5 Reasons for Following the Prophets
In this post I would like to briefly outline 5 reasons for why we should believe our authorized priesthood leaders over our own reasoning. The purpose of this post, in contrast to many of my prior posts, is not to convince the reader that they ought to so prioritize the church leaders’ beliefs over their own. Rather, it is more to provide a taxonomy of sorts for such reasons, if only for the purpose of clarification. Commenters are encouraged to specify which reasons they do and do not endorse as well as provide and categorize any reasons that I might have missed.
Without further ado, here are my 5 arguments for arguments from priesthood authority:
- Explicit revelation
- Unspoken revelation
- Unconscious revelation
- Group coordination
- Intrinsic authority from ordination
Before briefly unpacking these arguments, I want to acknowledge that each of these reasons – although some more than others – requires or depends upon personal revelation in order to go through. As always, I insist that personal revelation is necessary to confirm each and every one of these lines of thought.
Explicit revelation – This is usually taken (rightly or not) by the world at large to be the prototypical case of prophetic authority. The prophet says something akin to “Thus sayeth the Lord…” and tells us that some teaching is not his, but the Lord’s. Furthermore, position of our priesthood leaders allows them to receive such revelation regarding the direction and doctrine of the church in ways which we cannot.
Unspoken revelation – This is usually taken (again, rightly or not) by the active membership to be the prototypical case of contemporary prophetic authority. In this case, we believe (again, after prayerful confirmation) that even though the priesthood leaders do not draw a clear line between their own words and those of the Lord, the words of the Lord are there all the same. For whatever reason, they choose to play the cards of revelation rather close to the chest.
Unconscious revelation – This is a case that I think most of us have experienced in that sometimes, in hindsight, we can see that we were guided by the Lord in something we did or said, even though we didn’t know it at the time. In this case, the words of our priesthood leaders are being guided by the Lord, even if they themselves do not realize it and thus cannot tell us where their own words begin or end.
Group coordination – This is a case in which it is better for us all to be on the same page as members of the church than it is for some of us to be on what is perceived (rightly or not) to be a better page. In such cases, unity and effective action trump diversity and analytic discussion.
Intrinsic authority from ordination – In this case, loyalty to ordained authorities is a virtue in and of itself rather than being an instrument to and thus constrained by some other end. What matters is not the validity of the teaching or even the validity of the revelation, but the validity of the ordination. Thus, arguments from secular authority are indeed invalid fallacies, but arguments from the authority of the Holy Priesthood of God are something else altogether. Of course one’s priesthood ordination over us can become null and void, but not simply by saying something which seems incompetent or wrong to us.
There are a few points about these arguments that I think are worth mentioning. First, all of these arguments are both independent of as well as consistent with each other in that none of them seems to stand or fall with any other. Second, those who refuse to allow priesthood leaders to trump their own reasoning, tend, in my experience, to focus on (1), assuming that the failure of (1) entails the failure of others as well. Third, (1),(2) and (3) all see church authority as being based in a competence of some kind in that the Lord’s undisputed competence on some matter is the only thing which gives the priesthood leaders legitimacy over us. This makes these arguments very democratic and modern in nature, and as such tends to focus attention on (1), it being the clearest way in which the general membership can (rightly or not) evaluate a priesthood leader’s (disputed) competence at expressing the Lord’s (undisputed) competence. Fourth, (4) basically boils down to the modern, albeit disreputable arguments for authoritarianism – although the difference of voluntary association guided by personal revelation cannot be overstated. Fifth, (5) is the very anti-modern argument which I have been pursuing in my recent arguments for authority. While it is most foreign to our modern mindset, I believe it is right at home in the traditionalist context in which most of our scriptures were written.
Finally, I think it worth repeating that each of these arguments or thought processes requires confirmation by way of personal revelation on our part. Whether a priesthood leader is guided by the Lord in an explicit, unspoken or unconscious way can only be verified by personal prayer. Whether being on the same page as the priesthood leaders is more important than being on what is perceived to be a better page is a question only the Lord can answer. Whether a priesthood leader’s word in intrinsically binding over us or not can only be decided by the Lord.
Jeff G.,
This post puzzles me. You wrote: I want to acknowledge that each of these reasons – although some more than others – requires or depends upon personal revelation in order to go through. If one enjoys personal revelation (and in previous posts you’ve acknowledged that personal revelation trumps) doesn’t one simply follow the Spirit? If so what is the point of this taxonomy? And doesn’t that redefine the prophet’s role to that of suggesting what to ask the Spirit about?
I think the priority is 1) follow the Spirit 2) in the absence of the Spirit follow the prophet 3) in the absence of modern prophetic counsel follow the scriptures.
I think your taxonomy is actually for people who lack access or easy access to the Spirit.
Comment by Howard — August 24, 2014 @ 8:56 am
Jeff G.,
This will probably sound repetitive to you but my intuition goes against your strategy because it seems extremely similar to the Calvinist and Jesuit responses to the enlightenment.
While it’s not logically incorrect to say the Jesuits and Calvinists were correct, they were just backing the wrong authority. To me the lack of much of anything specifically Mormon about your arguments and taxonomies counts against them stylistically and motivationally. They don’t add anything to just saying authority is authority.
Furthermore, from a Mormon perspective the most worldly thing in the world is Priestcraft and false religion not atheism and science which are actually quite rare to find in living breathing humans.
