Are We Required To Follow?

[tiancum]

Does Heavenly Father desire that we follow our leaders, whether it be our husbands, EQP, relief society pres, bishops etc if they are using unrighteous dominion?

Is it a case by case basis?

Could HF ever tell us to go in contrary to a priesthood leader if they were using unrighteous dominion?

[mightynancy]

IMO: No, Yes, Yes

[Gwen]

just as eve was not required to covenant to adam in unrightousness, i don't believe we are required to follow our leaders in unrightousness. i do believe there are ways to go about resolving a problem starting with the person with whom we have the problem. there are channels that we can move along if we feel necessary to continue to resolve the issue if it isn't resolved with the first. there is a spicific talk i was looking for, couldn't find it, but this one is just as good. i do not believe this applies just to men, women in this time can be very proud and just as guilty of unrightous dominion, and will be held just as accountable.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52

How tragic and utterly disgusting a phenomenon is wife abuse. Any man in this Church who abuses his wife, who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her is unworthy to hold the priesthood. Though he may have been ordained, the heavens will withdraw, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved, and it will be amen to the authority of the priesthood of that man.

Any man who engages in this practice is unworthy to hold a temple recommend.

I regret to say that I see too much of this ugly phenomenon. There are men who cuff their wives about, both verbally and physically. What a tragedy when a man demeans the mother of his children.

It is true that there are a few women who abuse their husbands. But I am not speaking to them tonight. I am speaking to the men of this Church, men upon whom the Almighty has bestowed His holy priesthood.

My brethren, if there be any within the sound of my voice who are guilty of such behavior, I call upon you to repent. Get on your knees and ask the Lord to forgive you. Pray to Him for the power to control your tongue and your heavy hand. Ask for the forgiveness of your wife and your children. President McKay was wont to say, “No other success can compensate for failure in the home” (quoting J. E. McCulloch, Home: The Savior of Civilization [1924], 42; in Conference Report, Apr. 1935, 116). And President Lee said, “The most important part of the Lord’s work that you will do, is the work that you do within the walls of your own home” (Harold B. Lee, Doing the Right Things for the Right Reasons, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [19 Apr. 1961], 5).

I am confident that when we stand before the bar of God, there will be little mention of how much wealth we accumulated in life or of any honors which we may have achieved. But there will be searching questions concerning our domestic relations. And I am convinced that only those who have walked through life with love and respect and appreciation for their companions and children will receive from our eternal judge the words, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: … enter thou into the joy of thy lord”

on a personal experiance note i do belive that our priesthood leaders do not address this enough in their temple recomend interviews. as pres hinckley states a person living like this is not worthy to hold a temple recomend. yet i have never heard of one being taken away or denied for this grevious offence. my father walked the line of unrightous dominion all the time, if not crossed it on many occassions. i know our leaders were aware of how he conduced his home and treated his family. at no point (to my knowledge) was he ever rebuked or called to repentance for this behavior, in fact he was allowed to have a temple recomend and participate fully in chruch even being a branch pres at one point. i wonder if one bishop or stake pres had stood up to him, called him on it, even denied him something even for a short time so he could truely ponder his actions how different could things have been. many members of my family have left the chruch, including my mother, and a huge part of that was his actions and the lack of actions of leaders who let it go on unawknowledged.

without giving to many details and still make some since; in the last yr we have been dealing with leaders that i feel have not acted as they should. they have made decisions i feel more in line with their profession rather than as stake leaders. it has been a very painful experiance. my family has been violated in what i feel to be a very severe way. the stakes actions and lack of actions has allowed this to happen. my husband is very much one that has always had faith in his leaders and if you follow them things will always be right even if they are wrong (he has followed chruch leaders that were "wrong" on two occassions and suffered the outcome of that bad counsel). i am one that i do believe the lord will bless us for our faithfullness and can make right anything ppl in this world can mess up; but i do not believe it is required of us. so after all that has happened in the last yr my husband is starting to see things a bit more like me. i do think the stake leaders have the best intentions but i believe they are acting as lawyers (the stake pres and one of his counselors are both lawyers) not stake leaders. my opinion the chruch has lawyers they don't need to do anything to protect the chruch other than be stake officers. i believe we are to protect the doctrines and gospel principles over inperfect individuals who may hold callings in this chruch. my faith is in god not the stake pres. so i stand by my husband and encourage him to use the law to the fullest to protect himself from anyone who acts (or fails to act) to interfear with his relationship with his son, including the chruch if needs be, which right now it appears to need be. for the record i am not speaking of takeing the church to court in any way, simply having wording in the paperwork reguarding my stepson that takes certian decisions away from "the chruch" and gives it to my husband.

i guess that was a really long way of saying i do not believe we are required to follow in blindness or unrightousness. i do believe we are to counsel with those that are in the wrong so that they may be aware of what is happening, and if the offence is agregious enough continue to follow the proper lines until the situation is made right.

