I do not blindly “Follow the Prophet.” But, to hear some talk or read their writings, they insist that members of the LDS Church must blindly “Follow the Prophet.”
Those that state this typically: 1) Have never been members of our Church 2) Are former Members of the Church or 3) Those who are somewhat disenchanted or disaffected from the Church.
We are taught by the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants:
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. “(1:38)
This was not a new concept brought about by Joseph Smith.
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him“(Deuteronomy 18:18)
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:19 – 20)
We are taught that the Prophet communicates the Word of the Lord to us, His children. That through the ages the Prophet has spoken the Word of the Lord to His people for their time.
As part of the Restoration of the Gospel, the Lord gave us a living Prophet once again. Joseph Smith, as the Prophet of this dispensation was called upon to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth in its fullness AND to declare the Word of the Lord to His people for this time. Joseph’s successors are called upon to testify of the mission of Joseph Smith AND to be the Lord’s current mouthpiece to His people.
We are clearly taught “For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. “(Doctrine and Covenants 84:36 – 38)
Many have interpreted this admonition to “receiveth my servants” as some sort of blind obedience. That you must “Follow the Prophet” or else. As if, “if the Prophet told you to jump off the roof….” You know the rest.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
“The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in his personal diary: “This morning I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.)
And when it a “prophet acting as such?” When moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And how should we know this? In exactly the same manner, by the Holy Ghost.
My first allegiance is to God, the Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. And I want more than anything to know the Will of God for me in my life and for my family. So, I am anxious to hear the Word of the Lord through His Mouthpiece, which happens to be President Thomas S. Monson.
But, I am obligated to study the words of the Living Prophet to determine how and if they apply to my life and those of my family. Not just accept them blindly. The same goes for my local leadership as well. I am obligated first to my allegiance to God and, second to my agency, which is among the greatest gifts of God to me personally. I value it highly. So, I would be in violation of that gift to just accept that counsel blindly.
We are told that the Prophet cannot “lead us astray. That it is not in the program.” That the Lord would remove that man from his position if he were to try to do so. I also believe that.
I wonder what “astray” would actually look like? In my mind, it would have to be something really big to lead the whole Church astray.
To me, astray would be “Warren Jeffs, FLDS, marrying and having sex with very young girls astray”. Like “Jim Jones astray”. Like reinstating polygamy when it is still against the law of the land, or, issuing a false prophecy astray.
It wouldn’t be talking about earrings or modesty or something that trivial. It probably would not be a decision to protect the Temple Square area by redeveloping the property around it astray. Ultimately, it would be something that would affect our eternal salvation.
So, it is not something I worry too much about.
Now, I realize that there has been a lot of talk recently in General Conference about following the Prophets and quoting from Ezra Taft Benson’s BYU devotional entitled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” And I know that many have been bent out of shape about that talk for a long time. But there are fundamental words in that talk that are right and line up very well with what the Scriptures teach us about Prophets. You may not agree with all of it, but for the most part it is scripturally based-counsel.
The Lord has always told His people to keep their eye on the Living Prophet when one has lived on the Earth. To give heed to his words as if the Lord Himself was talking to you. But in the end, it is you who has to decide whether to follow or not.
Come what may.
Wheat & Tares 
what is this i dont even.
BTW you said that “reinstating polygamy while it is against the law” would be bad. Does that mean it would be good to reinstate it if / when it becomes legal. And legal in which country? We are a worldwide church. Polygamy is legal in plenty of countries right now.
What do you make of the primary song Follow the Prophet? After eight verses of examples; Adam Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Samuel Jonah and Daniel each with a Chorus
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet he knows the way.
Comes:
Now we have a world where people are confused.
If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.
We can get direction all along our way,
If we heed the prophets-follow what they say
The phrase “follow the prophet” is sung 54 times! Isn’t this indoctrination? What happened to follow the Spirit?
And when it a “prophet acting as such?” When moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And how should we know this? In exactly the same manner, by the Holy Ghost.
What’s the purpose of having the ‘middle man’ at all in the process, then?
If we depend on the Holy Ghost to tell us what is true and what isn’t — certainly true — then why not depend on the Holy Ghost through personal prayer to answer gospel questions ALL the time? What’s the purpose of having prophets at all, then?
The analogy (from someone on another post) is a calculator that gives wrong answers on occasion, where the defenders say “it doesn’t matter if it’s inaccurate every once in a while — you can simply do the math yourself and check whether the answer is right.”
But if you have to do the math manually each time to check the calculator’s answer, after a while wouldn’t you just do the math yourself and stop using the calculator altogether? How is a slightly inaccurate calculator helpful over no calculator at that point?
The problem is there is no official statement as to what “astray” means in that sentence. I agree with your sentiment that it means MAJOR things only, but that’s our opinion.
It’s the easiest thing in the world for an anti-Mormon type to go up to a new member and say, “Hey, naive LDS convert: what do YOU think ‘astray’ means in regards to LDS prophets? Outline a scenario that YOU would consider to be ‘leading the Church astray'”
Then after they answer, they produce a quote or event in Church history that meets their criteria and their work is done. And the Church has no defense because they haven’t produced an official definition of “astray” for faithful members to use in those situations.
There’s a reason the “14 Fundamentals” talk has been quoted more often on anti-Mormon sites than faithful sites over the past 30 years before last October conference.
Jeff,
Federal statute made polygamy illegal in U.S. Territories. Yet the prophets continued to openly defy the law from approximately 1857-1890. How do you reconcile this with your statement that “astray would be…reinstating polygamy when it is still against the law of the land”.
MH,
Uh-oh!
“Yet the prophets continued to openly defy the law from approximately 1857-1890.”
Part of that time, they were not subject to US law, and the remaining part they either figured they were so far away, no one would bother them or, States/territory rights was certainly a bigger notion back then. With BY as Governor…..
The other thing I could say is that they were using, as Quinn called it “situational ethics” at the time believing that the law of God was more important than the “law of the land.” Not sure the Church follows that principle anymore. the fundamentalist seem to, though.
I’m trying to remember when the first federal anti-polygamy law was established–I think 1857. Quinn has some interesting footnotes on this issue. I think there was a second federal anti-polygamy law passed in about 1862. Lincoln had his hands full with the Civil War, and had no intention of enforcing it, even though he disliked polygamy. There were several federal anti-polygamy laws passed, with the Edmunds-Tucker Act in the 1880’s being the one that brought the church to its knees.
BY certainly felt that states’ rights would help him keep polygamy legal. Obviously States’ rights lost in the Civil War. After the war, Southerners successfully turned attention to polygamists in Utah to get the north off their back about slavery.
So the entire period of 1857-1890, there were federal statutes the church was defying. Prior to that, the church was violating social norms ever since the rumors of polygamy in the 1830’s.
I’m just saying that your polygamy example is a poor example of “leading astray.”
“To me, astray would be “Warren Jeffs, FLDS, marrying and having sex with very young girls astray”. Like “Jim Jones astray”. Like reinstating polygamy when it is still against the law of the land, or, issuing a false prophecy astray.”
This is the problem for many. These things you could list as going astray (and add others, like priesthood bans) do seem like the church has been led astray in the past, hence the multiple splinter groups. It makes it problematic for me, but not completely irreconcilable.
I really like the calculator analogy, but perhaps would change that to be a computer analogy. One can do the math yourself, and it benefits that person in school to understand the computations to really grasp the concepts. But at some point, we are doing so many calculations at such a large scale, it is too difficult to be done by hand all the time by all the people, and so it become inefficient. The computer can scale it, set rules, provide logic and order, to accelerate progress without each individual recreating things. Now, if the computer is randomly spitting out values and I have to constantly recheck it, I will abandon that computer (and get an iMac). But if the computer is only occassionally in error, then it just needs to be fixed as part of continuous improvement, but I’m better off using it with 99.9% accuracy, even if there is problem once in a while. I am better for using something that can do what I can’t by myself, rather than always doing it manually because there is a slim chance of error.
That is how I see a prophet. We can all be prophets and get revelation in our personal life or to once in a while “audit” the prophet/church for our piece of mind, but to scale and grow a church and pull the people together in a unified way, a prophet is needed for the “big” calculations, while I continue to do the math for my family and my little life choice experiences.
A prophet is needed for the church, without a church, then there is less need for “one prophet”. The church is there to support me. But I am the prophet for my life and household. As Elder Oaks talked about, I should be trying to reconcile my personal revelation with that of the prophet’s…and also respect bounds of authority because I can’t receive revelation for the church.
Situational ethics??