I don’t like to judge people on the company they keep but your arguments often trip off the lips of priestcrafters.
Again, I don’t think you are wrong, just that I’d like to see more recognition of all the very good reasons Mormons are cautious about unrighteous dominion. Putting personal revelation at the top is great and if you could just make your appeal to authority more uniquely Mormon I would find it more motivating.
Comment by Martin James — August 24, 2014 @ 12:17 pm
Oh, and I would add to the list “they might be right”.
Sort of a pAscals wager on authority. This still counts as going against reason to me because I don’t find Pascal’s wager to be very reasonable given the multiplicity of potential dieties.
Comment by Martin James — August 24, 2014 @ 12:30 pm
I like your post here Jeff. And I think a big part of the reason is that I doubt that those who oppose the prophets are doing so based on anything as noble as personal revelation. Kierkegaard gave some clues as to how to distinguish between a prophet and a genius (the spirit can guide us as well). And from what I observe, those who oppose the prophets act a lot more like a genius than they do a prophet.
I think your list is good. I also think that the fruits of following the prophets should be added to the list as well.
Comment by Eric Nielson — August 24, 2014 @ 2:26 pm
Jeff G., I admire your continuing attempts to combine philosophical thinking with conservative views of Mormonism. But I’m inclined to disagree with this particular formulation. How does one distinguish authentic from mistaken claims of explicit revelation? How do you distinguish between unspoken revelation and simply ascribing revelation to a speaker’s mere personal opinion? Group coordination seems to justify deference to almost any hierarchical structure, revelatory or not. It’s an authoritarian argument, not a revelatory one.
It is a generally accepted notion that public justifications of policy or moral courses of action cannot fall back on claims of revelation. Which makes your last claim particularly troubling. You admit that “one’s priesthood ordination over us can become null and void,” which seems to be an admission that not all statements which rely on a claim to explicit revelation or prophetic authority can be taken at face value, then you proceed to disallow the notion of critically examining such claims when they strike us as “incompetent or wrong.” What other basis than reason or factual error might we reasonably use to question such a claim?
And I don’t think you can argue that personal revelation can be used to trump institutional revelation as you have laid it out (as a basis for making the null and void determination you allude to). Otherwise your whole structure falls apart anytime someone says, “Well, I prayed about it and received a response that tells me something quite different.” That seems to undermine your whole approach.
Comment by Dave — August 24, 2014 @ 2:52 pm
Dave, you seem puzzled that some of us can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves that they speak for God. But isn’t that, in fact, Jeff’s point? Speaking as one who has experienced such independent knowing, it makes perfect sense to me.
Comment by R. Gary — August 24, 2014 @ 4:10 pm
R. Gary,
No one is surprised that people are both united around leaders and have independent knowing of the correctness of their leaders. But that is hardly his point. He’s not bearing his testimony here or saying pray for confirmation of what you hear from your leaders. If he were then you would be right about his point, but he is not.
He is trying to reclaim a certain type of lost sheep, who he believes to be lost due to a certain type of belief in Reason and democratic values. He is trying to influence how people think through a certain type of rhetorical argument.
The whole context is for people who find themselves opposed to leadership. To say “some of is have independent confirmation of their authority” doesn’t move the argument forward.
Comment by Martin James — August 24, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
Howard,
I have a few responses to your comment – although I doubt that any of them will be entirely satisfactory to you:
1) My post is primarily aimed at how authority trumps human reason rather than personal revelation on any given position.
2) If somebody doesn’t accept any of these “arguments” (they’re more like perspectives, really) then it is unclear to me why they want to associate with the church at all. It’s difficult to see how somebody can reject all of these perspectives and still sustain the church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators.
3) I think you would agree that the beliefs we already have bias, if not structure (our interpretation of) the personal revelation we receive. Thus, I would suggest that the personal revelation we receive will be different depending on which of these perspectives, if any, we accept.
4) Finally, these are five different ways of unpacking the commandment that I think we all acknowledge to some extent or another of “follow the prophets”. For example, I think you accept (1) such that you accept prophets to the extent that they are explicit about their revelation – although I get the impression that you’re not too keen on the whole “stewardship” part of it. I think you’re a little suspicious of the others, right?
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 1:38 pm
Martin,
I do acknowledge that there are indeed good reasons to be cautious of unrighteous dominion. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad reasons to be so cautious as well, and there is no shortage of the latter to be found in the bloggernacle.
In the bloggernacle I see far too many perspectives on the dangers and cautions of unrighteous dominion coming out of the secular values of the Enlightenment (and Protestantism) rather than the gospel. The former consist, I argue, in a reaction to Catholic abuses of authority which amounted to a rejection of all appeals to authority and an acceptance of checks and balances of authority by others using their critical reasoning. This is absolutely contrary to Mormon doctrine, I suggest. The proper response to the illegitimate authority of the Catholic church was not reject authority altogether, but to count Catholic authority among the illegitimate.
There is a world of difference between the universalization of priesthood authority – which just is the rejection of priesthood authority – and the restoration of priesthood authority.
As for Pascal’s wager, you may be right in adding that to the list, but I have a hard time generalizing from that particular argument for the existence of God to the legitimacy of priesthood authority within certain persons.
