Spiritual hubris

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Alma 32 explicitly teaches that as we exercise our faith, our knowledge in some things becomes perfect.

These verses specifically refer to having 'a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness'. They certainly don't preclude knowing other things beforehand. And in fact, in Alma it is taught that even our future 'perfect knowledge' of our guilt is something we will take with us: 'we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt'.

Agreed. Once you know something, there's no point in continuing the questioning. It is necessary, however, to continue to experience the affirmative evidence lest the knowledge fade into the fog of memory.

I don’t think Alma 32 says that, in verses 35-36 it asks if your knowledge will ever become perfect and it says no, and that we need to continue to have faith.  The concept of perfect knowledge and not needing faith are concepts we will never attain to in this life and as I understand Mormon and Christian theology, that is the purpose of mortality to exercise faith in God.  

Again, you can only know something in a very narrow sense, so you won’t keep asking questions about that one narrow thing.  But that’s not what I’m talking about with this OP.  I’m talking about different answers to different prayers with different people and difference circumstances.  If you were ever to get so confident in your ability to discern the spirit that you believe you are 100% capable of understanding the will of God, then I think you’re deceiving yourself and this would be the essence of the hubris that I’m speaking of.  

I might not be fully understanding what you’re saying, so feel free to correct me and elaborate.  Thanks

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I did X and got the promised outcome, so I did it again about 10,000 times, and each time I got the same outcome; I now know that X works.

See David Hume and the Problem of Induction

(short summary: the reasoning you describe, induction, is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning)

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to divorce your questions from an LDS context.  The question is much broader and deals with leaders of all kinds.

All leaders, whether secular or religious exercise their personal judgment, and any might be accused of hybris.  Some give good advice, some fair to middling, and some give atrocious, failed advice.  Does it really make any difference whether you get your advice from Dr. Phil, or from your own mother?  Studies have shown that we only accept advice that meets our expectations and presuppositions anyhow.  Most actions we take as humans are based on our genetic predisposition (instinct), not on our pretended reasons.

When people are simply told what to do, they push back and grouse about it.  When instead a leader recounts his own personal experiences, talking only about how he feels (like a missionary bearing his testimony), it is far more likely to have an impact -- if at all.  Influencing others ain't easy, and most people already have their minds made up, so that facts and logic make no difference at all.

Drunks and drug addicts don't give up their habits just because someone tells them to.  They give up the booze and drugs only when they have hit bottom, and when they hear current or former addicts testify in an AA or NA mtg about their own personal experiences.  Twelve Step programs are successful only because of two primary ingredients:  Calling upon a power greater than oneself, and taking the challenge one day at a time.

You bring up some good points here, this is not a uniquely Mormon problem.  The way people give deference to authority figures is cross cultural and seems like a human tendency.  

The accepting advice only when it meets our expectations, I think is an interesting idea and it might run contrary to my point and also my personal observations.  I wonder if the dynamics at play with religious contexts might create additional pressures that run contrary to the studies you reference.  For example, in the extreme when women were propositioned by Joseph Smith for plural marriage, I don’t think what he was asking them for already met their expectations.  Many accounts the women were shocked and dismayed at first, but for many, when they were asked to pray about it and consider that God wanted them to do this very hard thing and to make a huge sacrifice, many of them chose to polygamy in spite of their abhorrence for the idea.  Perhaps the idea of sacrificing something for God, of doing something very difficult for a higher power, makes a person chose the difficult thing in contradiction to their personal preferences.

In smaller examples I’ve seen this play out with people I know who accepted callings they didn’t want and didn’t feel qualified for. I’ve seen people go on missions when they didn’t feel ready.  I think there may be many different psychological elements at play.  When you introduce this concept that its not a person giving the advice, but its God giving the advice, people will do many extraordinary things.  

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Naturally, if leaders lack adequate faith, they will not be able to calmly dispense advice, aid, and comfort to the needy -- they will always be questioning their own adequacy.  Leadership skills don't come easy, and we are very much in need of reliable leaders in the home (parents), in govt, the military, and the church.  We are a large, complex society, which cannot do without good leaders.  Otherwise we can run amuck, without direction, in anarchic fashion.  I have heard it said that leaders need big egos, and that this can be both good and bad, depending on what other characteristics the leader has.  You really ought to be asking what kind of leadership Jesus exhibited.  Was he sure of himself?  Did he have great faith? Was he a failure or success at leadership?  Then apply the same questions to other leaders of note, from Mohandas Gandhi to Donald Trump.

