Follow The Prophet When He Is Wrong? And Other Questions On Dissent

[JLHPROF]

A few additional points. Sorry.

 

First, I do not believe the teachings that God will not allow a prophet to lead the people astray. That strikes me as a denial of agency. Christ could have failed in his mission. So why not a prophet? Moreover, prophets failed in times past.

 

When I hear the saying that the Lord won't allow a prophet to lead the church astray, I hear the promise that the church won't again fall into apostasy-that it will remain the Lord's church until He comes again.

 

I do not believe there will be a second restoration.

 

This depends on the definition of "astray".

 

Bluebell is 100% right that the apostasy of the Church will never be so complete as to require another restoration. We've been promised that.

However, the scriptures tell us that the Church WILL be out of order prior to the return of Christ and a setting in order will have to occur.  This is because, as Buckeye put it, the leaders will have made some mistakes.

 

It's all a question of degrees.  The gospel and the authority to administer it will never be taken from the earth again.  But there will be things that will have to be set in order.  (The Law of Consecration being a classic example.)  And we know that it will start with any issues with the temple ordinances.

[bluebell]

I could actually believe that ... provided it came from God rather than the prophet. But "astray" means something less than "over the cliff." When I've heard the phrase used it is suggested to mean the prophet can't teach anything incorrect, not just that the prophet can't cause the church to lose the keys of the kingdom.

I also don't believe there will be a second restoration. But I believe that because I believe in the Mormon people, not because I believe God has taken away our agency.

If God wanted to tell us He would never let the prophet lead the church astray, how would He do so?

[SmileyMcGee]

Pretty much. The counsel is that the Prophet will not lead us astray. They will not lead us away from exaltation. That may mean the prophet is wrong about a few minor things but so what? We are all wrong about pretty much everything in life.

I think we could assemble a list of major things they got wrong too...

[The Nehor]

I think we could assemble a list of major things they got wrong too...

 

And which of them would damn you?

[Buckeye]

If God wanted to tell us He would never let the prophet lead the church astray, how would He do so?

 

Angel, still small voice, lots of other ways. He could even do it through spiritual confirmation of the prophet saying so. But it can't be just because the prophet says it.

[Buckeye]

And which of them would damn you?

 

If by "damn" we mean "hinder progression," then probably most all of the mistakes. At least the mistakes big enough to matter. Blacks were "damned" by the priesthood/temple restriction. In a real sense, whites were too.

[bluebell]

But it can't be just because the prophet says it.

I'm not sure scripture supports this teaching.

[The Nehor]

If by "damn" we mean "hinder progression," then probably most all of the mistakes. At least the mistakes big enough to matter. Blacks were "damned" by the priesthood/temple restriction. In a real sense, whites were too.

 

Were they? I disagree.

 

While the ban/policy/condition/whatever caused a lot of pain it also caused some growth. I am certainly in no position to judge whether it was worth it.

[phaedrus ut]

I admired the dissidents within the church that actively spoke out against the pre1978 racial policies concerning blacks.  Many were disciplined and excommunicated for their behavior.  If you see racism, sexism, prejudice, intolerance, or hate in the world speak up.  Those behaviors shouldn't enjoy the endorsement of your silence.

 

 

Phaedrus

[DBMormon]

And which of them would damn you?

what could they do in theory that would damn you?  in otherwords is that an excuse that we can always use even in extremes.  I don't know about damn but hurt, damage, marginalize, ostrasize... those have all been done by theories and policies upheld by leaders.  What do you see as serious enough to be called "damning"

Edited October 9, 2014 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I admired the dissidents within the church that actively spoke out against the pre1978 racial policies concerning blacks.  Many were disciplined and excommunicated for their behavior.  If you see racism, sexism, prejudice, intolerance, or hate in the world speak up.  Those behaviors shouldn't enjoy the endorsement of your silence.

 

 

Phaedrus

I have read comments by the two I know who were excommunicated for speaking out against the ban, talk about intolerance!  They are great examples of that.

[SmileyMcGee]

And which of them would damn you?

Technically, any of them....

