One question that I have received in one form or another is in reference to Priesthood leaders and disagreement. Naturally, there is great hesitancy among many disciples of Jesus in disagreeing with leaders that the Lord has given to us (for some it is hesitancy, others simply see it as nothing other than an act of apostasy). There are also several scriptural statements encouraging readers to heed the words of his servants. One direct, and poignant, example is in Doctrine and Covenants section 1 verse 14:
"the day cometh that they who will not...give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
"Heed" is commonly, and narrowly, understood to mean obey. However, if one actually looks at definitions of the word "heed", it primarily means to "pay careful attention to; take notice of", "have regard for", and to carefully "judge...estimate, assess...rate...gauge".
(see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heed, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heed, and https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS564US564&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=628&q=define+regard&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ_SowAGoVChMIy5DGn8P-yAIVijomCh1eGAVh)
A proper understanding of "heed" more broadly makes the practice of it much more than "doing as your told". I think that both my blog posts/comments, as well as the blog posts/comments of other Latter-day saints who disagree with me, are equally representative of faithful Latter-day Saints who are in the practice of giving "heed to the words of the prophets and apostles" because both have taken careful notice of, and have paid careful attention to what these servants are saying. Additionally, both represent our hard efforts to judge, estimate, assess, rate, and gauge them with careful thought and prayer.
Furthermore, disagreement does not mean one has ceased to sustain a Church leader. Scripture, and history, is full of examples where disciples disagree openly and heartily with their leaders.
Paul, for example, openly "withstood [Peter] to the face, because he was to be blamed" in continuing the practice of requiring circumcision for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Keep in mind that circumcision was a doctrinal standard of cleanliness and token of the new and everlasting covenant since Abraham. Imagine disagreeing openly with the highest living priesthood authority about a central standard of cleanliness and temple token that had been unchanged for thousands of years--- and being right.
I know the response is, yeah but these are two apostles disagreeing with one another--- that is different. Yes that is true. But what about Jethro and Moses?
In Exodus chapter 18, it recounts that when Jethro "saw all that [Moses] did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?...The thing that thou doest is not good" (Exodus 18:14-17). Here again, somebody other than the Prophet/President of the Kingdom of God receiving the revelation about its structure. In both cases, Peter and Moses weren't necessarily the ones that always received the revelation, they just had the authority to ratify it as binding or not.
Again, I know many will say that while Jethro was not an Apostle, he was still Moses' father-in-law, and they can technically receive revelation for sons-in-law.
Agreed, which is why I think it is also important to point out the case of Lehi and Nephi in the Book of Mormon (which is the "most correct of any book on earth"). In this case, it was Lehi the Prophet who murmured against the Lord, and it was Nephi who had to motivate the group. It was also Nephi, not Lehi, who received the revelation from God to build a ship on behalf of the people over whom Lehi was called to be a Prophet.
This case is incredible in that Nephi, both in terms of familial position AND in terms of Church priesthood hierarchy, was in no expected position to be the one who received those things by revelation--- BUT HE DID.
Finally, consider the case of the non-Israelite woman and the Lord himself in Matthew chapter 15. In this instance, a woman of Canaan cried unto the Lord saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" (v.22)
Jesus replied with the official policy of his Kingdom at the time which was that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs" (v.24-26).
This woman of Canaan--- of no priestly or prophetic office--- argued back with the Lord God Himself, and reasoned, "Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table" (v.27).
Reasoning with prophets over policy is one thing, but arguing with the Lord himself? But guess what? It worked. Jesus replied to her saying, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt" (v. 28). Again, arguing with the Lord was not counted as lack of faith, but an abundance of it.
Overall, all of these cases, where those under the Prophet disagreed with him, constitute efforts to SUSTAIN that Prophet. Sustaining a person means to strengthen the person physically or mentally. That can include being the one to have the idea or clarification when the mental faculties of the leader are tired and burden.
Which is why Elder Ballard said in 2010:
“There isn’t one person that knows all of the answers to every question. But when the council system is operating we have an opportunity to draw on inspiration from the various members of the council, and even members of the ward if we are doing it right. Everybody has their ear up and they may hear something that is not in their presidency, but just comes out of a hometeaching visit of a visiting teaching visit that solves the issue that the council was worried about.” – Elder Ballard, November 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting
Elder Ballard reiterates here what earlier scriptural cases indicate: nobody--- NOBODY--- knows all of the answers. Everybody--- EVERBODY--- has to have their ears up to try to hear the voice of the Lord to figure out ideas in terms of moving the work forward. And often----OFTEN--- the key insight comes from those who sit far outside the governing councils, like somebody who is simply being home taught.
Why? Because in mortality, we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Which is why it is always a group effort to articulate the voice and will of God as it distills upon our souls as dew from Heaven.