I completely agree that good leadership is absolutely necessary, that is a slightly different point, but I completely agree with you on the importance of this.  I also think sometimes these leaders will have an element of ego that probably is higher than the general population, and that might not always be a bad thing.  At any rate, I think we know that people like to follow decisive personalities, whether those personalities are always ethical or even competent is often irrelevant.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Lots of good questions. I would characterize myself as a life-long, active member who struggles considerably with understanding what a spiritual prompting actually feels like and how to discern the difference between said prompting and when I am simply "feeling good". Because of this, I privately question many times when others profess confidence that indeed they have been spiritually guided in whatever decision they have made. However,  I silently begrudge them this confidence as there is ultimately no way for me to know their internal experience with the divine.

As it relates to those in leadership providing counsel, the situation can become challenging. I guess I have decided that as long as the leader is not asking too much of me (i.e., standard callings and such) then I'll go along with it. I don't think I've ever had a calling where it has been readily apparent that I needed to get out. I know this happens for some, however. Case in point, our stk president recently called a sister in our ward to be the seminary teacher. He delivered the materials and almost as quickly as she was called she was released presumably because she requested to be released. I also know that the stk president takes very seriously the process of calling members. As one of his high councilmen, I have heard him speak several times about how accepting callings is not simply a question of volunteering oneself up to take the responsibility but rather it is a response to a divinely authorized request to accept that which our Father in Heaven is requesting of us. This is big. It presumes the leader knows every time that his thoughts are indeed inspired. This runs contrary, however, to what I have been told about how many times the spirit does not answer in a timely manner or whether we can always discern such inspiration. Local leadership is typically on a tight schedule. They do not have the luxury of waiting for this surety. Though they will claim indeed they received the needed inspiration, I have to believe that some times this simply is not the case - the calling needs to be filled quickly and they need to move on this before Sunday services. I get it.

If and when I ever find myself in such a leadership calling as bishop or stk president, I'm going to be challenged in this area. I do not want members to think that simply because I said the Lord wants them to step up that they therefore should do so. I know there are many who can return home to seek out personal confirmation of this calling and I know members who will feel as though they never get such answers. Guilt cannot be the driving force behind following the leader's direction and hence, the conundrum.  

These are good comments, thanks for sharing.  Your stake president example is interesting because I think it highlights part of the problem I’m discussing.  If he believes his callings are always inspired by God directly, there is that level of hubris about the importance of the calling, and the source of the calling.  Most members from my experience won’t question callings they are given, and there is not only an underlying assumption that callings are from God, but that declining a calling is a cultural taboo for many.  My parents taught me its a virtue to accept every calling offered.  Realistically though, if we know leaders make mistake and I would say they do so just as often as anyone else, then shouldn’t people question the advice given and not privilege the advice without scrutiny and discernment and personal reflection.  

It seems to me like this idea that honoring leaders and authority as a virtue is completely misplaced and instead has become a stumbling block and an idol at which Mormon culture worships.  We are taught to have faith in the arm of the flesh of fallible humans.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But Alma 32 is explicit that we can have perfect knowledge in that thing. (v34) Likewise 2 Nephi 9:13-14 is just talking about our knowledge of what type of person we were in life which of course only makes sense after our life is finished. It makes no sense to extend that to knowledge in general.

To the second point, while we should recognize that we know something changing contexts can change our answer. To use your example if someone changes in their behaviors - perhaps becoming abusive - then of course the initial answer isn't sufficient. I'd go farther and say that the very nature of belief means that we have to repeat our knowing for it to remain knowledge.

 

If you want to know my personal opinion, I think all knowledge is contextual.  I don’t think there is ever a point at which we know everything about anything.  There is always a continuum.  The whole concept of eternity requires that no knowledge can ever be complete, there will always be opportunity for change and growth.  At any rate, I think that Alma 32:34 is a very narrow application to just that one small thing, but not to a process like getting answer to prayers or interpreting inspiration, those processes will always be unique to each and every circumstance.  

 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

I see advice and counsel as two different things, with counsel arising from a synergistic process that begins with prayer. I think the Lord's pattern is to invite people to experiment and try things that He has proven to Himself to be true, and to thus find out for themselves (John 7:16-18). My post was about counsel. I've been around long enough to be very careful about giving advice, and generally avoid it!

Instruction, teaching, explaining and witnessing are yet other ways to minister to the spiritual needs of others, and each involves slightly different processes. In a formal sit-down they should all acknowledge the Lord's will above all else and begin with prayer. Some can seem more like counseling, or carried out in a manner more similar to counseling than others, and any of these can complement counseling.