The idea a prophet speaks for the Lord, and the Lord uses situational ethics, is problematic for me.
Regarding KMB’s comment on what it means for a Prophet to lead the Church astray.
First, the comment inherently rests in circular logic. From the standpoint of a believing member, I suppose this little assurance gives one comfort. From the standpoint of a member trying to reconcile the Prophets actions, while standing at a spiritual cross-roads, the argument that God will never lead the Church astray, is far from comforting. I have to believe the Prophet in the first place, in order to accept his assurance that God really runs the show.
Now what would it look like to lead the Church “astray”? We of course don’t know, as it was never qualified, so ultimately it is meaningless. Still, we can conjecture and set some ration assumptions. If we accept the scripture mastery quote of Moses 1:39, then we know that at the end of the day, God’s ultimate purpose underlying everything from the Fall to the Atonement, lying under the umbrella of what we call the The Plan of Salvation, God wants to save souls. If we accept Mormon teachings on that matter, then the process of saving souls is one of sending them to mortality, enabling them to hear the message of redemption through Christ, work out their salvation through “fear and trembling” (repentance), make and keep sacred covenants whereby they are adopted into a covenant lineage (Priesthood/Temple/Adoption). They are then made partakers of the promise, benefit from Gods purpose, or his self-declared “Work and Glory”.
Bearing all of the above in context, we have a precedent from the era of Brigham Young where a policy was put in place by God’s Prophet (who should not lead the people “astray”) whereby an entire race of mankind, those souls created for the purpose of effecting God’s work and glory, where denied participation from essential process phases in the Plan of Salvation. They were even taught in some places, by Brigham Young, that they were not entitled to the full salvation (Exaltation) as other mortal races.
So what does that mean?? In the context of God will not let his Prophet lead the Church astray, the only way to save Brigham Young seems to be to accept his teachings as coming from God. Of course doing so puts him at odds with current teachings on the matter. Conversely, if we believe that Brigham Young acted on his own biases, then one wonders what more would he have to do to constitute an infraction against “leading the Church astray”. Afterall, if God did not command the Priesthood Ban, I would have to think (though I can only speculate) that this was a major disruption to the whole purpose behind restoring the Gospel, and vesting a Prophet with the key’s of Salvation. If that is correct, then we can’t accept the statement that God would not allow a Prophet to lead the Church astray, as anything more than hyperbole, as we have precedent to counter that argument. We are told that God would remove the Prophet out of his place. Perhaps he meant to imply that his process for removal was still old age and natural causes?? After all Brigham lived a long and full life, and never revoked this policy. Furthermore, his successors mainted the policy for an additional 100 years.
Long story short, even from a believing standpoint, there is practical implication for that teaching, and therefore little, if any, assurance.
One of the unique beliefs of Mormonism is that the head of the church is a prophet, yet he can sometimes be wrong. People can parse and “nuance” this belief as much as they like, but here is what the bottom line looks like to me:
If the prophet is a man who speaks for God, and if he is wrong, then one of two things must be true. Either God is speaking an untruth through the prophet (which may fit within Mormonism in light of the belief that God is not omniscient, which was taught by Brigham Young among others), or the prophet is not speaking for God at least some of the time. Most Mormon apologetics on the subject favor the second of these two possibilities. As in this thread, many apologists add the caveat that it is up to the hearer, relying on personal inspiration, to determine whether the prophet is speaking the truth or not.
If this theory is accepted, then it must also be accepted that the prophet has no real authority. Everything he says is subject to confirmation or dismissal by the hearer, presumably relying upon his own received inspiration. It is meaningless to say that the prophet can speak revelations that have a broader application than those spoken by the individual — e.g., the prophet can receive revelation for the church or the world, while the individual can receive revelation only for himself or his family. This is because the final authority rests with the individual, not the prophet.
Of course, anyone can defer to the prophet at any time and for any reason, whether it involves inspiration or not. But it seems pointless to say “Follow the prophet. He knows the way. Unless he doesn’t.”
Technically, I suppose that’s a true statement. But as Elder Packer points out, not all truth is useful.
*correction*
Last statement should read:
“Long story short, even from a believing standpoint, there is LITTLE practical implication for that teaching, and therefore little, if any, assurance.”
Cowboy, I totally agree with you. God will allow Free Agency and will allow prophets to make mistakes (D&C is full of examples of Joseph being chastised). This is where faith is difficult, because we can’t see perfection and truth…we have to have faith in it.
Perhaps its important to recognize “mistakes” and “astray” are not the same. Perhaps the church can keep its course of helping to bring souls to Christ, despite imperfect mortals making choices that will be wrong from time to time, which will eventually get corrected. So it doesn’t go astray because there are periodic times God checks in, corrects the course, and rights the ship again … ultimately making the church progress to its destination, and us as we follow it (despite specific circumstances which involve error and imperfection).
But it seems to me, God is not at the helm every day, or we would not see “situational ethics”.
It’s very telling that the “Contrary” position here at the blog is the common-sense mainstream sentiment of the church.
And, as Bro.Spector predicted, the people bitching about this in the comments are ” 1) Have never been members of our Church 2) Are former Members of the Church or 3) Those who are somewhat disenchanted or disaffected from the Church.”
As as side note –
I completely agree with everything KMB has stated. The Plan of Salvation processes, including the methods of revelation, are highly inefficient and wasteful processes. It would make more sense to drop the unnecessary middle man, and make each person responsible for the revelations they recieve.
Does it change the story any, to realize that the following notion:
Was stated by a man acting in the role of President of the Church? It would be one thing if it were the Lord Himself who stated the whole idea that the prophet would never lead the church astray (regardless of what definition you affix to astray), but it wasn’t the Lord who stated it. And, to provide even further contrast, it wasn’t written down as a revelation, as inspiration or anything else…
Furthermore, perhaps we should parse Woodruff’s words on the subject:
That quote, right there, is the first known statement containing rhetoric about the president of the church being quite incapable at preaching or teaching error. Prior to that teaching, every President of the Church taught – at least at times – doctrine that directly conflicts Woodruff’s statement. Be it Joseph, Brigham or John… all warned about the tendency of man to affix their salvation on the leaders of the church, to putting too much faith and trust in them and to allowing them to much leeway in how they led and guided the church.
In this statement Woodruff would have us believe that not only the “President of the Church” but “any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray” would be “remove[d]… out of [his] place.” In this statement there are some obvious inconsistencies.
First — the Lord will not allow one to lead others astray, but – if he does attempt, the Lord will remove him. Thus the attempt must be unsuccessful followed by his immediate removal. Somewhere along here we have short-circuited the process of free agency and assured that men will never fall to such circumstances.
Second — any other man attempting to lead astray will be removed and thus eliminate from us all temptation, because after all, we will see the immediate effect of sin and be swayed from its commission. Another part of Satan’s plan in opposition to free agency. Can we find the evidence in today’s world that all who attempt to lead astray will be removed before their attempts are successful?
It’s an illogical statement, but perhaps one worth a little more discussion.
#13. I diagree…I think a fourth possible group could be those who take time to think about these things and study it out in their minds (as the church teaches us to do).
The 4th group isn’t Anti- or less faithful.
Having a “contrary” position to the common-sense mainstream of the church does not have to be cast as negative, which tone I picked up on in your post.
N.
Another trite stereotype aimed at marginalizing anyone who doesn’t believe what the author argues.
Cowboy:
You mean, what is written in Jeremiah 31:31-34?
N.
With respect to Jeff, whom I like but often disagree with (we just hold opposing religious views), he failed to consider the other side of the coin. This has enabled you make bald character assertions of those who disagree with you (me for example) as though there is a disqualifying implication from the fact that I don’t share your Mormon optimism.
After all, I could just as easily take Jeff’s comments and note that those who state:
“I do not blindly “Follow the Prophet.”
generally fall into the class of never doubting “TBM” (not a term I use, or an implication I espouse), and active “Church goer”.
And what do you know???? I’d be right! Minus the implications of TBM, I doubt Jeff would disagree. He believes the Church, and also believes that he is a rational follower. Given that obvious alternative would be for one to state that they are irrational believers, who would accept that worldview of themselves. Case and point, your observation proves nothing more than your own narrow mindedness.
Jeff, can you give us one concrete example of an instance where you did not obey every word of the prophet because the spirit did not confirm it?
If you can’t, then I don’t know how you distinguish your actions from blind obedience. The claim is not falsifiable.
I recently read Quinn’s “The Mormon Hierarchy,” and one thing that stood out to me was the contrast between the Church under the Prophet Joseph Smith’s direction, and the later Church, after Joseph’s death, under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later the reorganized First Presidency.
