- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow! This is part of a much larger discussion that needs to take place in every unit, and rarely occurs. You were treated very unfairly. I think the larger issue is, ” To what extent do Church executive authorities have the right to presume upon covenants that they assume we have made?” But regardless of what the assumptions are, nothing should proceed without adequate respect, etiquette and observance of personal choice. I’m sorry you were treated this way. I’m struggling with the “larger issue” currently. Willhewonder wrote:
Wow! This is part of a much larger discussion that needs to take place in every unit, and rarely occurs. You were treated very unfairly. I think the larger issue is, “To what extent do Church executive authorities have the right to presume upon covenants that they assume we have made?”But regardless of what the assumptions are, nothing should proceed without adequate respect, etiquette and observance of personal choice. I’m sorry you were treated this way. I’m struggling with the “larger issue” currently.
To answer the part in bold, they think they can call on any active member without asking their permission first. I think many active, TR holding members have just accepted that. And one TBM I shared this with got his back up because he thought I was calling the church evil.
In priesthood meeting last week, they raised the issue of the massive list, and told the “push against the rock” story. The one that justifies unrewarding effort that produces little or no results. That ours is to push against the rock and that we are blessed for pushing, not for moving it.
I absolutely detest that story. Detest it!. Here is why. Human needs in the church and the world at large are limitless. Absolutely limitless. Why, in a world where there are so many rocks that can be moved, with great benefits to humanity, does the church expect us to push against rocks that barely move, and often don’t budge at all? How is that a recipe for a happy life? And how is that a good use of effort when time is limited, others could benefit from that effort, and volunteer motivation is worth its weight in gold? How does one sustain the motivation of pushing against a rock that rarely, if ever moves? How do LEADERS sustain such a program?
Answer is, you don’t. ONly a handlful of obedient souls in most Wards do it, and it’s tiring. You rarely, if ever feel successful at and it becomes a poison pill on the LDS experience for many leaders and followers….
[/rant]
SilentDawning wrote:The church would say you just do whatever the leaders ask — obedience. There is no model for resolving conflict in the Lord’s kinggom when that conflict is with the inspired leaders.
I disagree with this. I heard things in the last general conference contrary to those statements.
Heber13 wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:The church would say you just do whatever the leaders ask — obedience. There is no model for resolving conflict in the Lord’s kinggom when that conflict is with the inspired leaders.
I disagree with this. I heard things in the last general conference contrary to those statements.
But let’s not forget elephant syndrome — the fact that elephants take wide, slow turns, just like massive ships. As Ray once pointed out, we’ve had talks in conference, at WW training that take a while before they sink into the membership. Without repeated messages of the “new” culture, the old one continues to assert itself and it can be hard to change.
I still remember the oft quoted statement from a GA that said “After the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done”. Also, at one time (early in my commitment crisis), I tried to give counterpoint to some of the inefficient policies our church has embedded in its culture, and I would get “the problem, SD, is that these programs are divinely revealed”. This was on an orthodox forum in the bloggernacle…so, I would love to see the quotes from these talks you mention Heber13, and to the extent they promulgate a new culture, I think they are great.
But it takes great effort to turn the elephant after its trajectory is established….it’s a reason I don’t go head to head with leaders much anymore — all they have to do is pull the “divinely revealed” card out of their hand and the conversation, from their perspective, is over. And to continue it is to be apostate.
I understand the culture will shift on things and that takes time. But it is inaccurate to suggest blind obedience is what the church teaches, and that there is no models for resolving conflicts. It is just misrepresenting the church and sounds like the criticism of someone anti-mormon.
While I bet there are some people that place faith in their leaders, and will obey out of faith…the church doesn’t say to obey authority just because they are inspired. They teach us to think for ourselves, they invite to obey with faith believing it is inspired, they may want a limit on debating endlessly…but it is central to the church teachings to have everyone get answers for themselves and obey our own conscience…not put our trust in the arm of flesh.
