What Does Authority Mean?

[StrawberryFields]

This WORD has become an area of dispute and concern.

I found this set of definitions from Dictionary.com

au·thor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)

n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.

Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.

A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.

A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?

A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.

Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.

Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.

[StrawberryFields]

I guess part of the problem I have with this word is how it is used.

I don't have a problem with someone having the authority to baptize or another saving ordinance.

The problem that I have is when the word is being used to take away our rights to think or make choices on our own.

I understand that there are those with an authority to uphold the law.

I have heard of authority giving way to much power to those who abuse it.

In order for me to respect an authority figure, respect must be earned though righteous use of that authority.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Strawberry,

Interesting post. A couple of thoughts:

The problem that I have is when the word is being used to take away our rights to think or make choices on our own.

I agree almost entirely with the first half of that sentence, and partly agree with the second. In the Church, each office of the priesthood includes a specific defined scope of authority. No office's scope of authority includes the authority to take away a person's rights to think. Many offices, on the other hand, do include the authority to give counsel. My experience is that counsel given by priesthood leaders is generally good counsel, and is disregarded at one's peril -- but I also believe that the peril generally comes not from the mere act of disregarding the counsel, but rather falling into the underlying peril the counsel is warning you against.

That is, if a priesthood leader warns you against eating fish from a Central American street vendor, you're not endangering your eternal salvation by ignoring him; you're endangering your digestive tract.

The one exception to that rule is that if the priesthood leader's counsel is such that the Spirit confirms its truth at the time it's made, and you disregard those confirming promptings along with the counsel, you may lose something of your ability to recognize similar promptings.

...or make choices on our own

True, up to a point. When it comes to personal choices, no priesthood office's scope of authority includes the authority to take away a person's right to make those choices. However, the scope of authority of many offices does include the right to determine how the Church will respond to certain choices. Priesthood leaders' main scope of authority has to do with maintaining the Church as an institution capable of fulfilling its mission. Sometimes the choices of individual members -- who are representatives and components of the Church -- are inconsistent with the Church's mission. The leaders then face the choice of asking the member to choose between his Church-inconsistent choices and his Church membership or standing.

When it comes to people's choices that more directly affect the Church -- for example, what a Gospel Doctrine teacher teaches in class -- priesthood leaders' scope of authority is even more pronounced. They have the authority to control what is taught under their authority, and if a teacher or leader's choices in fulfilling an conflict with the parameters of that assignment, the priesthood leader has the right to insist on changes or withdraw the assignment. That's a common-sense rule that holds pretty much everywhere a hierachy of assignments operates. If I assign a paralegal the job of preparing a framework of a legal paper, he doesn't have the choice to write a screenplay instead -- because ultimately it's my name that goes on the paper, and I have the right to control what goes out under my name. He's got the choice of doing things the way I want them, or not doing them at all.

This is all unbelievably dry, which is why it generally annoys me when people hold forth on this subject as long as I have, seeming to mistake the nuts-and-bolts operation of the Church for its essence. Ultimately, the essence of the Church is revelation, which ultimately operates on a personal level. Keeping the Church together as an institution, in which members can offer and derive mutual support, requries some really boring common-sense institutional logic, though.

In order for me to respect an authority figure, respect must be earned though righteous use of that authority.

The military has a saying that you salute the office, not the man. That is, the authority represented by an authority figure commands respect, even if the "figure" himself doesn't. A person who doesn't use his authority righteously is personally contemptible. In the Church, it is unlikely that the Spirit would ever confirm improper counsel improperly given by a person who is misusing his nominal authority; disregarding that counsel -- especially if it is patently beyong the scope of his authority ("ultra vires," in corporate-legal terms) may not be a problem, and may even be required. But if you believe in priesthood authority, the office held by even a misuser of the authority is entitled to respect.

[Guest curvette]

It's a dangerous word, but also a very important word. I think that, in our language, it really means too many things. From absolute power to an expert in one field. This is probably why it's confusing to discuss it. It can have a very negative connotation to anyone who has ever been hurt by an authority figure.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 23 2004, 12:50 PM

Strawberry,

Interesting post. A couple of thoughts:

The problem that I have is when the word is being used to take away our rights to think or make choices on our own.