If I understood correctly, for most of our post-Nauvoo history, the office of the President of the Church was more administrative than prophetic. It has been only in the last few decades that we’ve once again begun referring to the President of the Church as “The Prophet,” which I find interesting, considering how relatively few new prophecies and revelations have been received and published during our time as compared to during Joseph Smith’s.
I no longer believe that statements such as “the prophet will never lead the church astray” or “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done” are very useful. Regardless of what any church leader claims or commands, I still have to use my discernment to know when they are speaking as a prophet and when they are not.
#20 Micheal, your post reminds me of the thread a while back about the difference between the apostolic church and prophetic church (from Firetag). I tend to agree, it seems less “prophetic” of a church after Joseph.
I respect your approach, to use discernment, and I don’t think the church begrudges that (although some people might think so), because the church wants us to study it out in our minds.
To me, the 14 fundamentals and the teachings to “Follow the Prophet” are to try to remind people to be humble and obedient so they don’t stir up trouble and so there can be order in the church. It can be a good thing. But it doesn’t trump Free Agency.
I can follow my bishop as he thinks some things are important, and support him, even if I know he’s not perfect or knowing he is not a puppet for God to guide. I may not agree with him on everything, but I can sustain him and follow him without constantly fighting against him to prove my individuality. Same with the prophet. Most of the time, it will benefit me to do so. Not because he is infallible, but just because it usually is a good way for me and it works for me.
But I still study it out myself and have my own opinions.
I’m sorry. There’s just too much parsing in the church about this topic. As Cowboy said, generations of black people were denied exaltation. This does not square with our belief of a loving Heavenly Father. On top of that, we try to convert them now, with the baggage of 100+ years of a racist policy. How many more good people could we have in the church if the ban was never enacted.
Like it or not, this is one clear example of the church leadership “leading us astray”. And the sooner we deal with this honestly, the better.
That’s a tough one, Brad, because when I think of that, I feel embarrassment, and don’t know what to make of it. I think of homosexuality issues today with similar feelings.
But really, when in history has there ever been a prophet to meet our expectations? Is Moses not a prophet because he didn’t know the most efficient route to the promised land? (40 years in the desert makes the Martin Handcart company look like a bump in the road).
It seems like history teaches us that prophets are useful, but they aren’t perfect and they aren’t efficient. Must we reject them all because they’re not perfect?
I want to believe in a prophet, but hold back to use my discernment because it is needed, and try to live with a margin of error because its better than the alternative. That may not be a great approach for missionaries to use, but it is what I’m left with based on my personal experience.
KMB,
“What’s the purpose of having the ‘middle man’ at all in the process, then?”
Well, it appears to be the way God set it up.
MH,
“I’m just saying that your polygamy example is a poor example of “leading astray.”
Perhaps it is, but I thought with all the talk in the news about legalizing Gay marriage which is one step toward the legalization of polygamy, the Jeffs situation, the Sister Wives, Big Love, etc, seemed like a good idea at the time.
However, I also was thinking about the answer I gave you and I should have asked that we stick to the here and now, because we are falling back into the trap of using historic events to discuss the current situation.
Apparently, for what it’s worth, the Lord didn’t remove BY from his position so one can conclude either the Lord was ok with the Polygamy or the whole Woodruff quote is hogwash….
Heber13 and others,
“I really like the calculator analogy, but perhaps would change that to be a computer analogy.’
Let’s just lose the analogies here because we are not dealing in absolutes. This is human, spiritual and a matter of agency.
Heber13,
“The idea a prophet speaks for the Lord, and the Lord uses situational ethics, is problematic for me.”
It’s Quinn’s explanation, no one else’s.
Kevin,
“One of the unique beliefs of Mormonism is that the head of the church is a prophet, yet he can sometimes be wrong.’
After all, he is a human, makes mistakes like the rest of us and has to repent as well. this really depends on what you think he can be wrong about?”
“Oops, it rained today, didn’t bring my umbrella.” or something more substantial that might pertain to the eternal welfare of the whole Church.
“Jeff, can you give us one concrete example of an instance where you did not obey every word of the prophet because the spirit did not confirm it?”
Yeah, Mike, I didn’t take out the second set of earrings.
I don’t think members “blindly” follow, but only when “blindly” means they wouldn’t do something absolutely and obviously heinous. I do think members “blindly” follow the prophet in virtually every other case I can think of. To be specific, if the prophet asked us to start paying 8% tithing, we’d all do it willingly. If he asked us to start killing infidels we wouldn’t. In that sense, we don’t “blindly” follow, but I think most members readily do what they’re asked to within the tolerable limits. And those limits are defined by each person. For some it was “blind” following to support Prop 8 (I know many who DID NOT agree with Prop 8 but voted for it only because the prophet asked us to, myself included), for others it was a no-brainer.
What really bothers me on this topic is the message our youth get. Two sundays ago we had the “Follow the Prophet” in YM. At the end of the lesson, the main drive home point (stated explicitly by one of the leaders) was that we should DO what the prophet says FIRST, and then gain a testimony of it. In other words, we shouldn’t WAIT to get a testimony of it before acting. The thinking seems to be that if you have a testimony of the prophet himself, then you don’t need to have a testimony of everything he asks you to do. I have SERIOUS problems with that way of thinking and the message it sends to our youth. And yes, I do think that is “blindly” following the prophet. So, at least in my ward, in my YM quorums we do teach “blindly” following the prophet. At least in my opinion.
My first thought when I hear this quote is something like “how do we know Pres. Woodruff wasn’t making a mistake or ‘speaking as a man’ when he said this?”
Very interesting post and follow-up thread.
My whole issue with this is: How do you know when the prophet is speaking as a prophet? If (and I can’t think of one time in my 55 yrs in the church) the prophet stook and and said, “Thus saith the Lord…” or something to that effect during a conference talk. As it is, we get a talk (for example) about not wearing more than one set of earings and it becomes (so to speak) the mind and will of the Lord so much that another “prophet, seer, and revelator” talks about how a boy drops a girl because she “didn’t follow the prophet” by keeping in her multiple earings. We also had a prophet who tells the world via “60 minutes” that we really don’t teach the concept of man becoming a god that much any more, and then in the next conference winks and tells us that he knows what we teach.
Come on brethren, grow a pair and tell us what the doctrines really are! We get namby-pambied with “…I was impressed about this…” or the like, but NO ONE of the 15 prophets, seers or revelators has said that what they just said is what God has told them and it is indeed the mind and will of God. Notice that the book “Mormon Doctrine”, wasn’t, because there is precious little real doctrine that anyone will stand up to. Apologetics will tell us that the bretheren speak as a prophet, except when they don’t. (?)
I mean, we haven’t added new “revelation” since the Joseph F. Smith dream was added to the D&C, and that dream was in the early 1900’s! Instead, we get “proclamations” that appear to be carefully wordsmithed, evaluated by the top guys, but are not voted on by the church to accept as binding doctrine.
I like the thoughts here in the follow-up thread that because we don’t always agree with what the prophet says that we are somehow “anti” or “disaffected” or whatever label you want to put on it. I am still a loyal church member, but don’t always agree with everything that is said in conference. I am worthy for a recommend. I support TSM as prophet, seer and revelator, etc, but I would like to know when he is speaking as one or not!
“The other thing I could say is that they were using, as Quinn called it “situational ethics” at the time believing that the law of God was more important than the “law of the land.” Not sure the Church follows that principle anymore.”
I think it fairly well documented that “situational ethics” entered the Hofmann investigation as far as a couple of church leaders were concerned, including #1 at the time.
Situation ethics are most assuredly not used as widespread as before (our church president is not hiding from the law) but it is a big organization and stuff happens. I am sure concern for the church as a whole takes precedence over a lie here or there.
Howard asked, “The phrase ‘follow the prophet’ is sung 54 times! Isn’t this indoctrination? What happened to follow the Spirit?”
That’s a different song. Listen to the the still, small voice. Listen. Listen. When you need to make a choice, he will guide you. Always.
I would agree with JMB that most of what the Prophet asks us to do is pretty much standard stuff and no big deal.
what if it was giving more than 10% thtihing, giving up all we have to the Church or, Heaven forbid, move to Missiouri.
Then, what we we do?
With all the debate, in the fashion I assumed would happen, the formula remains the same:
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (D&C9:8).
There is no other way.
Paolo,
“I like the thoughts here in the follow-up thread that because we don’t always agree with what the prophet says that we are somehow “anti” or “disaffected” or whatever label you want to put on it.”
