Spiritual hubris

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

This is the kind of dangerous privilege without critical thought that I’m talking about.  You assume the vast majority of church leaders are giving good advice, when I would argue that statistically speaking church leaders aren’t capable of giving any better advice than the average Joe on the street.  Good intentions doesn’t make their advice good.

 I also am not sure what your comment about struggling with demons and not being clean mean, can you clarify.  I know Mormons teach moral cleanliness is important to receive inspiration from God, is that what you’re referring to?  

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Looks like you figured this out already.

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

Thanks, I don’t want to ever believe I’ve arrived, I have so much to learn and know so little.  I do know that being a President of a company is not an aspiration though, too much work!  :-)

[hope_for_things]

19 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.

I think you’re being very graceful in your reflection on that experience.  You’ve turned lemons into lemonade, and that is a lesson I’ve learned many times in my life as well.  

Although, I would question the wisdom of promoting having church leaders give poor advice just so everyone who follows that poor advice can learn through the school of hard knocks, lessons like you and I have learned.  Just because you learned a valuable lesson through following poor revelation, doesn’t mean your life couldn’t have been better had that revelation never been given.  

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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."

I respect this and think its probably the best way of handling things in a very difficult situation.  I’m still not sure I could do it today with the way I understand how much privilege members give to the advice given.  I just think that unfortunately, the baggage of how a member goes into these meetings with the expectation that advice given from a lay church leader is at the status of divinely inspired at some level, I just don’t think you can strip away those layers with a statement that they need to pray about it for confirmation.  

It’s like going to a doctor and you expect that doctor’s opinion about your medical needs to be an expert opinion.  The unfortunate difference is the church leader is not a trained expert on the multitude of subjects that members seek advice from them on.  They may have very bad advice and bad experience, and the member still privileges the advice just because of their office as Priesthood leader, 

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is the kind of dangerous privilege without critical thought that I’m talking about.  You assume the vast majority of church leaders are giving good advice, when I would argue that statistically speaking church leaders aren’t capable of giving any better advice than the average Joe on the street.  Good intentions doesn’t make their advice good.

 I also am not sure what your comment about struggling with demons and not being clean mean, can you clarify.  I know Mormons teach moral cleanliness is important to receive inspiration from God, is that what you’re referring to?  

I guess this just shows a difference between me and you, and I disagree. Following advice unless I see a scriptural or moral conflict is critical thinking. It is not like I "assume the vast majority of church leaders are giving good advice." I went into the bishop's office as a teenager for an interview to be a priest. I told him I didn't understand the atonement, so I didn't feel I could advance as a priest at that time. He proceeded to try to explain the atonement to me. I still didn't understand it, and declined advancing to the office of priest. You see I am exactly a critical thinker. He didn't really try to give me advice, but tried to teach me something, and my critical thinking didn't allow me to accept it. If it had been advice on a moral issue or something else, I would go through the same process - it's got to pass my scriptural understanding and my sense of moral rightness. So no, I don't "just assume" anything. However, you don't seem to give Church leaders any credence as "experts." The Church has dealt with "people" issues much more than any of us individually, and its collective experience is vast. For someone who often defers to "experts" I find your position to be inconsistent - that they can't give any better advice than the average Joe on the street. You seem to have no qualms about accepting the opinions of NT scholars for example, while I do - again it's my tendency to critically analyze things - even the opinions of textual scholars - apparently unlike yourself.

I think it's your type of thinking that gets you in trouble with the Church. My guess is you don't accept various points of the Church even though the President has weighed in on them - for instance the 1 yr restriction on sealing after a civil marriage. The Presidency holds those keys. There is no scriptural conflict and no apparent moral issue. I may not agree, but I accept it, because the only real scripture on point tells us the President holds those keys, and you don't have the right to openly dispute it. I accept that because it is from the Lord, and to not accept it means I am in rebellion against Him, unless He changes it - some advice for you friend.

