I sometimes feel LDS church members are guilty of idolatry. Perhaps it is not completely the members fault; We have been told so much to “follow the brethren” that we have built them up as idols, and fail to “study it out in our minds, and ask God if it be right.” Early church leaders were also concerned about blindly following, and here are some quotes.
- If He should suffer him [Joseph Smith] to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.”–Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:298
- President George Q. Cannon expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.“Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth.” Millennial Star Vol. 53 #43 p. 674″
- President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.” TPJS pp. 237-38
- President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never. What do they desire? That we may comprehend all true principles for ourselves;” Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248
- Brigham Young said: “What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” JD 9:15
- “How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves. That is your privilege.” JD 4:368
- “And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God who seeks for the redemption of his fellows would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp.593-95
- “I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” JD 3:45
- “There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. “I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,” say they, “ introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem“. . . Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” JD1:312
What are your thoughts about these quotes?
Wheat & Tares 
On one end of the spectrum there is blindly following leaders, on the other hand there is believing and behaving however you wish yet still claiming to be faithful to God and His chosen leaders. To claim that the prophets are wrong ought to be based on clear, personal revelation, and nothing less. And to claim such revelation for the church is to say that God now speaks to you instead of to them. The quotes are not license to believe and behave however you wish and be able to call it ‘Gospel’.
To claim that the prophets are wrong ought to be based on clear, personal revelation, and nothing less.
Yes, but let’s emphasize that it needs to be revelation from the right source. The adversary will provide “revelation” to any and all who want to sow confusion and create distrust and discord among the faithful.
And, let’s take care to be numbered with the faithful, rather than with those who point the finger and wag the lip.
And, last thought, let’s respect the decision of those good people who choose to receive the Lord’s servants, and to trust them and sustain them. Blessed are the meek, and the pure in heart, and so forth.
I think pretty much everyone has read or heard of these quotes and will agrees with them right up until someone doesn’t agree and then they’re apostate. Saying the Spirit told you that a leader is wrong is not for the faint of heart.
I think the parable of the iron rod captures it. The mists of darkness in Nephi’s vision afflict the members of the Church. They come to the love of God by holding to the word of God.
I think that is why we need to look at what we hold to and double check our belief that we see clearly.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit…
Ask yourself; are younger missionaries really the solution to anything that seriously troubles the world today? Is banning innocent children from saving ordinances and turning them against their parents good fruit? More and more shelves sag and break under this misguided leadership. Stay in the boat if you want but clearly the church is adrift.. a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. Unfortunately the brethern have devolved into blind guides.
Our leaders, both local and general, have a long track record of taking the wrong position on important issues and later changing that position (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, birth control, equality of women, the sin of simply being gay–since it is a choice–or being the child of a gay person, just to name the most well-known).
I think it is time to be biased against blindly sustaining whatever they say…as all the quotes in the OP stressed.
We need at least a tincture of distrust and discord to break this strong cultural tradition of idolatry and “when the brethren speak, the thinking is done.”
The implication of these disclaimers, whether spoken or unspoken, is almost always that members who go to the Lord will have it revealed to them that their leaders are correct and they should follow their counsel, or that the Spirit will give them an understanding that the leaders’ counsel is founded on correct principles. It’s theoretically acknowledged that leaders sometimes give erroneous counsel, but members are not encouraged to disregard counsel they believe to be erroneous. They are supposed to trust the leaders’ revelation over their own.
I view these types of disclaimers a bit like when general authorities acknowledge that prophets, seers, and revelators are fallible, but don’t provide any specific examples. The general authorities use examples of the behavior that they want the members to emulate. I’m not aware of any instances where a general authority publicly shared a story of a member who received erroneous counsel from a priesthood leader and, after prayerful consideration, rightly chose to disregard the counsel. In the absence of such publicly-approved stories, I must conclude that the LDS leadership does not want to encourage that outcome.
Maybe it’s something like, it’s okay to ask faithful questions about the prophet but not to question the prophet.
I have yet to meet anybody, anywhere that has said that the we should follow the prophets no matter what. Thus, I don’t see how these quotes refute anybody at all.
These quotes express my thoughts about your quotes:
Joseph F. Merrill
Burton, ed., We Believe, Prophets, Seers and Revelators
Do the people of the Church want a safe guide to what is well for them to do? It is this: Keep in harmony with the Presidency of this Church. Accept and follow the teachings and advice of the President. At every Conference we raise our hands to sustain the President as prophet, seer and revelator. Is it consistent to do this and then go contrary to his advice? Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President. CR1941Apr:51
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
Burton, ed., We Believe, Prophets, Seers and Revelators
Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative. . . . (Church News, July 13, 1954) MPSG1989:66
Patriarch Joseph F. Smith
Burton, ed., We Believe, Prophets, Seers and Revelators
When Heber J. Grant, whom you have sustained, and I expect will again sustain [as President of the Church] before this conference is over, issues instruction as prophet, seer, and revelator, that word should be scripture to us. It is the word of the Lord Himself through His prophet, and it may be that sometimes that advice is not exactly in accordance with our personal desires. It has never been the business of a prophet of God, to tell people what they wanted to hear; it is the business of a prophet, and I imagine it is a very unpleasant business sometimes, to tell the people what the Lord wants them to know and to do, and we who hold the Priesthood should take the Church seriously enough to be obedient to the scriptures. CR1943Apr:76
Burton, ed., We Believe, Prophets, Seers and Revelators
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith
Burton, ed., We Believe, Prophets, Seers and Revelators
There has been much speculation in relation to the statement of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” This is the word which the Lord gave to Israel in relation to Moses. It is just as true in the case of any other person who is sustained as the mouthpiece of the Almighty. Later, in speaking of his inspired servants, the Lord said: “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:4) In this dispensation the same characteristics are shown by the people as were in ancient times. We are more inclined to accept as the word of the Lord something which was uttered in some former dispensation, but look with critical eye and unbelief upon that which the Lord delivers today through his chosen servant—and this is true whether it is Joseph Smith or some other President of the Church—”the gates of hell shall not prevail against us.” CHMR1:107-08; DCSM:44-45
Follow the Brethren and all will be well. If you will be as faithful and united as the First Presidency and Twelve are faithful and united, and will follow us as we follow Christ, all will be well with you. We are determined to perform our duty and to serve the Lord and labor for the benefit of His people and the accomplishment of His work. We are your servants in the Lord and desire your welfare and the welfare of all mankind. (8 October 1898, DW, 57:513.)
Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.86-87
Follow the living prophet. The people are under obligation to obey the counsel that is given; they are necessarily required to apply the counsel of the living prophet, because that counsel possesses those objects. No man can be more happy than by obeying the living prophet’s counsel. You may go from east to west, from north to south, and tread this footstool of the Lord all over, and you cannot find a man that can make himself happy in this Church, only by applying the counsel of the living prophet in this life; it is a matter of impossibility for a man to receive a fulness who is not susceptible of receiving and carrying out the living prophet’s counsel. An individual that applies the counsel of this Church is bound to increase in all that is good, for there is a fountain of counsel which the Lord has established. He has made it, has deposited that counsel, that wisdom and those riches, and it will circumscribe all that pertains unto good, unto salvation; all that pertains unto peace and unto happiness; all things that pertain to glory and to the exaltation of the Saints in this world and in the world to come. (18 January 1857, JD, 4:184.)
Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.87
Following the prophet brings safety. When the enemy is near, and when the stormy clouds arise, and the war clouds approach, even then we can feel free and quiet, and be satisfied that all is right in Israel. It is only for us to be ready to do our duty, to serve our President with all our heart, with all our might, with all our feelings, with all our property and energies, and with all things that the Lord has put into our hands. (11 October 1857, JD, 5:314.)
Follow the living prophet. I had a young man recently about forty years of age who got into the cultist program. He studied the Journal of Discourses until he nearly knew them by heart. I confess that he knew them infinitely better than I did. However, he was depending wholly upon himself and his own interpretation of the program and was moving farther and farther away from the truth. He said, “I know more about the sermons of the brethren in the days of Joseph and Brigham and Heber C. than does the President of the Church, or any of the apostles, or any of the stake presidents or the bishops. Why should I go to them?” And, I tried to point out to him that we have revelation these days as well as in the days of Joseph and Brigham and Heber C., and that the present-day leaders have exactly the same communication system and that it operates and is in effect. He would not go to his pastors, apostles, and prophets but depended upon himself. This young man became bold enough to say that President McKay may be a good man but that he was a false prophet. (11/2/62)
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.447
He is a prophet. He does not just occupy a prophet’s chair; he does not just have a title of prophet, he is a real prophet and he is responsible for… more revelations in his fifteen years of leadership than are in all the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not in the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not print them anymore like that. We put them out in handbooks and by directives and by letters, and our files and vaults are full of them…. I could take time to tell you of these revelations—temples that have been appointed, people who have been called, apostles who have been chosen, great new movements that have been established, great new eras, great new challenges as we have here today. They came by revelation. I want you to know he is a prophet. Don’t you question it. I do not know who will be his successor, but whoever it is will be a great prophet, and you need not ever worry. I had a man of great promise the other day in my office and he said, “I wonder who would lead the Church when President McKay dies?” I said, “I do not know. I do not even care to know. It does not matter.” But, I said to him, “Whoever it is, he will be a real prophet of God.” (66-12)
I loved some of the quotes. I think as members, we are so often engaging in idolatry in “following the brethren”. We stand when they enter the room, we have pictures of them in our homes, we have been taught to call the president of the church the “prophet”.Prophet It borders many ways on cultish behavior. Thank you for the post!
More recently, D. Todd Christofferson in the October 2014 general conference: “But God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, “that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” It is His plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama. God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place. Brigham Young stated: “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”
In the same October 2014 general conference:
(Then-Elder) Russell M. Nelson – “This gives us, as members of the Lord’s Church, confidence and faith as we strive to keep the scriptural injunction to heed the Lord’s voice as it comes through the voice of His servants the prophets.”
Sister Carol F. McConkie – “To be in harmony with heaven’s divine purposes, we sustain the prophet and choose to live according to his words.”
Elder Lynn G. Robbins (quoting President Packer) – ““A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!”” He then goes on to equate that idea with facing the Lord.
We’re receiving mixed messages. On one hand we are told that we are agents unto ourselves and must decide for ourselves if we will follow the prophet’s counsel and warning because *we* believe it is aligned with God. On the other hand, we are told that the prophet’s counsel and warning are by default aligned with God, so our decision to follow the prophet is really whether or not we choose to obey God (a la the 1945 phrase “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” – http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done).
Prophets are Awesome
Mormons REALLY Don’t Hate Gay People
Why is my last comment awaiting moderation?
Of course, in general, turning off the brain and simply following leaders has resulted in horrific crimes against humanity. And, no doubt, there are numerous examples of morally corrupt leaders, past and present, in our own church as well. (Mountain Meadow massacre one example).
One problem is there are many layers of leadership between a prophet and laity, composed of individuals who may or may not be on the “right path.” Yet I’ve seen members and leaders blindly, unquestioningly complying with errant missives of higher ups. In one instance, the leader, simply stated that he was doing his duty of obeying and if the direction given was wrong, the sin will be that of the leader who gave the direction.
i find it troubling when we have leaders who are unwilling to admit “mistakes.” There may be a fine line between one’s view of “anarchy” and blind obedience in the mode of the Milgram experiment.
One more thing:
Why are lay members unable to have access to the Handbook of Instructions? It could be made available on the Church website.
One volume is available but the other is not. Many have suggested that it is more mailable that way so that it can change rather than be blindly implemented.
Howard, the spam filter caught your comment with links. I released it.
Thanks MH
Lois,
“Of course, in general, turning off the brain and simply following leaders has resulted in horrific crimes against humanity.”
Absolutely NOBODY advocates turning off one’s brain. All sides think that discipleship is an active (as opposed to passive) process. It’s just that one side thinks that the activity involved includes criticism, doubt, questioning, etc. while the other does not.
“leaders who are unwilling to admit “mistakes.””
Another misrepresentation. Our leaders are perfectly willing to admit mistakes. What they are absolutely not willing to do is allow outsiders the privilege of measuring and evaluating such mistakes according to their outside standards. Science, politics and every other kind of organization is exactly the same.
“Why are lay members unable to have access to the Handbook of Instructions? It could be made available on the Church website”
I don’t think it is a bad thing to have some documentation that is designed for leaders only. By and large, those aren’t things to which members are accountable, only things that leaders should say IF a member asks them.
And there is sometimes a big difference between the two, in which members have much free agency to operate on their own in a way that I think is healthy.
I had a surgical sterilization after much thought and prayer. In particular, when I was in the hospital the night before the procedure, I had another sweet confirmation that this was the correct thing for me to do. There was no doubt at all in our minds that this was what the Lord wanted for us at that point in time.
Years later, I found out that the church discouraged sterilization. My husband had access to the handbook, and I asked him why he did not mention what was there. He said that our own process of prayerful decision-making had been sound, why would we bother the bishop?
Yet if we had read what was in the handbook, we would have surely bothered the bishop and not relied on our own revelation.
So I don’t see it as Always Good to have everything public.
The brethren were clearly warned before they issued the ill fated 1949 First Presidency statement regarding Negroes. It is a very interesting read, well worth your time if you’re open minded: Full text of “Lowry Nelson & 1st Presidency Exchange
First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)
August 17, 1949
“Absolutely NOBODY advocates turning off one’s brain. All sides think that discipleship is an active (as opposed to passive) process.”
I totally endorse this.
MH,
Since you made the original posting, let me ask: What you want your readers to do? Do you want them to abandon the Church because of the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of its leaders? Do you want them to start voting “NO” at general, stake, and ward conferences? What, specifically, are you looking for?