One last great example of disagreement more modern than Nephi is between Dr. Lowry Nelson (an LDS Sociologist), and Mission President, and the First Presidency in 1947 regarding the ordination of black people to the Priesthood.
Lowry writes to Mission President Heber Meeks:
"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. Your letter is the first intimation I have had that there was a fixed doctrine on this point. I had always known that certain statements had been made by authorities regarding the status of the Negro, but I had never assumed that they constituted an irrevocable doctrine. I hope no final word has been said on this matter. I must say that I have never been able to accept the idea, and never shall."
To President George Albert Smith, Lowry wrote:
"Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have. I have done so out of strong conviction...The many good friends of mixed blood-through no fault of theirs incidentally...would be shocked indeed if I were to tell them my Church relegated them to an inferior status...I wanted you to know my feelings on this question and trust you will understand the spirit in which I say these things. I want to see us promote love and harmony among the peoples of the earth."
The First Presidency responded saying:
"The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things...Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel."
Dr. Lowry responds by discussing institutions and social change saying:
"In their [the Hebrews] early stages of development they had beliefs and practices, many of which, were subsequently supplanted by other ideas. Jehovah to the Hebrews of Pentateuch was essentially a tribal diety. It was not until Amos that the idea of a universal God as proclaimed. And the concept of God as Love was an essential contribution of the mission of the Savior...This to me, represents 'progressive revelation'... so we are in a position, it seems to me, of accepting a doctrine regarding the Negro which was enunciated by the Hebrews during a very early stage in their development...it does not square with... the letter or spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I cannot find any support for such a doctrine of inequality in His recorded teachings."
The First Presidency's second response was:
"We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well founded they seem to be."
(These are letters in Utah State University's archives, you can read the full correspondence here: https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up)
Those who are up to date in this issue, would find the above correspondence somewhat ironic given that the Church's most recent essay on the issue states that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." The is essentially an acknowledgment that the policy was not of God, but that the policy regarding racial restrictions were removed by revelation from God. (see: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng)
In retrospect we have a more sure word of prophecy and can see that Dr. Lowry's assertions were right (way back in 1947), and that they were more in line with our article of faith that "God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".
It was sad that it took a direct revelation from God to finally command outright that the Church needed to remove this policy of man regarding race and priesthood. The reason why this is sad is because the Lord has said that "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...men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness" (DC 58:27-28).
We should have done that of our own free will, the goodness in us should have seen the error in our ways. We should have humbled ourselves as an institution instead of being compelled to be humbled (Alma 32:16). It seems, given the Church's recent essay, that the Lord essentially grew tired of waiting to see of the Church would do this good thing of their own free will, and simply commanded it. But that is okay, hopefully we are learning to be better at this as a people overtime.
Overall, it is a great example of the messy, long, and unclear process of hearing the voice of the Lord and having it ratified by those in authority to ratify for the whole Church.
It is not as "top-down" as many of my fellow Latter-day Saints may believe.
Please do not misunderstand me as saying that my opinions are always right, and that the opinions of the Brethren are always wrong. That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is that illumination on these doctrinal and policy issues, which affect the whole church, can come from any member of the Church because we all have a testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of Prophecy. We can all be prophets, seers and revelators. What we have is a body of Apostles with the task of ratifying the light from God whether it comes from themselves or outside of their council.
I am also saying that both they (the Apostles) and us are looking through the glass darkly while here in mortality. They, like George Albert Smith, may still make mistakes in what they judge to be of God or of men (referring to President G.A. Smith's words to Lowry), and many members may still make mistakes in what we interpret as correct light. But that imperfection does not mean that they are not Apostles of God, and that we should stop discussing as a community these matters.
We are a living breathing developing kingdom of God with more to learn. Which is why belief is so important. Certainty closes a mind to more revelation and change (repentance) to incorporate that new light into our lives.
Thus, it is important to accommodate different views so this messy process of 'progressive revelation' can continue. Remember the words of Joseph Smith:
"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodist have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled," (Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184).
I do sustain (ie support) the First Presidency and the Twelve, and that includes respectfully voicing my own unique thoughts every once and a while after heeding (careful regard, gauging and judging) some of their own words. My wife and I have deep respect for Members of those two councils of the Church. Their counsel has blessed our lives in numerous ways. We tithe, we serve in Church callings (I am a seminary teacher, and she plans activities for Relief Society), we always bring family names to the temple (every time we have gone to the temple since being married for five years), we are debt free as the brethren urge us to be, we pursue as much education as possible just like they urge us to (I am doing a PhD, and my Wife plans to do a Masters), we read scriptures AND pray with our children every night.
