counsel vs. commandment


Guest mysticmorini
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng

 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Whether we call it "counsel" and therefore optional, or "commandment" and therefore requisite, the purpose as outlined by the Lord in D&C 1 is the same. Whatever you call it, seek to understand its purpose and that will do more than anything to help you understand how it applies to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate, when you receive [counsel,commandments] from the Lord or His servants, ask yourself these questions:
"What does this help me to understand?"
"How does this show me where I have erred and need correction?"
"What wisdom does this instruct me?"
"How have I sinned that this chastens me?"

"How can this help me to be more humble?"

 

And we would all do well to follow the "counsel" in 1 Corinthians 8:9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but remember, they aren't always inspired. Sometimes it's just opinion. There have been leaders in the past that have been disciplined for saying things that aren't true as well, such as Paul H. Dunn, for example.

I read an explanation lately about one general authority (Poelman?), who gave a talk about how the Gospel and the Church are two different things. It seemed to lessen the role and importance of the Church overall if you listen to it. This was broadcasted in Conference. Then, after the talk, his talk was edited , videorecorded again using the new ideas, and the revised version printed in the Ensign. All videorecordings of the talks used the revised version as well, which contained some fundamentally different ideas compared to the original.

Then, the original talk was found on Youtube for all to see and compare. Apparently, some members had video cameras and had taped the original talk.

So, we can't say it's ALWAYS inspired, although one needs to treat their counsel with respect, and work off the assumption it is in fact inspired Best to run everything through your own thought and prayer processes and decide what fits your unique circumstances.

 

The question here is not counsel versus commandment.

 

The question here is FAITH in the Lord's prophets.  We made the covenant to trust the Lord's prophets.  Whether they are wrong or right doesn't matter.  If we obey a prophet's counsel that was made without inspiration from God, then the sin is not on our heads but at the prophet's head.  But if we disobey a prophet's counsel that was made with inspiration because we thought it wasn't inspired - the sin is right there on our heads.

 

Therefore, seek FIRST the kingdom of God and lean not on our own understanding.  For a butterfly on one's ankle and two twinkly things on one's ear are such stupid things to rebel against God about.  Now, if there is just no way you can get closer to Christ unless you wear two twinkly earrings on an ear and have a cute butterfly on your ankle, then go talk to God and ask Him if the prophet was mistaken or if an exception applies to you because you just can't see the way to your salvation unless you have them.

 

And on red bulls... you don't need a prophet to tell you this is best avoided.  If you have to have an artificial chemical boost to have energy, then something is out of balance in your body and you need to either adjust your diet, change your lifestyle, or go see a doctor.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question here is not counsel versus commandment.

 

The question here is FAITH in the Lord's prophets.  We made the covenant to trust the Lord's prophets.  Whether they are wrong or right doesn't matter.  If we obey a prophet's counsel that was made without inspiration from God, then the sin is not on our heads but at the prophet's head.  But if we disobey a prophet's counsel that was made with inspiration because we thought it wasn't inspired - the sin is right there on our heads.

 

Therefore, seek FIRST the kingdom of God and lean not on our own understanding.  For a butterfly on one's ankle and two twinkly things on one's ear are such stupid things to rebel against God about.  Now, if there is just no way you can get closer to Christ unless you wear two twinkly earrings on an ear and have a cute butterfly on your ankle, then go talk to God and ask Him if the prophet was mistaken or if an exception applies to you because you just can't see the way to your salvation unless you have them.

 

And on red bulls... you don't need a prophet to tell you this is best avoided.  If you have to have an artificial chemical boost to have energy, then something is out of balance in your body and you need to either adjust your diet, change your lifestyle, or go see a doctor.

huh...

 

Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. "Every ’s duty is the [prophet]’s; but every ’s soul is his own."

Brigham Young stated: “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. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”

Free Forever, to Act for Themselves

 

We've sometimes been told that if we follow the prophet's counsel and he "ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." My opinion is that this can, at best, earn you a terrestrial glory. If the Lord wanted mindless automatons, He'd have created such. He did not give us minds of our own just for us to shut them off.

 

Of course, I do NOT advocate anyone rationalizing or justifying disobedience. I do expect everyone to justify their obedience by constantly seeking the Lord's personal confirmation on every single point of doctrine. Those who do not do this have not experienced true religion.

Edited by puf_the_majic_dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pretty big logical fallacy to associate humble obedience with mindlessness. A choice to obey regardless of understanding or agreement doesn't indicate a shutting off of the brain. It simply indicates a choice. A choice of faith, I might add.

 

The need to constantly seek confirmation on every single instance of every single point of doctrine does not strike me as a principle of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

huh...