The brethren are rapidly sliding down a slippery slope greased by their documented lack of creditability on a number of important issues, lack of serious recient revelation and the de-conflation of their proprietary claims. What remains arguable to their base is *authority* and they and appologists are arguing it because…well… that’s all they have left. But what value is there to authority if you are so often wrong? Particularly on the bigger issues? This track record adds up to well intended blind guides which you can choose to follow for a mere 10% of your income.
Jeff G,
As Mary Ann pointed out,
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” is a refrain I’ve heard repeatedly by church members
and leaders.
Another quote, not repeated verbatim but used in the example I referred to when a leader(s) simply ignored
evidence that the direction given was wrong.
“Keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he tells you to do something wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
(Heber J. Grant)
As I pointed out, while the Prophet might not have given specific and faulty instructions, lower leaders may yet, people resist questioning higher-ups.
It is not the “job” of the church to emphasize it’s fallibility or encourage questioning, inspite of what these quotes suggest. An authority figure, like a church, lays down a law, takes a strong doctrinal stand. If we disagree with or refuse to follow the church, it must be understood as disunity, doubt, and disloyalty. But as independent souls with strong hearts and minds, we are expected to push back against authority, as Eve did in the Garden of Eden. God will not punish us for acting according to good conscience and personal moral conviction. God speaks to us through BOTH the prophets, and our conscience. If they contradict, it is up to us to decide.
The battle between authority and autonomy was ordained by God, but the rules of the game stipulate that authority must not bend to individual autonomy, but rather must defend itself as the sole arbiter of truth, even if it is fallible. The authority must remain strong, for it is the rock upon which people rest their faith in something larger than themselves. If that authority shows weakness, then it leaves people to trust ONLY in their own judgement, and in life we need both: we need a transcendent authority to submit to, AND we need a personal moral conviction. If we can find a way to live with the contradictions between the two, then we will have found a good balance in life.
“I sometimes feel LDS church members are guilty of idolatry. Perhaps it is not completely the members fault; We have been told so much to “follow the brethren” that we have built them up as idols, and fail to “study it out in our minds, and ask God if it be right”
Of course there is also a much quoted but little followed scripture which states: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1)
And as for quotes from General Authorities to balance the equation a bit:”The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.” Willford Woodruff (Deseret News, May 27, 1857, 91)
“But there is one great added thing we have received in this age that has never been had before. In this dispensation the Lord has decreed that the Church shall never again be led astray; this time the gospel is here to stay.” Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (“A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov. 1971, 5.)
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as they are capable of doing so” Brigham Young (DBY, 137)
And finally, from a very recent prophet. Please read his words very carefully.
“Now, in conclusion, do you believe this body of men would ever lead this Church astray? Remember whose church this is. It carries the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who stands as its head. His is the power to remove any found remiss in his duty or who is teaching that which is not in harmony with His divine will.
I say for each and all that we have no personal agenda. We have only the Lord’s agenda. There are those who criticize when we issue a statement of counsel or warning. Please know that our pleadings are not motivated by any selfish desire. Please know that our warnings are not without substance and reason. Please know that the decisions to speak out on various matters are not reached without deliberation, discussion, and prayer. Please know that our only ambition is to help each of you with your problems, your struggles, your families, your lives.
May I say, by way of personal testimony, that for more than a third of a century I have served as a General Authority of this Church. For twenty of those years, I sat in the circle of the Council of the Twelve. For eleven-plus years, I have served as a Counselor in the First Presidency. I know how the system works. I know that it is divine in its plan and in its authority. I know that there is no desire to teach anything other than what the Lord would have taught. He has said that “the decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity.” (D&C 107:30.) It is in this spirit that we seek to serve.”
I feel much safer following the counsel of the prophets than I do the litany of internet blogger criticisms that follow every General Conference and so many of the actions taken by the First Presidency.
Glenn
Jeff G said the leaders are willing to admit mistakes. That is few and far between and when it does not involve them. Elder Oaks recently told a room of reporters that “we don’t apologize” for anything.Instead, they should be showing us the way and admit when things are wrong, instead of trying to use the “appeal to authority” fallacy!
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” is something I don’t recall ever hearing IRL. When was it said in General Conference?
This is a great example of how our church experience can vary in different parts of the vineyard.
Glen,
Please explain the ban on blacks debacle and the church’s current reversed position (including apparently throwing a bunch of prophets under the bus) if Willford Woodruff is right “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray…”
Lois,
The leaders most definitely resist the idea that critical and/or public reasoning should trump them. Absolutely. The scriptures are fully on their side here. This is not the active discipleship that has ever been taught as gospel.
By contrast, they have never, ever, in a million years asked anybody to stop seeking divine confirmation. This is the active discipleship that has been taught as gospel.
I submit that both the “thinking has been done” and “you will be blessed for it” quotes fall under the former category. Both quotes simply mean “do not trust to your own judgment.” Nothing more.
Mike,
“the “appeal to authority” fallacy”
I must have missed the prophetic/scriptural teaching that discouraged appeals to authority. Remember, most “logical fallacies” were explicitly designed by intellectuals/philosophers to sideline scripture and revelation. Careful which side your bread is buttered.
Here’s a post Steve P did on BCC a few years ago explaining the origin and the debunking of the statement “When the leaders speak the thinking is done,” which I struggle to imagine anyone hasn’t heard members in their ward say. I have absolutely heard it. Many times. Plus, the 14 Fundamentals implies the same exact thing, even though it’s so obviously ridiculous.
“Remember, most ‘logical fallacies’ were explicitly designed by intellectuals/philosophers to sideline scripture and revelation.”
Seriously?!?
Logical fallacies just give names to poor reasoning. Whatever our opinion of prophets, we would be better off avoiding logical fallacies as we defend our position.
Glenn, thanks for using complete quotes with the disclaimers:
“If I were to attempt that (lead you astray), the Lord would remove me out of my place.” — Willford Woodruff
“… as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” — Brigham Young
“His is the power to remove any found remiss in his duty or who is teaching that which is not in harmony with His divine will.” — ‘a very recent prophet’
I too feel safer following prophets than I do bloggers, but I feel safest following Christ’s example and the spirit. Because that seems to be one way He chooses to pre-empt/mute/remove many sources of alternate voices.
Howard
If you have to ask.
M Todd,
Seriously!?!
Poor reasoning according to whose standards? Or are they just platonic ideals floating in some quasi religious realm? If so, who revealed them and where?
Such standards and fallacies only seem obvious, objective and non-negotiable from inside the ideology…. Just like religion.
Hawkgrrrl, I’ve heard it, though not often, and I can’t recall the context. It’s the ‘can’t lead us astray’ that gets all the airtime where I am.
Naismith, I absolutely agree with you that there are some things I really don’t want to know whether the church takes a particular position, would not ask etc.
It’s not that members should follow the leaders no matter what.
It’s that, if they are doing their proper due diligence and seeking personal revelation, that revelation will confirm what the leaders are saying and commanding.