Well then, how do you know the counsel you’re giving is God inspired?  What happens when you’re wrong?  What happens when a leader believes they received inspiration for someone and they share that counsel and they were incorrect.  Are you saying this never happens?  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Jesus does not want blind faith placed in Him, either (John 7:16-18). There's an interesting alignment described in D&C 84:36-57 ("For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father"). We begin this alignment when we are baptized and receive the laying on of hands by those with authority; that is how we advance in our relationship with Christ and the Father, with the Holy Ghost facilitating this progress as we receive Him.

The next verses in 43-48 show where this leads, and the confidence the Lord has in those seeking counsel, no matter how much He feels they need to repent: "And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life. For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit. And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father. And the Father teacheth him of the covenant..."

Thanks for sharing, this is interestng that D&C verses. What words come from the mouth of God?  I think mouth of God sounds very specific.  If doesn’t say mouth of a church leader who thinks they are speaking for God, it says mouth of God very specifically.  

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well Alma 32 says we need faith and that our knowledge isn’t perfect, faith is still necessary.  2 Nephi 9:13-14 also perfect knowledge is for the next life.  

You’re applying this concept very narrowly.  It’s like asking God if you should marry someone and then after you’re married and have a fruitful life you continue to ask if you should stay married when all the evidence is positive.  There is no point in that kind of narrow repetition of a question you already have affirmative evidence about.  

Faith is not just some "It feels good so it must be real" response. Faith is the power to act.

[Bobbieaware]

39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Faith is not just some "It feels good so it must be real" response. Faith is the power to act.

Going even further, it can rightly be said that living faith is God’s power imparted to mankind to act his name to do as he does, think as he thinks, and feel as he feels.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

..................................... Perhaps the idea of sacrificing something for God, of doing something very difficult for a higher power, makes a person chose the difficult thing in contradiction to their personal preferences.

In smaller examples I’ve seen this play out with people I know who accepted callings they didn’t want and didn’t feel qualified for. I’ve seen people go on missions when they didn’t feel ready.  I think there may be many different psychological elements at play.  When you introduce this concept that its not a person giving the advice, but its God giving the advice, people will do many extraordinary things.  .........................  

Yes.  People have been called upon to sacrifice for God and country since time immemorial, songs and flags adopted to encourage esprit de corps.

Ah, there's nothing like the bagpipes and a parade to get the blood flowing:  

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well then, how do you know the counsel you’re giving is God inspired?  What happens when you’re wrong?  What happens when a leader believes they received inspiration for someone and they share that counsel and they were incorrect.  Are you saying this never happens?  

The counsel is whatever comes to me, the other person(s) and God as a result of communing together. So, I’m not sure what “wrong” would look like. God accepts our best efforts in the "triumvirate" and watches over the lesser two so things will work out in His timing and with His grace. As I tried to explain, I don’t receive inspiration “for” someone in the counseling process; it simply doesn’t work that way. Now parents may receive inspiration for their children and share it, or a leader may receive inspiration for someone within the scope of his stewardship, but these are not counseling situations.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing, this is interestng that D&C verses. What words come from the mouth of God?  I think mouth of God sounds very specific.  If doesn’t say mouth of a church leader who thinks they are speaking for God, it says mouth of God very specifically.  

Yes, the scripture is about what we do individually vis-à-vis “every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God,” no matter how we hear it, as the mechanisms and media for transmission and relay from His mouth are varied and sundry.

I think this might get to the question of whether external forces act upon our brains and bodies to yield a personal experience. While we can accept that they do (an external blow to the head hurts and can affect thinking), ultimately all such mortal experience is also personal and requires the neurological processes of our brain to have it. Believing in a spirit (or not) doesn’t change that. Where LDS believe that connected spirit and element constitute the person (the soul), there is no telling where one begins and the other ends, or which is contributing what to the person’s experience.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

See David Hume and the Problem of Induction

(short summary: the reasoning you describe, induction, is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning)

Quite right.  However, most people are only dealing with the practical reality of "tried and true methods," not with perfection. For them, far from dealing with Hume, whom they have never heard of anyhow, they are dealing with the more pragmatic challenges of of life, and just getting by the best they can.  Alma 32 recognizes this epistemological process, whereas Moroni advises that one seek special revelation on the Book of Mormon or any other subject.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My views about how the spirit works and what the spirit is have changed in recent years.  I tend to believe that the Holy Ghost is a very personal experience about something that likely is happening within our brain and body and not an external force that acts on us independently.  But whether you believe it is an internal mechanism or external, what I’m wondering about today is the way that these spiritual experiences contribute to how we influence others.  

I’m hoping to get some comments from others about when they’ve used spiritual feelings to try and influence another person to make decisions in their life.  Hopefully some leaders who have people coming to them regularly for advice, such as bishops and stake presidents, could comment about how they’ve handled these situations.  