I think I get what you are saying, SD…I just want to be fair about it and state it accurately. I disagree with how you said it, not the feelings of frustration around how some people talk in the church. I’ve had my run in with the leaders that told me things during my divorce about me not obeying…I get how frustrating that is. But I keep it in perspective of the context it is said, and by whom. It is inaccurate to take the things told to me during my divorce and say the church teaches those things…because the church doesn’t. I studied it, I prayed…the church doesn’t. That bishop was trying his best, and was not accurate with his statements, bless his pea-picking heart. And I cling to my right to think for myself, get personal revelation, and to lead my family.
Quote:Joseph F. Smith said on September 3, 1892,
Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.
If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil.
N. Eldon Tanner stated that “We do not suggest blind obedience, but obedience by faith in those things which may not be fully understood by man’s limited comprehension, but which in the infinite wisdom of God are for man’s benefit and blessing.”
Isn’t that why we go to church? We want counsel from on high, and when we receive something that we don’t agree with, we pray about it so we can feel good about obeying. They don’t expect us to just obey because they said so. If we don’t feel it comes from on high, we discard it and follow our conscience. If we have good reasons, others respect us.
There are some people at church that don’t have the patience to work through things, so they just trust and obey…that is their choice. If they are telling us we need to do that, they are going against church teachings of how the Savior invited others to follow him.
The criticisms of the church requiring blind obedience are as old as the church organization, as anti’s try to paint it as a cult. I disagree with that whole-heartedly.
There are many models Christ exemplified for resolving conflict. We teach those at church. Christ-like resolutions. I especially like the ones Christ railed on the Pharisees and Sadducees who were so stuck in blind obedience they lost sight of what they were supposed to be obedient to. Christ put them in their place by teaching truth.
Heber, I appreciate your comments but here is a quote I found. “Then President Lee added a warning when he went on to say that we may not always like what comes from the authority of the Church, because it may conflict with our personal views or interfere with some of our social life. However, if we will listen to and do these things as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, we will not be deceived and great blessings will be ours.”
This is from a General Conference 2002 talk by R Conrad Schultz. Sometimes I get a little frustrated of others saying that the church doesn’t preach blind obedience but when they say that you need to treat what the authority of the church says as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself,(as quoted by President Lee) how else should I interpret that?
Interesting situation. I believe that the church wants fully informed obedience (as opposed to blind obedience). They want your personal revelation line of authority to confirm and support what is said by the priesthood line of authority. Sometimes it is suggested that the two will never be in conflict. Sometimes it is suggested that even if you do not understand why you must do something – you will still be blessed for doing it. I feel that there is very little room for private interpretation or personal accommodation.
There is a paradox in this. “You must ask God yourself … and keep on asking until He tells you that I am correct.”
Roy wrote:
Interesting situation. I believe that the church wants fully informed obedience (as opposed to blind obedience). They want your personal revelation line of authority to confirm and support what is said by the priesthood line of authority.Sometimes it is suggested that the two will never be in conflict. Sometimes it is suggested that even if you do not understand why you must do something – you will still be blessed for doing it. I feel that there is very little room for private interpretation or personal accommodation.
There is a paradox in this.
“You must ask God yourself … and keep on asking until He tells you that I am correct.”
So true. So true.LookingHard wrote:
Roy wrote:
Interesting situation. I believe that the church wants fully informed obedience (as opposed to blind obedience). They want your personal revelation line of authority to confirm and support what is said by the priesthood line of authority.Sometimes it is suggested that the two will never be in conflict. Sometimes it is suggested that even if you do not understand why you must do something – you will still be blessed for doing it. I feel that there is very little room for private interpretation or personal accommodation.
There is a paradox in this.
“You must ask God yourself … and keep on asking until He tells you that I am correct.”
So true. So true.
This is what I am talking about. Of course, they are not going to say you must have blind obedience, that would be foolish. They will tell you that you need to know for yourself. However, if you’re own revelation contradicts with theirs than you are disobeying God. Therefore unless you think you know more than God, your personal revelation is useless.
Heber13 wrote:
I understand the culture will shift on things and that takes time.But it is inaccurate to suggest blind obedience is what the church teaches, and that there is no models for resolving conflicts. It is just misrepresenting the church and sounds like the criticism of someone anti-mormon.
