Two Faces of Obedience
By Stephen Carter on Jul 8, 2007
It was kind of ironic. I was assigned to teach the lesson on obedience this Sunday. The word obedience makes me cringe in any context, but especially in a Mormon one. I still remember that mission conference where our leaders told us, “If you don’t want to be obedient to that which the brethren have taught, stay on your knees until you do.” And who could ever forget that obedience is the first law of heaven?
But I took the challenge up anyway. Surely I could find something that could make me look upon obedience with a greater degree of allowance. I read through the lesson twice trying to find something that would resonate with me. But nothing did. In fact, I felt kind of dispirited afterward because all the quotes had one thing in common. They conceived of obedience as one person doing something because someone more knowledgeable said so. They considered humans as having, “limited vision, elementary knowledge, selfish desires, ulterior motives, and carnal urges.”
In essence, obedience was presented as an either/or proposition. Either you obey, or you don’t. We are human light switches, I guess.
But then I remembered that story about Abraham wheedling with God over how many righteous people could save Sodom, and I saw a glimmer of hope. Here was a guy who had just heard God say He was going to destroy a city, and Abraham has the guts to say, “Hey, wait a minute!”
Was this obedience? Why didn’t Abraham bow and say “Thy will be done?”
When the servant hears the master say, “Prepare the horses,” the servant goes and prepares the horses. A command is given; the servant receives and carries out the command. The command has its source in the master; the servant has nothing to do with what the command is.
Abraham, however, seemed to want to have something to do with the shape of the command. Why did he want that? It seems to me that there was a part of him that balked at God’s idea. “What about the good people there?” Abraham said. And then, despite knowing that he was “dust” he questioned God and actually had a conversation with him wherein he affected the shape of God’s will.
Perhaps there are two kinds of obedience. The first could be called conforming obedience, the kind of obedience the servant gives his master. The second, Abraham’s kind, could be called fidelic (as in fidelity) obedience. Instead of merely receiving God’s will, Abraham put it back on the table and said, “Let’s talk about this.”
In his book To Know as We are Known, Parker J. Palmer talks about how people interact in what he calls “the community of truth.”
“We must respond to the other not in conformity to what he or she wants, but in fidelity or obedience to the truth within us. But we must allow the other to speak back to us, not in conformity to what we want to hear, but in fidelity to the other’s truth.”
Taking this model, obedience seems to become much more complicated, much more interactive. Not only are we listening intently to what the other person is trying to convey, but we are also listening intently to ourselves to see what our heart thinks. Then, instead of falling into the either/or mindset (the conforming mindset) we start to create something new between us. As I know from having my work edited for publication, another mind responding to my writing inevitably makes it better, even if I think it’s a great piece of writing to begin with.
I felt happy with this conception. I liked the idea of obedience as a conversation, as a creative act, as a relationship. I could now see how obedience could be the first law of heaven. And I spent a few hours putting together a lesson centered on this idea. I thought I presented the lesson pretty well. It seemed that the guys in the room understood what I was saying.
But it didn’t stick. The last five minutes three people (including the elder’s quorum president) cast obedience right back in terms of either/or. They put us right back into the master/servant context with the command coming from on high, our only option, deciding whether or not to accept it.
Sometimes I wonder if I just dream that I teach elder’s quroum.
Stephen, this is lovely. I’ve never heard of “fidelic obedience,” and I love the way it allows for the possibility of truth within ourselves disagreeing with something we might be asked to do by a leader. It certainly happens, and I’m one who isn’t certain that it is more noble to submit to another’s understanding of truth and reject our own simply because they are further up in the hierarchy. Being committed to this Church, however, requires some model of faithfulness and obedience. If only more interactions could be based on the conversation you describe!
Don’t worry too much about your Elders Quorum–they are certainly speaking back to you in fidelity to their own truth. How lucky they are to have had your perspective added to theirs. Hopefully the conversation will continue.
Comment # 1 by Bored in Vernal | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
Sounds like a very interesting lesson, Stephen. I’m not sure you should be discouraged about the last five minutes, as you quote Palmer:
You needn’t have everyone in the class on the same page to be successful, as there may have been some there that quietly benefited from your lesson.