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 1:47 pm
Eric,
Yours and Howard’s comments have helped me rethink what these arguments really are and are not. Yes, we could say that blessings as rewards are arguments for following the prophets, but I don’t think this is really the point I was trying to get at.
I think a better title would have been “5 things that ‘sustaining somebody as a prophet, seer and revelator’ might mean.” The difference is between why we would accept a person as a PSR vs why we would obey a PSR that we have already accepted as such.
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 1:55 pm
Dave,
I definitely value the disagreements that you bring to this post, but I’m not sure that we are understanding each other well enough to pin point where and how we disagree. There is little doubt in my mind that I am primarily at fault for this.
For starters, this post is not at all meant as a straight forward argument for a conservative or orthodox Mormonism. Rather, it was meant as a way for the heterodox and orthodox to better understand where they differ from each other – assuming that all parties accept and sustain our priesthood leaders as prophets, seers and revelators. For example, I would not expect a liberal Mormon to accept, for the most part, (4) or (5). I would also expect them to be pretty suspicious of (3). Nevertheless, I don’t see any reason for them to reject the idea that (3), (4) and (5) might actually be ways in which some more conservative members do accept the leaders as PSRs.
Thus, while I accept that these interpretations of what it means to accept a priesthood leader as a PSR might need to fine-tuning, I don’t see much of a reason to reject them as different interpretations altogether. (In my comments above I pull back from the idea that these are arguments for authority.) This is what my post was primarily about.
Of course, I make no secret that I also think that a strong faith in our church leaders as PSRs entails that we accept more than just (1) and/or (2), which is where you seem to be pushing back against me. As long as it’s clear that this particular post merely expresses my position rather than argues for it, I see no reason that we can’t discuss my more conservative views.
With Rorty, I complete reject the idea that brute facts can by themselves justify or falsify anything, so I won’t say much more on that issue. I also reject the idea that the church is to be run by human reason which is exactly what would happen if we allow human reason to question the legitimacy of our priesthood leaders. The only way that I can see our church being truly led by God is that if revelation (personal and institutional) as being unconstrained by anything else, including facts and reason.
Not the whole structure, just that person’s testimony of their priesthood leader as a PSR. If they pray about and they are fully convinced that God is telling them that their leaders are not PSRs then they most definitely should not accept them as such. I think this position is non-negotiable for Mormonism. Such a thing does not tear down the whole church, just that person’s testimony in the church… and rightly so. Basing our testimony on anything less is to build our house upon the sand.
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 2:18 pm
Martin again,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to Gary, since I took his comment to be a fair response to Dave. But then, I might have misunderstood him.
Yes, I am trying to disabuse members of their automatic embracing of enlightenment ideals, and yes, I see the distinctions I draw as opening up and refining a vocabulary which will be helpful in this process. This post, however, is merely clarifying our terms sort of post rather than a “you should follow the prophets more” sort of post. I hope my follow up comments helped disentangle the confusion that definitely is there in my post.
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 2:23 pm
Jeff G,
Yes I accept 1 as you stated in #8 and I believe authority is a license and calling defines stewardship.
I don’t accept the general premise as it my apply to the others that priesthood leaders who do not draw a clear line between their own words and those of the Lord, the words of the Lord are there all the same. For example some priesthood leaders have ended up in prison for abuse, rape and scams that required their words. Were the words of the Lord are there all the same? How do we know if their words include the Lord’s words without the spirit? The D&C cautions us about unrighteous dominion, so apparently our priesthood leaders even our apostles are not immune to it.
Comment by Howard — August 25, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
I see you as definitely objecting to (3) wherein there is no clear difference between a leaders words and those of the Lord.
I’m still not clear about how you feel about (2) though. How do you feel about the idea that a church leader might receive the Lord’s word such that it is quite clear (to them) where the Lord’s words begin and end, and then use the Lord’s words to inform their teachings in a way which does not quote or site the Lord?
I think this important since, as I said in the post, it’s probably the most popular interpretation in the church today.
-Do you think this is coherent position in that even though it is not your idea of a prophet, you can see how others would accept it?
-Do you accept this position in that you would accept such a leader as a PSR?
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 3:21 pm
Jeff,
Number 4 seems to be the most liberal of all in the Rortyian sense of liberal. It requires no belief in divinity or revelation.
As for my comment to R. Gary, I took Dave to be saying what happens when personal revelation goes opposite to authority and R Gary interpreted that as puzzlement that for some individuals that does not happen. I don’t think Dave was puzzled by that happening, he just presumes it doesn’t always happen.
I just have trouble seeing who you are disillusioning from which enlightenment values. The radically enlightened are atheists and as you point out have no use for Mormonism as a belief.
On the other hand, those like R. Gary that have a consistent experience of authority and personal revelation don’t need any disabusing.
Its those typical bloggerites that would seem to be your audience(assuming you are not just trying to preach to the choir their greater understanding and virtue).
But there always seems to be a bait and switch with your audience of enlightenment-laden mormons. You bait them with what they think is reason and then want to switch them to reason as authority recognition.
The reason to believe the prophets is because they are correct. If they are not correct they are not being prophetic.
Some of your list could be taken as bayesian a priori weights for their probability of being right, but you haven’t convinced me that Mormon Doctrine requires believing that a prophet inspired by God would make a statement that is false under enlightened reason.
On the other hand, part of the bait and switch of some people claiming to be enlightened is that reason can posit values. But that is different from claiming that prophets only make value statements.
