When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Err, theocratically lite-militant maybe, tomato-tomata. In the military, a superior is always right even when they are wrong. They say east instead of west, you might have a 2 second window to try correcting them before being called out as insubordinate, they'll double down and then you have to do whatever it is even if everyone knows it's wrong. Because there are more important reasons to obey than being right, like for the sake of order and respect for the chain of command. I wasn't elected President, just like I'm not currently called to be a leader in the church, I feel sorry for those that are. So, the least I can do is sustain them, as the church is true and all. While that remains the case to me, it will never be my place to try to critique them. When I go to the JWs and Messianic Jewish meetings, it doesn't matter if I'm right and they are wrong, while I am there, it will never be my place to try to change how an entire religion does things, I'll do it their way.

I have seen the military comparison quite often.  My son is a 17 year Marine so I understand the culture and it is cult like.  If you want a religion that is like the military in the chain of command more power to you.

[manol]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

No. I just find it far more constructive and virtuous to risk being considered an obedient ideologue as opposed to a contrarian, nihilist or dogmatist, especially in the military. If you were the one who signed up to serve your country in the military, it doesn't matter if you were correct to disobey the military leaders. A single act of disobedience renders you useless to the military, and so useless to your country, as no one can depend on you to do anything important. If I want to serve God, and I chose to serve through his church which I believe is true, I should try to obey its leaders, even it if I thought they were incompetent or flawed. I can serve better in the church than outside it. What good is it to cause God's true church nothing but strife, just because I think I know how it should best operate, when God never put me in charge? If the bishop took my tithing and literally flushed it, told one of my confessions during a talk on Sunday, and asked me not to wear my ugly ties to church, as difficult it would be to endure that, I will sustain my Bishop.

Thanks for responding. 

Note that the Israeli military (which pound-for-pound is about as good as it gets) does NOT function the way you describe; it is much more egalitarian in social structure, with everyone from top to bottom prioritizing finding and implementing the best ideas.  Using the example you gave previously, the Israeli army is not so stupid as to insist on doing the wrong thing even when everybody knows it's wrong.  The leaders value their men too much to do that, and they want the men to speak up if they see that something is wrong.  They operate on mutual trust and earned respect rather than on rigid discipline... for instance in the Israeli army saluting is not normal, but is reserved for ceremonies. 

The impetus behind militaries is fear... fear that another country will impose their will on your country through coercion or violence, and that's why efficiency is typically maximized even if at the expense of basic right and wrong.  Imo the impetus behind the gospel of Jesus Christ is not fear; quite the opposite.  

Suppose you are the ward mission leader and the missionaries tell you that their mission president has instructed them not to attend church unless they have investigators attending.  And they are obeying that instruction.  Based on your post, I assume you would not hesitate to support the mission president's decision.  Is this correct?

Edited February 2, 2023 by manol

[pogi]

 

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Following a list of the Lord’s commands (2 Nephi 26:32), we read: “he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him (v. 33),” I pointed to this as the pattern of the Lord and His prophets inviting us to believe and apply the teachings and commandments, not requiring us, and certainly not imposing a time or circumstance upon us. This is why I take any sense of pressure to be self-generated or self-imposed.

You actually just provided a great example from your own experience of this very thing happening to you.  The immediacy and unavoidable nature of the decision didn't sound "self-generated or self-imposed" to me:  

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think I had a fairly mundane experience with this, if that helps. I was introduced to Elder L. Tom Perry at a stake conference. He learned that I was a college student, baptized some 15 months prior, and figuring I was mission age, asked me when I was going on a mission. I said, "After I graduate (some 15 months later)." He repeated his invitation and said something to the effect that I should go sooner, and I replied to the effect, with some self-assurance and a sense of needing to assure him, "I will go, but later." Kind of a polite, "Thank you, but I have my plans already." He was a general authority, and I was me, we were both men; he was very approachable and receptive to me, and I had no unease about what I had to say.

What we didn't have time for me to explain was, I felt I had been spiritually directed to gradate first, and this had been mentioned in my confirmation blessing (at least as i remembered it). I also had an experience before joining the Church, where serving a mission was part of a confirmation to prayer about the Book of Mormon, which I felt was to be fulfilled a few years later (certainly after age 19).

Who knows what would have happened had I taken his word for granted and gone on a mission right away. But I did what I thought was right, what the Spirit had confirmed for me to do, and felt completely at ease about it. Maybe that's the sign we need from the Lord: we don't sense a conflict, or a brewing conflict, in the first place.

In this example, you were placed in a situation where what you felt was your own personal revelation/inspiration on the matter was in conflict with the counsel to you from a prophet.  This is not something that you could just shelf.  There was an imminent and unavoidable decision approaching - you either go on your mission earlier as directed by the prophet, or you finish up school first as directed by your heart.  You couldn't postpone or avoid a decision indefinitely and thus delay both school and a mission indefinitely, because to delay both would be to violate your own inspiration and the counsel of the prophet.  You were forced by circumstance to make a choice.  That is the kind of forced decision I am talking about.

