- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hope I’m not repeating a discussion thread that has already been created. The phrase “Follow the brethren” or “Follow the prophet” has bothered me as of late.
Why don’t we instead say “
Follow the Savior“? I read an article today about cultural traditions that are in opposition to the “gospel principles” (which is a whole different topic of discussion)…
The author cautioned against tattoos…long hair…drinking in excess…etc.
He ended by saying “Follow the brethren”
I’m thinking…could we not say “Follow the Savior”?
Or would that open the door to too many interpretations of what the Savior did?
I mean…its’ quite possible that the Savior had long hair…and a beard…and wore a robe (as opposed to a white shirt and a tie)…and drank wine…
In reality, aren’t we asked to follow “Utah” church culture?
I mean, where and when did someone decide that a white shirt and a neck tie was the uniform of the priesthood? That may be something very … American/European?
Where and when did someone decide that a a clean shaven face was the presentation of a humble servant of God?
Obviously people who feel the need to belong or to emulate want to see a living, physical representation of what/who we should become and “the brethren” provide that…hence the passion for “following men”
Maybe it’s not all that wrong to say “follow the brethren”?
So … how can I rectify this in my mind and as I try to teach my own children.
If I say “Follow the Savior”…I’m more likely talking about his behavior – not his outward appearance.
Whereas if people say “Follow the prophet” they are likely talking about his counsel…FHE, food storage, family prayer, etc.
*yeah – rambling here…I seriously lack the ability to articulate my thoughts.
:wtf: sorry
We have had too many posts about this general question over the years to try to link some of them. That’s okay, since it’s an important, central question. I did some research a few years ago for one of those threads and found that the manuals (all of them, except the 3rd hour series focused on the teachings of the Presidents, but even within most of those manuals) emphasize Jesus and God and following/obeying/emulating/becoming like them MUCH more than the prophets. Even the commandments tend to be focused on being important because they come from God and help us become more like God. (Whether that is accurate or not for any given commandment is debatable, but that is the focus.)
Also, the General Conference talks are weighted extremely toward Jesus and God and following them – FAR over the prophets.
It’s at the local level that things get wonky, especially since Bishops tend to want to diversify the sacrament meetings talks – meaning they tend to pick lots of non-Jesus/God focused topics in the one meeting that is supposed to be a worship service.
It’s a real issue in the LDS Church, but it’s MUCH more a local issue than a global issue.
Oh, wonderful response. Thank you for taking the time to write that out. I think I’ll pay more attention to GC this fall.
And you are right…each ward is run differently and it seems that at least in mine we hear recycled CG talks every. single. Sunday and while there is merit in CG talks, I agree that the focus should be on developing a “worship service”…not a “catch up on the latest and greatest” talk.
Thanks again.
Quote:The phrase “Follow the brethren” or “Follow the prophet” has bothered me as of late. Why don’t we instead say “Follow the Savior”?
My hypothesis is that those who promote this don’t know or acknowledge the difference between the two. I’d ignore their misspeak and focus it correctly.
I think the leaders are aware of the emphasis placed on them. I was a primary teachers for many years and those lessons are very much about following the prophet. As much or more so than the Savior, depending on the week. The leaders know what is being taught in primary and Sunday school. They know the manuals teach that if we are not following the prophet our hearts are not turned to God. That we disrespect God if we don’t follow the prophet’s commandments. This is a topic I would ask Elder Uchtdorf about if I ever had the opportunity to talk with him. I would ask why they continue to promote this. But I’d ask in a very polite way. 
There are scriptures that indicate God’s will and Jesus’ will are the same, so we don’t distinguish between the two that much. And there are scriptures that try to unify the voice of the Brethren and God/Jesus “Whether by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same”. I personally consider that heresy because it invests divine authority, and often, blind obedience into the hands of men, and that can be dangerous (such as with the Mountain Meadows Massacre).
No longer part of my own personal theology, that the Brethren’s words are the same as Gods.
