Your thoughts on church leaders

[TripletDaddy]

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.

That also sounds great in concept.

Oh, that the pious were that way.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

Indeed. On this issue, leaders want their cake and to eat it too. It's cafeteria Mormonism writ large.

[cowboy]

That also sounds great in concept.

Oh, that the pious were that way.

I don't think the need to be that way is limited to the pious.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Whoa, cowboy. Confirmation?

Here is what you said:

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.

Since he and I were the only two parties to the conversation, I am positive that he was speaking directly to me. So if there is any "confirmation" to be had, it would be to determine whether or not he was speaking the will of the Lord. If that is what you are suggesting, then you have changed your argument 180 degrees (see your first two sentences in the quote).

[cowboy]

Whoa, cowboy. Confirmation?

Since he and I were the only two parties to the conversation, I am positive that he was speaking directly to me. So if there is any "confirmation" to be had, it would be to determine whether or not he was speaking the will of the Lord. If that is what you are suggesting, then you have changed your argument 180 degrees (see your first two sentences in the quote).

I can't decide whether you are purposely misrepresenting the intent of my post in a game of semantics gotcha, if I didn't make myself clear, or if you're just being mule headed.

I have never said that blind obedience is required or even expected of us. In fact, I thought I made it clear that, while I believe the Lord expects us to be obedient, there are certainly times when we shouldn't be.

Regardless of whether our leaders are right or wrong, I think the Lord expects us to follow their counsel. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and we ultimately need to decide for ourselves. Still, unless directions from our leaders would cause spiritual or physical harm to ourselves or others, I believe we are blessed for our obedience.

I think it goes without saying that, if there will be times that we shouldn't follow counsel, then we need to decide each time we receive counsel if this is one of those times. My reply to UD, which you latched onto, referred to counsel given to members collectively. Specifically, I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether counsel given to us over the pulpit is inspired or not. Rather, I believe our charge is to decide how we act upon the directions we receive. My use of "ever" without adding "to members collectively" was not the best word choice, but considering the context of the discussion, I thought it was clear enough, particularly in light of the sentence that I followed it with:

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.

You seem hell-bent on couching me as a blind obedience mullah, which I believe I have clearly demonstrated in this thread is not the case.

[creekster]

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.

Well, I meant was anyone surprised that others did it this way. I wasn't suggesting one should be conscious of the unconscious act. But I obviously failed to communicate my point. Sorry.

[UtahDan]

Well, I meant was anyone surprised that others did it this way. I wasn't suggesting one should be conscious of the unconscious act. But I obviously failed to communicate my point. Sorry.

You are so much fun to tease.

[creekster]

You are so much fun to tease.

You ever tease the chimps at the zoo? come a little closer and do it again. . .

[UtahDan]

You ever tease the chimps at the zoo? come a little closer and do it again. . .

A chimp can rip your arm right off.

[Paperback Writer]

I think it goes without saying that, if there will be times that we shouldn't follow counsel, then we need to decide each time we receive counsel if this is one of those times. My reply to UD, which you latched onto, referred to counsel given to members collectively. Specifically, I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether counsel given to us over the pulpit is inspired or not. Rather, I believe our charge is to decide how we act upon the directions we receive. My use of "ever" without adding "to members collectively" was not the best word choice, but considering the context of the discussion, I thought it was clear enough, particularly in light of the sentence that I followed it with:

This is where I get confused in the argument. Not that the reasoning is bad; just that peoples' experiences are different so that understanding the argument can be challenging for some.

Almost all counsel me and my family receives is collective. It's over the pulpit; not in the Bishop's office. So the counsel is inspired but only if one decides it applies to him or his family??? I think it's very possible that some counsel given over the pulpit is non-applicable for most and thus not inspired.