I am glad you were at ease with your decision.  Most members are not accustomed to feeling such ease at dismissing the direct and personal counsel from a prophet, even if they feel that they are right.  There is usually some internal struggle/conflict between knowing that "I might be wrong because I am fallible , and this is a prophet of the Lord, after all", but on the other side knowing that "prophets are fallible too".   Most would not be so quick to politely reject his counsel to go earlier.  It seems we are taught to not be so confident in ourselves when our feelings contradict a prophets counsel, that we should at least first mediate on this new and reemphasized personal counsel, pray about it, etc. etc.   That is the typical orthodox Mormon response. 

The other side of me says that you did the right thing.  Elder Perry was bold to suggest such a significant life change without even really knowing who you are, your history, experience, feelings about your choices, or spiritual confirmation that you have previously received.   

That level of spiritual self-confidence to reject a prophet's counsel (although politely) directly to his face, is rare in deed.  I am envious at the ease in which you can dismiss a prophet's counsel when you feel something else is right for you.  Maybe it came with your relative greenness to the faith - only a member for 15 months, or perhaps maybe you really were so confident in your personal inspiration that you were certain it was infallible (a level of certainty I have a hard time aspiring to).  Had you grown up in the church, I suspect your reaction would have been a bit different .  Most of those who grew up in the church would have likely responded, thanks for your counsel, I will give it the serious thought and consideration it deserves in conjunction with heartfelt prayer before I make a decision.  That is kind of expected of us, and honestly, it is pretty good counsel - but it does sometimes inevitably lead to a forced choice.  Will I obey a prophets counsel, or obey what I feel to be the Spirit directing me elsewhere.  If someone can get through that without feeling some internal struggle or conflict to wrestle with internally, then I think they are probably doing it wrong, honestly.  

Edited February 2, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:39 AM, pogi said:

How should we respond when our own conscience/inspiration is out-of-sync with the prophets teachings?

Lets say that you read and review an issue the prophet has spoken about, study it out in your mind, meditate on it, pray on it over an extended period of time and patiently listen for an answer from the Spirit.  Lets say that after giving it much effort, time, and prayerful attention that when you think about the teaching of the prophet you feel a stupor of thought.  Elder Richard G Scott said that can come as "an unsettling, discomforting feeling".   But when you think about the alternative of the prophets teaching you feel that your "bosom burns within you" and you "feel that it is right".  Elder Dallin G. Oaks suggests that the "burning" signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. 

You have deeply considered your own fallible nature and potential of being wrong.  You have also deeply considered the prophets fallible nature, but have a strong testimony that he is called of God, generally trust him, and heed his words carefully. 

Let's say that you have tried to interpret their words in other ways and from different angles/perspectives to try to make their words better correlate with what your conscience whispers, but it feels too strained and dishonest given the context and supporting quotes from other prophets.  It simply doesn't line up with your conscience no matter how you look at it.   On top of that, you have sought input from your Bishop, friends, family and other associates and they all agree with your interpretation of the prophets words.

Putting it on a shelf is not an option because action is required.  You need to make a choice.

What would/should one do at that point?

I don't want to make this thread about the issue itself, so please don't ask about it.  I want to make it about how we respond to this general situation rather than being about any specific issue. 

Five principles have had a substantial impact on my thinking about this issue:

1. "Rebuttable Presumption" as a "Rule of Thumb"

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that their cumulative counsel is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

2. Ash's Four-Legged Stool / "Personal Revelation" as the Ultimate Guide / Vetting "Personal Revelation"

If I feel there is a conflict between what I perceive as "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I review the "four-legged stool" analogy from Michal Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

Ultimately, each individual must do what he thinks is right.  How he reaches the conclusion of what is "right" should ideally use all four legs of the stool, but in the end, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is the final and decisive factor.  The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four legs is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

3. Vetting "Prophetic" Counsel

In addition to "vetting" what we are construing to be "personal revelation," I think we also ought to "vet" what we are construing from scriptural passages and from counsel from modern prophets and apostles.  "A prophet is only a prophet..." and all that.

But what about when a prophet is "acting as such" when counsel is provided, and the individual finds a conflict between that counsel and "personal revelation?"  Well, he may need to do a bit more digging.  For example, God knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?  The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

With these things in mind, how should the individual view and construe a particular point of prophetic counsel?  As a "doctrine," a "principle" or an "application?"

If the point of counsel is "doctrine," then the likelihood of the Holy Spirit giving the individual a countermanding "personal revelation" is, I think, low to non-existent.  

If the point of counsel is a "principle" or "application," I think the individual has more - but certainly not unfettered - discretion and autonomy to determine how it ought to be applied in a particular context.

