When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, 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?

I think it was right to excommunicate those who ordained Africans before the ban was lifted even if the policy was always wrong. That doesn't mean that the leadership that allowed the ban and excommunicated the activist is invalid, nor that the activist wasn't moved by the spirit though it went against the church. Because the Church is "living", subject to living authorities who are put in charge of it, and a church of order and order may be both lawful and unjust, and so can be right and wrong, everyone must judge where to draw that line for themselves. Even being enlightened and right doesn't put you in charge, does it? The divergent Individual can be both right and wrong also.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve made several of those decisions. No regrets here. I imagine some pious neanderthol  may show up and say “well let’s see where you are in the future”.  I can live with the consequences of all my choices. Fortunately for me there is repentance in the atonement for the things that I have misinterpreted direction for. There are very few things in my life that I have blatantly and rebelliously chosen to do out of stubbornness. Again, thank goodness for the atonement.

Most of my service in the church has been teaching youth and adults. People have learned to expect me to say at the beginning of every single lesson “you better go home and pray about everything that is shared today that inspires change for you. Don’t take my word or anybody’s word in this room as directive without having a conversation with God about it first.”

Oh my, where were you in all my years of lessons! 😍

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure what this part means: "Putting it on a shelf is not an option because action is required.  You need to make a choice." Prophetic teachings involve invitations to act (a la 2 Nephi 26:33), not requirements to act.

Generally speaking, though, I favor "Follow your conscience as you feel the Spirit directs," since that is all we can do, whether or not the Spirit directs, or we feel He is or isn't directing, or what we tell ourselves or others about that.

It suggests that one has been placed in a decision where they don't have the luxury of placing the issue on the shelf, because they are faced with a forced a decision.  There is no way around the decision.  The decision is what I am suggesting is required in this scenario, I am not implying any force on part of the church.   So, the person is placed in a forced decision where they have to chose to follow the counsel of the prophet/church, or their own conscience.  I think a lot of people would simply place the issue on the shelf if it didn't require decisive action.  That is a fine option, but I wanted to avoid that option in this scenario.    

 

[manol]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

At the risk of being overly simplistic and/or overly legalistic, in the event of a discrepancy, imo God the Holy Spirit out-ranks all the prophets and all the scriptures combined. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Has anything like this ever happened to you?  How did you respond?

Yes.  At times I chose to "follow the prophet" when doing so felt wrong to me, and at times I chose to follow the Holy Spirit to the best of my understanding.  It felt like a betrayal of myself when I followed something I actively felt was wrong, and it felt like my spirit was soaring when I followed the Holy Spirit to the best of my understanding.  

And because I am not infallible, I ALSO believe in course-correction. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So if the Holy Ghost tell you to stop paying tithing because the church leaders are amassing more wealth than the Lord wants them to would you stop?

Yes.  I did so during my last couple of years of active membership, paying what would have been "tithing" into "fast offering" because of where the funds would go.

That being said, I'd probably stop short of campaigning against the Church's allocation of tithing funds UNLESS I felt that God wanted me to play that role. 

And in this sort of context, imo if you are agnostic or atheist, substitute "morality" or "integrity" or "your conscience" or "correct values" or "ethics" in place of "God" or "the Lord" or "the Holy Ghost". 

I'm a big fan of "do what is right, let the consequence follow", even if we do not necessarily agree on "what is right". 

Edited February 1, 2023 by manol

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I think it was right to excommunicate those who ordained Africans before the ban was lifted even if the policy was always wrong. That doesn't mean that the leadership that allowed the ban and excommunicated the activist is invalid, nor that the activist wasn't moved by the spirit though it went against the church. Because the Church is "living", subject to living authorities who are put in charge of it, and a church of order and order may be both lawful and unjust, and so can be right and wrong, everyone must judge where to draw that line for themselves. Even being enlightened and right doesn't put you in charge, does it? The divergent Individual can be both right and wrong also.

I think life without such an authoritarian approach and submission to such things is healthier at least for me.  As I said it borders on cult like obedience.

[Kevin Christensen]

At this stage of my life, I can look back and see a few important general principles, and some important bits of intellectual background for dealing with humanity, and some notable paradigmatic examples.