If you read what I wrote I was refering to those who claim that members “blindly” follow the prophet. It is not doctrinal that we are to blindly follow.
A couple of comments:
1) Prophets and apostles are often speaking as men. We haven’t had an “official” revelation for decades. Even Packer’s conference talk saying that the “Proclamation” met the requirements for a revelation were changed by the time the written form of his talk came out to it just being an “inspired” document. Regarding blacks and the priesthood, McConkie flat out said that he was “wrong”.
So, given the reticence of current leaders to actually present ANYTHING they say as actual revelation, but just inspired words no different from any other denomination, HOW do we know when they are acting as prophets and when they are acting as men (as Joseph Smith delineated)
2) There is the following quote:
Perhaps polygamy truly WAS against God’s will. Perhaps, like King David, Joseph Smith really WAS doing something wrong by marrying young girls or other men’s wives (much like Warren Jeffs). Perhaps it truly WAS wrong that he was attempting to cover it up by destroying the printing press, etc. And perhaps God did remove Joseph Smith.
So, maybe the process does work and if anything does get too far out of whack, God corrects it.
DISCLAIMER: I obviously don’t know if this is true or not true. It is just a theory thrown out there for the sake of discussion. If you think it is or isn’t true, I’d be interested in arguments for or against.
#35: Jeff what if it was giving more than 10% thtihing, giving up all we have to the Church or, Heaven forbid, move to Missiouri.
Then, what we we do?
If the prophet said, I spoke to God, and “Thus saith the Lord…”, I would be inclined to do just about ANYTHING that he said. But we haven’t had that level of revelation or statement in the Church for decades if not nearly a century, so I’m probably pretty safe in my remaining lifetime.
“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (D&C9:8).”
That scripture doesn’t even make sense. How was Oliver Cowdrey supposed to study out the “reformed Egyptian” characters in his mind, before applying the heart-burn test? Can you imagine hypothesis testing your way through a translation of unintelligible characters? On word would days or months, let alone the entire text.
If the story we derive our “study in your mind” rhetoric from is problematic, how can any reasonable application of it be so iron clad?
Jeff,
As often happens, I’m with you.
We sang “Follow the Prophet” at a child’s baptism recently (he and his family chose the song), and I enjoyed singing it.
I think Heber #21 has it about right. I agree with Michael #20’s thought that declarations like, “Whent he prophet speaks the thinking is done” are not wise, nor helpful (nor true). But I can follow the prophet and still think. I can follow the prophet while still working out a particular issue.
For me, it’s easy to follow the prophet. With most of the prophets of my lifetime (Kimball to present — I was too young to pay much attention for Pr McKay, Smith and Lee), I’ve had spiritual witness of the divinity of their call.
#22 Brad — who denied those of African descent exaltation? They were denied the PH. I always believed that they would one day enjoy the full blessings of the gospel; I was always taught (from my baptism in 1967) that they would.
Mike S.
“But we haven’t had that level of revelation or statement in the Church for decades if not nearly a century, so I’m probably pretty safe in my remaining lifetime’
I’m thinking the same thing. but, what a wheat and tares thing we might see……
Cowboy,
“That scripture doesn’t even make sense. ”
Of course, it doesn’t.
Paul,
“I agree with Michael #20′s thought that declarations like, “When the prophet speaks the thinking is done” are not wise, nor helpful (nor true). But I can follow the prophet and still think. I can follow the prophet while still working out a particular issue.”
Yes, I agree. I thought that was a misappropriation of that quote. What is actually meant is that when the prophet speaks, any discussion by the 1st Pres, Qof12 and any other GA group is over. And it is presetned to the membership.
It is an Ardeth Kapp quote, I beleive in the YW manual and it is wrong to be there in that context as it applies to the membership.
It is actually a sin or transgression to “blindly” follow anyone without a witness of the Spirit.
Paul:
Perhaps you should have thought about it a little more closely. A good question would have been, “so…what are we waiting for again?”.
For me, this is part of the issue. There is a disconnect between this reality and what is often presented. Referring back my 2-Sunday-ago-YM lesson, one of the things we talked about was why our prophet was different than other churches’ leaders. The difference? Revelation. When asked about revelation, can you guess what came up by both the teacher and the YM? One pair earrings, food storage, proclamation to the world on the family, staying out of debt, etc. Absolutely no different than sound advice given by a variety of news talk radio hosts, coupled with opinions on style and grooming.
So on the one hand, we have members downplaying the status of these pronouncements to merely opinions (like one pair earrings), and hence don’t represent binding doctrine. On the other hand we have members justifying our prophet’s status as “prophet, seer, and revelator” based on the same things. We’re not “blindly” following the prophet, yet we count pronouncements about earrings as “revelation.”
For me, growing up in Salt Lake City, my impression coming out of my youth was the same – that these bits of “good advice” were revelations. If they are revelations then they ought to be obeyed as they represent God’s will. I certainly don’t think this is “blind” following, but it is fairly convoluted reasoning and doesn’t lead to the spiritual growth promised through obedience. And I don’t think I was an anomaly.
JMB,
“I certainly don’t think this is “blind” following, but it is fairly convoluted reasoning and doesn’t lead to the spiritual growth promised through obedience. And I don’t think I was an anomaly.”
I don’t think this is so easy. Good advice to people not currently following a good path could be a revelation to them. A talk stressing the need for regular scripture study might not apply to someone already doing it.
So, while we may not see dramatic revelation that would be some kind of a “sign” to some, we see revelation all the time. Building new temples, opening new missions, changing certain requirements for senior missionaries can be consider revelation. We’re not privy to how that comes about. Some might say otherwise, but how do they know for sure.
some…insist that members of the LDS Church must blindly “Follow the Prophet.”
There are two related but distinct claims: (a) members must (i.e., should) blindly follow the prophet, and (b) members do blindly follow the prophet. I think those in Jeff’s groups 1-3 disagree with (a) but many would say that the Church teaches it, and would agree with (b).
There is no general agreement on the meaning of “blindly”. Defenders of the church rarely accept that it can be applied to any church teaching, which is understandable, but leaves nothing to discuss. Most critics willing to use “blindly” would probably agree that the 14 Points talk is a prime example. Let’s put it in place of “blindly”:
(A1) Mormons must/should follow the prophet as taught in the 14 Points;
(A2) The church teaches (A1);
(B) Mormons do follow the prophet, 14 Points-style.
Jeff’s groups 1-3 presumably would agree with (A2) and (B), but not accept (A1). Proponents of (A1) include, obviously, Ezra Taft Benson, and other unimpeachable authorities. But it’s not hard to find countervailing authoritative statements, some of which have been mentioned above.
My own opinion: The word “blindly” is a useless distraction. (A1), and the 14 Points itself, are harmful. (A2) is true, but there are concurrent teachings that tend to contradict it. I think the 14 Points have the upper hand, but it’s not all one sided. Although many critics do assert (B), and it is based on a valid observation about Church culture, the conclusion is overstated and therefore untrue.
Finally, I can’t resist taking my turn at Judge-the-Jeff, whose posts and comments are intriguing for me. Jeff seems willing to trust his own judgment, even to the point of disagreement with the prophet if that’s where it leads. However, it rarely happens, and when he is in agreement, he often takes positions that don’t appear, at least on the surface, to leave any room to accept different views as legitimate. I say “on the surface” because I tend not to feel sure I really follow his behind-the-scenes thought processes. Anyway, Jeff, I enjoy reading what you write.
Badger,
I do like your analysis, but I think it falls short in a few areas.
“Most critics willing to use “blindly” would probably agree that the 14 Points talk is a prime example.”
1) I don’t think the 14 points talk is all that unequivocal. I think that critics love to use it that way, but are unwilling to look at it as a whole and would rather dice it up to suit their own purpose. Proof-texting, if you will.
2) In your letter (A1) You use must/should. Those are very different . “Must” is a compelling statement, “should” represents a choice, in my mind. “Must” is not that different from “blindly.”
3) “The Church Teaches (A1).” I think the Church does teach that we should follow the Prophet. But not necessarily “14 points style” as you stated, the last conference notwithstanding.
4) “Jeff seems willing to trust his own judgment” Never said that. I am compelled by my understanding of the doctrine to study what the Prophet says and, through the power of the Holy Ghost, make my own decision. 99 times out of 100 I might agree because, as JMB said, it is stuff we can do and live with. No big deal. Occasionally, it takes more time. But the bottom line is that I want to follow the prophet. I have a testimony of that and so I hope to be able to. I cannot always say that about decisions that are made locally.
