The most important thing(s)?

[ErikJohnson]

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1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it anyhow, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his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

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Moksha

Even though I realize that not all posters on this forum are followers of Jesus or even believe in any diety, I will base the assumption for the the sake of this post on all of us believing that Jesus is the Christ.
-------------


Off the top of my head, I would say the most important religious principal is to obey Jesus' two greatest commandments.

I have heard many of my fellow Mormons say that the most important thing to have Obedience to Church Authorities.

So I have a couple of questions:

1. How much do you emphasize Obedience to Church Authorities?

2. What are the most important item(s) to you?


.

1] With careful discernment of the Spirit. Having met President Monson, he would never lead you astray and would give my life for him.

2] Following the Godhead's will...

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I assume you meant tantamount when you wrote paramount, Maxel.

Yes, thanks for catching that- it was late when I wrote it.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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).

Your assumption that obeying the prophet in the face of moral objection is absolving the person of personal responsibility simply isn't true. The person's responsibility in this case is twofold:

1) Follow the ordained leader of God because the person has a testimony of prophetic guidance

2) Pray to the Lord and seek wisdom from Him concerning the matter. The moral objection within the person needs to be an informed objection- the person should study and pray concerning the matter.

The difference between what you're claiming and AnthonyB said- that the Lord absolves us of all personal responsibility when we're following the prohet- seems to be in the term "moral responsibility". Is it always our duty to act in accordance with our sometimes faulty conscience? We know that the heart can be deceitful, as can our most fervent desires- we're supposed to follow the scriptures from the Holy prophets. Does following the advice of the Bible- even against one's personal conscience- absolve a person of "moral responsibility"? Does following the words of Christ absolve us of "moral responsibility"?

One could argue there's a difference between following the advice found in the Bible and following the LDS prophets, but that's a matter of belief and not "moral responsibility".

If you still don't see the difference, I ask you to offer a definition of "moral responsibility" to facilitate dialogue.

[ErikJohnson]

Hey Maxel--

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

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.

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.

My previous examples would be very good for illustrating the point--

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). 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).

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).
;0)

And you give every indication of agreeing with him, yet you insist you don't. How are we to understand you?

--Erik

[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.

[rameumptom]

There is a big difference between core doctrines and practices. In every instance, the Lord expects each member to obtain his/her own testimony of the teaching.

For instance, when one leading apostle heard about polygamy from Joseph Smith, he said he would go home and pray about it. If it were true, he would embrace it. If it were false, he would come back and kill Joseph as a fallen prophet. He ended up embracing the teaching because he gained his own witness of it.

There is also the issue of having a strong enough testimony of the living prophet that the Lord has already given the assurance. As it is, how many modern prophets have commanded the people to go and do something against the law?

Now, how many times did that happen in the Bible? God commanded "Thou shalt not kill", but then various prophets, including Moses, Joshua and Samuel, went out and did just that. They slew unarmed kings, wiped out cities of women and children, and more. If we're so worried today about following prophets, why aren't we screaming about giving such due diligence to Moses?

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

Your example of Moses killing is one that I'd query, "Thou shalt not murder" is not the same as not killing. I think David with Uriah is probably a more clear cut case of a murder. But yes the prophets of yesteryear did things that were morally wrong. I could write a long list but drunkeness, lieing, adultery should be enough.

Your point about the apostle and polygamy is along the point I was making. By all means follow as diligently as you can a person you believe to be an appointed prophet or leader from God. However they are not God and can lapse, fail or just get God's message wrong. I'm not advocating a disrespectful or arrogant rebuff but rather a loving, honest stand for your convictions.

It is far to easy for most Christian when they disagree with their God appointed leadership to just up and move to another church. If we really believe we are all Christians and all part of the one church then we should always seek to move with the approval and blessing of the people whom we have placed ourselves under. I can appreciate the LDS folks seeking to sustain there leadership and although on numerous doctrinal grounds I'm not LDS this is at least something that I applaud in the LDS church about.

On a side issue...

