No. Prophecy would be something one felt compelled to follow because he or she believed it to be the Lord’s counsel or directions.
Now, one following the Church President’s counsel on something not prophecy is merely following the advice of someone one respects.
You know, Angela; that’s quite tacky of you the way you slapped Hinckley’s speech together in your posting. If you wanted to be accurate instead of misleading, you would merely have posted this link:
http://www.lds.org/media/article/0,5422,116-6456,00.html and dispensed with the injudicious use of “…” to put the parts of his speech together in a misleading manner.
Well, I’m abiding by it because I have great respect and admiration for President Hinckley both as a man and as a prophet. And yes, he is the Lord’s anointed, so that gives his counsel a bit more punch than pretty much anyone else.
Believe me, I agonized over the decision to remove my earrings. It’s such a little thing. I could still pass my temple recommend interview with no problems. But in the end, the “little thing” argument backfired on me. If it was such a little thing, I should be able to give it up easily.
On preview, I see that Monty has already made an excellent distiction between prophecy and counsel. That sounds like where I stand.
Just noticed that of Angela’s four postings, three are in this thread and the other doesn’t appear on the search. Also, Angela registered in 28 July 2000 and apparently has only surfaced to take cheap (and inaccurate) shots at the LDS Church.
Therefore, I shall follow the advice of so many on the SDMB: DNFTT.
Schadenfreude -
This is not an attack. Just a question:
What made you, in the final analysis, decide to remove your earring(s)?
I must have come across as a little too defensive, huh? 
Ok, defense grid shutting down.
When I first heard the counsel, I blew it off, thinking that in the big picture, it doesn’t matter if I’ve got a little extra jewelry. Besides, it wasn’t a commandment.
But over a period of a couple of months, I thought about it more and more. I want to make it absolutely clear that not once did anyone say anything about my earrings. I have never been treated differently at church because of the way I look. The thought just kept coming back that I was being asked to do such a minor act.
But then I was preparing to teach a lesson on the Word of Wisdom (Doctrine & Covenants Section 89), which basically gives us a law of health. This is where we get the prohibition on alcohol, tobacco, and “hot drinks”. That last was the sticky point for me. “Hot drinks” was originally interpreted as coffee and tea, but since the advent of Coca Cola, is often taken to mean caffeine in general.
Not everyone interprets it that way. Plenty of Mormons drink Mountain Dew every day, but have no qualm about telling their bishop that they follow the Word of Wisdom. Personally, I can’t. I take a rather strict reading of the passage, and refrain from drinking any caffeinated beverage. This is a hot-button issue among many, but that is the conclusion I came to, based in large part on the counsels and requests of various church leaders.
So anyway, as I was preparing the lesson, I was faced with the comparison of my obedience to the Word of Wisdom, which is based on interpretation, and my obedience to a simple, plain request of a living prophet. I considered the adminition that our bodies are our temples, and we should not defile them. Were I to meet the prophet, I would want him to see that I take his counsel to heart.
I ended up removing the earrings before that Sunday’s lesson. I felt much better teaching about a topic dealing with obedience when I was being a little more obedient myself. For a strong-willed person like myself, that can be pretty tough, and it’s what pushed me away from religion for some time.
But that’s what obedience means to me now–the thoughtful and prayerful examination of counsel or commandment, and the arrival at the conclusion that following that counsel or commandment is the best thing to do.
Just a gentle correction, here. But I feel compelled to clarify. The Word of Wisdom has never been interpreted to mean any caffeinated beverage.
The only clear statement I can find referring directly to church policy is here, which specifically says, “With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.”
Some more quotes are available at mormons.org (note this is not the same as the new offical LDS web site http://www.mormon.org, but is rather a private site put up by a member of the LDS church).
To the non-LDS folks out there, there are a few clear don’ts as well as some clear do’s in the Word of Wisdom. Each individual is free to interpret the scripture within the bounds set there, and may choose to interpret it more strictly than the LDS church has officially taught. (I know some people who have chosen to forego refined sugar as not being in harmony with the Word of Wisdom.) It should be noted that Doctrine and Covenants 89 points out that the counsel therein is “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints”.
