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

[JLHPROF]

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."

 

Evil speaking = saying bad things about someone, not disagreeing with them.  (Matt 5:22)

Lord's anointed = Debatable, but I like to consider it to mean anyone who has been endowed.

[HappyJackWagon]

Evil speaking = saying bad things about someone, not disagreeing with them.  (Matt 5:22)

Lord's anointed = Debatable, but I like to consider it to mean anyone who has been endowed.

Evil Speaking does Not mean disagreeing with someone but I do agree that it would include casting aspersions on a persons character or bearing false witness in other ways.

Lord's anointed- I agree

[SmileyMcGee]

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.

That's not splitting hairs. It is something that needs to be defined. I for one see nothing wrong with disagreeing with, criticizing, or even denouncing any beliefs or teachings that come from the 15. They are fallible. They have and do make mistakes and have taught falsehoods. They are not above criticism just like every other person on this earth. no one should be reproved for openly disagreeing with or criticizing them.

[EllenMaksoud]

 

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? In otherwords these two quotes are in opposition to each other and yet they are both shared by lds "quasi official sources" Is one wrong or both wrong?

• “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.)

or this

• We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, 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, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows,would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right, with himself to the favor of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was a place found for it among men. 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 to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions - Millenial Star 1852 edition =XIV - Page 594

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

But I find it happens more often than we think and in instances where it is seemingly approved. For example Neal Rappleye who recently wrote a few letters to Jeremy Runnels. (By the way Neal, if you read this, those were well done and I felt were done mostly with charity and civility. Thank you as it made them a pleasure to read and I found them very helpful) In the Article Neal says this

• """In your response to FairMormon you insist that “170+ year Mormon teaching” was not based on an assumption. Again, I remind you that I am not interested in saddling the Book of Mormon with generations of tradition, regardless of who it came from. You may personally struggle with the idea that several prophets and apostles were mistaken for a long time, but it does not really bother me. I reject the hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography, and the idea that Lehi’s Clan are the exclusive ancestors of all Native Americans because I feel that sound textual analysis and interpretation forces us to reject those conclusions.32 Can you engage that analysis rather than lean on tradition? While I do not feel bound by any long-held tradition, it does seem worth pointing out that there really is not a unanimous 170+ year consensus on this topic, as you imply. Several Latter-day Saints, including leaders from both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, have expressed views about the limited scope of Book of Mormon geography, and about the Book of Mormon peoples being among others in the Americas. Matt Roper has traced the intellectual tradition for limited geography and “others” in the land both all the way back to the 1840s.""" ( on the part about DNA)

Neal seems to be stating plainly that prophets and leaders were wrong in their statements at times. He is not offering his view as an alternative but rather that they were simply wrong and he is even saying on what issue they were wrong on.

 

Since the Church has not taken any official stance on how big a group the lamanites were is he not presuming to be right and saying so publicly when the Church has not itself acknowledged it is wrong. Even the altered heading of "among " their ancestors still doesn't shoot down a prior held view of a leader but rather gives other views room to be explored.

 

What makes one person WRONG by saying a leader is wrong and another member says so with approval? Is it tone? Is it that one leader is living and another deceased? Is it that one defends the gospel in doing so while another perhaps tries to validate the doubter's frustration?

 

If we arrive at any answer that defends one instance and shoots down other instances, than it is really wrong to criticize the view of a leader?   And if it is truly wrong to do so irregardless, than what does that say about all the apolgetic arguments that do so?  If it is a judgement call, then who judges?

 

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"

 

First, perhaps you would want to prayerfully ask yourself if you have an issue with authority. I most certainly DO have an issue with authority and obedience, and I make no excuse for it. The one issue I have with "them" became mute when I realized that I might not do for me what I want them to do for me. So, what is left? Heart felt obedience, and meek service. I'm supposed to learn to be meek !?! What?

 

As to certain other divisive issues, since the beginning many people have died over religious issues. In the Old Testament, being murdered was the retirement plan for God's prophets. Think about all the burnings at the stake, the Inquisition, what they tried to do to Martin Luther, and what they did to Wycliffe and others. Finally, think about what happened to Joseph Smith, his obedience and his disobedience. I'll never understand, or believe in his use of polygamy after reading the book of Jacob 2:23-30.  However, his vision and leadership early in the church is unquestionable.

 

Often those persecuted suffer while they learn profound things from God. Suffering injustice is never just that. With it comes knowledge that we might not ever acquire otherwise.

[JAHS]

That's not splitting hairs. It is something that needs to be defined. I for one see nothing wrong with disagreeing with, criticizing, or even denouncing any beliefs or teachings that come from the 15. They are fallible. They have and do make mistakes and have taught falsehoods. They are not above criticism just like every other person on this earth. no one should be reproved for openly disagreeing with or criticizing them.

"no one should be reproved for openly disagreeing with or criticizing them. "

 

That's fine if you don't want a temple recommend.  Disagreeing is OK; it's the "openly" part that is not acceptable.  Normally all 15 of the prophets will not agree on something that one of them says that is wrong  and they will quickly make a correction if needed/ That's why there's 15 of them.

