Today we have another guest post. Jacob D. (JD) grew up in the church in an area he affectionately terms “Zion Lite.” He served a mission in a country with police with semi-automatic weaponry and weird fatty foods, went to BYU, did more than enough graduate school, and still goes to church. Look around this Sunday, he may be sitting down the bench from you, possibly wearing fantastic socks.
He could still really use a friend there.
President Nelson gave the devotional address recently at BYU, where he felt impressed to share some explanation on the development of the November 2015 policy, as well as several truths. One of these was “Truth is truth” which he illustrated by recounting his time during advanced surgery training when he learned of the ability of potassium chloride to stop the heart from beating. This ability, this law, had opened up advances in cardiovascular surgery.
Since medical science has known aspects of this law for nearly 140 years, why did it take nearly a century until such surgeries could be successfully performed? Evidently, the knowledge of the law of potassium chloride wasn’t sufficient alone. In my area of medicine, radiology, I am regularly reminded that diseases rarely read the textbooks. While the principles and laws of radiographic disease presentation may often be direct, the way a disease looks in reality seldom fits within any textbook categories, and must be approached using knowledge of the patient, the experience of diseases under similar influences, and recognition of the many competing factors at play. Similarly, surgeons are rigorously trained in principles and laws. Through direct experience, this training can then be applied to individual patient situations. A successful cardiopulmonary bypass took years to accomplish, as the first human subject did not survive (Pres. Nelson was on this surgery team.) Even with knowledge of laws, people are complex and cannot be reduced to simplified principles. It takes a nuanced and thorough understanding of both the principle and the person in order to help them thrive.
Similarly within the gospel, principles and laws may be simple and straightforward, but our perception and application of these laws are always nuanced and based on many factors. President Nelson stated emphatically: “Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!” Prophets DO speak truth – as much as they are able to comprehend. Over a century of evidence testifies that they “see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12) even when at the pulpit.
What is the proper response to such earnest prophetic pronouncements of truth?
Here is a very small sampling of such pronouncements, and the responses they engendered:
1 ”Some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. The preexistence of our spirits,…and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore. Furthermore… intermarriage of the Negro and White races [is] most repugnant…and contrary to Church doctrine.” [1]
2 “I am a firm believer in Slavery. A strong abolitionist feeling has power over [many]. I know [slavery] is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters, because [Negroes] are not capable of ruling themselves.”[2] “My voice shall be against [making the Negro equal with us in all our privileges] all the day long.”
The first was a letter from the First Presidency to Dr. Lowry Nelson. He responded by thanking them for their thoughtful attention and care. He continued by relating his knowledge of the principles within the scriptures and his significant experience with honorable individuals of other races that were under the classification of “Negro.” He simply would not believe that these individuals were not inherently worthy of temple ordinances and the full blessings of the gospel. The First Presidency responded by stating that “the doctrines of the Church…are either true or not true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be. You are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. We prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God.” [1]
The second is two quotes of President Brigham Young on the topic of slavery. Apostle and territorial legislator Orson Pratt fought ardently against Pres. Young on slavery in general and the issue of legalizing slavery in Utah specifically. (Careful note: Saying Brigham Young was simply a product of his time rejects the efforts of many thousands of anti-slavery activitists around him who were also a product of the same time, including Elder Orson Pratt.)
In the church and in life, we are presented with statements and situations that challenge us on many fronts.
- With our historical record, how can we engage with the idea that “Prophets always teach the truth”?
- What would you practically do if you were on the receiving end of these historical teachings?
- What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?
Discuss.
___________________________________________________
- Letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, from the First Presidency, (Pres. G. A. Smith, Elder Clark, Elder McKay) on July 17, 1947
- President Brigham Young, Address to Utah Territory Legislature 23 January 1852
Wheat & Tares 
There are less jarring examples even. In the seventies the first presidency wrote about how evil birth control was. Since there is only one family I know with ten kids in my ward the rest of us have decided that they are a good idea and not against church doctrine.
I will probably have a long temple recommend session again and if I cannot get a recommend because I disagree with some church teachings I guess I will try to live the words of the primary song, “do what is right, let the consequence follow.”
“What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?”
Well, we could simply let him have his belief without public argument or confrontation. He lives his life, and we live our life. If the question comes up with a group of our friends or family, we could share that we understand his position but that we tend to approach the matter from a different perspective.
In response to the second bullet point: What would you practically do if you were on the receiving end of these historical teachings?
As a gay Mormon, I do not have to ponder on how I would respond if I was on the receiving end of these historical teachings because I am on the receiving end of discriminatory church teachings and policies RIGHT NOW….2019!!!! I am living the experience in REAL TIME! Talk about ‘seeing through the glass darkly!!!’ How about those who refuse to look through the glass at all???
Surely Pres Nelson is aware of the all the examples where the leadership have got it wrong, so to be so sure of what is true now, is difficult to explain.
Some will believe anything that comes from SLC.
Others can see for themselves, and question.
