Your thoughts on church leaders

[ERCougar]

I would be very curious to see how Dallin Oaks defines blind obedience.

That was exactly my thought as I read that. The way he seems to be narrowly defining it, I don't think blind obedience occurs anywhere, even in Jonestown. The Jonestown followers based their trust on something--whether it be charisma, a sense of unity, emotion, or what they perceived to be the Spirit. That definition therefore doesn't seem to be very useful to me.

I would say that blind obedience is exactly what Oaks seems to be saying is appropriate--ignoring the validity of the counsel on its own and trusting in the authority of the giver. There may be times where that is appropriate, but in my opinion, it rarely is (in a fully mature adult). That's why we teach about the Spirit--and what differentiates us from a cult.

[UtahDan]

I would be very curious to see how Dallin Oaks defines blind obedience.

I hate the term "blind" because it seems to be an impediment to discussion. I don't know what is better though. I think Oaks is saying it is not blind when you follow counsel that turns out to work. The problem there is that this is not really the test that is being set up. If the counsel turns out not to work or make sense, then the Lord must have intended it not to or something was lost through the imperfections of men. That isn't really a test of evidence because it only admits of one conclusion. That is why his analogy to scientific evidence is off the mark.

[wally]

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.

Holy shit, are we this anal retentive as mormons? I mean I'v been in some wards and stakes and seen this response to a comment in passing at stake conference, but something about seeing it written out.....sheesh.

[ERCougar]

I hate the term "blind" because it seems to be an impediment to discussion. I don't know what is better though. I think Oaks is saying it is not blind when you follow counsel that turns out to work. The problem there is that this is not really the test that is being set up. If the counsel turns out not to work or make sense, then the Lord must have intended it not to or something was lost through the imperfections of men. That isn't really a test of evidence because it only admits of one conclusion. That is why his analogy to scientific evidence is off the mark.

This is something that bugs me a little bit about Oaks. I have no doubt that he is incredibly intelligent and could run circles around anyone I know. However, he makes so many (seemingly) silly analogies/comparisons/definitions that are so unsatisfying that I have to believe it's intentional. Why? Is he just trying to ignore the people on the fringes? For example, this definition of blind obedience isn't going to answer anyone who has questions about following counsel--it likely make all of the non-questioners feel more comfortable in perfectly obeying their leaders. As someone who has spent his life in the legal field, he has to know this. So why does he do this?

This is far from an isolated example.

NOTE: I'm not questioning the man's integrity or intelligence here. Maybe he just doesn't see the utility of talking to the fringe (sorry--I can't think of a better term)?

[ERCougar]

Holy shit, are we this anal retentive as mormons?

I really wonder if this thought doesn't occasionally go through church leaders' heads. They could be much less careful about how they word things if people wouldn't go crazy over them.

[wally]

I really wonder if this thought doesn't occasionally go through church leaders' heads. They could be much less careful about how they word things if people wouldn't go crazy over them.

It's not any specific leaders fault that we are an anal people. It is cultural. We have built a culture that values authority. Natural instinct to compete creates a "competitive obedience to authority" which breeds the anal retentiveness IMO.

I don't think that any leader masterminded it. I also think that it serves us well in some cases.

[Surfah]

I really wonder if this thought doesn't occasionally go through church leaders' heads. They could be much less careful about how they word things if people wouldn't go crazy over them.

I am sure it does all of the time. I have sat in enough PECs to know that the thought occurs at the local level. Does it matter though? People will interpret the most vague and even the most explicit counsel however they want. This reminds me of one of Brother Bott's famous Q and A sessions at BYU. Someone asked if he drank caffeine free drinks. He said he wouldn't answer the question because he didn't want to be used in an argument for or against it.

[mUUser]

As BRM said it is our job to listen or remain silent.

Sir, it's time to put the counsel of MEP, BRM and several others out to pasture. There's no room for it in the 21st century.

It's not any specific leaders fault that we are an anal people. It is cultural. We have built a culture that values authority. Natural instinct to compete creates a "competitive obedience to authority" which breeds the anal retentiveness IMO.

Terrific insight.

[LA Ute]

You are missing my point of view.

Yes, I am. I just didn't see anything in your post that reflected what Elder Oaks was saying.