“It’s that, if they are doing their proper due diligence and seeking personal revelation, that revelation will confirm what the leaders are saying and commanding.”
Which sounds wonderful, but often isn’t true.
Yes, in this view personal revelation is a Magic 8 Ball with only “Yes” answers.
MH-
I like the quotes you’ve provided. However, please provide context.
Below is an example of how George Q Cannon felt about the need for prophets and revelation for the saints. I don’t think you would have a problem finding the same kind of quotes for every leader you quoted.
President George Q. Cannon (1827–1901) of the First Presidency taught: “This Church from the day of its organization up to the present time has never been one hour, yea, I may say, one moment without revelation, without having a man in our midst who can tell us as a people the mind and will of God, who can point out to us that which we should do, who can teach us the doctrines of Christ, who can point out to us that which is false and incorrect, and who can, upon all matters that come within the range of our experience, and that are necessary for us to attend to give us the necessary counsel and instruction. This has been the case always” (“Discourse by President George Q. Cannon,” Deseret News, Jan. 21, 1885, 3).
I think this view (I love the magic 8 ball imagery) that you guys have shifted to attacking is much more on point. I totally refuse to believe that personal revelation does or always ought to confirm what our leaders say. I fully acknowledge that there is a significant element within the church that say that it does or should.
I, for one, do not think that the church leaders have clearly come down on either side of this debate. On the one hand, I think if we asked them straight out, almost all church leaders would acknowledge that the Lord works in mysterious ways and that no mortal has the right to trump what God Himself has told any individual. On the other hand, so much of what is said and done within the church does seem to presuppose a faith that personal revelation will, as a matter of contingent fact, confirm the leaders.
While I do acknowledge a tension here, I think a straight out contradiction can only be perceived if we look at the issue through moral lenses which presuppose a public discourse unbounded by the limits of stewardship. Put differently, I fully acknowledge, even insist that personal revelation will sometimes disagree with the church leaders. Our public sharing of personal revelation beyond one’s stewardship, by contrast, is definitely under a moral obligation to, at minimum, not disagree with what they say.
There is, then, a magic 8 ball of public discourse within the church that is indeed fully stocked with “yes” answers. This is in contrast to our own personal or private 8-balls that have all those other options. Thus, “once the leaders speak” all *public* thinking has been done. Or, if you feel inspired to disagree with the leader, your refusal to transgress your stewardship by going public with this disagreement “will lead to blessings”.
In summary, I think that there is a certain tension when members insist that all personal revelation regardless of stewardship does or ought to confirm what the leaders say. To call this faith “idolatry”, however, is WAY off the mark.
“Remember, most “logical fallacies” were explicitly designed by intellectuals/philosophers to sideline scripture and revelation. Careful which side your bread is buttered.”
I had no idea. Those lying turds (the intellectials and philosphers, I mean) made me think ad hominem attacks made for a poor argument. They accuse me of making a straw man argument in order to trick me into presenting their position in a good light. There’s nothing wrong with circular reasoning either, because the it isn’t faulty.
I find the question about whether or not bloggers aligned with progressive values should trump everything else a troubling one since it does seem the essence of most blogging.
On the other hand:
“Constant, never-varying inspiration is not a factor in the administration of the affairs even of the Church; not even good men, no, not though they be prophets or other high officials of the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God. It is only occasionally and at need that God comes to their aid.”
Elder B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907), 1:525
Combined those deprive me of comfort and the ability to be as self righteous as I would like on any issue.
Rockwell,
You really need to get out of your cultural cocoon.
What do you think cries of “checking your privilege” amount to if not ad hominem attacks? The whole point is that which aspects of a (wo)man are and are not relevant to the legitimacy of their speech is VERY much culturally conditioned.
The authors of the Bible knew nothing whatsoever of Aristotle’s logic and his intellectual successors, and yet they got along just fine.
Indeed, your allegiance to Aristotle’s “rules of logic” and his intellectual inheritance is at least as idolatrous as the TBM’s allegiance to the living prophet. This is no mere rhetorical ploy. The rules of reasoning which he have inherited from the ancient Greeks just were religious in nature (Plato and Pythagoras were the most obvious examples). Thus, those who leave the church for intellectual reasons, or otherwise allow “logical fallacies” to dictate their lives are chasing after foreign gods in a VERY real sense.
Regarding Jeff G #42,
It always amazes me the extent of mental gymnastics required to justify anything that is proprietarily LDS!
Howard,
What you see as convoluted mental gymnastics, I take to be the complex difficulty of translating foreign languages, ideas and values into a shared conceptual framework.
Unless you can explain why my explanation is a case of the former rather than the latter, you just sound like a close-minded jerk who prefers dismissive insults to good-willed engagement.
Jeff it’s hard to engage mist. The problem with apologetics is that it starts with a conclusion and adjusts selective evidence to fit! When that doesn’t work conflate, straw man or ad hominem quick!
Now if you’re bearing your testimony that’s just fine with me. My testimony and the testimony of other bloggers has been we received personal revelation indicating the church’s position on blacks was wrong and the church’s postion on CA Proposition 8 was wrong and the church’s position on children of gay parents is wrong!
An august 1979 First Presidency message by President N. Eldon Tanner popularized the phrase “When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” He is quoting a November 1978 fireside by YW President Elaine Cannon. The phrase has remained among churchmembers, even if there is no evidence I can see that any leaders have used it since. It does appear in a 2002 Aaronic Priesthood manual.
I saw the phrase on my Facebook feed within the last month to justify support for the recent policy. This idea is alive and well among many members.
Correction, I *can’t* see that any leaders have used it since.
Jeff G. (45) I have no problem holding biblical writers to a different standard regarding logical fallacies. I do wish the Q15 (especially the lawyers in the group) would avoid fallacious thinking. And I hope we hold ourselves to the highest of standards.
And I don’t think seeking excellence in thinking is not idolatry. I think God wants His children to develop strong minds to better serve Him.
re 42,
OK, so to modify my earlier comment…
It’s not that members should follow the leaders no matter what.
It’s not even that, if they are doing their proper due diligence and seeking personal revelation, that revelation will confirm what the leaders are saying and commanding.
It’s that, even when personal revelation disconfirms what the leaders are saying and commanding, that personal revelation’s jurisdiction or reach or stewardship should not reach far beyond the person themselves — it certainly should not reach so far as to commit an individual to presenting in any way that could be construed publicly as their not confirming what the leaders are saying and commanding.
Nate:
How would you like to here some literal views?
“If we disagree with or refuse to follow the church, it must be understood as disunity, doubt, and disloyalty.”
If we disagree with the leaders, it needs to because God told us differently. Now we need to remember that God has called them to that leadership. Not us. We keep our mouths shut. Who knows? Maybe after a few years the leader will see that whatever he was saying wasn’t right and will change it himself and everything will be happy until the next
time. Let’s go on.