[The Nehor]

what could they do in theory that would damn you?  in otherwords is that an excuse that we can always use even in extremes.  I don't know about damn but hurt, damage, marginalize, ostrasize... those have all been done by theories and policies upheld by leaders.  What do you see as serious enough to be called "damning"

 

It can do those but that as far as I am concerned is just part of life.

 

 

Technically, any of them....

 

Maybe, but I suspect Jesus cares enough about us following the counsels of the prophets that he will fix those problems.

[Buzzard]

I have read comments by the two I know who were excommunicated for speaking out against the ban, talk about intolerance!  They are great examples of that.

Who was exed besides the guy up in WA who baptized and ordained a black person a few years before the ban was rescinded? It's old news, I am just unaware of anyone other than one person.

[Calm]

Wallace, can't remember first or last name was the one who ordained a man; the other was Bryon or Brian Marchant or something like that. Probably can find the names by doing a search on priesthood ban and Wallace.

[Rain]

 

 

2) Do I have a special role in the church that limits or requires my speech? I have been in counselor positions where I am privy to a decision making process. In such instances I have an obligation to speak my mind, especially when I disagree.  But once a decision has been made, I also have an obligation to avoid undermining it by my speech to others. In the rare event (I've never experienced this) that a decision is made which I believe is contrary to God's will (rather that just different from my view), I believe I would be obligated to resign my position and voice my dissent to the those in authority above me.  In very very rare circumstances (say the bishop I serve under says he's going to kill sister smith) I may also voice warning to others, but in such a situation I would expect to that I, the person I oppose, or both, would be viewed in apostasy. In other words, it would only happen if I were willing to break my bonds with the decision maker.

 

That is pretty much how I feel.  There have been callings I have been asked to do that didn't feel right at the start.  I pondered over them.  I prayed about them.  I made sure I was willing to do what the Lord wanted.  There have been other things as well that I have pondered over.  Every time, when I was willing to do what the Lord wanted then I felt peace about the thing being right or the leader ended up agreeing with me that it wasn't right.  

 

That being willing to know what the Lord wants and to do it has sometimes been a tough thing for me.  It all came to a head on one particular issue.  Was the church wrong on this matter or not?  It mattered because I needed to make a choice based on if the church was wrong or not.  I knew this would be a huge issue for me. It was essential for me to know what the Lord wanted. 

 

So I took time to prepare myself.  If the church was wrong could I stay in the church? I believed I couldn't because I would have to teach directly opposite from what the church said.  Was there a possibility that would cause trouble in my marriage?  Yes, definitely.  If we ended up getting divorced what would I do? After a long series of possibilities I realized that I could end up in the streets, dying from a lack of meds and cold exposure.  Likely?  No.  Not likely at all, but if I really wanted to make sure I was in tune with the Lord I would need to know what the possible consequences were  to this choice of following the prophet.  It took awhile for me to get to the point where I felt I could follow the Lord even if it meant I lost everything.   

 

Then I prayed.  To my relief the answer came that the church was right on how I should follow this counsel. But advice from the Lord also came from it that showed me just how deeply the Lord loved each one of us, even those who were not following the the prophet's counsel  and that if I really understood the Lord in this matter it would mean I should love all his children more than I had been doing.   

[Robert F. Smith]

I have raised this issue before though I never feel like an answer is clearly given.

Do I need to follow a prophet when I think they are wrong?

After prayer and due consideration, you must follow your own conscience.  Why is that so hard to understand?  It is always true.  Brigham used to complain about Mormons who followed his counsel without finding out for themselves whether what he said was the will of God.

 

............................................................

 

Also in terms of speaking publicly when you disagree with a leader. Many seem to say that is an absolute no-no.

...........................................................................

Is there a difference between criticizing a leader and publicly disagreeing with what they teach or say?

This is an important issue for many who struggle who feel they must do so silently as any effort to share why they are struggling is met with a "do not criticize leaders"

For those who have taken a sacred temple oath not to speak ill of the Brethren, the problem is not the negative speech, but the violation of one's sacred oath.  It is an excommunicable offense.