In principle, I make it a point to give things time, my eyes open, and re-examine my own assumptions periodically.  The alternative is to insist on final answers now, to never make the effort and take the time to learn new things, assuming without question that I don't need any further information to decide on everything right now, and to never question my own assumptions, never check my own eye for beams.  Either approach has consequences.

Expectations are important, so, whenever I run across something I did not expect, I consider, "What should I expect?"

Of prophets, I find it notable what D&C 1 says as a formal authoritative declaration of what I should expect of the Lord's authorized servants:

Quote

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Whereas the cultural common place phrase refers to the "only true church" and implies complete, perfect, and exclusive with reference to truth and revelation, D&C 1 as a whole expressly insists that what we have is incomplete, imperfect and non-exclusive with reference to truth, virtue and revelation. The key phrase, D&C 1:30 has 30 words, not just three.  And I have spent much effort in trying to sort out exactly what it says.  Part of that inquiry led to the observation that the Biblical instances of "true" and "living" imagery and language have to do with voice of warning (Jer. 10:10), with priesthood (true vine and branches and living stones", ordinances and covenants (living bread, living waters), and the temple, "tree of life, living way through the veil", and so forth. And I notice that the reference for "only" is not the Church, but of well-pleasingness relative to what "true and "living" denotes for the gathering.

I looked up "sustain" in a good dictionary, and find that it is a super word for defining the attitudes essential for a living community to succeed, ,when that community consists of a wide range of people with different cultures, biographies, levels of development, temperaments, and experiences.  "Allow, endure, suffer, support, nourish, obey."

I've studied both the 16 Myers Briggs types, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and have travel to several countries and learned from travel, and books, and media that the word is far larger and more diverse than the Wasatch Front in the 50s and early 60s.  Such things remind me that we are not all the same, nor in the same place, nor do we think and decide the same way, or process information in the same way.

I've seen the behavior and faith of important critics, such as Hugh Nibley and Eugene England, and seen much notable difference in John Dehlin and Bill Reel who started idealistically, and moved in a very different direction than Nibley and England.  Nibley and England kept Christ and testimony of the authenticity of the restoration in the center.  I see the justly famous observation by Joseph Smith in what eventually comes when a person decides that the Church and its leaders are wrong, and the critic is in the right.  They are on the road to apostacy.  I've also met Maxine Hanks a view times, and find her journey out, and back to the LDS faith inspiring.   

The difference is actually the same as that depicted in It's a Wonderful Life!  When George Bailey is focused on his very real personal frustrations, his legitimate grievances, his painful sacrifices, his life becomes a living hell, and he creates unbearable tensions in his personal relationships, hurting those he loves the most, and intensifying his own shame and personal conflicts.  What gets him to say, "Isn't it wonderful! I'm going to jail!" is not any sense that he will be saved (that is an unexpected bonus that comes later), or that his frustrations and need to sacrifice and endure will suddenly vanish, but rather a sense that his sacrifices and frustrations have meaning larger than himself.   In Cosmos and History, Eliade points out that what bothers people most is not suffering, but meaningless suffering.

On this board, I have on several occasions in the past, responded directly to quotations of an editorial by Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the theory that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is not the same as the New York Hill.   In responding, I did not in anyway question his apostleship or inspiration, nor of God's wisdom in calling him to a life of valuable service, nor question the Book of Mormon, or the foundations of the LDS faith.  But rather, that on that topic, in that essay, I observed that he simply deferred to tradition without examining the roots of that tradition, nor did he address the specific arguments from the Book of Mormon text raised by those who proposed an alternative.  D&C 1 seems apt.

During the 1960s and early 1970s, as teenager finding my own way, when I explored the Priesthood ban, I did not get any satisfactory answers, but I did have a testimony.  At one point, in response to prayer and pondering, I got a simple answer as a silent still small impression.  Don't worry about it for now.  I have vivid memories of where I was a few years later in 1978 in Salt Lake City in the Avenues apartment of my soon to be wife, when we read the report of the change.  You could feel the electric joy and wonder all through the city.  Not bewilderment, not concern, or questioning or doubt, but sheer unabated joy.

