The most important thing(s)?

[Maxel]

But it seems Maxel meant something altogether different by those words. And if he coined the phrase, then I suppose it's up to him to define it any way he pleases. (Although I think your attempt at a definition made more sense in light of the original context.)

I didn't coin the phrase- I took it from Neil A. Maxwell. He explains it better than I can here:

"So far as is known, the question Pilate put to Jesus, apparently without expecting the Savior to answer--'What is truth?'--has been answered only once: the Lord later said, '...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.' Truth is a knowledge of reality of 'things.' Some realities are transitory and inconsequential; some realities maintain themselves everlastingly, or longitudinally, over vast spans of time. In the hierarchy of truth, therefore, some truths describe those realities which persist from age to age--which are more significant than fleeting facts. A knowledge of such central realities as the existence of God and his presiding and purposeful role in the universe, the great rescue mission of his Son Jesus Christ, and of man's co-eternality with our Heavenly Father is sovereign sense! Other gradations of truth reflect knowledge of those things which are often important, but passing and proximate." — Neal A. Maxwell, "The Smallest Part", p.4 - p.5

[Moksha]

So it was not defined as an organization but rather as a concept as to the priority or rank of truths. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ErikJohnson]

I didn't coin the phrase- I took it from Neil A. Maxwell. He explains it better than I can here:

Hey Maxel—

Appreciate the clarification. I was unacquainted with the expression “correct hierarchy of truth” and thought perhaps you were its originator (though I was nowise sure of it). That long out-of-print book must have made quite an impression on you in your youth! But before you continue endorsing it, you might take a closer look at what the late Neil A. Maxwell was actually saying: “‘What is truth?’—has been answered only once…”

This isn’t right. The reader of John’s Gospel knows the answer in advance of Pilate’s asking the question (18:38). Not just answered—answered definitively. The answer is Jesus (14:6). He is the Truth, the full revelation of God. Yet Pilate, with the Truth directly before him, can’t see (as his question makes plain). But John’s reader isn’t surprised, because all this too has been explained in advance—

6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me… I shall lose none of all that he has given me

8:43-44 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil...

10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep

12:40 He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them

As a side note— Nietzsche, in his book, The Antichrist, claimed Pilate’s question was the high-point (and the undoing) of the whole New Testament. He too imagined it had gone unanswered, a hole left waiting to be filled. I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, but it’s certainly a powerful illustration of how someone can read God’s Word and see nothing at all. (“Godless”—if you’re reading this and contemplating a trip to the bookstore, you’ll want to get H.L. Mencken’s translation to maximize the Nietzsche experience, at least in English. My only ask is that afterwards you open up a thread and give us a report.)

;0)

Back to the thread—AnthonyB makes an interesting observation in his reply to you (post 22), his “impression.” Do you think his observation is accurate?

--Erik

[Maxel]

That long out-of-print book must have made quite an impression on you in your youth!

Actually, I first encountered the phrase about a year ago in Maxwell's book "Not My Will, but Thine" (which seems to be very much still in print). He uses it throughout his writings- a more accurate description of what he means by it is the following (found at the same site further down the page; I missed it the first time around):

There is a hierarchy of truth atop which are the great ordering realities: the reality of Deity, the reality of immortality, and the reality of an eternal ecology that rests upon God's commandments. When Jesus of Nazareth spoke of how the truth can make us free, He was not speaking of those facts contained in today's principles of accounting class or of data concerning crop yields, but of these great emancipating truths, which are everlasting and not ephemeral. — Neal A. Maxwell, "We Will Prove Them Herewith", p.86

But before you continue endorsing it, you might take a closer look at what the late Neil A. Maxwell was actually saying: “‘What is truth?’—has been answered only once…”

This isn’t right.

I don't want to argue with you about this- I will, however, make one note. I wish I knew the surrounding text- it might provide some clues as to what exactly Maxwell is talking about- but it seems that he is talking about the kind of truth that one understands, not the kind of truth that makes itself manifest (i.e. Christ). There is a difference between knowing the truth and seeing a manifestation thereof. I may be totally wrong, but that's what my thoughts on the subject are.