Well, if he meant that statement literally, then I have to put it in the class of such statements President J. Reuben Clark (for years sustained in conferences as a prophet) once referred to as an occasion on which the “President of the Church … was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ “ J. Reuben Clark “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” Address given to seminary and institute teachers, at BYU, on July 7, 1954, published in Church News (July 31, 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80. Or in the class of actions Elder Uchtdorf referred to in October 2018, without excluding prophets:
“You will find that this Church is filled with some of the finest people this world has to offer. They are welcoming, loving, kind, and sincere. They are hardworking, willing to sacrifice, and even heroic at times. And they are also painfully imperfect. They make mistakes. From time to time they say things they shouldn’t….”
I expect prophets “always teach the truth” should be understood as a rhetorical overstatement or maybe a statement of intention rather than fact.
ji’s approach is reasonable, but I wonder whether waiting for the subject to come up is the best way to teach one’s children. The matter can also be discussed in some Church classes — but such discussion depends greatly on how it is approached and the attitudes of those present. There are enough examples of rhetorical overstatement from those that have been sustained as prophets, that the possibility can be introduced without offense.
JR, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I recommend always waiting for a child to raise the question before teaching an important principle or sharing an important thought — I didn’t speak to waiting or who had to bring up the question. Certainly, I agree that a parent discerning a need to help teach an important principle to or share an important thought with a child can always find a suitable occasion where the question happens to come up.
My bishop told me that to “sustain” the prophet I must follow all his counsel (i.e. movies, earrings, use of the word “Mormon, etc). As a result I have no temple reccomend.
Other meanings of “sustain” include “to give support” {in this context maybe by prayer), “to suffer” {as an injury), “to bear up under” (tough it out?). Dark Traveler’s bishop may need to get acquainted with a dictionary. Local leadership roulette (maybe the only officially approved form of gambling) can be a really unfortunate thing. Here’s my current favorite explanation from a sacrament meeting talk (not mine):
“What I mean when I sustain anyone, whether it’s one of you or the prophet, is that I accept that you hold the calling right now. I accept that you, like me, are still a fundamentally flawed human being and that means mistakes will happen. Sometimes the mistakes will be trivial. Sometimes they may be major. But I will assume that you mean well and are trying to listen to the spirit even when you get it wrong. I will do my best to deal with it until such time as either I change (which is possible) or the church changes.”
1) They don’t always teach truth. Truth exists outside our limited perceptions.
2) I don’t know. Context and environment has been crucial in shaping who I am, my thoughts, opinions, actions. In a different time and context, I would probably think very differently.
3) People shouldn’t feel obligated to agree with the FP+Q12 at all times and in all matters.
On science, diseases and text books and the like. We have to acknowledge that science has established a certain number of indisputable truths about disease. It has, after all, through vaccination, been able to wipe out a number of diseases, including small pox and polio. However, there is clearly a lot of grey area where we have partial understandings, and a whole lot of unknowns. On the whole, I see science and scientists are tending more towards uncertainty about science and open to evidence that their theories could be wrong than LDS leaders are about LDS doctrinal teachings. An attitude of absolutely certainty seems to pervade LDS thinking among leaders and many followers.
Amended version: Prophets teach truth as they see it. Even that is probably too strong if one takes it as claiming that prophets always speak truthfully. They have an agenda, so sometimes they speak truthfully, sometimes not. They live inside a Mormon bubble, so often they aren’t even aware of the, uh, truth gap in their statements.
I find the 1947 statements of the FP more disturbing than the Brigham Young quote, which reflected the thinking of his time. Truman integrated the US military in 1948. Loving v. Virginia found laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional in 1967, but most states had already reversed such laws well before that date. The LDS Church didn’t reverse its own priesthood and temple ban until 1978, and didn’t get around to reversing the racial beliefs and folklore that went along with the ban until well into the 21st century. So the problem is that the Church updates its version of truth to match reality very slowly. When “the world” gets things faster than prophets, seers, and revelators, you know we have a problem.
My husband spent 20 in the military, and his training included the concept that you obey orders without question….um unless you know information that might indicate your commanding officer is wrong. Then of course, sustaining your commanding officer means that you give him the information. You tell him that you think he is wrong and explain why. As an officer, he was trained to always listen to those he commanded. He could not be an effective officer if he did not listen to those he commanded.
Well, in the church we are cut off from communication up the line of command. There is no way to, say, inform the prophet that according to the latest science homosexuals are born that way, and it is at least partially genetic..
The church recently came out against a measure to restrict “conversion therapy” to consenting adults. The church is wrong on saying that parents have the right to put children into therapy to fix their being gay. I learned in college 40 years ago that conversion therapy does not work. Period. Malpractice to pretend it does. Child abuse to subject children to “therapy” to try to “fix” the way they were born. But the church has no system to correct the brethren.
Just as my husband in the military should have the right to correct his commanding officer if he knows something that the commander does not, say to prevent them walking into an ambush, we as church members sometimes have information that the church leaders do not. My degree is psychology. Pres Nelson’s degree is medicine. I would expect that his education covers things my education does not, and assume that my education covers things that his does not. But that line of communication is shut off in the church.
The prophet thinks he has the truth, but he purposely refuses to listen to people whose life experience or education is different than their own. They do not have “the truth”. What they have is an information bubble around themselves.
Just as it would be extremely dangerous to take orders from a commanding officer who refuses to listen to those in his command, I refuse to take orders from a prophet who has established an information bubble around himself and surrounds himself with yes men.