 I recall reading an account in Sunstone of a group of people in Manti who reported having some wonderful spiritual experiences in private prayer circles.  They felt upset and offended when local and stake leaders discouraged the practice.  And it seem shocking and upsetting to read of their excommunication.  That is, until I read the later account that their leader claimed that God would punish Gordon B. Hinkley for his support of the changes of the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood by reincarnating him as a black man.   That is quite clearly several steps beyond a conflict of principle reports of intense spiritual experiences, and seems not in the same spirit as I feel when I attend the temple.  Again, Joseph Smith's comment about those who rise up to claim that the church is out of the way and they are right, seems notably apt.

A few years ago, many people reported being terribly offended by an announcement that children gay parents would not be baptized till they came of age.  One of my friends, whose wife had left him to spend over a decade in a series of lesbian relationships, and who therefore, was in a direct and person position to consider the implications, and had talks with his two daughters, actually saw in the over-reaction, a personal rekindling of his commitment to return to activity.  He's been teaching ever since.

A few years ago, I thought the new set of temple films were that were good in the way they presented Eve's conscious sacrifice.  Last times I went, the film have become slides... not as effective, but with a few ceremonial differences that most appreciate.  How much of a fuss should I make?  Well, it's not my job.

Back when I compiled passages described Discerning True and False Prophets, I was included this one: Romans 14:4. Who are thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or faileth. Yea,…God is able to make him stand.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 1, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So if the Holy Ghost tell you to stop paying tithing because the church leaders are amassing more wealth than the Lord wants them to would you stop?

Well, I would probably be a little skeptical if the HG started spewing off talking points from ex-mormon reddit, but if I were certain God had actually commanded me to stop paying tithing then yes, I would stop. I wouldn't tell other people to stop paying tithing though, nor would I hold it against my priesthood leaders for withholding a temple recommend due to my decision to not pay tithing.

 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

At this stage of my life, I can look back and see a few important general principles, and some important bits of intellectual background for dealing with humanity, and some notable paradigmatic examples.

In principle, I make it a point to give things time, my eyes open, and re-examine my own assumptions periodically.  The alternative is to insist on final answers now, to never make the effort and take the time to learn new things, assuming without question that I don't need any further information to decide on everything right now, and to never question my own assumptions, never check my own eye for beams.  Either approach has consequences.

Expectations are important, so, whenever I run across something I did not expect, I consider, "What should I expect?"

Of prophets, I find it notable what D&C 1 says as a formal authoritative declaration of what I should expect of the Lord's authorized servants:

Whereas the cultural common place phrase refers to the "only true church" and implies complete, perfect, and exclusive with reference to truth and revelation, D&C 1 as a whole expressly insists that what we have is incomplete, imperfect and non-exclusive with reference to truth, virtue and revelation. The key phrase, D&C 1:30 has 30 words, not just three.  And I have spent much effort in trying to sort out exactly what it says.  Part of that inquiry led to the observation that the Biblical instances of "true" and "living" imagery and language have to do with voice of warning (Jer. 10:10), with priesthood (true vine and branches and living stones", ordinances and covenants (living bread, living waters), and the temple, "tree of life, living way through the veil", and so forth. And I notice that the reference for "only" is not the Church, but of well-pleasingness relative to what "true and "living" denotes for the gathering.

I looked up "sustain" in a good dictionary, and find that it is a super word for defining the attitudes essential for a living community to succeed, ,when that community consists of a wide range of people with different cultures, biographies, levels of development, temperaments, and experiences.  "Allow, endure, suffer, support, nourish, obey."

I've studied both the 16 Myers Briggs types, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and have travel to several countries and learned from travel, and books, and media that the word is far larger and more diverse than the Wasatch Front in the 50s and early 60s.  Such things remind me that we are not all the same, nor in the same place, nor do we think and decide the same way, or process information in the same way.

I've seen the behavior and faith of important critics, such as Hugh Nibley and Eugene England, and seen much notable difference in John Dehlin and Bill Reel who started idealistically, and moved in a very different direction than Nibley and England.  Nibley and England kept Christ and testimony of the authenticity of the restoration in the center.  I see the justly famous observation by Joseph Smith in what eventually comes when a person decides that the Church and its leaders are wrong, and the critic is in the right.  They are on the road to apostacy.  I've also met Maxine Hanks a view times, and find her journey out, and back to the LDS faith inspiring.   

