Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxel
Even if the prophet is wrong, he is still appointed by the Lord to oversee His Church on this earth- fighting against the prophet after gaining a testimony of his prophetic calling is paramount to fighting against the Lord. Ultimately, if we are morally opposed to a prophet's teachings we need to go to the Lord and seek for wisdom while still living the commandments- eventually, the problem is reconciled.
|
I assume you meant tantamount when you wrote paramount, Maxel. None-the-less, you're in an awkward spot. On the one hand you've made clear AnthonyB's observation is inaccurate (post #29). And on the other, you say that a faithful LDS’s responsibility is to obey the prophet regardless of individual conscience or spiritual witness ("still living the commandments"—as you expressed it—which certainly includes obeying the prophet). And if obedience to the prophet is paramount in the eyes of God for LDS—then AnthonyB has it exactly right: God absolves LDS of any personal or moral responsibility as long as they follow their prophet’s teaching. The LDS God holds them responsible for following their prophet, not their consciences when the two are in conflict.
Let’s throw a couple of examples out there to make it a little more practical: If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie). If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it anyhow, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "
broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel).
Based on what you wrote, Maxel, AnthonyB appears to be spot-on. And in your dissent you are making a distinction without a difference.
If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify.
--Erik