5) I thought my thought process was pretty clear.
a) Do not blindly follow.
b) Studying it out in one’s mind
c) Attempt to gain a witness via the Power of the Holy Ghost
d) Ultimately the decision to follow or not follow is ours to make. We cannot be compelled to follow.
This counter argues the point that LDS members must Follow the Prophet which many people insist.
Thanks for commenting. And not harshly “Judging the Jeff.” The play it at home board game will be available soon! 🙂
Jeff, thanks for the comments. You’re right about “must/should”. I meant “must”.
Of course I expected you would not accept “14 Points” as equivalent to “blindly”. My motivation for making the substitution was that agreement on the meaning of blindly seems out of reach, 14 Points less so. But it’s a surrogate, not a self-evident synonym.
On (4), the statement about you using your own judgment is indeed my own perception and inference, and not something you said (I see it as a good quality, if there was any doubt). Your description is consistent with at least my intended meaning. If you or anyone does perceive a difference, I defer to your wording, for obvious reasons.
Badger,
“My motivation for making the substitution was that agreement on the meaning of blindly seems out of reach, 14 Points less so.”
I suppose we can explore the language to find a more suitable word or phrase. I was thinking about “without question” could also work. It’s hard to get it exact simply because each person does it a little different.
“Your description is consistent with at least my intended meaning.”
I figured that, I just wanted to clarify for others who might take it wrong.
Thanks again, Jeff.
Lots of people liked Heber13’s comment, The idea a prophet speaks for the Lord, and the Lord uses situational ethics, is problematic for me.
This would be an interesting topic for another post. I recognize that Heber13 isn’t necessarily using “situational ethics” in a precise way. However, the Lord’s ends-justify-the-means explanation to Nephi about killing Laban strikes me as quite consistent with situational ethics.
Consider this, as an example: among the criticisms of situational ethics is that it demands too much of human wisdom. It’s safer, says the critic, to follow universal rules (e.g., Thou shalt not kill) than to trust in our own ability to make good exceptions. I think this argument has merit as applied to humans, but it doesn’t seem to me that it can be extended to God.
So, should we really reject the idea of the Lord using situational ethics?
I have to say, I find this discussion incredibly interesting. As a person who grew up in the 90s with GBH as the pres of the church, I really did think that all the talks in GC were revelation. In fact, not until reading this (and a few other blogs) did I understand that it COULD just be opinion, or inspiration, or frantically freaking out before having to talk in church like the rest of us and leaving it until the last minute (or in this case, the last minute before they give approval to talks) and coming up with whatever.
SO… I’m going to have to ponder upon this issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Beth,
“leaving it until the last minute (or in this case, the last minute before they give approval to talks) and coming up with whatever.”
No, it not that way at all. All talks are submitted and reviewed multiple times. They need to go to translators, so talks are not spontaneous. Some thoughts are spontaneous but, for the most parts, the talks are adhered to. I suppose President Monson could go off talk if he wanted to.
Who would argue with him?
jeff, I don’t agree with your characterization, and I don’t know how much translation plays a part. boyd k packer’s talk last year wasn’t correlated until after he gave it. nor was elder poelman’s a few decades ago. I think ga’s don’t submit talks before hand. in rare instances, they get modified after the fact.
Well, my only evidence was I attended a talk by Elder Holland who said the GC talks are reviewed and re-written to the point that he was almost sick of looking at it by the time he was to give it.
A few decades ago things certainly might have been different.
And I actual think that Elder Packer might have mis-spoke his talk. That happens as well from time to time. I was listening to a President Monson talk a short time ago while reading the text and the first three minutes or so wasn’t in the Ensign.
I don’t think that was Beth’s point. It seemed like what she was saying is that she is coming to appreciate that much of what we hear (all in my opinion) is the result of chaotic humanistic factors, as opposed to pure revelation from the pipeline of heaven.
Paul
19 hrs, 2 mins ago
Jeff,
As often happens, I’m with you.
We sang “Follow the Prophet” at a child’s baptism recently (he and his family chose the song), and I enjoyed singing it.
I think Heber #21 has it about right. I agree with Michael #20′s thought that declarations like, “Whent he prophet speaks the thinking is done” are not wise, nor helpful (nor true). But I can follow the prophet and still think. I can follow the prophet while still working out a particular issue.
For me, it’s easy to follow the prophet. With most of the prophets of my lifetime (Kimball to present — I was too young to pay much attention for Pr McKay, Smith and Lee), I’ve had spiritual witness of the divinity of their call.
#22 Brad — who denied those of African descent exaltation? They were denied the PH. I always believed that they would one day enjoy the full blessings of the gospel; I was always taught (from my baptism in 1967) that they would.
It’s pretty clear the church was denying them the ordinances of exaltation. You can say we taught that one day they would receive them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they weren’t able to enjoy these privileges in their mortal lives. Our doctrine is pretty clear that this life is the most important period of our existence, and we arrive in the spirit world with all the knowledge and baggage we attain in this life. So even if the faithful can receive those blessings in the next life, how much better will it be for their eternal progression if they get as much as possible from this life?
Again, why would a loving Heavenly Father restrict these blessings based on skin color? And if you believe it was God’s will, why the sudden change? Sorry. I don’t ‘blindly’ believe that was His will. To me, this is pretty clearly a mistake perpetrated by good men who were sorely mistaken.
Cowboy,
you’re right. I was just trying to say, that perhaps they’re people too.
Jeff,
I was trying to put it in a slightly funny context, but obviously that didn’t make it through. Can you imagine GBH or TSM freaking out because they forgot to write their talk? no… me neither, although it sure is fun to try.
This idea that certain things can be opinion and not necessarily revelation surprised me when I first ran into it. And has given me much to think about. Not that I want a second set of earrings – I hardly wear earring anyway, but it sure makes me feel a lot better for thinking (when I heard that particular talk) WHAT a judgmental jerk. It’s a good thing he showed how shallow he was [judging by appearance and all]. She’s better off without him.
Gosh, I hope I haven’t threadjacked too much.
I’m not sure I see the virtue of following a prophet with 20/20 vision any more than obeying him blindly. If following a prophet is a practice to which one attaches all sorts of conditions and caveats based on personal preference, then haven’t they stripped that prophet of the very reverence he is supposed to merit? (e.g. He’s my prophet, except when it comes to caffeine, Sunday shopping and French kissing.) Isn’t following a prophet non-blindly an act of demoting him to mere advisor?
ChildeJake and others:
What makes us think that the role of a “prophet” has anything to do with dictating clothing or jewelry issues, how we kiss or other mundane issues?
The only role a “prophet” can fill is to show the way to Christ. There is simply no other role. And, acting in that capacity, the version of Jesus expounded upon in the scriptures says precious little about how concerned he may or may not have been with how we dressed ourselves or what we did with our tongues, for example. In fact, the reading I gather of Jesus is that he was much more concerned with our hearts and where they were than any other topic.
Seriously, if these issues are such “deal breakers” for many (and it seemingly is, given many of the comments here and elsewhere), then why is there such a dearth of information contained in the scriptures themselves on these subjects (i.e. kissing, earrings, clothing, modesty, etc).
Although Joseph Smith revealed many, previously unknown things, his ministry was devoted primarily to bringing others into fellowship with God. The ordinances, scriptures, revelations, and teachings restored through him were not intended to titillate, but to instruct on how to reconnect with God
I just don’t see how the number of earrings one has (or the concern the leaders have with them), how one dresses him or herself (or the concern many have with how others dress), or any number of the issues we discuss on a regular basis here actually bring me closer to God. If the role of a prophet is to show the way – not to stand in the way – then I think there are a great many things we focus on that we shouldn’t be focusing on. “Following the prophet” may or may not be part of that “great many things”, depending on the emphasis we place on it.
Actually:
In thinking on this, I wonder if the modern day version of what we consider a “prophet” isn’t getting watered down.
When I think of the historical figures we see and read about (Joseph, Isaiah, Enoch, Nephi, Abinadi, etc) we don’t see them micromanaging the lives of their subjects. We don’t see them dictating clothing choices, earrings (except maybe Isaiah), french kissing, etc., etc. We don’t see them entering the bedroom – figuratively – and dictating lifestyle decisions. We don’t see them interacting at what some call the micromanaging level. They stick to the macro side, showing the path back to Christ, and little more.
Maybe, by entering the micro side, it waters down what the true calling should be.
To me the question isn’t whether we are to follow the prophet or not.
The question is, is the man at the head of the church a prophet?