4. Non-Secrecy / Seeking Counsel from Local Leaders

I think a Latter-day Saint who is contemplating limiting the application of, or entirely setting aside and ignoring, or actually and directly defying and disobeying, "prophetic counsel" ought not do so in secret.  He ought to seek out counsel from a bishop or stake president prior to taking any drastic or substantive step.

5. Elder Oaks' 1987 Counsel

If, after having considered the matter relative to items 1-4 above, there remains an impasse between what the individual's purported "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I would recommend reviewing all five options laid out by Elder Oaks in his 1987 article, Criticism, which he describes as "at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders."  The last one he references is, perhaps, key:

Quote

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2023 by smac97

[manol]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

The other side of me says that you did the right thing.  Elder Perry was bold to suggest such a significant life change without even really knowing who you are, your history, experience, feelings about your choices, or spiritual confirmation that you have previously received.  

This occurs to me: 

Perhaps Elder Perry's bold advice, and/or @CV75's ensuing verbal affirmation to a prophet that he WOULD serve a mission, helped make it happen, and the fact that Elder Perry was mistaken about the timeline is of no consequence in the long run.  In other words, I can easily see Elder Perry being inspired even if the specifics of what the Lord had in mind were not what he assumed them to be. 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, manol said:

This occurs to me: 

Perhaps Elder Perry's bold advice, and/or @CV75's ensuing verbal affirmation to a prophet that he WOULD serve a mission, helped make it happen, and the fact that Elder Perry was mistaken about the timeline is of no consequence in the long run.  In other words, I can easily see Elder Perry being inspired even if the specifics of what the Lord had in mind were not what he assumed them to be. 

While I agree that it is probably of no consequence in the long-run (but who knows, what if there were experiences and opportunities that he missed out on for not following the prophets counsel), this was a perfect example of what I am talking about - a forced decision where personal inspiration is in conflict with counsel from a prophet.  Elder Perry already knew that CV was planning on going on a mission, but for Elder Perry the timeline was the issue, not whether or not he was going.  

A parallel example could be the oft repeated counsel to not wait to have children until after school.   What if someone received personal revelation that they are to wait?  That leads to a forced decision and is not something that can just be placed on a shelf.  Do I follow my conscience as I feel is directed by the spirit, or do I follow the counsel of the prophets and just endure the unwelcome comments and judgments of other members?  I think CV and I are in agreement about ultimately following what we believe to be the Spirit, but for some reason he thinks that a forced decision is just some made-up self-imposed thing.  It isn't.  People are faced with these decisions a lot. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Because it's not within your stewardship to do so.

So if something is egregiously wrong one just ignores it because of stewardship?

17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Let's say you're a low-level manager in a big Corporation. You go and protest to the CEO about company policies, then you go online and ridicule the company for not doing it your way. What do you think will happen?

You will likely get fired. But if the company's polices are egregious, illegal etc one should do so anyway.

[mrmarklin]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:16 AM, Tacenda said:

I don't know why but the first thing that entered my mind was the teaching way back about playing with face cards. Through my many years of being full on believer and active in the church, I do remember different things that bothered me that we were told that came from the top perhaps.

1. No more Bunco parties (maybe it's too close to gambling?)

2. No Levi skirts or dresses in church on Sunday's.

3. No being bare foot (women only not sure my husband was told this) when Home Teachers, now called Ministers, come for visits.

4. Only one pair of earrings. (there was a talk by an apostle that spoke about a young man worrying over whether he should go further (seek marriage) with a girl because she chose to have double piercings in her ear lobes.

5. Wear church clothes all day long on the Sabbath.

6. No watching TV unless it's a spiritual one.

7. Scriptures morning and evening.

8. Family Home Evening

9. No caffeine (not a problem any longer).

10. Thee, Thou, and Thy in prayers.

11. Take the Sacrament with the right hand.

12. Accept every calling because it comes from God. 

Can't think of anymore. But I'm more at peace when I'm not crossing all the t's and dotting all the I's. Or not checking off everything I'm supposed to be doing whether I believe it to be right or not. 

@pogi I just read the post above. Maybe I wasn't suppose to list things like I did. From what I think you mean't in the post. Is my list being too specific because I can delete it. 

This stuff is suggestions.  Not "Thus Saith the Lord".  So I let my conscience be my guide.  If one needs to pray about it, fine with me.  I don't particularly feel the need.

I think what the poll should imply is doctrine.  The kind of stuff that ends up in the D&C as scripture.  I my mind, there would never be any conflict between my personal revelations and scripture.  I think it would be impossible to a sincere person.  So yeah, I would follow the Prophet.

Edit:  One of the things that strikes me abut this forum, is that everyone seems to think that whatever comes out of the mouth of a GA is Gospel.  But it's not.  It's mostly considered opinion.  I would give it the same weight as advice from my attorney or accountant.  Likely I would follow, but not a sin if I don't  Caffeine, playing cards, not waiting to have children etc etc is counsel that may or may not be appropriate to any single person's situation.  I certainly don't pay attention to stuff that doesn't apply to me.  And maybe I'd be better off taking the advice, but it certainly is not the end of the world if I don't. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by mrmarklin

[mrmarklin]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:36 AM, Teancum said:

Why?  What if they are wrong on something really big like the priesthood ban (they were all wrong for decades).  Isn't this sort of cult like obedience?