[DBMormon]

First, perhaps you would want to prayerfully ask yourself if you have an issue with authority. I most certainly DO have an issue with authority and obedience, and I make no excuse for it. The one issue I have with "them" became mute when I realized that I might not do for me what I want them to do for me. So, what is left? Heart felt obedience, and meek service. I'm supposed to learn to be meek !?! What?

 

As to certain other divisive issues, since the beginning many people have died over religious issues. In the Old Testament, being murdered was the retirement plan for God's prophets. Think about all the burnings at the stake, the Inquisition, what they tried to do to Martin Luther, and what they did to Wycliffe and others. Finally, think about what happened to Joseph Smith, his obedience and his disobedience. I'll never understand, or believe in his use of polygamy after reading the book of Jacob 2:23-30.  However, his vision and leadership early in the church is unquestionable.

 

Often those persecuted suffer while they learn profound things from God. Suffering injustice is never just that. With it comes knowledge that we might not ever acquire otherwise.

 

Due to past experiences.... yes I do have an issue with authority.  I have been ecclesiastically abused by a former local leader.  So some of my tension is rooted in those experiences.

[thesometimesaint]

I think a lot depends on how we disagree. Not the mere fact they we disagree. IE; I joined the Church in 1971 and got my TR one year later. I never made any bones about my disagreeing with blacks and the Priesthood issue. By the same token I never called into question the Truth Claims of the Church either.

[ksfisher]

That's not splitting hairs. It is something that needs to be defined. I for one see nothing wrong with disagreeing with, criticizing, or even denouncing any beliefs or teachings that come from the 15. They are fallible. They have and do make mistakes and have taught falsehoods. They are not above criticism just like every other person on this earth. no one should be reproved for openly disagreeing with or criticizing them.

 

I wouldn't want to take it upon myself to criticize the apostles.  As fallible as they may be I would imagine that I'm even more fallible.  I'm going to work on removing beams before I go looking for motes in their eyes.

[EllenMaksoud]

Due to past experiences.... yes I do have an issue with authority.  I have been ecclesiastically abused by a former local leader.  So some of my tension is rooted in those experiences.

To that I can not speak. The local folk have all been loving and kind to me.

 

I do not think the church has a good oversight mechanism. That is only my opinion and I will not be starting a movement to protest.

 

I was disgusted that they did not obey their own operating documents, but the issue has burned out and lacks fuel now. I suppose I could write a letter to SLC, but who would I send it to, and the existence of said letter would be proof that I do not believe in the power of prayer. And, I never interact with anyone but the local folk and they are kind to me, so what is there to complain about?

[Bob Crockett]

your post is weird

Well, thanks! Feel fortunate that I don't take it personally although it was probably meant to be.

[Guest]

Simple fact is this...if someone follows anyone in something they know to be in error; the sin will rest on both parties.

[ksfisher]

Some better understanding about who the Lord's annointed includes and what evil speaking is could bring clarity, don't you think?

 

Kind of like the young man or young woman who goes to their bishop wanting to know exactly how far is too far to go.

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, thanks! Feel fortunate that I don't take it personally although it was probably meant to be.

Would you like to address the accusations you aimed at me? PM me if you really think I'm someone you know.

Edited October 10, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[Bob Crockett]

Tell us who you are and then I will tell you if I think you are someone else.

Really now, are you in a position to get upset about an identity where you post anonymously?

[Buckeye]

Tell us who you are and then I will tell you if I think you are someone else.

Really now, are you in a position to get upset about an identity where you post anonymously?

 

I'll spill the beans.  His real name is fletch.  Mine is Shaun ... the sheep.

 

Edit to add:  More to the point, if you dislike anonymous posting so much, why do you bother with boards like this where the majority are anonymous?

Edited October 10, 2014 by Buckeye

[Bob Crockett]

Well then, because his name is Fletch he has my apologies.

I like to engage with the minority of posters who are not timorous. I like to challenge the fearful.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tell us who you are and then I will tell you if I think you are someone else.

Really now, are you in a position to get upset about an identity where you post anonymously?

My name is Mola Ram. I really like hearts.

 

Do you really think I am some one else?

[Bob Crockett]

Mr. Ram, nice to meet you. I am Bob.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mr. Ram, nice to meet you. I am Bob.

Psup Bob. Do you like Thai food?

 

Would you eat it in a car? Would you eat it at a bar?

Edited October 10, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[HappyJackWagon]

Well then, because his name is Fletch he has my apologies.

I like to engage with the minority of posters who are not timorous. I like to challenge the fearful.

Timorous? You're really smart.

 

Even if you mistake me for someone I'm not it sounds like a really good story brewing with this cop frenemy of yours in the stake. I'd ask you to share but I'm a little to fearful.

 

PS- my name isn't really Fletch. I just play him on TV. Shhhh.

 

 

Also, next time you see this guy in the stake, you should just go ahead and mention this conversation. I'm sure that will go really well.