That said, I like your idea of fidelic obedience. It gives us room to be, to live, to work out our path to God.
Comment # 2 by Rory | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, I’m OK with people not being all on the same page. It was just interesting to me that no one in the room seemed to be on my same page. But that’s par for the course where I live. I’m a Ph.D. living in a mining and ranching town. We just don’t think the same way. They’re very down to earth and I’m usually off in the ether. I like to question things, they like to get down to business. And there are 20 of them and one of me.
Comment # 3 by Stephen Carter | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
Stephen, I think that your message was actually in the printed lesson in the “Teachings of President Spencer W. Kimball” book — it was in the section on “Blind Obedience.” In our lesson (High Priests) we talked about what “Blind Obedience” was and what Pres. Kimball meant when he objected to it.
In my view, the either/or model you don’t like is “Blind Obedience” — obey regardless of what you know, and without questioning, without discussion. The lesson material included Pres. Kimball speaking about how we pay attention to signs such as “Danger - High Voltage.” We do this not only because we know that those who put the sign there are in authority. But also because we have faith that they know what they are talking about AND because we have collected evidence that tells us that high voltage is dangerous. In addition, we don’t always follow these signs, most often because we have additional knowledge or evidence that tells us when there are exceptions.
Also, if you follow the prescription for faith in Alma, you realize that developing faith is an interactive process — one that demands that we seek understanding as a way of building faith. In this light, the either/or view of obedience doesn’t build faith, while humbly seeking understanding does build faith — the kind that will allow us to workout with our Heavenly Father what we should do, even if it flies in the face of common understanding.
Comment # 4 by Kent | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
I too was frustrated by this lesson, especially that horrible story from President Kimball’s life about how he endured a risky and dangerous operation simply because President Lee said he was supposed to. However, as I sat fuming over some of the sisters’ comments (e.g., “We really need The Church to help us know what we’re supposed to do. Other people aren’t so lucky to have that.”), I thought about how I would have approached the lesson if I had been teaching it. I thought of times in my life when I have been disobedient, not because I wanted to “seek truth” or “question” or even “rebel”, but just because I wanted to do something that I wanted to do. There are some things I regret having done, but others I have no guilt or remorse over. I think true obedience comes with maturity. There is blind disobedience the same as blind obedience. I think of Isaac, whose story came up in our discussion today, who chose to obey not just God in allowing himself to be offered up, but his father as well. He must have known what was coming, at least by the time he asked the fateful question, “Where is the lamb”, but had the faith to follow Abraham up the mountain anyway. That’s an impressive example of obedience that comes from trust rather than allegiance or self-abnegation. I also thought of Richard Poll’s talk on Iron Rod and Liahona Saints and how obedience means something very different to each type. I also thought of “Letters from Iwo Jima”, which I watched yesterday with my husband, and reflected on the different kinds of obedience shown in each of these examples. After a while, I realized that I wasn’t really paying attention to the teacher (whose insights I normally appreciate) or the other sisters. I was having my own private lesson in my head. I think I came away with some good ideas and a desire to examine why I obey or disobey certain commandments and pronouncements. Stephen’s idea of fidelic obedience gives me something else to ruminate on.
Comment # 5 by Villate | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
Stephen,
Again you are for me a welcome teacher. This time, in addition to learning a most helpful term: “fidelic obedience”, please accept my appreciation that the attitude with which you present your ideas resonates deeply within this often reactive and sometimes unruly student.
Your EQ lesson reminded me of an EQ experience in November 1975, having returned to the church after a ten year absence. I was fresh from my 1973-74 experience with Soviet-American trade and was reflecting on how similar the attitudes and behaviors I encountered over there in the “Evil Empire” were to those I encountered in growing up Mormon. During that 1975 EQ meeting I heard what I thought was the most dangerous statement anyone could make in the church. Someone said, “When it comes matters of ultimate authority, the Prophet’s conscience supersedes our own.”
Before I could think about it, I heard myself shout “NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!” With that, all discussion ceased and silence ensued for the remainder of the meeting. On further reflection I realized that what had upset me most was not that that statement on ultimate authority had been voiced, but that I was all alone in objecting to it.