 

One is certainly always able to complain to the one of the Brethren directly and privately.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I always feel safe and trusting when listening to the prophet.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

For those who have taken a sacred temple oath not to speak ill of the Brethren, the problem is not the negative speech, but the violation of one's sacred oath.  It is an excommunicable offense.

 

I think you misunderstand what evil speaking of the Lord's annointed means. We do not covenant to that we will not disagree or voice opposing views to the brethren.

 

We must define what is "evil speaking" and who are the "lord's annointed."

 

 

Edited October 10, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[Bob Crockett]

I think you misunderstand what evil speaking of the Lord's annointed means. We do not covenant to that we will not disagree or voice opposing views to the brethren.

 

We must define what is "evil speaking" and who are the "lord's annointed."

Splitting hairs isn't all that impressive an argument.

I have had lots of Church leaders I think are kinda terrible, for one reason or another, just as I think some of my law partners might be terrible. But I figure I'm here to sustain them and help make them better, and not tear them down in public as such would be a violation of my oath.

[HappyJackWagon]

Splitting hairs isn't all that impressive an argument.

I have had lots of Church leaders I think are kinda terrible, for one reason or another, just as I think some of my law partners might be terrible. But I figure I'm here to sustain them and help make them better, and not tear them down in public as such would be a violation of my oath.

When someone says that disagreeing with a leader is an excommunicable offense because we've made covenants to do something we really haven't covenanted to do, then I think that is a problem. Some better understanding about who the Lord's annointed includes and what evil speaking is could bring clarity, don't you think?

[Bob Crockett]

When someone says that disagreeing with a leader is an excommunicable offense because we've made covenants to do something we really haven't covenanted to do, then I think that is a problem. Some better understanding about who the Lord's annointed includes and what evil speaking is could bring clarity, don't you think?

It is disingenuous to demand that it be spelled out for you. This is not the place to have it spelled out to you. Your bishop can do it.

What's the big deal? You feel compelled to anonymously criticize church leaders? Why? [i know you claim to be a cop and in my stake and have torn into my personal reputation for years on the other board, anonymously. You are probably one of my friends whom I respect and deal with on occasion, somebody I think would make a good bishop. Surely you can tell the difference between evil speaking and nice speaking. If they're in the priesthood structure over you, be nice, is my guide. Even if they do silly things. I get all annoyed when some priesthood leader talks about revelation as a means to find lost keys or a lost wallet, but why get exercised about it?]

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[HappyJackWagon]

It is disingenuous to demand that it be spelled out for you. This is not the place to have it spelled out to you. Your bishop can do it.

What's the big deal? You feel compelled to anonymously criticize church leaders? Why? [i know you claim to be a cop and in my stake and have torn into my personal reputation for years on the other board, anonymously. You are probably one of my friends whom I respect and deal with on occasion, somebody I think would make a good bishop. Surely you can tell the difference between evil speaking and nice speaking. If they're in the priesthood structure over you, be nice, is my guide. Even if they do silly things. I get all annoyed when some priesthood leader talks about revelation as a means to find lost keys or a lost wallet, but why get exercised about it?]

I am totally baffled by your post. Are you suggesting we know each other somehow and that I've criticized you on another board?

 

1- I don't know you and you don't know me

2- It is not disingenous to disagree with someone on a board like this when they claim temple covenants that aren't accurate.

Edited October 10, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[DBMormon]

It is disingenuous to demand that it be spelled out for you. This is not the place to have it spelled out to you. Your bishop can do it.

What's the big deal? You feel compelled to anonymously criticize church leaders? Why? [i know you claim to be a cop and in my stake and have torn into my personal reputation for years on the other board, anonymously. You are probably one of my friends whom I respect and deal with on occasion, somebody I think would make a good bishop. Surely you can tell the difference between evil speaking and nice speaking. If they're in the priesthood structure over you, be nice, is my guide. Even if they do silly things. I get all annoyed when some priesthood leader talks about revelation as a means to find lost keys or a lost wallet, but why get exercised about it?]

your post is weird

[Buckeye]

your post is weird

 

It's still early on the west coast.