Again, everyone's experience will be different; especially at the ward and stake levels. But when a SP says from the pulpit that he questions the merits of YM playing competitive football because it leaves little time for more noble pursuits...I got to call into question whether those are inspired words or not. Especially when I'm working with sons and other YM who are honors students, attending Seminary every morning, fulfilling priesthood responsibilities, and are gifted football players...and are made to feel guilty for it...by a SP who never put on shoulder pads. Just one example, I know. But I prefer to think it was uninspired counsel based on a few YM who played football at the expense of going inactive rather than the majority who played football and are on track for acceptance to a good college and serving a mission. Or I guess I could look at it as inspired counsel but just not applicable to all the YM/football players I knew personally. Could have said the same thing about band participation...but then his kids were in the band and not on the football team.

[wuapinmon]

Which would be more beneficial to the world? An organization that gives away all its excess every year and never grows and remains a small local church? Or an organization that has an aggressive business operation that grows from nothing to the equivalent of a $6B global organization, which has reserves enough to basically fund itself for perpetuity and can give a portion of that total value to the poor every year?

So, basically, most Republicans want the Federal Government to run itself like the LDS Church.

[TripletDaddy]

This is where I get confused in the argument. Not that the reasoning is bad; just that peoples' experiences are different so that understanding the argument can be challenging for some.

Almost all counsel me and my family receives is collective. It's over the pulpit; not in the Bishop's office. So the counsel is inspired but only if one decides it applies to him or his family??? I think it's very possible that some counsel given over the pulpit is non-applicable for most and thus not inspired.

Again, everyone's experience will be different; especially at the ward and stake levels. But when a SP says from the pulpit that he questions the merits of YM playing competitive football because it leaves little time for more noble pursuits...I got to call into question whether those are inspired words or not. Especially when I'm working with sons and other YM who are honors students, attending Seminary every morning, fulfilling priesthood responsibilities, and are gifted football players...and are made to feel guilty for it...by a SP who never put on shoulder pads. Just one example, I know. But I prefer to think it was uninspired counsel based on a few YM who played football at the expense of going inactive rather than the majority who played football and are on track for acceptance to a good college and serving a mission. Or I guess I could look at it as inspired counsel but just not applicable to all the YM/football players I knew personally. Could have said the same thing about band participation...but then his kids were in the band and not on the football team.

One of my old stake presidents (and one of the best people I have ever met, btw...this guy was and is top notch) shared a thought during stake conference regarding something he called "the family filter." He said that before he made a decision, he asked, "will doing _____ strengthen my family?" He encouraged all of us to do the same.

The unfortunate aspect of an otherwise sound general suggestion was that he made zero concessions to the numerous invariable exceptions that would surely follow such a binary edict. As a result, we had several spirited discussions in PEC in the following weeks..."Bishop, I'm not sure we should take the YM to ____ for mutual....does it really strengthen the family?" Or, "Susie has a school play but Tommy has soccer practice. niether of these things is strengthening the family...they are forcing us to spend time apart..."

It became an annoying buzz phrase within the stake. Some folks started using it as an excuse to not fulfill callings or duties (I dont want to help the new couple move in....that wont directly strengthen my family). As EQP, I learned of a few bits of infighting because some over-zealous wives felt that their husbands should watch no more sports (to hell with that!)

Overall I think the SP had a nice suggestion. What I believe he was saying was that we should look for ways to strengthen our family and not let ourselves be consumed by things that take us away from them. What he should have added was another sentence that explained that it is still ok for individuals to have their pursuits...for Susie and Tommy and the YM and the husband that watches sports.

In this case, the people that obeyed the SP literally were doing what he said. Those that chose to ditch the Family Filter and continue doing what worked for them were technically not following the SP. And from a very real point of view, the SP really didnt offer anything novel with his admonition. So in looking at that example, Im not sure whether the SP was inspired, whether people were disobedient, or whether people should have simply taken his stake conference talk with a grain of salt, applying it as they best see fit. I saw a series of reactions that crossed the entire spectrum. It was certainly interesting to see how broad the spectrum of interpretation is when our local and global leaders speak.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I can't decide whether you are purposely misrepresenting the intent of my post in a game of semantics gotcha, if I didn't make myself clear, or if you're just being mule headed.

