- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was a post I had put a lot of thought into for quite a while. I’m basically answering my own question. If I don’t believe the prophet is a literal representative of God, why should I follow him? http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/follow-the-prophet-for-progressive-mormons/ I view this group here as the most “like me” of any audience. TBM’s hate me for rejecting fundamental views. Ex-Mormons hate me for seeing truth in LDS. Even a large portion of Prog Mo’s don’t like me for being too orthodox. What do you guys think of this concept?
The premise is basically a secular approach to following the prophet within Mormonism, with a basic assumption that one doesn’t buy into the literal origins but still finds truth and beauty in LDS and expresses faith.
Some concepts here:
1. Many aspects of Mormonism that are good are due to its size, organizational strength, and strong central leadership.
2. Fulling engaging in Mormonism brings more value than engaging cafeteria style.
3. It can be best to sacrifice small disagreements and show unity with purpose of preserving and building up Mormonism as an entity that can do the most good for individuals.
I haven’t read your blog, but can respond to the thoughts you posted here… churchistrue wrote:I view this group here as the most “like me” of any audience.
You’re a good fit! Glad you’re here.
Quote:TBM’s hate me for rejecting fundamental views. Ex-Mormons hate me for seeing truth in LDS. Even a large portion of Prog Mo’s don’t like me for being too orthodox.
I think those are strong statements…I’m sure it feels that way in general for you…but I doubt all TBMs see things the same way and feel strongly against your ideas. Just my experience, but one on one with leaders and family who are TBM, I sense more common ground with them then not…and certainly not angst or hatred. TBMs who love the lord and try to love their neighbors are very kind in many ways.
As is typical, why we see many things the same way…we have our differences too. And that is OK. (Stuart Smalley’s voice came in my head there
🙂 )churchistrue wrote:The premise is basically a secular approach to following the prophet within Mormonism, with a basic assumption that one doesn’t buy into the literal origins
What do you mean by “literal origins” of a prophet? I believe Joseph Smith was a literal person. I sense you are meaning something by that statement but I’m not sure what you mean.
churchistrue wrote:1. Many aspects of Mormonism that are good are due to its size, organizational strength, and strong central leadership.
Agree.
Quote:2. Fulling engaging in Mormonism brings more value than engaging cafeteria style.
Disagree. Full engagement and cafeteria style are not necessarily mutually exclusive, IMO. I also think all members are cafeteria style…some just don’t know it or it is wordplay what is meant by it.
Quote:3. It can be best to sacrifice small disagreements and show unity with purpose of preserving and building up Mormonism as an entity that can do the most good for individuals.
Agree…all relationships can grow by sacrificing selfish things. But there is a tipping point where sacrificing too much is losing too much of oneself to feel good about it. All relationships have those.
Those are some of my thoughts, but I think the general feeling that following prophets does not need to be blind obedience is a good principle I agree with.
churchistrue wrote:If I don’t believe the prophet is a literal representative of God, why should I follow him?
If I don’t believe my boss is a literal representative of god, why should I follow them?
If I don’t believe my spouse is a literal representative of god, why should I follow them?
If I don’t believe my neighbor is a literal representative of god, why should I follow them?
Maybe we need to nail down a definition of “follow” but even with a loose definition of follow I’d rather follow a principle than a person. Good principles can come from anyone, not just from a person that one particular group holds up to be a literal representative of god… unless you get clever with the definition of “literal representative” e.g. any time a person is teaching a charitable principle in that fleeting moment they are being a literal representative of god.
churchistrue wrote:2. Fulling engaging in Mormonism brings more value than engaging cafeteria style.
I’m not entirely sure what do you mean by this. What does it mean to be fully engaged in Mormonism?
Visiting the cafeteria for a moment: perhaps I have a gluten, shellfish, peanut, etc. allergy and fully engaging in the menu would put my health at risk. My meal will have a lot more value to me if I avoid the foods that I’m allergic to.
You don’t have to look far on this site; for example, some people have issues with the temple. Which keeps people more engaged in Mormonism, allowing them to take the cafeteria approach and not attend the temple or insisting that they attend? Insistence on attending may end up driving people away from the rest of the experience. If they end up attending despite reservations what value are they deriving?
I certainly hope it’s not all or nothing, otherwise none of us has anything.
churchistrue wrote:3. It can be best to sacrifice small disagreements and show unity with purpose of preserving and building up Mormonism as an entity that can do the most good for individuals.
Is one side called on to make the small sacrifices or should both sides be expected to sacrifice?
churchistrue wrote:If I don’t believe the prophet is a literal representative of God, why should I follow him?