We don't know that the authorities were wrong about this.  The Lord may have had good and clear reasons for the ban.  Obviously, He has not revealed the reasons, and in fact, the Church has disavowed the "reasons" that were posited by the GAs in the past.  But it doesn't mean the ban was an incorrect teaching at the time.

Christians eat pork.  Things change.

Edited February 2, 2023 by mrmarklin

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

everyone seems to think

Not everyone 🙋‍♀️
 

[Kevin Christensen]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

All good thoughts, thanks!  I agree that in situations where one doesn't have to act immediately, time and reevaluation is usually warranted.  I intentionally tried to avoid that option in the OP to see peoples thoughts on what should be done in that forced decision scenario.  I'm not quite sure where you stand if you were in the position where you had to follow what you think the spirit is telling you, or follow the counsel/teaching of the prophets, if they are in conflict.  Or, maybe I'm just not understanding clearly if you did state your position.  

It is interesting to me that you call Nibley and England "critics" rather than apologists.  In what way were they critics?  Did they publish or publicly disagree with prophetic counsel and teachings?  If not, what do you mean by the term "critic" in relation to them?

It is easy to forget that criticism and discernment are synonyms and that discernment is listed as a spiritual gift.  The strength of Nibley's apologetics came from his powers of discernment, and he occasionally applied that discernment to BYU culture and  LDS culture and US culture.  A few good examples would include his "How to Have a Quiet Campus, Antique Style", his "What is Zion a Distant View" essay, his "Criticizing the Brethren" essay, and the terrifyingly relevant "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else."  And of course, "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift."  In the Faith of an Observer video you get both Truman Madsen and Neal Maxwell talking about what an effective critic Nibley was and that one of the things that helped that was that his lifetime commitment was so visible.  If you watch in the background, you can see some high LDS authorities recognizing that some of what he says is directed at them.  For England, his "Shakespeare and the At-one-ment of Christ" must be called a notable achievement in literary criticism.  And England's "Why the Church is as True as the Gospel" is about what we ought to be most critical of, and what we should expect of one another.  Certainly not perfection and sameness.

Criticism precedes repentance, which of course, why Jesus asks us to start by being self-critical.  It also helps to think about the study that demonstrated that in a marriage, the ratio of appreciation to negative criticisms should be at least five to one.  One one of the most notable predictors of the failure of a relationship is the presence of scorn and contempt directed at one's partner.

I've remembered another occasion here, several years ago, when I commented on Spencer W. Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness.  I got very specific in what I disagreed with, but I could do so because I never lost sight of my appreciation of Kimball's life of service, apostolic and prophetic calling, amazing achievements, and that the issues I was criticizing came from the larger cultural attitudes rather than as foundational or revelatory.  I wasn't engaged in self-aggrandizement or self justification. Just a narrowly focused bit of discernment, with an eye to highlighting helpful alternatives that could lead to healing, and being very conscious of my own limitations and weakness.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It is easy to forget that criticism and discernment are synonyms and that discernment is listed as a spiritual gift.  The strength of Nibley's apologetics came from his powers of discernment, and he occasionally applied that discernment to BYU culture and  LDS culture and US culture.  A few good examples would include his "How to Have a Quiet Campus, Antique Style", his "What is Zion a Distant View" essay, his "Criticizing the Brethren" essay, and the terrifyingly relevant "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else."  And of course, "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift."  In the Faith of an Observer video you get both Truman Madsen and Neal Maxwell talking about what an effective critic Nibley was and that one of the things that helped that was that his lifetime commitment was so visible.  If you watch in the background, you can see some high LDS authorities recognizing that some of what he says is directed at them.  For England, his "Shakespeare and the At-one-ment of Christ" must be called a notable achievement in literary criticism.  And England's "Why the Church is as True as the Gospel" is about what we ought to be most critical of, and what we should expect of one another.  Certainly not perfection and sameness.

Criticism precedes repentance, which of course, why Jesus asks us to start by being self-critical.  It also helps to think about the study that demonstrated that in a marriage, the ratio of appreciation to negative criticisms should be at least five to one.  One one of the most notable predictors of the failure of a relationship is the presence of scorn and contempt directed at one's partner.

I've remembered another occasion here, several years ago, when I commented on Spencer W. Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness.  I got very specific in what I disagreed with, but I could do so because I never lost sight of my appreciation of Kimball's life of service, apostolic and prophetic calling, amazing achievements, and that the issues I was criticizing came from the larger cultural attitudes rather than as foundational or revelatory.  I wasn't engaged in self-aggrandizement or self justification. Just a narrowly focused bit of discernment, with an eye to highlighting helpful alternatives that could lead to healing, and being very conscious of my own limitations and weakness.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This is a beautiful attitude. 