In other words, if a man is sustained as the president of the church, but he does not have the spirit of prophecy, he does not reveal any new revelation and he wouldn’t know what to do with a seer stone if he had one, why do we pretend that his is a prophet seer and revelator and why do we sustain him as such?
Beth,
sorry, I was not in tune there.
“Can you imagine GBH or TSM freaking out because they forgot to write their talk? no… me neither, although it sure is fun to try.”
It might be somewhat funny to hear them use some of the typical lines when people get up to give talks.
But I have been in regional meetings with both Presidents (prior to) and they can talk for hours, literally, with no notes.
It’s really amazing.
Frank,
“We don’t see them dictating clothing choices, earrings (except maybe Isaiah), french kissing, etc., etc. We don’t see them entering the bedroom – figuratively – and dictating lifestyle decisions. We don’t see them interacting at what some call the micromanaging level. They stick to the macro side, showing the path back to Christ, and little more.”
You just get to read what someone else decided to write about them. All the issues that they might have spoken to are lost in just a few words.
Childejake,
“Isn’t following a prophet non-blindly an act of demoting him to mere advisor?”
You seem to miss the point. A Prophet announces the Word of God to the people. He cannot compel anyone to do anything.
A prophet is a “mere advisor” obviously. Whether he is a trusted, reliable guide depends on what you think of his advice.
The story of Nephi and Laban is interesting, and speaks to his own internal struggle and his justification of his actions. He wasn’t a prophet then though. His father was, and he does not sanction Nephi’s actions. If he did, Nephi would have mentioned it. If we remembered that whenever a prophet speaks he is also a man with his own perspectives interpreting the will of God as he believes he has received it, we would not go astray.
The song Follow the Prophet is just an incredibly bad children’s hymn that sounds like a Fox News broadcast by the second verse. It’s not doctrine. But it is a new trend to focus on obedience over personal revelation. Yet both are principles of the restored gospel.
#64 Jeff: A Prophet announces the Word of God to the people. He cannot compel anyone to do anything.
A simple question using a simple example, mostly because I can recall when and how it happened without too much effort.
In a talk, President Hinckley said that he didn’t think earrings on men looked manly. It wasn’t a “thus saith the Lord…” type of thing.
So, is this “announcing the Word of God” or is this President Hinckley expressing his opinion? If it was just his opinion, why did Elder Bednar justify breaking off an engagement over something so trivial? But if it was the “Word of God”, is that really how we think God would give us revelation, with a prophet saying he didn’t think they looked manly?
So, my question, which I haven’t seen actually answered in this entire thread, is assuming that prophets sometimes speak as men, when exactly is a Prophet announcing the Word of God, and what language might he use to announce that? And part (b), if it is ultimately up to us to decide which of the various words a prophet says are actually the word of God, who is right when we all disagree?
Mike S – I’ve said it elsewhere – the guy in E. Bednar’s story is an idiot. He loves the girl enough to marry her and to live with her presumably for eternity, but instead of having one simple conversation with her he subjects her to a passive-agressive test of faith she knows nothing about, and breaks off the engagement when she fails to meet his unexpressed and somewhat arbitrary expectations. That was a marriage destined to fail, and she should thank her lucky stars to be rid of that jerk.
But there is a point about following the prophet that I think many in the church would agree with. If the prophet makes an arbitrary request that is not difficult to comply with, then do it. It’s not a big deal to only wear one pair of earrings vs. more. It’s not a big ask like walking across the plains or accepting another wife into your marriage – requests that really require some forethought.
I wouldn’t judge someone for not complying either, as it is exceptionally trivial and certainly of no eternal consequence; as someone who wore 3 very simple earrings each ear for decades before that request, I also didn’t think it was a big deal to stop. It actually made me choose more fashionable earrings than I would otherwise choose.
E. Bednar is simply one of that class of member who believe that if we were told the prophet prefers Charmin to Scottissue would immediately go out and buy Charmin.
Mike S.
I think Hawk said it best. I completely agree with her. I didn’t think much of the President Hinckley earring thing at the time. I personally don’t like earrings on guys, so it was something I agreed with.
The Bednar story was a non-starter for me because of the reasons Hawk mentioned.
A Thought I have been having is that I struggle to understand what the value is in having a Prophet, if we would be unwilling to follow him blindly. I like the fact that Badger pointed out that in an of itself “blindly” is a meaningless phrase. Still, pulling from the implications of old Sunday School rhetoric, and the very title of “Seer”, perhaps there is another way to look at that phrase. As a seer we theoretically accept that God reveals things to his Prophets that are unknown to us. That’s in fact the whole reason God does this, as if we could see these things without God his revelations wouldn’t be all that meaningfull. So when the Prophet reveals something, and we choose to follow, it would be under the “faith” that God gave us a Prophet to guide us through the unknown. Much like the “word of God” in the vision of the tree of life. If we employ that metaphor could we not also say that those who “hold to the rod” do so “blindly”? There are mists surrounding us, and the only way we can reach the tree is by blindly holding to the “word”, and perhaps such a similar argument could be made for how the Church corporate would like us to see the Prophet. He is there to guide us through uncertainty, therefore we can only follow him blindly.
Saying that we are not blindly following is almost like saying that we don’t need the Prophet, as we would pursue this course with or without his endorsement. On the one hand saying that we are not blind gives the Church credibility as a legitimate modern religion that encourages individualism and intellectualism. In the same vein the members can also represent themselves as thoughtful, intelligent individuals with personal dignity. On the other hand however it makes the Prophet seem quite arbitrary and less intelligent than the “thoughful” members who are able to discern the opinion from Prophecy in his words. Afterall, if we can take President Hinckley’s charge/advice/opinion about earrings and say “well that’s just his opinion, but it’s not from God” then one wonders if that is how President Hinckely saw the matter?
1) If he recgonizes the advice as strictly his opinion (well intended or not) then I have to wonder if really respects God and the office of Prophet. We are effectively saying that President Hinckley knowingly used General Conference as a platform to effect the behavior of the saints according to his own will. He used his God-given position of authority to scratch a social itch, while making it appear as a God sanctioned request.
2) If President Hinckley believes that God wanted him to deliver the earings message then there are two possibilities
2a) God actually wanted this message to get out, and Elder Bednar was right! In this case, those who see the matter as a trivialty are effectively wrong, and woul be better served to start following blindly. This would then serve to justify the original argument in my comment, that the whole purpose of a Prophet is to guide us through uncertain paths – and this notion of not following the Prophet blindly is a delusion we’ve created for ourselves
2b) President Hinckely believes that God gave the command, but in fact he was confusing his worldview with a prompting/revelation/whatever. In this case the implication is quite simple. If President Hinckley can’t sort between God’s will and his own, but we as members can, then quite simply we should be his prophet – not the other way around. We would be better off acting as prophets to ourselves and giving little if any attention to pontifications of others of inferior capabilities.
Cowboy,
I haven’t had a chance to fully internalize what you are saying, but my first comment is below:
“A Thought I have been having is that I struggle to understand what the value is in having a Prophet, if we would be unwilling to follow him blindly. ”
The problem I have with this that it totally negates both agency and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Since that is not a possible scenario, IMO, there must be some other explanation on how Following the Prophet, Agency and GoHG co-exist.
More later
#56 Brad: “Again, why would a loving Heavenly Father restrict these blessings based on skin color? And if you believe it was God’s will, why the sudden change? Sorry. I don’t ‘blindly’ believe that was His will. To me, this is pretty clearly a mistake perpetrated by good men who were sorely mistaken.”
Brad,using your logic, we would also ask why did the Lord permit an apostasy that prevented his children’s receiving the saving ordinances of the gospel for generations?
I don’t know why the Lord acts as he does. Further, I don’t know why Brigham acted the way he did. I have no doubt that President McKay prayed and sought divine guidance on the question and did not receive it. President Kimball, on the other hand, did. I cannot say why.
You, of course, can believe whatever you like.
Cowboy #69 – I believe your #1 scenario is closer to the truth, but that E. Bednar and other members like him took it to be #2. However, I wouldn’t fault GBH for ‘trying to scratch a social itch.’ I believe he was responding to two things: 1) members constantly asking for more instruction on things like appropriate dress, and 2) a real belief based on his own experiences in the business world that if people dress in ways that are not conservative, they will be less successful in the long term and therefore less happy, more stressed out, not have good marriages, etc. To a person of his age, all those are probably true observations. So, it’s not that he necessarily saw his opinion as God’s will, but like Aaron, when the Israelites demanded something to worship, he offered them the golden calf. And now we are drinking it.
