"Obedience"

[Anonymous]

It’s long I’m sorry, but this is something I’ve thought a lot about.

:geek: I do not think that what we are talking about here is a question of obedience. I think it is a question of personality and respect. A question often asked is “are you a spirit of the law or a letter of it?”

Another way to put this comes from a GA; I’m sorry but I can’t remember of it was Maxwell or Holland. It was related to me by a best friend. She heard it first hand – over 10 years ago. The GA said that there are two kinds of members. The Iron-rodders and the liahonas. They are both good members, but they live the gospel differently.

The IR’s do just as the song states, they hold to the rod. They do not want to look beyond the path and the rod, the Gospel; they don’t see a need. They are meticulous in their step along the path. They fear that if it isn’t just right the Lord won’t approve. They like rules and mandates (exactly how many ear-rings they can wear and still be “good” or don’t stray from the manual in RS cuz that’s “bad”.) They are also often numbers and checklist people. “These are the exact steps I have to take to get to Heaven”. To cling to the path is safe, it’s righteousness. They feel that to look up from the path is to invite apostasy. They are loyal to the Plan and trust that the Plan will get them to Heaven. They feel that to ask questions is to doubt the Plan and therefore the Lord and therefore our Heavenly Parents. It’s very black & white to them. Unfortunately this means that if they leave the church they feel deceived and will likely not come back. Or they may even turn into anti-Mormons desperate to prove to others that the logic is wrong. I have found that Mathematicians, IT/computer people, and Businessmen or lawyers tend to be IRs.

Liahonas are those who carry the Gospel with them as a compass as they explore their surroundings. Wanderers. As Gandalf said, “not all who wander are lost” and as JG Kimball once said, “I like the strait and narrow path. I try to cross it as often as possible”. These members are seekers. They want to see the whole picture and to ask about it – to learn. They don’t like “cuz the manual says so” as an answer. They need reasons: “the Lord did it this way for this reasons so that these other things will happen.” For them asking questions is essential to eternal progression. It’s a moral imperative. It’s proving to our Heavenly Parents that we care and that we want to understand. “Ask and ye shall receive.” They trust that no matter where they go the Lord will be with them and will lead them and that no mistake is fatal. They seek spirituality from lots of sources not just “church approved”. They fully believe that anything good comes of God and that to dismiss it for not being from the Church is to dismiss the greater work of the Lord. Liahonas don’t like to be confined. They see the out-of-Gospel rule as pointless – for example Tithing counts, while the number of ear-rings you have doesn’t get you into or keep you out of heaven. They often view the ear-ring rules as closer to Satan’s plan of conformity than of the Gospel of love and feel sorry for the GAs who are forced to make these rules because of the IRs. They believe that your heart is what matters not your exterior or the numbers/checklists. These members may wander in and out of activity and they tend to wander away when hurt by something/someone in the Church – because the Lord doesn’t hurt us he saves us. They seek comfort elsewhere for a time. If they leave more permanently they often don’t make a show of it – it’s not worth it. They also tend to see value in some of the Church’s teachings so they don’t diss it. These members tend to be artist, scientists, historians and Humanities people.

An example of these types is Adam and Eve. Adam was a keeper of all of Father’s Laws, while Eve reasoned that what ever that thing called Knowledge was it was worth the risk of death – whatever that was. I’m not saying that all men are IR and that all women are LH’s, but I think that when a woman is a LH she tends to be vilified by leadership. Another example is Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. JS was a seeker of answers while BY was a that’s-just-how-it-is-get-over-it kind of guy. There is a place and time for both types.

I hope that this helps people understand that there isn’t just one way to be a member and that we need to respect that.

The terrible reality is that when these two groups collide it gets ugly. IR tend to decry the LHs as wrong and on the verge of apostasy and the LHs see the IR as controllers or exercisers of unrighteous dominion. The horrible thing is that the Church is dominated by IR I think because LH go away. I hope that this changes in time. The need is for greater respect of these differences. It’s the Gospel that matters not the “look” or numbers – these are just tools. However, even in Christ’s day there were these problems – Paul and Barnabas – and human nature hasn’t changed that much.

[Anonymous]

@Antiquarian

Very well said here. It wasn’t from a GA though. Richard D. Poll wrote the IR vs. LH description of members. You can find a copy of the talk here.

As for obedience, here’s my take. I don’t feel I have some moral obligation to keep my ideas to myself. We are not, and should not be, in the business of restricting speech. If people don’t want to listen, they don’t have to. That’s fine. But I believe it is extremely unwise to try and suppress those who have contrary ideas and opinions. This is what breeds an Orwellian society. We become hell bent on safety from a perceived threat and liberty is universally the victim. If the Brethren have truth on their side they need not fear the rantings of the disaffected.