So don't always mistake disagreement with contention or contempt. And don't always equate disagreement with the light going out, because sometimes (as was the case with Jethro, Nephi, Paul, and Lowry) it stems from individuals with the light burning bright with insight that may be the solution to the problem that the council was deliberating over (see Ballard quote in text above).
"the day cometh that they who will not...give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
"Heed" is commonly, and narrowly, understood to mean obey. However, if one actually looks at definitions of the word "heed", it primarily means to "pay careful attention to; take notice of", "have regard for", and to carefully "judge...estimate, assess...rate...gauge".
(see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heed, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heed, and https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS564US564&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=628&q=define+regard&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ_SowAGoVChMIy5DGn8P-yAIVijomCh1eGAVh)
A proper understanding of "heed" more broadly makes the practice of it much more than "doing as your told". I think that both my blog posts/comments, as well as the blog posts/comments of other Latter-day saints who disagree with me, are equally representative of faithful Latter-day Saints who are in the practice of giving "heed to the words of the prophets and apostles" because both have taken careful notice of, and have paid careful attention to what these servants are saying. Additionally, both represent our hard efforts to judge, estimate, assess, rate, and gauge them with careful thought and prayer.
Furthermore, disagreement does not mean one has ceased to sustain a Church leader. Scripture, and history, is full of examples where disciples disagree openly and heartily with their leaders.
Paul, for example, openly "withstood [Peter] to the face, because he was to be blamed" in continuing the practice of requiring circumcision for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Keep in mind that circumcision was a doctrinal standard of cleanliness and token of the new and everlasting covenant since Abraham. Imagine disagreeing openly with the highest living priesthood authority about a central standard of cleanliness and temple token that had been unchanged for thousands of years--- and being right.
I know the response is, yeah but these are two apostles disagreeing with one another--- that is different. Yes that is true. But what about Jethro and Moses?
In Exodus chapter 18, it recounts that when Jethro "saw all that [Moses] did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?...The thing that thou doest is not good" (Exodus 18:14-17). Here again, somebody other than the Prophet/President of the Kingdom of God receiving the revelation about its structure. In both cases, Peter and Moses weren't necessarily the ones that always received the revelation, they just had the authority to ratify it as binding or not.
Again, I know many will say that while Jethro was not an Apostle, he was still Moses' father-in-law, and they can technically receive revelation for sons-in-law.
Agreed, which is why I think it is also important to point out the case of Lehi and Nephi in the Book of Mormon (which is the "most correct of any book on earth"). In this case, it was Lehi the Prophet who murmured against the Lord, and it was Nephi who had to motivate the group. It was also Nephi, not Lehi, who received the revelation from God to build a ship on behalf of the people over whom Lehi was called to be a Prophet.
This case is incredible in that Nephi, both in terms of familial position AND in terms of Church priesthood hierarchy, was in no expected position to be the one who received those things by revelation--- BUT HE DID.
Finally, consider the case of the non-Israelite woman and the Lord himself in Matthew chapter 15. In this instance, a woman of Canaan cried unto the Lord saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" (v.22)
Jesus replied with the official policy of his Kingdom at the time which was that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs" (v.24-26).
This woman of Canaan--- of no priestly or prophetic office--- argued back with the Lord God Himself, and reasoned, "Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table" (v.27).
Reasoning with prophets over policy is one thing, but arguing with the Lord himself? But guess what? It worked. Jesus replied to her saying, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt" (v. 28). Again, arguing with the Lord was not counted as lack of faith, but an abundance of it.
Overall, all of these cases, where those under the Prophet disagreed with him, constitute efforts to SUSTAIN that Prophet. Sustaining a person means to strengthen the person physically or mentally. That can include being the one to have the idea or clarification when the mental faculties of the leader are tired and burden.
Which is why Elder Ballard said in 2010:
“There isn’t one person that knows all of the answers to every question. But when the council system is operating we have an opportunity to draw on inspiration from the various members of the council, and even members of the ward if we are doing it right. Everybody has their ear up and they may hear something that is not in their presidency, but just comes out of a hometeaching visit of a visiting teaching visit that solves the issue that the council was worried about.” – Elder Ballard, November 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting
Elder Ballard reiterates here what earlier scriptural cases indicate: nobody--- NOBODY--- knows all of the answers. Everybody--- EVERBODY--- has to have their ears up to try to hear the voice of the Lord to figure out ideas in terms of moving the work forward. And often----OFTEN--- the key insight comes from those who sit far outside the governing councils, like somebody who is simply being home taught.
Why? Because in mortality, we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Which is why it is always a group effort to articulate the voice and will of God as it distills upon our souls as dew from Heaven.
One last great example of disagreement more modern than Nephi is between Dr. Lowry Nelson (an LDS Sociologist), and Mission President, and the First Presidency in 1947 regarding the ordination of black people to the Priesthood.
