Blessed For Doing Wrong?

[JLHPROF]

I was looking back over some old threads and came across the one discussing the infamous "the thinking has been done" quote from Heber J. Grant.  I think that thread (and the fairmormon wiki answer) pretty much dealt with that topic.

But it reminded me of another fascinating Heber J. Grant quote.

 

 

“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.’” (Heber J. Grant speaking to Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960)

 

So is this something we in the Church can agree with today?  He may have said it as a joke and it refers to prophetic infallability or leading us astray, but that's not the topic I want to discuss. 

 

My question is does "I was only following orders" work when we stand before God.  If our leaders asked us to do something that we felt was wrong morally, doctrinally, spiritually or whatever, should we still do it?  Will we be blessed for our obedience to a sinful request?  This could apply to numerous situations in scripture and Church History.  Should we follow a commandment that is wrong?

 

Thoughts?

[strappinglad]

And just what type of sinful request would you expect to have issued? It's been a long time since any prophet ordered the people to kill everything in our path or to steal from our neighbors or to do some other despicable act. Let's see, what terrible things have we been admonished to do recently? Love your neighbor?, Serve your community?, Pray for those who despitefully use you?, Do your genealogy?, Read the scriptures?, Just have one set of earrings? Oh, the horror!

[JLHPROF]

And just what type of sinful request would you expect to have issued? It's been a long time since any prophet ordered the people to kill everything in our path or to steal from our neighbors or to do some other despicable act. Let's see, what terrible things have we been admonished to do recently? Love your neighbor?, Serve your community?, Pray for those who despitefully use you?, Do your genealogy?, Read the scriptures?, Just have one set of earrings? Oh, the horror!

 

Ok, just for kicks, let's use two of the current "hot topics" (but that's not really the point).

Suppose you truly believe SSM is sin, 100%, always has been and always will be.  And then for whatever reason the President of the Church asked you to perform a same sex sealing (perhaps he had a revelation and you question the validity). 

 

Or perhaps you truly believe that it is outside the eternal order of things for women to be ordained as Elders.  And then for whatever reason the President of the Church asked you to ordain a woman to be an Elder (perhaps he had a revelation and you question the validity).

 

Pick your issue.  Maybe the President of the Church announces the restoration of Polygamy and you're one of those members who believe that it was a mistake or sin the first time around.  Would you live it if you thought it was sinful?

 

It's the principle -will you be blessed for doing something you think is sinful?

[Kenngo1969]

I once alluded to something Tal Bachman said when Helen Whitney interviewed him for her documentary, The Mormons in my signature line.  I believe Bachman said that if his mission president had asked him to strap on a bomb, he would have done it (or words to that effect).  In response (and this is what I put in my signature line), I said, "Read your scriptures, strap on a bomb.  It's all the same to us!"  People have been trying for nearly 157 years, for example, to lay primary blame for what happened at Mountain Meadows directly at President Brigham Young's doorstep.  (They've done so without success, in my book; your mileage may vary.  I love the stilted line from the smash-hit flick, September Dawn September Yawn September Bomb, "Mormons, do yer duty!!!!" )  Someone will have to come up with something plausible a prophet might ask of me that goes well beyond, "Read your scriptures" in order for the scenario to even be worth discussing at length.  (No disrespect, of course. )

Edited July 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[strappinglad]

As a fallible saint, I don't do a few things that the Prophet asks me to do NOW, so I suppose it is possible that there will be some things in the future that I won't do, even if I have a better excuse.

[The Nehor]

My question is does "I was only following orders" work when we stand before God.  If our leaders asked us to do something that we felt was wrong morally, doctrinally, spiritually or whatever, should we still do it?  Will we be blessed for our obedience to a sinful request?  This could apply to numerous situations in scripture and Church History.  Should we follow a commandment that is wrong?

 

Thoughts?

 

We don't have to deal with the hypothetical. Note that President Grant's last line says it won't happen.

[Glenn101]

My question is does "I was only following orders" work when we stand before God.  If our leaders asked us to do something that we felt was wrong morally, doctrinally, spiritually or whatever, should we still do it?  Will we be blessed for our obedience to a sinful request?  This could apply to numerous situations in scripture and Church History.  Should we follow a commandment that is wrong?

 

Thoughts?

 

There are some things I would question very deeply. I could not commit murder. (Don't bring up Samuel or Nephi, they are a completely different context.) To do anything that goes against the things I have been taught in the Church to be doctrinally true or morally wrong, I would have to have a confirmation from God Himself, unmistakeable, unequivocal. Nothing less would suffice for me.

 

Glenn

[The Nehor]

It is more important to note that the promise of immunity is limited to the Prophet. It does not cover local or regional leaders or even the Apostles.