I have a concern and I’m wondering if others agree with this concern or see it differently.  If spiritual impressions that we have are either just internal impressions based on personal experiences in life and perhaps other higher brain functions and mechanisms we don’t fully understand, or these impressions are coming from an external source influencing us, and we give advice to others based on these spiritual impressions, is that advice problematic if its coming from a church authority with the theological weight that members give to their church leaders?  When a member is taught to honor, respect, sustain a church leader and the authority of an office and even privilege that authority as having access to special spiritual insight from God, the member is placing the words of this authority at a very high status often without critically thinking about the advice, and often with the stigma that questioning might be showing a lack of faith.  

I’d like to know about the experiences of those who’ve given advice in positions of leadership over others in church settings, or even as a parent or other trusted advisor.  Knowing that spiritual impressions can be wrong from personal experiences that I’m sure everyone here has had, and also recognizing the status that members are taught to give to the spiritual advice of honored church leaders, what kinds of moral/ethical problems does this create?  Isn’t there a kind of hubris that leaders must have in order to confidently give spiritual advice knowing that they are imperfect vessels and that they have made mistakes in the past.

I’ve never had the calling of bishop or stake president, and thinking about all the people that come to them for advice, I don’t know that I would ever be confident enough to take a calling like that knowing just how much confidence regular members place in those positions of authority.  It kind of makes me wonder how anyone could perform those callings with any level of comfort in what they are doing with the expectations that members place in these positions of authority. 

Thoughts?  

When I was an active member, I would routinely pray to have my mind opened so I could think properly, as objectively as possible (I know some don't think that is possible but with God ......).  Anyway, my answer to this today is to use the brains that God gave you.  Both the leader and non-leader ought to do so and both should do so while humbly recognizing the limits of human capacity and realizing that maybe we were meant to make these decisions ourselves without any outside force telling us what to do.

[RevTestament]

On 11/22/2017 at 11:58 AM, hope_for_things said:

My views about how the spirit works and what the spirit is have changed in recent years.  I tend to believe that the Holy Ghost is a very personal experience about something that likely is happening within our brain and body and not an external force that acts on us independently.  But whether you believe it is an internal mechanism or external, what I’m wondering about today is the way that these spiritual experiences contribute to how we influence others.  

I’m hoping to get some comments from others about when they’ve used spiritual feelings to try and influence another person to make decisions in their life.  Hopefully some leaders who have people coming to them regularly for advice, such as bishops and stake presidents, could comment about how they’ve handled these situations.  

I have a concern and I’m wondering if others agree with this concern or see it differently.  If spiritual impressions that we have are either just internal impressions based on personal experiences in life and perhaps other higher brain functions and mechanisms we don’t fully understand, or these impressions are coming from an external source influencing us, and we give advice to others based on these spiritual impressions, is that advice problematic if its coming from a church authority with the theological weight that members give to their church leaders?  When a member is taught to honor, respect, sustain a church leader and the authority of an office and even privilege that authority as having access to special spiritual insight from God, the member is placing the words of this authority at a very high status often without critically thinking about the advice, and often with the stigma that questioning might be showing a lack of faith.  

I’d like to know about the experiences of those who’ve given advice in positions of leadership over others in church settings, or even as a parent or other trusted advisor.  Knowing that spiritual impressions can be wrong from personal experiences that I’m sure everyone here has had, and also recognizing the status that members are taught to give to the spiritual advice of honored church leaders, what kinds of moral/ethical problems does this create?  Isn’t there a kind of hubris that leaders must have in order to confidently give spiritual advice knowing that they are imperfect vessels and that they have made mistakes in the past.

I’ve never had the calling of bishop or stake president, and thinking about all the people that come to them for advice, I don’t know that I would ever be confident enough to take a calling like that knowing just how much confidence regular members place in those positions of authority.  It kind of makes me wonder how anyone could perform those callings with any level of comfort in what they are doing with the expectations that members place in these positions of authority. 

Thoughts?  

Here is my take on this subject, although I haven't ever given nor received advice in this strain. I would follow it, unless I perceived it conflicted with scripture or somehow else bothered me. Then I would pray about it before following it. This acknowledges that some in callings struggle with their demons, or are not always clean. I believe the vast majority of bishops and other leaders are going to give good advice based upon many combined years of experience of Church leaders and the Spirit. I strongly disagree with your stated opinion that the Spirit is merely an internal thing. The spirit indwells the soul of the ardent follower.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 11/22/2017 at 12:58 PM, hope_for_things said:

Quote

My views about how the spirit works and what the spirit is have changed in recent years.  I tend to believe that the Holy Ghost is a very personal experience about something that likely is happening within our brain and body and not an external force that acts on us independently.  