So, to answer your questions, when I pray and get told by God the same thing the prophet is saying, then I have no problem obeying, because my real commanding officer is not some man who calls himself prophet, but my Heavenly Father. But if I get a different answer, I have no problem not following some man into an ambush because that man thinks he knows all truth and doesn’t have to listen to others.
1) With our historical record, how can we engage with the idea that “Prophets always teach the truth”?
Given the church’s historical record, this is a patently false statement. Of course, it isn’t intended to be tested and either confirmed or denied. The goal of a statement like this is boundary maintenance. Those who agree or are on the fence leaning in will incrementally increase their commitment. Those leaning out will lose a few more bricks in the foundation. This seems to often be a goal of the brethren these days.
2) What would you practically do if you were on the receiving end of these historical teachings?
I don’t know what I would do. I’d like to think that I would have the courage of a Lowery Nelson or a Steward Udall, but that would be self aggrandizing. I do know that there have been numerous and prominent voices arguing against the idea of racial inferiority since the early 19th century at least, so 1978 seems like a milestone worthy of a very slow clap.
3) What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?
We don’t have to guess about this. The policy on children of homosexuals gives everyone an opportunity to plant a flag. Our responsibility is to defend fellow human beings and respect their true nature so long as it does not victimize other people. The leaders of the church, specifically Dallin Oaks, have been wrong on this and they remain wrong even after creating the assumption that the November 2015 policy has been reversed. It has not.
Re: Brian G.’s claim that the FP wrote in the 1970s that birth control is evil. As far as I know, the FP has issued only one statement on birth control, and that was in 1969. It did not forbid birth control, but did discourage it. The statement claimed that Church members who used birth control would “reap disappointment by and by.”
Since then, things have…..evolved. Individual Church leaders might still oppose birth control, but that is their personal opinion. The authoritative General Handbook of Instructions says about birth control, that God gives people sexual capacity to bring His spirit children into the world, and to create close emotional bonds between husband and wife, that the number of children that a married couple decides to have is extremely personal and private, It is for them to make alone while seeking guidance from the Spirit. Translated more plainly: everyone else, leaders included, butt out.
That does not prevent individual Church leaders from preaching against it. Widtsoe, McConkie, JFS, ETB, for example. SWK personally did not like birth control, but in the history of SWK’s Presidency written by his son, an account is given in which D. Arthur Haycock, SWK’s Personal secretary, claimed that the Church of course opposes birth control, only to be contradicted by Pres. Kimball that that was not the case. Pres. Kimball said that it was not realistic to expect married couples to abstain from sexual relations, if they were not ready to have another child.
I have also read statements by GBH indicating as Church Pres. that the Church did not oppose birth control. Think it was in his biography, but am not sure.
More generally speaking: do not expect the Church to issue statements saying that X was once banned, but is now okay. That is not how the Church operates (1978 Revelation on priesthood being the obvious exception). The Church simply tries to IGNORE past teachings it not longer considers binding. One trivial example: SWK urged us as President to tend gardens, and grow food. It has been years since that was said from GC pulpit, because it no longer fits the reality of our much larger church membership.
As to Dark Traveler’s experience with his Bishop: I am sorry that that happened. If I tried to follow every word of counsel from every Apostle, I would quickly contradict myself right out of the Church, because they often disagree, whatever their claims about speaking with one voice. My favorite example, as an English and American Lit. major, even though this is a very minor point: BKP once gave a GC talk in the Kate 70s condemning the poem “Invictus” by Henley as prideful, only to have James Faust highly praise the poem in a GC talk given as a FP member, because it showed a man’s indomitable spirit in trying to follow God. Gotta love it!
In the meantime, Dark Traveler, next time, just yes or no to TR questions. Don’t seek the Bishop’s opinion. He had been instructed anyway by the Church to ask NOTHING but the q., exactly as written.
@Taiwan Missionary
“We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.
Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
-April 14, 1969, Letter from the First Presidency
The key statement is ” it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children”.
While it is important to remember context and nuance in such statements, it’s also important to not let the details disappear into history.
These statements are further amplified by local leadership, striving “to obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness.”
This is the crux of this discussion – what does one practically do when on the receiving end of similar teachings?
It’s much easier to evaluate these things through the comfortable lens of history. It’s significantly more difficult when your bishop, stake president, or any one of the FP/Q12 makes explicit statements directly to you on issues today.
What is our responsibility?
I think “no longer trusting the leaders” was one of the ,main reasons people leave the church. I am not sure what Pres Nelson thinks he is achieving. The was much hipe for the devotional, so I expected something that young people be impressed by. Instead he claimed a bunch of things as eternal truths which are not.
I questioned at the time whether they taught critical thinking at BYU and was told they did, and there were many there who were not impressed.
There was a time, before the internet, when leaders could make statements and not be questioned. Perhaps the man who holds the position of prophet believes that is still the case?
If leaders keep insisting that what they say is true, with nothing to back them up, they damage their credibility. How much more damage can it take?
I still believe in the restored gospel, but it is hard to accept the bigotry that comes packaged with it.