Zack Tacorin wrote:I finally made the time to listen to the rest of the podcast, and I think I got this figured out. The reason the Givens’ comments and observations seemed so disconnected from my LDS experience is because they must belong to a different branch of the Mormon restorationist movement than what I belonged to. You see, I was a member of the SLC-based LDS Church. The Givens’ Church allows for debate and openly following your conscience even when opposed to the leaders of their Church. The LDS Church I belonged to was much different as demonstrated in the quotes listed below. I wish the SLC-based LDS Church could be more like the Church the Givens are a part of.
㒹When the prophet speaks the debate is over.”(PRESIDENT N. ELDON TANNER, First Counselor in the First Presidency, FIRST PRESIDENCY MESSAGE,
âThe Debate Is Overâ, Ensign Magazine, August 1979)
“When we sustain the President of the Church by our uplifted hand, it not only signifies that we acknowledge before God that he is the rightful possessor of all the priesthood keys; it also means that we covenant with God that we will abide by the direction and the counsel that come through His prophet. It is a solemn covenant.”(ELDER DAVID B. HAIGHT, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Solemn Assemblies”, Ensign Magazine, November 1994)
“The Lord emphatically stated that the inspired words of his ordained leaders are his words.”“Point out that we have been specifically directed to follow the living prophetâs inspired counsel.”
(From the current AARONIC PRIESTHOOD MANUAL 1 LESSON 12: FOLLOWING THE LIVING PROPHET)
âThou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto youâ . . .âFor his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouthâ
(D&C 21: 4, 5)
âFourth fundamental: âThe prophet will never lead the Church astrayââ(CLAUDIO R. M. COSTA of the Presidency of the Seventy, âObedience to the Prophetsâ
And
KEVIN R. DUNCAN of the Seventy, âOur Very Survivalâ
Both were from General Conference talks in October 2012, citing and reinforcing a talk from Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve, in 1980 called âFourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophetâ)
âIt’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.â(DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, âThe Mormonsâ a PBS special aired April 30, 2007)
I read that same article, QA. The headline drew me in: “Addressing cultural traditions that oppose LDS principles.” In the end, the “addressing” was to forsake cultural traditions (such as long hair on men and tattoos) because the brethren said they’re bad. There was no reconciliation there, just “follow the brethren.” Needless to say, I was very disappointed. I value cultural diversity, and I believe the top leadership of the church is beginning to recognize that such diversity must be allowed. The days of sending Native American children to grow up in white LDS homes are long gone and should be. The article is here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865610309/Addressing-cultural-traditions-that-oppose-LDS-principles.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865610309/Addressing-cultural-traditions-that-oppose-LDS-principles.html That said, yes, it bothers me that there is so much emphasis on “follow the prophet” and I agree that it pervades lessons and talks in church, especially on the local level. In fact, I believe the whole PH/RS lesson series on the presidents is designed just for that purpose. “We won’t lead you astray because we said we won’t” doesn’t cut it with me – and I don’t see any real scriptural backing for it. I would much prefer a “follow the Savior” mantra, and fortunately we do hear that a good amount of the time as well.
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng Some things aren’t local.
oliver wrote:In addition to two talks given in General Conference, the fourteen fundamentals of following the prophet have been placed in the new Sunday School manual:
Every point is in the lesson, mostly verbatim. There are a couple of points that they reword while keeping the original meaning. As terrible as it was to hear this sacrilegious non-sense uttered from the pulpit, it is even worse to have it sanctioned for teaching in our Sunday School classes.
This lesson is blasphemous for the following reasons:
1) It teaches people to give their God given agency to the president of the church.
2) It establishes the president of the church as an infallible object of worship
3) It countermands the scriptures and church policy by placing the words of the church president over that which was properly canonized.
Well – there goes the Givens’ message….Nice try while it lasted. Thanks cwald for the update. cwald wrote:oliver wrote:In addition to two talks given in General Conference, the fourteen fundamentals of following the prophet have been placed in the new Sunday School manual:
Every point is in the lesson, mostly verbatim. There are a couple of points that they reword while keeping the original meaning. As terrible as it was to hear this sacrilegious non-sense uttered from the pulpit, it is even worse to have it sanctioned for teaching in our Sunday School classes.