I was so upset that I wrote a letter to President Kimball describing the incident and asking him to clarify the principle involved. Whether or not he ever read that letter, a year later the Ensign published his General Conference talk on the “personal liahona”. It was as if he had heard and I felt encouraged for the duration of his term in office. Unfortunately, that was not to last.
Nevertheless, I am again encouraged by the thoughtful and compassionate way you and other Sunstone Bloggers have in holding on to your personal liahonas within an often unsympathetic system and your exercising fidelic obedience. I can think of no better illustration of “faith seeking understanding.”
Comment # 6 by Eugene Kovalenko | Jul 8, 2007 | Reply
Good point, Kent. I wasn’t able to extract as much from those passages as you were able to because they were still based on the master/servant model. See, the thing that bugs me about obedience discourse in church settings is that the discussants always seem to presume that there is someone smarter than they are, with more evidence or access to knowledge that they do not have access to. So they’re constantly having to go on faith. There’s no chance of entering into an interactive obedience because one of the two in the relationship is woefully ignorant, while the other is supremely informed. Only one of them has the power.
The model that appeals to me is the one where, even people who are the dust of the earth, as Abraham admitted himself to be, can be a part of the process of forming the command. This approach seems more relevant to the day-to-day church life we live in. Rather than receiving directives from leaders and merely carrying them out, we can work with them to make the directives better suited to us and to the situation at hand.
I really appreciate your comments here:
“But also because we have faith that they know what they are talking about AND because we have collected evidence that tells us that high voltage is dangerous. In addition, we don’t always follow these signs, most often because we have additional knowledge or evidence that tells us when there are exceptions.”
The manual, however, didn’t make any mention of collecting our own evidence, or gaining additional knowledge that can make our interaction with the signs more complex.
In other words, I really like your interpretation, but it seems to me that the manifest text in the manual dwelt completely on obeying in without knowing why you were doing it, other than you were following authority.
Comment # 7 by Stephen Carter | Jul 9, 2007 | Reply
Part of the problem here is the theological drift happening in the LDS church. As LDS leaders gradually toss the teachings of Joseph Smith and other early leaders, they seem to increase their emphasis on the restoration of priesthood authority. In my last ward (in Nauvoo, of all places), I rarely heard anything in church meetings that I wouldn’t hear in any church down the street, except for the authority issue. Rather than doctrinal distinction, the church leadership chooses to focus on a distinction in authority. When you focus so much on authority (from deity, no less), you can’t help but become more and more authoritarian, demanding true “blind obedience.”
Comment # 8 by Nick Literski | Jul 9, 2007 | Reply
Nick, I’m not sure that’s entirely fair–while it would be nice to believe in an earlier Golden Age of Less Authoritarian Mormonism, I think it’s more accurate to say that the kind of obedience to authority necessary for a functioning organization and the anarchy of personal revelation have always been in tension within the church. Joseph framed things more often in terms of loyalty than obedience, but he did require a certain fealty. I don’t disagree that the pendulum has swung quite far towards one pole, but I don’t think one can confidently assert that this represents “tossing” the teachings of JS.
Comment # 9 by Kristine | Jul 9, 2007 | Reply
I taught this lesson yesterday too. I incorporated a few paragraphs from the lesson manual, but added a lot of questions for discussion from the class. I started out talking about the word obedience and the negative connotation it has for me because I think of it as being submissive to authority. But then I clarified that we are not accountable to man, but to laws and commandments from God. I also focused the lesson on individual revelation and gaining the trust and faith to be obedient. I used the example of Joseph Smith and how he was not obedient and lost pages from the manuscript.
Another great example from the scriptures that I used was from Nephi. How the Law of Moses was “dead to him”, yet he obeyed because he loved his savior. What a great example for those of us to struggle with many “dead” laws.
Many of the questions I asked were taken from the Exponent II blog. They were starting points for a lot of EXCELLENT discussion.