JD:
Thanks for clarifying the issue by providing the full text of the statement. I did not remember the phrase, “contrary to the teachings of the Church.” Appreciate your bringing it to our attention; it certainly makes for a starker position than I had remembered.
I still feel, though, that the Church’s Position on birth control has evolved. By the time of SWK’s presidency not too many years after the 1969 statement, there was considerably less rigidity. I think that this was perhaps a case of trickle-up revelation; Church leaders had become aware that Church members’ use of birth control was widespread, and they realized that was not going to change. My wife was in the early 1980s an RN working at Utah Valley Hospital ER in Provo, and worked with physicians who were Bishops and SPs, and who dispensed birth control prescriptions.
While I agree with you that we should not let obnoxious or wrong details disappear into history, I prefer to be more positive in my outlook: the Church evolves. I think that the trend is generally positive, although not necessarily smooth and consistent. The POX and its evident retraction being an example. I like the Uchtdorf quote cited by JR: the Church is filled with good people who often don’t get it right.
I believe that local leaders like Bishops and Stake Presidents often want to show their loyalty to Church leaders by giving 110 percent, rather than aiming for 100 percent, and settling for 90 percent, still an A in my book. This is where weirdness creeps in to the Church—over-interpreting guidance.
Your Point about it being difficult to deal with these issues in the moment when the B. or the SP
Is directly and confrontationally asserting doctrine that is not necessarily doctrine, is well taken. I do not have a perfect answer. I have a personality that prefers to stand up to doctrinal bullying, and to do that, one has to read, and be able to quote high-level Church leaders, who disagreed in their writings with what my local leaders were trying to peddle. This happened with two of my SPs, and although they were surprised at my pushback, they withdrew from the skirmish. They were good men who were a bit obnoxious and Type-A, and that type of leader is leery of being out-quoted on Church doctrine and policy. To stay in the Church, one has to have a thick hide!
When people in the Church have questions, THEY NEED TO KNOW THEIR AUDIENCE. There are some leaders with whom it is safe to talk with, and others who need to be avoided. I came to the conclusion for myself that, having read the Scriptures for decades, and the statements of Church leaders, and well-researched books about the less-than-immaculate episodes and personalities in Church history, that is up to ME to decide what my answer to a TR question will be. That is made easier for me because I am a believing member of the Church, who had (admittedly somewhat arrogantly) come to realize that I know more on the subject than the man questioning me.
I am sorry for Dark Traveler’s experience, and acknowledge your point of the difficulty in dealing with these situations, in the moment, but my advice still stands. DONT give a rigid Bishop or SP an opening to go on BBC a fishing expedition, and come armed with rebuttals, if necessary, only from top Church, of course!
To muddy the waters a bit on the birth control issue, the last time I saw Handbook one it still said that members should not undergo sterilization. I think this is significant, especially considering the long term probability of incorrect use of other forms of birth control.
1. With our historical record, how can we engage with the idea that “Prophets always teach the truth”?
I believe that people generally speak what they believe is the truth; but determining absolute truth is beyond my pay grade.
When it is important and relevant to me the Holy Ghost sometimes helps.
3. What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?
My first responsibility is duty to God which in turn is service to my neighbors.
Thanks to all for your comments. I’m coming to understand “sustain” as something much different than what my bishop is pushing. The Holy Ghost needs to be my source of truth, not “the arm of flesh”, even if that person is a “prophet, seer, and revelator”.
Thomas Kuhn observes that “anomaly emerges against a background of expectation,” which means to me that whenever I run across something I did not expect that I should first ask, “What should I expect?” That is, I should examine my own eye for beams.
Many years ago, when my wife was asked to give a talk on “Sustaining the Brethren”, we started by looking up “sustain.”
1. To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2. to supply as with food or provisions:
3. to hold up; support
4. to bear; endure
5. to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6. to allow; admit; favor
7. to agree with; confirm.
If I let the full range of meanings set my expectations, I find that sustain is a super word, providing me just what I need to deal with a community filled with all sorts of people.
What should I expect from LDS leadership? I find that if I let the explicit declaration in D&C 1: 6, 24-28 set my expectations, I am far more able to keep perspective on my experiences.
Behold, this is my mine authority, and the authority of my servants.…
These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;
And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed;
And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;
And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time.
And in considering how to see Brigham Young as both inspired at times (see the Brigham Young Priesthood manual and Nibley’s essays on the topic) and quite human, regarding the hot button quotes and social context, I found Stirling Adams’ essay on the implications of two books on Bible interpretation of Noah’s curse to be essential reading for context on the intellectual inheritance that the LDS brought into their new community.
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical
If American society could produce very different attitudes on that topic, why not the church? since members of the church came from different part of a diverse society. The church is a covenant community, not a Big Book of What to Think.
In the Doctrine and Covenants, a word that recurs with respect to the guarantee on prophets is “expedience.” And there are several places where the Lord says he withholds knowledge to test the faith of his people. Our current lack of omniscience is one of most obvious things about all of us.