[Traveler]

I once asked Apostle Hugh B Brown if a bishop should be supported even if you know that he is wrong.

His answer to me was especially if you know he is wrong - because he will need your support more then than at any other time.

As a parent I have learned that it is better for parents to unitedly raise their children than it is for one parent to be right. Not budging because you know you are right is a short step away from the terrible sin of pride.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

Depends what the Bishop is wrong about.

Obviously something like the Bishop approving a young man to serve a mission when you know the young man frequents whorehouses---for an extreme example---would not be a case to "support the Bishop" but to share your knowledge with him.

In other areas, though...like if the Bishop misspoke in sacrament meeting, or if he mispronounces someone's name...sure. B)

[tiancum]

what do you mean "supported" Traveler?

do what he has told you to do?

i have actually had to do that before. My leader told me to stop giving priesthood blessings. I did. it was hard, but i did. He was mad at other things, and took it out on me. ( a missionary had asked for a blessing, and so my stake president [neighbor] came in to my house without permission started yelling at us.)

He never admitted he was wrong. But he was released 2 weeks later.

[a-train]

Are children, in following the commands of wicked parents sinning in their obedience?

I cannot find: 'Thou shalt not obey your parents when they are wrong' in the Decalogue.

We do have this: 'Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.' (Exodus 20:12)

Perhaps the LDS understanding of our Final Judgment is unique. We do not believe that it will be only us and the LORD there. We will stand before the 'judgment bar' (2 Nephi 33:15). Who is on that bar? Who will give testimony at our judgment? We will have our parents, our children, our leaders, and those we lead with us.

We will there be accountable for our stewardships and our obedience to those who have stewardship over us. Perhaps there are situations wherein the LORD will want us not to go unwittingly into error through adherance to workers of unrighteous dominion. But let us not be as the rejectors of the Prophets who sing lullabies to their conscience with songs of accusation containing the lyrics of swelling pride.

If a Bishop, a parent, an officer of the law, or other leader humiliates us, we are not instructed to rise against them and protect our pride, but turn the other cheek. We must have faith that our deliverance from our oppressors will not come by our own hand on our own time, but vengence is the LORD's and will come on His day. Faithless, self-aggrandizing acts of rebellion will only bring the judgment of God upon us.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The question in the OP was, "Are we required to follow?" not, "Are we required to swallow our pride?"

Of course we don't harbor petty grudges against anyone, including leaders.

However, if a leader asks me to go deliver food to a member who has asked for no contact from the Church, I'll tell the Bishop that and if he insists I go, I wouldn't.

Does that mean I'm going to Hell? I highly doubt it.

The question isn't, "Are we supposed to overlook the faults of our leaders?" because of course we are.

The question is, "Are we to follow a fallen leader to Hell?" and the answer for me is, "Heck no!"

[AnthonyB]

Are children, in following the commands of wicked parents sinning in their obedience?

I cannot find: 'Thou shalt not obey your parents when they are wrong' in the Decalogue.

We do have this: 'Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.' (Exodus 20:12)

Perhaps the LDS understanding of our Final Judgment is unique. We do not believe that it will be only us and the LORD there. We will stand before the 'judgment bar' (2 Nephi 33:15). Who is on that bar? Who will give testimony at our judgment? We will have our parents, our children, our leaders, and those we lead with us.

We will there be accountable for our stewardships and our obedience to those who have stewardship over us. Perhaps there are situations wherein the LORD will want us not to go unwittingly into error through adherance to workers of unrighteous dominion. But let us not be as the rejectors of the Prophets who sing lullabies to their conscience with songs of accusation containing the lyrics of swelling pride.

If a Bishop, a parent, an officer of the law, or other leader humiliates us, we are not instructed to rise against them and protect our pride, but turn the other cheek. We must have faith that our deliverance from our oppressors will not come by our own hand on our own time, but vengence is the LORD's and will come on His day. Faithless, self-aggrandizing acts of rebellion will only bring the judgment of God upon us.

-a-train

Does "honour" necessarily mean obey? I think you can honour whilst not obeying, it is in the attitutude of the heart towards the person. You politely inform the person involved that you will be disobeying but do so respectfully with the full awareness that your disobediance will be punished and willing acceptance of that punishment. The book of Daniel has several clear examples of this kind of disobedience and clearly shows how to undertake such actions in a godly way.