[KillerDog]

I don't think there is substantial inspiration at work in the Church. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a calling made where the individual making the calling claimed inspiration but the calling was predictable based on who the individual knew, the interests of the parties, obvious tendencies etc. For example, two brothers raised in the same home one year apart in age fill out their mission paperwork. One brother puts on his mission paperwork that the family has had spanish speaking friends live in the home and teach spanish to the children for the previous 5-6 years. The other brother does not. The two brothers speak the same amount of spanish. The brother who puts the additional information is called to Venezuela on a spanish speaking mission. The brother who didn't include the additional information is called to an english speaking mission.

I've also seen numerous "inspired" priesthood blessing go unfulfilled. People then scramble and try to resolve the conflict caused by the event. I know a young man who was called to the hospital to visit his father and give him a blessing. At the time, the sickness seemed mild. The young man blessed his father that he would return to health because he had more work to do in this life. The next day, after the initial indications that the illness was serious, the father asked for another blessing. The son, "feeling inspired" by the first blessing, gave the same blessing. The father died 36 hours later.

At the end of the day, I highly doubt there is inspiration or revelation beyond the "inspiration" that is natural in a flexible and intelligent mind. The best inspiration in the Church comes from those who are the smartest.

[cowboy]

I would be very curious to see how Dallin Oaks defines blind obedience.

I believe TSM to be a modern day prophet, but I don't necessarily believe everything he says as a result.

I would say that blind obedience is exactly what Oaks seems to be saying is appropriate--ignoring the validity of the counsel on its own and trusting in the authority of the giver.

These comments get to the heart of my question: How do you act upon counsel from leaders? Do you pray about everything they say or do you just listen and follow if you think it sounds like a good idea? If we're not willing to take most advice at face value, and follow it if possible, then why do we have leaders in the first place? Why doesn't He just have us do our own thing as the He dictates in our lives?

[ERCougar]

If we're not willing to take most advice at face value, and follow it if possible, then why do we have leaders in the first place? Why doesn't He just have us do our own thing as the He dictates in our lives?

To prompt ideas for personal reflection. The same reason I would read a book. I'm not understanding why this is such a troublesome approach. We're not in the military.

[mUUser]

These comments get to the heart of my question: How do you act upon counsel from leaders? Do you pray about everything they say or do you just listen and follow if you think it sounds like a good idea? If we're not willing to take most advice at face value, and follow it if possible, then why do we have leaders in the first place? Why doesn't He just have us do our own thing as the He dictates in our lives?

Yes. I try to use a common sense approach.

Following counsel whether right or wrong, good or bad, doesn't pass that test. I'm comfortable with that.

[TripletDaddy]

These comments get to the heart of my question: How do you act upon counsel from leaders? Do you pray about everything they say or do you just listen and follow if you think it sounds like a good idea? If we're not willing to take most advice at face value, and follow it if possible, then why do we have leaders in the first place? Why doesn't He just have us do our own thing as the He dictates in our lives?

this seems to be a bit of reductio ad absurdum.

we have leaders for all sorts of reasons. this is a massive organization that requires people at all levels to make it go, to make pronouncements, to oversee resources, to tend to the welfare of our members, etc.

You do your argument a bit of disservice when you make it sound that leaders are primarily here to tell everyone what to do and how to do it.

[LA Ute]

These comments get to the heart of my question: How do you act upon counsel from leaders? Do you pray about everything they say or do you just listen and follow if you think it sounds like a good idea? If we're not willing to take most advice at face value, and follow it if possible, then why do we have leaders in the first place? Why doesn't He just have us do our own thing as the He dictates in our lives?

My approach is simple, but not simplistic: I take very seriously what a church leader counsels me to do. I may not always follow it and I may tweak my acceptance of it somewhat, but I don't so so lightly. Factors at work in my approach will be the nature of the conversation (e.g., hallway chat as opposed to a solemn meeting in his office); how he approached the matter and his level of seriousness; how much I respect him (probably shouldn't be a factor but hey, I am human); whether it makes sense to me (not everything that makes sense to me is something I would necessarily choose for myself); and yes, how I feel about it spiritually. The last item is the most important.

Anyway, that works for me. I know this varies with every individual.