I agree with much of what Nibbler wrote. This an imperfect comparison but I hope will add something to the discussion. I work for a very large corporation in the United States. The CEO of the corporation is treated not unlike our prophet in some ways. People do what he says, he has a lot of power, he’s usually a charismatic and effective leader, people stand up when he enters the room and treat him like a celebrity. I follow him and I do what he says and I do what his lower level leaders say when they interpret his directions. I follow my CEO because he’s made good decisions in the past. When he stops making good decisions I’ll quit my job.
To me, this is how church members should treat their free agency – every single one of us is responsible for our actions, no matter who told us what to do. So if a prophet or a CEO gives me directions that I view as unethical or illegal it is my responsibility to disobey them.
I interpret the original question “why should I follow him” as why should I treat him as a mouthpiece of God and disregard my own conscience?” To me the answer is we should follow our conscience and best judgment. I don’t buy the idea that if a prophet tells us to do something wrong that we should do it anyways out of obedience and that he will pay the price for the decision, not me.
Quote:Roadrunner wrote: “I don’t buy the idea that if a prophet tells us to do something wrong that we should do it anyways out of obedience and that he will pay the price for the decision, not me.”
Exactly! It is something a totalitarian government would teach in their youth program.
I have no problem following prophets, but I won’t do so blindly, unquestioningly or completely. I reserve that for God, as I understand God’s will.
I suppose it depends what is being meant by “follow” (as in on twitter? 
I support and sustain the prophet. I believe that he became prophet according to the legal channels and is the rightful head of the LDS church. I believe him to be “prophet, seer, and revelator” because I understand those terms to be blanket terms that we give to anyone in that leadership office. I give to church leadership pretty wide discretion on how to run the church, direct church meetings, etc. I take their suggestions under advisement on how to run things in my home. They may give well intentioned advice generally for the group but only I can determine how (or whether) to apply that to my individual circumstances.
Quote:In the sacramental paradigm, which is how I view Mormonism and religion in general, scriptures, doctrine, and church practices are not seen as revelations from God to man. They are seen as offerings as a sacrament from man to God. It is man saying, “this is how we think you want us to teach and act as a church”.
For me I run two sacramental paradigms at once.
One is the church and how the church acts and operates. The church does much good in some areas and I believe that the whole of it is sincerely offered up to God as an offering.
The second is my individual life. I too can be an agent for much good. The offering of my life does not need to be swallowed up in sacrifice and unity to the church in order to be a worthy offering. In some ways my offering overlaps with the church’s offering, in some ways it doesn’t. I am comfortable with that.
Ultimately, I believe that it is my personal relationship with God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ that matters and not my relationship to the church. In some ways and seasons the church can help to facilitate my relationship to God. In other ways and seasons the church can become an impediment. I believe it is up to me to tell the difference.
Also, just to reiterate: Every single member of the LDS Church practices their religion in a cafeteria style. There simply is no way to believe and accept everything that has been written in our scriptural canon and said by our apostles and Presidents. Seriously, it is impossible, since there is lots of disagreement and change in those words.
Engaging as fully as possible according to the dictates of one’s own conscience is powerful – and, ironically, that fits perfectly one of the messages of this conference that talked about being at peace internally because our actions are in harmony with our beliefs.
In our theology we have god himself presenting Adam and Eve with a cafeteria style approach to his commandments. If the prophet says I must do something that requires massive sacrifice, and that I question, then I need my own evidence. I think the church even teaches that. Praying about, and pondering advice from ANY source is a good idea. And that means advice from your boss, your wife, your prophet, or your mentor. Church leaders have admitted that they made mistakes in conference, and they have reversed the priesthood ban, saying they “repudiate all racism”. That essentially means repudiating what was once considered “doctrine” and the result of a prophet’s voice — Brigham Young. I cannot trust them to be correct all the time. I need to use my own judgment and then take responsibility for the outcome. If I follow their advice in trust, and it doesnt’ work out, it would present ANOTHER challenge to my testimony. I would resent them. I need to figure out what I THINK for the sake of my long-term commitment and inner peace so I can be responsible for my own actions, not church leaders.
Cafeteria style — I guess I believe in it. If I HAD to do everything the church expects right now, I’d be divorced, ticked off all the time, miserable, poor, and full of resentment. The ability to “worship according to the dictates of my own conscience” is my “salvation” when it comes to being happy in this life. I’d have a ton of church experience that counts nothing in job interviews at a time when I need show I am more than just a teacher. And if it means I have to pick and choose, so be it for now.
A prophet provides one input into my decision-making. So do local leaders. Ultimately, what I do is based on my own research from many sources. As DHO said, if I think I’ve got an exception, I have to work it out with the Lord. All the church can teach are general principles — each person has to take the advice, run it through their own life and circumstances, and then do what’s best for them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.