[T-Shirt]

Elder Oaks gave good instruction for this very thing:

Quote

 As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

 

You actually just provided a great example from your own experience of this very thing happening to you.  The immediacy and unavoidable nature of the decision didn't sound "self-generated or self-imposed" to me:  

In this example, you were placed in a situation where what you felt was your own personal revelation/inspiration on the matter was in conflict with the counsel to you from a prophet.  This is not something that you could just shelf.  There was an imminent and unavoidable decision approaching - you either go on your mission earlier as directed by the prophet, or you finish up school first as directed by your heart.  You couldn't postpone or avoid a decision indefinitely and thus delay both school and a mission indefinitely, because to delay both would be to violate your own inspiration and the counsel of the prophet.  You were forced by circumstance to make a choice.  That is the kind of forced decision I am talking about.

I am glad you were at ease with your decision.  Most members are not accustomed to feeling such ease at dismissing the direct and personal counsel from a prophet, even if they feel that they are right.  There is usually some internal struggle/conflict between knowing that "I might be wrong because I am fallible , and this is a prophet of the Lord, after all", but on the other side knowing that "prophets are fallible too".   Most would not be so quick to politely reject his counsel to go earlier.  It seems we are taught to not be so confident in ourselves when our feelings contradict a prophets counsel, that we should at least first mediate on this new and reemphasized personal counsel, pray about it, etc. etc.   That is the typical orthodox Mormon response. 

The other side of me says that you did the right thing.  Elder Perry was bold to suggest such a significant life change without even really knowing who you are, your history, experience, feelings about your choices, or spiritual confirmation that you have previously received.   

That level of spiritual self-confidence to reject a prophet's counsel (although politely) directly to his face, is rare in deed.  I am envious at the ease in which you can dismiss a prophet's counsel when you feel something else is right for you.  Maybe it came with your relative greenness to the faith - only a member for 15 months, or perhaps maybe you really were so confident in your personal inspiration that you were certain it was infallible (a level of certainty I have a hard time aspiring to).  Had you grown up in the church, I suspect your reaction would have been a bit different .  Most of those who grew up in the church would have likely responded, thanks for your counsel, I will give it the serious thought and consideration it deserves in conjunction with heartfelt prayer before I make a decision.  That is kind of expected of us, and honestly, it is pretty good counsel - but it does sometimes inevitably lead to a forced choice.  Will I obey a prophets counsel, or obey what I feel to be the Spirit directing me elsewhere.  If someone can get through that without feeling some internal struggle or conflict to wrestle with internally, then I think they are probably doing it wrong, honestly.  

My decision was made back when I received the original spiritual witness, years before (that is another story) my conversation with Elder Perry, and then reconfirmed when I was baptized and confirmed a member 15 months before. I was already settled on what I was going to do. Many other things in my life before and after this conversation could have justified changing my mind.

I did not feel the need to weigh or shelve his counsel. I had already understood that 19-year-old men were obligated to serve missions and that his job was to reiterate this counsel. It was a pleasant conversation, a give-and-take as opposed to a conflict. His was more the attitude of invitation than instruction, and I don’t recall any subsequent commentary or discussion from my more knowledgeable friends who were with me. Bottom line for this instance, I guess, is that I didn’t receive a spiritual confirmation to accept his invitation or to reconsider it from time to time.

I observed later how powerful his personality could be (I don’t remember his talk earlier that evening), but in this instance he was very kind and frankly, very weary.

I’m going drill down on some of your descriptions because I think it perhaps helps show how the Lord works with all personalities and backgrounds. Yes, I was at ease; I didn’t feel dismissive; I didn’t take it as direct, personal counsel (I was already familiar that feeling due to some General Conference talks, typically to repent!); I didn’t reject it because I felt I knew where he was coming from; I grew up in NYC so maybe that explains my lack of intimidation. Who knows how my life would have gone had I been BIC, or whether I would have felt forced to make a decision if I were of another makeup.

But I did know what the Spirit had told me, and my testimony of the Church and the Book of Mormon had not let me down, so I knew what "sense" to go by. Framing this in terms of fallibility (his, mine; the Lord’s infallibility) was never part of my thinking as I’ve returned to this experience now and again during the last 45 years since. My explanation for staying true is not because God or the testimony is infallible, but because I think and feel better for having Him and my testimony in my life.

I would say that spiritual struggle and conflict of any kind can be shared with the Lord, as we see when Enos wrestled, desired and struggled. As that is the case, freedom prevails over force, and He will help you in this situation as you perceive it.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, manol said:

This occurs to me: 

Perhaps Elder Perry's bold advice, and/or @CV75's ensuing verbal affirmation to a prophet that he WOULD serve a mission, helped make it happen, and the fact that Elder Perry was mistaken about the timeline is of no consequence in the long run.  In other words, I can easily see Elder Perry being inspired even if the specifics of what the Lord had in mind were not what he assumed them to be. 