Back to the thread—AnthonyB makes an interesting observation in his reply to you (post 22), his “impression.” Do you think his observation is accurate?

No; I'll respond to his post directly. Edited June 27, 2009 by Maxel

[Maxel]

However the impression I had from the posters in this thread was that a prophetic word absolves them of moral responsibility before God. That even if they had a testimony or conviction that a prophecy wasn’t from God, God expects them to follow the prophet’s words against their own witness and God will absolve them of any wrong if they do.

I know some members believe that. I view the prophets as guides appointed by God- the path that they lead us down is the path we need to walk. We can't walk with our eyes closed- we need to constantly be in communication with our Heavenly Father and seek to understand the nature of the path we are taking for ourselves- but we still need to walk the path. The groundwork for the process is gaining a testimony that the prophets of the Lord are indeed inspired and, therefore, one ought to follow their advice. After that, the individual's responsibility is to study the scriptures, stay close to the Lord, and study the words of the modern-day prophets to partake of the warnings and wisdom they give us.

The tricky part is when one feels the prophets ask us to do something that we are morally opposed to. I admit I've never had to deal with that- any advice I feel is too hard to follow or 'wrong' I take to the Lord in prayer. So far, keeping an open mind and seeking wisdom about the matter has always cleared the matter and showed me where I was in the wrong.

Ultimately, it's a matter of faith- one needs to understand the proper role that prophets play and not fight against them in word or deed. Even if the prophet is wrong, he is still appointed by the Lord to oversee His Church on this earth- fighting against the prophet after gaining a testimony of his prophetic calling is paramount to fighting against the Lord. Ultimately, if we are morally opposed to a prophet's teachings we need to go to the Lord and seek for wisdom while still living the commandments- eventually, the problem is reconciled.

[ErikJohnson]

Even if the prophet is wrong, he is still appointed by the Lord to oversee His Church on this earth- fighting against the prophet after gaining a testimony of his prophetic calling is paramount to fighting against the Lord. Ultimately, if we are morally opposed to a prophet's teachings we need to go to the Lord and seek for wisdom while still living the commandments- eventually, the problem is reconciled.

I assume you meant tantamount when you wrote paramount, Maxel. None-the-less, you're in an awkward spot. On the one hand you've made clear AnthonyB's observation is inaccurate (post #29). And on the other, you say that a faithful LDS’s responsibility is to obey the prophet regardless of individual conscience or spiritual witness ("still living the commandments"—as you expressed it—which certainly includes obeying the prophet). And if obedience to the prophet is paramount in the eyes of God for LDS—then AnthonyB has it exactly right: God absolves LDS of any personal or moral responsibility as long as they follow their prophet’s teaching. The LDS God holds them responsible for following their prophet, not their consciences when the two are in conflict.

Let’s throw a couple of examples out there to make it a little more practical: If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie). If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it anyhow, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel).

Based on what you wrote, Maxel, AnthonyB appears to be spot-on. And in your dissent you are making a distinction without a difference.

If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify.

--Erik

[Hemidakota]

Even though I realize that not all posters on this forum are followers of Jesus or even believe in any diety, I will base the assumption for the the sake of this post on all of us believing that Jesus is the Christ.

-------------

Off the top of my head, I would say the most important religious principal is to obey Jesus' two greatest commandments.

I have heard many of my fellow Mormons say that the most important thing to have Obedience to Church Authorities.

So I have a couple of questions:

1. How much do you emphasize Obedience to Church Authorities?

2. What are the most important item(s) to you?

.

1] With careful discernment of the Spirit. Having met President Monson, he would never lead you astray and would give my life for him.

2] Following the Godhead's will...

[Maxel]

I assume you meant tantamount when you wrote paramount, Maxel.

Yes, thanks for catching that- it was late when I wrote it.

None-the-less, you're in an awkward spot. On the one hand you've made clear AnthonyB's observation is inaccurate (post #29). And on the other, you say that a faithful LDS’s responsibility is to obey the prophet regardless of individual conscience or spiritual witness ("still living the commandments"—as you expressed it—which certainly includes obeying the prophet).