 

If your Bishop tells you to join a guerilla movement to bring down the government and bring about the Second Coming you may want to consider turning down the counsel and notifying the Stake President.

[Kenngo1969]

We don't have to deal with the hypothetical. Note that President Grant's last line says it won't happen.

And he said it "with a twinkle in his eye."

[CV75]

Ok, just for kicks, let's use two of the current "hot topics" (but that's not really the point).

Suppose you truly believe SSM is sin, 100%, always has been and always will be.  And then for whatever reason the President of the Church asked you to perform a same sex sealing (perhaps he had a revelation and you question the validity). 

 

Or perhaps you truly believe that it is outside the eternal order of things for women to be ordained as Elders.  And then for whatever reason the President of the Church asked you to ordain a woman to be an Elder (perhaps he had a revelation and you question the validity).

 

Pick your issue.  Maybe the President of the Church announces the restoration of Polygamy and you're one of those members who believe that it was a mistake or sin the first time around.  Would you live it if you thought it was sinful?

 

It's the principle -will you be blessed for doing something you think is sinful?

I am immediately blessed by not caring whether the prophet is wrong or not in issuing these directives, or whether my obedience to his directive is sinful or not (part of the immediate blessing is that I can always repent). I don't see that carrying out either directive has any eternal bearing on my personal salvation.

[Alan]

 

My question is does "I was only following orders" work when we stand before God?

 

 

No it won't work.

Can our leaders lead us astray? - Yes they can.

Are they likely to? - No they're not.

If they do, should we follow them? - Absolutely not.

But are there any circumstances when we should follow them? - None whatsoever.

But if we do follow them, will we be blessed for it? - No we won't.

How will we know if they lead us astray? - Vigilance.

[stemelbow]

I was looking back over some old threads and came across the one discussing the infamous "the thinking has been done" quote from Heber J. Grant.  I think that thread (and the fairmormon wiki answer) pretty much dealt with that topic.

But it reminded me of another fascinating Heber J. Grant quote.

 

So is this something we in the Church can agree with today?  He may have said it as a joke and it refers to prophetic infallability or leading us astray, but that's not the topic I want to discuss. 

 

My question is does "I was only following orders" work when we stand before God.  If our leaders asked us to do something that we felt was wrong morally, doctrinally, spiritually or whatever, should we still do it?  Will we be blessed for our obedience to a sinful request?  This could apply to numerous situations in scripture and Church History.  Should we follow a commandment that is wrong?

 

Thoughts?

Its an interesting question. To wit, are we to stand for truth and rightness or are we to put follow as a priority?

In one sense we're told and encouraged to question and learn to get our own conviction of the teachings of our leaders, but in another we're told to just follow and do not question. Not exactly easily balanced.

[USU78]

No it won't work.

Can our leaders lead us astray? - Yes they can.

Are they likely to? - No they're not.

If they do, should we follow them? - Absolutely not.

But are there any circumstances when we should follow them? - None whatsoever.

But if we do follow them, will we be blessed for it? - No we won't.

How will we know if they lead us astray? - Vigilance.

 

The agent doesn't always have all the information his principal does.  Accordingly, he is excused from personal liability for any act taken by him on behalf of his principal that is not obviously wrong/illegal/immoral.  If the principal knows it is wrong/illegal/immoral, but doesn't let the agent know it's wrong/illegal/immoral, the sin is on the principal's head.

 

The same principle applies here:  If GBH had told me to do something not obviously wrong/illegal/immoral and I do it, ignorant of its wrongness/illegality/immorality, the sin is on GBH's head, not mine.

 

I think everybody's jumping to Nuernberg, which is the narrow exception to obedience, which is the general rule.

[CV75]

Its an interesting question. To wit, are we to stand for truth and rightness or are we to put follow as a priority?

In one sense we're told and encouraged to question and learn to get our own conviction of the teachings of our leaders, but in another we're told to just follow and do not question. Not exactly easily balanced.

I don’t think ordaining women, SS”M” and polygamy would be priorities but merely appendages to the Gospel (or as they currently stand, appendages to the anti-gospel).

 

I think the hypotheticals have to be envisioned within the way the Church typically carries out changes in teaching, policy and practice, and not something weird like the prophet going all maverick in defiance of the Lord's revelation and the unanimous testimony of the First Presidency and Twelve.

 

Ordinances impact the salvation of those receiving them far more than the person administering them (presumably he has received his own ordinances, which far transcend his performance of duty). So if the Church was to adopt the ordaining of women, or the performance of same-sex or polygamous sealings when the Lord didn’t authorize them after all, the Lord would correct anyone who served in good faith with the light they had, and punish only the willfully errant.

 

So I think those who just follow, those who don't get a confirmation that the Lord authorized the changes, and those who think they got a confirmation  but didn't would be on the same standing. Each has its challenges and are thankfully commanded not to judge one another or to agitate.