#61, “The Real Question” asks,IMO, the most pertinent question—who is “the” prophet? I personally do not conflate office with gifts of the spirit. It is great if they intersect and I sustain that concept, but how often are real prophets called from the wilderness (John Baptist), the outcast (Jeremiah), the dissident (Lehi), non-priest class (Amos), the child (Joseph), and the uninvited to speak (Samuel the Lamanite) as compared those that rise through institutionalized faith?
We make assumptions for which there is a lack of evidence. Joseph was a prophet, seer and revelator when he brought forth the fruit. Now we confer a title/office and act as if that suffices. Yes, I sustain the brethren in their OFFICE and sustain the hope that they have such gifts. Do they? Well, that is another question. This is a question I asked in OT SS last year when Jeremiah was discussed: http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/where-is-jeremiah-today/
God is funny that way. He seems to do his own thing and speak to whomever he wants, when he wants despite our institutional expectations. And as Isaiah said, “all things that have been will be”
I wonder if the strong desire to have some sort of definitive revelation might be akin to sign-seeking. For most members of the Church are content with being taught correct principles and allowed to govern themselves. And GC and the Church magazines are nothing, if not, the reinforcement of Gospel Principles.
That we often do not recognize the true revelation when it is given, but yet focus on things like commentary about some types of dress standards.
I fall back on my onion analogy and apply it to General Conference as well as Gospel Principles. We can hear the basic message or maybe there is a deeper message that is only apparent with Gospel maturity.
To answer Cowboy a bit further. Because Pres Hinckley is/was the earthly head of the Church, he is entitled to give his thoughts on any subject. Whether it comes directly from God or not. So, whether it is just his opinion or a direct commandment from God, we should be evaluating it the same. In fact, as i keep saying, I think we are required to evaluate it and not just accept it.
So how do we know that the Church hasn’t been veering off course for the past 100+ years? Or at least since the Prophet stopped receiving actual revelations that are presented as such? All of this discussion is focused on individual issues such as earrings, but isn’t it possible that things have been run by benevolent administrators since the day Joseph Smith died? Last time I checked the D&C hasn’t grown much larger for a while.
I do truly think that the folks in Salt lake are well-meaning and try their best. But it would be nice to actually see a little more of the “prophet seer and revelator” role come through.
Thanks Jeff. I really appreciated the post. You basically fleshed out ideas I had been having.
So, there has been lots of discussion, but no one has really taken a stand on how we “Follow the Prophet”. Do we:
1) Follow everything the Prophet says, and if we don’t get a confirmation that what he said was true, we suggest we just aren’t in tune so do it anyway.
2) Follow things that the Prophet says only if we ALSO get a confirmation that it is God’s will and not just opinion.
Porter
I once had a seminary teacher say that the talks from the Ensign with the conference talks WERE the extension of the D&C. He even handed out a talk by Ezra Taft Benson that had been formatted to look like, and fit in, our scriptures. (It had footnotes and numbered paragraphs and everything!) Which I guess is partly the reason why I was so surprised that this particular conversation was taking place at all.
Mike,
Are you assuming that the President of the Church is a Prophet? Or do you mean anyone who prophesies? I need you/someone to define the word “prophet” in the context of your question, that is:
How do you define a “prophet”? The definition can range from someone holding a title/office on one end of the spectrum to someone who received a direct, specific message from God and is sent to deliver it in His name–prophet being one who delivers a specific message on errand from God (think King Mosiah –angel told me to say such and such; Samuel, Abinadi, Jeremiah, Lehi –get out of town), etc.–and they are prophets when delivering message and return to mere mortals when their errand is completed. If it is the later then once we determine it is from God we are bound to follow it if we desire to follow God/Jesus and truth. If it is the former, that is, one is a “prophet” by virtue of simply holding an office/title and we conflate “prophet” with their position/title/robes then and only then, imo, is your question highly relevant and comes into play.
In fact, imo, your question which is common, only exists because we have conflated “prophet” with office and title So what is a “prophet”? The word, “Prophet” in holy writ is separated by thousands of years. So do we assume that words prophet means the same thing now that it meant when the mandate to follow His “prophets” /”messengers” was given in the scriptures in the old and new testament?. Or even when it was given arguably to apply to the first and last real prophet of our dispensation, Joseph?
So I would change the question to: Are we required to follow the “President of the Church” in all things without confirmation? Nope in my opinion because the title alone does not confer in and of itself the gift of prophesy, seering and revealing, and even if the President had such gifts they do not endow all his communications/thoughts/ prejudices, etc.with the authority of the voice of God. ONly when he prophesies, reveals or seers and the confirmation accompanies it are we required as disciples to embrace the message.
And no “authority” should be used to compel us to obey–only the virtue of the word and its persuasion. If the authority card is played and insisted upon then the “priesthood” of that man and/or those insisting we obey because of “authority”/office/title have just negated their priesthood. For when we use the “least” degree of compulsion, and, imo, using the authority card alone–obey because you must respect my office, authority—then that person is not a prophet but is simply exercising authority as the gentiles do—obey because of my authority/office/title. In such a case one is not only not a prophet but his “priesthood” is nullified.
Real prophet are followed by virtue of the truth, persuasion (spirit confirming) of the substance of their message, and would not nor should they use the least degree of compulsion. Such men/women do not require title/office/ or authority to compel that they be followed. Their message and its’ light, virtue and truth is enough.
So for me personally I would never follow anyone/any authority without the virtue, truth and spirit of their message being enough to compel obedience. Real prophets and real priesthood leaders would demand no more, imo.
This is a pretty basic concept. It is one of the first things we teach investigators. The Lord speaks to the Prophet, we hear the prophet and ask the Lord for confirmation if the prophet was sent by Him.
If you receive that confirmation, it is good to follow to the prophet any time the Spirit does not directly tell you otherwise. If you have pesonal issues with the prophet’s words, you take it to the Lord.
I think the main problem comes when people have personal issues but DON’T take it to God to receive personal witness of what they should do. Then uncertainty becomes guilt which becomes resentment which leads to dismissal of the entire idea that a prophet is even necessary.
Which, ironically, is why we need a prophet. To challenge us, and keep us from becoming so complacent in our own ideas that we forget to ask God.
Porter,
“All of this discussion is focused on individual issues such as earrings, but isn’t it possible that things have been run by benevolent administrators since the day Joseph Smith died?”
In a way that is true. Joseph IS the Prophet is this Dispensation. All other bear Testimony of his calling and his messages to the people.
We should not see a significant, dramatic shift in the doctrine of the Church.
There have been some significant revelations given since Joseph’s time which have been given but few. Most are time-related (Like heading West, priesthood, ending polygamy, etc.) Some have clarified doctrine like JFS vision of the spirit world.
Some seem to be expecting earth-shattering revelations, which haven’t come. Since we as a people still struggle to live the Gospel we have, not sure how getting more revelations would change that.
#77 Mike S, there’s a third alternative, and SilverRain approaches it, as well. The Savior taught that the path to a testimony that his teachings were his Father’s was to follow the teachings. Similarly, if I’m ambivalent about direction from the prophet, I can follow it while I sort out my feelings toward it. That’s possible for me because I’ve separately received a personal witness of his call as a prophet.
Mike S.
I am in agreement with Paul here. If there is no harm doing what the prophet has spoken and we do not yet have a confirmation of that counsel, I can’t imagine why not follow it. I do not think that the prophet has anything but our best interests in mind.
Each situation is different, so must we evaluated based on the situation.
Jeff, I’m confident that if Joseph Smith was to come back today he would be shocked at where the church is and how it operates. The church today is dramatically different than the one he set up. In addition to shock, I personally think he would be disappointed on a variety of levels.
Silver Rain:
We must have served under different era’s, as that is not at all the way I remember teaching investigators. Sure, we teach that members can have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and are entitled to personal revelation, but I don’t recall any language in the standard 6 discussions that encouraged members to cross-check the Prophet for accuracy. I guess that’s my point here. We teach of the gift of the Holy Ghost, but there is no institutional rhetoric that allows latitude for disagreeing with the prophet ever. There is on the other hand a wealth of discussion about being on the high road to apostasy for non-conformance. Most of the things rank and file revelations are for are trivial day to day things that have little if any social implications. As a father I’m “entitled” to have revelations regarding my family – should we move here, or take a job there, or send our kids to summer camp, etc. But these revelations themselves exist in a hierarchy that is subordinate to the revelations of a Prophet who can receive revelations for the whole Church. We are encouraged to “gain a testimony of the Prophets teachings” because when we do we are more resilient in following his words with “exactnes” (that’s principle we learned on my mission!). While there is some old rhetoric from Brigham Young and Joseph Smith about not just following a Prophet without getting our own answers, the modern teachings are quite contrary to that. I don’t know of any recent teaching that suggests we should cross-check the Prophet for accuracy, because the Church acknowledges he could be wrong.