This lesson is blasphemous for the following reasons:
1) It teaches people to give their God given agency to the president of the church.
2) It establishes the president of the church as an infallible object of worship
3) It countermands the scriptures and church policy by placing the words of the church president over that which was properly canonized.
I know I’ll be skipping that lesson – or maybe I should volunteer to give it and make it my own.
Haven wrote:I was a primary teachers for many years and those lessons are very much about following the prophet. As much or more so than the Savior, depending on the week. The leaders know what is being taught in primary and Sunday school.
I am in primary now and have been for about a year. My personal pet peave is memorizing. I do not think it provides a good church experience to the children (except maybe those that excel at memorization). More than this I do not think it equips the kids in any meaningful way for the challenges they are to face. It might in some ways make them a more indoctrinated Mormon – but not a better person. Last year they memorized the names of the Q15. When I asked my child,s teacher why they were memorizing this I was told it helps the children recognize the names of important church figures.
Shortly after I was called as a primary teacher, we had a teachers meeting and I voiced my displeasure for memorization. We still memorize the A of F but at least it is optional both for the kids and the teachers.
I do very much agree that when the LDS gospel is simplified for teaching to LDS kids – it too often gets boiled down to following the church and the brethren and church culture.
SilentDawning wrote:There are scriptures that indicate God’s will and Jesus’ will are the same, so we don’t distinguish between the two that much. And there are scriptures that try to unify the voice of the Brethren and God/Jesus “Whether by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same”.
I also agree with this. The following song is one that our primary is memorizing:
Quote:I’ll seek the Lord early while in my youth,
And he will help me to know the truth.
I’ll search the scriptures and find him there,
Then go to our Father in fervent prayer.
I’ll seek the Lord early, and I’ll obey
His living prophets in all they say.
I’ll keep his commandments; his love will abound.
I will seek the Lord early, and he will be found.
Notice how obedience to the prophets in “all they say” is one of the steps to finding the Lord.
It is disheartening to see the 14 Fundamentals in any manual– but it’s not the Sunday School manual. It’s the third hour manual for PH and RS: the “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church” manual for President Benson. If it wasn’t in that manual, some of you probably would accuse the Church of white-washing. (said with a smile and tongue in cheek – but also about half seriously, in some cases) 
Also, there is the following:
Quote:Prayerfully select from the chapter those teachings that you feel will be most helpful to those you teach.
There isn’t much in that chapter I feel would be helpful, if I was the teacher, so I would be focusing on a very small part of it and making the lesson be an extended discussion of that very small part.
If it had been the Sunday School lesson, I really would have been disappointed – to say the least.
Here’s 14 fundamental #4 straight out of the Gospel Principles manual, which is being taught to recent converts and investigators during Sunday school. https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god Quote:We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:
âThe Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my placeâ (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199).
There are lots of other 14 fundamentals in there as well, I just highlighted perhaps the most controversial one.
To be honest I don’t get the distinction between things being taught in SS vs being taught in PH/RS. If it’s taught in church from an official church manual that has the stamp of approval on the back what difference does it make which hour it is taught in?
Old-Timer wrote:If it wasn’t in that manual, some of you probably would accuse the Church of white-washing. (said with a smile and tongue in cheek – but also about half seriously, in some cases)
I’ll be whole serious
Some time ago I heard that the youth piloted a program that generated better discussion during classes. I thought the adults were to be phased into this program sometime soon (2015). Perhaps that was only Sunday school but I find myself extremely disappointed that next year’s PH/RS manual is yet another teachings of the presidents. Most people don’t know what to do with the format of the manual so I’ve seen the overwhelming majority of the 2nd and 3rd Sunday PH meetings be nothing more than a round robin straight reading of the manual. Another year of this?!?!?!? Mercy. Mercy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.