However, having said this, I do think it is benevolent to not offend. I choose to use my free speech in a constructive manner. I do not wish to destroy the faith of others, but I do think my voice is important to provide balance. Even the anti-mormons play an important role in the church and in our society. I would not wish for them to go away, nor would I wish the TBMs to go away. We also have to realize there are consequences to our speech, and some of them may land is in unfortunate circumstances. But that’s not a good reason to restrict it.

I do think obedience is way way overrated. When there is a well-understood, important principle, I choose to live the principle because I believe it has some benefit. Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved). I do believe that if God were to require something of me (and I knew 100% it was God) I would do it whether I understood the principle or not. But since what our GAs say is the definition of “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture” (and I don’t mean that in a negative way, just an honest way) I feel at liberty to pick and choose what I think is most inline with my principles and spiritual benefits.

Quote:

We are NOT supposed to pick and choose which aspects of the church’s teachings and rules we will obey. We certainly have the right from Heavenly Father to use our agency. But no one ever has the right to infect others with his or her spirit of dissent. If one must harbor contrary views, then such views should be kept to oneself.

The really interesting part of a quote like this is that this person likely feels at ease infecting others with his or her spirit of belief. I find this in some TBMs. They feel anti-mormons, and even us StayLDSers have some obligation to keep our views to ourselves, but they have no problem peddling the historical inaccuracies, or even their own faith promoting false doctrines to me, my kids, and anyone else who will listen. It’s an accepted double standard that I hope will be rooted out someday.

[Anonymous]

Antiquarian wrote:

The Iron-rodders and the liahonas.

Yes, this analogy really seems to be a great analogy and dead on. I think the other thread about Myers-Briggs also may shed light that not all members of the church are the same, and so the tools (IR vs Liahonas) don’t universally work for all just as equally…something that may be hard for the IRs to understand and the liahonas to tolerate.

I have felt in my church experience, however, that its seems from an organizational pespective easier to lead a group of Iron-Rodders … and so more emphasis from local leadership is placed on that approach (just my experience). However, the further up the heirarchy, I feel the leaders understand more the diversity in the church and praise “liahoners” that have internal strength (not the fake liahoners that are just rebellious). David O McKay’s depiction from “Rise of Modern Mormonism” seems to paint DOM in that light, that Free Agency is paramount.

Thank you for your wonderful post, Antiquarian.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

In my opinion, Kalola, no one should feel they have to keep dissenting opinions to themselves and never discuss them. I just think there is an appropriate time and place and audience for such expressions …

Thanks for making this distinction Heber, I was going to make a similar comment.

I think there is a difference between “infecting with a spirit of dissent” and “discussing contrary views.” I hope with respect and tact we can learn to discuss differing views in a non-threatening way. I tend to think the ability to do this has as much to do with individual personalities as cultural influence.

I believe and hope that time is on our side in turning some of these cultural tendencies around to hearing, understanding, and even learning from different viewpoints. In my mind the elimination of differing views seems cultish and stifling to agency. I believe truth will cut its own way, and seekers of truth will value all views – because the cream rises to the top so to speak. This can be a little bit of a shift for some people, but again I think time is taking us there.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

I do think obedience is way way overrated.

I would agree on some aspects… but believe it is highly dependent on the principle … some obedience carries much greater value than others, it just depends on what we’re talking about, IMO.

jmb275 wrote:

Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved).

That may depend on the capacity of the individual. Someone smart and mature like yourself, I’d agree with. Someone young or new in the gospel may need obedience for obedience sake…the Israelites seemed like they needed that at times since they seemed they couldn’t handle themselves for a few days when Moses was in the mountains.

jmb275 wrote:

The really interesting part of a quote like this is that this person likely feels at ease infecting others with his or her spirit of belief. I find this in some TBMs.

I totally agree and attribute this to Stage 3 faith behaviors, its just that desire for confirming one’s faith but gets out of balance when they apply the double standard you mentioned or when they start thinking their faith applies to me and my family or others just the same as it does for them.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved).

That may depend on the capacity of the individual. Someone smart and mature like yourself, I’d agree with. Someone young or new in the gospel may need obedience for obedience sake…the Israelites seemed like they needed that at times since they seemed they couldn’t handle themselves for a few days when Moses was in the mountains.

Like Heber, I see this as a function of maturation. Pre-school aged kids for example do need to obey their parents “for obedience sake” on many things because they just don’t grasp the “why” on many levels. As they mature and grow toward adulthood I hope the pendulum will swing toward making almost all of their decisions out of understanding the long-term effects and consequences.

When I ask my older kids (when they get older) to do something I hope they will know I want them to seek clarification when they don’t understand the reason. Yes, I really appreciate their respect, but I want them to gain wisdom – not just learn perfect obedience. I think a Heavenly Father would want the same.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved).