Your assumption that obeying the prophet in the face of moral objection is absolving the person of personal responsibility simply isn't true. The person's responsibility in this case is twofold:

1) Follow the ordained leader of God because the person has a testimony of prophetic guidance

2) Pray to the Lord and seek wisdom from Him concerning the matter. The moral objection within the person needs to be an informed objection- the person should study and pray concerning the matter.

The difference between what you're claiming and AnthonyB said- that the Lord absolves us of all personal responsibility when we're following the prohet- seems to be in the term "moral responsibility". Is it always our duty to act in accordance with our sometimes faulty conscience? We know that the heart can be deceitful, as can our most fervent desires- we're supposed to follow the scriptures from the Holy prophets. Does following the advice of the Bible- even against one's personal conscience- absolve a person of "moral responsibility"? Does following the words of Christ absolve us of "moral responsibility"?

One could argue there's a difference between following the advice found in the Bible and following the LDS prophets, but that's a matter of belief and not "moral responsibility".

If you still don't see the difference, I ask you to offer a definition of "moral responsibility" to facilitate dialogue.

[ErikJohnson]

Hey Maxel--

No need for any special definitions of moral responsibility. Wikipedia has an entry, if you'd like a refresher.

We get what you're saying that LDS have a responsibility to pray, study, etc. if they find their consciences at variance with prophetic guidance. But no one is asking you what the protocol is for LDS if they encounter such a variance (or whether they will be held responsible for following the protocol). The question is how their choice (to follow the prophet or to follow conscience) will be judged by their God when the two are in conflict.

And once again you appear to affirm that LDS responsibility before God is to follow their prophet above all else (your point #1). Their God expects them to pray and study (just as you say)--but ultimately he will hold them responsible for obeying their prophet, even when their prophet is wrong and they know it.

My previous examples would be very good for illustrating the point--

If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher (or Bishop, or Stake President) and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you do your duty and teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie). If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel and voted their conscience).

God will judge LDS based on whether they follow their prophet, not whether they follow their consciences (or any spiritual witness) when the two are in conflict. That's the point AnthonyB was making (unless I've completely misunderstood him--which wouldn't be the first time).

;0)

And you give every indication of agreeing with him, yet you insist you don't. How are we to understand you?

--Erik

[Maxel]

No need for any special definitions of moral responsibility. Wikipedia has an entry, if you'd like a refresher.

Wikipedia gives two definitions:

1) a person has moral responsibility for a situation if that person has an obligation to ensure that something happens

2) a person has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that person for the situation

I assume when Anthony spoke of 'God absolving us of moral responsibility' in this situation he meant the first, as God the Eternal Judge doesn't waive His right to judge us.

We get what you're saying that LDS have a responsibility to pray, study, etc. if they find their consciences at variance with prophetic guidance. But no one is asking you what the protocol is for LDS if they encounter such a variance (or whether they will be held responsible for following the protocol). The question is how their choice (to follow the prophet or to follow conscience) will be judged by their God when the two are in conflict.

The simple answer is, then, that they ought to follow the prophet- who we believe is appointed by God to lead us in the paths we ought to walk. However, it is the person's job to do all those things I mentioned in my previous post to come to an understanding of why the prophet is saying such things- otherwise, the person wouldn't be a wise servant and wouldn't be right before God (in this respect).

And once again you appear to affirm that LDS responsibility before God is to follow their prophet above all else (your point #1). Their God expects them to pray and study (just as you say)--but ultimately he will hold them responsible for obeying their prophet, even when their prophet is wrong and they know it.

It seems your hold up with the situation seems to be about the prophet being wrong and a person knowing it. The thing is, because of the nature of prophets and the prophetic office, it's nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters, and impossible to know the prophet is wrong concerning policy matters. It seems to me that your premise is skewed.

If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher (or Bishop, or Stake President) and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you do your duty and teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie).

The best thing to do in this case (in my opinion) is to use the proper channels and procedures to understand why the manual contains the Adam-God doctrine and to voice one's objection (to the Bishop/Stake President/whoever). Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson- the question becomes 'which is more important- my pride or my duty?'