And in looking for truth, which is aptly defined as “knowledge things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come,” I notice that until we all come to omniscience, we all all come short. One of the things that leads people to stop seeking is when they suppose that they know enough to judge once and for all right now, to say, “Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further” ( the exact wrong approach, according to Joseph Smith). That is, to both insist on perfection (which by definition makes imperfection, and only that, decisive, and therefore, the only information necessary and of interest), and to presume that the observer can perfectly detect both the existence and significance of imperfection.
I think of Harry Potter and Snape. Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul. What does impure knowledge do? What kind of knowledge does Othello rely on in dealing with Desdemona?
Focusing on imperfection is a very different approach than the one that Alma describes in Alma 32, which looks for “cause to believe” in the ongoing fruitfulness of testing and exploration, rather than a once and for all, final, knowing.
How have I dealt with various controversial issues in my 65 years? Keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then. The alternative is to not seek, to insist on final answers now, and to never question myself. There are consequences in the different approaches. In It’s a Wonderful Life, the difference between a frustrated and bitter George Bailey, and the one who can say, “Isn’t it wonderful? I am going to jail!” is whether he focuses on his personal frustrations, or on the significance of his relationships, including I think, his relationship with Christ.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Canonsburg, PA
The model we are presented with is that our salvation is conditional on our obedience to commandments which are transmitted from God directly to prophets. While this model is great at encouraging obedience, I do not think it holds up to scrutiny. In a discussion about truth, we have been pretty adept at shielding controversial historical information from people that can cast doubt on the legitimacy of the commandment transmittal process. From Joseph F. Smith:
“Those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of wedded life should see to it that they do not abuse the course of nature; that they do not destroy the principle of life within them, nor violate any of the commandments of God. The command which he gave in the beginning to multiply and replenish the earth is still in force upon the children of men. Possibly no greater sin could be committed by the people who have embraced this gospel than to prevent or to destroy life in the manner indicated. We are born into the world that we may have life, and we live that we may have a fullness of joy, and if we will obtain a fullness of joy, we must obey the law of our creation and the law by which we may obtain the consummation of our righteous hopes and desires — life eternal.”
– Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 276
Here birth control is not presented as a policy, but that “possibly no greater sin could be committed.” This is a commandment, black and white and a sin if not obeyed. 100 years later, it might technically still be on the books but is virtually ignored by everyone, even leaders in prominent positions. Why did this commandment change?
You can see this with all kinds of things, face cards, the Word of Wisdom, even what goes on in the marital bedroom, recreational sex was strongly condemned in earlier eras and now we just let people do their thing.
I judge commandments by their fruits. Does saving sex for marriage lead to more happiness and avoid problems, YES! I think life experience and statistics show that people in healthy committed relationships are happier than people who sleep around. Does avoiding alcohol and drugs lead to a happier, healthier life? I would say yes (nothing wrong with alcohol in moderate amounts, but alcoholism ruins lives). Does wearing garments make you a better person? Maybe, if it is a helpful reminder and a sign of commitment to you, then yes. If it is uncomfortable and makes you resentful, probably not.
I think that Felixfabulous is right about the model that we are given, that salvation is conditional upon our obedience to commandments given to us by prophets.
I also think that the application of this model is at times abused. For the simple reason that Church leaders have said so many things on so many topics, and often do not agree with each other. So we tend to cherry-pick the statements we personally like and ignore the others. One of my Stake Presidents once gave a talk on birth control, and cherry-picked all the “anti” comments from leaders, ignoring the current policy of the GHI, and the more accepting views of SWK and GBH. So I knew how to deal with his distorted presentation.
Dark Traveler: you are absolutely right. It is the Holy Ghost That needs to be your source of truth. I am still in the Church today, not because RMN testifies it is true, but because the Holy Ghost continues to tell me this is where I belong.
In 1976, two years after I joined the Church, I was in Priesthood meeting when a fight broke out on the crucial (sorry, sarcasm is one of my failings) question of whether Shem and Melchizedek were the same person. Different viewpoints from John Taylor and BRM were cited, and the disputants ACTUALLY said, “We should listen to John Taylor because he was Church Pres., and BRM is only an apostle.” And conversely, “We should listen to BRM, because he is a living Apostle, holds the (potential) keys of Presidency, and therefore trumps dead Presidents.” So help me, I am not making this up.
THAT was the very moment when I decided that I would decide questions on my own terms, seeking guidance from the Holy Ghost.
“I am still in the Church today, not because RMN testifies it is true, but because the Holy Ghost continues to tell me this is where I belong.” Perhaps even some of our experiences with the Holy Spirit that we perceive as conveying or confirming truth claims may be better understood as telling us this is where we belong. If so, then there is no substantial impediment to recognizing the Holy Spirit as telling some others that another place/church/whatever is where they belong. What do you think?
“The church is a covenant community, not a Big Book of What to Think.”
It’s both. It insists on the truthfulness of a number of specific doctrines that are beyond question. These are mostly objectively unverifiable doctrines (prophets communicate with God, God has a body of flesh and bones, the COJCOLDS is the only church with divine authority, only men can have priesthood authority, etc.). Church leaders and the rank-and-file church members tend to get very riled up if you express ideas that are different from this core set of ideas. Leaders have long liked to tell people what to think about a range of topics and when confronted with hard-to-answer questions, they then pivot to covenant rhetoric, “that question isn’t important, I’ll just answer the question you should have asked, and you made a covenant, so don’t ask too many questions, or you might violate that covenant.”