While I bet there are some people that place faith in their leaders, and will obey out of faith…the church doesn’t say to obey authority just because they are inspired. They teach us to think for ourselves, they invite to obey with faith believing it is inspired, they may want a limit on debating endlessly…but it is central to the church teachings to have everyone get answers for themselves and obey our own conscience…not put our trust in the arm of flesh.
OK, so hypothetical situation. UOM (Unorthodox Member), after decades in the church finds the experience no longer works for them. Decides not to hold a TR, to reduce church service, while remaining active. Bishop calls him in about his TR and UOM tells Bishop he’s prayed about it, and a TR isn’t the right thing for him right now. That he’s had revelation that it’s not best for her personal well being…
What can the Bishop say, other than the person is out of compliance, out of obedience, that it’s the Lord’s plan for people to endure to the end? That it’s clear in revelation from authoritative prophets that the UOM is not correct?
What is the conflict resolution model in this case? And given the Bishop’s role as judge, jury and executioner in some cases, how is this likely to play out in the future when the UOM feels it’s time to get a TR? The Bishops are locked into the program of the church, as revealed, and I don’t see any way out…
There’s the question, “Do Mormons believe in blind obedience?” and the question, “Do Mormons obey blindly?” Sometimes we believe one thing and practice another… and I’m not saying Mormons obey blindly, but some might.
It’s a part of growing up. Like Adam, he started out by obeying blindly, he offered sacrifices without understanding the reasoning behind it. In a purely secular sense it can also be a part of growing up. Kids (some of them) blindly obey their parents… until they learn the word why. Even then it takes a while for children to stop giving as much weight to what their parents say.
– – –
I’ve had discussions with orthodox friends and I’ve noticed that some of them seek and receive a spiritual confirmation that a person is a prophet and rely on that confirmation to accept the things the prophet says. For example, a prophet says A, B, and C. Someone might take the approach of seeking a spiritual confirmation for A, B and C, each individual saying requiring its own spiritual confirmation. Someone else might take the approach of accepting A, B, and C because they already have a spiritual witness that the person that said A, B, and C is a prophet. Different styles.
Heber13 wrote:
There are many models Christ exemplified for resolving conflict. We teach those at church. Christ-like resolutions. I especially like the ones Christ railed on the Pharisees and Sadducees who were so stuck in blind obedience they lost sight of what they were supposed to be obedient to. Christ put them in their place by teaching truth.But if there’s a conflict with something a leader says who gets to play the part of Christ and who gets to play the part of the Pharisee/Sadducee?
Also:
[attachment=0]9176bda4dd9db9755baa9d0847a04e65.jpg[/attachment] :angel: kate5 wrote:Of course, they are not going to say you must have blind obedience, that would be foolish. They will tell you that you need to know for yourself.
That is all I’m saying too, Kate, thanks for saying it better than I could.
Quote:However, if you’re own revelation contradicts with theirs than you are disobeying God. Therefore unless you think you know more than God, your personal revelation is useless.
And I agree it can FEEL this way. It isn’t what they teach, but it feels that way and it can be frustrating.
The trick is to stick to what they teach, and use those teachings to validate that I am totally in harmony with teachings to say I will obey when I get a good feeling I should obey. Until then, I follow personal revelation and keep trying.
Others may think they are right…that is them. But they can’t argue with my approach that I will follow my spirit as I honestly seek for truth.
People in church can recognize there is not complete and total harmony of all ideas and beliefs in the church. We seek that perfect zion, but we know we don’t have that in this life right now. Because we don’t…variation exists. The choir has multiple voices, the orchestra has multiple instruments, the spirit has many gifts…use whatever analogy you want…but the church knows prophets don’t know everything, and there may be different opinions that exist, even if we commit to sustain our leaders
best we can. Roy said it well…
Roy wrote:
I believe that the church wants fully informed obedience (as opposed to blind obedience)
I don’t disagree with anyone frustrated with how it feels at church…but then again…my personality type is never comfortable with being a lemming, so I find a way to feel comfortable in my own skin…I know the church is accepting of me and my personality that will never be ok with blind obedience in leaders. I find success as I agree with 90% of what they say and focus on that part. When I have to address the other 10%…I use tact, timing, and dose to not offend and to keep dialogue going.