Comment by Martin James — August 25, 2014 @ 3:21 pm
(4) is most definitely the most naturalistic, but I would never call it liberal. It’s very nearly the opposite of liberal.
The rest of your comment betrays the very enlightenment values and meanings that I am arguing against.
This, my friend, is my stalking horse. Correct how? What does it mean to be correct? Correct by what and whose standards? What relationship do behaviors and end goals have to correctness? What relationship does authority have to correctness? What relationship does evidence and reason have to being correct? Is “truth” always and only identical to “correct”? Am I always and only under an obligation to believe that which is correct?
I assumed that there was one obvious and unproblematic answer (even if it wasn’t entirely clear) to each of these questions – and it played a major role in my leaving the church. I see these exact same answers leading many others out of the church in the exact same way.
It is for this reason that my posts are not at all directed toward unbelievers, since my whole point is that reasoned arguments like my posts (and those of the rest of the ‘nacle) cannot and should not be our reason for joining or leaving the church. Thus, my posts are directed toward members of the church who take arguments and human reason (too) seriously. The bloggernacle is ground zero for those types.
Comment by Jeff G — August 25, 2014 @ 3:44 pm
“The rest of your comment betrays the very enlightenment values and meanings that I am arguing against.”
I know.
“Thus, my posts are directed toward members of the church who take arguments and human reason (too) seriously. The bloggernacle is ground zero for those types.”
And I’m arguing you are burning down a house you stopped believing in to prove it is real. If you prove it is real, then there’s nothing left.
I don’t mind your project, I just think what you believe in now isn’t mormonism and I’m trying to entice you back to it along with the others going down the path you say led you away.
I’m letting you try to entice me (and some days you do a good job) but let me try to entice you ( because my view of authority may be more like authority than you think.)
So, riddle me this. Take the tenth article of faith. Here it is for reference.
“10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”
So, here’s my first question. Why use the term “literal” before gathering? How do we know what literal means? If I don’t have any concept of “correct”, I don’t have any concept of whether my definition of “literal” is correct. Or the word “continent” or “earth”.
This is what I mean about your position not being very mormon from my point of view because it doesn’t seem consistent with believers and non-believers having a consistent understanding of the term “literal” which seems to be the whole point of using the term literal in the first place.
You think you believe in a more sophisticated form of mormonism and I think you believe in a dumbed-down form of mormonism, that is, a version that wants to minimize the importance of the “literal”.
I’m glad you are back, but don’t make it so easy to stay that you sell it short.
Comment by Martin James — August 25, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
Jeff G,
I do think that 2 as described in #14 and 3 occur but in the absence of the spirit how do we know it is occurring? Also I do not believe that it is present often in the words spoken by our leaders rather faith promoting warm fuzzies are spoken far more often than any specific direction from the Lord.
My tripple great grand father paid with his life and the lives of two children widowing his wife and leaving her with 7 remaining children to raise by faithfully following his zealous leaders in the Willie Handcart Co. The church spins this story as faith promoting but she disagrees.
Comment by Howard — August 25, 2014 @ 5:42 pm
Jeff G.,
To me, it seems that #1 is the only real reason to “follow” a prophet. Let’s think about the words “prophet” “seer” and “revelator.” To prophesy, to see, to reveal. Unless a prophet is doing these things, is he really these things? Are these titles that we elect to give people, or are they verbs? Why does a voted title warrant a following?
The only reason that I give credence to #5 is because I hope/believe at some point that it would lead to #1. #2 and #3 are ambiguous assumptions that we seem to project onto these apostles. If I were to even get a sense that these men received revelation about an issue and taught it in a general sense, it would validate 2 and 3 more. But it seems that heaven has been silent for quite some time in the sense that the Lord isn’t dispensing anything that can be recognized as any type of revelation, nor do we get the sense of what a “special witness” means. He the risen Lord ministered to them? Have angels taught them things that can offer more clarity, like Nephi? If so, then 2 and 3 would be more valid to someone like me. It wouldn’t always have to be #1.
Because of this, there doesn’t seem to be a pressing need to “follow” a prophet as much as there is a need to learn doctrine and become more Christlike.
Comment by Pierce — September 19, 2014 @ 3:39 pm
Pierce,
I would be willing to grant that #1 is the only interpretation of sustaining the prophet that you find acceptable, but I do find your dismissals of the other interpretations very convincing. PSR is not something that we elect or vote on nor are they merely verbs. Rather, they are positions which people are ordained to in that the leaders are ordained to reveal, see and prophesy over us in a way that we are not ordained to do over them. I do not, however, see any reason why any such analysis of these words necessarily implies that such revealing, seeing and prophesying much be fully articulated.
I would also disagree with the idea that our projecting such titles onto others is necessarily inadequate. As long as our projections are in line with God’s will as it is revealed to us in personal revelation, what does it matter if we are aware of revelation that is not explicitly articulated as such?
This presupposes that (1) is the only real model of what it means to be a PSR. The whole point behind (2) and (3) is that the church leaders do not have to actually tell us anything at all about what is and is not revelation for them to still lead us by revelation.
This sounds a little too much like the Protestantism that was rejected in the 1st vision.
Comment by Jeff G — September 22, 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Jeff,
“PSR is not something that we elect or vote on nor are they merely verbs.”