Comment # 10 by Single in the City | Jul 9, 2007 | Reply
Perhaps I was unclear, Kristine. I agree with you that Joseph had his own authoritarian streak. When I speak of “tossing” Joseph Smith’s teachings, I refer to the considerable doctrinal drift in LDS-ism, not its increasing authoritarianism. As I watch the various LDS blogs, I see disturbing trends, such as newly-minted BYU grads who discount the King Follet Discourse as a reliable source of doctrine. LDS leaders are demonstrating an increasing intent to make their church more “mainstream,” with the exception of the claim to exclusive authority–the very thing that gives them (earthly) power.
Comment # 11 by Nick Literski | Jul 10, 2007 | Reply
Nick, got it. We don’t disagree substantively–I also miss the good ol’ days when we were weird (doctrinally) and not shy about saying so. I don’t think there’s much Mormon in Mormon neo-orthodoxy.
Comment # 12 by Kristine | Jul 10, 2007 | Reply
“I also miss the good ol’ days when we were weird (doctrinally) and not shy about saying so…”
Kristine, that’s it! You’ve put in a nutshell something I’ve been trying to articulate for years.
None of us need be ashamed of those “good ol’ days”, notwithstanding the struggles of present day institutional authorities to redefine doctrines or hide from misapplications. We needn’t “repudiate” anything in our collective past as one GA once shouted at me when I came to see him years ago regarding the principle of polygamy, and before he became Church president. Rather, we can tell it like it was and now is from an increased sense of confidence (not arrogance) and self esteem (not delusion). Yes, those “good ol’ days” were heroic, courageous and wildly creative times. OK, so a bunch of stuff from that era doesn’t pan out today. So what?
I think a better word is “transcend”, as Ken Wilber suggests. And a better practice “includes and transcends” past experience and belief. Once any of us has been disillusioned regarding official LDS claims and procedures, such as the secrecy and arbitrariness of many excommunication processes, we are free to disidentify from the system and the party line. This is a critical point in self development. That’s clearly the value of these blogs and symposiums. When we reexamine ourselves and each other from new levels (altitudes) of love, openness, courage and awareness, what would we call that? How about “eternal progression”?
Comment # 13 by Eugene Kovalenko | Jul 11, 2007 | Reply
Hola, Yo soy el maestro de la clase del sacerdocio y tuve que dar esta lección, lástima no haber leido esto antes, pero de igual forma lo tendré presente, un muy buen punto….gracias
Saludos de Chile
Luis
Comment # 14 by luis Matamala | Jul 12, 2007 | Reply
I’m not sure I miss all of the good ol days. Polygamy, blood atonement, discrimination against blacks etc are all gladly gone, at least from the Salt Lake church.
The church is struggling to be acceptable to the world but still special, the one true church but fully christian.
When polygamy was outlawed in the church many people left the salt lake church, when black males were given the priesthood many people left the church. If the church gives the priesthood to women, many people will leave the church.
How do we expand consiousness in the church without harming the institutional church. The leaders have to worry about things like this.
If the church gave the priesthood to women and 10% (a wild guess) of the members left the church, it would be acceptable to many of us but the leaders of the church have to protect the institution and that is a continuing struggle.
We all know how terribly important “numbers” are to the leaders of the church, rising numbers prove the authenticity of the church, stable or declining numbers show the church to be “not special”.
Gordon Hill
Comment # 15 by Gordon Hill | Jul 12, 2007 | Reply
Hey Gordon,
Yeah, sure there is stuff of the “good ol days” that is better well left behind. But Dan, in his most recent Sunstone essay From the Editor, talks about facing the stuff that makes us uncomfortable rather than running away from our discomfort.
Isn’t the issue not so much what is best left behind, but one of transforming our cultural shame for that weird stuff by celebrating its uniqueness? Perhaps this is something that can happen only on an individual by individual basis. Shame seems to be at the root of our societal defensiveness, especially when it is continually reinforced (as I remember) by the Salt Lake church’s temple drama: “Who told thee thou wast naked?” Can we not answer that question fearlessly without buying into the shame thing? That’s also a question for mullah, priestly, pastoral and rabbinical scriptorians. It seems to me that the Salt Lake church authorities can’t seem to embrace our “Mormon weirdness” with enthusiasm (as Kristine might put it), because their apologists seem to want to spin it into something it never was. I’d love to see the Salt Lake church acknowledge our weirdness by not only including, but celebrating it, while at the same time transcending its perspective into a world centric or integral view. We needn’t ever deny it.