I don’t want to belabor the BC issue, but to me it isn’t the best example because the whole statement about health and vigor and impurities passing down to children is more ambiguous than explicit-leaving plenty of room for interpretation so I don’t see a big change in anything other than focus, we simply don’t talk about it as much. One might reasonably say that a mother, say, the one typing this comment, who has dealt with significant mental illness her whole life , and at times, involuntary hospitalization, does not enjoy those things and might be “justified” in a careful assessment and curtailing of family size.. Yet I have acquaintances who have similar if not more poorly controlled mental health than I who feel differently and since they perceive they are, reproductively speaking, physically healthy and able, they can and should continue to procreate past my personal limit of 3 children. I think it leaves enough wiggle room still for couples to decide what their definition of “health and vigor and impurities” are. If it said “if the wife has a functioning uterus and at least one working ovary she should keep popping out babies until they cease to function” and then changed the tune , I feel like it would be a different story.
Anna, I wish I could thumbs up your comment a thousand times. Our leadership has cut itself off from correction from the general church membership. And we do know things that they don’t.
A few more thoughts, not necessarily inspired:
Amen to BB’s and Anna’s comments about Church leadership cutting itself off from the membership.
Having worked as a federal employee for 40 years, I believe that disconnect between leadership and its rank-and-file is common to any large organization. It certainly is in the government, and my friends in the corporate world say that it is the same, even in for-profit businesses.
Most managers believe what they want to believe, and get upset when confronted with data that shows their assumptions are incorrect. I believe most people (in the Church, too) are poor managers. Both men and women, but in my experience, there is a higher percentage of bad male managers, compared to bad female managers. Most of the really good managers I had were women. Most bad female managers I had to deal with seemed like Dolores Umbridge. Most bad male managers were like Donald Trump.
I wish the Lord’s Church were exempt from this depressing state of affairs, but it is not. If anything, the possession of priesthood keys seems to make it harder for people to accept what they don’t want to believe.
Good managers need strong employees/followers. Bad managers HAVE to have weak employees/followers.
Anna, “The church recently came out against a measure to restrict “conversion therapy” to consenting adults.” Have you read the Family Services letter of comments on/objections to the Utah proposed regulation? It does not seem to me that your sentence accurately describes it or its proposed effect. Instead, it seems to be an objection to its being overbroad in a specific area where the research is unclear or at least in flux and in its general reference to “behavior”, while supporting a ban of abusive “conversion therapy” regardless of age. To my perception, your sentence is such a simplification as to be simply wrong. What did I miss?
Taiwan Missionary. Thanks for your last comment. Very much appreciated.
Prophets are authorized to receive revelation for the entire church, but do not take away our responsibility for personal revelation.
Prophets can teach truth, and I have personal situations that require me to decide what I believe and how I should act. I take into account the direction and teachings from leaders so that I might search for my answers and align my will to God’s will.
Prophets aren’t infallible. I just re-read the prophets section on the church website…and I’m ok with that. They can provide guidance and teachings. But God still wants us to figure things out, and does not want us to turn our brains off and just obey. What the prophets teach still require that personal revelation on how we live the principles taught.
So…
With our historical record, how can we engage with the idea that “Prophets always teach the truth”?
The past is in the past. Prophets speak truth in context of the situation at hand. Some of that spills over in symbolic ways or allegorical ways to be applied today, or the present prophet can clarify it for us, but the important thing for us to do is to find truth and hope to use prophets teachings as sign posts to help us get there. We can have personal revelation.
What would you practically do if you were on the receiving end of these historical teachings?
I would receive the teaching, process it, decide how it helps me find God’s will, and follow my heart trusting that God knows what I’m doing, and that I can repent if I get it wrong. But…just receiving revelation from a prophet doesn’t remove my responsibility to choose how to live my life.
What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?
My responsibility is to take it to the Lord and open my mind to change my beliefs, or wait until I feel inspired to change my beliefs. In many cases, it may not be something that goes against my deeply held beliefs, it is just how I am processing it and I need to figure out how to process things correctly. I can’t be so certain my deeply held beliefs are correct, nor what the FP+Q12 are teaching is against it. It is a process to get personal revelation on what they are saying. That’s my responsibility. Think and decide what I believe to be true, while listening and being open to those who are close to the spirit.
I don’t find many things the prophets are teaching that I can’t support. I do find a lot of people spinning things taught in their own ways that mean something different than what I hear prophets saying.
But I have no problem with disagreeing with what I hear from prophets, and waiting to figure it out in time. I don’t expect them to do the thinking for me.
Wondering asks
“If so, then there is no substantial impediment to recognizing the Holy Spirit as telling some others that another place/church/whatever is where they belong. What do you think?”
Very much in agreement; there are of course many spirits and also many gifts of God. I am a convert so I see things more like choosing bread at a supermarket; pick the one you want or skip it entirely. My mother chose Episcopalian and it was the best choice for her temperament.
For scriptural reference I suggest D&C 88 where persons choose the kingdom that makes them most happy.