That was my whole point. Even drawing on scripture, the vision of the tree of life, the primary revelation is to know that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Prophet is “true”. By knowing this we are to blindly/faithfully hold to the rod as we make our way to the tree of life. The mists of darkness represent competing ideologies that seek to pull us off track. They should seem reasonable to us, but the analogy only works if we accept the principle taught by Benson in the fourteen points.
In sum I guess topically I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I agree with Hawkgrrrl that the woman in Elder Bednars story is much better off not having married the young man in the story. He seems quite shallow. Still, I can hold this belief quite easily because I don’t have to hold a nuanced view of morality and obedience. I reject the Mormon Prophets, so being disloyal is of little concern to me. On the other hand, I struggle to comprehend how one can maintain faith in the principle of Prophets and revelations, while rejecting them on a case by case basis. I’ve been told that it is because I see things too black and white. I think that is really not true. I tend to see the world in a much more relative spectrum now, as compared to when I was a faithful believer. The problem is that, I don’t think the Church which holds to so many absolutes and certainties allows for a cohesive worldview outside of black and white thinking. It seems to me that if you drop black and white thinking in Mormonism, then ultimately you are allowing a lot of unreconciled obscurity in your religious paradigms??
Paul: Brad,using your logic, we would also ask why did the Lord permit an apostasy that prevented his children’s receiving the saving ordinances of the gospel for generations?
I don’t know why the Lord acts as he does. Further, I don’t know why Brigham acted the way he did. I have no doubt that President McKay prayed and sought divine guidance on the question and did not receive it. President Kimball, on the other hand, did. I cannot say why.
You, of course, can believe whatever you like.
I agree the example of the apostasy doesn’t follow my logic above. You raise a good point, and I’m not sure I have a good response. I guess I would say the conflation of a policy to doctrine, which affected many good people for the sole reason of blindly adhering to previous church leaders, seriously undermines the belief that the priesthood ban was God’s will.
You can try to parse things however you want, and talk about having “confirmation”, but at the end of the day, that isn’t what is taught by our leaders. The perfect example is Elder Bednar, as mentioned above. There was no discussion as to whether the young lady felt two sets of earrings was right or wrong, or whether it was “merely” President Hinckley’s opinion. It was black and white in a talk about obedience to the prophet – per Elder Bednar, she was wrong for not taking out the earrings. Period.
This is what is being taught. We teach our Primary kids to “Follow the prophet, he knows the way”. We are told that if the prophet doesn’t think earrings on guys are “manly”, then we are not following the prophet if we don’t adhere to his opinion. We hear the 14 points talk repeated twice in a single conference weekend.
Regardless of how you want to parse “following the prophet blindly” so we don’t seem so strange or cult-like, it IS what is taught on an official level.
Cowboy—It’s possible that your first discussion was different than the one I taught, but we even had mission-provided visual aids that graphed it out for us. And I always tried to emphasize that every investigator had their own relationship with deity to account for their own knowledge.
It’s also possible that you didn’t understand what you were teaching. I know a lot of missionaries in my mission who simply said the words but with limited understanding of what they were saying. As you mention, perhaps you are the one with black-and-white understanding of the doctrine. Nuanced understanding of the world doesn’t preclude polar understanding of the Church and doctrine.
I still have my discussions (and the visual aids). I could write a post on it some time.
“It’s also possible that you didn’t understand what you were teaching. I know a lot of missionaries in my mission who simply said the words but with limited understanding of what they were saying. As you mention, perhaps you are the one with black-and-white understanding of the doctrine. ”
Yes it’s possible that I was stupid, or ignorant. You can take your pick on that. I’m sure your mission was very fortunate to have you there to dispell a lot of the misunderstandings. I would be interested to read from your discussions where members and investigators were encouraged to cross-check the Prophet for accuracy…or to know where they concede that a Prophet may be incorrect and merely stating opinion. An easy explanation for the variance observed in teachings could be that they are not based on some eternal truth, but rather how specific leaders view the world. In other words, there is no “true” teaching, and people like you who insist that others just “don’t understand”, are also trying to hold the world accountable for a personal and unique worldview that is yours alone. So there a few possibilities here, I’ll admit.
I think we’re a lazy people, which makes the whole “follow the prophet” idea so appealing within the church. Not that we’d claim to be lazy, but that the effect is there.
I recently had an EQ lesson on General Conference talks and the teacher was asking everyone to add their thoughts on what their favorite talk was from the past couple years and why. The teacher chose the “Good, Better, Best” talk and said that that talk helped him make some changes in his life, and still does, and focused him on what he should be doing.
In thinking on that later, I wondered why it took that talk for the teacher to make the changes. Why does it take someone in a position of authority telling us to spend our time on “best” activities to actually change? Why don’t we change as we need it? The that that occurred to me is that, frequently, we rely so much on our leaders to “show us the way” that we get lazy and dependent on them. We don’t act unless they tell us to, we don’t donate to specific causes unless they tell us to, we don’t support causes unless they tell us do, we don’t do a lot of things because we’re not told to. Then, magically, when something is stated over the pulpit we get kicked in gear and, voila, we get into action. We’re a church of reactionary beings… we react to counsel, we react to teachings, we react to statements and pronouncements… but rarely do we act without being told to do so.
This then dovetails with another thought I’ve had about our lack of original thought. In church, our talks [at least in the wards I’ve been a part of] are more and more based off of general conference talks, as are our lessons in EQ. Lesson manuals contain more references to general conference talks and quotes than they do to scriptures. All of this creates an atmosphere of incestual intelligence. We don’t offer original thoughts anymore – but we love quoting from others. We don’t share original insights – but we love stealing an idea from someone. We are, quite simply, a religion devoid of creativity and insight. Most everything we teach is a rehash of some old conference talk, or some old statement, or something else… it’s a whole different topic entirely…
Seriously, we have developed a primarily reactionary culture. Sure, there are outliers, but these ideas on following the prophet – no matter how insignificant – produces little originality or creativity or spirituality. All it produces is a darkened mind.
I’m not sure if you’ve read that chapter in Ezekiel lately, but it’s as much an indictment of us as it was then in the mid 1800s.
Porter,
“Jeff, I’m confident that if Joseph Smith was to come back today he would be shocked at where the church is and how it operates. The church today is dramatically different than the one he set up.”
I think he would be surprised at the growth and the breadth of the church at this point, the number of Temples, etc. Not sure how much the Lord revealed to him about our future progress.
“In addition to shock, I personally think he would be disappointed on a variety of levels.”
Probably that polygamy had to stop…….
Mike S.
“There was no discussion as to whether the young lady felt two sets of earrings was right or wrong, or whether it was “merely” President Hinckley’s opinion. It was black and white in a talk about obedience to the prophet – per Elder Bednar, she was wrong for not taking out the earrings. Period.”
Ok, if you want to get so picky about the story. You don’t really know the entire story since it is at minimum a second hand story. So while you are free to apply whatever value judgment that you wish, you just don’t know. So making it a “mountain: is something you are doing.
“it IS what is taught on an official level.”
You are also free to believe this as well, I don’t.
we need a prophet. To challenge us, and keep us from becoming so complacent in our own ideas that we forget to ask God
Nicely said. Which is why I keep suggesting you should provide us with a guest post for W&T.
Actually, we do know that President McKay got guidance. It was “not now, quit bothering me about it, I’ll change it later.”
That is pretty profound, all in all, if you think about it.
Thanks, Stephen, but I don’t think I would be very well received here. 🙂
So the question begets was the statement that a prophet can’t lead the church astray a prophetic statement?
If the first counselor of Brigham Young was correct in saying that Joseph Smith took on other wives that were already married to test the saints does that count as Joseph Smith leading the saints astray?
I look at a prophet as someone who testifies of Christ and reminds me of commandments of God and calls me to repentance for not following those commandments that I had covenanted to keep. The spirit is essential in all this.
The scriptures teach us that people shouldn’t join the military (since there are unrighteous wars going on and military service should only be temporary in nature – not for monetary gain) but the spirit guides some people to still join the military, for what reasons I do not know. The spirit of God is the only way, in the end, that we can be guided on the correct paths.
“So the question begets was the statement that a prophet can’t lead the church astray a prophetic statement?”
How can it be when the Lord give specific instructions in the D&C on how to excommunicate the Prophet (President) of the Church?