Technically, the living apostles are the ones that elect a newer member, and we sustain them with a “vote” in general conference, and then that one moves up in seniority by default as other apostles pass away. So that’s what I mean by that.
It sounds like you view these as titles at least as equally as you do the actions–and maybe more. I can understand that, as a good portion of me still does. But here are some issues with that reasoning for me:
a. We haven’t had a recognized, official revelation since the 70’s. I am ok with the idea that the Lord hasn’t spoken since then. But I don’t think that jives with LDS culture.
b. The apostles have been super reluctant to explain whether or not they are witnesses to the risen Lord, or have been ministered to by angels. This doesn’t seem to follow with the scriptural precedence. So, have miracles ceased in this regard?
c. If a person doesn’t say that they are prophesying, revealing, or seeing, then how can I know when they are speaking as the “Lord’s mouthpiece” and when they are not?
d. I’m not interested in following man as much as I am in following the Lord. I should have that confidence that I am following the Lord.
For the most part, I do have faith in the brethren, but because of these things I can’t make “follow the prophet” my mantra.
“what does it matter if we are aware of revelation that is not explicitly articulated as such?”
It can matter to a lot of people, especially when the philosophies of apostles get mingled with scripture and cause damage. How can you not care if what you are following as your religion comes from God, or man? I would even be much more comfortable with #2 and #3 if there were just a hint of #1.
“As long as our projections are in line with God’s will…”
I just find it unnecessary and even inappropriate to superimpose our own beliefs onto God and attribute it to him. When the Ordain Women thing was going down, a friend of mine said she believes that President Monson spoke face to face with God about this matter, so she trusts that the excommunication came from God. I just see a real problem with this line of thinking, and it makes us have to go back and clean up all the inconsistencies and logical and moral catastrophes (priesthood ban).
“This sounds a little too much like the Protestantism that was rejected in the 1st vision”
Which prophet has scratched the surface of what Joseph bore witness of or produced in the way of prophecies, seeing, and revealing? We reference the first vision, but why is there not a 16th vision?
My point simply is this: Joseph was indeed The Prophet. He revealed the gospel and more. For someone to fill his shoes, and for me to “follow” him (a loose term here) to a point where that is part of my real worship, then I would need to know that the person is a real prophet, seer, and revelator, as evidenced by his fruits. I don’t mean how nice a talk he gave in conference.
I know these men have been selected to lead the LDS church. They are inspired men. I am hesitant to project my own views of what I think they should be onto them, and would rather hear them speak authoritatively on behalf of the Lord and not themselves (if even once a decade). If they cannot, then I am left to take what they say with a grain of salt, which I am ok with, but again–it doesn’t jive with LDS culture.
Comment by Pierce — September 22, 2014 @ 5:23 pm
I’m not sure how relevant it is, but I would still push back against the idea that we vote in the church. I suppose you could say that apostles are voted into the quorum, so long as we acknowledge that this is done by inspiration and unanimity. To conflate the showing of common consent with voting, though, I think is a serious mistake. That is like conflating the election held in the US with those that have been held in the one-party communist countries. Yes, there is a vote, of sorts in both contexts, but they are not at all the same.
More to the point, however, I also want to push back on your more relevant points:
a) who is this “we” that hasn’t received any revelation since the 70’s? The whole point of my (2) and (3) is that members can receive revelations from our leaders even when your “we” hasn’t received any.
b) you are making some really big assumptions regarding what duty, if any that apostles have to transparently articulate or report such experiences. Most of all, you assume that it is the leaders we should be putting these questions to rather than God. If you want to know whether the church leaders in the relevant sense, there is only one way to find out – and asking the leaders themselves is not it.
c) I’m sure you can predict my response here. There is only one way to find out, and it has little if anything to do with the leaders being forthcoming.
d) It sounds like you are keeping yourself from following the Lord more than the church leaders are.
I think I address and disentangled some of the ambiguities that I think you are exploiting in this post.
More to the point, your comments seem to suggest that God and his servants are – or pretend to be – basically super-natural academics who ought to seek celestial data, cite their sources, refrain from bias, present objective information upon which others can base their own decisions, etc. It is for this reason that I think you’re being a little disingenuous here:
I think that this is exactly what you’re doing. To be clear, it’s not that you’re superimposing your own belief on God. What other choice do we have? Rather, what I object to is superimposing the beliefs and values which structure a very small and elitist segment of society (intellectuals and academics) and superimposing them on God to the exclusion of all other sets of beliefs and values which a group of illiterate fishermen might project onto Him.
Trust me, I’m very familiar with the concerns that you have. The only talk I ever gave at a Sunstone symposium was on the difference between revelation and inspiration and why we don’t seem to see much of the former in the church today. I now reject the entire premise upon which that talk was built and most of my posts here are aimed at explaining why.
Comment by Jeff G — September 23, 2014 @ 11:11 am
Jeff,
If you are indeed very familiar with the concerns I have, then I continue to look forward to your insight and how and why you’ve gotten to where you’re at. Please understand that for me this isn’t a debate to be won.
When I talk about voting in church, I mean it the same way you just described. I do believe these men are selected by inspiration/revelation to be PSR’s. My point is that we ascribe these titles to them rather than having them bear those fruits themselves, generally. Our culture in the church seems to equate the title with the action. I just think there is a difference. Without #1 happening, I personally prefer to go with apostle or President rather than “prophet who is the mouthpiece for God.”