Quote

I’ve never had the calling of bishop or stake president,

 

Looks like you figured this out already.

Yea, I could make you my company president if you are talented enough, no problem.

[Meerkat]

On 11/22/2017 at 10:58 AM, hope_for_things said:

I’d like to know about the experiences of those who’ve given advice in positions of leadership over others in church settings, or even as a parent or other trusted advisor.  Knowing that spiritual impressions can be wrong from personal experiences that I’m sure everyone here has had, and also recognizing the status that members are taught to give to the spiritual advice of honored church leaders, what kinds of moral/ethical problems does this create?  Isn’t there a kind of hubris that leaders must have in order to confidently give spiritual advice knowing that they are imperfect vessels and that they have made mistakes in the past.

I’ve never had the calling of bishop or stake president, and thinking about all the people that come to them for advice, I don’t know that I would ever be confident enough to take a calling like that knowing just how much confidence regular members place in those positions of authority.  It kind of makes me wonder how anyone could perform those callings with any level of comfort in what they are doing with the expectations that members place in these positions of authority. 

Thoughts?  

When I was young, my goal was to become a Realtor.  I pursued it at the college level, and as a young married man.  About a year after joining the Church, my Elders Quorum President let me know he had a revelation for me that I should never go into Real Estate as a career.  Wanting to be obedient to my leaders, I followed his counsel.  That decision took my beloved wife and family through several years of employment volatility and it's attendant financial and emotional stresses.

I stuck with that decision throughout my productive years.  That experience, and spiritual maturity taught me that personal revelation is my responsibility.  It also taught me the damage that I could do to another human being by making their decisions for them, no matter how well intentioned.

That experience helped remind me, when in leadership callings, to help people seek their own revelation and make their own important decisions.

I guess I should thank my Elders Quorum President for the lesson.  It became one of the most valuable experiences of my life.  Thankfully, good fortune has smiled on us throughout our lives despite our decision to follow that counsel, or maybe because of it.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

On 11/22/2017 at 12:58 PM, hope_for_things said:

My views about how the spirit works and what the spirit is have changed in recent years.  I tend to believe that the Holy Ghost is a very personal experience about something that likely is happening within our brain and body and not an external force that acts on us independently.  But whether you believe it is an internal mechanism or external, what I’m wondering about today is the way that these spiritual experiences contribute to how we influence others.  

I’m hoping to get some comments from others about when they’ve used spiritual feelings to try and influence another person to make decisions in their life.  Hopefully some leaders who have people coming to them regularly for advice, such as bishops and stake presidents, could comment about how they’ve handled these situations.  

I have a concern and I’m wondering if others agree with this concern or see it differently.  If spiritual impressions that we have are either just internal impressions based on personal experiences in life and perhaps other higher brain functions and mechanisms we don’t fully understand, or these impressions are coming from an external source influencing us, and we give advice to others based on these spiritual impressions, is that advice problematic if its coming from a church authority with the theological weight that members give to their church leaders?  When a member is taught to honor, respect, sustain a church leader and the authority of an office and even privilege that authority as having access to special spiritual insight from God, the member is placing the words of this authority at a very high status often without critically thinking about the advice, and often with the stigma that questioning might be showing a lack of faith.  

I’d like to know about the experiences of those who’ve given advice in positions of leadership over others in church settings, or even as a parent or other trusted advisor.  Knowing that spiritual impressions can be wrong from personal experiences that I’m sure everyone here has had, and also recognizing the status that members are taught to give to the spiritual advice of honored church leaders, what kinds of moral/ethical problems does this create?  Isn’t there a kind of hubris that leaders must have in order to confidently give spiritual advice knowing that they are imperfect vessels and that they have made mistakes in the past.

I’ve never had the calling of bishop or stake president, and thinking about all the people that come to them for advice, I don’t know that I would ever be confident enough to take a calling like that knowing just how much confidence regular members place in those positions of authority.  It kind of makes me wonder how anyone could perform those callings with any level of comfort in what they are doing with the expectations that members place in these positions of authority. 

Thoughts?  

I pray for guidance for what to tell the individual and do so, and tell them to do likewise. 

I never presume that my advice will agree with what they think they should do.  "If I were you, I would xyz, but you need to get your own answer. My advice is to pray about doing xyz and see if the Lord confirms it."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

When I was young, my goal was to become a Realtor.  I pursued it at the college level, and as a young married man.  About a year after joining the Church, my Elders Quorum President let me know he had a revelation for me that I should never go into Real Estate as a career.  Wanting to be obedient to my leaders, I followed his counsel.  That decision took my beloved wife and family through several years of employment volatility and it's attendant financial and emotional stresses.