 

Free Forever, to Act for Themselves

 

We've sometimes been told that if we follow the prophet's counsel and he "ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." My opinion is that this can, at best, earn you a terrestrial glory. If the Lord wanted mindless automatons, He'd have created such. He did not give us minds of our own just for us to shut them off.

 

Of course, I do NOT advocate anyone rationalizing or justifying disobedience. I do expect everyone to justify their obedience by constantly seeking the Lord's personal confirmation on every single point of doctrine. Those who do not do this have not experienced true religion.

 

 

Here you go...

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57601-sustaining-our-leaders-a-blog/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pretty big logical fallacy to associate humble obedience with mindlessness. A choice to obey regardless of understanding or agreement doesn't indicate a shutting off of the brain. It simply indicates a choice. A choice of faith, I might add.

 

The need to constantly seek confirmation on every single instance of every single point of doctrine does not strike me as a principle of faith.

See, this is where you and I just can't seem to share any kind of meaning. I never ever suggested that humble obedience was the same as mindlessness. I absolutely DID say that mindless obedience was mindlessness. Here is the exact excerpt I was referring to and it undeniably endorses mindlessness:

 

The question here is FAITH in the Lord's prophets.  We made the covenant to trust the Lord's prophets.  Whether they are wrong or right doesn't matter.  If we obey a prophet's counsel that was made without inspiration from God, then the sin is not on our heads but at the prophet's head.  But if we disobey a prophet's counsel that was made with inspiration because we thought it wasn't inspired - the sin is right there on our heads.

My quotation from Brigham Young, excerpted from Elder Christofferson's General Conference talk which I linked to, very explicitly contradicts this level of mindlessness. Elder Christofferson's talk also very explicitly contradicts this implied lack of responsibility. We are given agency so that we can use it, not give it away to a prophet, no matter how inspired he may be.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57601-sustaining-our-leaders-a-blog/?p=831802

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never ever suggested that humble obedience was the same as mindlessness. 

 

We'll have to disagree on this. I believe you did.

 

I absolutely DID say that mindless obedience was mindlessness.

 

What makes obedience mindless?

 

Here is the exact excerpt I was referring to and it undeniably endorses mindlessness:

 

anatess, on 10 Aug 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:snapback.png

The question here is FAITH in the Lord's prophets.  We made the covenant to trust the Lord's prophets.  Whether they are wrong or right doesn't matter.  If we obey a prophet's counsel that was made without inspiration from God, then the sin is not on our heads but at the prophet's head.  But if we disobey a prophet's counsel that was made with inspiration because we thought it wasn't inspired - the sin is right there on our heads.

 

I stand by what I'm saying. A humble determination to obey a prophet's counsel due to faith that said prophet is the authoritative representative of the Lord, regardless of one's understanding of or agreement with that prophet, is not mindless. The choice to obey is a decision of humility and faith -- but you call it mindlessness, and then you argue that you're not suggesting that humility and faith equate to mindlessness.

 

My quotation from Brigham Young, excerpted from Elder Christofferson's General Conference talk which I linked to, very explicitly contradicts this level of mindlessness. Elder Christofferson's talk also very explicitly contradicts this implied lack of responsibility.

 

We have a responsibility to know the will of God and to do it. Yes. But the will of God, that he has promised to reveal unto us, is that we should follow the prophet's counsel and direction. Our responsibility is to acquire spiritual confirmation that the prophets are and were prophets.

 

We are given agency so that we can use it, not give it away to a prophet, no matter how inspired he may be.

 

Following the prophet is an exercise of agency, not giving it away.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have to disagree on this. I believe you did.

 

 

What makes obedience mindless?

"Intelligence is more than just problem solving. Intelligence is questioning the assumptions you're presented with. Intelligence is the ability to question existing thought-constructs. If we don't make that part of the simulation, all we'll create is a really effective slave." 

 

I stand by what I'm saying. A humble determination to obey a prophet's counsel due to faith that said prophet is the authoritative representative of the Lord, regardless of one's understanding of or agreement with that prophet, is not mindless. The choice to obey is a decision of humility and faith -- but you call it mindlessness, and then you argue that you're not suggesting that humility and faith equate to mindlessness.

When phrased the way you have, I agree with you. A conscious choice to obey even knowing one's understanding is limited is not mindless. However, the reason I agree is because making that conscious choice requires that the you ask the question. Choice necessarily requires an alternative, and you can not choose obedience unless you have considered disobedience.

Maybe for some people it's "one and done" - made the choice once and never question it again for the rest of their lives. Those people are missing out on a wealth of knowledge and wisdom that the Lord is anxious to reveal to those who inquire. (They're also completely missing the point of having commandments in the first place.)

But others here seem to be advocating "Never consider the alternative". That is not exercising agency, it is sacrificing it.