“But as independent souls with strong hearts and minds, we are expected to push back against authority”, as Eve did in the Garden of Eden.
Nate. That spoils everything. How do you know that Eve needed to go against God’s commandments? God never said that. Only His leaders did and many, many of the members of His Church. Have you checked that out with God?
“The authority must remain strong…” by being with God or they will become weak and will not be able to do their callings as happened to Joseph Smith with the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. But this was solved by God. The members didn’t need to do anything about it.
The authority must remain strong, for it is the rock upon which people rest their faith in something larger than themselves.
Man… Re: my comment in 52. Stupid double negative. Should read:
I don’t think seeking excellence in thinking is idolatry.
But apparently my thinking needs an editor.
Glenn: #27
“I feel much safer following the counsel of the prophets than I do the litany of internet blogger criticisms that follow every General Conference and so many of the actions taken by the First Presidency.”
That could well be the best comment in the history of blogging.
All the quotes in the post are old. With the exception of the Elder nelson and christofferson quotes (anomalies) in the comments, the brethren haven’t been preaching individual responsibility, but blurred or blind obedience for the past 50 years. Individual inspiration was for a much smaller, cohesive, homogenous, geographically contained bunch of saints. “Follow without questioning” is for an unmanageable 15 million member church that keeps hitting the google button. They have treated us like untrustworthy babes, insisting on correlated and controlled content (milk) during this timeframe. Is it any wonder we are not trusted to reflect in directions for ourselves?
Jeff, I thought I disagreed with you about logical fallacies in general, which I intended to show by means of example. My comment was sarcastic and offensive, for which I sincerely apologize. (I also am sorry for my typos, and I thank you for giving me a reason to comment again so I could include that. It’s been bothering me.)
I freely admit I know next to nothing about Aristotle, nor do I have much formal training in logic or philosophy. I referred to those particular fallacies merely because it makes sense to me that they are building blocks of weak logic. (Your reference to ad hominem in your follow up comment makes me think you might agree with that to some extent… Not sure).
I’ll add that I actually have no problem with appeals to authority, the fallacy originally discussed, in many cases, especially where authority is earned or justified, but one must take great care when one uses an appeal to authority to justify action that causes harm. I say this speaking of authority in general, not specifically church authorities, because while in other threads I may have made negative comments about certain policies, I have tried in this thread to avoid saying anything specific that would imply someone is idolotrously worshipping leaders. Idolatry is an accusation which I don’t just throw around willy nilly.
And since I’m trying not to talk about idolatry (the topic of the OP), I feel any further comment by me would constitute threadjacking, so I’ll try to refrain from commenting further unless further apology is necessary. Now please excuse me while I get back into my cacoon.
JI,
In response to your question, “what specifically do you want readers to do?”, I don’t think this post or the bloggernacle in general is ready to take any specific steps. Most are pondering, studying, discussing, exploring, praying, wrestling.
If concerned saints were to harness the power of social media they might…
1) have an anonymous and/or identified visual demonstration like the OW keys gate.
2) flash- burst into spontaneous song at gen conf with “primary colors”, or “if you don’t walk as most people do”, or “Jesus loved the little children”, or “I’m trying to be like Jesus”, or “I am a child of god”.
3) vote (stand, call out “yes”) at gen conf.
4) wear red, yellow, blue at gen conf for primary children of LGBT parents.
5) start a letter campaign to the primary general presidency/ first presidency.
6) send art and music to the international art competition about Jesus and children, baby blessings, love of all god’s children (lgbt included) or something celebrating policy change with continuing revelation.
7) mail anonymous tithing donations to bishops (a penny per person, as pennies represent children.)
8) other or some combination of above.
The mormon tabernacle choir once protested in general conference, and it worked. Additionally, the organ bellows workers protested successfully. Who knows…music just might work.
Mortimer “The mormon tabernacle choir once protested in general conference, and it worked. Additionally, the organ bellows workers protested successfully.”
Do tell! What did they do?
Hedgehog,
The MoTab refused to sing until I think BY’s son apologized for making a comment about their singing in gen conf. The bellows pumpers were behind the scenes sweating, and were constantly overlooked and unthanked until they decided not to pump. The silence got the attention of the crowd. We now have a tradition of thanking all the people that make conference possible, including state emergency personnel, etc. I don’t have sources right now.. Will look.
Ha! Isn’t it interesting how oral stories emerge? This is the citation for the bellows protest https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/tabernacle-old-and-wonderful-friend/thesis-historical-study-construction-salt-lake-7
In No. 30 Howard asked:
“Glen,
Please explain the ban on blacks debacle and the church’s current reversed position (including apparently throwing a bunch of prophets under the bus) if Willford Woodruff is right “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray…”
Howard, the Church has not reversed its position on the Priesthood ban. The essay did say that some of the past leaders appeared to be racists. What the church has done is have the issue as to the reason for the ban researched and ultimately, as early as 1969, had determined that there had been received no revelation as to the reason and that all the different reasons that had been bandied about were speculation. That same 1969 statement from the First Presidency reiterated that the ban was by revelation, but that the actual reasons were unknown.
However, a prophet (Brigham Young) is on record as saying that the ban was from God and the Church has not repudiated that prophet. The ban, was lifted by revelation also, as we know.
Hardly a debacle. Maybe not a popular thing. I know how happy I was when the ban was lifted. It came before I expected it, and before many others, even some prophets expected it. But it came in an orderly manner by revelation from the prophets that were at the head of the church in 1978.
In the days of yore, when a prophet (or prophet King) erred, the prophet was called down for his error. Just ask Jonah. And that error was published for the world to know and to understand. The Lord does not leave us twisting in the wind on such matters. He lets us know.
Glenn
Glenn,
So under Joseph blacks could but under Brigham thru McKay blacks could not and now blacks can again. Would you would agree that was inconsistant and that the inconsistancies were dimetrically opposed? Yet you’re arguing going north then south then north again is NOT astray? Please explain that logic.
Howard,
They can claim that each prophet
Did what The Lord wanted for those particular years. Because of continuing revelation and prophetic infallibility, whatever is or was done during a unique era was what they were supposed to do. The lgbt policy will need to sit for a period of time, long enough for there to be justification for it being in place at this time, and long enough for it to not look like a mistake.
Glenn,
The Lord allows prophets/kings to fall. In the BoM and bible we have cycle after cycle. I’m most perplexed by the book of Alma and the wickedness of the Priesthood recorded there. Yes, God let’s the mighty fall.
Nate in 26 – I just wanted to respond to your characterization of authority vs. autonomy. I feel like, in setting this up as some kind of eternal paradox, you are ignoring the many examples of different kinds of authority, in religious institutions, political institutions, schools, families, etc. Authority has many ways of exerting itself. The hierarchical, top down, patriarchal, correlated, no-apologies, follow-the-prophet version practiced by the modern LDS Church is only one iteration of possible uses of authority.