Yes, “the church is struggling to be acceptable to the world but still special, the one true church but fully Christian.” This preoccupation with being the “one true church” is an illustration of an ethnocentric or lower level of awareness, which is at variance with where today’s true visionaries are leading. Yes, we Mormons have a unique, heroic heritage and tradition. That is its own message from which we are continuing to evolve. But, so are the visionaries of other traditions. We might better be advised to honor other traditions as we would be honored by theirs. Yes?
Namaste.
Eugene Kovalenko
Comment # 16 by Eugene Kovalenko | Jul 14, 2007 | Reply
Stephen
Thanks for this thread. I’ve enjoyed it.
I taught this lesson also. It was very intimidating. I began by discussing LDS 101. The council in heaven. I wrote “Father” in the center of the black board and placed Lucifer on the left side and Jesus on the right. Then we as a class began telling the orthodox story of Satan’s plan of forced obedience and the Father’s plan presented by Jesus that we would have to learn the lessons of failur in order to become like Father. We then read 2 Nephi 2: 11 about opposition in all things. Without opposition there can be “neither holiness nor misery.“ And we discussed how Satan wanted the glory for himself, but Jesus would return the glory to the father. We then read in the book of Moses. “This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the eternal life of man.” So essentially in the orthodox narrative, the Father’s glory is for us is to gain exaltation and/or to become like him and obtain all that he is.
So far so good.
We then read the parable of the prodical son. I wrote “Father” again on the blackboard and placed the obedient son on the left side and the prodical on the right. We talked about the prodical going out and destroying his life and eventually living with the pigs. He then realized that the worst position among his father’s servants was better than where he was, so as he “came to himself” he humbly returned home and asked his father to be a servant. Instead the father placed the rob around him, put a ring on his finger and made him an equal. The father then blessed everyone with the fatted calf. The obedient son was upset and pointed out his obedience. He then ask why he hadn’t even been given a kid so he could make merry with his friends. I pointed out that Jesus had just paralleled the orthodox Mormon narrative of the council in heaven and it was the son who failed that was able to become the equal and the son who was only obedient was selfish and didn’t even know what he didn’t know. I overlaid the parable of the pharisee and the publican and showed the same similarity. The obedient pharisee wasn’t the one who got the blessing but the despised publican asking for forgivness.
One member brought up Adam’s blind obedience to the law of sacrifice. I think this was fun because even in the orthodox narrative, Adam had just been in the Garden of Eden and his obedience was literally getting him nowhere. It was his disobedience that made man possible. So what does Adam go back to when he gets into the world? Blind obedience. I just pointed to the board and asked if Adam wouldn’t have eventually learned these principles.
We also spoke about parables in general and how they have a knack of reaching us where we are.
We then spoke about responsible obedience to gospel principles. I quoted from the manual once or twice. I thought the lesson went ok. I was sure it was going to be a disaster and it would be the last time I would be allowed to teach.
Tom K
Comment # 17 by Tom | Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
I was a student in this lesson in our ward Sunday. The most important thing I received was that I needed to being obedient to the Lord, and only the Lord. How? By truly listening to his will as taught by Him to me. I understood by the Spirit that President Kimball was in tune with the Lord because of his obedience. Without obedience to His will, no one can “know” of his will continually. Once rejection begins, the loss of Spirit begins; and the loss of desire to obey, the loss of understanding of truth and the reasoning behind obedience begins. Changing my heart to listen, repent, and obey brings back the joy, peace and knowledge from the Lord.
Li
Comment # 18 by Li Shang | Jul 16, 2007 | Reply
Li Shang,
I think you are right on the money re “listening to His will as taugh by Him to me.” When I’ve followed that principle (i.e. been obedient to whatever His will implies), I’ve generally felt the spirit and the resulting joy, peace, and knowledge you describe. Where it becomes tricky is when others have a different interpretation of His will for me. “Others” could be family/friends or church leaders, past and present.
