thoughts on the 14 points of a prophet.

[LittleWyvern]

If someone were to "follow blindly", the laws of God also dictate that these individuals do not bear the responsibility. The leader is responsible for the actions of his/her followers, just as the sins of the children fall on the parents if the parents do not put forth every effort to teach their children correct principles.

This is a bit harsh, and I think a little inaccurate: sometimes parents try their hardest and do their best to teach their children correct principles and they still sin and do things wrong. Certainly the sin falls on the heads of the parents if they have done nothing to teach their children, but if they have done effort to do so, even if it's not perfect, I don't think the parent's children get a free pass and the parents are condemned for everything their child does. The child does have some responsibility to listen to their parents and use their judgement to choose what is right and what is wrong. In the same vein...

If a leader sends his people astray, he is the one responsible for the results. Coming to our own understanding and making our own intelligent decisions gives us a sense of "adulthood" and puts the responsibility of our own actions on our own shoulders, but simply trusting our leader and doing what we are told would put the responsibility back on our leader. Just who bears the responsibility is something God will easily be able to sort out and identify- but we basically will not be punished for TRUSTING our leaders.

I think another part of this is that God will also hold us responsible for not taking the effort to gain a testimony, or to truly determine for ourselves what is right. We do have a responsibility to learn what is right and wrong; that's our whole purpose of being here, to learn and to grow. Sure, we could just follow blindly and minimize as much as possible the responsibility for our actions, but I don't think that's the point of our life here.

...but don't take this post wrong: I really liked your post and generally agree with it. :)

[JudoMinja]

This is a bit harsh, and I think a little inaccurate: sometimes parents try their hardest and do their best to teach their children correct principles and they still sin and do things wrong. Certainly the sin falls on the heads of the parents if they have done nothing to teach their children, but if they have done effort to do so, even if it's not perfect, I don't think the parent's children get a free pass and the parents are condemned for everything their child does. The child does have some responsibility to listen to their parents and use their judgement to choose what is right and what is wrong. In the same vein...

I think another part of this is that God will also hold us responsible for not taking the effort to gain a testimony, or to truly determine for ourselves what is right. We do have a responsibility to learn what is right and wrong; that's our whole purpose of being here, to learn and to grow. Sure, we could just follow blindly and minimize as much as possible the responsibility for our actions, but I don't think that's the point of our life here.

...but don't take this post wrong: I really liked your post and generally agree with it. :)

That's why I included "if the parents do not put forth every effort to teach their children correct principles".

I understand what you mean, and this is a very fine line that is hard to draw- because we can't see inside people's hearts. There are several scriptures that cover both ends, where parents or leaders are held responsible and where the individual is held responsible.

Basically, if I believe my parents/leaders are right and I follow what they teach me without questioning it or researching it on my own- it is their responsibility if I do something wrong on their guidance. If I think my parents/leaders are wrong and I do something different- I am responsible for my own actions. If I decide I want to find out for myself if they are right or wrong and in the end decide to follow their guidance based on my own knowledge and testimony, I now bear the responsibility for my actions. This is true whether the parents/leaders are right or wrong.

So, from the perspective of the parent- if you teach and your children follow without question, you get the responsibility. If you teach and your children do not follow, your children get the responsibility. If you fail to teach, you get the responsibility.

It is only harsh if we shirk our duties and fail to put forth the effort. Just as I am sure the judgment of God on a prophet who sought to use His power wrongly would be infinitely harsh.

[bay2boy]

Sorry, was this "14 points" brought up in a recent general conference? Like October's? If so I wonder what prompted them to resurface this list in the first place.

I don't have a problem with it but I can see how it appears to be somewhat Letter-of-the-law-ish to some people. Now if people started nailing this list above their mantels next to the Proclamation to the Family I'd start to wonder a bit.

[Guest gopecon]

There is a difference between a leader (parent, prophet, etc.) being wrong and being negligent. Wrong would be for a prophet to reinstitute polygamy against the will of God. If he were not stopped by God, the people who follow him would not be accountable (or would be less so) if they were acting in good faith (not willfully ignoring the DON'T DO IT from their conscience). Negligence in leadership is when we fail to teach principles that those in our stewardship need to learn or have reinforced. In these situations we are going to be partially responsible for their failings. I don't think that the people that we should have taught will be totally excused, we will just be held accountable for what we could have done.

Take the less active person on your home/visiting teaching route who once had a solid testimony but allowed it to die down. As their home/visiting teacher we have been called to try and help them come back to Christ. If we are not diligent in our efforts and they never repent and return we will have to answer for not doing our duty, but they are still going to be responsible for their actions as someone who knew about the gospel and did not live up to their covenants. Once we have figured a concept out, we are responsible even if someone doesn't reach out like they should.

[Just_A_Guy]

So we tell our people to just believe what our leaders say, yet we tell other folks to use the spirit to decide if they should believe what their leaders say. That doesn't work. It doesn't make sense? IMO.

. . . .

I was very sad to see this kind of teaching resurface after 30 years. I do not believe Bro. Costa did the members of the church any favor by resurrecting this kind of dogma and thought process. And I don't think this is the kind of direction that the Mormon people or it's leaders want the membership to go. That is just my opinion.