But there are other examples of authority where institutions are more flexible, where leaders admit mistakes, encourage bottom-up feedback and innovation, acknowledge that they are not the sole arbiters of truth, and do not view disagreement or refusal to comply as disunity, doubt, or disloyalty.
Your framing of this authoritarian-individual paradox places a tremendous burden on people in the church who, from birth, will hear messages about always following the prophet, he knows the way, you can’t trust your own personal revelation over the revelation of the church, and yet are somehow supposed to intuit that they CAN choose their personal revelation over the church, just like Eve did, and be blessed for it.
The authoritarian structure of the church creates an atmosphere where ecclesiastical abuse will regularly arise and go unchecked. Rather than casting that structure as some kind of eternal God-given pattern, we should work to lessen the harm. Not all authority has to operate by inflicting cognitive dissonance upon its subjects. There are so many positive examples to draw from. It feels a bit like performing surgery on someone without anesthetic because that is the way it has always been done, assuring them that the pain serves some higher purpose.
Jeff G (#8). “I have yet to meet anybody, anywhere that has said that the we should follow the prophets no matter what. Thus, I don’t see how these quotes refute anybody at all.”
Please come visit my ward. My son’s seminary class is in a member’s home. The teacher is a former bishop who I generally respect greatly. My son is a freshman so I drive him and wait in the living room. I get to overhear the lessons.
Usually the lessons are good. Sometimes they veer into political tangents and I bite my tongue. Only twice (so far) have I had to correct something on the drive to school after seminary.
1) The seminary teacher gave a lesson about Abraham and Isaac. He taught that members should follow the prophet, even to the point killing others. This lesson came just after the shootings in France.
2) The seminary teacher discussed the recent policy toward children in gay families. He didn’t read the actual policy, just asked if the kids were aware (they sort of were through media). He then taught that members can either accept the policy or leave the church. There are no other options.
These are just a few examples. On average, through regular church attendance, I hear members preach the doctrine of “follow the prophet no matter what” about 20-30 times per year. It’s pervasive.
Nate:#26 – I forgot some stuff.
“The authority must remain strong, for it is the rock upon which people rest their faith in something larger than themselves. If that authority shows “weakness, then it leaves people to trust ONLY in their own judgement, and in life we need both: we need a transcendent authority to submit to, AND we need a personal moral conviction. If we can find a way to live with the contradictions between the two, then we will have found a good balance in life.”
All right, sentence by sentence.
“The authority must remain strong, for it is the rock upon which people rest their faith in something larger than themselves.”
The authority must remain strong. It’s like you are talking about the mortal leaders of the Church. If that is what you refer to then don’t refer to them. Refer to God. God is the rock we rest our faith on. He is the ‘something larger than’ ourselves.
” If that authority shows “weakness, then it leaves people to trust ONLY in their own judgement,…”
Number one. Believe me, God won’t show weakness. Goodness, graciousness. If we started to trust in our own judgement, time would come to an end.
“and in life we need both: we need a transcendent authority to submit to, AND we need a personal moral conviction.”
Yeah, fine. It,s most certainly possible to find Him and not trust Him or even want Him.
“If we can find a way to live with the contradictions between the two, then we will have found a good balance in life.”
Whoa, once you’ve found Him, there are no contradictions. There is only what God has said. The contradictions are between God and other people. You don’t want to live with them for a second. You stay with God.
The balance in life is in staying with God.
hawkgrrrl, Mary Ann, I appreciate the background information on that phrase.
But it doesn’t change the fact that I have never heard it in real life.
I admit, I am a convert and I have always lived in university towns. I am not going to claim that my experience is more typical than your experience.
All I said was that things are different in various parts of the vineyard. Which seems to be true.
So I don’t think we can make a blanket condemnation of all those darn stupid unthinking Mormons.
“To call this faith “idolatry”, however, is WAY off the mark.”
This.
Rich, thanks for analysing my comment. For you, the church’s voice is a perfect (or almost perfect) reflection of God’s voice. And if that is true, then of course it makes sense to always go with the church, and never trust our own judgement if it conflicts with the church. For you, Church=God (more or less). And I agree that the church leadership is following the Holy Ghost to the best of their ability. The brethren are humble and careful to seek revelation on all matters. We can trust that their judgement has been inspired.
But you and I have a fundamentally different view of the nature of God. I think you see God’s will as a singularity, for all people, for all time. But I see God saying contradictory things to different people. I think the idea of “a strait and narrow way” is important, but its not the same strait and narrow way for every person. I believe in a God of “strait and narrow way(s).”
For example, the Biblical God told His people to take concubines from the spoils of war. Joseph Smith’s God commanded polygamy. Thomas S. Monson’s God commands monogamy. Same God, different “strait and narrow ways.”
You might say, “well those were different times and God adapts His message to the culture and understanding of the time.”
True, but science tells us that mathematically speaking, time and space are interchangeable. In math, being a thousand years away or a thousand miles away is the same thing. Rome and Mecca are thousands of miles away from Salt Lake City, but they might as well be thousands of years from Salt Lake City. If God’s ways reflect an enormous diversity throughout time (concubines, polygamy, monogamy), why shouldn’t they reflect an enormous diversity throughout space? Time and space are the same to God.
God spoke to Moses in strange ways thousands of years ago, why can’t He speak to the Pope in strange ways thousands of miles away?
All this is to say that I think that God speaks through many different authorities throughout time and space, of which the LDS church is one. And the LDS church is an excellent and faithful authority to the word of God to THEM, as they understand the LDS people should understand it.
But God speaks not only through authorities, but also through our conscience, culture, personal revelation, etc. And these frequently come in conflict.
For many in the LDS church, their culture, their conscience, and personal revelations reflect almost perfectly the views of the authority of the church. So it is simple for them to say: follow the prophet! They happen to agree with everything the prophet says already.
But for people who feel strongly, morally, consciously, that the prophet is wrong, I don’t think you can dismiss that person’s experience. God may have another path for them. God is open to contradiction. We are not. We must choose between contradictions.
If we are “of God” we will follow the light. We will try to follow the good. For someone with a morally liberal feeling, that might be trying to embrace good values of diversity, equality, and empathy, and reject values of purity and authority if they seem to trample on empathy and diversity.
But if you are “of God,” you will not do that, because your moral conscience beckons you to align yourself completely with the authority of the church. That is your path, and the ONLY one you should take. And perhaps it is also your destiny to see all others as lost souls. I find it a bit sad that you are destined to see 99.99% of all humanity as lost souls, but I think that is indeed how God has led His LDS church to see things, and I won’t challenge Him on that. But that’s not what He tells me.
@Howard #64
Glenn illustrates the belief among many members, bolstered by what the the church essays do not say, that the priesthood ban was not necessarily a mistake. The essay points out “we” do not know the reason for the ban (but explains racial attitudes/practices at the time). Church leaders and the essay disavow various explanations for the ban but stop short of calling the ban misguided or a mistake.
Fairmormon goes further than the essay does:
“However, Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn’t made by him until 1852 in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum. Governor Young declared “any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.” [12] Like the Missouri period, the Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.