SilentDawning wrote:OK, so hypothetical situation. UOM (Unorthodox Member), after decades in the church finds the experience no longer works for them. Decides not to hold a TR, to reduce church service, while remaining active. Bishop calls him in about his TR and UOM tells Bishop he’s prayed about it, and a TR isn’t the right thing for him right now. That he’s had revelation that it’s not best for her personal well being…
What can the Bishop say, other than the person is out of compliance, out of obedience, that it’s the Lord’s plan for people to endure to the end? That it’s clear in revelation from authoritative prophets that the UOM is not correct?
What is the conflict resolution model in this case? And given the Bishop’s role as judge, jury and executioner in some cases, how is this likely to play out in the future when the UOM feels it’s time to get a TR? The Bishops are locked into the program of the church, as revealed, and I don’t see any way out…
What exactly is the conflict?UOM feels they don’t want a TR.
Bishop will, with all the love they can try to have from their perspective of thinking they should say something to challenge the person to progress closer to god and take full advantage of all blessings, invites the UOM to continue to pray and study and meet with him regularly for the next several months to talk about it.
Do the two disagree? Sure.
Does the bishop get direct and say “You are out of compliance. You must obey because as your leader, I say you must. Your own personal revelation is wrong.”
They don’t say that. As Kate said…it would be foolish.
What there is, is a situation where the bishop wants the member to have the blessings that come from the program they feel so attached to, that they feel is so special to them. They invite others to come partake of the fruit they love so much from a tree they see is so wonderful.
They invite. They teach. They counsel.
They never want anyone baptized or going to the temple who hasn’t had personal revelation that it is right for them. And they will keep trying to help them feel good about it because they feel they are right.
At the end of the day, the UOM decides it is helpful to seek those things and try to get an answer for themselves, or they just see the bishop doesn’t see it the same way they do, and you stop talking to the bishop about it.
nibbler wrote:Sometimes we believe one thing and practice another… and I’m not saying Mormons obey blindly, but some might.
This is critical to realize. And I agree this is a big part of the issues we have, because how we get treated and how we feel is not what the church teaches. But it is part of our experience at church.
I separate out the practice from the teachings. They are two things.
Which is why I had to correct SD for inaccurately stating what the church teaches, even if I agree with those who share how it feels based on how imperfect members practice it.
Quote:But if there’s a conflict with something a leader says who gets to play the part of Christ and who gets to play the part of the Pharisee/Sadducee?
Both, hopefully. I think there are times the roles change mid-discussion.The person speaking truth is Christ. The person with good intentions but limited view is the pharisee/sadducee/great and spacious building/korihor/serpent/Pontius Pilate/lamanites or whatever other symbolic group we represent that need to be taught truth.
I find leaders are pretty sure they are right, and their faith in their calling and keys they hold helps their confidence, and sometimes limits their ears.
It doesn’t make them more right.
I consider that as I choose to talk to them or not. I can’t change them. They can’t change me. The spirit changes hearts. If I can make some valid points to them about things, there are times the spirit helps them see things from a non-orthodox point of view. I’m not very smart…it doesn’t happen often, but it can, through loving dialogue using truth and quotes from leaders to support my side, using scriptures to support my point of view.
So…what is your point, nibbler? You think the church winks as they say “we don’t believe in blind obedience”?
Heber13 wrote:
Which is why I had to correct SD for inaccurately stating what the church teaches, even if I agree with those who share how it feels based on how imperfect members practice it.
Thank you Heber for clarifying. I love that this group can kick ideas around with different opinions without being dismissive of each other.
I believe that it could be accurately said that the “church” “teaches” for blind (that they would see as faithful) obedience and against blind (arm of the flesh) obedience. Thus we can counter lessons that seem to promote blind obedience with quotes from church leaders decrying it. There is moderation to be found somewhere in the middle. My sweet spot may differ from your sweet spot and there may be awkwardness about how we came to slightly different answers. As a wise man said, the truth of the matter will shift “greatly on our point of view.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.