Regarding obedience, the key issue is who is the ultimate arbiter when it comes to defining God’s will, the individual or the institution? The Church wants to have it both ways, but in reality it can’t. If my interpretation of God’s will is at odds with the Church’s position, my job is to be obedient to the commandments and doctrines as outlined by God’s annoited leaders, and pray/hope that understanding and blessings will follow. Ironically, when I’ve practiced this kind of blind obedience (i.e. followed a priniple I did not understand, or worse, disagreed with) I’ve felt an absence (or loss) of spirit.
So, yes, I agree with the principle of “obedience.” But obedient to whom? God/Self or the Church?
Comment # 19 by Matt Thurston | Jul 17, 2007 | Reply
Matt -
I think I agree with you, but I’m curious to see an example of when you’ve felt that being obedient (you personally) to something Church leaders have said is against God’s will. I can think of things I’ve done (having male housemates, wearing short skirts before I received my endowment, seeing certain movies) that were somewhat contrary to policies, but I don’t know that they were really going against “commandments and doctrines as outlined by God’s anointed leaders.” I never went to BYU, by the way, but I think I’ve broken a fair number of the “Honor Code” rules there, and I know that some people consider the Honor Code a sort of 10 Commandments for young people. Same with R-rated movies, of which I’ve seen quite a few.
Are you talking about moral/sexual/ethical commandments that you don’t agree with, or policies about missionary work, or something your Bishop told you? Because I think there’s a difference between feeling the Spirit tell you that you need to do something (or not), having no spiritual response or prompting about something, and just doing something that you want to do whether it’s wrong or right. I also think that Bishops and other Church leaders often say things in an effort to be helpful or guiding that are just ridiculous. For example, my husband was told by his singles ward Bishop (when he was still single, of course) that he needed to take a specific woman in the ward on a date AND KISS HER, and until he did that, he would need to meet with the Bishop each week. If he had been blindly obedient to such a ludicrous “commandment”, I never would have married him, but I understand that there are people in the world who would have done just that. I don’t think my husband suffered any negative consequences as a result of disregarding the Bishop’s counsel. As another example, I have political beliefs that differ from some of the pronouncements of Church leaders, for instance about de-criminalizing drug use, but last time I checked, my temple recommend interview did not include questions about how I vote, and the way I see it, I am still obedient to the principles of the Word of Wisdom because I have chosen not to partake of such substances. Where I draw the line is in deciding that Church doctrine is not applicable to me because I am special in some way. For instance, I would be in the wrong if I began drinking tea or using marijuana, which have been clearly prohibited by the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, because I think I am in some special situation. I recall an article about something like this in Dialogue some years ago - the author wrote about how he decided that the Word of Wisdom no longer applied to him because he felt healthier when he drank tea while in the Philippines or somewhere similar. I disagreed with his conclusion. I’d like to know more specifically what you think.
Comment # 20 by Villate | Jul 17, 2007 | Reply
Villate,
“Obedience” tends to be associated more with “practice” than “belief.” My response really applied to differences in opinion (i.e. personal revelation vs. institutional revelation) with regards to both orthodoxy and othropraxy. You cite several examples of obedience to certain commandments (or in some cases, probably “cultual practices”). My experiences with differences of opinion and the resulting spiritual feelings of peace (when I follow my heart) vs the stupor of though (when I follow the church) are more of the doctrinal/belief variety, though I have my share of practice/commandment experiences as well.
But you asked for an example. Hmmmm… This is tough to answer because you appear to come from a paradigm where Church leaders know and promulgate God’s will for the world (or others), at least in some cases (i.e. word of wisdom, and other temple recommend commandments), while other cases (R movies, honor code stuff) are probably closer to policy and/or good advice than God’s divine will/commandment.
My paradigm is that “God” speaks to us individually and not to all mankind through appointed individuals. That isn’t to say God doesn’t speak to me through other individuals, church leaders or otherwise, because he does, daily. I can certainly learn a lot from what God has told you and/or church leaders, and change my belief and practice as a result. In fact, most of my beliefs and practices have come to me via other individuals rather than bolts of inspiration out of the clear blue sky. But at the end of the day, what I believe and practice is between me and God.