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you’re being very graceful in your reflection on that experience.  You’ve turned lemons into lemonade, and that is a lesson I’ve learned many times in my life as well.  

Although, I would question the wisdom of promoting having church leaders give poor advice just so everyone who follows that poor advice can learn through the school of hard knocks, lessons like you and I have learned.  Just because you learned a valuable lesson through following poor revelation, doesn’t mean your life couldn’t have been better had that revelation never been given.  

You may be right.  I've adopted a philosophy that has served me well, and given me a reasonably happy life.  It's encapsulated in this scripture:

"26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
            27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
            28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."  Romans 8:26-28

With 20/20 foresight, maybe life could be easier.  But life isn't that way.  I make more than my fair share of mistakes.  The great part is what I learn from them.   How do we gain wisdom without mistakes?  Who is to say that the mistakes themselves aren't the tests we were sent her to learn from?  Am I going to possess one side of nature, the sweet, without knowing the bitter? 

To your question about "promoting having church leaders give poor advice just so everyone who follows that poor advice can learn through the school of hard knocks," I wouldn't recommend that.  But I would encourage embracing a philosophy that allows for a positive interpretation of whatever happens, as in "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Edited November 24, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I respect this and think its probably the best way of handling things in a very difficult situation.  I’m still not sure I could do it today with the way I understand how much privilege members give to the advice given.  I just think that unfortunately, the baggage of how a member goes into these meetings with the expectation that advice given from a lay church leader is at the status of divinely inspired at some level, I just don’t think you can strip away those layers with a statement that they need to pray about it for confirmation.  

It’s like going to a doctor and you expect that doctor’s opinion about your medical needs to be an expert opinion.  The unfortunate difference is the church leader is not a trained expert on the multitude of subjects that members seek advice from them on.  They may have very bad advice and bad experience, and the member still privileges the advice just because of their office as Priesthood leader, 

Then so be it. Actually there's a possibility I might be right.

I give my advice and do not apologize for it if it is influential in someone's life.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then so be it. Actually there's a possibility I might be right.

I give my advice and do not apologize for it if it is influential in someone's life.

I respect your approach and I think it has integrity.  My critique is pointed more towards the culture that has developed that creates the unfair expectations people approaching leaders for inspired advice have.  You and I can’t change those expectations. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

However, you don't seem to give Church leaders any credence as "experts." The Church has dealt with "people" issues much more than any of us individually, and its collective experience is vast. For someone who often defers to "experts" I find your position to be inconsistent - that they can't give any better advice than the average Joe on the street. You seem to have no qualms about accepting the opinions of NT scholars for example, while I do - again it's my tendency to critically analyze things - even the opinions of textual scholars - apparently unlike yourself.

Individuals are giving advice, they have no access to a collective experience and generally are quite untrained and inexperienced.  Lay leaders aren’t studied experts with years of schooling on specific disciplines.  Huge difference between a secular scholar of the NT and a lay church leader who’s giving out advice on a multitude of subjects for which he/she has no expertise on.  

I don’t think we abandon critical thinking when considering expert opinions.  I would consult multiple experts and see what they all say and weigh that against personal experience as well.  

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I don’t want to ever believe I’ve arrived, I have so much to learn and know so little.  I do know that being a President of a company is not an aspiration though, too much work!  :-)

I meant only that U R a smart & wise guy, I used the President as a metaphor.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I meant only that U R a smart & wise guy, I used the President as a metaphor.

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

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

I think counseling is a three-way process (between God and the people involved and between the people) whereas inspiration is one-way (God to the recipient if the recipient isn’t asking for it) or two-way (if the recipient asks for it). I don’t think the counsel I’m describing bears bad fruit, but it is possible that good counsel can be rationalized in a way to bear bad fruit or can get misapplied to bear bad fruit.

I don’t think I’ve had the experience that inspiration or advice attributed to God, whether I was giving it or receiving it, has ever borne bad fruit. If such were to happen, I would use it as a learning experience or otherwise repent.