[Garden Girl]

 

I think the hypotheticals have to be envisioned within the way the Church typically carries out changes in teaching, policy and practice, and not something weird like the prophet going all maverick in defiance of the Lord's revelation and the unanimous testimony of the First Presidency and Twelve.

 

This is what I was thinking too... the hypotheticals don't sound realistic at all because it sounds like the Pres of the Church is acting solely on his own... it does not show the Brethren acting as a body or explain how they reached their decision...  There might be a time where... hypothetically... the Church might make an announcement that the Church would start following some practice, say, polygamy... they will explain the process of reaching that position and come out in a united body as they did in the past.  Then, would be the time when personal conscience will either uphold and sustain the action, or the member would have to choose not to obey or accept.

 

GG

[Kenngo1969]

Notwithstanding what I say above (although I still believe it), I'd like to qualify my statement a bit.  Could a prophet ask me to do something I found uncomfortable, unsettling, or difficult (short of murder/suicide bombing )?  Sure.  My approach to verifying that that's what God wants me to do, however, would not change: I'd still fast; I'd still pray; I'd still ponder; and once I received confirmation, I would go forward.  Would plural marriage be difficult?  Sure, but, as I always say, "Ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!"  The crucibles of our time in the Church of Jesus Christ, however (as can plainly be seen by the currency of these issues in the media and the Church's response to them), are same-sex marriage and women's issues/women and the Priesthood.  I don't really have "a dog in either of those fights," so it's relatively easy for me to say, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.  But as for me and my house, we will follow the Living Prophets, and we will serve the Living God" (see Joshua 24:15).

 

I think there is danger in second-guessing the path the Living Prophets have laid out.  It's one thing to say, "I believe the Restored Gospel is true and that we are led by Living Prophets today.  However ..." And it's another thing entirely to say, "I believe the Restored Gospel is true and that we are led by Living Prophets today.  Therefore ..."  As long as government is in the marriage business (whether it should be or not), is there a legally defensible rationale for limiting marriage to only opposite-sex couples?  Maybe not.  (I see some merit in that argument, however I may feel about it personally.)  But I don't think the Living Prophets can afford to say, "Well, is it legal?  Great!  As long as it's legal, anything goes."  Elder Dallin H. Oaks has made clear that Church leaders simply cannot stick their moistened fingers up to find out which way the legal winds are blowing and act accordingly. I believe that, with the Proclamation on the Family, "The Fifteen" at the time felt the same. 

 

The Brethren have consistently taught that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  While I can see how someone who favors gay marriage (and who hopes that one day, the Church of Jesus Christ will sanction and solemnize gay marriages (or even gay sealings)) would appeal to the Priesthood ban and its lifting as support for that stance, there is one problem with it: there was always a contingent of the Brethren who stated that the ban would be lifted one day; not so with the Church's "ban" on gay marriages/sealings.  Ditto for women and the Priesthood: there has never been a contingent of the Brethren who have taught that the "banning" of women from the Priesthood.  

 

Some people say, "Gosh, it's really a black mark on the history of a Church that claims to be led by continuing revelation that it was so far behind the curve with respect to Civil Rights."  I don't agree with that assessment: maybe it's right; maybe it's wrong.  But this much is certain: the Church's history with regard to blacks and the Priesthood does provide a template for resisting change that the Lord wants nothing to do with (unless and until He says otherwise).  Why was the ban lifted?  Because God said it should be. Why wasn't it lifted before then?  Because, as I understand it, God told President McKay (who was perfectly willing to lift the ban), "Not yet, and don't ask again."

 

So let's consider three issues: (1) Blacks and the Priesthood; (2) Women's ordination; and (3) Gay marriage:

 

1. Have people agitated for the Church to change its stance on all of these issues?  Check!
2. Has such agitation focused less on a "top-down" impetus for such change and more on a "bottom-up" impetus for it? Check!
3. Disregarding the fact that none of the Brethren have ever said that a change allowing for women's ordination or for Church-sanctioned gay marriages/sealings could be expected at some future time (as some Brethren did with respect to ordaining blacks), have people used the latter case as evidence that the former two proposed changes possibly could occur? Check!