As such, I guess I don’t accept many/most LDS commandments (as originating from outside of me or as promulgated by others) as binding on myself or the world. (Which is not the same thing as saying I don’t personally believe and follow them.) For example, do I believe the word of wisdom, or such “morality” commandments (no to premarital sex, homosexual sex, or masturbation), or such “ceremonial/covenant” commandments (i.e. necessity of temple marriage, baptism, etc.), to name just a few, are God’s will and ultimately necessary and binding on all people, whether they learn of and make these covenants here on earth, or learn of it and make them in the next life? No. If you believe that, then I accept it as God’s will for you. If “John” (whether LDS or otherwise) does not believe that, then I do not accept it as God’s will for “John.” I see most religious truth (and resulting commandments) as metaphorical rather than absolute. (Which is not to say I see all religious truth and commandments as relative and equal… but this is a different discussion altogether.)
Clear as mud? I’m sure there was an easier explanation, but I don’t have the time to craft a more articulate response.
Comment # 21 by Matt Thurston | Jul 18, 2007 | Reply
Thanks, Matt. I think I understand. I agree with you in part, but not completely. I believe that God does have a will and that He gives commandments that all people are expected to follow, but also that He does not hold everyone responsible for following them in this life. However, eventually all people will be judged by the same standard, and God has made provisions for that. For example, a person whose mental capacity or psychological status or cultural/life situation is such that he or she cannot understand the covenant of baptism is not responsible for keeping that covenant in this life, regardless of whether it is made. Those who did not learn of God’s commandments or who were given such a bad example of them that they could not keep them are also freed to a certain extent in this life. I’ve been reading a history of 14th century Europe, and sheesh, if anyone was unable to understand God’s will for human beings due to the evil behavior, teachings, and examples of their religious leaders, it was those folks. However, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, I believe that these barriers to understanding will be removed and/or overcome in the space between death and judgment so that all people will have a chance to understand God’s will and plan, repent of the things they have done wrong if they choose to through Christ’s atonement, forgive and be forgiven by those whom they have been wronged by or wronged if they choose to, and receive the reward that they deserve with full knowledge and understanding of why they are receiving it. I think that bit may be where we disagree, since the way I look at it, if God just let everyone do whatever they believe is “God’s will” and then let everyone into “heaven” or gave them the same reward just because “I thought I was following God’s will”, He would be a partial God, allowing some to commit sin without repenting or holding some to different standards than others. That doesn’t seem reasonable or God-like, if God is truly the way He is described in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. The problem is that God hasn’t been very consistent in letting the world know what it is He expects of us, so we’re left to ourselves in many instances. I think I’ll have to have a talk with Him about this at the judgment, actually. In any case, I suppose I do accept the paradigm you described, that the Prophet speaks for God to the world about some things but others are simply his ideas of ways to live well and become closer to God and Jesus. The tricky part is in deciding the difference, and believe me, it’s caused me plenty of mental anguish over the years. I imagine I’m not alone. It’s especially difficult in recent years, when Church leaders are less likely to say “Thus saith the Lord” and more likely to emphasize that doing x or y will make one happy or lead to a better life. I think if I could ask President Hinckley one question that I’d be sure he would answer, I’d ask him if he has really spoken face to face with the Lord (as opposed to “feeling the Spirit” or something like that) and whether the Lord has confirmed his ideas or just left him to decide for himself. In any case, as it pertains to being obedient, I think you’re right on that one is most responsible to oneself in determining the rightness or wrongness of a belief or idea, and that part of our judgment (maybe most of it) will be based on how closely we obeyed our own consciences and held to our integrity. That said, it’s probably not often that hewing to the orthodox and orthoprax in our church will cause one to be in opposition to God’s will, though I’ll grant that it’s certainly possible, especially when individuals in authority try to use their authority to get others to conform to their way of thinking and acting - but then, that’s not God’s will after all, is it?
