Blind Obedience Vs Faith Obedience

[mfbukowski]

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

Let others believe what they want and you believe what you want.

 

The key to everything in life is tolerance of ambiguity.  We are all creating worlds here, they don't have to be alike.

[mfbukowski]

Simple. I play the Uchtdorf Card:

 

 

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

You, sir, are a wise man.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Of course not.

 

You have already answered your own question, right here.  YOU know what is right and wrong and what is correct or incorrect- right?

 

Your testimony- your obligation to the church ENDS if the church is "incorrect"- right?  I mean you are not Catholic or Evangelical for a reason- because you think those faiths are "incorrect".  You are not Jewish or Buddhist or a Taoist or a Hindu.  Why?

 

Because they are "incorrect" in your estimation.

 

Yet if someone LDS says something "incorrect" somehow you think you have to violate your own conscience?   Why would you think that?

 

The only thing telling you that parts of our beliefs are "correct" is your heart and conscience- and THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO GO ON. 

 

Don't give THAT up!

 

That doesn't mean you destroy other's faith- you respect that.  It doesn't mean you preach against the church, you don't.  You quietly accept that others have their own opinions and they are neither more right or wrong than you are.

 

Disagreement is ok.  Accept that and move on.

Edited March 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

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

You.

 

I'd just worry less about what you're picking up from leaders with whom you disagree and simply believe what you'd like.  As long as you can answer the temple recommend questions, who really cares if you believe in less than 100% gross tithing (Henry B. Moyle didn't), or you don't believe in non-evolution, or you don't believe that leaders are perfect?   I mean, I can understand your agitation when somebody says something over the pulpit you don't like.  

 

We had a bishop who asked some families as a surprise to live on food storage for a month.  Whereas some of us could take huge exception to such a request, since he didn't ask me I'm not going to get all riled up about it.

 

I had a bishop ask me to play piano for priesthood as my only ward calling.  His only insight into my piano playing was that he saw me playing a complex ragtime piece I had memorized over four years of trying. I had no ability to play anything else, much less read hymns.   Could I get all exercised that he really lacked inspiration?  Should I be upset that I had to decline?   

 

Life is too short to get all hot and bothered about the informal practices of the church and how they conflict with your black and white perception of truth.  Be more flexible and nuanced.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

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.

The bottom line is passing a recommend interview honestly.

 

You cannot be in better standing in the church than passing a recommend interview.  If you can honestly answer those questions you are as "orthodox" as one can be.

[mfbukowski]

You.

 

I'd just worry less about what you're picking up from leaders with whom you disagree and simply believe what you'd like.  As long as you can answer the temple recommend questions, who really cares if you believe in less than 100% gross tithing (Henry B. Moyle didn't), or you don't believe in non-evolution, or you don't believe that leaders are perfect?   I mean, I can understand your agitation when somebody says something over the pulpit you don't like.  

 

We had a bishop who asked some families as a surprise to live on food storage for a month.  Whereas some of us could take huge exception to such a request, since he didn't ask me I'm not going to get all riled up about it.

 

I had a bishop ask me to play piano for priesthood as my only ward calling.  His only insight into my piano playing was that he saw me playing a complex ragtime piece I had memorized over four years of trying. I had no ability to play anything else, much less read hymns.   Could I get all exercised that he really lacked inspiration?  Should I be upset that I had to decline?   

 

Life is too short to get all hot and bothered about the informal practices of the church and how they conflict with your black and white perception of truth.  Be more flexible and nuanced.

I read the thread and responded to each post without reading what came after.

 

I find that I have echoed the responses of many who were giving the same advice I was.

 

We seem to have a theme developing here.  I will now shut up,  My rather loud voice is obviously not needed. 

[Gray]

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?

 

I don't think they can be satisfactorily reconciled, but I say when in doubt, go with Hugh B. Brown!

[DBMormon]

You.

Aaahhh, you were speaking about the Lorenzo Snow quote.  It can be found in lots of places but I did find it on FairMormon's site

Edited March 17, 2014 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

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.