[Maureen]

...However, if a leader asks me to go deliver food to a member who has asked for no contact from the Church, I'll tell the Bishop that and if he insists I go, I wouldn't....

This is a great example. It makes sense to me why you wouldn't obey the Bishop. I wonder what sixpacktr would think?

M.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

...However, if a leader asks me to go deliver food to a member who has asked for no contact from the Church, I'll tell the Bishop that and if he insists I go, I wouldn't....

This is a great example. It makes sense to me why you wouldn't obey the Bishop. I wonder what sixpacktr would think?

M.

Bishop asks me to do it, I'd do it. I've served with a couple of Bishop's, and know that they have more information than I do as to the circumstances surrounding that family.

Answer your question, Mo?

[a-train]

The question in the OP was, "Are we required to follow?" not, "Are we required to swallow our pride?"

Of course we don't harbor petty grudges against anyone, including leaders.

However, if a leader asks me to go deliver food to a member who has asked for no contact from the Church, I'll tell the Bishop that and if he insists I go, I wouldn't.

Does that mean I'm going to Hell? I highly doubt it.

The question isn't, "Are we supposed to overlook the faults of our leaders?" because of course we are.

The question is, "Are we to follow a fallen leader to Hell?" and the answer for me is, "Heck no!"

And what a folly it would be if after your hard-headed lolligagging, you discover that the person had requested the bishop's help.

-a-train

[tiancum]

what about in my case, where He told me to stop giving blessings to everyone. to not use my priesthood.

would ya do it??

[CrimsonKairos]

Y'all done hijacked my hypothetical situation and changed it around.

What I said was if the person wanted no contact from the Church, and the Bishop didn't know that, and I told him that, and he verified that, and if he STILL told me to go to the person's house and if I knew that would alienate the person further...heck no, I wouldn't go.

That's the situation. Don't go changing details around.

We aren't to blindly follow leaders. We are to seek guidance from the Spirit and confirm their instructions. I go to Bishopric meeting every Sunday and there are times when the Bishop forgets something or didn't know the circumstances around a situation and if he hadn't known them and had acted as he had originally planned, it would have gone badly.

Luckily, I've never had a Church leader ask me or tell me to do something I felt was wrong.

I was just speaking to the general principle in the OP. Sheesh.

[sixpacktr]

The Bishop has the responsibility to lead the ward that he is over (or BP if a branch). He is the chief HP in the ward. He is the President of the AP in the ward. IOW, he is the leading PH authority in the ward.

Under what circumstances would he tell you to not give blessings? Because he is mean? Because he is on a power trip and only he wants to give blessings in the ward?

I don't know the circumstances surrounding his admonition, and don't want to. If my Bishop told me to stop giving blessings because of transgression or some other such thing that he felt was keeping me from being worthy to exercise my PH, and I knew him to be right, I'd follow his admonition. If I was falsely accused, I would take it up with the Chief HP in the Stake, the SP, and appeal to him. However, during that time, I would follow the admonition of my Bishop until such a time as I was exonerated or whatever.

Sorry, it is hardwired into me. My spiritual leaders are called of God. When they speak, I have been taught to obey, and I do the best I can. If you want to flout the admonition, that is between you and HF. I, however, would prefer to remain obedient and work within the confines of the church government and work it out there.

Guess that makes me one of those 'brainwashed kool aid drinkers' that can't think for themselves. So be it. I'll trust in my obedience and the admonition of the spirit than being offended because someone wounded my pride.

[Elphaba]

As a parent I have learned that it is better for parents to unitedly raise their children than it is for one parent to be right. Not budging because you know you are right is a short step away from the terrible sin of pride.

The Traveler

I hope this depends on what one of you is "right" about. There are always going to be differences of opinion, some of them grave. You would not want the consequences to be such because you think you are avoiding some ridiculous notion of pride, when in fact doing so is, in reality, indulging in pride.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Are children, in following the commands of wicked parents sinning in their obedience?

I cannot find: 'Thou shalt not obey your parents when they are wrong' in the Decalogue.

We do have this: 'Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.' (Exodus 20:12)

Perhaps the LDS understanding of our Final Judgment is unique. We do not believe that it will be only us and the LORD there. We will stand before the 'judgment bar' (2 Nephi 33:15). Who is on that bar? Who will give testimony at our judgment? We will have our parents, our children, our leaders, and those we lead with us.