Edited October 10, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[Mystery Meat]

Here is how I view the topic:

 

When I listen to Conference, I assume everything I hear, as a general rule, is correct. There are some things I hear and I don't necessarily agree with. In such case, it usually involves a very trivial detail and I pay it no mind. When the 1st Presidency and 12 are united I rest assured they are right, and obtain such a confirmation for myself.

 

If you still think the united voice is wrong, I would advise you to tread carefully, and I certainly wouldn't try to voice such an opinion in opposition, either anonymously or publicly. Trying to advocate for change and win followers to your holy crusade is beyond your calling and your role. If you are right and the Lord wants the Brethren to be right he can tell them as much. That is how the Priesthood and Priesthood keys work. There is nothing (and I mean nothing) in their lives that is stopping them from receiving such corrective counsel when the LORD (not you or me) sees fit.

[JLHPROF]

Simple fact is this...if someone follows anyone in something they know to be in error; the sin will rest on both parties.

 

And neither will be "blessed" for it.

 

There is only one sin that brought any kind of blessings to anyone - and that was a while ago.

Edited October 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Bob Crockett]

Timorous? You're really smart.

Even if you mistake me for someone I'm not it sounds like a really good story brewing with this cop frenemy of yours in the stake. I'd ask you to share but I'm a little to fearful.

PS- my name isn't really Fletch. I just play him on TV. Shhhh.

Also, next time you see this guy in the stake, you should just go ahead and mention this conversation. I'm sure that will go really well.

Ooops. Well you have my apologies for making a bad assumption.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Timorous? You're really smart.

Timorous = anonymous. Who knew?

[mfbukowski]

 

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? In otherwords these two quotes are in opposition to each other and yet they are both shared by lds "quasi official sources" Is one wrong or both wrong?

• “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.)

or this

• We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, 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, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows,would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right, with himself to the favor of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was a place found for it among men. 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 to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions - Millenial Star 1852 edition =XIV - Page 594

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

But I find it happens more often than we think and in instances where it is seemingly approved. For example Neal Rappleye who recently wrote a few letters to Jeremy Runnels. (By the way Neal, if you read this, those were well done and I felt were done mostly with charity and civility. Thank you as it made them a pleasure to read and I found them very helpful) In the Article Neal says this

• """In your response to FairMormon you insist that “170+ year Mormon teaching” was not based on an assumption. Again, I remind you that I am not interested in saddling the Book of Mormon with generations of tradition, regardless of who it came from. You may personally struggle with the idea that several prophets and apostles were mistaken for a long time, but it does not really bother me. I reject the hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography, and the idea that Lehi’s Clan are the exclusive ancestors of all Native Americans because I feel that sound textual analysis and interpretation forces us to reject those conclusions.32 Can you engage that analysis rather than lean on tradition? While I do not feel bound by any long-held tradition, it does seem worth pointing out that there really is not a unanimous 170+ year consensus on this topic, as you imply. Several Latter-day Saints, including leaders from both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, have expressed views about the limited scope of Book of Mormon geography, and about the Book of Mormon peoples being among others in the Americas. Matt Roper has traced the intellectual tradition for limited geography and “others” in the land both all the way back to the 1840s.""" ( on the part about DNA)

Neal seems to be stating plainly that prophets and leaders were wrong in their statements at times. He is not offering his view as an alternative but rather that they were simply wrong and he is even saying on what issue they were wrong on.

 

Since the Church has not taken any official stance on how big a group the lamanites were is he not presuming to be right and saying so publicly when the Church has not itself acknowledged it is wrong. Even the altered heading of "among " their ancestors still doesn't shoot down a prior held view of a leader but rather gives other views room to be explored.

 

What makes one person WRONG by saying a leader is wrong and another member says so with approval? Is it tone? Is it that one leader is living and another deceased? Is it that one defends the gospel in doing so while another perhaps tries to validate the doubter's frustration?

 

If we arrive at any answer that defends one instance and shoots down other instances, than it is really wrong to criticize the view of a leader?   And if it is truly wrong to do so irregardless, than what does that say about all the apolgetic arguments that do so?  If it is a judgement call, then who judges?

 

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"

 

I have not read the rest of this thread yet, but

 

JUST THINK OF THE LOGIC HERE.

 

We believe that the only way we can know the "church is true" is by personal revelation, Right?

 

Personal revelation can tell us the "truth of all things, right"?

 

Do we believe that or don't we???   Isn't that basic to our entire understanding of the gospel?

 

IF THEN OUR PERSONAL REVELATION TELLS US THAT SOME GENERAL AUTHORITY IS WRONG- WHAT SHALL WE FOLLOW?

 

Obviously our personal revelation!!

 

It is the only way we can know the truth!!! 

 

THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH ITSELF TEACHES.

 

So where's the issue here??  It's a no-brainer!

 

THERE CAN BE NO WAY TO "VERIFY" THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW A GENERAL AUTHORITY AGAINST PERSONAL REVELATION - BECAUSE TO VERIFY THAT PRINCIPLE WE WOULD HAVE TO USE PERSONAL REVELATION.

 

which would be self-contradictory.

 

and that's about all I have to say on the subject.   Pardon the yelling but this has all been said before an been unnoticed.