Lowry writes to Mission President Heber Meeks:
"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. Your letter is the first intimation I have had that there was a fixed doctrine on this point. I had always known that certain statements had been made by authorities regarding the status of the Negro, but I had never assumed that they constituted an irrevocable doctrine. I hope no final word has been said on this matter. I must say that I have never been able to accept the idea, and never shall."
To President George Albert Smith, Lowry wrote:
"Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have. I have done so out of strong conviction...The many good friends of mixed blood-through no fault of theirs incidentally...would be shocked indeed if I were to tell them my Church relegated them to an inferior status...I wanted you to know my feelings on this question and trust you will understand the spirit in which I say these things. I want to see us promote love and harmony among the peoples of the earth."
The First Presidency responded saying:
"The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things...Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel."
Dr. Lowry responds by discussing institutions and social change saying:
"In their [the Hebrews] early stages of development they had beliefs and practices, many of which, were subsequently supplanted by other ideas. Jehovah to the Hebrews of Pentateuch was essentially a tribal diety. It was not until Amos that the idea of a universal God as proclaimed. And the concept of God as Love was an essential contribution of the mission of the Savior...This to me, represents 'progressive revelation'... so we are in a position, it seems to me, of accepting a doctrine regarding the Negro which was enunciated by the Hebrews during a very early stage in their development...it does not square with... the letter or spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I cannot find any support for such a doctrine of inequality in His recorded teachings."
The First Presidency's second response was:
"We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well founded they seem to be."
(These are letters in Utah State University's archives, you can read the full correspondence here: https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n10/mode/1up)
Those who are up to date in this issue, would find the above correspondence somewhat ironic given that the Church's most recent essay on the issue states that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." The is essentially an acknowledgment that the policy was not of God, but that the policy regarding racial restrictions were removed by revelation from God. (see: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng)
In retrospect we have a more sure word of prophecy and can see that Dr. Lowry's assertions were right (way back in 1947), and that they were more in line with our article of faith that "God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".
It was sad that it took a direct revelation from God to finally command outright that the Church needed to remove this policy of man regarding race and priesthood. The reason why this is sad is because the Lord has said that "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...men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness" (DC 58:27-28).
We should have done that of our own free will, the goodness in us should have seen the error in our ways. We should have humbled ourselves as an institution instead of being compelled to be humbled (Alma 32:16). It seems, given the Church's recent essay, that the Lord essentially grew tired of waiting to see of the Church would do this good thing of their own free will, and simply commanded it. But that is okay, hopefully we are learning to be better at this as a people overtime.
Overall, it is a great example of the messy, long, and unclear process of hearing the voice of the Lord and having it ratified by those in authority to ratify for the whole Church.
It is not as "top-down" as many of my fellow Latter-day Saints may believe.
Please do not misunderstand me as saying that my opinions are always right, and that the opinions of the Brethren are always wrong. That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is that illumination on these doctrinal and policy issues, which affect the whole church, can come from any member of the Church because we all have a testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of Prophecy. We can all be prophets, seers and revelators. What we have is a body of Apostles with the task of ratifying the light from God whether it comes from themselves or outside of their council.
I am also saying that both they (the Apostles) and us are looking through the glass darkly while here in mortality. They, like George Albert Smith, may still make mistakes in what they judge to be of God or of men (referring to President G.A. Smith's words to Lowry), and many members may still make mistakes in what we interpret as correct light. But that imperfection does not mean that they are not Apostles of God, and that we should stop discussing as a community these matters.
We are a living breathing developing kingdom of God with more to learn. Which is why belief is so important. Certainty closes a mind to more revelation and change (repentance) to incorporate that new light into our lives.
Thus, it is important to accommodate different views so this messy process of 'progressive revelation' can continue. Remember the words of Joseph Smith:
"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodist have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled," (Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184).
I do sustain (ie support) the First Presidency and the Twelve, and that includes respectfully voicing my own unique thoughts every once and a while after heeding (careful regard, gauging and judging) some of their own words. My wife and I have deep respect for Members of those two councils of the Church. Their counsel has blessed our lives in numerous ways. We tithe, we serve in Church callings (I am a seminary teacher, and she plans activities for Relief Society), we always bring family names to the temple (every time we have gone to the temple since being married for five years), we are debt free as the brethren urge us to be, we pursue as much education as possible just like they urge us to (I am doing a PhD, and my Wife plans to do a Masters), we read scriptures AND pray with our children every night.
So don't always mistake disagreement with contention or contempt. And don't always equate disagreement with the light going out, because sometimes (as was the case with Jethro, Nephi, Paul, and Lowry) it stems from individuals with the light burning bright with insight that may be the solution to the problem that the council was deliberating over (see Ballard quote in text above).
Comments
Post a Comment