If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel and voted their conscience).

In this case, it seems the person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience in this situation. We know that the heart can be deceived (Deuteronomy 11:16) and that our conscience can be wrong (depending on how one uses the word and concept of 'conscience'- here I speak of the basic, oft-faulty ideas of right and wrong that humans are taught and become ingrained through the influence of the world)- however, to a Mormon with a living testimony of the power and calling of the prophets, their duty is clear- follow the prophet.

God will judge LDS based on whether they follow their prophet, not whether they follow their consciences (or any spiritual witness) when the two are in conflict. That's the point AnthonyB was making (unless I've completely misunderstood him--which wouldn't be the first time).

Only when the two are in conflict (and I wish to point out that it is far, far rarer for a spiritual witness to be at odds with prophetic counsel than it is for one's conscience to be opposed). I read AnthonyB's words to mean we are (supposedly) absolved of moral responsibility by God all the time- which is dead wrong. Even when one follows the prophet against one's own conscience, I don't think one is absolved of moral responsibility unless that person seeks to understand why the counsel is given in the first place- hence my stressing of the prayer and pondering that needs to be done by the individual.

[rameumptom]

There is a big difference between core doctrines and practices. In every instance, the Lord expects each member to obtain his/her own testimony of the teaching.

For instance, when one leading apostle heard about polygamy from Joseph Smith, he said he would go home and pray about it. If it were true, he would embrace it. If it were false, he would come back and kill Joseph as a fallen prophet. He ended up embracing the teaching because he gained his own witness of it.

There is also the issue of having a strong enough testimony of the living prophet that the Lord has already given the assurance. As it is, how many modern prophets have commanded the people to go and do something against the law?

Now, how many times did that happen in the Bible? God commanded "Thou shalt not kill", but then various prophets, including Moses, Joshua and Samuel, went out and did just that. They slew unarmed kings, wiped out cities of women and children, and more. If we're so worried today about following prophets, why aren't we screaming about giving such due diligence to Moses?

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

Your example of Moses killing is one that I'd query, "Thou shalt not murder" is not the same as not killing. I think David with Uriah is probably a more clear cut case of a murder. But yes the prophets of yesteryear did things that were morally wrong. I could write a long list but drunkeness, lieing, adultery should be enough.

Your point about the apostle and polygamy is along the point I was making. By all means follow as diligently as you can a person you believe to be an appointed prophet or leader from God. However they are not God and can lapse, fail or just get God's message wrong. I'm not advocating a disrespectful or arrogant rebuff but rather a loving, honest stand for your convictions.

It is far to easy for most Christian when they disagree with their God appointed leadership to just up and move to another church. If we really believe we are all Christians and all part of the one church then we should always seek to move with the approval and blessing of the people whom we have placed ourselves under. I can appreciate the LDS folks seeking to sustain there leadership and although on numerous doctrinal grounds I'm not LDS this is at least something that I applaud in the LDS church about.

On a side issue...

I have been saddend by applepansy being hurt by some of these posts (on another thread), but I can't do anymore then as lovingly as possible present truth as I heartfeltedly believe it. I know she is unlikely to read this but if she does and any of my posts disconcrted her, then it is only the thoughts of a hopefully sincere non-LDS Christian.

[Maxel]

I have been saddend by applepansy being hurt by some of these posts (on another thread), but I can't do anymore then as lovingly as possible present truth as I heartfeltedly believe it. I know she is unlikely to read this but if she does and any of my posts disconcrted her, then it is only the thoughts of a hopefully sincere non-LDS Christian.

Applepansy's problem is with members of the Church who question the value of following the prophet, not non-members- don't worry, you haven't done anything to offend her (I'm pretty sure).

[ErikJohnson]

Hey Maxel—

To sum up—LDS are to follow their prophet, even if he teaches a doctrine that contradicts their consciences, contradicts their reading of Scripture, and which will later be repudiated by successor prophets (e.g., Young’s “Adam-God” doctrine). You gave us an unequivocal answer to AnthonyB’s original question (post #22): “The person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience.”