I also think Elder Perry could have been inspired to reiterate the general counsel, and for all I know, he believed me!  Now that I think of it, he must have: I did not feel judged at all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Elder Oaks gave good instruction for this very thing:

Quote

Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

This exactly parallels the vaccination issue I mentioned above. I have no doubt that God can use revelation to warn certain individuals that they should steer clear of certain vaccines for reasons of potential complications if it is wisdom in Him to do so. As @CV75 keeps making very clear, in such circumstances, there is peace, not conflict ... and definitely no desire to 'correct' or circumvent the apostles.

This is a very different situation to being opposed to vaccination as a matter of 'conscience', which is almost certainly a case of privileging our preferred social, cultural, ideological, and/or political values such that they create conflict with apostolic teachings, engendering turmoil in our lives.

In my experience, turmoil is a clear indication that I am straying from the Lord's way.

[rpn]

Our leaders have told us that they teach the rules, and if we think we might be an exception in some way, it is up to us to study that out and seek confirmation that we are.

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

One of the things that strikes me abut this forum, is that everyone seems to think that whatever comes out of the mouth of a GA is Gospel. 

Do you mean Doctrine?  Because at least all the disbelievers don’t accept it as doctrine…

And a good many believers, including myself, believe that the Gospel is a smaller part of what is taught and often what is taught is how a GA believes the Gospel should be applied, to help us live the Gospel teachings better, which is not always the same thing as the Gospel, imo, but it can be very valuable…at the very least to cause us to examine our choices rather than just operate on auto pilot.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Calm

[SkyRock]

I have issues with certain policies and applications.  All inspiration is mediated through the person receiving it, even for Q15.  Just like I may misinterpret or misunderstand some guidance from the Holy Ghost, so can they. 

We may be seeing only a tree and not the forest.  Maybe my limitations are preventing us from seeing.  So instead of screaming from the rooftops about what I see is an error,  I just focus on improving my relationship with my Lord and being obedient as best I can. 

We once were in a boundary realignnent that was "wrong".  One ward ended up small and landlocked, while the other was growing nonstop.  I knew before the realignment how the growth was going to happen, so should have the church leaders.

2 years later they changed it to the way I knew was correct, and balanced the wards.  Were the leaders wrong?  Actually, no.   The small landlocked ward grew by over 100 active members in that 2 years, by focusing on inactive families.  These families would have been overlocked if not for that 2 year period.

That was almost 20 years ago.   It was a great lesson to me in my life, that the Lord sometimes does things outside of what seems like logic and reason.   And that is OK.  

[pogi]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my experience, turmoil is a clear indication that I am straying from the Lord's way.

I have a very close friend who has recently been going through a troubling a "faith crisis".  She was in pretty deep turmoil over many issues as she was evolving out of a dualistic mindset, realizing that the authorities she has always trusted implicitly are not the absolute authorities that she supposed who have all the answers.  She learned of some things that has impacted her dualistic belief in them.  She was evolving into  into a more relative mindset.  She was at an a cross roads.  She was really troubled and scared because she thought these feelings meant that she was on her way out of the church.  She was questioning things, didn't feel right about other things, and in her head she thought this meant (as we are often taught) that she was on the road to apostacy.  She was troubled by some things that she was learning she was feeling a sense of anger, depression and grief as the illusion of dualism was falling apart.   The thought that she felt like this all meant that she was on her way out of the church troubled her greatly.  I recognized instantly what was happening and was able to intervene.   I let her know that she has a couple choices.  1) she could regress to position 2 (which I knew wasn't her style) and remain an active member like before and all of her Mormon family and associates would commend her for making the "right" choice.  2) She had the option of staying angry and abandoning everything that she has always believed in as a result of this "crisis', or 3) instead of seeing it and defining it as a "faith crisis", she can choose to recognize it as a "faith process" or "faith transition" towards something better. 

Recognizing instantly that she was transitioning into stage 4 of the Perry Scheme, I was able to show her that what she is experiencing is a normal and even expected process of growth.  This new perception and understanding of what she was experiencing changed everything for her.  After studying the Perry scheme she realized  "Oh, I am not losing faith?"  "Oh, that is what is happening?"  It removed her from the perceived inevitability that she was on her way out (because there was no going back to where she was before).  Because that is how she always interpreted those feelings.      I helped show her through the Perry scheme a possible path forward where she can eventual learn to commit to her childhood faith but with a new and improved lens to see it through and experience it in a more spiritually mature way.  A huge burden of grief was lifted off of her shoulders as a new hope emerged.   She is now in stage 5 and having some issues, but knowing that this is expected and does not signify that she is "straying from the Lord's way" is what is keeping her in the faith.   When people understand that they are growing helps give them the courage to continue growing.  When they feel that they are on the road to apostacy and are straying, then that belief often becomes a self-fulling prophecy.  How we perceive the feelings of what we are going through can make all the difference.  

