[Maxel]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

No need for any special definitions of moral responsibility. Wikipedia has an entry, if you'd like a refresher.

Wikipedia gives two definitions:

1) a person has moral responsibility for a situation if that person has an obligation to ensure that something happens

2) a person has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that person for the situation

I assume when Anthony spoke of 'God absolving us of moral responsibility' in this situation he meant the first, as God the Eternal Judge doesn't waive His right to judge us.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

We get what you're saying that LDS have a responsibility to pray, study, etc. if they find their consciences at variance with prophetic guidance. But no one is asking you what the protocol is for LDS if they encounter such a variance (or whether they will be held responsible for following the protocol). The question is how their choice (to follow the prophet or to follow conscience) will be judged by their God when the two are in conflict.

The simple answer is, then, that they ought to follow the prophet- who we believe is appointed by God to lead us in the paths we ought to walk. However, it is the person's job to do all those things I mentioned in my previous post to come to an understanding of why the prophet is saying such things- otherwise, the person wouldn't be a wise servant and wouldn't be right before God (in this respect).

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

And once again you appear to affirm that LDS responsibility before God is to follow their prophet above all else (your point #1). Their God expects them to pray and study (just as you say)--but ultimately he will hold them responsible for obeying their prophet, even when their prophet is wrong and they know it.

It seems your hold up with the situation seems to be about the prophet being wrong and a person knowing it. The thing is, because of the nature of prophets and the prophetic office, it's nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters, and impossible to know the prophet is wrong concerning policy matters. It seems to me that your premise is skewed.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher (or Bishop, or Stake President) and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you do your duty and teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie).

The best thing to do in this case (in my opinion) is to use the proper channels and procedures to understand why the manual contains the Adam-God doctrine and to voice one's objection (to the Bishop/Stake President/whoever). Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson- the question becomes 'which is more important- my pride or my duty?'

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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, 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 and voted their conscience).

In this case, it seems the person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience in this situation. We know that the heart can be deceived (Deuteronomy 11:16) and that our conscience can be wrong (depending on how one uses the word and concept of 'conscience'- here I speak of the basic, oft-faulty ideas of right and wrong that humans are taught and become ingrained through the influence of the world)- however, to a Mormon with a living testimony of the power and calling of the prophets, their duty is clear- follow the prophet.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

God will judge LDS based on whether they follow their prophet, not whether they follow their consciences (or any spiritual witness) when the two are in conflict. That's the point AnthonyB was making (unless I've completely misunderstood him--which wouldn't be the first time).

Only when the two are in conflict (and I wish to point out that it is far, far rarer for a spiritual witness to be at odds with prophetic counsel than it is for one's conscience to be opposed). I read AnthonyB's words to mean we are (supposedly) absolved of moral responsibility by God all the time- which is dead wrong. Even when one follows the prophet against one's own conscience, I don't think one is absolved of moral responsibility unless that person seeks to understand why the counsel is given in the first place- hence my stressing of the prayer and pondering that needs to be done by the individual.