I agree almost entirely with the first half of that sentence, and partly agree with the second. In the Church, each office of the priesthood includes a specific defined scope of authority. No office's scope of authority includes the authority to take away a person's rights to think. Many offices, on the other hand, do include the authority to give counsel. My experience is that counsel given by priesthood leaders is generally good counsel, and is disregarded at one's peril -- but I also believe that the peril generally comes not from the mere act of disregarding the counsel, but rather falling into the underlying peril the counsel is warning you against.

That is, if a priesthood leader warns you against eating fish from a Central American street vendor, you're not endangering your eternal salvation by ignoring him; you're endangering your digestive tract.

The one exception to that rule is that if the priesthood leader's counsel is such that the Spirit confirms its truth at the time it's made, and you disregard those confirming promptings along with the counsel, you may lose something of your ability to recognize similar promptings.

...or make choices on our own

True, up to a point. When it comes to personal choices, no priesthood office's scope of authority includes the authority to take away a person's right to make those choices. However, the scope of authority of many offices does include the right to determine how the Church will respond to certain choices. Priesthood leaders' main scope of authority has to do with maintaining the Church as an institution capable of fulfilling its mission. Sometimes the choices of individual members -- who are representatives and components of the Church -- are inconsistent with the Church's mission. The leaders then face the choice of asking the member to choose between his Church-inconsistent choices and his Church membership or standing.

When it comes to people's choices that more directly affect the Church -- for example, what a Gospel Doctrine teacher teaches in class -- priesthood leaders' scope of authority is even more pronounced. They have the authority to control what is taught under their authority, and if a teacher or leader's choices in fulfilling an conflict with the parameters of that assignment, the priesthood leader has the right to insist on changes or withdraw the assignment. That's a common-sense rule that holds pretty much everywhere a hierachy of assignments operates. If I assign a paralegal the job of preparing a framework of a legal paper, he doesn't have the choice to write a screenplay instead -- because ultimately it's my name that goes on the paper, and I have the right to control what goes out under my name. He's got the choice of doing things the way I want them, or not doing them at all.

This is all unbelievably dry, which is why it generally annoys me when people hold forth on this subject as long as I have, seeming to mistake the nuts-and-bolts operation of the Church for its essence. Ultimately, the essence of the Church is revelation, which ultimately operates on a personal level. Keeping the Church together as an institution, in which members can offer and derive mutual support, requries some really boring common-sense institutional logic, though.

In order for me to respect an authority figure, respect must be earned though righteous use of that authority.

The military has a saying that you salute the office, not the man. That is, the authority represented by an authority figure commands respect, even if the "figure" himself doesn't. A person who doesn't use his authority righteously is personally contemptible. In the Church, it is unlikely that the Spirit would ever confirm improper counsel improperly given by a person who is misusing his nominal authority; disregarding that counsel -- especially if it is patently beyong the scope of his authority ("ultra vires," in corporate-legal terms) may not be a problem, and may even be required. But if you believe in priesthood authority, the office held by even a misuser of the authority is entitled to respect.

I love what you said in this post, PD, every word of it, and even more so because I am not the one who said it!

But I would have said pretty much the same thing if you hadn't beaten me to it. :)

[StrawberryFields]

PD.

Dry or not, I think I have an idea of what you are trying to say.

The military quote is great, and can be applied to many people in our lives; even an employer who you might disrespect.

I personally don't have a problem with the members of my ward including Priesthood leaders.

What has struck a nerve is someone who says follow me because I have the greater authority...I hold the priesthood.

I have witnessed men who have become so full of themselves, they become so extreme, they begin interoperating the gospel in a way that no one else understands. They begin to see themselves with so much authority they fall away from the truthfulness of the gospel and they become their own profit wanting others to see things the way they do.

The way I see it, is someone with divine authority doesn't need to shove it in someone’s face and say follow me. Christ had a quiet authority that people longed to follow.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Strawb --

What has struck a nerve is someone who says follow me because I have the greater authority...I hold the priesthood.

I have witnessed men who have become so full of themselves, they become so extreme, they begin interoperating the gospel in a way that no one else understands. They begin to see themselves with so much authority they fall away from the truthfulness of the gospel and they become their own profit wanting others to see things the way they do.