As I've also said before, God doesn't care whether we think He's racist, sexist, homophobic, politically incorrect, or otherwise bigoted. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. . . .  As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).  While I'm not indicting anyone in particular here, Lehi's vision of the rod, the path, the tree of life, and the great and spacious building also has currency (see 1 Nephi 8.)  The more time passes, the fuller that building will get, and the louder the mocking will get.  And even some (perhaps many) members of the Church of Jesus Christ will forsake the rod, the path, and the fruit to gain acceptance among its inhabitants.  It's not easy to be mocked by people with whom you would have fellowship as your brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Did we wonder to what he was referring when President Benson wrote his seminal address, Beware of Pride?  After all, back then, there was less divergence between the Church and the world, and much less disagreement (almost none, in fact) among the Saints regarding such issues as women's ordination and gay marriage.  Well, now it's much easier to see what he was writing about, isn't it?  Some excerpts:

 

Pride is essentially competitive in nature. We pit our will against God’s. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of “my will and not thine be done.” As Paul said, they “seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's (Phil. 2:21) . . .

 

The proud stand more in fear of men’s judgment than of God’s judgment. (See D&C 3:6–7; D&C 30:1–2; D&C 60:2.) “What will men think of me?” weighs heavier than “What will God think of me?” . . .

 

Fear of men’s judgment manifests itself in competition for men’s approval. The proud love “the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42–43.) . . . When pride has a hold on our hearts, we lose our independence of the world and deliver our freedoms to the bondage of men’s judgment. The world shouts louder than the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. The reasoning of men overrides the revelations of God, and the proud let go of the iron rod. (See 1 Ne. 8:19–28; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 15:23–24.)

 

 

 

While he was not the Prophet at the time he delivered this address, the same can be said of several of President Benson's Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.  Particularly apropos of this discussion are his fundamentals seven, eight, and nine:

 

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

 

“Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,” complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.” (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)

 

Said President Harold B. Lee:

 

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.)

 

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. “Even in the Church,” said President Kimball, “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.)

 

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

 

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

 

Said President Marion G. Romney, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” And then he gives this illustration:

 

“One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’

 

“Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’

 

“Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.” (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)

 

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

 

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

 

“Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

 

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)

 

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8–9.)

 

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

 

Said Brigham Young:

 

“Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …

 

“In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, ‘Ye Elders of Israel, … will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?’ Not one of them could do it …

 

“I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.” (Journal of Discourses, 10:363–64.)

 

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Walden]

An interesting topic, as it relates directly to some of my final voluntary interactions with the LDS church in the late 1990s. At the time, I was attending a ward in Southern California, around 1998 & 1999. At the time, there was a ballot measure in California to legitimize gay unions (can't exactly remember now whether it was gay marriage or some other "gay rights" issue such as partner benefits, etc.)

 

Anyway, I remember the bishop standing in front of the pulpit, reading a letter from Salt Lake that encouraged members to support the LDS Proclamation on the Family and the church's stance against extending additional rights to gays. It immediately made me uneasy, as I have gay family members and friends. I had recommitted myself at the time to really studying the scriptures and was actively reading the BOM and D&C for the third time. Though I was extremely uncomfortable with the way that the church had encouraged me to vote, I prayed and fasted and studied and decided that no matter how I felt, I would vote as the Lord wanted me to vote. I only asked of the Lord that I be comforted by the spirit with the peace that I had made the right decision. Despite the nagging emotions and lingering guilt, I continued to pray and fast and when the day came, I voted in alignment with the position of the church as communicated to our ward via that letter from Salt Lake. I voted against my personal political and social beliefs, placing them aside in the desire to do what God was asking.

 

But the comfort never came. The peace that I had prayed and fasted for never arrived, even after I had voted per the counsel of church leadership. I had placed my personal desires on the shelf and voted instead in support of church leadership and the council of the prophet as related in that letter.

 

In my experience, I did as the Lord had asked, but I never did feel the peace that was promised, or at least that I had anticipated, in placing the Lords priorities above my own and directly following the council of the prophet.

[CV75]

This is what I was thinking too... the hypotheticals don't sound realistic at all because it sounds like the Pres of the Church is acting solely on his own... it does not show the Brethren acting as a body or explain how they reached their decision...  There might be a time where... hypothetically... the Church might make an announcement that the Church would start following some practice, say, polygamy... they will explain the process of reaching that position and come out in a united body as they did in the past.  Then, would be the time when personal conscience will either uphold and sustain the action, or the member would have to choose not to obey or accept.

 

GG

Yes, otherwise it would be too weird to be true!

[thesometimesaint]

I believe that is covered in our Articles of Faith #2

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

[Tacenda]

Maybe this is way out in left field, but thought it pertinent to this discussion.  I C/P from this website http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

 

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.

Introduction to the Milgram Experiment

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Method Used in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."

Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:

1. "Please continue."
2. "The experiment requires that you continue."
3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
4. "You have no other choice, you must go on."

Results of the Milgram Experiment

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.

Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.

Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

• The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
• The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
• The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
• Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent
• expert.
• The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority" (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.

 

[thesometimesaint]

It's the amps not the volts that count. Anywho; No actual electrical shock was delivered. It is an interesting study on authoritarianism mindset and it effects on perceived disobedience.