I stuck with that decision throughout my productive years.  That experience, and spiritual maturity taught me that personal revelation is my responsibility.  It also taught me the damage that I could do to another human being by making their decisions for them, no matter how well intentioned.

That experience helped remind me, when in leadership callings, to help people seek their own revelation and make their own important decisions.

I guess I should thank my Elders Quorum President for the lesson.  It became one of the most valuable experiences of my life.  Thankfully, good fortune has smiled on us throughout our lives despite our decision to follow that counsel, or maybe because of it.

Parents can also dissuade children from a career path, and that is a big mistake

 

[Vanguard]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whether from a church leader or a Yiddishe mama, anyone can be shamed for not following "good" advice.  I have actually never found any church leader to be shaming in that instance, and especially not claiming the inspiration of God in making the calling (even if he thought that himself).  In my experience, LDS leaders are particularly careful not to place blame on someone for not accepting a call.  I do recall a bishop yelling very loudly to a young Mormon guy to get a haircut!!  The young man (whom I knew, and who was a barefoot pre-hippie in 1964-65 Frisco) did not follow the bishop's advice.

Advice may run the gamut from Dr Phil to our mom, and all the gradations in between.  You missed the point that all manner of advice is given, and those giving it are often very sure of themselves, whether a psychologist or a drinking buddy.  "hope-for-things" does not believe in actual divine inspiration, instead believing that everything that one thinks or does takes place exclusively in the brain, so we must deal with the ordinary fact that advice is often given by well-meaning sources.  It is silly to focus on the intent, rather than on the words, actions, and results of advice-giving.  The phenomenology of advice-giving will be the same regardless of secular or divine assumptions about it.  Since the LDS faith doesn't spend much time reveling in blame-games or guilt-fests (unlike some other, rather rigid religions), what we see most often is the soft approach -- except on missions, where military discipline is the order of the day.  Any pressure a member may feel is probably based on his own commitment to the faith.

I did not mean to suggest our leaders deliberately shame in the moment though I am well aware of what their feelings are on the matter when speaking in more private circles. I'm sure these thoughts are shared as they disseminate throughout the congregation. Our stk president makes no bones about what he thinks (his position applauded by the high council) is the dynamic when someone rejects what he would term an inspired calling. At best a leader may believe the member is simply not able to hear their own whisperings confirming the need to accept the calling. I would argue very little is ever said regards to a leader pondering whether or not it was him who may not have received the inspiration.

And yes, most are pretty sure of themselves - including myself - when giving advice. And again, I do not view the psychologist or the drinking buddy as carrying the endorsement from our creator. Though they may at times be hard to resist and though their rejected advice may elicit guilt, their authority to give said advice stops at the moment I decide. It is much trickier when the individual believes he speaks with divine endorsement - a "chain of command" process I am ostensibly in support of as an active member of the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

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

And yes, most are pretty sure of themselves - including myself - when giving advice. And again, I do not view the psychologist or the drinking buddy as carrying the endorsement from our creator. Though they may at times be hard to resist and though their rejected advice may elicit guilt, their authority to give said advice stops at the moment I decide. It is much trickier when the individual believes he speaks with divine endorsement - a "chain of command" process I am ostensibly in support of as an active member of the church.

The problem with that is that, phenomenologically, it differs not at all from an ordinary encounter with a respected psychologist or other secular authority figure who gives sage advice.  One is a member of society, and one may give ostensible support to that secular system and may find it hard not to follow the expert advice.  One may have commitments to societal norms of science, ideology, and religion, and feel pressured to adapt to those norms.  The American Socrates, Eric Hoffer, wrote in detail about how difficult it is for any of us to adapt to new demands and challenges.  Any of us can feel unsure of ourselves, and we are fallible humans -- even if we are bishops, stake presidents, or apostles.  As Pres Uchtdorf points out, any of us can make mistakes, no matter how sure we are of ourselves -- emphasizing that mistakes have in fact been made.

Even in a case where the human was not fallible (Jesus Christ), the humans he dealt with were capable of rejecting his advice or a direct call:  Remember the rich young man whom he called as a disciple?  That young man rejected the call because it entailed giving all he had to the poor.  Sometimes we feel the cost is simply too high, and that is our right, regardless of consequences.

