The Garment article in this month’s Liahona (formerly known at the Ensign) is getting a lot of press online, even from our own Dave B. last week. But something else jumped out at me in Elder Holland’s article.
Elder Holland said that some people may have specific questions about wearing the garments, and said you could go to trusted family members and leaders for answers. Then he said:
There is, however, very clear direction given in the initiatory ordinances, and there is forever and ever your Father in Heaven, who knows you and loves you and understands everything about your circumstances. He would be thrilled to have you ask Him these questions personally.
Sept 2024 Liahona, Elder Holland
So far so good! We’ve always been counseled to get personal revelation and confirmation when the Prophet speaks. But then he said the quiet part out loud
Please don’t misunderstand. As you reach out for divine guidance, the Spirit will not inspire you to do less than follow the instruction received in the temple and the prophetic counsel shared by the First Presidency in their recent statement. A loving Father will not help you rationalize doing less than you can to align with His standards of devotion and modesty that will bless you now and forever. But does He understand your questions, and will He help you receive the blessings of respecting the garment and keeping your covenants? Yes!
Sept 2024 Liahona, Elder Holland
The editors even emphasized the “not” by making it italics which didn’t show up in the quote above, but was in the original. I’m sure somebody even though of using a big bold NOT, but then thought better of it. .
So, there is no more burning in the bosom or stupor or thought to tell you what’s right or wrong. If it aligns with what Prophet told you to do, then it was the spirit! If your good feelings tell you it’s ok to do something different than the leaders instructed, that’s Satan. You can ask, but God’s just gonna tell you to do what they say and if you feel differently, that’s the devil. So really there is no need to ask, as the answer can not be different from what the leaders tell you.
It has always been implied that if you get an answer different from the Prophet, you are the one that is faulty, but I don’t believe it has ever been stated as plainly as this.
Are we back to “When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking (praying) has been done” mentality of the past?
Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
The events and publications of the past ten days are the obvious opening salvoes of an Oaks administration. Leaders, leaders, leaders. Know for yourself but don’t forget the leaders already spoke on that. Also make sure that any trans people are issued a scarlet letter and treated accordingly.
This has been an open secret for some time: if you get an answer other than what your leaders tell you then you are deceived. Also the higher the leader the more deceived you are. For local edicts there is some wiggle room but for Q15 direction, it’s from God himself.
On my mission in the 90s my mission president once asked us the point of praying. One Elder, using poor judgement, actually responded by saying something along the lines of to verify that it’s true. The mission prez then verbally eviscerated him, stating do you think the Lord will actually tell you to disobey church leaders?? No, the reason for prayer evidently is merely to help us feel better about doing what we’re being commanded to do.
High Nibley once cleverly explained why angels don’t appear to common folk like they do to prophets. It’s because they wouldn’t say anything different to us than what they’ve already told the prophets.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll repeat it here: This whole ignore-the-Spirit-if-it-contradicts-the-leaders approach is playing with fire. The whole reason I remain a member of this church is because I feel the Holy Spirit here (and trust me, that is very much in spite of what I want to feel, not because of). I have a testimony by the Holy Spirit of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon; I also, incidentally, have a testimony by the same Spirit that the 2015 child exclusion policy was flat wrong, as is treating LGBTQ people like garbage.
Certain senior leaders would obviously prefer I not feel that way. But if they tell me to ignore and doubt my impressions in the latter, it’s only a short hop, skip, and jump to ignore and doubt my impressions in the former, too. They can’t have their cake and eat it too; they can’t ask me to seek personal revelation and then ask me to ignore it when it contradicts them.
”The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
I’ve heard this narrative for years. Seek personal revelation through prayer. But if that revelation that claimed to receive doesn’t align with what the leaders say, then it was not real personal revelation and could have come from Satan.
It is akin to saying, “do your own research.” And if you say, “I’ve done my own research and the answer I’ve reached is different from yours,” the response is, “you haven’t done enough research” or “you researched the wrong things.” You’re never right if you’re in disagreement with them.
Anyone else read a bit of desperation in Elder Holland’s tone here?
It reminds me a bit of Elder Renlund’s “don’t pray to Heavenly Mother” lecture. In telling people not to pray to Her, they’re effectively admitting that people want to pray to her and do pray to her. The brethren just don’t want you to. In Elder Holland’s remarks, he’s effectively admitting that it is possible to have feelings during prayer that seem like a contradiction of mandates from the leadership. The brethren just don’t want you to trust those feelings. If that weren’t a thing that happens, there would be no need to address it.