“who is this “we” that hasn’t received any revelation since the 70’s?”
We have not received a revelation from the Lord to the Church since 1978, in that we have accepted it as such by common consent, the way that all other scriptures have been given.
“you are making some really big assumptions regarding what duty, if any that apostles have to transparently articulate or report such experiences.”
Titles and official ordinations aside, what is an apostle? What sets an apostle apart from others? What is a prophet? You call my questions assumptions, but they are mostly observations from the scriptures. The pattern seems to be that prophets have a special relationship with God and are authorized to speak on his behalf–and then they do! Not with everything, but at times they are unabashed in it. I am willing to accept the idea that our apostles may not all be witnesses of the risen Christ, or have been ministered to by angels, or who have clear visions, and that we may simply be in some sort of transition to something like that. But you cannot deny that what you are advocating is different than most of the examples we find in the scriptures and even the early church. Why the change?
“More to the point, your comments seem to suggest that God and his servants are – or pretend to be – basically super-natural academics”
Academics? How did you get that out of my comments? Is Peter an academic because he was a witness for Christ? Was Nephi, because he learned from angels? Unlike the “intellectual” crowd that you are looping me in with, I am not demanding the apostles to have all the answers to historical or doctrinal issues. In fact, my position cuts them a whole lot more slack. What part of being a prophet in the SCRIPTURAL sense requires them to be supernatural academics?
At some point we invented the mantra “follow the Prophet,” meaning all of the current and maybe recently-deceased apostles. A high, high value has been placed on orthodoxy and obedience. While we both agree that we have apostles for a reason, there is a detrimental affect to be had when adopting this as a main theme of one’s worship. People have “followed” some false traditions and philosophies, and have often replaced receiving greater light and knowledge by oneself for dependence on church leadership to provide it. The temple demonstrates to us that we are to be personally ministered to by seeking that for ourselves. It is not a Protestant idea–it is a very Mormon idea when you look past the mantra.
When I talk about superimposing things onto the Brethren, what I’m talking about is saying that they are prophesying, seeing, and revealing all the time without ever once, in many many decades, saying it for themselves. Or that they are special witnesses and have manifestations that regular people do not, yet they have consistently declined to offer that witness themselves. I cannot help but find this to be really odd, and I cannot help but notice that it just doesn’t seem to follow the scriptural model.
I have heard it said that the primary responsibility of the Brethren is to provide the ordinances of the gospel, be a witness for Christ, and to preach repentance to this generation. If they are going to go outside of that purview, then yes, for me to follow them I would need to know that their doctrine comes from God. The people in the church are in an interesting state of figuring out what is really doctrine and what is not. The most recent example has been its essay on the priesthood ban. And a big part of that essay is a disinheriting of the false teachings surrounding it.
It is totally within the Brethren’s abilities to boost my confidence in their prophetic calling. I am eager for it. I just don’t feel the need to follow the “assumption from silence” view that our culture propagates.
***I think you overstepped yourself with (d.). My faith is realistic and adopting the mantra doesn’t equate to a meaningful relationship with the Lord, and vice versa.***
P.S. If this conversation is worth engaging in or has been done before, I apologize. I’m new to your blog and look forward to reading some newer posts. The topics have been very relevant, from what I’ve seen.
Comment by Jeff — September 23, 2014 @ 4:01 pm
I don’t know why your name showed up as the last commenter. I guess I am an identity thief!
Comment by Pierce — September 23, 2014 @ 4:14 pm
Yeah, that also happened with one of Adam’s comment recently. I wasn’t sure if you accidentally wrote the name of who you were responding to in the name field or if it’s a glitch. Either way, no biggie.
“Our culture in the church seems to equate the title with the action.”
I’m not at all sure that it’s as cut and dry as you say, but I think our difference in opinion here boils down to whether we accept (2) and (3) along with (1) or not. If we accept (2) and (3), then I would fully expect members to call the president as PSR since it is because of his office that his words can be imbued with revelation (whether he says so or not) in a way that no other person’s can. Ordination is a necessary condition for PSR, even if it’s not sufficient. The sufficient condition is our personal revelation that confirms it.
“We have not received a revelation from the Lord to the Church since 1978, in that we have accepted it as such by common consent, the way that all other scriptures have been given.”
In that case, we have received just as much revelation from our PSR’s as the church did during Jesus’ ministry since he didn’t write anything down anything to be sustained by any vote. This point is not meant to be as flippant as it probably appears. My point is not simply, “If Jesus did it, it should be good enough for us.” Rather, my point is that our religion is not grounded in the study of written and non-contextual documents that have been officially approved. Rather, it is grounded in the reception of oral communication of an ordained minister addressed to a particular audience that (ideally) is guided by the spirit in that moment. I would never say that the church does not need any revelation. I am not so sure, however, that the church needs more official scripture.
“But you cannot deny that what you are advocating is different than most of the examples we find in the scriptures and even the early church. Why the change?”
On the contrary, I think it is the modern mind that has changed things. It’s version is that the authority of an apostle derives from the information that they may or may not receive from God, thus making it rather important that we know what information they have and have not received. For them, no information from God = no authority. I’m convinced the scriptures teach nothing of this sort. An apostle’s authority comes from their ordination, not from their information and it is people rather than propositions that have this authority. The only way that an ordained apostle loses his authority is through unrighteousness, not from having or teaching bad information. Church leaders not sharing or even having visions is only a problem within one of these views.