That may depend on the capacity of the individual. Someone smart and mature like yourself, I’d agree with. Someone young or new in the gospel may need obedience for obedience sake…the Israelites seemed like they needed that at times since they seemed they couldn’t handle themselves for a few days when Moses was in the mountains.

Yes, I see what you are saying here. And I understand that from a practical standpoint this is true. Some people will be at varying levels of capability when it comes to being obedient for the right reasons. But here’s the problem. If our goal is to help people do what we think is important for them to gain salvation, then your argument is sound and we should prescribe the process. But, if we are in the business of encouraging personal growth then it is the very process that is important, not so much the end goal. It is the process that creates growth, not obedience to a set of rules. In a gov’t, and corporate setting obedience takes on a different role according to the goals thereof. But in religion, the goals are (or at least ought to be IMHO) different. We are interested in people coming to Christ. This isn’t something that obedience to rules will achieve (as is attested to by so many of us here).

You’re right, it does depend on the individual. I believe it is our job to help those who are young or new in the Gospel to learn to come to Christ. Their behavior will take care of itself without the need for rules. Wasn’t it BKP who said something about how a study of doctrine will do more to change behavior than a study of behavior? Might I extend that to say that a study of doctrine will do more to change behavior than a set of rules (and it won’t have the unintended negative consequences as well).

I’m not saying that rules aren’t necessary in a church. But I think we put way way too much emphasis on it to the point where many lose sight of the process of learning to come to Christ. They simply parrot what the Brethren have said, the right answers, and obey because they are told. Whether they are SJs or not, this doesn’t produce personal growth or a relationship with Christ (unless their relationship with Christ is simply defined by the level of their obedience to rules).

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved).

That may depend on the capacity of the individual. Someone smart and mature like yourself, I’d agree with. Someone young or new in the gospel may need obedience for obedience sake…the Israelites seemed like they needed that at times since they seemed they couldn’t handle themselves for a few days when Moses was in the mountains.

Like Heber, I see this as a function of maturation. Pre-school aged kids for example do need to obey their parents “for obedience sake” on many things because they just don’t grasp the “why” on many levels. As they mature and grow toward adulthood I hope the pendulum will swing toward making almost all of their decisions out of understanding the long-term effects and consequences.

When I ask my older kids (when they get older) to do something I hope they will know I want them to seek clarification when they don’t understand the reason. Yes, I really appreciate their respect, but I want them to gain wisdom – not just learn perfect obedience. I think a Heavenly Father would want the same.

At what point did you tell your kids that you want them to seek clarification and not just obey to obey? At what point does your expectation of them change, and how did you let them know this? Did the church ever tell us this? I see your point, but I think the analogy breaks down because we are not pre-school aged kids. Pre-schoolers are mentally too immature to make sound decisions, and hence we, as parents, have an obligation to care for them. Do we really want to entrust ourselves to our leaders as full fledged adults whether or not our understanding of the Gospel is immature? I would be concerned about any adult who feels that their relationship with the Brethren is like pre-school child to parent even if they’re a new convert.

Orson wrote:

I think a Heavenly Father would want the same.

Yes, I’m sure you’re right. But how do I avoid conflating the rules from the Brethren and the church with the rules from Heavenly Father?

[Anonymous]

I think I am in step with Orson and agree with all his comments. Very good clarifications.

I think I’m in the same camp as you, JMB, I understand where you are coming from and agree with you the main goal is having your heart right, which is God’s plan for us to progress, whereas only obedience was Lucifer’s plan and was rejected because it won’t work to achieve God’s purpose, which is eternal life and immortality for all His children.

jmb275 wrote:

It is the process that creates growth, not obedience to a set of rules.

This is a great quote!

The only caveat is that while “liahona” based obedience is the process that likely leads to growth, Iron-Rod obediance can have the benefit of safely keeping one from unintended consequences (in some but not all cases).

I guess this is based on my belief that truth is universal, that whether you undersand the gospel principle or not, going against it will bring negative consequences even if you didn’t know why. Therefore, small children or the uninformed latter day saint (whichever situation we’re talking about) would be “safer” by obeying a safety principle (commandment) whether they know why or not. That does not say they will benefit from growth, but will benefit from safety.

The frustration I have is that too many of the little rules in the church are given way too much attention by too many people in the church and may overshadow principles of love…and those rub me the wrong way.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The frustration I have is that too many of the little rules in the church are given way too much attention by too many people in the church and may overshadow principles of love…and those rub me the wrong way.

When the principle gets lost in the midst of multiple rules . . .

There is a reason the Law of Moses was implemented, and there is a reason it was fulfilled. There also is a reason even Jesus taught fundamental rules and commandments. It’s the balance that is difficult, imo.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

jmb said…I do think obedience is way way overrated. When there is a well-understood, important principle, I choose to live the principle because I believe it has some benefit. Obedience for obedience sake is too scary for me to submit to it (at least when humans are involved). I do believe that if God were to require something of me (and I knew 100% it was God) I would do it whether I understood the principle or not. But since what our GAs say is the definition of “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture” (and I don’t mean that in a negative way, just an honest way) I feel at liberty to pick and choose what I think is most inline with my principles and spiritual benefits.