Some of us may have turned down many offers or callings in our secular and religious lives, and we may have felt justified due to fear of the unknown, fear of heavy responsibility, feelings of unworthiness, lack of confirmation by the Holy Spirit, etc.  Shakespeare's dictum still applies: "To thine own self be true, and it follows as night the day that thou cans't not then be false to any man."  It can take courage to say either "yes" or "no."  It is highly personal, and all of us should respect those personal decisions.

[Vanguard]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with that is that, phenomenologically, it differs not at all from an ordinary encounter with a respected psychologist or other secular authority figure who gives sage advice.  One is a member of society, and one may give ostensible support to that secular system and may find it hard not to follow the expert advice.  One may have commitments to societal norms of science, ideology, and religion, and feel pressured to adapt to those norms.  The American Socrates, Eric Hoffer, wrote in detail about how difficult it is for any of us to adapt to new demands and challenges.  Any of us can feel unsure of ourselves, and we are fallible humans -- even if we are bishops, stake presidents, or apostles.  As Pres Uchtdorf points out, any of us can make mistakes, no matter how sure we are of ourselves -- emphasizing that mistakes have in fact been made.

Even in a case where the human was not fallible (Jesus Christ), the humans he dealt with were capable of rejecting his advice or a direct call:  Remember the rich young man whom he called as a disciple?  That young man rejected the call because it entailed giving all he had to the poor.  Sometimes we feel the cost is simply too high, and that is our right, regardless of consequences.

Some of us may have turned down many offers or callings in our secular and religious lives, and we may have felt justified due to fear of the unknown, fear of heavy responsibility, feelings of unworthiness, lack of confirmation by the Holy Spirit, etc.  Shakespeare's dictum still applies: "To thine own self be true, and it follows as night the day that thou cans't not then be false to any man."  It can take courage to say either "yes" or "no."  It is highly personal, and all of us should respect those personal decisions.

That is very nicely said and that ideal - "To thine own self be true..." - aligns with what I would like to believe I am capable of honoring for myself. None-the-less, it is still hard facing the specter of one's ecclesiastical leader believing I have not just turned down his own advice but rather turned down the Lord's. I also believe you may have a stilted view of the impact going against our leaders' "recommendations" can have on many active folks. IMO, most are not outfitted in the way you seem to be regards to a more solid, self-confidence about not "...be[ing] false to any man". If I am correct in that assumption, it follows there are many members who are racked with the prospect of saying "no". What they don't need is a leader who enforces that dynamic whether said leader leaves that impression with the member in the moment or whether he propagates the notion of "always inspired" at the pulpit.

Note: I loved your link to The Black Watch Parade. ; )

[Kenngo1969]

My experiences don't exactly match the scenario you described because they don't involve my hearkening to counsel (or not) from a leader.  But I've told several times here of lying on an operating table waiting to be cut open three times in a span of about 30 months, the first two times facing the possibility of having my lower body completely immobilized in plaster or being allowed to recuperate in a wheelchair, and the third time being told I would be casted no matter what ... until the day of the surgery, when I learned there was a possibility I might not be.  Each time, I was told in no uncertain terms what the outcome would be.  

On the other hand, I've also told of a couple of occasions when I was "nudged along" in my post-bachelor's education despite encountering immense, seemingly-unrelenting difficulty in the pursuit of that goal.  Once, I was set apart for a calling during this period; honestly, I wasn't very good at the calling.  Perhaps the only reason why I received it is so that the Lord could tell me, through the High Councilor who acted as voice, that He was "pleased with the course of my life."  Subsequently, after having been denied admission to my would-be-chosen profession, I visited the Nauvoo Temple and performed initiatories for the first time since receiving my own endowment nearly 20 years previously and having a particular passage from the initiatory strike me with unusual, unexpected force.

Am I absolutely certain I received specific spiritual guidance in the latter case?  Perhaps there are times when, on that score, my faith best can be described using the words of the man who sought the Savior to cast an evil spirit out of the man's son: "Lord, I believe.  Help Thou mine unbelief."  Why did I receive the unmistakable messages I did each time I found myself on that operating table and experienced an outcome which matched the message perfectly each time, on the one hand, yet I have yet to experience a similar outcome with regard to my professional aspirations?  I dunno.  The only things I'm absolutely sure of are: (1) Sure, I didn't have to go to law school, and I could have saved myself untold hours, weeks, months and years of intellectual carnage and emotional turmoil had I not done so ... as long as I didn't mind answering phones for the rest of my life;  and (2) "Ken, don't forget how you felt on January 24 and February 14, 1984, and on June 7, 1985."

