Your thoughts on church leaders

[Sleeping in EQ]

Interesting question and interesting thoughts in response.

I have come to the conclusion in my life that the leaders, both church wide and locally have the authority to act in God's name. Having the authority doesn't necessarily mean they always do so through inspiration.

Therefor, when it comes to matters of spending the churches money, calling people to positions in the church, deciding when to hold meetings, deciding the churches position on what they consider moral matters, I would never contest their right to decide those things, whether I thought they were inspired or not.

On the other hand, when it comes to matters affecting me personally, I think I have a clearer channel to inspiration for me than they do. I am not stupid enough not to take their counsel seriously, but not so seriously as to follow it to prove I am obedient.

This seems like a healthy approach.

[BlueHair]

I agree with most of this. But I don't turn my decision making over to someone else either. Just because someone gives counsel doesn't mean that I have to follow it. And if I decide to follow the counsel given it doesn't mean I have given up my agency and am following blindly.

Sorry, my wording was clumsy. I didn't mean to infer that anyone was blindly following.

[UtahDan]

Sure we do. I would go farther, however and say we do it both unconsciously and consciously with specific intent.

THis doesnt bother me, btw. Is anyone surprised or upset by this thought?

Well they aren't anything if it is unconscious. Apes.

[UtahDan]

I suppose I was the one that first used the term "agency" in this thread so I will apologize for that. That word is radioactive so it should be used sparingly.

So what is it I am trying to describe? Blind obedience? (another loaded expression).

This goes right to the point I was making in the bat shit thread. People do things that seem objectively irrational, but are rational to them, in light of a premise they accept and stop questioning.

What you are calling blind obedience, I would call someone having accepted the premise that priesthood leaders speak for God and are to be obeyed at all times or at least that it is better to follow than not to follow even if they turn out to be wrong. If you believe that and stop questioning it, you will do whatever you are told because you have made the decision to follow. If I accept you speak for God, when you tell me to make a bomb out of my underwear and get on a plane, I will do it.

Now I don't think that is most people here and probably not most people. Most of them don't actually accept that priesthood leaders speak for God at all times and the lower the level the less they think he speaks for God. The result is what I view as a cognitively dissonant view (which is maybe the majority view here?) that priesthood leaders do in fact speak for God sometimes, but not all the time, and so members are free to decide on a case by case basis when they don't. Leadership, of course, says exactly the opposite re: obedience.

[creekster]

Well they aren't anything if it is unconscious. Apes.

? We arent unconscious when we make that choice, but we sometimes make that choice without being conscious of it. You disagree?



(that choice being whether to refer to 'church' or people/individuals)

[creekster]

This goes right to the point I was making in the bat shit thread. People do things that seem objectively irrational, but are rational to them, in light of a premise they accept and stop questioning.

What you are calling blind obedience, I would call someone having accepted the premise that priesthood leaders speak for God and are to be obeyed at all times or at least that it is better to follow than not to follow even if they turn out to be wrong. If you believe that and stop questioning it, you will do whatever you are told because you have made the decision to follow. If I accept you speak for God, when you tell me to make a bomb out of my underwear and get on a plane, I will do it.

Now I don't think that is most people here and probably not most people. Most of them don't actually accept that priesthood leaders speak for God at all times and the lower the level the less they think he speaks for God. The result is what I view as a cognitively dissonant view (which is maybe the majority view here?) that priesthood leaders do in fact speak for God sometimes, but not all the time, and so members are free to decide on a case by case basis when they don't. Leadership, of course, says exactly the opposite re: obedience.

If it is possible to make a bomb out of your underwear I think you should try to change it more often.

[byu71]

but not all the time, and so members are free to decide on a case by case basis when they don't. Leadership, of course, says exactly the opposite re: obedience.

Leadership can't say the option not to follow is available, even though I know of Apostles who have advised children contrary to what is spoken from the pulpit. They can't because of the slippery slope metaphor. Once you tell membership in the group they have the freedom to disagree or not follow, order breaks down.