JB is right. If you can’t trust the feelings you get during prayer, regardless of which dogmas they confirm or contradict, then why trust your testimony of the church’s truth claims? They’re pushing people to the logical conclusion that spiritual feelings are not necessarily an indication of actual truth. And if that’s the case, there goes Moroni’s promise, there goes revelation, and there goes the cat from the bag.
So, what happened to the advice Oaks gave about we preach the general advice and it is up to you to determine if you are an exception or not? That was because people were complaining that the gender roles in the proclamation to the family do not always work. So, members were chewed out because we are not supposed to complain when their advice is wrong, just pray and see if we are an exception.
So, we are not supposed to complain when they are wrong because it is our job to figure out if we are an exception, but there are no exceptions. And we should always trust our good feeling about things when we pray, unless it contradicts what they tell us and then it is wrong, unless we are an exception and there will never be an exception.
I’ve gone in so many circles now that I am dizzy.
Of course, Holland is horribly wrong. Look at 38.5.8 in the new Handbook (my emphasis):
“Some medical conditions or medical devices may make it difficult for members to wear one or both parts of the garment. Members should seek the guidance of the Spirit in such situations. In some cases, it may be best to lay the garment aside temporarily and wear it again when conditions allow.
When a member cannot wear the garment because of a medical condition or device, his or her religious status is not affected. The Lord focuses on the heart and a willing mind … As long as the member remains worthy, he or she will receive the blessings associated with wearing the garment.”
Does Holland ever acknowledge this clearly-stated exception to garment wearing in his diatribe? Does he, like the Lord, focus “on the heart and a willing mind,” or does he insist that he is right and must be obeyed? Does he even realize what an inconsistent liar he is? Church leaders have completely lost my faith and trust.
Thanks to Anna for resurrecting that Oaks statement about exceptions. To the best of my knowledge, Oaks himself has not contradicted his earlier statement and he still outranks Holland. So there is hope.
A long time ago, TVs didn’t have a gazillion channels. Although they could tune into that many, there were probably well under a dozen channels being broadcast in most areas. The rabbit ear antennas sitting on top of your TV would pick up those broadcasts, especially as you shift the antenna around. Your channel selector was a rotary dial that you would turn to click, click, click from channel to channel. Analog electronics, not precise digital electronics. So when you got to a channel, the view on the screen might have some static. Then you’d go to fine tuning. Something like a ring around the rotary knob that you’d twist back and forth slowly to try to get an exact fix on the frequency so the picture would improve. For a long time, I’d thought that was a good analogy for how commandments get us close to where we need to be, and then personal revelations gets us to the nuances about how to handle the specifics of our own lives. But now, hardly anyone knows about old TVs, so the analogy is dying as a teaching tool, and I haven’t figured out a good replacement.
Follow the law as noted in scriptures, unless God personally inspires you:
to kill Laban (#6), take more than 1 wife or given permission by first wife (Law of Chasity/#7) (but not Labaron families), hide Ensign peak investment funds from members (#1, #2, #8, #9,), break SEC rules (12th AOF), not to have faith to heal (7th AOF), not serve a mission/calling (11th AOF of 1st Pres).
Actually the articles of faith and the 10 commandments are really out of date.
Follow only the prophet and realize the rest is irrelevant!
It was the late 70’s and I’d completed the Temple Preparation class, had a mission call, and my farewell Sacrament Meeting program was scheduled for the following Sunday. Now it was time to receive my endowment in the SL Temple. Everybody that I loved was there to support me: parents, grandparents, two aunts, cousins, Bishop, close friends and neighbors. After an unexpected and mostly naked initiatory experience, I was hurried along, dressed in white, given a packet, and seated on the front row. The Officiator’s remarks included an invitation to leave now if I didn’t feel ready to make covenants that I didn’t yet understand, which was followed by a long pause to see if anyone dared take him up on his offer. I was on the verge of a panic attack and might have left but that would have set in motion a humiliating sequence that would be a long-term stain on me and on my family. I’ve since concluded that when a covenant is offered, and the only reasonable response I can give in order to keep my family’s dignity intact is to say yes, it’s made under duress. Since he became President, RMN has obsessively reminded members of the importance of keeping these covenants and it appears than other GA’s are under pressure to repeat the same message. Case in point: by my count, President Holland used the word “covenant” 17 times in his garment message in this month’s edition of the Liahona. 17 times! The brethren have really isolated themselves if they think members who are sporadic garment wearers will respond favorably to the “but you made a covenant” argument, especially if the covenant is extracted when any response other than “yes” will have ramifications.