 

In the other thread, someone mentioned a hypothetical bishop who was letting young women pass the sacrament - when faced with that decision, should the young woman knowingly commit blasphemy out of obedience to her bishop? If she considers the decision and with "humble determination to obey...regardless of her understanding" goes ahead and passes it, I suspect the Lord would bless her for obedience. But if she considers the decision and recognizes the Spirit's voice telling her it is wrong, and so she refuses, I KNOW the Lord would bless her for her faith in Him and for her courage to keep that faith.

And if she doesn't consider the decision and simply does what her bishop tells her to do because he's her bishop - that is mindless.

 

We have a responsibility to know the will of God and to do it. Yes. But the will of God, that he has promised to reveal unto us, is that we should follow the prophet's counsel and direction. Our responsibility is to acquire spiritual confirmation that the prophets are and were prophets.

If that is all of the will of God that you know or follow, I am sorry for you. 

 

Following the prophet is an exercise of agency, not giving it away.

On this I agree, that is the way it should be. But based on the discussion so far, this isn't actually what people are doing. Moral agency is far more than just the ability to make your own choices but includes also the responsibility for the choices you make. Anatess' comment was a declaration shirking that responsibility - that the prophet is responsible for our choices as long as our choice is to follow him. If obeying the prophet's counsel absolves us of responsibility for our choices, then our moral agency is destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this I agree, that is the way it should be. But based on the discussion so far, this isn't actually what people are doing. Moral agency is far more than just the ability to make your own choices but includes also the responsibility for the choices you make. Anatess' comment was a declaration shirking that responsibility - that the prophet is responsible for our choices as long as our choice is to follow him. If obeying the prophet's counsel absolves us of responsibility for our choices, then our moral agency is destroyed.

Don't put words in my mouth, i do not shirk the responsibility of seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If I was, I'd still be devoutly Catholic.

My statement merely states that God speaks to us through the prophets. Putting our faith in the counsel of God's chosen prophets cannot incur sin on our heads if we have received confirmation from the Spirit of the prophet's authority.

It is the height of confusion instead of order for God to give us prophets, grant them authority to preside over the church, instruct us to follow them, and then selectively strip the prophets of authority when a person chooses to follow him.

"Lean not on our own understanding" applies here. There are many people who believe that the Spirit of God spoke to them hence they decided to divorce their spouses, abandon their children, and kick their dogs. When your personal revelation runs contrary to the counsel of the prophets, this is when you double down in prayer and seek the Will of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self-righteousness aside, I don't need the pity. I know my duty and my faith.

Yeah, that was something I meant to rewrite, knowing it would not be taken very well.

But after spending 2 hours (no kidding) rewriting and editing and revising to try and avoid such misunderstandings, that one got missed.

But out of all of the things you could have responded to, you chose that one.

You know, I wish I could just ignore your posts and your comments and thus avoid the misunderstanding and all the drama that comes with it. But you do have a keen mind and a fair amount of insight, and those are things I relish. It's too bad we can't get along better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between mindless obedience and humble obedience:

 

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned." (D&C 58:26-29)

 

 

We don't need to question every bit of counsel that comes out of the prophet's mouth to be thoughtful and engaged (assuming we have revelation that he is truly a prophet whom we are commanded to obey). Faith is trust and confidence, and while our faith absolutely must be centered in Jesus Christ, we also must develop faith that the prophets do not lead the church - He leads His church through them, and whether it is by His voice or the voice of His servants that He counsels us, it is the same as far as we are concerned. Exercising faith in this fact when it is revealed to us by the Spirit, and acting accordingly with no room for doubt, is not mindlessness. It is humility.
 
No, mindless obedience means doing as we are counseled to do, but never doing more. It is failing to consider the purposes and goals behind the counsel. Seeking direction from the Spirit shouldn't be focused on questioning the validity of the counsel we receive - that will waste a whole lot of time and effort - but instead on questioning why it was given, pondering the principles involved, and seeking to know how we can apply it most effectively in our particular circumstance. This will help us to see what the prophets see.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The difference between mindless obedience and humble obedience:

 

 

We don't need to question every bit of counsel that comes out of the prophet's mouth to be thoughtful and engaged (assuming we have revelation that he is truly a prophet whom we are commanded to obey). Faith is trust and confidence, and while our faith absolutely must be centered in Jesus Christ, we also must develop faith that the prophets do not lead the church - He leads His church through them, and whether it is by His voice or the voice of His servants that He counsels us, it is the same as far as we are concerned. Exercising faith in this fact when it is revealed to us by the Spirit, and acting accordingly with no room for doubt, is not mindlessness. It is humility.
 
No, mindless obedience means doing as we are counseled to do, but never doing more. It is failing to consider the purposes and goals behind the counsel. Seeking direction from the Spirit shouldn't be focused on questioning the validity of the counsel we receive - that will waste a whole lot of time and effort - but instead on questioning why it was given, pondering the principles involved, and seeking to know how we can apply it most effectively in our particular circumstance. This will help us to see what the prophets see.