And yes, you tacked on an additional requirement (variations of which you repeated several times)—that the member who finds himself/herself conflicted must make some reasonable amount of effort (via prayer and study) to try and reach an understanding. Once they’ve met this requirement, any conflicted LDS who choose to follow their prophet will stand “absolved” (as AnthonyB expressed it) from following the dictates of conscience, Scripture, or anything else. I appreciate your directness.

But you take it further than I would be willing to go. You tell us—“it’s nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters…” Forgive me for saying it Maxel, but you seem to have a low view of the “average member” (or at least the average member’s capacity for discernment). Your experience may be quite different than mine—but I can’t agree with you on this one.

And then you say it was the responsibility of the 19th century LDS Sunday School teacher to teach the Adam-God doctrine—even if the teacher knew in his heart the doctrine was a falsehood! You wrote: “Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson.” Your reader will conclude you place a higher value on obedience than you do on truth, Maxel. Is that really your position? In the LDS “hierarchy of truth”—is the value of truth itself subordinate to the value of obedience? Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but reading your posts it sure seems to be the case.

Always a pleasure to read your posts, Maxel. Plenty of food for thought. Between my reprimand and a lot of general busy-ness, I needed to take July off from the board. But I’ll try to be a bit more regular going forward, God willing.

Regards,

--Erik

Edited August 5, 2009 by pam

[Maxel]

But you take it further than I would be willing to go. You tell us—“it’s nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters…” Forgive me for saying it Maxel, but you seem to have a low view of the “average member” (or at least the average member’s capacity for discernment). Your experience may be quite different than mine—but I can’t agree with you on this one.

My view of the average member is higher than you make it seem to be. It is, truthfully, nigh impossible for a member (whether (s)he be average or exceptional) to concretely know if the prophet is wrong considering a doctrinal matter- since our knowledge of the things of God are given only by the Spirit of God and are often distilled upon our souls like the dews of heaven, understanding and knowing complex doctrine is more rare among Church members than it ought to be. Besides- the stewards of the Church (including the doctrine espoused by the Church) are the First Presidency and the Quorom of the 12- not the Sunday School teachers.

And then you say it was the responsibility of the 19th century LDS Sunday School teacher to teach the Adam-God doctrine—even if the teacher knew in his heart the doctrine was a falsehood! You wrote: “Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson.” Your reader will conclude you place a higher value on obedience than you do on truth, Maxel. Is that really your position? In the LDS “hierarchy of truth”—is the value of truth itself subordinate to the value of obedience? Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but reading your posts it sure seems to be the case.

The higher value is not obedience instead of truth, the higher value is obedience instead of pride. I made that perfectly clear in my post ("the question becomes 'which is more important- my pride or my duty?")- however, I notice that you left that part of the sentence out, despite quoting the first clause! You then use this quote, ripped from its context, to make it seem that I am making it appear that the Church values obedience over truth (equivocal reasoning, at best). You dishonest fiend, you! ;0)

Ultimately... The duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson. The members of the Church must all play their part, whatever part that is. Once a testimony of the Book of Mormon and a testimony of the prophet is obtained, the moral duty of the member is clear: follow the prophet.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Maxel
Deleted quote from previous that was also deleted.

[Islander]

The fact that at times a doctrine or commandment of God is beyond the reach of our understanding does not mean it will be forever so. At times WE are unwilling, unable or even incapable of understanding God's word. The glitch lies with US, instead.

The fact remains that MOST people that call themselves "Christians", whether nominally or even seriously, have not read ALL the scriptures in detail or even understand it fairly. As LDS, we encourage ALL to seek by the Spirit the meaning of what God reveals as to know for oneself the essence of what and why a prophet may have given a certain instruction. The same can not be said of others that rely entirely on what is preached over the pulpit and take it at face value as solid and legitimate instruction without questioning.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Islander

[lilered]

Just a comment to what already has been said. I have often times found when discussing biblical scriptural passages with non-LDS, that they would much rather seek their own Preacher or Pastors interpretation, rather than offer their own understanding. The message I walk away with is that these Christians would rather believe what they are told as oppossed to search out, ponder, and invite the holy spirit to guide them in their understanding of a particuliar scripture(s).