The difference is actually the same as that depicted in It's a Wonderful Life!  When George Bailey is focused on his very real personal frustrations, his legitimate grievances, his painful sacrifices, his life becomes a living hell, and he creates unbearable tensions in his personal relationships, hurting those he loves the most, and intensifying his own shame and personal conflicts.  What gets him to say, "Isn't it wonderful! I'm going to jail!" is not any sense that he will be saved (that is an unexpected bonus that comes later), or that his frustrations and need to sacrifice and endure will suddenly vanish, but rather a sense that his sacrifices and frustrations have meaning larger than himself.   In Cosmos and History, Eliade points out that what bothers people most is not suffering, but meaningless suffering.

On this board, I have on several occasions in the past, responded directly to quotations of an editorial by Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the theory that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is not the same as the New York Hill.   In responding, I did not in anyway question his apostleship or inspiration, nor of God's wisdom in calling him to a life of valuable service, nor question the Book of Mormon, or the foundations of the LDS faith.  But rather, that on that topic, in that essay, I observed that he simply deferred to tradition without examining the roots of that tradition, nor did he address the specific arguments from the Book of Mormon text raised by those who proposed an alternative.  D&C 1 seems apt.

During the 1960s and early 1970s, as teenager finding my own way, when I explored the Priesthood ban, I did not get any satisfactory answers, but I did have a testimony.  At one point, in response to prayer and pondering, I got a simple answer as a silent still small impression.  Don't worry about it for now.  I have vivid memories of where I was a few years later in 1978 in Salt Lake City in the Avenues apartment of my soon to be wife, when we read the report of the change.  You could feel the electric joy and wonder all through the city.  Not bewilderment, not concern, or questioning or doubt, but sheer unabated joy.

 I recall reading an account in Sunstone of a group of people in Manti who reported having some wonderful spiritual experiences in private prayer circles.  They felt upset and offended when local and stake leaders discouraged the practice.  And it seem shocking and upsetting to read of their excommunication.  That is, until I read the later account that their leader claimed that God would punish Gordon B. Hinkley for his support of the changes of the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood by reincarnating him as a black man.   That is quite clearly several steps beyond a conflict of principle reports of intense spiritual experiences, and seems not in the same spirit as I feel when I attend the temple.  Again, Joseph Smith's comment about those who rise up to claim that the church is out of the way and they are right, seems notably apt.

A few years ago, many people reported being terribly offended by an announcement that children gay parents would not be baptized till they came of age.  One of my friends, whose wife had left him to spend over a decade in a series of lesbian relationships, and who therefore, was in a direct and person position to consider the implications, and had talks with his two daughters, actually saw in the over-reaction, a personal rekindling of his commitment to return to activity.  He's been teaching ever since.

A few years ago, I thought the new set of temple films were that were good in the way they presented Eve's conscious sacrifice.  Last times I went, the film have become slides... not as effective, but with a few ceremonial differences that most appreciate.  How much of a fuss should I make?  Well, it's not my job.

Back when I compiled passages described Discerning True and False Prophets, I was included this one: Romans 14:4. Who are thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or faileth. Yea,…God is able to make him stand.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

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?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

It suggests that one has been placed in a decision where they don't have the luxury of placing the issue on the shelf, because they are faced with a forced a decision.  There is no way around the decision.  The decision is what I am suggesting is required in this scenario, I am not implying any force on part of the church.   So, the person is placed in a forced decision where they have to chose to follow the counsel of the prophet/church, or their own conscience.  I think a lot of people would simply place the issue on the shelf if it didn't require decisive action.  That is a fine option, but I wanted to avoid that option in this scenario.    

 

So, the force is internal or self-imposed, in which case it seems they misunderstand, don't believe, or don't apply 2 Nephi 26:33 to themselves despite the decision-making efforts they have made. Depending on the particular point of conflict, a belief or testimony on that point, or supporting belief / testimony may be lacking.