People like that bug me, too.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 24 2004, 11:55 AM

Strawb --

What has struck a nerve is someone who says follow me because I have the greater authority...I hold the priesthood.

I have witnessed men who have become so full of themselves, they become so extreme, they begin interoperating the gospel in a way that no one else understands. They begin to see themselves with so much authority they fall away from the truthfulness of the gospel and they become their own profit wanting others to see things the way they do.

People like that bug me, too.

Yah, me too.

So do you know some people who run around acting that way? Or could it be that you only think they’re acting that way?

Personally, I’ve never heard anyone say:

follow me because I have the greater authority...I hold the priesthood.

But I have heard people say that our Lord has given His authority to other people, and that we should follow those people, because those people hold the priesthood and authority of God. Is that what you’re referring to, maybe?

If a person were to say that other people should follow them, and indicate that the reason you should follow them is because they have the priesthood, that might be a pretty good indication that those people are “full of themselves”, but even then you wouldn’t know for certain. You don’t believe our Lord was “full of himself” when He told others to follow Him, do you?

I have witnessed men who have become so full of themselves, they become so extreme, they begin interoperating the gospel in a way that no one else understands.

By “interoperating” the gospel, are you referring to “interpreting” the gospel? If so, no biggie, I’ve made typos before too, I’m just not sure if that is what you meant. But if it is, can you provide an example of someone interpreting the gospel in a way that no one else understands? I can’t think of anybody who has ever interpreted the gospel in a way that only they can understand, unless you’re referring to somebody like Elder Neil A. Maxwell, but even he had other people who understood what he said.

They begin to see themselves with so much authority they fall away from the truthfulness of the gospel and they become their own profit wanting others to see things the way they do.

I’m going to go so far as to assume that “profit” was another typo, for prophet this time, because that seems to be a more obvious mistake.

I’m now interested in hearing more about how you know how other people think of themselves. Is that a special gift you have? I sometimes think I understand what someone else thinks and then come to find out that I’m totally wrong about them. Could that be the case here?

But let’s just say for a moment that there are people who see themselves with so much authority… that they become their own prophet wanting others to see things the way they do. Does that necessarily mean that they have fallen away from the truthfulness of the gospel? Or does that necessarily mean that the way they see things isn’t actually the way things are, or were, or will be?

[StrawberryFields]

Ray,

I will be returning to answers your probing questions, but it will have to be another time.

Tonight I am just too filled with happy thoughts and being thankful on this Thanksgiving Eve.

May your turkey be juicy, your pies be sweet, and your shoes not to tight.

[StrawberryFields]

You don’t believe our Lord was “full of himself” when He told others to follow Him, do you?

Heh, where on earth did you get that one? Interesting, how you find that, in what I said.

By “interoperating” the gospel, are you referring to “interpreting” the gospel? If so, no biggie, I’ve made typos before too, I’m just not sure if that is what you meant. But if it is, can you provide an example of someone interpreting the gospel in a way that no one else understands?

Yes a typo, new keyboards can be difficult to get used too. Here is one example…

In a ward I belonged to previously, there was a man who initially had good intentions in studying and living accordingly to the scriptures. He became driven by reading into the scriptures exactly what he wanted to get from them. He became overbearing in his beliefs both within his family and his ward. He made it known to all, that his wife was subservient to him and his children feared him because of his "greater authority". He most likely didn't know why his family was considered to be "different" in the ward. When it was fast Sunday, he would usually bear his testimony about the greatness of his family and how he led them to that greatness. . I felt bad for his children and his wife who were all subjects to this “mighty ruler”. These children had no self esteem, how could they when they had been stripped from it from their own father. The mother was a wonderful woman who had many talents, she was noted as a great cook and she sewed many of her children’s clothing. She seemed to cower in his presence and she wasn't allowed to wear make up. I'm pretty sure that when he would get his 10-15 minutes of preaching time, during fast meeting, that he thought he was impressing everyone when we actually thought something quite different.

But let’s just say for a moment that there are people who see themselves with so much authority… that they become their own prophet wanting others to see things the way they do. Does that necessarily mean that they have fallen away from the truthfulness of the gospel? Or does that necessarily mean that the way they see things isn’t actually the way things are, or were, or will be?

The above question is a bit confusing to me but I believe I answered most of it above this quote.