A baseball bat and a head certainly connect at some point, but does the skull or the brain know exactly when contact is made, or damage is done, or they start to hurt or thinking is affected?

[clarkgoble]

On 11/23/2017 at 8:11 AM, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Knowledge can be contextual yet some things remain true across all contexts. I believe that even a holist like Quine would accept mathematical truths as an example of that. I think the problem is presuming that knowledge changes with any context change. It seems to me there's a burden of proof that somehow knowledge has become invalidated. But I don't take Alma 32 as really requiring a notion of belief being acontextual.

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t think we abandon critical thinking when considering expert opinions.  I would consult multiple experts and see what they all say and weigh that against personal experience as well.  

Which is my point. Collectively, Church leaders have much more experience than one's personal experience - you just don't give any credence to their expertise apparently.

Quote

Individuals are giving advice, they have no access to a collective experience and generally are quite untrained and inexperienced.  Lay leaders aren’t studied experts with years of schooling on specific disciplines.  Huge difference between a secular scholar of the NT and a lay church leader who’s giving out advice on a multitude of subjects for which he/she has no expertise on.  

Most Church leaders are college educated. Others are educated through life experience, and have proven themselves as good leaders in business and in their families. This is why 1 Timothy advises for bishops to be married. They also have counselors to rely upon, and if they feel unsure they can seek help from Stake Presidencies. They can also seek advice from prior bishops. The results of many years of experience have also been built into handbooks and guidebooks. I believe their advice is probably going to be much more trustworthy than a secular marriage therapist, sex therapist or the like. You may disagree, but hopefully, you will at least see my point that the Church does have a certain amount of spiritual expertise in "life" matters. They know "the name" of sin. They know its consequences, and have seen the trail of disaster it leaves in the lives of members. A young person going in for advice just doesn't fully appreciate these things, so they often have trouble having faith. They may have heard with their ears, but they have not fully understood nor comprehended it. There is probably no better qualified experts than priesthood leaders on such matters, and they also have the power to call upon the Holy Spirit to help them guide the flock, and give good advice. That right or ability is built into their priesthood callings.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Which is my point. Collectively, Church leaders have much more experience than one's personal experience - you just don't give any credence to their expertise apparently.

I’m not dismissing the power of collective experience, there have been multiple scientific studies about it and I believe it is valuable thing.  However, my example with respect to local lay leaders giving advice about inspiration they feel, I’m not sure how a bishop in his office is tapping into a collective experience, that part doesn’t make sense to me.  

Also with respect to the broad variety of questions with which members consult church leaders on topics such as finances, medical, vocational, family planning, etc, doling our advice on all these topics for which a leader can’t possibly be an expert on all of them is a problem.  

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Most Church leaders are college educated.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?  I seriously question it.  

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Others are educated through life experience, and have proven themselves as good leaders in business and in their families.

Good people in general I would agree, but your claim about leadership skills in family and business I think is pushing it.  

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe their advice is probably going to be much more trustworthy than a secular marriage therapist, sex therapist or the like. You may disagree, but hopefully, you will at least see my point that the Church does have a certain amount of spiritual expertise in "life" matters.

Sorry I completely disagree and I think the advice church leaders give on the subjects of sex therapy and family counseling is more often dangerous than not, and isn’t even in the same ball park as trained secular therapist.  

Your comments here only reinforce my OP and my belief that the trust members place in leaders is dangerous.  

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

They know "the name" of sin. They know its consequences, and have seen the trail of disaster it leaves in the lives of members. A young person going in for advice just doesn't fully appreciate these things, so they often have trouble having faith. They may have heard with their ears, but they have not fully understood nor comprehended it. There is probably no better qualified experts than priesthood leaders on such matters, and they also have the power to call upon the Holy Spirit to help them guide the flock, and give good advice. That right or ability is built into their priesthood callings.