I guess my answer remains the same, then, "Follow your conscience as you feel the Spirit directs," since that is all anyone can do, however they conceptualize or interpret these words to mean. They will justify their decision and action according to their most valued belief, whether and however they explain it to themselves or others.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, the force is internal or self-imposed, in which case it seems they misunderstand, don't believe, or don't apply 2 Nephi 26:33 to themselves despite the decision-making efforts they have made. Depending on the particular point of conflict, a belief or testimony on that point, or supporting belief / testimony may be lacking.

A forced decisions is not necessarily self imposed.  It could be situationally imposed by time or circumstance to where they have to make a choice.   I suppose I don't understand what you think 2 Nephi 26:33 (if you are going to reference a scripture, please be kind and post a link or quote it) applies here.  So maybe I am guilty of at least one of those things you listed, or perhaps you are not understanding me. 

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I guess my answer remains the same, then, "Follow your conscience as you feel the Spirit directs," since that is all anyone can do, however they conceptualize or interpret these words to mean. They will justify their decision and action according to their most valued belief, whether and however they explain it to themselves or others.

Thanks for sharing. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by pogi

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I answered “follow your conscience as the spirit directs”, but I do think that there’s a caveat in that, because I do think it depends on what the subject is.

If I think that God is telling me, it’s OK to embezzle money to fix my family’s poor financial stability, then I don’t think I should ignore the prophets and do that. If I think that the spirit is telling me that it’s OK for me to get my mother’s handwritten note tattooed on my arm to help me heal from her death, then I think listening to the spirit as it directs in that situation would be fine.

Those are too obviously extreme examples, but I think they outline the point I’m trying to make. 

I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend.  Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. 
 

Color me skeptical. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend.  Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. 
 

Color me skeptical. 

I’m with you on that skepticism. 

[pogi]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I answered “follow your conscience as the spirit directs”, but I do think that there’s a caveat in that, because I do think it depends on what the subject is.

If I think that God is telling me, it’s OK to embezzle money to fix my family’s poor financial stability, then I don’t think I should ignore the prophets and do that. If I think that the spirit is telling me that it’s OK for me to get my mother’s handwritten note tattooed on my arm to help me heal from her death, then I think listening to the spirit as it directs in that situation would be fine.

Those are too obviously extreme examples, but I think they outline the point I’m trying to make. 

It's a good point, and one that I tried to capture in the OP with "strongly considering our own fallibility".  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A forced decisions is not necessarily self imposed.  It could be situationally imposed by time or circumstance to where they have to make a choice.   I suppose I don't understand what you think 2 Nephi 26:33 (if you are going to reference a scripture, please be kind and post a link or quote it) applies here.  So maybe I am guilty of at least one of those things you listed, or perhaps you are not understanding me. 

Thanks for sharing. 

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.

We might be prompted with a sense of urgency, especially regarding repentance, but to me that is in line with a confirmation to follow the teaching or counsel.

I took your OP to be completely hypothetical, and not representative any real-life experience you may be having; my points are about what I would do as a matter of general principle.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think life without such an authoritarian approach and submission to such things is healthier at least for me.  As I said it borders on cult like obedience.

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.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I answered “follow your conscience as the spirit directs”, but I do think that there’s a caveat in that, because I do think it depends on what the subject is.

If I think that God is telling me, it’s OK to embezzle money to fix my family’s poor financial stability, then I don’t think I should ignore the prophets and do that. If I think that the spirit is telling me that it’s OK for me to get my mother’s handwritten note tattooed on my arm to help me heal from her death, then I think listening to the spirit as it directs in that situation would be fine.

Those are too obviously extreme examples, but I think they outline the point I’m trying to make. 

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.

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, 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?

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

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?

Edited February 2, 2023 by rodheadlee
Clarity

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend.  Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. 
 

Color me skeptical. 

Sounds like someone (at face value) has a hard time making wise decisions to begin with.  🤨

[manol]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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 don't want to read too much into this... is this your model for the way the Church should function, and/or for the way the Kingdom of God functions?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm more interested in genuine revelation than I am in my 'conscience'.

My nephew's wife's conscience assured her that all vaccines are evil. She even wrote a letter to the First Presidency and chastised them for being wrong on this point in relation to Covid (and then posted it on Facebook, which is how I know about it). Her conscience led her to a very long stay in an ICU and months on bottled oxygen, though she is finally off now.