Comment # 22 by Villate | Jul 18, 2007 | Reply
Villate,
A few thoughts while reading your response:
1.) If the next life exists, I don’t see it in terms of heaven or hell or degrees of glory. I don’t see rewards and punishment. I don’t think we “earn” any reward or degree based on merit. I don’t think we’ll be judged, at least not in the usual sense, where we think of degrees of passing or failing. I think the “rewards” of living good/right/correct (i.e. based on principles Christ taught, or other other religious leaders) are intrinsic, that the fullness and joy one feels from such living is “reward” in and of itself. The “punishment” of not living good/right/correct is also intrinsic. “Heaven” is not a destination but a state of the soul. The same can be said of “Hell.” In my imagined afterlife scenarios (which are no more or less plausible than LDS or any other religion’s scenarios) those with healthy souls will help those with damaged souls find god/grace/peace, and when/if that happens, they will be welcomed into the intrinsic rewards of “heaven” like the Prodigal Son. The idea that we will “run out of time” to repent or live correctly, either here on earth or in the next life, that there is an implied “last chance,” or it will ever be “too late” to come unto Him feels very human and limiting to me, and not at all godlike/eternal/celestial.
2.) You said, “since the way I look at it, if God just let everyone do whatever they believe is “God’s will” and then let everyone into “heaven” or gave them the same reward just because “I thought I was following God’s will”, He would be a partial God…” Exactly. But if you follow your reward/punishment or heaven/hell paradigm, what is the alternative? How will you feel if you go to heaven and find out that some of the tenets and commandments of Mormonism was not God’s will? Not very fair to you. I don’t think it works like that. I can accept that God has made his will known to individuals, but I don’t see how he has made his will known to all of humanity, at least not in the literal, specific way that is put forth by many religions.
3.) You said, “I believe that these barriers to understanding will be removed and/or overcome in the space between death and judgment” . Why? Why there and not here? If we cannot understand here, then it isn’t a very good plan, or life here must not be that important since real understanding happens in the next life. I think it is more healthy to reject the temptation to put off understanding until the next life, to fall for the comfortable (but utterly unknowable) trap that it will all make sense later. I think this is dangerous because it causes people not to take responsibility, to put off important decisions, or put them in the hands of others (like leaders). If, for example, we were wrong on excluding blacks, or currenly wrong about excluding gays, how do we answer for that in the next life? I don’t think saying “we were waiting for the next life for understanding” or “I put faith in my leaders like they told me to” is a good excuse.
4.) You said, “I think if I could ask President Hinckley one question that I’d be sure he would answer, I’d ask him if he has really spoken face to face with the Lord (as opposed to “feeling the Spirit” or something like that) and whether the Lord has confirmed his ideas or just left him to decide for himself.” I think he has answered this already. More than once. In fact, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I know of know other prophet who has ever claimed to have spoken to the Lord face-to-face except for Joseph Smith. “Thus saith the Lord” may pacify some, but it is still just words based on “feelings” or “spirit.” And even if President Hinckley answered that he had spoken to the Lord face to face, how does that help? You still have to exercise faith that he really saw what he saw. Besides, if seeing is all one requires, there are probably thousands of people on earth today who will tell you they’ve spoken with the Lord face to face. Most of them are probably crack pots, but one man’s crack pot is another man’s prophet.
Well, it’s fun to kick these ideas around. Take care.
Comment # 23 by Matt Thurston | Jul 19, 2007 | Reply
Great blog!
I have always been bothered by “obedience” as I see it in the Church.
I think people who shrug and say they are obedient (no matter what LDS law they follow) have never really pondered the scriptures.
If they do as they are told, why would they EVER have to ponder anything in the scriptures?
And it leads me to suspect that they were told to go to Church, they were told to pay their tithes, they were told to pray every night, they were told to have a testimony.
When did they ever make a decision themselves to ask if the Church is true and if their leaders are inspired? Are they TRUE followers of Christ? Or are they true followers of tradition? Merely a religious addict (contrasted with a spiritual convert)?
Comment # 24 by Niki | Aug 1, 2007 | Reply
Love your comments Matt.
Comment # 25 by joule | Aug 13, 2007 | Reply
I think Jana Riess, in her Symposium “Pillars” paper, put her finger right on the central point of this blog essay: obedience versus agency! That is, agency before obedience. Briliantly done, Jana1
Comment # 26 by Eugene Kovalenko | Aug 14, 2007 | Reply