 

 

That's what we do.  we often grow fond of quoting recent General Conference addresses.  Call us Mormons.  But to quote his GC address does not necessitate that anyone forget that it is best to wait for further information about some matters.  I think that's confused the reason why people have quoted him in the first place. 

[Scott Lloyd]

That's what we do.  we often grow fond of quoting recent General Conference addresses.  Call us Mormons.  But to quote his GC address does not necessitate that anyone forget that it is best to wait for further information about some matters.  I think that's confused the reason why people have quoted him in the first place. 

Perhaps a better word than "forget," then, is neglect.

 

To be clear, I think that some among us are too quick to jump to the conclusion that the Church or its agents have made an error, when in reality, there has not been enough knowledge revealed to come to that conclusion.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

- 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?

 

As far as I can tell, the quotes you are sharing don't appear in any Church publication or curriculum.  The 14 Fundamentals talk is published by the Church, and was recently reiterated in two General Conference talks.

 

So that tells me how the Church would answer your questions...

 

Also, there is no acceptable form of "dissent" in the Church.  If there has ever been a Church-published talk or curriculum that acknowledges the possibility that the Church leaders might be wrong and thus necessitating our "dissent", please let me know.  Obedience is the "first law of heaven". There is no room for "dissent" or "loyal opposition".

Edited March 17, 2014 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

Perhaps a better word than "forget," then, is neglect.

 

To be clear, I think that some among us are too quick to jump to the conclusion that the Church or its agents have made an error, when in reality, there has not been enough knowledge revealed to come to that conclusion.

 

 

Isn't that what, for instance, Joseph Smith is saying in the quote first used?  That the listener can know when something is wrong. 

 

I'm not suggesting I know of any errors either.  But it's helpful for me to think errors are possible and its possible personal revelation given can notify one of errors.  I wouldn't say that thinking that way causes me to neglect the notion that in many cases what may seem wrong is not necessarily wrong and there may come information down the road that would tell us otherwise. 

[canard78]

As far as I can tell, the quotes you are sharing don't appear in any Church publication or curriculum. The 14 Fundamentals talk is published by the Church, and was recently reiterated in two General Conference talks.

So that tells me how the Church would answer your questions...

Also, there is no acceptable form of "dissent" in the Church. If there has ever been a Church-published talk or curriculum that acknowledges the possibility that the Church leaders might be wrong and thus necessitating our "dissent", please let me know. Obedience is the "first law of heaven". There is no room for "dissent" or "loyal opposition".

I agree that most of the best "independent thinking" quotes are not on LDS.org, but here are a few:

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

Elder Uchtdorf

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

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)

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

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

Quote by Elder Faust in Oct '89 conference: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng

"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.”

Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912)

(Partial reference) http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=2&sourceId=078046581c79b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#footnote10

BH Roberts full book that this is quoted from is here:

http://www.cumorah.org/libros/english/BH%20Roberts/BH%20Roberts%20-%20Seventys_Course_in_Theology,_vol_5_-_B_H_Roberts.html#18285

[Stone holm]

This is one of those issues where quoting quotes, hymns, manuals, lead you into a frankly dizzying circle.  The best I have been able to rationalize what is irrational is that when you follow the Prophet you are in a safe harbor come judgment day if he is just flat out wrong -- he took the monkey on his back and he gets to pay the price, but that you are not necessarily unfaithful in not following the Prophet, you just have no guarantee of safe harbor come judgment day.  So you can be a faithful sheep plodding forward occasionally following the Prophet out into the rough, or you can take the more dangerous path of trying to really figure out what the Lord wants you to do.  I don't think people would be as uncomfortable with this, if we hadn't apparently missed the field goal back in the 60s over race.  But hey, ya know you can't nail em everytime.

[cinepro]

I agree that most of the best "independent thinking" quotes are not on LDS.org, but here are a few:

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

Elder Uchtdorf

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

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)

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

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

Quote by Elder Faust in Oct '89 conference: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng

"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.”

Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912)

(Partial reference) http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=2&sourceId=078046581c79b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#footnote10

BH Roberts full book that this is quoted from is here:

http://www.cumorah.org/libros/english/BH%20Roberts/BH%20Roberts%20-%20Seventys_Course_in_Theology,_vol_5_-_B_H_Roberts.html#18285

 

 

Be careful that you are reading what they are actually saying and not what you want them to say.

[Wanderer7]

I think we're in a tough situation being members of the church because on the one hand, it's easy to be complacent and assume that the brethren are just right. That's not what we need to be saved. We have to have conviction that what we believe is right or we'll never be able to endure. On the other hand, we can be deceived so easily, almost imperceptibly. What's the term--being led carefully down to hell? The responsibility is ours to determine if something preached over the pulpit is true, and only the Holy Ghost can verify the truth of a speaker's words. However, if Moroni 10:5 is true, then we will be left without excuse at judgment if we failed to live by a truth the prophets taught simply because we never received confirmation on it. I think there is the condemnation in not following the prophet, not in refusing to follow something that is not true.

[hoo rider]

You.

 

I'd just worry less about what you're picking up from leaders with whom you disagree and simply believe what you'd like.  As long as you can answer the temple recommend questions, who really cares if you believe in less than 100% gross tithing (Henry B. Moyle didn't), or you don't believe in non-evolution, or you don't believe that leaders are perfect?   I mean, I can understand your agitation when somebody says something over the pulpit you don't like.  

 

We had a bishop who asked some families as a surprise to live on food storage for a month.  Whereas some of us could take huge exception to such a request, since he didn't ask me I'm not going to get all riled up about it.

 

I had a bishop ask me to play piano for priesthood as my only ward calling.  His only insight into my piano playing was that he saw me playing a complex ragtime piece I had memorized over four years of trying. I had no ability to play anything else, much less read hymns.   Could I get all exercised that he really lacked inspiration?  Should I be upset that I had to decline?   

 

Life is too short to get all hot and bothered about the informal practices of the church and how they conflict with your black and white perception of truth.  Be more flexible and nuanced.

 

The part in red (above) is all that really matters.  When you come right down to it, we have a lot of room to dissent (albeit privately).

 

A helpful paradigm for me is realize that we really only must follow doctrine.  For what is doctrine, I like Elder Christensen's comment that doctrine is taught by all 15 prophets/seers/revelators.  If all 15 are teaching it, you ought to do it.  There seems to be wiggle room for independent thinking if only 1 or 2 are teaching something.  

 

As an example, in October 2001 General Conference President Hinckley said that we ought to support the President (meaning President Bush).  If someone decided to vote against Bush at the next election, or participate in an anti-war protest, does anyone really think doing so would affect their standing in the church and/or their eternal salvation?  I don't think it would.  And frankly, I don't think it is/was doctrine to support President Bush.  I take it as a good idea to be used for a short period, with lots of room for disagreement.  

[jaxenro]

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

Elder Uchtdorf

I would take this to mean we should pray, ponder, think and the rest to come to a personal confirmation of thd truth not that we should try to correct the GA's. In short not to rely on blind obedience but try to come to a personal testimony of the teachings they are imparting.

If you believe in the teachings of the Church then they are called to receive revelation for the Church we are not, unless a poster here is a member of the Twelve or First Presidency? What you are entitled to receive as personal revelation is a confirmation of their teachings not a correction of their teachings.

It is the same with the Book of Mormon. All of us, members or not, is entitled to receive personal revelation as to the truthfulness of the book but none of is entitled to receive revelation to correct it

[mormonnewb]

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.

Soliciting our support of Prop 8 MAY turn out to be something that "leads the Church astray." I suspect that our decision to enter into the fray will permanently brand us as that "homophobic church" and make it almost impossible for some to receive the gospel, just as being branded as a "racist church" makes it very difficult for us to effectively share the Gospel with African Americans. In my view, this was an "unforced error," but let's hope that history proves me wrong (as usual).