“Unlike the “intellectual” crowd that you are looping me in with, I am not demanding the apostles to have all the answers to historical or doctrinal issues.”
That is not what the intellectual crowd does either. What they do demand is that the justification for any claim makes no reference whatsoever to a speaker’s social position, authority or ordination. An intellectual (as I use the word) thinks that “because a righteous man who has been ordained to lead the church says so” is not a good reason to believe or do something. You may not demand that the apostles have ALL the answers to doctrinal and historical issues, but you do demand that they have some answers – and to this I object.
“A high, high value has been placed on orthodoxy and obedience.”
In comparison to what? By modern standards, you are absolutely right, in that our emphasis on obedience, etc. is disproportionately high. In comparison to all the pre-modern societies described in the scriptures, I do not think our emphasis stands out at all.
“It is totally within the Brethren’s abilities to boost my confidence in their prophetic calling. I am eager for it. I just don’t feel the need to follow the “assumption from silence” view that our culture propagates.”
I would fully agree that following the assumption from silence is inadequate. Again, ordination is a necesary condition, but insufficient. That is the whole point of (2) and (3) in the OP in that the responsibility is not on the brethren to boost our confidence. Rather, it is on us to seek the Lord’s guidance in actively discerning rather than passively assuming when the brethren are speaking for God or not. (This, and nothing else, is what I meant when I said that you were getting in your own way. I had no intention of calling your worthiness or intentions into question. Only in pointing out that you seem to be waiting for somebody else to give you a reason to follow the brethren.)
P.S. Don’t apologize for anything. Forcing me to redescribe my position is very helpful to me as well. I realize that my position differs from more others’ in the ‘nacle on many, many inter-connected points. The tough position I find myself in is that I can’t expect to win one point at a time since all the other points of difference work against me, but I also can’t refute all points at once either. The best I can hope for is patience and charity on the part of others.
Comment by Jeff G — September 25, 2014 @ 12:09 pm
Jeff,
I think in a lot of ways, we ultimately view the bottom line in a similar way. For example, I do accept (2) and (3). Perhaps the real difference is that when it comes to (2) and (3), I will also rely on judgment, information, conscience, and the Spirit. This is because it has been demonstrated that apostles past and present just haven’t always been correct in what they taught or believed. And if they aren’t correct in something in particular, WHY FOLLOW IT? There’s no need to list some of the false beliefs and traditions that have existed–we all know about them. The problem is, the “follow the prophet” mantra has led many to equate these ideas as (1)(2)or(3)! And it’s not just false teachings, for me there are just a lot of superfluous things that we treat as commandments that don’t trace back to the Lord.
In light of open information as well as criticism, we are starting to really course correct by starting to officially say things like “the opinions of such and such apostle don’t represent the doctrine of the church” or “the church doesn’t have an official doctrine regarding this” (even though it was taught otherwise).
The inconstancy to me is that we are disavowing a lot of what former apostles and saints taught and believed, after being able to, in hind sight, recognize it as invalid. Yet, when it comes to the current leadership, we are still being indoctrinated to just “follow the prophet”, which mantra also extends to the apostles, PR dept, SP’s, Bishops, etc.
My point isn’t that there is no authority, it’s just that our over-reliance and on authority can come with a cost, and a lot of the time it’s just not a necessary part of living the message of the gospel.
Comment by Pierce — September 25, 2014 @ 4:42 pm
“we have received just as much revelation from our PSR’s as the church did during Jesus’ ministry since he didn’t write anything down anything to be sustained by any vote”
Firstly, comparing Jesus with anybody is not going to be anything close to a good comparison. Secondly, even if we are going to compare our apostles now to the apostles in Christ’s time, you are also going to struggle. I’ve already brought up the point that they were witnesses of the resurrected Christ and were not bashful in their witness of him or speaking on his behalf. We have adopted their experiences and teachings as scripture.
“I would never say that the church does not need any revelation. I am not so sure, however, that the church needs more official scripture.”
This is kind of my point. The thing is, we are treating almost everything like scripture with “follow the prophet.” When we put a heavy emphasis on PSR’s, and use words like “mouthpiece,” and equate today’s apostles to the Early Church or the Nephites, or equate Pres. Monson with Joseph Smith, we are giving them the same weight. Yet, the nature of our apostles today seem fundamentally different than these predecessors in that they don’t prophesy, see, or reveal in a similar manner. If someone is acting as The Mouthpiece, then naturally their words become scripture.
“On the contrary, I think it is the modern mind that has changed things”
In past times, it was the apostles or the prophets that gave a real witness of Christ/God, and spoke on his behalf after learning from him personally or from angels. It is in modern times that we either just assume this happens or we say that it doesn’t matter.
“Rather, it is on us to seek the Lord’s guidance in actively discerning rather than passively assuming when the brethren are speaking for God or not.”
This, to me, sounds more like my position than the “follow the prophet” position. In fact, if this was completely adequate, we wouldn’t need to push obedience and “follow the prophet so much.” It’s not really “follow the prophet” if it really is “follow what the Lord personally reveals to you in light of an apostle’s conference talk.”