@ Taiwan Missionary 7:56pm
Thank you for your comments. I like your positive and optimistic attitude on the matter. Having served my mission in Russia, I’m VERY sensitive to governmental (and organizational) “memory holes.” I fully agree that the position on birth control (and many other things) has evolved, I just find that the Church in general, does a very bad job with evolving positions. Birth control is one example. Evolution is another. A majority of membership does not know the church’s official position on evolution. (It has none, and the position publication is harder to find.) What they CAN find easily is multiple statements by prophets and apostles strongly arguing against it. Sadly, I feel it takes a PR problem or other public media attention for GAs to make clear statements or act (see Prof Randy Bott and Blacks and the Priesthood.)
I also tend to bristle at absolutes in the context of the gospel. It is a very human desire to want simplistic answers to complex questions, and within the church, this desire is amplified. Ultimately what I’m saying is that it’s difficult to maintain a similarly optimistic attitude, when direct leaders and the FP/Q12 state absolutes that are demonstrably false, and additionally, state those absolutes as coming directly from God.
Extricating personality from prophet is a lifelong game.
What I’m generally getting at with my questions:
What do you do when the prophet tells you to be a racist?
What do you do when the prophet tells you to take another wife?
Or, the hot topic of the day, what do you do when the prophet (or your bishop) tells you to marry a woman?
I’m a practicalist at heart. I always want individuals to mentally move through ramifications of policy, to practically think through situations and wonder what they would do.
JD,
I don’t think those questions are practical. They are completely hypothetical and emotionally charged. It’s not truth.
But to play along with hypotheticals…
Prophet is not asking me to be racist or hateful. But if he did I have to choose to do that, which I wouldn’t. If the President of the US asked me to be racist, I still won’t.
Polygamy is against the religion. So a prophet can’t ask my to take another wife. It’s not a practical scenario. If somehow he did, I still won’t. I would like to think the prophet would take my “no” answer and say….”right answer, I was just testing you.” Regardless of the past, practically, we are taught we cannot live polygamy now without going to jail and being excommunicated from the church.
Getting married is a decision for the individual who will live with that decision. Regardless of counsel or advice from others, the individual must think for themselves.
Now…..if the prophet told me to get drunk and don’t pay any tithing…well…those might be some things I can obey. Because they don’t impact my life or my salvation or my spiritual journey. But I can’t imagine that is gonna happen either.
It’s my mortal experience. I just don’t think the words of others, including prophets or presidents, are the end-all. They are just one data point for me to consider. God wants me to learn and become a good and faithful servant, not a drone.
Among the reasons that I don’t see the LDS community as a “Big Book of What to Think” is because I distinguish between what the community has, and what the community is. It (like all other communities) has people who think that way, and that is because, as Brigham Young says, “The gospel net gathers all kinds” and because thinking that way is a natural part of human development. Look up the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and compare Position 2 (where Big Book of What to Think happens) with Position 9 (where Joseph and Jesus try to lead us). As far as “What to think goes” I give heed to Joseph’s famous comment that ““I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled” and Jesus’s formal definition of his doctrine as faith, repentance (an ongoing project for all of us), baptism (that is, joining the covenant community), receipt of the Holy Ghost (ongoing revelation rather suppose we have it all written down in a book) and enduring to the end. Anything beyond that, he states rather bluntly, is building on sand. And people who build beyond that, defining much else as definitive doctrine, turn out to be the ones who complain about unstable foundations.
JR, I just stated what was in the news broadcast that I heard. The church has come out against a measure to restrict conversion therapy. The news broadcast said that the church’s position was that parents should have the right to decide what is best for their children.
But, no, I was not aware that LDS FS came out with a statement. However, LDS FS is not “the church” , but merely a company that works under the direction of the church. LDS FS is run by social workers and marriage and family counselors, not directly by the brethren. They are going to differ in opinion from the brethren. Now, I would HOPE the brethren would listen to them because their education will be similar to my own and different than the law, business, and medical degrees of the brethren. But in my experience the brethren think that their opinion trumps every body else’s.
I don’t usually come back to a thread this often, so I am glad I caught your question. If my statement was bordering on simplified to untruth, blame the news broadcast, but I think you are confusing the opinion of LDS FS with the official position of the church.
Anna, I think the news broadcast confused the opinion of LDS FS with the official position of the church and misstated the position of LDS FS.. I cannot find any statement of an official position of the church. Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. While I often dislike Foxnews, the following link (if it gets posted) is useful for its including the entire objection letter by Family Services. https://fox13now.com/2019/10/15/lds-church-raises-objections-to-proposed-rule-banning-conversion-therapy-on-lgbtq-children-in-utah/
Here’s the letter on the church’s newsroom:
Click to access Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Psychologist-Licensing-Act-Rule-and-to-the-Mental-Health-Professional-Practice-Act-Rule.pdf
I expect to read it again. Maybe my first impression was not correct.
@ Heber13 3:43 AM
Thank you for your comment. These questions are intentional, and I am asking them because I want people to mentally walk through what they would do if asked by their Bishop up through the prophet to act or behave in a certain way that was fundamentally contrary to what they believed the Lord wanted them to do.