We will there be accountable for our stewardships and our obedience to those who have stewardship over us. Perhaps there are situations wherein the LORD will want us not to go unwittingly into error through adherance to workers of unrighteous dominion. But let us not be as the rejectors of the Prophets who sing lullabies to their conscience with songs of accusation containing the lyrics of swelling pride.

If a Bishop, a parent, an officer of the law, or other leader humiliates us, we are not instructed to rise against them and protect our pride, but turn the other cheek. We must have faith that our deliverance from our oppressors will not come by our own hand on our own time, but vengence is the LORD's and will come on His day. Faithless, self-aggrandizing acts of rebellion will only bring the judgment of God upon us.

a, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. I understand the Church is organized so that there are people who have stewardship over you who counsel you and you obey his counsel, and that this is true in the family as well.

However, there are times when the situation is dire, and the person who holds this stewardship uses it unrighteously. I cannot imagine God would condemn someone under his stewardship who is affected by this. Yet, if I read you right, you are saying to turn the other cheek and continue to allow this man to treat you badly in the same manner as before?

There could be many situations where a person chooses not to be humiliated, to use your example, but not in a "faithless, self-aggrandizing act of rebellion. They do it quietly, but assertively, and only as a last resort. But you think it would be wrong to do this?

I especially cannot believe a child should be expected to "honor" or "obey" parents who have stewardship over him but who are violent, rageful and neglectful. It's not as if he can make a choice to turn the other cheek and come out of that situation with no consequences. It is very likely this child will grow up to be a man with serious emotional impairments, including being violent and rageful himself, horrid behaviors learned from his parents as a result of his having to "turn the other cheek." So, how does a child like that "turn the other cheek" with no consequences? He can't! He has to be removed from that environment. But that's not what I hear you saying.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

Elphaba

[Maureen]

...Sorry, it is hardwired into me. My spiritual leaders are called of God. When they speak, I have been taught to obey, and I do the best I can. If you want to flout the admonition, that is between you and HF. I, however, would prefer to remain obedient and work within the confines of the church government and work it out there.

Guess that makes me one of those 'brainwashed kool aid drinkers' that can't think for themselves. So be it. I'll trust in my obedience and the admonition of the spirit than being offended because someone wounded my pride.

Leaders can be called of God but they are still human and can make mistakes. Can you imagine a situation six where a leader might be wrong and the admonitions of the spirit are trying desperately to tell you so, but your hardwiring is so welded together nothings getting through? Is it possible to be so conditioned in following a certain ideology you loose the ability for common sense?

M.

[prisonchaplain]

This topic is difficult because everyone knows that leaders can be wrong (especially those of us who have led), but we also know that far too often those in charge do not have a chance--they are unduly criticized, held to standards that Moses and Paul would have failed. In the end, they simply try to ride out the status quo until some other idealistic new "leader" can be slowly drained of innovation.

[CrimsonKairos]

Ultimately, as I said earlier, I've never had a leader ask me to do something out of harmony with the gospel or the Spirit.

90% of this discussion is purely hypothetical, thank goodness.

[sixpacktr]

Leaders can be called of God but they are still human and can make mistakes. Can you imagine a situation six where a leader might be wrong and the admonitions of the spirit are trying desperately to tell you so, but your hardwiring is so welded together nothings getting through? Is it possible to be so conditioned in following a certain ideology you loose the ability for common sense?

M.

Hi Mo,

You keep dealing with extreme fringes. If my Bishop told me to go rob a bank to pay my bills, then yes, I'd be a tad concerned and probably wouldn't follow him. If he got up on the pulpit and said that from now on those that drank coke could no longer have a TR, I'd speak with him privately and ask him to show me where the church said you can't do that. However, I wouldn't publicly embarrass him or talk behind his back that he was nuts, etc.

The example was basically if we'd follow a leader down to hell. No, I wouldn't. But when the Bishop gives someone an assignment, or a calling, or anything else, then I believe we should obey.

There seems to be this spirit of seeing how close to the edge we can get before we are being disobedient, or better yet, 'still righteous'. To me, the spiirt is going to tell you 999 times out of 1000 that the Bishop, or SP, or Prophet, is right and that we are to obey. That 1 time in 1000? If the spirit told me strongly don't do it, then I'd tell the Bishop what I had been told, and ask him to explain why he feels it is important for me to do whatever. And if his explanation makes sense, and I don't feel that it will jeopardize my standing with my HF, then I will do it. Again, I too can believe the wrong thing just as much as that man can.