“You may not demand that the apostles have ALL the answers to doctrinal and historical issues, but you do demand that they have some answers – and to this I object”
It’s not really about “answers.” For me, if we are going to call them “mouthpieces” and give them the same weight as scriptural prophets, then they need to establish when they are speaking in that capacity, as previous prophets unabashedly did. Or, even in the very least, offer their special witness. Again, this isn’t a modern invention, it’s a scriptural model.
Otherwise, I accept them as apostles and their leadership of the church as a whole. I don’t need to treat things that aren’t given as (1) as something that is given as (1). When they make the mind of the Lord known, they will do it in a way that doesn’t require assumptions or blind obedience. I will truly follow.
Comment by Pierce — September 25, 2014 @ 5:38 pm
Sorry for the late response.
I think this is far too strong a statement – as it relies upon quite a few assumptions that I for one do not accept regarding the nature of true and correct belief and speech. The whole point of continuing revelation is that we aren’t bound to the teachings of past prophets in the same way that their immediate stewardship was. Thus, there isn’t anything all that deep or meaningful for us to take away from the church distancing itself from past teachings. Here is one post where I address this issue.
You might be right… to some extent… maybe. We only have records of what the apostles and Jesus did that were written well after their lives by somebody else. We aren’t totally sure how forthcoming any of these people were about their own experiences during their lifetime. Again, the fact that they didn’t write any of things down is important. Generalizing this point to the present, we should then expect the PSR’s of today to share their own experiences by way of face-to-face, oral communication rather than some kind of recorded media.
The point at issue is not that the PSR’s today aren’t sharing or writing down their experiences enough. The fact that we have so little of God’s communication to any of His servants ever should really temper our expectations on this point. Indeed, even within the scriptures themselves such experiences are very rarely referred to. I see no reason why the church needs to publish and put to an official vote any new revelations. Yes, it would be nice and I personally would like that a lot…. but who cares what my own preferences are on the matter?
I disagree. My position is that the PSR’s can receive revelation for us, but we cannot receive revelation for them. There is a major asymmetry here that very much reinforces our following the prophet. Indeed, if we follow your position to its logical end, not only do we have no need to push obedience, but we have no need for PSR’s or the church.
Again, not quite right. It’s not “follow what the Lord personally reveals to you” as if the prophets did not exist. Instead, it is “follow the prophet unless God (not human reason or preference) tells you otherwise.” Huge difference.
I’ve already addressed this, but, again, the strong majority of scriptural prophets did NOT unabashedly share their experiences.
What it boils down to is either you sustain the church leaders as PSR’s or not. If not, I hope that is based in personal revelation, and I wish you all the best… just don’t pretend to sustain them as such when the time comes. If you do so sustain them, I also hope this is based in personal revelation…. just don’t pretend that you do not sustain them as such when the time comes. The responsibility to make this decision is fully on us and what the church leaders have to say on the matter is relatively unimportant.
Comment by Jeff G — October 1, 2014 @ 11:39 am
I am going to try my hand at quote blocks for the first time. Here goes…
I completely agree with this statement. The biggest issue that undermines your position is this: what is revelation and when are we getting it? This isn’t about revelation, it’s about accepting everything an apostle says/teaches in absence (or possible absence) of revelation. Tell me truthfully if you believe the priesthood ban–along with multiple and different interpretations of why it existed–where revelations that were overturned by later prophetic revelations? Because you don’t get that sense from the church’s essay on it. The only revelation was the overturning of the ban (as far as we know, I’ll grant you that). So while I accept that polygamy and the priesthood ban was eliminated by revelation, I don’t accept man’s opinions surrounding those things as doctrine. I think you’d agree with me on that. What you don’t agree with me on is that this scrutiny should be applied to living apostles. And that, to me, is a discrepancy.
Well let’s bring it closer. Would you agree, at least, that Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson are different caliber prophets? New scriptures, prophecies, D&C-style revelations, and bearing witness of God and angelic ministering is much different to me than conference talks with cute anecdotes and quotes (I honestly mean that in the most kind-hearted way–I still love conference). With one I see “mouthpiece”, with the other I see “steward.” Or, as I’ve heard it been called: prophets with a “big P” and prophets with a “little p.”
Or at all…generations of apostles.
This is almost where we see eye to eye. My expectations are actually less than the average mormon who takes Conference as scripture and who assumes heavenly manifestations occur. But I follow it through to its logical conclusion, which is that there may be opinion or man’s teaching involved that I can question or discard, if needs be. It seems like your method has you “follow,” and then perhaps discard it after the apostle is dead. If I’m wrong on this point, tell me.
Again, this isn’t really about revelation. I agree with this doctrine. You said earlier that you don’t feel that we need to make revelation official. So how do you separate opinion from scripture? Or do you just not care? A lot of LDS don’t, so I won’t blame you for an honest answer. I matters to me though, and to many others.
I sense condescension here because my sustaining means something different than yours. I answer that question with full confidence in the affirmative. I accept their roles and the idea that they are the ones designated to receive revelation for the whole church. I do not believe that they act as a PSR with every utterance, teaching, action, or idea. For this reason I qualify my obedience and acceptance of what they say and do, unless they act in their official capacity as having received a revelation from God. I believe that Mormonism offers that flexibility.
Lastly, I am going to go out on limb and say that you believe everything that I just said as it applies to dead apostles, but are unwilling to apply it to living ones.
Comment by Pierce — October 1, 2014 @ 5:14 pm