Why?  I dunno.   The easy answer is to say that the answers I thought I got while lying on that operating table and in the Nauvoo Temple weren't "answers" at all.  There is a certain logic and consistency to that approach, but, as a person of faith who believes that God has a hand in the affairs of men, I cannot bring myself to accept it.  Just as Nephi had faith enough to say, "I will go and do the things which the Lord has commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men save He shall prepare a way for them, that they may accomplish the thing which He commandeth them," Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego had faith enough to say, "We know, O King, that our God is able to deliver us.  But if not ..."

The Lord has His own purposes and His own timetable (Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Corinthians 2:11).  "God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.  He plants His footsteps in the sea, and rides upon the storm.  Ye fearful saints fresh courage take, The clouds ye so much dread Are big with mercy and shall break, In blessings on your head.  His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour, The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower.  Blind unbelief is sure to err, And scan His works in vain, God is His own interpreter, And He will make it plain."  William Cowper, "God Moves in a Mysterious Way," Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985) no. 285.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

That is very nicely said and that ideal - "To thine own self be true..." - aligns with what I would like to believe I am capable of honoring for myself. None-the-less, it is still hard facing the specter of one's ecclesiastical leader believing I have not just turned down his own advice but rather turned down the Lord's. I also believe you may have a stilted view of the impact going against our leaders' "recommendations" can have on many active folks. IMO, most are not outfitted in the way you seem to be regards to a more solid, self-confidence about not "...be[ing] false to any man". If I am correct in that assumption, it follows there are many members who are racked with the prospect of saying "no". What they don't need is a leader who enforces that dynamic whether said leader leaves that impression with the member in the moment or whether he propagates the notion of "always inspired" at the pulpit.  ................................

I agree, and it is certainly inappropriate to harrow up souls simply because they are not willing to accept a call.  I have never been subjected to that sort of treatment in a church setting, and I have been around awhile.  The Saints have always been very kind to me.  It is true that members and leaders sometimes assert that callings come from God, and I actually believe that to be generally true -- in a manner of speaking -- but I could certainly not prove it.  On balance, that method of governance of the LDS Church has been enormously successful.  Why?  Because the members need to be challenged and to improve themselves, and callings are a huge part of that.

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

The counsel is whatever comes to me, the other person(s) and God as a result of communing together. So, I’m not sure what “wrong” would look like. God accepts our best efforts in the "triumvirate" and watches over the lesser two so things will work out in His timing and with His grace. As I tried to explain, I don’t receive inspiration “for” someone in the counseling process; it simply doesn’t work that way. Now parents may receive inspiration for their children and share it, or a leader may receive inspiration for someone within the scope of his stewardship, but these are not counseling situations.

The measuring stick is when the counsel given bears bad fruit.  I still don’t understand your differentiation between counsel and receiving inspiration for someone.  I’m asking how you handle bad inspiration that after bearing bad fruit you see in hindsight couldn’t have been inspired from God.  

 

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think this might get to the question of whether external forces act upon our brains and bodies to yield a personal experience. While we can accept that they do (an external blow to the head hurts and can affect thinking), ultimately all such mortal experience is also personal and requires the neurological processes of our brain to have it. Believing in a spirit (or not) doesn’t change that. Where LDS believe that connected spirit and element constitute the person (the soul), there is no telling where one begins and the other ends, or which is contributing what to the person’s experience.

This is interesting and I agree with your thoughts here.  Thanks for sharing.  

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

When I was an active member, I would routinely pray to have my mind opened so I could think properly, as objectively as possible (I know some don't think that is possible but with God ......).  Anyway, my answer to this today is to use the brains that God gave you.  Both the leader and non-leader ought to do so and both should do so while humbly recognizing the limits of human capacity and realizing that maybe we were meant to make these decisions ourselves without any outside force telling us what to do.

Yes, I agree with this.  I think what often happens in Mormonism today is a backwards kind of thinking about how to use the spirit.  To me, the spirit must be used in concert with reading, education and critical thinking. But instead what I see often is people skipping all those steps and trying to just feel the answers through a dangerous trust of their intuitions and emotions and a avoidance of research and study.  

I think of the original Star Wars movie and how Luke is told to trust his feelings and to let go, as if he’s getting into a zone and able to channel some higher power that allows him to make a perfect shot and destroy the Death Star.  Now, I see this idea of trusting your feelings and letting go necessary for highly trained individuals who’ve practiced an art through repetition and instead of over thinking at the time they are performing, they need to relax and use muscle memory and just do what they’ve practiced and prepared for.  This is a good thing.  But for someone who’s had no practice, not put in the hours and hours of research and learning, and who thinks they can just trust intuition and believes that intuition equates to receiving a divine inspiration, this is the hubris that I’m talking about and that you mention.  A large dose of humility is really needed.