Those who believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to these pivotal events as examples of a prophet learning “line upon line,” with revelation being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that the ban was based on Brigham’s cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.[13]
Lois,
It’s interesting that “racial attitudes/practices at the time” (biases) are used apologetically after the fact to explain away or excuse things but biases are never considered a legitimate concern in the present day as policies are being made. The apology logic is always so twisted!
It will come as no surprise that I completely agree, MH.
As a matter of fact, I think one of the most important pieces I ever wrote was on this very topic: “The Church’s Cardinal Sin of Blasphemy/Idolatry”
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-churchs-cardinal-sin-of-blasphemy_28.html
Given the strange unfolding of this discussion, I wanted to jump back to the original OP which asked what we think of the 9 quotes. There is some nuance there that may have been missed:
1 – If a prophet leads us astray, it’s our fault for being led astray. It’s an indictment of the members, not the prophet.
2 – We should not rely on any man, only on God directly.
3 – We can only save ourselves (?), and if we rely on association with the prophet to save us, we are in a state of sinfulness.
4 – We should seek to understand what we are given, never to obey without understanding. (But it implies we should obey and that we will agree if we understand).
5 – Too much confidence in leaders is reckless and undermines the ability of the people to influence upward.
6 – We have the privilege of knowing for ourselves the will of God.
7 – People who knowingly do wrong because a leader tells them to are slaves, and leaders who tell the people to do as they are told without questioning have a mind to do wrong.
8 – It’s not pleasing to God for members to outsource all responsibility for matters of the kingdom to the leaders.
9 – Those who are too weak to determine the course of action for themselves, who rely entirely on the faith of leaders and will simply do as they are told, can’t be Gods because they are like children who must be told every little thing to do. They won’t inherit the fullness of exaltation.
On #9, it’s like I’ve always said, I don’t want to live on the planet of some ignorant lackey yes-man. No thanks.
There are some interesting nuances to each of these quotes. On the whole, I think it’s an important caution. It doesn’t necessarily mean that leaders have led us astray, but it certainly does condemn a behavior I see a lot which is not engaging in the difficult thinking when leaders tell us to do things. Telling people that the thinking is done when the leaders speak is just the opposite of what these quotes say.
Listening to people assert that the priesthood ban was instituted by God makes me feel like I’m reading Candide again. “This is the best of all possible worlds.” Every bad and terrible thing that possibly happens or has happened was God’s will. I just don’t agree with this philosophy.
Thank you Hawkgrrrl! Nobody is really addressing the quotes themselves.
JI, you keep asking what I want people to do. No I don’t want them to leave the church. (Why do you keep asking this?)
I want people to act like Levi Savage in the most stirring part of the movie 17 Miracles. Levi knew heading west to late in the year would lead to deaths of hundreds in the ill-fated Willie and Martin handcart disasters (which I liken this policy to.) He was SEVERELY chastised by both leader James Willie as well as Apostle Franklin D. Richards and accused of lack of faith. Following this chastening, Savage responded.
Here’s what I wrote in 2011 concerning Levi Savage and James Willie.
Some sobering statistics from that disaster. In all, 68 of 404 (17%) died in the Willie company. It turns out that the Martin company left 10 days after the Willie company and more than 145 of 576 (25%) perished in the Martin company. These were preventable deaths. I don’t have to tell you how the suicide lines were at capacity following the announcement of the policy.
Sometimes the leaders need to lose the hubris and humbly listen to the members. Sometimes we need to act like Levi Savage to try to prevent unnecessary deaths, as well as unnecessary spiritual deaths that will result from this wrong policy. How many deaths will it take to get this policy changed? At least Brigham Young learned from the Willie/Martin handcart disasters, and he strongly rebuked Franklin D. Richards for his decision to tell the saints to go west. I just would like the policy changed sooner rather than later. We’ve had thousands of church members leave over this policy, but so far the First Presidency isn’t acting like Brigham Young and changing a bad policy.
I want the policy to be removed. Countless children will be harmed by not having the Gift of the Holy Ghost during their important teenage years. I can’t fathom why people think this is no big deal.
I’m related to 3 of the Willie company deaths which is just one of the reasons I’m skeptical of LDS divine leadership another is having a gay sister, a third is my personal involvement with African orphanages.
Oh and one more, I happen to like and respect women!
Amen Mormon Heretic #77. Amen brother.
MH,
We would probably pay more attention to the quotes if they weren’t overshadowed by such a libelous title.
Jeff, what evidence can you offer to support your libelous claim?
A captain of the Willie Company, William Woodward, later said that Levi Savage was “the best help we had.” Savage was all too aware of the inherent dangers, and he did what he could to mitigate the damage. Those members who are reaching out in love to those affected by the policies (including those who are highly disturbed at an emotional and/or intellectual level) are doing what they can to mitigate the damage. Those who understand the potential negative effects of the policy (and the negative effects that have already happened) are needed in the church.
I have been pondering the theme of this post but from a different perspective I guess. I find Elder Bednar’s recent conference talk haunting with the quote,
“When you cannot do what you have always done, then you only do what matters most.”
My father was very sharp and sensitive with a wealth of church and temple experience into his last years. I always trusted his intuitions and had no doubt of his love. I would never have made him the ’emeritus patriarch’ of our family. Not all elderly individuals are so fortunate to be free from diseases of memory.
I try to envision what our church leaders are seeing that we don’t see. Some accuse them of not seeing enough, but that is likely an inaccurate characterization. If Elder Perry’s mission of doing what matters most was to make a statement about counterfeit relationships, what was he seeing as he neared the veil passing?
This policy change will probably be what is most remembered about President Monson, and could possibly be the last major action of his presidency, even though if he has dementia, as the claims say, he will have the credit for someone else’s crafting of the policy. What is President Monson seeing as he nears the veil passing?
To me, the policy seems like a hastily cobbled duplication of the polygamy policy with a couple of word changes–with little thought to how it would impact believing members along the spectrum of connections to LGBT members. The way it was inserted into the CHOI seems naïve. The need to clarify the policy amateurish.
In spite of what is in the CHOI, I keep trying to see what it is they see, they who are only doing what matters most because they can’t do what they once could.
Unfortunately, I think it is much easier for our current leaders to gloss over spiritual deaths than physical ones. But make no mistake, there will be physical deaths due to this policy. They just won’t be as spectacular as the Martin-Willie Handcart deaths.
This policy is like the priest who passes by the injured man who is rescued by the Good Samaritan. I’m trying to be the Good Samaritan, despite the calls of those who question my “libelous” title. I’ll gladly be called libelous if I can help save the spiritually injured and I do believe God blesses my words and actions on this issue.
God bless Levi Savage. May we all have the courage to follow his example.
I’m not sure why the title would “libelous.” It’s a valid criticism of some people in the church idolizing leaders. The only reason for such defensiveness is if someone assumes that the leaders desire idolatry. That’s a stretch and not supported by the quotes.