To your comment that these questions are completely hypothetical, they may be hypothetical to YOU, but they are most certainly real, since they are based on the historical record as well as recent history. They are emotionally charged indeed, but that is intentional, if they were completely peripheral to an individuals’ existence then they would cause much internal consternation. Members have rarely thought about what they would do if they were asked to divorce their spouse and either remain single or marry someone of the same sex, and yet, that is what gay individuals are asked to do regularly.
I want you (and everyone) to engage your mind, to put yourself into the position of Dr. Lowry Nelson receiving the direct command of the First Presidency to embrace racist doctrine and policies, of an individual during pre or post manifesto polygamy, or as a gay guy being told by their bishop, stake president, and even the prophet, that the Lord commands that they marry a woman. THAT is why these questions are important and intentional. Because these situations all happened historically. The goal is to evaluate what we would do historically (granted, it’s simpler to evaluate history with the knowledge of today). These are all concrete examples.
And in general, I agree with you, that “the words of others, including prophets or presidents” are not the end-all. I just sincerely want people to personally consider what they would do or say if their bishop up through the prophet directly asked them to do something contrary to their beliefs. We definitely hear mentions of personal responsibility and seeking personal direction of the Lord, but my suspicion is that the majority of the core membership would always default to leadership direction, EVEN when they feel significantly different personally.
Ultimately this is an exercise in empathy, both for our ancestors and our peers today. It is very important to evaluate our thoughts particularly when we reject these situations as “completely hypothetical, emotionally charged, and not truth.”
@Anna @JR
I’m not sure that the church actually has a position separate from LDS Family Services.
Based on the Newsroom link you provided (thank you very much, I had been looking for that) much of their concern is based on the definition of Sexual Orientation as (I’m quoting from the DOPL proposed change document):
“Sexual orientation” means an individual’s gendered patterns in attraction or behavior, identity related to these patterns, or associated components.
LDSFS is primarily concerned about the behavior portion, that the DOPL proposed changes would “ban not only therapies aimed at changing sexual attractions and feelings,but any therapy that sought to modify behaviors or expressions associated therewith.”
I’ve been following this news for a while. Despite the church broad claims to be against abusive therapy practices, I absolutely think they can be charged with still being for conversion therapy. They want to slice the therapy into being vs behavior, just like they do with same sex attraction vs. action. They want to continue conversion therapy for behavior. Just look at the examples they give of the kinds of things they still want to do.
“A 17-year-old girl with attractions to both males and females confides to a therapist that she is forming intense emotional attachments with girls of the same age. She says these relationships often include some degree of physical involvement, such as hand holding, cuddling, and kissing. She explains that these behaviors are contrary to her faith and values, that they make her feel depressed and confused, and that she is deeply concerned that these behaviors will prevent her from remaining active and faithful in her chosen faith community, something she explains is central to her personal identity. She seeks counseling to assist her in changing behaviors related to her attractions. ”
Sounds like behavior conversion therapy to me. They want to continue to give treatment to make LGBT act straight.
“What is our responsibility today if a member of the FP+Q12 teaches something that goes against our deeply held beliefs?”
I’ll answer that question by following the advice of President Dallin H. Oaks given at the October 2018 General Conference (Truth and the Plan). President Oaks counseled that:
“Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations.”
When I want to be informed about LGBT issues I’ll seek information from those that are qualified on the subject – Geneticists and Biologists.
When I want information on the age of the Universe and the Earth, I’ll consult Geologists and Astrophysicists.
When I want to know about evolution I’ll read what Evolutionary Biologists have to say.
I have really enjoyed the thread of comments for this opinion post. Thanks to all.
One more comment: President Nelson said in his recent Provo address that prophets are seldom popular. As a Church, we believe and teach that prophets reveal God’s truth to his children. I accept that, and one if the things that originally attracted me to the Church is its belief in continuing revelation (Amos 3:7).
But revelation comes through flawed human vessels, however good they may be. So WE, as Church members, have to do the evaluating on a particular issue. If we find that we are wrong, then we ask for God to forgive us and we repent.
I have learned in my (too many) years that it can be dangerous to speak Truth to Power. People in leadership positions, whether in the government, in business, or in the Church, tend to get angry when confronted with data they don’t like.
US Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld notoriously said, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq in 2003, “I don’t like this intelligence on Iraq. Get me different intelligence!” I.e. he wanted intelligence to support his determination to invade, not intelligence that might challenge his assumption that Iraq had WMD. (It didn’t, but the decision to invade was made on the assumption that Iraq DID have WMD.)
On a Church level, Juanita Brooks became deeply unpopular among Members and leaders when she insisted in the early 1950s on writing “The Mountain Meadows Massacre.” Delbert Stapley and LeGrand Richards of the 12 wanted to excommunicate her. President McKay told them to leave her alone, but even he threatened to revoke the posthumous restoration of temple blessings for John D. Lee, if Sister Juanita publicized the Church’s decision to restore blessings.
The Church needs an Ombudsman’s Office, similar to the government’s Inspector General, to internally investigate wrong-doing and correct mistakes, but I don’t see that happening.
@ JD,
Thanks for the response and further comments.
I don’t disagree with your exercise. I think it’s good to ask these questions.
It feels more like a cult if there are pressures to obey authority no matter what.
It is more a global religion when it allows for personal revelation.