I guess I get back to the mantle that Bishop's receive when called. I honor that office, and recognize that man as my spiritual leader for the amount of time he has that calling. I don't get to 'pick and choose' what I'll believe or disbelieve. And all of the men I have served with while in Bishoprics, or as EQP, or as YMP, etc., were honorable, upright men that would NEVER tell anyone something that they didn't need to hear. They were humble men that did the absolute best that they could, and got enough harping from those in the ward that had the same spirit as prevails to some extent on this board, always a 'how dare you tell me something I don't want to hear' attitude.

It seems that too often people want to make hypotheticals on 'when this or this happens, I'll tell him to go to hell because he is out of the way' instead of an attitude of 'I'll support my leaders as best I can, and not add to the burden they bear, and get confirmation that what they are telling me is correct'.

Blind obedience was never in the cards in HF's plan. Praying about what we have been told or taught, gaining our own testimony of that, and then acting accordingly? Yes, that is exactly what we are commanded to do.

Why this hang up on trying to determine if a leader is leading us in wrong paths?

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

Leaders can be called of God but they are still human and can make mistakes. Can you imagine a situation six where a leader might be wrong and the admonitions of the spirit are trying desperately to tell you so, but your hardwiring is so welded together nothings getting through? Is it possible to be so conditioned in following a certain ideology you loose the ability for common sense?

M.

Hi Mo,

You keep dealing with extreme fringes. If my Bishop told me to go rob a bank to pay my bills, then yes, I'd be a tad concerned and probably wouldn't follow him. If he got up on the pulpit and said that from now on those that drank coke could no longer have a TR, I'd speak with him privately and ask him to show me where the church said you can't do that. However, I wouldn't publicly embarrass him or talk behind his back that he was nuts, etc.

The example was basically if we'd follow a leader down to hell. No, I wouldn't. But when the Bishop gives someone an assignment, or a calling, or anything else, then I believe we should obey.

There seems to be this spirit of seeing how close to the edge we can get before we are being disobedient, or better yet, 'still righteous'. To me, the spiirt is going to tell you 999 times out of 1000 that the Bishop, or SP, or Prophet, is right and that we are to obey. That 1 time in 1000? If the spirit told me strongly don't do it, then I'd tell the Bishop what I had been told, and ask him to explain why he feels it is important for me to do whatever. And if his explanation makes sense, and I don't feel that it will jeopardize my standing with my HF, then I will do it. Again, I too can believe the wrong thing just as much as that man can.

I guess I get back to the mantle that Bishop's receive when called. I honor that office, and recognize that man as my spiritual leader for the amount of time he has that calling. I don't get to 'pick and choose' what I'll believe or disbelieve. And all of the men I have served with while in Bishoprics, or as EQP, or as YMP, etc., were honorable, upright men that would NEVER tell anyone something that they didn't need to hear. They were humble men that did the absolute best that they could, and got enough harping from those in the ward that had the same spirit as prevails to some extent on this board, always a 'how dare you tell me something I don't want to hear' attitude.

It seems that too often people want to make hypotheticals on 'when this or this happens, I'll tell him to go to hell because he is out of the way' instead of an attitude of 'I'll support my leaders as best I can, and not add to the burden they bear, and get confirmation that what they are telling me is correct'.

Blind obedience was never in the cards in HF's plan. Praying about what we have been told or taught, gaining our own testimony of that, and then acting accordingly? Yes, that is exactly what we are commanded to do. I realize this wasn't written to me, but I'm going to respond. There is nothing written here that I would disagree with.

Why this hang up on trying to determine if a leader is leading us in wrong paths?

Because some of the hypotheticals brought up, i.e., honor your parents and turn the other cheek,* fall into this category.

Elphaba

P.S. *I'm still not sure this is what a-train meant. However, I don't know how else to read it.

[tiancum]

If I was falsely accused, I would take it up with the Chief HP in the Stake, the SP, and appeal to him

I did exactly that. I was given permission again as soon as I talked to the authorities.

Your words above, sixpack, express my beliefs in a much more effective manner than I am capable of. gracias...

[sixpacktr]

If I was falsely accused, I would take it up with the Chief HP in the Stake, the SP, and appeal to him

I did exactly that. I was given permission again as soon as I talked to the authorities.

Then (and pardon me, I'm not being rude), what is the problem? You worked within the confines of the church gov't, and it all worked out. I see that as a positive.

Am I missing something?

[tiancum]

Someone asked me the question I posed. So rather than give them an answer from me, i wanted more opinions.

I love discussion. I love learning this way. Now i think i might understand their point of vie a little better.