I think we need to be very careful with people who are struggling through these transitions.  It is a very delicate time and they could easily turn either way.  It can become a defining moment of spiritual growth, or a defining moment of falling away from the faith.  Helping them to understand that what they are experiencing is expected part of moral/spiritual growth gives people the courage to continue growing.  It flips the script from where they thought they were falling, to where they now perceive themselves as transitioning in moral/spiritual progression. 

https://www.jmu.edu/geology/_files/willperry21.pdf

Edited February 3, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:40 PM, pogi said:

While I agree that it is probably of no consequence in the long-run (but who knows, what if there were experiences and opportunities that he missed out on for not following the prophets counsel), this was a perfect example of what I am talking about - a forced decision where personal inspiration is in conflict with counsel from a prophet.  Elder Perry already knew that CV was planning on going on a mission, but for Elder Perry the timeline was the issue, not whether or not he was going.  

A parallel example could be the oft repeated counsel to not wait to have children until after school.   What if someone received personal revelation that they are to wait?  That leads to a forced decision and is not something that can just be placed on a shelf.  Do I follow my conscience as I feel is directed by the spirit, or do I follow the counsel of the prophets and just endure the unwelcome comments and judgments of other members?  I think CV and I are in agreement about ultimately following what we believe to be the Spirit, but for some reason he thinks that a forced decision is just some made-up self-imposed thing.  It isn't.  People are faced with these decisions a lot. 

You are defining a forced decision as an imperative created by the tension between personal revelation, prophetic counsel and what others think (and that third element suggests a conflation of cognitive and spiritual development, a tension I do not think exists on the Lord’s part, who knows what to reveal to whom, when, how, etc.).

I am saying the imperative is created by the individual’s personal sense that they need to act at a certain level of tension. Likewise, fear, fearing to act, and fearing the consequences of action are generated internally, just as faith is.

I don’t think the Lord conflates cognitive health and development with spiritual health and development, and so His revelations are always appropriate for the person receiving them, at whatever their stage of cognitive, spiritual or other development in which they receive them. I think this suggests that people stumble when they, for whatever reason, choose to believe the prophet or others more than the Spirit.

Cognitive development models are simply that, and helpful in their own right, with the ideal being to integrate the whole person spiritually, mentally and physically. But the Lord knows when to send someone the Spirit with the expectation that they keep it, and it is up to them to keep it, no matter their mental and physical makeup (barring anything that undermines their accountability and agency).

Edited February 3, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I have a very close friend who has recently been going through a troubling a "faith crisis".  She was in pretty deep turmoil over many issues as she was evolving out of a dualistic mindset, realizing that the authorities she has always trusted implicitly are not the absolute authorities that she supposed who have all the answers.  She learned of some things that has impacted her dualistic belief in them.  She was evolving into  into a more relative mindset.  She was at an a cross roads.  She was really troubled and scared because she thought these feelings meant that she was on her way out of the church.  She was questioning things, didn't feel right about other things, and in her head she thought this meant (as we are often taught) that she was on the road to apostacy.  She was troubled by some things that she was learning she was feeling a sense of anger, depression and grief as the illusion of dualism was falling apart.   The thought that she felt like this all meant that she was on her way out of the church troubled her greatly.  I recognized instantly what was happening and was able to intervene.   I let her know that she has a couple choices.  1) she could regress to position 2 (which I knew wasn't her style) and remain an active member like before and all of her Mormon family and associates would commend her for making the "right" choice.  2) She had the option of staying angry and abandoning everything that she has always believed in as a result of this "crisis', or 3) instead of seeing it and defining it as a "faith crisis", she can choose to recognize it as a "faith process" or "faith transition" towards something better. 

Recognizing instantly that she was transitioning into stage 4 of the Perry Scheme, I was able to show her that what she is experiencing is a normal and even expected process of growth.  This new perception and understanding of what she was experiencing changed everything for her.  After studying the Perry scheme she realized  "Oh, I am not losing faith?"  "Oh, that is what is happening?"  It removed her from the perceived inevitability that she was on her way out (because there was no going back to where she was before).  Because that is how she always interpreted those feelings.      I helped show her through the Perry scheme a possible path forward where she can eventual learn to commit to her childhood faith but with a new and improved lens to see it through and experience it in a more spiritually mature way.  A huge burden of grief was lifted off of her shoulders as a new hope emerged.   She is now in stage 5 and having some issues, but knowing that this is expected and does not signify that she is "straying from the Lord's way" is what is keeping her in the faith.   When people understand that they are growing helps give them the courage to continue growing.  When they feel that they are on the road to apostacy and are straying, then that belief often becomes a self-fulling prophecy.  How we perceive the feelings of what we are going through can make all the difference.  