I would prefer that leaders limit their advice to theological matters like you’ve listed here.  While I might have some disagreements on faith and sin and how we define those concepts, I think it would be best for leaders to limit the topics they give advice to members on to just the basic gospel principles, and to do so with a large measure of humility rather than speaking from an authoritative position.  

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

"Also with respect to the broad variety of questions with which members consult church leaders on topics such as finances, medical, vocational, family planning, etc, doling our advice on all these topics for which a leader can’t possibly be an expert on all of them is a problem."  

"I would prefer that leaders limit their advice to theological matters like you’ve listed here.  While I might have some disagreements on faith and sin and how we define those concepts, I think it would be best for leaders to limit the topics they give advice to members on to just the basic gospel principles, and to do so with a large measure of humility rather than speaking from an authoritative position."  

Your two comments here remind me of the passage in Mere Christianity where Lewis - responding to those who would have the clergy opine on literally everything - states, "The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained,. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists - not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time."

In other words, stick to recommendations as pertains to prayer, scripture pondering, and service and if you must venture into genetics, economics, or politics do it ever so gently... ; )

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry I completely disagree and I think the advice church leaders give on the subjects of sex therapy and family counseling is more often dangerous than not, and isn’t even in the same ball park as trained secular therapist.  

Your comments here only reinforce my OP and my belief that the trust members place in leaders is dangerous.  

Well, here you go again. I've been shocked by advice from secular therapists such as Dr Ruth - sometimes I believe their advice to be advising sinful acts. Just because someone went to school doesn't necessarily make their advice better. So your comments only reinforce my disagreement with you over your willingness to defer to "experts." Sometimes "personal" things delve into theological realms, and are appropriately addressed by Church authorities. I accept that. Advice on escaping sin is appropriate. So I don't view advice solely on "theological" matters to be the only proper realm for priesthood leaders. 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, here you go again. I've been shocked by advice from secular therapists such as Dr Ruth - sometimes I believe their advice to be advising sinful acts. Just because someone went to school doesn't necessarily make their advice better. So your comments only reinforce my disagreement with you over your willingness to defer to "experts." Sometimes "personal" things delve into theological realms, and are appropriately addressed by Church authorities. I accept that. Advice on escaping sin is appropriate. So I don't view advice solely on "theological" matters to be the only proper realm for priesthood leaders. 

What do you think of Elder Ballard’s recent comments about general authorities not being experts on many subjects and essentially trying to limit the scope of what members often ask of their leaders.   

[CV75]

On 11/25/2017 at 5:11 PM, hope_for_things said:

***

Also with respect to the broad variety of questions with which members consult church leaders on topics such as finances, medical, vocational, family planning, etc, doling our advice on all these topics for which a leader can’t possibly be an expert on all of them is a problem.  

***

I would prefer that leaders limit their advice to theological matters like you’ve listed here.  While I might have some disagreements on faith and sin and how we define those concepts, I think it would be best for leaders to limit the topics they give advice to members on to just the basic gospel principles, and to do so with a large measure of humility rather than speaking from an authoritative position.  

I think the Handbooks indicate that leaders are to counsel members, or with members, on the moral and spiritual ramifications of the decisions they face in these kinds of topic areas, not the technical aspects and options one a decision is made. These policies are found under such headings as “Medical and Health Policies” and “Policies on Moral Issues” in Handbook 2, and of course providing financial relief to the distressed is a fundamental Christian obligation, with the attendant self-reliance principles taking the recovering poor well beyond that phase (there is an entire section, “Welfare Principles and Leadership” dedicated to that).

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What do you think of Elder Ballard’s recent comments about general authorities not being experts on many subjects and essentially trying to limit the scope of what members often ask of their leaders.   

If they don't feel prompted to give advice, then I think that is fine. 

My guess is they get all kinds of questions about what would be an appropriate job, school, etc, and I certainly would think those types of things are not really something priesthood leaders should be expected to answer. In matters of theology, sins, callings, growth in the Church, etc, I certainly do feel priesthood leaders can be called on for advice.