Your thoughts on church leaders

[Indy Coug]

Based on 40+ years of personal experience, spiritual and otherwise, I have determined the default position for me is that the counsel from our sustained leaders is correct, or at least sufficiently acceptable to God. It's not blind faith, it's the byproduct of lengthy, informal hypothesis testing.

If something perchance comes across the wires that seems a little askew from what I would expect to receive as counsel, then I am perfectly free to give that counsel additional thought/prayer/etc.

In practice, I really can't recall having had such a moment. When I fail to or deliberately choose not to follow counsel (which is often enough), it's invariably a matter of my own personal failings and not because what I was asked to was fundamentally wrong.

[Flystripper]

When first called to a Bishopric, I was kind of surprised to see how cavalier the whole calling thing happens. It was more of a juggling skill than a spiritual skill.

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.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Sullyute has touched a nerve. "The Church" gets credit for doing good and "Church members" get blamed for doing bad. The definition of "Church" shifts for rhetorical convenience.

[Indy Coug]

Sullyute has touched a nerve. "The Church" gets credit for doing good and "Church members" get blamed for doing bad. The definition of "Church" shifts for rhetorical convenience.

Funny, in this forum, I get exactly the opposite impression.

[creekster]

Sullyute has touched a nerve. "The Church" gets credit for doing good and "Church members" get blamed for doing bad. The definition of "Church" shifts for rhetorical convenience.

Or perhaps it is also intuitive or conscious recognition that the principles of the Church are good and lead to good results whereas failures of the organization to render a good result is not the fault of the principles, but of the implementation of same through flawed people.

caveat: I have not plowed through this whole thread.

[LA Ute]

I'm late to the party here and will just make a quick comment. Like all aspects of religious conviction and experience, the answer to questions like Cowboy's varies for everyone. My own service in church callings has taught me that leaders are guided by the Spirit, not perfectly and not always, but the guidance is there when it counts. Examples:

• When I was an EQP and searching for counselors, it just seemed clear to me who I should call. One of them seemed like a crazy calling to extend but I did extend it, and that decision brought many unexpected blessings.
  
• Also, after I was set apart as EQP I felt completely different about the members of my quorum (even some I did not especially care for previously). I felt the Lord's love for them and it changed my view of them forever. The difference was very notable - almost astonishing to me.
  
• In bishoprics the other counselor, the bishop, and I would all come to a meeting with the name of the same person for a particular calling - even when it didn't seem to make sense. After praying about it separately we felt even more strongly about the calling.
  
• I am sure many here have had the experience, while in a calling with some mantle of stewardship to it, of having a quorum or ward member continally on our minds. Finally, depending on how obtuse we are, we realize we probbaly need to check on that person, and when we do we find there is a need.
  
• When I am out of the calling, those thoughts and impressions just don't come.

Sure, there are other explanations for these kinds of feelings, but I choose to see them as inspiration. That's what they feel like to me and that's what my mind tells me they are. Others here, no doubt, have had similar experiences. So yes, I think church leaders at all levels are inspired, more often than they are not. It's an imperfect and humanity-riddled process, but it is inspired, IMO.

I respect the views of others. Just sharing the way it is for me.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Funny, in this forum, I get exactly the opposite impression.

Oh sure, the opposite happens too. My point is that "The Church" is so very conveniently defined.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What are local leaders asking us to do that require us to cede agency to them? Other than being given a calling, I can't recall ever being asked to do anything by a local leader that wasn't within the realm of mundane church work.

I have some computer skills. A few years ago my bishop asked me to help out some sisters in the ward by installing key-logging software on their husbands computers because the wives suspected they were viewing porn. I thought it was a horrible idea and I told him so.

I have other stories like this. He meant well but he had poor judgment at times.

[LA Ute]

When first called to a Bishopric, I was kind of surprised to see how cavalier the whole calling thing happens. It was more of a juggling skill than a spiritual skill.

In my experience this varies from bishop to bishop. As an ancient guy I've had a chances to serve with a number of different bishops. Some have been pretty casual and others have been very structured and prayerful about callings. Like I said below, it's an imperfect process.

[UtahDan]

Oh sure, the opposite happens too. My point is that "The Church" is so very conveniently defined.

I think this is unconsciously done for the most part. This will sound silly to some, but I bet not everyone here has the same idea of what the church actually is. What is "the church?" Is it the members? The leaders? The corporation that owns the property? An idea (sort of like asking what Rome was)? A set of teachings?

I think we do move our definition all over the place without thinking about it.

[Surfah]

Clearly it is not possible to turn over your free will. It can't be done. What one can do, however, is make the decision that when direction comes from a trusted source, no further analysis is necessary.

If Gabers woke me up and screamed at me to grab the kids and get the hell out of the house, there wouldn't be any questioning or pondering. I would do it. If she called me on the phone and said "I am at location X, I need you to come here right away," again, I would go and ask questions later. So in many ways, and on a lot of issues, I would decide that I trust her and would make the decision to do as she asked. If she came home today and told me that she was donating our mortgage payment to the local Mosque, however, there would be some discussion about that and I would not feel compelled to simply trust her on that. And then again, if she called and said "I'm at Walmart picking up half a dozen large inflatable lawn ornaments, can you transfer some money" I would probably not be tickled about it, but would quickly conclude that it is not a big enough deal for me to question it.

I think this is more or less how every believer approaches their relationship with the church. Somethings require no analysis but some things do. Where the real difference begins, and where people begin to talk past each other I think, is when a person does not trust the church to have done the analysis correctly. Then it becomes hard for them to just go with the inflatable lawn ornaments.

Agreed.

Inflatable lawn ornaments are never acceptable. However there is a home in our neighborhood that has every tacky Christmas display imaginable adorning their yard. Frankly it's so ridiculous and eclectic that it's awesome. The fact that pretty much everyone in the neighborhood hates it makes it even more rad.

[YOhio]

I have some computer skills. A few years ago my bishop asked me to help out some sisters in the ward by installing key-logging software on their husbands computers because the wives suspected they were viewing porn. I thought it was a horrible idea and I told him so.

I have other stories like this. He meant well but he had poor judgment at times.

What the....? That's messed up. I can't believe he thought you'd play the rat like that.

[creekster]

I think we do move our definition all over the place without thinking about it.

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?

[byu71]

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.

To those who do believe the principal of following for obedience sake, it might be a real positive in their lives. If you believe something strong enough, I am a believer that good things can come from that belief for that person.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It is all optional. No one, ever, concedes agency to a church leader. If choosing to follow the church makes you lose agency then you never had it, becaseu you make decisions virutally every moment of every day and, by using the logic here, that act forfeits your agency.

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).

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." Brigham Young, JD 3:45.