Howard,
I’m hip to your game. You have a long track record of
1) Asking for evidence to support any claim you disagree with.
2) Not reading the evidence when it is provided.
3) Carrying on as if evidence had never been provided at all.
This is nothing more than the cheap and easy tactic of the annoying 10 year old who runs around yelling “prove it!” to anything and everything, as if that made them right about anything and everything. Your tiresome misuse of the priesthood ban as a trump card and Pres. Hinckley’s mere mention of the word “agitate” are the most well-worn examples of this strategy in action.
I call this rhetorical move “the duck” …. as in “Howard the Duck.”
AndrewS in 53,
I think that’s exactly right. When we try to address an audience or legislate an issue beyond our stewardship, that is where we go wrong. When a moral rule like this is in place, it gives the illusion of “follow the leader no matter what” since statements that are consistent with this are all there is to be found in public discourse. Of course in practice this isn’t an all or nothing issue, but it most definitely is a self-selecting bias within the public data that is rarely taken into account.
“Those who understand the potential negative effects of the policy (and the negative effects that have already happened) are needed in the church.”
Why do you suppose that doesn’t seem to include the Brethren?
Jeff,
So when you don’t have any evidence you you rely on ad hominem as I pointed out earlier.
MH: I sometimes feel LDS church members are guilty of idolatry. Perhaps it is not completely the members fault; We have been told so much to “follow the brethren” that we have built them up as idols, and fail to “study it out in our minds, and ask God if it be right.” Early church leaders were also concerned about blindly following, and here are some quotes…
——-
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
The big fable here is that one can ask God a question and God will tell the answer in your heart… courtesy of Mormon prophets and apostles. It hasn’t worked as advertised. Time to give it up.
Howard,
For the record, that’s not an ad hominem attack. At no point did I insinuate that you are wrong because of who you are.
Instead, it was an objection to your attempt to place the burden on me to prove that church members don’t actually idolize their leaders. Such a strategy is the opposite of good-willed engagement.
Graceful dodge Jeff.
This post is “The Idolatry of Following the Brethren”. I’d like to keep it on topic, and move the previous comments dealing with polygamist children to the post where it belongs: http://www.wheatandtares.org/19633/repeating-the-mistake-of-brigham-young/
I’m happy to continue the conversation where we can better reference what has already been said on the topic.
Oh, come on–as if the Twelve are the type of people who could lead us astray– in a major way –like Hiter did with the German people! No.
My family was in the Hunt Wagon train which was in the disaster with the Willey and Martin Handcart companies. My third great grandmother died in Emmigration Canyon right before they got to Salt Lake, and they had previously left some of their children for dead along the way. So, I know all too well from my family history what disasters can happen in mortality, and indeed, some of my family perished because they followed.
But you all ought to hold your tongues and rethink your disparaging remarks towards those placed at our head, lest you sever the tie that binds you to the Lord through the keys that they hold.
A far greater lesson and legacy spiritually was passed on to the descendants of those people in the disaster because in spite of all, they heeded the voice of the prophets when it was required, and continued faithful. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves that are using this disaster as an example of trying to justify what you are saying, because you don’t speak for the people in the disaster, and some of you are not the product of the families from the disaster, and do not have the direct legacy from those in the disaster, and as such, I say that you have no right to judge or to speak of things that you know nothing about.
You don’t have the right to judge the circumstances and thought processes of people who are serving the Lord the best way they know how who were at the head, nor are you in a position to judge whether or not the faith in those leaders was truly misplaced. I tell you that the effects of mortality are upon us all, and our faith is never misplaced, regardless of screw ups, even though in extreme circumstances, we may well need to disobey from time to time.
MH, I normally feel that your posts are well thought out. But this one is incredibly foolish, because it exhibits a gross misunderstanding of the basic requirements submission and humility and meekness that is becoming of the Lord’s people under normal circumstances to those that are placed at their head. They are the Levitical husband in place of the Husband. They are the little g god in place of the God. They are the proxy in place of God. Speaking evil of them is covenant breaking. People just need to use their brains in the way they follow them and how they treat their names. Because how they treat their names is a lesser form of blasphemy against the Name of the One that sent them. Respect and submission to the Lord’s anointed regardless of their flaws and mistakes is what the Lord himself has asked of his people. It has nothing to do with hero worship. And if some are guilty of hero worship, then there are far greater things they could be guilty of. I’d rather them be guilty of hero worship than the kind of evil speaking and apostasy I see so often on the bloggernacle. And so, I’m more than a bit disappointed this post.
Ed, with all due respect, my ancestors are Mormon pioneers who were NOT part of the Martin-Willie disasters. As a descendant of Mormon pioneers, I’ve just as much right as you do to look back at the bad decisions of James Willie and Franklin Richards and condemn them. My ancestors weren’t led by such incompetent men across the plains, and at least Brigham Young learned from the tragedy and it wasn’t repeated. I don’t deny that many in Willie and Martin found it faith promoting, but others also found it faith-demoting. There’s no reason to lionize James Willie. Sure he was a faithful, but incompetent leader and he is responsible for the deaths of too many saints. There’s no reason to idolize faithful, incompetent leaders, especially when Levi Savage knew better. Lots of other handcart companies managed to cross the plains without killing 17-25% of the people under their watch simply due to leaving too late in the season to do it safely. This disaster was self-inflicted and would have been avoided simply by listening to Levi Savage, a man who obviously knew better than Richards or Willie.
Yiikes, Ed. GAs are your gods? I think you’ve effectively countered everyone on the thread who says it’s not a thing in the Church to worship GAs.
There’s no reason to lionize James Willie.
I wonder if our God holds James Willie personally responsible for the deaths that occurred? Or is it possible that he might find a place in the highest order of the celestial kingdom? If God doesn’t condemn him, and the members of his party don’t condeMn him, then I don’t want to, either.
“…and the members of his party don’t condeMn him…” Some did condemn. Have you watched the movie which references people besides Levi who didn’t want to leave so late?
Ed,
I am also a direct descendant of the ill-fated Willie and Martin handcart companies (Bradshaw) but I don’t, even for a second, understand your over the top complaint about criticizing that disastrous and wholly preventable misadventure. You are standing on the graves of innocent victims and thumping your chest about the strength of those who were fortunate to survive. It is grotesque, imo. Be grateful your ancestors didn’t all succumb to the conditions and die but show a little respect for those who were guilted/browbeaten/led to their deaths by leaders who confused priesthood authority with common sense and reason.
The ties which bind me to Saviour have nothing to do with idolizing the stupidity (criminal stupidity, perhaps) of the leaders of that handcart company who took people to their deaths. I have no idea what you’re talking about. The tie which binds me to the Saviour consists of the Atonement-full stop. It sure isn’t following crazy and objectively bad advice from someone just because he holds the priesthood.
It is understandable that those who survived might want to look for the positive from the experience, having to live with what happened to them. That shouldn’t prevent us from learning the lessons however.