Two old testament stories come to mind about obedience: 1 Samuel 15th chapter…Saul is heading home with some cattle after destroying the Amalekites…Samuel tells Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice. Abraham is told to sacrifice his son, we all know that that was a similitude of the Father’s sacrifice of his Son. From a human perspective neither one of these commands made a whole lot of sense, and from what i’ve been reading on these threads, we may all have done what Saul did. But Abraham did it just because he was told to. I have always been afraid of such a test and have wondered if my eternal future rested on whether I followed Sauls example, or Abrahams.

[Anonymous]

jeriboy wrote:

Samuel tells Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice.

I think this is why I don’t like the OT so much. In my mind, this is such a false choice: the answer is always love. But the IR’s insist that it’s sacrifice and obedience. Sacrifice and obedience will inherently be a part of true unconditional love, but done with the right intentions and usually free of unintended consequences. fwiw, imho.

[Anonymous]

I love the OT for what I can learn from it.

I almost never try to “liken it unto myself” when it speaks of cultural practices and stories that might or might not be literal. There simply are WAY too many instances where doing so scares the living daylights out of me – whatever that phrase means.

Frankly, I feel the same way about much of the BofM – since it also represents an OT culture and perspective. I love it, but I am very wary of likening its cultural descriptions directly to our time.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I feel that same way about the Book of Mormon, as well as D&C, NT and OT. In fact, I view it a lot like how I view the “White Bible” – you remember the handbook for missionaries that had exact commandments to wake up at a certain time, write home to you family weekly but never call, and of course, also reminded missionaries they are not to date while on missions.

Those were all good things for me to discipline myself and focus myself while in a certain place in life, but they did not work for me after my mission or since (thankfully).

I still find it interesting that God does require obedience to things like baptism, temples, etc. I find it interesting Christ knew the important things (still went to John for baptism, and was willing to go through with the crucifixion), yet knew that many things were “done away with” from OT times (blood sacrifice in the temples, etc). Things that we need to be obedient change from time to time, but we still seem to be required to be obedient. It is interesting to me.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

At what point did you tell your kids that you want them to seek clarification and not just obey to obey? At what point does your expectation of them change, and how did you let them know this?

I try to introduce the concept by the time they are in school. Just this morning I told my 2nd grader to immediately leave what she was doing and get in the car to go to school (she sometimes has difficulty breaking away). On the way to school I tried to explain that I only demanded her specific action because I’m trying to help her understand how to make good decisions. (“When it’s time to go to school you go so you won’t be late – being on time to school is more important than finishing a task at home.”) I told her that’s our job as parents, to help them learn how to make smart decisions. Several times before I’ve said “if you don’t understand why we ask you to do certain things please ask.” I really believe it’s more important for them to develop a sound and independent decision making ability than to end up “perfectly obedient” as teenagers.

Whether we like it or not they will make their own decisions soon enough – whether they’re ready to or not. I hope to help them be more ready than not. In my mind (I have not dealt with teenagers in the home yet) I hope to say “I trust you to make a good decision” more often than not as they grow through high school. When they live under your roof you have the opportunity to discuss the good and bad results to specific decisions, if their first chance to make their own decisions is after they leave – who’s going to observe and talk it over with them?

jmb275 wrote:

I see your point, but I think the analogy breaks down because we are not pre-school aged kids. Pre-schoolers are mentally too immature to make sound decisions, and hence we, as parents, have an obligation to care for them. Do we really want to entrust ourselves to our leaders as full fledged adults whether or not our understanding of the Gospel is immature? I would be concerned about any adult who feels that their relationship with the Brethren is like pre-school child to parent even if they’re a new convert.

Hmmm… I guess I only see a cultural phenomenon that breaks down with the application of this analogy. I certainly don’t see a significant “age difference” (young child to adult) between the larger church membership and the leaders. I view this “mortal existence” as something like a youth summer camp – away from “home.” No, we don’t have any “adults” here (that would require God status) so effectively we have “youth” leaders that take the phone calls dealing with camp administration issues. We also have our own calls to home, and when in question about what we should do I think you have to consider the experience of the youth leader, but also follow your heart and consider your calls home. In the end it’s your decision and you will bear responsibility for it.

jmb275 wrote:

But how do I avoid conflating the rules from the Brethren and the church with the rules from Heavenly Father?

I think that is an excellent question, …perhaps one of the primary questions that we have our lives to work on. Sometimes I wonder if this specific test is designed into the program to really test our independent leadership ability — afterall, is our purpose at camp to grow into a responsible “adult”? What is the balance?

[Author]

Posts