practical terms, then, blind obedience is doing what the brethren ask when you aren't really sure yet, maybe like Adam and the alter or Elder Holland's talk on Belief (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng). That's different than following when you know for certain that it's wrong.

Maybe a better concern would be is there a chance that we WILL be asked to do something strongly against our conscience.
 

1. Like President Woodruff said, the Lord won't suffer his prophet to lead us astray. We have the assurance of the Lord in a canonized statement that this isn't going to happen. It doesn't mean we shouldn't gain confirmation for ourselves, but it does lessen the stress to do so. I generally think that if the Lord trusts the leaders of the church with the keys of revelation and the kingdom, I can probably trust them too. And, like President Grant said, if I follow regardless, I may be blessed anyway. Let me provide an illustration (This doesn't actually involve the prophet, but it does involve priesthood leadership). If you've seen 17 Miracles, you'll be familiar with the story of the Martin and Willie Handcart companies. Levi Savage vehemently urged them not to depart on their journey. If the movie is accurate, he was censured for disagreeing with the presiding brethren. He humbled himself and agreed to go with them. We all know the story. I don't know whether the decision to leave was inspired. I definitely have my doubts on that. Perhaps if the people had listened to reason, they would have been spared. However, the Lord turned their decision to follow their leaders into a powerful spiritual blessing and one of the most inspiring stories in church history. 

2.  If we take President Benson's words in context of the united voice of the brethren, meaning that generally the prophet does not make decisions without the unanimous voice of the 15 presiding men, we can generally assume that all decisions are made after considerable deliberation, fasting, and prayer. I don't see them arriving at decisions that would be strongly against the established doctrine of the church. And if they did, I would suspect we would be able to get a revelation for ourselves on the matter.

 

3. Like Duncan was saying, I'm not really aware of any major historical precedence. Some would argue that the Same-sex marriage issue falls under this category, but that's been preached against since the Old Testament, so it's not really a distinctive LDS issue.

 

To respond to how to deal with incongruities, I don't really know. If the Spirit is telling me one thing and the brethren are telling me another, I suppose the Spirit wins. But I'd better be DARN sure it's the Spirit and not something else. In fact, that's the ONLY time I think we should disobey. If it goes against our normal way of thinking, but the Spirit confirms it, we are bound to follow. And to that point, I'm not aware of any scriptural or personal experiences on which to base any kind of precedence for this. I would say better to follow and be wrong than not follow and be wrong.

But I will say this, and this might be the most salient point. When we have a disagreement with the priesthood, including the prophet, it's never our duty to make it a public issue. We should take it up with local leaders and work it out on a personal level. If they feel it's of concern, they will address it with higher authorities. To do otherwise only breeds dissent and division, which I think is worse than blind following (And by the way, I have no problem being called a sheep--Christ often calls His followers that). I guess the exception might be abuse or serious harm that isn't being addressed by local authorities. Even then, that can probably be addressed relatively privately. 

[Bob Crockett]

I certainly question using FAIR's text and website without attribution.  I couldn't tell from your paste job who was doing the speaking; it is apparent that some of your text is the wording of a FAIR contributor.  I think highly of FAIR but not highly enough to think their contributors are prophets.  And, Ed Firmage?  

 

Nobody's going to really know if you are a cafeteria Saint or one who believes is strict obedience.   The question is whether you publicly and actively promote the doctrine that it is acceptable to be disobedient on occasion.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Wanderer7]

It gets more complicated since we have quotes attributed to Joseph Smith that seem to run contrary to the one in the OP. 
 

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

 

History of the Church, 3:385

 

“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, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26

 

“Brother Joseph used to counsel us in this wise: ‘The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.’ Another thing he said: ‘In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize.’ ”

 

Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News, Dec. 22, 1880, p. 738.

“He then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom, who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty—whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy."

 

Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Sept. 7, 1880, p. 1

 

All sources taken from https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

 

So I guess I go back to better to obey and be wrong than disobey and be wrong.

[DBMormon]

I certainly question using FAIR's text and website without attribution.  I couldn't tell from your paste job who was doing the speaking; it is apparent that some of your text is the wording of a FAIR contributor.  I think highly of FAIR but not highly enough to think their contributors are prophets.  And, Ed Firmage?  

 

Nobody's going to really know if you are a cafeteria Saint or one who believes is strict obedience.   The question is whether you publicly and actively promote the doctrine that it is acceptable to be disobedient on occasion.

Who is your comment addressed to as I can not tell since you didn't quote them?

[DBMormon]

It gets more complicated since we have quotes attributed to Joseph Smith that seem to run contrary to the one in the OP. 

 

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

 

History of the Church, 3:385

 

“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, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26

 

“Brother Joseph used to counsel us in this wise: ‘The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.’ Another thing he said: ‘In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize.’ ”

 

Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News, Dec. 22, 1880, p. 738.

“He then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom, who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty—whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy."

 

Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Sept. 7, 1880, p. 1

 

All sources taken from https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

 

So I guess I go back to better to obey and be wrong than disobey and be wrong.

 

How one says the Church's leaders are out of the way will need some defining as it could be as conservative as dissent and as extreme as claiming the brethren have fallen and the truth is found elsewhere.

[Duncan]

somewhere I read that Richard Bushman saying our Church leaders won't lead us astray isn't the same thing as the Church not getting into trouble. 

[Scott Lloyd]

They are not incompatible.   Every member has an obligation to do their due diligence ---- seek confirming revelation that the instructions are from God and how they apply to the member.     I have had the experience of not getting confirmatory revelation OR the opposite.   In the absence of scripture that condemned the action, in those cases I might very well do my best to follow the prophet in the interim.  

 

But my own need for immediate revelation may not be the same as the Lord's timetable, and during that gap when one exists, it would be foolhardy indeed to go out and shoot the innocent men and women in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, for instance, when I knew darn well that one of the ten commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill.

(My bolding to show emphasis and agreement)

 

People are fond these days of quoting President Uchtdorf relative to errors having been made in the past, but many seem quick to forget that he also said that on some matters, it is best just to wait for further information and knowledge.

 

This was reaffirmed in his very recent address at the Church History Symposium, "Seeing Beyond the Leaf." He drew upon the incident in which Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, gently chided one of his soldiers for running away from a battle. Frederick said, "I suggest that you wait a week. Then, if things are still going badly, we will quit together."

 

Maybe it's a reflection of the instant gratification mindset of today's younger generations, but I see too many of our people being like the soldier who ran.

[mfbukowski]

We often use the talk 14 fundamentals of a prophet and in our ward this section often gets emphasized

 

This seems to teach that even when a leader is wrong or asking us to o something not right, we are to obey and will be blessed for doing so. 

 

Yet we also have these quotes and frankly these match my own perception

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- How do you reconcile the 14 fundamental talk with the quotes I have shared?

 

- If you like the quote from 14 fundamentals - how do you define "blind obedience"

 

-  What are faithful ways  in which one can sustain leaders and yet still dissent when what is being done violates their perception of right and wrong?

They can't be reconciled.

 

Take your pick and stop worrying about it or move to another ward.