[Duncan]

Soliciting our support of Prop 8 MAY turn out to be something that "leads the Church astray." I suspect that our decision to enter into the fray will permanently brand us as that "homophobic church" and make it almost impossible for some to receive the gospel, just as being branded as a "racist church" makes it very difficult for us to effectively share the Gospel with African Americans. In my view, this was an "unforced error," but let's hope that history proves me wrong (as usual).

 

ah well I was a missionary in LA when the whole Prop 22 and as I recall that whole engagement was voluntary. I don't recall hearing about it from the pulpit but only really hearing about it from the membership and who knows what was said was even true

 

we'll see!

[jaxenro]

Soliciting our support of Prop 8 MAY turn out to be something that "leads the Church astray." I suspect that our decision to enter into the fray will permanently brand us as that "homophobic church" and make it almost impossible for some to receive the gospel, just as being branded as a "racist church" makes it very difficult for us to effectively share the Gospel with African Americans. In my view, this was an "unforced error," but let's hope that history proves me wrong (as usual).

This would probably help rather than hurt in many of the countries the Church has missionaries in, especially Africa and South America. I doubt it would hurt as much as you think in the US for two reasons one being that outside Church circles it isn't as widely commented on as you think (I am a political junkie and was barely aware of it) and two the church is fairly conservative on other areas and people who would be turned off by this would likely be turned off by that as well. If I remember prop 8 passed didn't it? So backing it wa not exactly thd minorit position

[mormonnewb]

This would probably help rather than hurt in many of the countries the Church has missionaries in, especially Africa and South America. I doubt it would hurt as much as you think in the US for two reasons one being that outside Church circles it isn't as widely commented on as you think (I am a political junkie and was barely aware of it) and two the church is fairly conservative on other areas and people who would be turned off by this would likely be turned off by that as well. If I remember prop 8 passed didn't it? So backing it wa not exactly thd minorit position

It's interesting how much of a minority position Prop 8 has become in just 5 years. In 2008, it passed with 52% of the vote. Yet, a recent poll of likely CA voters finds that 64% now approve of SSM.

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012

At this rate, in another five years, it will be just us and Westboro Baptist Church on this side of the issue.

And no, I'm not equating us with them, but others will. While I share your sentiment that the rest of the world doesn't think of us nearly as often as we think they do, it's amazing what things "stick" with people.

When I told my aunt that I joined the Church, her first question was, "They let black people join?" She didn't know ANYTHING about the Church. She had never heard of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. She didn't even understand the priesthood ban issue since she thought that blacks couldn't even join the Church.

She once heard at some point that the Mormons had some racist policy and that stuck with her. My prayer is that people don't make the same association with us and Prop 8.

[Calm]

At this rate, in another five years, it will be just us and Westboro Baptist Church on this side of the issue.

I don't see the Catholic Church moving on the issue myself.

[mormonnewb]

I don't see the Catholic Church moving on the issue myself.

The Church itself need not move but the members will move and just not spill the beans to the Pope, like with birth control. The Church is still officially opposed to birth control but most American Catholics quietly ignore this counsel. I can imagine the same dynamic with regards to SSM. The Catholic Church will officially oppose SSM, but the members will choose to politely ignore this counsel as support Its legality.

[cinepro]

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

Elder Uchtdorf

I would take this to mean we should pray, ponder, think and the rest to come to a personal confirmation of thd truth not that we should try to correct the GA's. In short not to rely on blind obedience but try to come to a personal testimony of the teachings they are imparting.

If you believe in the teachings of the Church then they are called to receive revelation for the Church we are not, unless a poster here is a member of the Twelve or First Presidency? What you are entitled to receive as personal revelation is a confirmation of their teachings not a correction of their teachings.

It is the same with the Book of Mormon. All of us, members or not, is entitled to receive personal revelation as to the truthfulness of the book but none of is entitled to receive revelation to correct it

 

That's an excellent summary of the Church's teachings on what it means when we are told to "search, ponder and pray". 

 

 

 

Here's how it actually works in a flowchart.  It's fun to pretend that the "No" node leads to a box titled "You don't have to believe it then."  But it doesn't.