Institutional and personal revelation will always be in tension at times. Statements have been made in the past by leaders of the institution trying to constrain the scope of personal revelation. I can feel a little sympathy for them on this because at its worst, alleged personal revelation has produced results such as the Lafferty brothers. However, while I think it’s ok for them to remind members once in a while that God isn’t going to tell them to violate basic gospel principles, it really needs to stay general and not get specific. Talking this way in the context of garments, or any number of other specific subjects, is a bad idea. Somewhere out there is someone who is dealing with extenuating circumstances, who takes the words of an apostle seriously, and who will be guilted by their words into unnecessary physical or mental suffering because of it. Holland probably believes the first half of his statement about personal revelation addresses that, but it doesn’t, because the second half will negate it in many readers’ minds. The church needs to encourage members to grow up and think for themselves, but it sounds like they don’t actually trust the members to do so.
File this under the “strange but true” category: When the POX was leaked in November of 2015, I was a TBM with three teenagers and an adult child in her 20s. All of them wanted to know what the heck was going on. So being the TBM that I was, I prayed for my own confirmation that the POX was indeed the Lord’s will. I never received that confirmation. Fast forward 41 months and it was reversed.
So, I was actually more in tune with the Lord’s will than the First Presidency and I beat them to it by 41 months. Had I not prayed for that confirmation and instead blindly followed Holland’s advice, I might have supported a policy that turned out to be contrary to the Lord’s will.
What Holland is teaching here is (to quote BRM) a damnable heresy. My whole life I grew up being taught that the church creates a rule for the masses, but there are exceptions to every single rule, the exception that proves the rule as they say, and that it is up to each of us personally to seek out our own answers about our own exceptions. We can’t apply those exceptions to others outside of our jurisdiction. At least that was the teaching. I never once heard this “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done” nonsense until I was in Utah. I’m not saying it didn’t exist. I’m saying it’s obviously heretical to believe such tosh.
I have never understood the Holland worship among the left. To me, he always seems like a man with thinly veiled anger who changes positions depending on whoever is influencing him in the moment. He tells the higher ups what they want to hear and reliably does their bidding. He cries real tears and talks mercy with progressives.
Josh H, thank you for giving your example of how your revelation trumped that of the Q15. I have my own version of this. From the time I read the BoM at age 12 and read Moroni’s promise at the end to pray to receive a testimony of the book. I was taught from that time forward that I should also pray to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. For years and years I fasted and prayed so hard to receive this testimony. In all other ways I believed what the church taught, but for some reason I just couldn’t understand why I couldn’t get an answer to these two important issues.
Fast forward 4 years ago at this time when I was extremely ill with Long Covid and decided to read about church history to pass the time because reading was one of the few things that didn’t make me feel worse. I read “In Sacred Loneliness” by Todd Compton, “Emma Hale Smith: Mormon Enigma” and “Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman followed by “The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” by D Michael Quinn. These books were all written by “good” Mormons, but I was learning things that were backed up with solid written evidence that basically trashed any beliefs I had in Joseph Smith, especially, and also the BoM. I read the Gospel Topics Essays which made the situation even worse. When I read more about the stories about the BoM and Ben Park’s wonderful book about Nauvoo I felt betrayed in the extreme.
I’m decided to talk with my youngest brother about what I’d learned and how distraught I was by my unnerving discoveries. Interestingly enough, he’d had the same questions as me and had been on a quest at the same time as me to find the truth regarding JS, the BoM and church history too. I told him how guilty I’d felt about not ever receiving a testimony of JS and the BoM. He said, “Don’t you realize that you now know why those prayers for confirmation were ever answered? You finally have your answer.” And I realized that he was 100% right. All of a sudden a sense of rightness and clarity came to me.
In sharing this experience with a few close friends and family members whom I trust deeply I have been surprised that they have been having similar thoughts and feelings about the same issues. We individually DID receive both a strong spiritual and intellectual confirmation that what we’d been taught from Sunbeams onward was not the truth. However, we’d all been conditioned by the church that if our confirmation of the truth didn’t match theirs there must be something wrong with us. Old teachings die hard, and deconstructing from the church’s conditioning methods is something that I’m now having to work through and unlearn. It’s not easy, but I am now experiencing a sense of rightness and peace that has been missing most of my life as I tried to fit myself into a mold that I could never fit.
I agree that personal revelation will sometimes be at odds with general counsel. But this should not be surprising–as general counsel cannot always be applied to every unique situation. Even so, we should be careful not to pit our counterintuitive personal revelation against general revelation in a public forum. As a general rule personal revelation ought to be kept within the heart of the person who receives it.
That being said, we want to be careful that we don’t tempt the Lord when we feel the need to seek for counsel that differs from that which he’s already given through his servants–because more often than not we need look no further than the teachings of the apostles to find the answers we need at any given time.
Re: The POX: the apostles modified the counsel so the local leadership had more power to judge those circumstances–that’s all. In my opinion, that adjustment was still within the range of what was acceptable to the Lord.
Jack it seems that you regard the apostles and prophets to be infallible.
Of course, this is not different from the way most members and leaders view them.
I first confronted the “wrong answer” on my mission, when a woman we were teaching said she had prayed about the Book of Mormon and got the answer that it wasn’t true. Another woman asked for a priesthood blessing to heal her, and when that didn’t work, she consulted a mystic healer and felt much better. I couldn’t believe that they were dealing with something as wicked as Satan, but I’d also read about confusing spirits of men, or something like that. There was another category of beings giving wrong answers. I concluded it was very sad they’d been deceived.
I asked the mission president about the woman who’d been healed by the mystic, and he fumbled around and didn’t have a clear answer.
I thought nothing more of it, and always got answers confirming the truths the Church leaders taught, until I prayed about LGBTQ issues. I got an unmistakable answer that what really matters to the Lord is how lovers treat each other. Kindness, respect, mutual consent. That matters a lot more than whether you’re having procreative sex.
I’m totally fine with someone saying, “I have received a message from God and I’d like to share that message with you. You can pray to ask God if what I’m saying is true.”
Some red flags go up for me if I pray and the answer that I get from God isn’t the same as what the person told me, and they then say, “Don’t listen to God. Listen to me.” To me, that sounds like trusting in the arm of Flesh (2Ne 4:34).
When the revelation I receive differs from the revelation of the Q15, they essentially say, “I know that standard we should look at to see who is right. Let’s look at the words of the Q15 and whoever’s revelation is in line with them is right.” I think a better standard would be to look at the words of Jesus, and see who’s revelation is more in line with the teachings of Jesus.
I consider myself a Christian and I will always try to align myself with the teachings of Christ, even if someone who says they speak for God teaches something different. I figure I should not fear man more than God (D&C 3:7).
Quentin: “At its worst, alleged personal revelation has produced results such as the Lafferty brothers.”
Good point. Perhaps the measuring stick for whether personal revelation is legitimate should not be whether it aligns with what our leaders say, but rather whether it is ethical. I.e. If I follow this revelation, whom will it help vs whom will it harm?
In the case of garments, the ethics of wearing them depends entirely on how they affect your own physical and mental health. Choosing not to wear them harms literally no one.
I am a lot like JB, at least in relevant part. I too believe in the restoration, and I believe that the Spirit has confirmed certain things to me. The Spirit has not confirmed to me that our leaders are infallible, and that every word from the Q15 mouths is dictated to them by an angel for them to repeat to us in general conference. They lawfully sit in Moses’ seat (Matt 23:2) and therefore we owe them obedience, but as Jesus’ disciples we are not to follow the legitimate religious leaders when they show hypocrisy or guile, or focus on minutia and ignore the weightier matters. We are expected to weigh in a balance what our leaders say and do, and compare it against the standard works as the people did at Berea when Paul taught there, all the while recognizing that they hold their offices in God’s scheme. I sustain my leaders, but I have to make the gospel work in my individual life as best as I can. That’s intensely personal, and it is also legitimate. I can be all things to all people at all times and in all places. I can only be true to me and to God.
Yes, I believe fervently in Christ and in the restoration, but I also know that I am able to receive answers to my own prayers, and this gives me great peace. Job could have listened to his three friends who spoke with great authority, but he did not believe all that they said, which the Lord later called words without knowledge. Instead he struggled personally with the Lord to figure out his terrible situation. Our leaders are sometimes wrong. That is a wonderful truth that we should teach more. It can be a great pressure relief valve. They are called of God, but they are men doing their best and sometimes they fail, but we should follow them as they follow Christ. We say follow the prophet, period, but I say that we should follow the prophet as he follows and points us to the Lord. I think that we do a disservice to the members when every policy decision in running the administrative church is called revelation. It frequently isn’t. That’s OK, and that in no way lessens the truth of the restoration. See the parable at D&C 88:51-61, where the laborer is taught by the field owner, and then is left to work alone.
The simple fact is that most active Saints believe in the infallibility of all leaders at all levels in all matters, and too many of our leaders demand as much while saying we don’t have infallibility. They deny the word but embrace the essence. I believe that a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as such, which often means that he speaks by the Spirit and I hear by the Spirit. I was not a member before 1978, and I could not have legitimately ordained a Black man to the priesthood, because those who sat in Moses’ seat said no. But I didn’t have to believe all that Bruce R McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith said about why they couldn’t. I had to obey in deed, but I could disagree in my heart, and that’s OK.
Correction: I cannot be all things to all people at all times and in all places…
Kirkstall:
“Perhaps the measuring stick for whether personal revelation is legitimate should not be whether it aligns with what our leaders say, but rather whether it is ethical. I.e. If I follow this revelation, whom will it help vs whom will it harm?”
I like this formulation by Mormon. It has an ethical sense to it but at the same time goes beyond it:
“But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.”
The reality is that we all evaluate the “answer” anyone receives and if we agree with it we view it as from God and otherwise as the person being deceived. It’s unsurprising that Holland thinks “they” are right on this, but the reality is that he does quote the handbook language quoted above and to me is clearly stating that people may be impressed to make accomodations based on hygeine/climate, etc. That’s a good thing, even if his language doesn’t seem to go as far as many here (including me) would prefer.
Likewise, most/all of us here would equally insist that those who use “personal revelation” to justify their otherwise abhorrent actions/beliefs no matter how clearly they are condemned don’t want more wiggle room there.
It’s also important to always pull out Oaks quotes, also noted above.
The reality is that one can use personal revelation to either wrongly agree with leaders OR wrongly disagree with church leaders, and both are problematic.
This post got me thinking about the Pharisees. I see a lot of similarities between our current church leaders and the pharisees. I asked chatGPT, “What did Jesus say about the Pharisees?” It gives a really good long response (which could make a great future blog post) and then a short summary at the end of the response. Here’s the summary,
“Jesus’ teachings about the Pharisees were a sharp critique of their hypocrisy, legalism, and self-righteousness. He condemned their focus on outward religious observance while neglecting inner righteousness and the true spirit of the law, such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Jesus warned his followers not to be influenced by the Pharisees’ example and taught that true obedience to God involves a sincere heart, humility, and a deeper righteousness that surpasses mere external compliance with religious rules.”
Hmmmmm… It’s something I think about quite a bit.
We’re seeing a church leadership that is struggling to make up its collective mind. They realized that garments just aren’t practical or healthy in many parts of the world, so they softened the language…now they’re trying to walk it partially back because members in the Mormon corridor are wearing too much “unholy” normal underwear.
We’re seeing a house divided – I’d bet real dollars that it’s a generational divide. Parts of the leadership want to soften and modernize some of the archaic, arbitrary, and bizarrely-specific rules, while the powerful old guard feels like it’s a slippery slope and wants to double down on control while they still can.
The church needs to stop with the “Satan’s panties” schtick. The bigger issue here is the astounding hubris of Elder Holland. “God told me to tell you to pray until you know I’m right. That’s not how personal revelation works, and it feels desperate.
Members aren’t struggling because they’re choosing the wrong base layer. There are much bigger issues in play that the church will have to reckon with eventually.
(It is interesting to notice how this has shifted the focus away from bigger problems and bought a little time.)
I notice that leadership fallibility is a theme coming up in the comments here. I think the notion of making personal revelation subservient to institutional revelation is a sign of them not taking their own fallibility seriously. I think they believe in it in a theoretical sense, and they might even acknowledge that some past actions by church leaders were errors (but not in public of course), but they don’t seem to want to think about the possibility that they are getting anything wrong in the present. It’s a combination of trusting themselves too much and not trusting the members enough.
Dave F – 17 times he said Covenant(s), that might be a new record. Covenant(s) plural is not used in scripture, nor is it bilateral or a form of legal contract. Covenant(s) is the new way to package “obedience” for the big people, to exact the same overbearing control without seeming condescending. Covenant’s have become the “even more” than obedience, where once you say yes, your agency has been surrendered and bound by one eternal “Yes”.
Additionally, the whole concept of “Revelation”, whether personal or collective, I think is another example of religion gone backwards. “Personal” revelation for me has become more the revelation of my person. To reveal something is to uncover what is already there but hidden from sight. In that way, I think ALL revelation is more of a correction than a confirmation. Michaelangelo was once asked what his process is for sculpting his masterpieces. He said, I walk around the block of granite until I see the angel inside and then it’s my job to free the angel. In the same way that Jesus is the revelation of God in the flesh, God is attempting to reveal more and more divinity in each of us. It’s already there, it’s always been there, but has been covered up by the incessant messages of not enoughness.
I don’t think revelation is some form of heavenly GPS unit meant to download objective facts. I don’t believe God cares so much about “what” we do but cares adamantly about “how” we do things. Similar to kirkstall, what promotes life (ethical) is a revelation of God, while what takes life is not.
Dave F – 17 times he said Covenant(s), that might be a new record. Covenant(s) plural is not used in scripture, nor is it bilateral or a form of legal contract. Covenant(s) is the new way to package “obedience” for the big people, to exact the same overbearing control without seeming condescending. Covenant’s have become the “even more” than obedience, where once you say yes, your agency has been surrendered and bound by one eternal “Yes”.
Additionally, the whole concept of “Revelation”, whether personal or collective, I think is another example of religion gone backwards. “Personal” revelation for me has become more the revelation of my person. To reveal something is to uncover what is already there but hidden from sight. In that way, I think ALL revelation is more of a correction than a confirmation. Michaelangelo was once asked what his process is for sculpting his masterpieces. He said, I walk around the block of granite until I see the angel inside and then it’s my job to free the angel. In the same way that Jesus is the revelation of God in the flesh, God is attempting to reveal more and more divinity in each of us. It’s already there, it’s always been there, but has been covered up by the incessant messages of not enoughness.
I don’t think revelation is some form of heavenly GPS unit meant to download objective facts. I don’t believe God cares so much about “what” we do but cares adamantly about “how” we do things. Similar to kirkstall, what promotes life (ethical) is a revelation of God, while what takes life is not.
I wonder if any zealous and obedient Latter-day Saint has ever thought to double their blessings by wearing not one but *two* pair of LDS garments at a time? Possibly in answer to solemn prayer (“How might I get more blessings, O Lord?”). That certainly isn’t doing less than LDS leaders have directed. If this became a thing, I’m betting the next Elder Holland remonstrance would emphasize do neither less nor MORE than the leaders direct. Perfect obedience. Elder Bednar would be doing cartwheels.
The good news hiding in the talk is that there isn’t much reason for Latter-day Saints to continue engaging in prayer. This will create some extra personal time at home as well as shortening meetings by maybe another 15 minutes. Cut out singing and we’ll be down to 90 minutes.
I like Joseph Smith’s statement that he teaches correct principles, and lets the people govern themselves.
They are two months away from a US election with a very real possibility of political violence-
-and they’re worried about members wearing the right underwear?
The Emperor hath no clothes.
Covenant(s) plural, is the repackaged way to double down on adult obedience without sounding overtly authoritarian. There is no such thing as covenant(s) plural in scripture. Covenant path is a desperate attempt to bind people to suspend their agency. Pretty cynical I know, but still can’t capture the more spiritually mature path Jesus teaches in the New Testament that is all about “Beyond Obedience”.
test
toddsmithson,
The Savior said that unless a man is born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. There are things we need to do–or to at least allow to happen to us–and that requires a willingness to do the things the Lord’s way. We may not like to think of it in terms of obedience–but there’s no getting around doing what he asks of us if it is our desire to follow him.
Jack, you’re right, but maybe also a little wrong. Yes, we have to come to Christ and to turn from our former ways, but we should be able to do this in a way that brings joy, and in a way that is an easy burden to carry, and with yoke that is easy. I think the problem comes in when we take all the joy out of it by mandating rules. Sure, there are some rules, but what comes first? Is it obedience first? I think not. Jesus taught that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (His commandments, not men’s commandments). It is love for God, usually expressed in love for fellowman, that comes first, and the right kind of love will naturally bring people to want to be obedient of their own selves. Instead, we sometimes seem to offer people acceptance and love if they choose obedience first, and we police and monitor that obedience by focusing on people’s shortcomings instead of their potential. We as a people are hyper-judgmental, and this ought not be.
Somehow, I think that if we could figure out how to help people love God and their neighbor, then obedience would naturally follow in those who have a disposition and a desire to follow Christ. And that love, which comes before obedience, might even follow faith, a faith built on love, trust, and desire. I think that a focus on obedience is off-putting, and it doesn’t appear to be how Jesus taught in His mortal ministry. Obedience is a fruit of love; it is a naturally occurring second principle, not a first principle and the object of strenuous effort. I know that most members of the Church have been taught otherwise. “Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine). Is it possible that Elder McConkie may have erred in this teaching? Love is the first law of heaven, and obedience flows naturally. Yes, blessings may be predicated on obedience, but that doesn’t put obedience in the driver’s seat, not when we keep the commandment because of our love for God and our fellowman.
The Pharisees in Jesus’ day taught strict obedience — and I want to believe that most of them were sincere. There are some unsettling parallels between the Pharisees of Jesus’ day and many church leaders and members today. I do not question their sincerity, but I am reminded of Jesus’ cautions regarding the Pharisees and their focus on strict obedience. Like Jesus, I am not sure that strict obedience is the right target. Jesus said the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life. I prefer to focus on the spirit of the law.
As Georgis wrote, obedience falls into its natural place when one’s heart is on the right things — but obedience is not the first law of heaven — love is the first law of heaven.
I think it’s useful to picture ourselves as children who must grow into wisdom over time. In some instances there is no other motive that will do for a child than the wishes of her parents. This was the situation that Adam found himself in when he was commanded to offer sacrifice without knowing the reasons behind it. Hugh Nibley called the law of sacrifice “the only law” — or a law that was sufficient by itself. And I think one of the things that he might’ve been alluding to is the idea that if we–like Adam–are willing to live by God’s every word–even when we don’t understand all of the whys and wherefores–we will always be led in the right direction.
Now because I and, to a lesser extent, gems like Georgis and ji still have a ways to go before we become like God–then it stands to reason that we will not always be led by the best motives to do his will. But even so, as we become transformed over time we will find ourselves following the Lord more because of our love for him than out of a sense of pure duty. But be that as it may, for the vast majority of us being transformed into Christlike creatures is a long and sometimes grueling process–and so we find ourselves striving to do the Lord’s will in our lives for the best reasons we can come up with as we grow in his love.
That said, should we therefore wonder at the notion that the lesser priesthood continues along side the greater priesthood? That the gospel of repentance serves as an Elias (of sorts) to the Everlasting Gospel? The Lord graciously condescends to work with us where we’re at and bring us along as fast as we’re able to receive his word. And so, it is only reasonable that while we are in the process of working out our salvation there will be times when we will feel the weight of the law on our shoulders as we miss the mark in our efforts to become more loving.
But be of good cheer! If we continue faithfully we will one day see the Savior for who and what he really is–because we will have become like him. For it is in being like him the we truly come to know him.
Jack,
If you are saying each of us needs to follow the Lord, we agree. Each of us, from the highest in the church to the lowest, needs to follow the Lord as best as we can. We need to beware the leaven of the Pharisees among us, and seek for personal revelation every single day. The Lord taught that the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.
The JST makes an interesting adjustment in something that the Lord said during his earthly ministry. In the sermon on the mount, Matthew records Jesus saying,
”Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
But the JST changes the last part to,
”And then will I say, Ye never knew me; depart from me ye that work iniquity.”
Each of us must come to know and trust and have faith in Jesus, our Savior, our Lord, and our God. We must learn to love as he loves. When that happens, we come to actually and personally know Jesus, and obedience sort of falls into its place.
I prefer an emphasis on sharing our Savior’s love, rather than an emphasis on obedience to outward observances. For me it is love first. “This ought ye to have done, not leaving the other undone.” Some feel that obedience is first, and is what really matters — but that approach didn’t seem to work for the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, and I’m not sure it will work today for any who follow the Pharisees’ model of emphasis on exact obedience. But we are each on our own journey as sojourners in the land, so to speak, and each of us must find our own path (and sustain others in their search for their paths).
Anyway, I’ve said my piece — you may have the last word. Best wishes.
Jack,
The story of Adam offering sacrifice – killing healthy animals – solely because God commanded and not because Adam understood the reason has always rubbed me wrong.
(1) How did Adam know God commanded him to do this?
(2) Why did Adam accept this command, which he believed to be from God, and not ask Why?
(3) We are taught that no one is saved in ignorance. Yet Adam acted in ignorance! And apparently Adam was content to persist in ignorance.
The moral of the Adam story seems to be that because Adam was obedient, despite his ignorance, he was blessed with greater understanding. However, ignorant obedience is a very dangerous mindset. The idea that one should do bold things – killing healthy animals is rather bold – with no understanding why invites the risk of terrible outcomes.
I can understand why religious leaders love the idea of ignorant obedience – makes their job a lot easier if they do not need to give a reason for doctrine & policies. I do not believe ignorant obedience is consistent with a Gospel that teaches people should be intelligent, enlightened beings.
We know that, at least after Moses, animals that were sacrificed at the tabernacle and later at the temple were eaten. We know from Homer and many other places that animal sacrifices to the pagan gods was followed by a feast of the sacrificed animal(s). I suspect that the prophets from Adam to Moses also ate the sacrificed animals. It wasn’t simply that Adam was killing animals to make God happy. He ate what he sacrificed, and I suspect (though cannot prove) that he did not sacrifice more than he and his family ate.
With regard to Jack’s comment on Adam’s willingness to sacrifice without knowing the reason why: Adam at the time was immature and lacking in wisdom and experience when he sacrificed. Sometime later (chapter six in Moses) Enoch tells the story of Adam being called by the voice of God to repent and be baptized. In stark contrast to his earlier acceptance of the commandment to sacrifice, instead of straightway being baptized, he pushes back and asks why?
Jack seems to relish the role of being a child and wants everyone else to join him in that early stage of development. I prefer to be a thinking adult like Adam and ask Why?
To Roberts and Georgis point regarding Adam’s “blind obedience”, There is a profound shift as we transition from Moses 5:6 to verse 7. The angel messenger does something peculiar and purposeful. Notice, that the Angel does not merely congratulate Adam for his unwavering, yet clearly sightless trust, he doesn’t pause to reward Adam with the proverbial “mystery check on the doorstep”, for his good behavior. He doesn’t take Adams answer as opportunity to exploit his naivety to satisfy his own desire for power.
All of us, including me, have probably had the experience, in raising our kids, where they asked the following; Why can’t I do that? or Why do I have to do that? and we then provide, the easy, but very hallow and shallow answer, “Because I said so!” The Angel messenger resisted this human tendency to make obedience about expressing and securing authority. Terryl Givens writes, “Clearly, in this view, God’s (or our) only concern is for his own glory, not our welfare. Such a God (or us) would be the supreme narcissist.”
The danger in discontinuing my study at Adams answer opens us to the subtlety of the warning given in D&C 121, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”
Claiming blind obedience as a virtue clears the path to the, almost imperceptible, abuse of power. It makes way for the “Don’t ask, just do” mentality. As Robert points out, Adam and Eve’s current developmental stage is that of a toddler, but from the Angels view, clearly not meant to remain there.
The Angel instead, by his immediate answer, seems concerned, maybe even disturbed by Adam’s innocent reply. He seems to detect a problem in Adam’s childlike answer, a problem that needs to be remedied before it becomes a full-blown Pharisaical misunderstanding, where obedience becomes nothing more than motivation born of fear of punishment or the prospect for economic gain. The Angelic messenger shows profound maturity and seizes the moment to connect Adams obedience to a purpose.
Obedience has a real risk of becoming a form of negotiation. Covenants take on a shallow purpose where I agree to offer obedience in exchange for my will being done, here on earth, and a nice plot of land in the Celestial kingdom. RMN said “Obedience brings blessings, and exact obedience brings miracles”. EXACT obedience brings miracles, and yet the greatest miracles Jesus performed were specifically violating the purity code. In the parable of the good Samaritan, the priest and Levite were being “exactly” obedient by avoiding coming into contact with blood, or a possible corpse. This was the prescription of their day and they were merely being exactly obedient, but the miracle happened by the unsuspecting and impure Samaritan. He violated the letter of the law for the sake of its spirit.
The miracle of obedience is not securing God’s pleasure, or illustrating our personal worthiness, or somehow getting God to hear my desperate pleas, as critical and worthwhile as those cries are. Thats pointing the law in the wrong direction, at me instead of at Christ (or what supports life). Obedience seems to me to be my ongoing commitment to the project of redemption, my engagement in continually being sacrificed and reborn, of listening, seeking understanding and applying what I have learned. All in an effort to experience the miraculous birth of Christ “in me”.
We learn a few important principles from the following excerpt from D&C 121, including (1) everything related to the priesthood is done by persuasion, love, and so forth; (2) the doctrine of the priesthood distils upon one’s soul based on his or her own charity and virtue; and (3) the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes by living Christ-like love.
”No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.”
The also-true inverse of these principles are (1) nothing related to the priesthood is done by commandment or compulsion, or by citing one’s church rank or office; (2)(3) the distillation of the doctrine of the priesthood on one’s soul and the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes by living Christ-like love, not by demanding exact obedience to outward observances or commandments. Jesus taught that the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.
Unfettered obedience gives us 14 yo plural wives. People need to be able to find out the truth of things and not just believe because someone high up in the church says to do it and they have authority from God.