I have never said that blind obedience is required or even expected of us. In fact, I thought I made it clear that, while I believe the Lord expects us to be obedient, there are certainly times when we shouldn't be.

I think it goes without saying that, if there will be times that we shouldn't follow counsel, then we need to decide each time we receive counsel if this is one of those times. My reply to UD, which you latched onto, referred to counsel given to members collectively. Specifically, I don't think it is ever our place to decide whether counsel given to us over the pulpit is inspired or not. Rather, I believe our charge is to decide how we act upon the directions we receive. My use of "ever" without adding "to members collectively" was not the best word choice, but considering the context of the discussion, I thought it was clear enough, particularly in light of the sentence that I followed it with:

You seem hell-bent on couching me as a blind obedience mullah, which I believe I have clearly demonstrated in this thread is not the case.

I am not trying to twist anything. Honestly, I am trying to understand what you are saying. With all due respect, your reasoning seems ambiguous to me. Maybe I am mule-headed.

[cowboy]

Almost all counsel me and my family receives is collective. It's over the pulpit; not in the Bishop's office. So the counsel is inspired but only if one decides it applies to him or his family??? I think it's very possible that some counsel given over the pulpit is non-applicable for most and thus not inspired.

Don't confuse applicable with inspired. Directions from the pulpit may be inspired, but because everyone's situation is unique it may not necessarily be applicable.

Again, everyone's experience will be different; especially at the ward and stake levels. But when a SP says from the pulpit that he questions the merits of YM playing competitive football because it leaves little time for more noble pursuits...

I think we all struggle with situations like this. I've decided that, whether I agree with them or not, I try not to speculate as to the extent inspiration was involved. Rather, I decide if I can apply it to my life or not and let it be from there. That's what I try to do. In real life, I can't always keep my mouth shut, especially in situations like yours.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One of my old stake presidents (and one of the best people I have ever met, btw...this guy was and is top notch) shared a thought during stake conference regarding something he called "the family filter." He said that before he made a decision, he asked, "will doing _____ strengthen my family?" He encouraged all of us to do the same.

The unfortunate aspect of an otherwise sound general suggestion was that he made zero concessions to the numerous invariable exceptions that would surely follow such a binary edict. As a result, we had several spirited discussions in PEC in the following weeks..."Bishop, I'm not sure we should take the YM to ____ for mutual....does it really strengthen the family?" Or, "Susie has a school play but Tommy has soccer practice. niether of these things is strengthening the family...they are forcing us to spend time apart..."

It became an annoying buzz phrase within the stake. Some folks started using it as an excuse to not fulfill callings or duties (I dont want to help the new couple move in....that wont directly strengthen my family). As EQP, I learned of a few bits of infighting because some over-zealous wives felt that their husbands should watch no more sports (to hell with that!)

Overall I think the SP had a nice suggestion. What I believe he was saying was that we should look for ways to strengthen our family and not let ourselves be consumed by things that take us away from them. What he should have added was another sentence that explained that it is still ok for individuals to have their pursuits...for Susie and Tommy and the YM and the husband that watches sports.

In this case, the people that obeyed the SP literally were doing what he said. Those that chose to ditch the Family Filter and continue doing what worked for them were technically not following the SP. And from a very real point of view, the SP really didnt offer anything novel with his admonition. So in looking at that example, Im not sure whether the SP was inspired, whether people were disobedient, or whether people should have simply taken his stake conference talk with a grain of salt, applying it as they best see fit. I saw a series of reactions that crossed the entire spectrum. It was certainly interesting to see how broad the spectrum of interpretation is when our local and global leaders speak.

That's a fascinating story, TD. I can just imagine the various reactions.