 

 

Josiah, you just won the internet.  Take it.  It's yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was something I meant to rewrite, knowing it would not be taken very well.

But after spending 2 hours (no kidding) rewriting and editing and revising to try and avoid such misunderstandings, that one got missed.

But out of all of the things you could have responded to, you chose that one.

You know, I wish I could just ignore your posts and your comments and thus avoid the misunderstanding and all the drama that comes with it. But you do have a keen mind and a fair amount of insight, and those are things I relish. It's too bad we can't get along better.

 

You continue to make comments about us just not getting along and drama as if that has anything to do with anything.

 

The problem is not that you said something that hurt my feelings. It did not. I could care less what some stranger on the internet thinks of me personally. The problem is, however, from a theological, philosophical, LDS point of view, that you even think such things in the first place. You may well have edited it out and avoided the "drama". But why do you even think in the first place to feel sorry for someone who is dedicated to following the prophets? -- counsel that has been repeatedly taught and given in the gospel and the LDS church since it's inception. Someone who is committed to doing so is not one to feel sad for. Someone who is unwilling to follow the prophets...sure...it would make sense to feel sad for them.

 

My response was not emotionally charged (perhaps the "self-righteousness aside" part was a bit...but as I said...I put that aside). I literally do not need pity from someone who's promoting the idea that my commitment to do as I've been instructed to do by God's appointed leaders is something mistaken. I don't need the pity because what I do and choose to do in this regard is right, true and faithful, and if I remain right, true and faithful to it, then my reward will be as promised -- everlasting life. If I slip from this commitment, then I need pity.

 

As stated, I know my duty and my faith. If I remain true to my duty and my faith then the Lord is bound. I know this. So why on earth would you or anyone feel sad for me for that?

 

Feel sad for me for my sins, not my righteous commitments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for listening to the counsel of the General Authorities.

 

But one must look at context:  Who is the audience, where is the counsel being given, who is giving it, etc etc.

 

There are a lot of quotations extracted from speeches at BYU for example, that really need to be taken with a grain of salt because of the specific audience to which the speech was delivered.

 

Most GAs live in Utah in whitebread Salt Lake City and that is their life experience.  When traveling, they either stay at hotels or with Stake Presidents etc.  So they're not seeing the real world of where they visit.  So a lot of the counsel given is from that perspective as well.  Not to say much of it isn't good, but sometimes not realistic in other venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious. Which specific advice given by the general authorities is not realistic in other venues?

This for starters:

 

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.
Spencer W. KimballSpencer W. Kimball, "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball," p. 303
Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This for starters:

 

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.
Spencer W. KimballSpencer W. Kimball, "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball," p. 303

 

 

 

//thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This for starters:

 

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.
Spencer W. KimballSpencer W. Kimball, "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball," p. 303

 

 

So when asked for an illustration, you pull out a fifty-year-old quote?

 

In any case, to me the quote seems obvious common sense. Such marriages are not prohibited, but the counsel is that you marry someone culturally like yourself. Duh. What could be more obvious? In other words, what do you think is unrealistic about the fifty-year-old statement my Elder Kimball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for context. Otherwise we'd read D&C 132 today and conclude that we should go find a second wife. :lol: 

 

The point is not to use "context" or anything else as an excuse for disobedience. It's easy to say "well, in context, this advice on home teaching doesn't apply to my situation because I'm so shy" or whatever it is.

 

Speaking of context, while I can't seem to find a link to the full book your quote came from, I did find this little tidbit from the page before:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/mate-selection?lang=eng

 

“… “The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 302)."

 

True enough, right? It also sheds some light on what he meant by the quote you provided. I'd be interested to read everything he wrote on the topic all together if you have that link. As you say, in full context it might be more clear what he's saying. But even without that, we can put some things together. Also from the same source linked above:

 

“I have warned the youth against the many hazards of interfaith marriage, and with all the power I possessed, I warned young people to avoid the sorrows and disillusionments which come from marrying out of the Church and the unhappy situations which almost invariably result when a believer marries an unbelieving spouse. I pointed out the demands of the Church upon its members in time, energy, and funds; the deepness of the spiritual ties which tighten after marriage and as the family comes; the antagonisms which naturally follow such mismating; the fact that these and many other reasons argue eloquently for marriage within the Church, where husband and wife have common backgrounds, common ideals and standards, common beliefs, hopes, and objectives, and, above all, where marriage may be eternalized through righteous entry into the holy temple. …

"… We recommend that people marry those who are of … somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”  (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” 142–44).

 

To me, that last paragraph makes it a bit more clear where he stands. So yes, context is important. Your point is well taken.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share