As documented on certain websites, American cemeteries are now filled with the graves of people whose consciences assured them they were better informed and morally superior to public health authorities as well.

In a priesthood leadership training meeting with Elder Bednar, someone in the Q&A asked about how to distinguish revelation. His response: out of necessity, most revelation will inform us that we are wrong.

I'm convinced that the Lord requires us to heed prophets because He knows full well that, if we can't humble ourselves enough to do that, we will never be able to follow Him. Too many Saints convince themselves that somehow it's easier to follow God 'directly', but scripture suggests otherwise. How many times did Jesus preach that rejecting apostles would lead to a rejection of Him?

Edited February 2, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, manol said:

I don't want to read too much into this... is this your model for the way the Church should function, and/or for the way the Kingdom of God functions?

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.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm convinced that the Lord requires us to heed prophets because He knows full well that, if we can't humble ourselves enough to do that, we will never be able to follow Him.

That is, imo, a very good point.  It might not be about the apostles and prophets being inherently superior in spiritual knowledge, but about opening ourselves up to receive instruction in the first place, first practicing with more accessible sources to prepare us to better receive from the ultimate source.  The prophets and apostles are probably among the safest group to risk obedience to due to the requirement of unanimity among them plus years of service means their overstepping and errors are typically kept to a minimum where the same can’t be said of other organizations.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

... first practicing with more accessible sources to prepare us to better receive from the ultimate source.

Precisely. In my opinion, the endowment teaches this principle and actually has us rehearse it. Once we are out of God's immediate presence, we are invited to heed the words of 'angels' who are eventually identified as prophets. As we first recognise and then choose to follow 'true messengers', they help us come back into communion with the Lord Himself.

Quote

The prophets and apostles are probably among the safest group to risk obedience to due to the requirement of unanimity among them plus years of service means their overstepping and errors are typically kept to a minimum ...

Yes to all of the above, but I suspect that most important is the fact that they have the Lord's endorsement. He has specifically chosen them to teach us how to practise submitting to His will.

I have never seen rejection of prophetic authority end well. I have never seen it lead a person closer to the Lord Himself.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Precisely. In my opinion, the endowment teaches this principle and actually has us rehearse it. Once we are out of God's immediate presence, we are invited to heed the words of 'angels' who are eventually identified as prophets. As we first recognise and then choose to follow 'true messengers', they help us come back into communion with the Lord Himself.

Yes to all of the above, but I suspect that most important is the fact that they have the Lord's endorsement. He has specifically chosen them to teach us how to practise submitting to His will.

I have never seen rejection of prophetic authority end well. I have never seen it lead a person closer to the Lord Himself.

If by rejection you mean full out rejection, I haven’t personally seen it lead someone closer to the Lord as far as I could tell, though the vast majority of people I know who have done so have become agnostics and lost faith in Christ as well.

If you mean someone who has chosen to reject a few instructions as not appropriate for their own situation, I have seen some be successful in that they have also been fully in for other areas of prophetic instruction.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean someone who has chosen to reject a few instructions as not appropriate for their own situation, I have seen some be successful in that they have also been fully in for other areas of prophetic instruction.

The Lord has always been able to personalise prophetic messages through genuine revelation. As Elder Packer taught in his 'infamous' address to Church employees, those people are both at peace and prosper. Being told through revelation that one is an exception to the general counsel is fundamentally different to determining that the prophets have lost their way.

I recently quoted Thomas B. Marsh on this forum:

Quote

'The next question is, "How and when did you lose the Spirit?" I became jealous of the Prophet, and then I saw double, and overlooked everything that was right, and spent all my time in looking for the evil; and then, when the Devil began to lead me, it was easy for the carnal mind to rise up, which is anger, jealousy, and wrath. I could feel it within me; I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, and I thought I saw a beam in brother Joseph's eye, but it was nothing but a mote, and my own eye was filled with the beam; but I thought I saw a beam in his, and I wanted to get it out; and, as brother Heber says, I got mad, and I wanted everybody else to be mad. I talked with Brother Brigham and Brother Heber, and I wanted them to be mad like myself; and I saw they were not mad, and I got madder still because they were not'.