Cwald, did you know that it's impossible to steer a ship in a straight line?

Seriously. A helmsman is always contending with set and drift of the current, the heave of the waves, and the wind; as well as factors like prop walk and other hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull of the ship. He's trying to go towards one of three hundred and sixty points of the compass rose, with a wheel connected to a multi-ton rudder by a gearing system that is reasonably functional, but not perfect. The result of all this is that if you look at a ship's wake (or GPS plot) over miles, you will see a series of very subtle zigs and zags as the helmsman keeps a constant eye on his compass, continually makes course corrections, and occasionally over-corrects based on the impreciseness of his tools.

The Church is the same way: it moves slowly, its movement is imperfectly calibrated to its leaders' attempt to steer it, and there are hundreds of external forces at play trying to take the ship off its course. It's perfectly natural that the Church in Brigham Young's time needed his encouragement to verify everything; that the Church in Kimball's era needed Benson's warning to stick with the hierarchy; and that the Church in our own era was ready to be reminded by Elder Oaks that there should be a balance. The Church will continue to swing between two extremes, no matter how carefully steered--and even if it were possible to keep the Church on course, that doesn't mean its members individually will toe the line.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

I don't want to be rude either, but I don't know what you are talking about. I made it very clear I was just expressing my opinion, and how I perceive this issue. Perhaps you should cut me some slack - you've been on my case since I signed up here. What's the problem?

Now I'm confused. I just went back through all my posts since you joined this site and this is the first time I've ever responded to anything you have written. I'm referring to this comment:

And I don't think this is the kind of direction that the Mormon people or it's leaders want the membership to go.

When you use a statement like this..you are speaking for the Mormon people which would include me since I am one.

[cwald]

Now I'm confused. I just went back through all my posts since you joined this site and this is the first time I've ever responded to anything you have written. I'm referring to this comment:

And I don't think this is the kind of direction that the Mormon people or it's leaders want the membership to go.

When you use a statement like this..you are speaking for the Mormon people which would include me since I am one.

Well, that is not entirely true, since you were the first person who responded to my intro thread, and were immediately suspicious about my presence here since I am a NOM. But yeah, you are right, you have been cordial to me for the most part. I mistaken you for Eowen who did just wanted to argue and parse "wordage." It was actually the moderator Davin, and about six other regulars who have pretty who been pretty nasty - so, yes, I apologize.

I have absolutely no idea why I can't say that it's my opinion , which I stated several times in this thread, that "I don't think this is kind of direction that the mormon people or leaders want the membership to go."

Can't I have an opinion about the mormon people? It was just my opinion. Would you feel better if I said, "it's my opinion that the majority of the mormon people don't....?"

[pam]

Well, that is not entirely true, since you were the first person who responded to my intro thread, and were immediately suspicious about my presence here since I am a NOM. But yeah, you are right, you have been cordial to me for the most part. I mistaken you for Eowen who did just wanted to argue and parse "wordage." It was actually the moderator Davin, and about six other regulars who have pretty who been pretty nasty - so, yes, I apologize.

Okay I will concede I did miss that post in my search. But if you felt I was suspicious you took my post wrong. It was totally out of curiousity since we had 2-3 others that claimed to be NOMs join the site in a very short time.

And yes it would be better to use "My opinion is." Since some threads tend to get long and some people skim through threads..if they had read just one or two posts and the one where that comment was made was one..it doesn't matter that you said "My opinion" in other parts. They key in on just that post. It's only to make it more clear to everyone where your thoughts lie. But you have to be careful as well when you say "majority." Then you get people wanting to know where you are getting your statistics from. :)

I've been around this site since 1999 and have a pretty good feel how people respond. :)

[cwald]

Okay Pam, that is fair.

I'll get back to the topic at hand.

[pam]

Okay Pam, do you think the Mormon church truly believes, teaches and wants it's members to adopt the mindset espoused in the 14 Fs?

Perhaps they do, that SLC DOES want it's members to buy into the concepts? Perhaps, but I sure hope not. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that these two GA's were just speaking as men and weren't expressing the opinion of the Monson and the other Apostles on this issue.

My opinion only of course but...I guess I just don't see that two separate general authorities giving talks during the same general conference on the same day would both be expressing opinions that President Monson and other Apostles may not have. Almost sounds like a conspiracy which I know it is not.

I think the general authorities that speak in general conference are very careful with what they say knowing it will be going out to millions of people around the world. Yes some wording may come out and be perceived as controversial because they are afterall human...yet I honestly don't think that any would speak any words that would be intentionally against what President Monson or other apostles think.

Just my opinion.

[Justice]

Yeah, this is exactly why you can't really trust history books. The opinion of the author(s) is always present. Two history books covering the same event may read completely different.

The truth of the matter is that people see what they want to see. I read Alma 5 to my friend at work, which is one of the greatest chapters found anywhere in scripture, and his take was that there has to be some good, or some enticing, if the book is attempting to lead you astray.

Since he believes the Book of Mormon is but trying to lead men astray, then even the beautiful, correct teachings it does contain are part of the ploy to mislead.

We see what we choose to see.