I can understand why in one place Elder Holland might say "members should follow the brethern even if they know they are wrong" and yet somewhere else talk about leaders being fallable.

[UtahDan]

? We arent unconscious when we make that choice, but we sometimes make that choice without being conscious of it. You disagree?



(that choice being whether to refer to 'church' or people/individuals)

You asked whether people are surprised, I'm just saying that people aren't anything if they aren't aware of it. It is a surprise if you didn't know you were doing it. But since it is human nature to do that, the surprise probably wears off pretty quickly.

[cowboy]

The result is what I view as a cognitively dissonant view (which is maybe the majority view here?) that priesthood leaders do in fact speak for God sometimes, but not all the time, and so members are free to decide on a case by case basis when they don't.

I think this gets to the area where I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether a leader is speaking for God. If we believe this is God's church, then we believe that the leaders have the authority to speak on God's behalf. Instead, I believe that we should assume our leaders are directed by inspiration, but because advice is rarely one-size-fits-all we should prayerfully decide whether the counsel applies to us.

[UtahDan]

Leadership can't say the option not to follow is available, even though I know of Apostles who have advised children contrary to what is spoken from the pulpit. They can't because of the slippery slope metaphor. Once you tell membership in the group they have the freedom to disagree or not follow, order breaks down.

I can understand why in one place Elder Holland might say "members should follow the brethern even if they know they are wrong" and yet somewhere else talk about leaders being fallable.

I hear what you are saying. Saying one thing and potentially meaning another is the legacy of underground polygamy as Damien Smith argues so well. It is so much a part of the fabric of our culture that we scarcely think about it.

But I disagree that chaos would result from saying in public what is only now said in private. It would only be telling them that it is okay to do what 99% of them are already doing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think this gets to the area where I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether a leader is speaking for God. If we believe this is God's church, then we believe that the leaders have the authority to speak on God's behalf. Instead, I believe that we should assume our leaders are directed by inspiration, but because advice is rarely one-size-fits-all we should prayerfully decide whether the counsel applies to us.

That sounds great in concept, but things get problematic when it comes to implementation. For example, do you think it was God telling me to spy on my fellow ward members?

[Jacob]

While not in the bishopric I felt this way when in the mission office. My MP always said to me that 90% of inspiration was information.

I had heard something similar about the process by which people were assigned to missions. And I remember it being a GA who told me. Then, last conference or so, a guy from the 70 declares that each individual call is a matter of direct revelation based on his experience helping Elder (Eyring?) Sort some mission calls. I appreciated the attempt to demonstrate some examples modern revelation.

[UtahDan]

I think this gets to the area where I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether a leader is speaking for God. If we believe this is God's church, then we believe that the leaders have the authority to speak on God's behalf. Instead, I believe that we should assume our leaders are directed by inspiration, but because advice is rarely one-size-fits-all we should prayerfully decide whether the counsel applies to us.

That is actually very clever. It is a loophole so large you could conceivably drive a beheading or an infanticide through it.

[Jacob]

I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether a leader is speaking for God. If we believe this is God's church, then we believe that the leaders have the authority to speak on God's behalf. Instead, I believe that we should assume our leaders are directed by inspiration, but because advice is rarely one-size-fits-all we should prayerfully decide whether the counsel applies to us.

In my experience, most people act in good faith, and based upon their best understanding of scripture and policy, but rarely based on revelation. So why should the assumption be that everything is revelation. Seems backwards to me. Perhaps your experience is different than mine in that regard.

[cowboy]

That sounds great in concept, but things get problematic when it comes to implementation. For example, do you think it was God telling me to spy on my fellow ward members?

I'm not sure what is problematic about it. If a leader speaks to the church, the only person you have to worry about is you. Just because a leader's counsel (request) was specific to you doesn't mean you shouldn't seek confirmation for yourself.