I think we need to be very careful with people who are struggling through these transitions.  It is a very delicate time and they could easily turn either way.  It can become a defining moment of spiritual growth, or a defining moment of falling away from the faith.  Helping them to understand that what they are experiencing is expected part of moral/spiritual growth gives people the courage to continue growing.  It flips the script from where they thought they were falling, to where they now perceive themselves as transitioning in moral/spiritual progression. 

https://www.jmu.edu/geology/_files/willperry21.pdf

See post above. A person at a transitioning-to-higher stage in these cognitive development models could very well choose not to believe in LDS specifics and be perfectly happy in their decision -- that describes the higher stage. Coaching or treating others on a cognitive model with the aim of keeping them in the Church rather than to advance their developmental improvement and self-determination whatever the spiritual consequences is questionable to me. Even the Church's emotional self-reliance and substance abuse courses are designed to help people by applying and growing their faith in Christ, even in their "undeveloped" state, and celebrate their health whether they remain active or not. Getting to the temple is best, but that comes after the course's objectives are met.

Edited February 3, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are defining a forced decision as an imperative created by the tension between personal revelation, prophetic counsel and what others think (and that third element suggests a conflation of cognitive and spiritual development, a tension I do not think exists on the Lord’s part, who knows what to reveal to whom, when, how, etc.).

No, I am not.   I am defining it as a decision that one can't avoid.   It has nothing to do with what "others think".  Not sure where you are getting that idea from.

You chose to follow your own personal inspiration/revelation over the prophets counsel.  It was a quick and easy decision for you because it was already made in your mind.  But, you were still faced with the decision to choose what you already felt was right and this new counsel to you by a prophet.  It was unavoidable, you were forced to choose.  I’m not sure why you find that problematic.  We are faced with forced decisions all the time.  You couldn't postpone or delay a choice forever.   

I gave a second similar example of someone praying and receiving personal revelation to wait to have children until after college, say in the 1980's.  One one hand he has his personal revelation, on the other hand he has the repeated and consistent counsel of the brethren telling him "don't wait until you are done with school".  That is a situation where one is forced to choose what he will follow, his own revelation or the counsel of the prophets. 

Can't address the other stuff now other than to say I disagree.  That is probably enough and is not worth going further than that based on our history of communication (or lack thereof).

Edited February 4, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I am not.   I am defining it as a decision that one can't avoid.   It has nothing to do with what "others think".  Not sure where you are getting that idea from.

You chose to follow your own personal inspiration/revelation over the prophets counsel.  It was a quick and easy decision for you because it was already made in your mind.  But, you were still faced with the decision to choose what you already felt was right and this new counsel to you by a prophet.  It was unavoidable, you were forced to choose.  I’m not sure why you find that problematic.  We are faced with forced decisions all the time.  You couldn't postpone or delay a choice forever.   

I gave a second similar example of someone praying and receiving personal revelation to wait to have children until after college, say in the 1980's.  One one hand he has his personal revelation, on the other hand he has the repeated and consistent counsel of the brethren telling him "don't wait until you are done with school".  That is a situation where one is forced to choose what he will follow, his own revelation or the counsel of the prophets. 

Can't address the other stuff now other than to say I disagree.  That is probably enough and is not worth going further than that based on our history of communication (or lack thereof).

I got the idea from here: You posted, "That leads to a forced decision and is not something that can just be placed on a shelf.  Do I follow my conscience as I feel is directed by the spirit, or do I follow the counsel of the prophets and just endure the unwelcome comments and judgments of other members?" That last one can become a biggie for people, with or without prior personal revelation.

I was not forced to choose because I had already made the decision. Many things happened before and after my conversation with Elder Perry, mostly to dissuade me from going on a mission at all, but none to convince me to go at 19 to avoid these hurdles, and I went after graduating from college.

I understand that you can read my experience as being forced, because you see others' experience that way too. That is your way of viewing and understanding things. I don't see these as examples of being forced to choose so much as of feeling the need to trust in the Lord with all our heart; and lean not unto our own understanding. and in all our ways acknowledge Him so that He can direct our paths.

Cognitive health and development is a worthy pursuit, but it isn't a guarantee for Church activity, or the means of reconciling matters of faith and knowledge.

Edited February 4, 2023 by CV75

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I understand that you can read my experience as being forced, because you see others' experience that way too. That is your way of viewing and understanding things. I don't see these as examples of being forced to choose so much as of feeling the need to trust in the Lord with all our heart; and lean not unto our own understanding. and in all our ways acknowledge Him so that He can direct our paths.

Cognitive health and development is a worthy pursuit, but it isn't a guarantee for Church activity, or the means of reconciling matters of faith and knowledge.

Once again, everything you have written here resonates 100 per cent with my personal experiences too. Thanks!

Peace and confidence are grounded in a relationship with Heavenly Father that is characterised by genuine revelation and a sincere willingness to trust Him with all our heart.

I understand fully why your encounter with Elder Perry didn't feel forced ... because there was no conflict.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan