Some people concerned about the Church’s policies on same-sex marriage have dug up a quotation from more than a century ago that seems to them to contradict the Church’s current policies.
I will not detail that quotation here because it is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant?
As President of the Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson warned: “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, 1980)
Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained further: “…the most important difference between dead prophets and living ones is that those who are dead are not here to receive and declare the Lord’s latest words to his people. If they were, there would be no differences among the messages of the prophets.” (Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall, 1992)
The two above quotations were taken from an excellent post by M*’s own Jon Max Wilson on his personal blog. Go read it for further clarification.
In the meantime, don’t let yourself be led astray by people who reject today’s prophets. Today’s prophets are the only ones authorized to declare the word of God to you in 2015.
New Post: Don’t reject current prophets in favor of dead prophets: Some people concerned about th… https://t.co/XcqNI7u2h6 #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Don’t reject current prophets in favor of dead prophets https://t.co/cQVyp7jEaB #lds #mormon
The people advocating former church leaders’ teachings might be more persuasive had they followed those teachings while those former church leaders were living.
God’s strategy never changes. That strategy is what we often referred to as the plan of salvation.
Church policy is like tactics. Tactics often change based on the local reality.
Of course now I’m curious what silliness is being said.
Meg, for your benefit:
“In some minds there seems to be an idea that there should be a different form of blessing for children born of non-members and for those who are identified with the Church; and it is from such sources that in the case of children belonging to members of the Church ‘the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ and all the attendant favors are frequently conferred upon the child. This is all wrong. If we take the example of our Lord and Redeemer, who is our pattern and whose example we cannot too closely follow, we find that He blessed all who were brought to Him. We have no hint that He asked whose children they were, or the standing or faith of their parents. His remark was, ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven;’ and He laid His hands upon them and blessed them. All little children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as such.”
The Editor [George Q. Cannon], “Topics of the Times,” Juvenile Instructor 34 (March 1, 1899): 137-138. Reprinted in Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 61 (March 30, 1899), 198-199; Latter-day Saints’ Southern Star 1 (April 29, 1899): 170.
Comment: there are many problems with using this quotation for the current situation. First, notice that he is talking about *the general blessings* of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No person with same-sex partnered parents is being denied these blessings because they will be available to them either at 18 or, worst case, in the spirit world. He seems to be referring to some unknown people in 1899 who were saying that non-members children should not receive these blessings at all. It is difficult to know the exact context. This quotation also ignores the many cases when peoples’ baptisms are delayed for one reason or another in a way that does not appear to be controversial. Kids can’t be baptized until they are eight — doesn’t that contradict the above (according to liberal logic)? The kids of divorce cannot be baptized until they are 18 if one parent objects in many states and countries — doesn’t that contradict the above? We already know that kids from polygamist families can’t be baptized until they are 18. People get baptism delayed all of the time. They need to practice the Word of Wisdom (I knew a woman in Brazil who accepted the Church but could not get baptized for 30 years because she couldn’t stop smoking). People who have been involved in abortions need to repent. Etc.
So, bottom line: using this quotation is totally bogus. But as I say this is the go-to quotation for liberal Mormons trying to wrest the prophets to their current purposes.
Got it.
I don’t remember any child being blessed with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think another factor is that the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are convolved with polygamy. Therefore I think differentiating between blessings for children of nonmembers and children of members has tended to align in a way that George Q. Cannon had hoped would occur.
From this quotation, I would infer that these were children whose grandparents or aunt and uncles wished to see blessed, but whose actual parents were not members of the church. I imagine the current policy is that such children are not formally given blessings…
2015 is a bad year for the LGBT community, with respect to participating in ceremonies for infants.
I tumbled across this when looking up information on the history of godparents:
“In 2015, the Vatican declared that transgender Catholics cannot become godparents, stating in response to a transgender man’s query that transgender status “reveals in a public way an attitude opposite to the moral imperative of solving the problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one’s own sexuality” and that, ‘[t]herefore it is evident that this person does not possess the requirement of leading a life according to the faith and in the position of godfather and is therefore unable to be admitted to the position of godfather or godmother.'”
2015 is a bad year for children who have been appropriated by LGBT and their allies.
Meg, while that’s true for being godparents, the Catholic Church will still administer saving ordinances, like baptism, to pretty much everyone who seeks them, especially children:
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-baptisms
Hi Babs,
The challenge is that Catholic eschatology and Mormon eschatology are entirely different.
In Mormonism not even death can end your chance of receiving saving ordinances. So it is not as urgent that the ordinance be performed immediately.
Also, eternal marriage is extremely important in the Mormon eschatology. The eternal purpose of marriage is bringing forth spirit children. And has been mentioned elsewhere, there is no reason to imagine that gayness perpetuates into eternity. There appears no reason to expect, therefore, that same gender couples would even want to be together based on desire in eternity.
The other battle is for the 18%. In the old days it was said that 1% of the population is gay, with 10% of the population willing to be gay if the conditions were right. No it is said that 2% of the population is gay, with at least 20% of the population willing to be gay if the conditions were right.
What the Mormon church is done, in making this policy change, is clarify for the 18% that if they value their membership in the Mormon church, conditions are not right for them to experiment with being gay.
Apologies for all of the grammar errors. Voice recognition is not all it’s cracked up to be.
You’re right, Meg, though we’ve done more than that with respect to the children involved. I am very concerned about this idea of putting off baptism for someone who is worthy, especially youth in their formative years. It might make sense to take such a drastic step in cases where there is parental disagreement. I am considerably less sure that should be so in cases where the family members are in agreement and it is the church alone standing in the way of a child’s baptism.
Hi Babs,
Old Man made a great comment on another thread here regarding a polygamous family where the parents decided to embrace the LDS faith for their children, but couldn’t bring themselves to dissolve their marriage. I made a complementary comment about what happened in the family of my own ancestor when he was excommunicated for polygamy a century ago.
There is a NPS thesis written by two non-Mormons looking at how to successfully grow an ideology. They examined the Mormon Church to see how it does what it (so successfully) does. Part of the formula for success they identified was that there are various “hard” things that raise the cost of belonging, reducing the amount of resources the Church need expend on those who ultimately don’t support the mission the Church has to perform.
Gideon was faced with a military mission at the Lord’s command, to save the family of Israel from the attack of the Midianites. After doing a comma check with the fleece (one night wet with the ground dry, the next night dry with the ground wet), Gideon sent out the call for Israel to gather. 32,000 gathered at the spring of Harod.
God told Gideon there were “too many.” So first Gideon told those who wanted to leave, who trembled with fear, to leave. Afterwards only 10,000 remained.
God told Gideon there were still too many. He directed Gideon to take them to the water and God would sift them. As the men drank, the vast majority got on down on all fours and plunged their faces into the water. Only 300 knelt and brought the water to their lips using a cupped hand.
It is not, I think, that we are “too many,” but that so many of us have forgotten our covenant with God and what He needs us to do. This is precisely why it is so hard for many at this time, because we have in our various lives come to value the good of the world over the way of God.
I talked with some good friends last night who are deeply wounded by the policy change. They are good and faithful women who are not directly affected by the policy, but who had never considered that such a policy change could be within the realm of the possible. One said, weeping, that she thought it was a hoax when she first heard of it. The other spoke of the high school our children have attended, talking about her perspective of seeing a bi-sexual “orientation” as the norm.
I myself am part of the 18% and have many friends and family among the 20%. Therefore I see the value in the policy change.
I am confident that when we see our times as God sees our times, we will acknowledge His wisdom. In the mean time I honor the covenants I made at baptism and in the temple to uphold His work, to take His name on me and sacrifice and obey and live my life according to His pattern.
I wonder whether Captain Moroni, given the choice, would have selected his times or ours in which to live. Certainly the policy change gives us a chance to determine whether we will rally to the new Title of Liberty:
In memory of Our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our families, and for our children
It’s worth reading Alma 46 and pondering whether in this matter we are following Amalikiah or Captain Moroni.
“I am considerably less sure that should be so in cases where the family members are in agreement and it is the church alone standing in the way of a child’s baptism.”
Babs, this has been Church policy for decades. Let me explain how. There have always been standards for baptism that are difficult for some people to overcome.
I have told the story a few times about the older woman in Brazil who came to Church every week. She was the daughter of a Jewish rabbi. She met the missionaries decades earlier, and was immediately converted. She was ready to be baptized, but she was a smoker. She could not give up the cigarettes. Yet she came to Church every single Sunday and attended other events. This went on for at least 30 years. Yes, 30 years without baptism. When I met her, she said with tears in her eyes that she had a complete testimony of the Church and always had but could not get baptized because she could not give up smoking.
How unfair of the Church to deny her baptism! Some would say this. But she was grateful because she knew that this was a weakness that she needed to overcome. The spirit was willing but the body was weak, this woman said. She was not bitter.
I think we need to see this policy in that light. There is an obvious point here that needs to be made clear: if the parents truly want their son or daughter to be baptized, there is a solution. Don’t live with a same-sex partner or don’t do it at least until your child is 18. People make all kinds of sacrifices for their children all the time. (Yes, I realize that one of the parents may not be doing this and still have to suffer the consequences of the actions of the other parent. The point still remains the same: one of the parents needs to show a willing to sacrifice for the child.)
A final point: numerous studies have shown beyond a doubt that children do better in a household with a mother and father. The Church is promoting a policy that encourages a mother and a father to stay together. The Church is telling people who may try to break up families because of same-sex attraction to attempt to overcome those feelings for the good of their children. It seems to me the Church has the true interest of the children in mind in a way that is truly pleasing to God.
Geoff or Meg, Have any SSM-ed or gay-cohabiting parents actually said they _want_ their minor children baptized in the church?
Meg wrote: “The other spoke of the high school our children have attended, talking about her perspective of seeing a bi-sexual “orientation” as the norm.”
It’s happening faster than I predicted. i was ridiculed for predicting that in various comments the past few years.
( Geoff linked to a few “pro-choice sexuality” articles in the side-bar.)
Could it go so far as to where young people get accused by peers of being bigoted or homophobic for not “trying it”? Kind of like how people are ridiculed for being a virgin now?
Book, I have heard from many liberal Mormons that there have been several people whose baptisms and/or missions have been delayed in the last week. Given the vitriol with which liberal/questioning/ex-Mormons have met this policy change, I would be extremely skeptical about all of their claims, but I would also bet there are some people who have been affected and will be affected in the future. Unfortunately, there is a not-insignificant number of parents in the Church who divorce because of same-sex attraction, and very often children are involved.
I also agree with you that it is only a matter of time until many, many teenagers get shamed into trying same-sex hookups. Some teenagers (including my kids) report to me that it is increasingly common today. The Church is an island of sanity in an insane world.
“The Church is an island of sanity in an insane world.”
A few years back, I would have claimed, and could point to considerable evidence, that it’s more like Hollywood, the academy, and some urban enclaves are islands of insanity in a basically sane world.
I do fear the balance is at the tipping point now.
I see on facebook another “Mass Resignation Event” – it will likely be like the last ones when Kate Kelly and John Dehlin were ex’ed; it will be statistically insignificant and most of the attendees will be people who have already left.
However, every single person who leaves the church grieves my soul and causes me to sorrow (some readers will not believe me, but that’s their issue, not mine). However, I grieve and sorrow for the blessings and joy they will lose, and hope they can ultimately reconcile themselves with the Gospel – I will not argue the Church should change to accommodate them.
Ugh – “their issue” – ASU’s servers won’t allow me to log into any WP blog; they claim they are working to fix the issue, but for now, I can’t edit comments or approve comments or whatever else (sorry for anyone stuck in the moderation queue on my posts – I’ll get to it once the issue’s fixed).
Ivan, fixed. Sorry about the ASU servers. No WP blog log-ins? Yikes, that is some security policy.
Yeah – I’m not the only one who has brought this attention to their issue. But since I live and work on campus, it’s tough to get away (and I would have to pay extra money each month to make my phone a hotspot, apparently – not sure I want to do that just to edit M*).
Wow – “their attention to this issue.” I’m on a roll!
It was twenty years ago that my mission companion described how after one summer it seemed like everyone came back to his private SLC high school “bi”. So, yeah, this has been going on for a while, accelerated by this odd insistence that sexual proclivity is the most important element of human identity. I have a hard time squaring that with any serious philosophical or ethical tradition. Sexuality is certainly vitally important to identity, but the idea that one can’t be “whole” without having a specific kind of sex with exactly who you want baffles me.
“accelerated by this odd insistence that sexual proclivity is the most important element of human identity. I have a hard time squaring that with any serious philosophical or ethical tradition.”
Anonynony, exactly right. We are much more than our sexual desires and inclinations, and to claim that we are not reduces us to nothing more than brute animals with no conscience and no self-control. As a culture, we used to admire chastity and domination of base desires. I would never, ever say that controlling such feelings is easy (especially in today’s environment where everybody is telling you it is “normal” to experiment), but I would say that it is moral.
Perhaps even more important (and it is not original with me, though I can’t remember where I first heard it; it may even have been here:)
Don’t reject current prophets in favor of future prophets.
The notion of not rejecting current prophets in favor of past prophets should stand you in good stead when the current set of prophets walks back significant elements of this policy in, say, a matter of weeks.
Gst, definitely. Despite what you might think, most people at M* are completely OK with the policy being changed or tweaked in the weeks or months or years ahead. It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
No, that doesn’t surprise me. I didn’t think that you actually strongly supported excluding gay families. I just supposed that you went along with it because the church leaders told you to.
gst, I second what Geoff said. I doubt anyone is particularly attached to the exacts of the policy as it stands now, and I think we are all aware of the challenges it creates in many people’s lives.
Those who support church leadership in introducing the policy are just as likely to support them should they choose to modify it.
Geoff, one final thought on this thread, regarding your comment from 10:49 a.m. on November 10: The “dead prophet” in question, the one that you propose to throw over in favor of the current set, isn’t actually dead. His name is Jesus.
Hi gst,
Geoff’s comment that you reference was referring to George Q. Cannon, not the Lord Jesus Christ.
Not that people aren’t objecting based on their belief that the Lord Jesus would not condone such an action, but since the Lord is not here to independently confirm which party He supports (and how and why), it is unclear what their basis would be for presuming to speak for the Lord.
As we can easily recall, the Lord restricted the membership in His Church to Jews during his mortal life. Several stories illustrate the limitation. Then, with the vision given to Peter, He opened the gates to gentiles. It was necessary in order to the church to grow and achieve its destiny, however there was a price to be paid. These Pauline letters demonstrate all the ways things could go wrong as the Gospel spread into regions where beliefs differed greatly.
For some this will be the tipping point that drives them out of the Church. I would not be surprised the wide publicity given to this handbook change because of Dehlin will result in many seeking out the Church in order to secure a more sure word to their own posterity.
gst wrote: ” The “dead prophet” in question, the one that you propose to throw over in favor of the current set, isn’t actually dead. His name is Jesus.”
Actually, I was referring to George Q. Cannon. Gst, has Jesus personally visited you to tell you the Church leaders are wrong? If so, you and Denver Snuffer should get along quite well.
GST, if you’re referring to Jesus’ statement to “suffer the little children to come to me” as some sort of mandate for the Church to baptize children regardless of the short-term temporal consequences of such an act, then surely you also agree that we should baptize children even when their parents disapprove. In fact, if your interpretation of the Savior’s statement is at all consistent, then you must also think that LDS missionaries should camp out by elementary schools every afternoon with the specific intent of proselytizing to children in their parents’ absence.
It is, after all, “for the children”.
I am reminded of the time, as an elementary school student, when my brother and I attended a Bible study group a neighbor hosted. I learned lots of fun things, like about the three stars on my crown I could earn, songs like “This little light of mine” and about the great work missionaries do to relief the suffering of people in backwards nations of the world.
When I asked my mom if we could donate money to the missionaries, I learned for the first time that Mormons have missionaries too. Who knew?
My brother and I went along to a Saturday activity at their Church. At some point we were asked if we had accepted Jesus as our personal Savior. Now I had been baptized, but for some reason I didn’t realize that this served the same purpose as what this other Christian group meant. Since I love Jesus, of course I wanted to make sure I was saved in all ways, so I raised my hand and went up to meet with one of the adults, who solemnly listened to me as I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior.
When we got home, I found out that my baptism already had formalized my acceptance of Jesus as my Savior. That was cool. My brother thought I was a ninny for not already knowing this. This was the same brother who I think wasn’t yet baptized, who on fast Sundays would make a point of bringing his waffles and syrup with him so he could eat in front of me with glee, since I, as a baptized person, was attempting to fast.
So even though I’m a really old person, I have a few memories that remind me how insufficient the knowledge of an eight year old can be. And I do recall being one of the young people who one might say another religion targeted for salvation, against the wishes of my parents.
gst wrote: “I just supposed that you went along with it because the church leaders told you to.”
Since when did this become a bad thing for Mormons to do?
Here is the problem: there are a lot of things these days that are not clear and obvious. I can tell you that as a libertarian-leaning person I have spent a LOT of time pondering the whole issue of gay marriage because most libertarians are in favor of it. It took me many months of soul searching to come to a position I am comfortable with, which is: “follow the prophets.” Once I made that decision, I have been at peace with it (although it has definitely not made my life easy with many of my friends).
There is actually some logic to this. If you are a latter-day Saint, you accept that the Savior is the head of the Church and that He won’t let Church leaders go astray. So, if you follow Church leaders you are following the Savior *even if Church leaders later change their minds or change a policy that you do not understand.* So, the only safe course, it seems to me, is to follow the Brethren even when you don’t understand why. Opposing the Brethren is *always* the wrong course. When you stand in front of the Savior you can say “I followed the prophets even though I didn’t understand why because that is what you told us to do.” I have no doubt He will say: “well done, good and faithful servant.”
It is not logical that the Savior would say to us: “Yes, I told you to follow the prophets before, but on this one issue they are wrong and you should use your own judgement even though you are defying what the Brethren have decided.” And this is the “logic” that people are using to go on their own paths.
“Yes, I told you to follow the prophets before, but on this one issue they are wrong and you should use your own judgement even though you are defying what the Brethren have decided.”
Geoff, I agree and I’d add a little thought to that thought about “following”. I think its entirely possible that someone could be chastised by the Lord for spending their entire life “following the prophets” without ever really receiving their own personal revelation. In this case, I can imagine someone who thinks they are “following” but aren’t really fully understanding and acting with the kind of faith of a true disciple of Christ. Of course, you couldn’t really say that person was following the prophets anyway….
Follow the prophet to me doesn’t simply mean “do what they say when they say it”, but do the things they are doing in order to receive the same revelation and be on the same page. That’s the higher version of the law.
Jesus kept the commandments. Was he just a sheeple or did he keep the commandments because knowing what he knew, it was the right thing to do? We can follow the same pattern, which is the same pattern followed by the prophets.
Following the prophets will mean we are acting righteously, using our own free will, serving others, repenting, drawing near to the Savior, and as a result receiving revelations. That’s what the prophets do — so when they receive revelation we can be on the same page because we’re following them.
Faithful latter-day saints know this from watching conference when they hear a great talk and think, “that’s exactly what I’ve been thinking…” It’s not as if the revelations come out of left field because we’re all (supposed to be) following the prophets.
This policy wasn’t expected by me, because it’s honestly not something I even think about. But it’s not out of left field, because I understand the importance of family, and in particular the responsibilities and potential destiny of the wife and husband in the plan of salvation.
I’d submit it’s only earth shattering, soul shocking if you haven’t been following the prophets already.
I’d also just add if you read on the liberal blogs, every single one of them, ever chance they get point out how the church is backing away after the backlash of prop 8, the church is toning down after bad press about it’s stance of gays, racism, etc.
I’ve never once bought into that revisionist line of thinking. It seemed like nonsense from the get-go. But if you not only believed that to be true, but actually hoped for it, then surely this policy would come as a big surprise.
Already we’re hearing how the church is planning to revise the policy and walk it back. Maybe they are, but setting expectations for that might only bring more disappointment if the church doubles down on the intent of the policy while clarifying how to sensitively handle exceptions, etc.
None of this disappointment would be when the members are following the same program as the prophets.
Gerry, you wrote:
“I’ve never once bought into that revisionist line of thinking. It seemed like nonsense from the get-go. But if you not only believed that to be true, but actually hoped for it, then surely this policy would come as a big surprise.
Already we’re hearing how the church is planning to revise the policy and walk it back. Maybe they are, but setting expectations for that might only bring more disappointment if the church doubles down on the intent of the policy while clarifying how to sensitively handle exceptions, etc.
None of this disappointment would be when the members are following the same program as the prophets.”
Yes. This is why the reaction from liberal Mormons has been so over-the-top and emotional. They really thought the Church was on a trajectory to becoming a more “gay friendly” church, and these policy changes make it clear this ain’t happening. (Never mind that there is nothing friendly or kind about telling people to keep on sinning.) So, now the great hope (expressed by gst above) is that the Church will change its mind (presumably because all the liberals are upset). And as you point out, what happens if two years pass and there is no policy change?
A test is not a true test if it is easy to pass. The test today is: will you follow the prophets of 2015 even though it is difficult? There will be other tests in the years ahead, and in most of them the test will be: will you follow the prophets of that day even though it may be difficult for you?
And yes Gerry is correct that it is easier to pass the test if you truly listen to what the prophets are saying in General Conference with a heart prepared to receive the truth.
It’s a test, all right. Let’s all try to not be so confident that we know how it will be graded.
hey there – long-time listener, first-time caller. Can someone point me to what you’re referring to as far as Jesus saying I shouldn’t use my own judgment, or that I should only use it if it conforms 100% to the Brethren? Is that something Jesus actually said?
sgnm,
“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”
If that statement is a true statement from the Lord there are a few possibilities:
1. If the Lord says something presumably it’s because he wants to convey you should do it. Since he also wants us to use our judgement, I think we can assume that he wants us to use our judgement to get on the same page he is on and do it.
2. The Lord tells us things, but he does not think we should do it if our judgement tells us otherwise. There doesn’t be much point to him saying anything then, other than perhaps to let us make our own mistakes. But even in this case, he’s giving us the advice from his vantage point to permit us from the suffering that accompanies sin. So really, we should fall back to #1, and use our judgement to see as he sees and do it.
Since the Lord has already told us we can substitute the leaders for himself in the verse I quoted above it would seem you can safely rely on following your judgement to learn how to follow the Lord’s counsel (through his servants).
So, if Jesus’ servants say what Jesus wants them to say, then it’s the same as if Jesus had said it. I’m totally on board with that, regardless of whether what you quoted is something Jesus actually said himself.
And I’m sure we can all agree that the Lord’s servants, from time to time, say stuff that’s not actually what Jesus would want them to say, right? So in those cases, they’re speaking with delegated authority, but nevertheless it’s not the same as what Jesus would say. Agreed? I’m sure we can all come up with a few examples if pressed to do so, but I’ll just put forward as a very easy one BRM’s “forget everything” quote from 1978, since either a) he was right that previous prophets had been mistaken or b) he was, himself, mistaken; either way, just one example of how it is undisputably possible for one of the Lord’s servants to be mistaken in an official capacity and teaching. Whether that counts as “leading the Church astray” I’ll leave for a separate discussion.
I’ve always believed that I was supposed to use my own judgment and seek personal revelation to identify those instances where the Lord’s servants are or are not saying something that is “the same” as if Jesus were saying it. In those instances where I determine through that process that the Lord’s servants are mistaken – that what they’ve said is not the same as Jesus – I consider myself duty-bound to sustain them anyway, but not necessarily to agree with or abide by their mistake.
It seems, though, like you would disagree, Gerry and Geoff B.; that you would posit that the only acceptable outcome of a personal search for understanding of God’s truth is the one that results is perfect conformity with whatever the current state of church leadership teaching is. Do I have that right? If so, do you then find it problematic when modern Apostles and Prophets disagree with one another on various official doctrinal and policy matters? Or are they exempt from the rule?
Hi gst,
The curious thing about how you state your premise (“Let’s all try not to be so confident that we know how it will be graded.”) conveys a definite point of view that projects that you do know how it will be graded.
Are there ways one could be over-zealous in obedience, to the point of sinning? Yes. And perhaps you are voicing commensurate concern to those who are so certain that disobeying is the “right” path.
Hi sgnm,
You are given your agency to do as you chose. With this freedom comes awe-inspiring responsibility. The humble servant of God leaves themselves open to correction from God. Even Mother Sarah was called to account when she laughed at the messengers of God (who said she would bear a child late in life). I am also curious what aspect of the updated policy you would be in a position to obey in any way less than 100%. If you are not a Church leader, you aren’t at liberty to act at all relative to the policy. If you are a Church leader, then your option is to fail to take action (against those who have now been declared apostate) or to act to baptize in opposition to policy. Both of these are acts (of omission in one case, commision in the other) that are insubordinate.
If one is a judge in Israel and unwilling to act in accordance with the policy, then it seems one could ask to be recused or ask to be released.
As for the omission, failing to counsel with sexually active individuals involved in illicit or same gender activity, there may be some leniency. I know of an adulterer who was never excommunicated due to a belief (incorrect as it happens) that the adulterer’s family would be harmed by the action. Thus the insubordination of omission might be risked without certainty of temporal consequence.
If one were to commit the insubordination of baptizing someone in opposition to Church policy, one could hope that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. But in this case I suspect the baptism would be annulled, causing more harm than simply denying the baptism in the first place. I am aware of a few relevant cases of insubordination that caused Church action against the “judge in Israel” who acted in defiance of policy.
Other than the judge in Israel bit, the other two instances are individuals who feel that they must engage in same gender relations in defiance of the policy. That isn’t a matter of merely obeying only 98% of the policy. The other instance is deciding whether or not to sustain the prophet at the next opportunity for such support to be displayed (Ward Conference, Stake Conferece, General Conference). Again, this is not a matter of merely rendering 98% obedience.
Is it possible for someone to have a heavy heart and to be uncertain how to explain these things? Sure. But indulging in the sorrow without seeking God’s will is a dangerous course. And I submit that rejecting these policies without seeking to understand why God might have inspired such policies would be an opportunity missed.
We find this in D&C 28:
“2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.
3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.
4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.
5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;
6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;
7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.”
So, if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this implies the following:
1)The prophets has the keys today, just as Joseph Smith did in his day. The Savior himself put the prophet in that position and has given him the keys and will appoint somebody else afterwards. That somebody was BY and then all of the prophets up to Thomas S. Monson.
2)Be obedient to the will of the prophet.
3)The prophet receives revelation for the Church. You and Oliver Cowdery don’t.
So, if Church leaders make a change in the handbook of instructions, it appears we have our marching orders until they change their minds later on (if they ever do). Jesus says so.
Geoff B., I don’t understand how you get from the scripture you quoted to your conclusion. Can you explain?
How did you get from:
What the scripture says: “And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him,”
to
Your conclusion: “Be obedient to the will of the prophet.”
Do you see the difference between those two assertions? The Lord said to only be obedient to the things that the Lord gives the Prophet. You said be obedient to the Prophet’s will, not the Lord’s.
Please explain.
Sgnm: three points:
– Regarding the BRM “forget everything that was said before the current revelation” quote, you leave out a third possibility, that the Lord really didn’t want men of African descent to have the priesthood from the time of Brigham Young until 1978. neither BRM’s remarks nor anyone else’s should be taken as meaning “we were wrong to withhold the priesthood.” The furthest I think was admitted (by later apostles and prophets) was something to the effect of: “we were wrong to _speculate_ as to _why_ Brigham Young instituted the ban, or _why_ the Lord allowed the ban to continue.” Remember that David O McKay asked the Lord about removing the ban and was supposedly told “Not yet, and stop asking.”
– Your reasoning of when to not follow the prophets is dealt with in J Max Wilson’s post that is linked in the OP above. Please read that post if you haven’t already.
– There is also a NT reference where the Lord says to do what his earthly representatives say, even if they are themselves corrupt: Matthew 23,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
So until the Law of Moses had been fulfilled, and Peter was made the Lord’s official prophet after the resurrection, even the wicked and hypocritical scribes and Pharisees were to be followed.
—
And one more point. I don’t think there has been any public disunity among the Brethren since Apostles Matthias Cowley and John W Taylor were removed from the Q12 over polygamy.
For further help in understanding and reconciling any changes in church policy and doctrine over time, please see Wilson’s post. He explains it better than I can
sgnm, I am getting the strong feeling you are a troll. I’ll give it one last try, but we are pretty good at sniffing out trolls here at M*.
Your comment is nothing but a Pharisaical attempt to split hairs. When it comes to the Church, there is no space between the will of the Savior and the will of the prophet. So by following the prophet’s will you are following Jesus’ will.
In my youth I had feminist friends who supported the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) and I agreed with them until I learned that the Church had come out against it. Since I believe that Church leadership is inspired but I also felt that there was some injustice as far as equality for pay and other situations I realized I would have to study the issue carefully and ask for guidance from the Spirit. I learned a great deal during my study of the people and purposes behind the amendment. Like today’s social justice warriors, feminists of that time were dismissive of anyone who voiced dissent. One leading feminist boldly stated that equality would not come until women were drafted into the military with the same expectations demanded of men up to and including abortion in case they were pregnant when time came to go into battle. This was in a day when abortion was still considered an evil act by most Americans.
We have descended so far that abortion is now seen as a trivial issue by many but there is still not a national Equal Rights Amendment in place even though most if not all states have put in place laws that affect the rights of women on a statewide basis but do not interfere with protection that is still in place on the federal level. As I recall, the Church encouraged state level equal rights for women.
Those who assume that the Church will change as society changes seem to forget that in many ways society has moved in our direction, specifically with regard to counsel given in the Word of Wisdom.
I have found it is best to follow the prophets and seek the Spirit to gain light and knowledge on the counsel they give us.
Prophets generally don’t publicly state “thus sayeth the Lord” any more. But they will occasionally give clues as to when they really do mean that. Example: in the FP message in the March 2003 Ensign, GBH said:
“And we urge, in the strongest terms possible, that fathers and mothers regard most seriously this opportunity and challenge to make of Monday evening a time sacred to the family.” (Emphasis mine.)
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/03/family-home-evening?lang=eng
I can’t think of anything more emphatic than “in the strongest terms possible”. Think what it must mean when a _prophet_ says that.
Thanks for that explanation, Geoff. I apologize for apparently coming across to you like a troll or a Pharisaical hair-splitter. That is not my intent. I appreciate this site and I’m genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint, since it is so sharply divergent from what I’ve been taught and believed throughout my life in the church.
I was not trying to split hairs, but was asking you to explain what looked to me like a logical leap. So thanks for explaining, since now I think I understand where the piece was that seemed missing from your previous explanation. It makes sense to me when your additional clarification is added.
As I try to process your viewpoint, I’m trying to understand and find common ground as a fellow faithful Mormon. Do I have this right? Here goes: It is, of course, possible and inevitable that the fallible humans whom God calls to lead his church will make mistakes, teach things where they have limited light and knowledge and learn later they were mistaken, etc. I’ve been a bishop and I certainly made lots of mistakes, and I assume that higher-up leaders do, too. And, if I’m understanding you, the idea you’re advancing is that, even if a church leader makes a mistake, teaches something that is an error, or whatever, it is nevertheless God’s will that those specific mistakes be made at that specific time. And, more importantly, God’s will is always that we will accept as correct everything the Prophets teach. And, therefore, it is also the Prophets’ will that we will always accept as correct everything they teach. Am I understanding that correctly?
If I’m understanding you correctly, that would go a long way toward contextualizing the notion of the living prophets taking precedence over the dead ones.
Anyway, I don’t know if I’m understanding you right, but I hope I am. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and being willing to discuss with me as a brother in the gospel.
Moses 5:5-6
“5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”
We do not know how long “many days” is, but Adam did what the Lord commanded him even though he didn’t know the significance of the sacrifice. Adam did know, however, that it was the Lord who commanded him to offer sacrifices, and that was enough for Adam to obey.
We ought to be more like Adam in regards to obedience.
Hi sgnm,
The D&C passage where Joseph was reinforced in his right to lead, rather than to be ordered about by those he looked to as his superior, is highly significant.
When you talk about fallible humans who are our leaders and then talk about having been a lower level leader yourself, I wonder what level of fallibility you attribute to past leaders.
Two major areas where moderns accuse past leaders of fallibility are in the areas of polygamy and the matter of the priesthood ban.
In the case of polygamy, it is presumed by many that the cause was Joseph’s libido, rather than a commandment from God. Folks who subscribe to the human origin of polygamy tend to not realize how fundamentally the doctrines related to eternal families are bound up in the commandment Joseph received that also permitted all wives to be sealed to their husband. These folks merely see an aberrant social behavior the Church proponed and then abandoned under severe pressure from the non-Mormon world. I have written a few things to explain an alternate viewpoint, but I’m sure my writings on the subject aren’t what you’ve been taught and believed throughout your life in the modern Church. If you have been a long-time listener, then you are surely familiar with my thoughts on the matter, including my recent Give Brigham Young a Break post.
On the matter of the priesthood ban, many moderns see a bigoted practice that had no Godly cause to exist, that eventually was purged from the Church once modern beliefs about the equality of men became sharply divergent from the Church’s position. Once again, these modern Mormons and their non-Mormon thought partners presume that it was worldly pressure that caused the change in the Church. Here again I have postulated a reason God would have kept his Black children from the Church for a time, in my musings aboout the Norfolk 17. More significant is the work of Paul Reeve, as in his recent talk at Fair Mormon conference titled “From Not White Enough, to Too White: Rethinking the Mormon Racial Story“, which I summarized earlier this year.
I’m afraid you are hearing us say “Anything a Church leader says should be obeyed, of that leader appears to have stewardship over you.” In this case, women are in huge trouble, since they will never, supposedly, have stewardship and would therefore be wholly subservient to men.
Rather, we are saying “When the prophet gives a commandment, we are obliged to heed the prophet, even when that commandment runs counter to our personal inclinations.”
Specifically, if a lower level Church leader, such as you have portrayed yourself to have been, is faced with ministering to those involved in a family that has embraced same gender sexual activity, that lower level Church leader is bound to give heed to the commandment of the prophet, as expressed in Handbook 1.
I’m still fuzzy why lower level Church leaders ministering in accordance with the policy promulgated in Handbook 1 is so sharply divergent from what you’ve been taught and believed throughout your life in the Church.
sgnm writes:
“As I try to process your viewpoint, I’m trying to understand and find common ground as a fellow faithful Mormon. Do I have this right? Here goes: It is, of course, possible and inevitable that the fallible humans whom God calls to lead his church will make mistakes, teach things where they have limited light and knowledge and learn later they were mistaken, etc. I’ve been a bishop and I certainly made lots of mistakes, and I assume that higher-up leaders do, too. And, if I’m understanding you, the idea you’re advancing is that, even if a church leader makes a mistake, teaches something that is an error, or whatever, it is nevertheless God’s will that those specific mistakes be made at that specific time. And, more importantly, God’s will is always that we will accept as correct everything the Prophets teach. And, therefore, it is also the Prophets’ will that we will always accept as correct everything they teach. Am I understanding that correctly?”
I would phrase it differently than you do above.
The Lord is at the head of the Church. Prophets are his servants. The Lord will sometimes directly command prophets and other times inspire through the Spirit. Prophets are imperfect human beings, but Jesus will not allow the Church to go astray. Because we understand this chain of authority from Jesus to the prophets, we should show obedience by obeying prophetic authority to the best of our abilities.
I don’t accept the narrative that prophets will make “mistakes” when leading the Church (although they will make mistakes in their personal lives).
What this means for us is that we should follow the prophets to the best of our abilities even if we don’t understand why at the time, and we will be blessed for doing so.
Any alternative to this seems to create chaos. “The prophets have taught xx, yy and zz, but I only agree with zz, so I am going to ignore the rest.” “I am a bishop and the prophets have made a handbook change, but I am going to ignore the changes.”
I don’t think I could be more clear than this sgnm, and if you really were a bishop I would think this would be pretty obvious to you. Let’s give one small example. You are a bishop at ward council and the primary president says that for the Halloween party coming up she is going to have a “scary mask” contest. The masks include bloody Freddy Kreuger stuff, chainsaw massacre stuff, bloody zombies, etc. You kindly remind the primary president that the handbook clearly has a prohibition on masks (see 13.6.25 Unapproved Activities). But the primary president decides that you are not inspired and seeks her own inspiration, which tells her to go ahead with the scary mask contest. So, can you see how this would be a problem?
The correct response for the primary president is: “the bishop leads the ward, and I must put aside my personal feelings on this matter even though I think I am right.” The correct response for members regarding the handbook policy change on same-sex marriage is: “The Brethren lead the Church, and I must put aside my personal feelings on this matter even though I think I am right.”
In light of the scary masks example, an interesting thing happened at our Trunk or Treat. I hadn’t noticed initially, but for the first half hour of our trunk or treat, there was someone dressed in full, masked, costume at the edge of the parking lot. I think it was a neighbor who saw there was costume stuff going on and wanted to get candy, but then was uncertain of how to approach the group.
Some of our folks walked over to the far side of the parking lot and conversed with the masked fellow. Then he and a friend I hadn’t seen at the edge of the parking lot made the rounds of the trunks.
While it would be wrong for us to organize our own masked event, it was not wrong to reach out to a masked person who wasn’t aware of our rules and invite them to be welcome and partake of the fun. I think whoever invited the masked visitors might have mentioned that we don’t like to wear masks at such events, but I’m not certain.
I wish I didn’t have to make this comment, but because the Church is apparently filled with Pharisees and hair-splitters, I want to make it clear that there is a difference between inviting one non-member wearing a mask to a Church function (good) and organizing an event that clearly goes against the Handbook when the bishop tells you not to (bad).
Obviously. Apologies in advance for any hair-splitting comments my anecdote might inspire.
Congratulations, sgnm. You had me believing you until you claimed to be a former bishop.
I now see that Geoff’s gut feel that you are a troll was correct.
You may have been a believing member at one time. But like KK and JD, it appears to me that you no longer accept the foundational truth claims of the church.
You can high-five your online exmo friends for having strung us along so far.
I suggest you also refocus your efforts on deconverting radical muslims, as they are much more dangerous to humanity than radical Mormons.
If, when you were an active member, you got hurt by fellow members or leaders, my heart goes out to you. I was hurt in the church too, and left for 15 years. It took a long time for me to reconcile an imperfect church with flawed people being the true and authorized church. But what the FP/Q12 do and say officially is still the Lord’s will, even if local members turn into ass-hats trying to live the Lord’s commandments.
My experience with online exmos and DAMUs is that you guys are NOT sincerely trying to understand the church/gospel/doctrine/etc. You’re just looking to trip up people and use their words against them. You’re not trying to “reconcile” nor “understand”. You’re just trying to tear down, mock, and score points.
Sincere members or investigators who have honest questions and are looking for answers/understanding, and honestly want to reconcile seeming contradictions don’t play the troll game.
Bookslinger, I don’t know what to say in response to any of that, but I’m disappointed that this site would allow such a comment to stand. I’m an active, faithful LDS church member and a former bishop, and would be happy to verify those facts to the mods if they wish to e-mail me. That any member of our church would treat anyone the way your comment treats me is truly disappointing.
Hi sgnm,
Geoff would be the one who can intervene. Others might be able to, but I personally only have the power to moderate posts I myself have authored.
I think part of Bookslinger’s irritation is that you have flung imprecations (sharply divergent from what you have long been taught and believed) without explaining what you mean. That is a species of ad hominem attack.
It is unfortunate that your choice of initials makes me think “single gay non-Mormon.” It’s likely that these are simply your initials, say Scott Grow of New Mexico.