I have been saddend by applepansy being hurt by some of these posts (on another thread), but I can't do anymore then as lovingly as possible present truth as I heartfeltedly believe it. I know she is unlikely to read this but if she does and any of my posts disconcrted her, then it is only the thoughts of a hopefully sincere non-LDS Christian.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

I have been saddend by applepansy being hurt by some of these posts (on another thread), but I can't do anymore then as lovingly as possible present truth as I heartfeltedly believe it. I know she is unlikely to read this but if she does and any of my posts disconcrted her, then it is only the thoughts of a hopefully sincere non-LDS Christian.

Applepansy's problem is with members of the Church who question the value of following the prophet, not non-members- don't worry, you haven't done anything to offend her (I'm pretty sure).

[ErikJohnson]

Hey Maxel—


To sum up—LDS are to follow their prophet, even if he teaches a doctrine that contradicts their consciences, contradicts their reading of Scripture, and which will later be repudiated by successor prophets (e.g., Young’s “Adam-God” doctrine). You gave us an unequivocal answer to AnthonyB’s original question (post #22): “The person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience.”

And yes, you tacked on an additional requirement (variations of which you repeated several times)—that the member who finds himself/herself conflicted must make some reasonable amount of effort (via prayer and study) to try and reach an understanding. Once they’ve met this requirement, any conflicted LDS who choose to follow their prophet will stand “absolved” (as AnthonyB expressed it) from following the dictates of conscience, Scripture, or anything else. I appreciate your directness.

But you take it further than I would be willing to go. You tell us—“it’s nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters…” Forgive me for saying it Maxel, but you seem to have a low view of the “average member” (or at least the average member’s capacity for discernment). Your experience may be quite different than mine—but I can’t agree with you on this one.

And then you say it was the responsibility of the 19th century LDS Sunday School teacher to teach the Adam-God doctrine—even if the teacher knew in his heart the doctrine was a falsehood! You wrote: “Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson.” Your reader will conclude you place a higher value on obedience than you do on truth, Maxel. Is that really your position? In the LDS “hierarchy of truth”—is the value of truth itself subordinate to the value of obedience? Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but reading your posts it sure seems to be the case.

Always a pleasure to read your posts, Maxel. Plenty of food for thought. Between my reprimand and a lot of general busy-ness, I needed to take July off from the board. But I’ll try to be a bit more regular going forward, God willing.

Regards,

--Erik

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

But you take it further than I would be willing to go. You tell us—“it’s nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters…” Forgive me for saying it Maxel, but you seem to have a low view of the “average member” (or at least the average member’s capacity for discernment). Your experience may be quite different than mine—but I can’t agree with you on this one.

My view of the average member is higher than you make it seem to be. It is, truthfully, nigh impossible for a member (whether (s)he be average or exceptional) to concretely know if the prophet is wrong considering a doctrinal matter- since our knowledge of the things of God are given only by the Spirit of God and are often distilled upon our souls like the dews of heaven, understanding and knowing complex doctrine is more rare among Church members than it ought to be. Besides- the stewards of the Church (including the doctrine espoused by the Church) are the First Presidency and the Quorom of the 12- not the Sunday School teachers.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

And then you say it was the responsibility of the 19th century LDS Sunday School teacher to teach the Adam-God doctrine—even if the teacher knew in his heart the doctrine was a falsehood! You wrote: “Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson.” Your reader will conclude you place a higher value on obedience than you do on truth, Maxel. Is that really your position? In the LDS “hierarchy of truth”—is the value of truth itself subordinate to the value of obedience? Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but reading your posts it sure seems to be the case.

The higher value is not obedience instead of truth, the higher value is obedience instead of pride. I made that perfectly clear in my post ("the question becomes 'which is more important- my pride or my duty?")- however, I notice that you left that part of the sentence out, despite quoting the first clause! You then use this quote, ripped from its context, to make it seem that I am making it appear that the Church values obedience over truth (equivocal reasoning, at best). You dishonest fiend, you! ;0)

Ultimately... The duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson. The members of the Church must all play their part, whatever part that is. Once a testimony of the Book of Mormon and a testimony of the prophet is obtained, the moral duty of the member is clear: follow the prophet.