Finally, WRT earrings, my wife and I had a few conversations about that after the last conference. She had five earrings in college (three in one ear and two in the other), which I actually liked quite a bit. After the counsel by Hinckley about earrings here and here, she decided that she couldn’t talk about following the counsel of the prophet if she didn’t do something as trivial as remove a few earrings. As a footnote to that, there was an excellent talk about “murmuring” this time in General Conference. The pattern for disobedience starts with questioning the counsel (“he doesn’t mean me, does he?”), then making excuses (“It’s trivial, so I don’t have to do it”), and finally being slothful in obeying the counsel of the Lord.
I think that talk was by Elder H. Ross Workman. The text of the talk isn’t up yet, but will be soon at http://www.lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-225,00.html.
The link to the LDS church policy statment is broken. [Here’s](http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/New Era/1972.htm/new era may 1972.htm/policies and procedures.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2) the correct link.
If it was such a “little thing”, why did Hinckley bother to pronounce that he finds them girly on you?
IMO this is yet another way in which the Mormon Church seeks to promote conformity and stifle originality.
That’s funny becasue the Mormons I was surrounded by in my youth were quite vocal in their disgust of “freaks” such as earring wearing men.
If you have already decided you are going to obey him in all things, you aren’t really thinking about each issue clearly are you?
As if to prove Angela’s point. Both she and Schadenfreude have bowed to the will of the ‘prophet’ because it was his will.
emarkp:
I also thought the talk on “murmuring” was excellent. And while you are correct that there has never been any official declaration on caffeinated beferages per se, enough comments have been made to sway me.
For example, on 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace asked President Hinckley if Mormons drank caffeinated beverages. The answer was simply “No.” It is also my understanding that you won’t find them in the MTC. Elder John Widtsoe, in his book The Word of Wisdom, makes a strong case, both scriptural and scientific, against caffeine, pointing out that ironically, caffeine in soda can be worse for you that in coffee. (The idea being that tannic acid tells your body to quit drinking before you have too much. No such chemical speed bump in Mountain Dew.)
So no, we have not been told to lay off the cola. But at least some of the brethren have interpreted the passage as such. I appreciate the ability to decide for myself, and have taken a hardline approach.
I see the Word of Wisdom as a safeguard of our agency. By following its guide, we free ourselves of addiction, which can erode our agency to a frightening degree. I know that I can very easily be addicted to caffeine, and so I have a zero-tolerance policy for myself.
Actually, I don’t obey the prophet in all things. We have been counseled not to watch R-rated movies, but I watch some. I think about that a lot, but for now have decided to make up my mind about about movies individually, and judge them on their actual content, not the MPAA’s rating.
It is unfortunate that especially in places with majority Mormon populations, a holier-than-thou attitude can be fostered. This is simply wrong, and was addressed in this conference. If you are at all interested, i’d recommend checking out the talks when they are posted at the link given by emarkp.
You said “the conclusion that following that counsel or commandment is the best thing to do”…so even if you don’t automatically obey, you have already decided that whatever he declares is “the best thing to do”. Sure sounds like the next-worst thing to mindless conformity and it is entirely consistent with my personal experience with Mormons, being from a Mormon pioneer family and having been born and raised in SLC.
I think it is a reflection of that church’s “personality”. The whole character of my home state is a result of Moromonism…repressive, backwards, ultra-conservaitve, conformist, narrow-minded, etc. which is why I’m glad my mother fled Utah as soon as possible (as a single mother, she was seriously forwned upon and of course I was taunted for being a “bastard”).
It is of course more than just an attitude…it invades the schools, government, etc. For example, my public school defended its dress code by quoting Moromon church rules/standards.
Hm. It’s interesting that you equate originality with disobedience. I think of it in a very different way. In fact, here’s my personal meditation on the subject. Sorry, it’s a little long. I wrote this awhile back, and I’ve edited it a bit for this thread. Please note that this is entirely my own opinion and thought (that is, it ain’t official doctrine), and I was started off by Hugh Nibley, a respected Church scholar. You may like to look through his book Approaching Zion.
Hugh Nibley brought up an example from classical music. Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms were all masters of their art; you could say that they were the most perfect musicians of their respective generations. They each took music in completely new and unthought of directions. The more mediocre composers, however, all sound quite similar and are very alike. The more talented the musician, the more unique his music.
This is only a specific example of something we all know; the true masters of any craft are usually those who not only become most proficient in known techniques, but also contribute something new to their art.
For me, this leads to two conclusions: first, the more righteous and perfected in Christ we become, the more uniquely, completely ourselves we will be. There will be more variety in the kingdom of God than anywhere else on earth. Second, the natural tribal impulse all people have to want to be the same and to make others be like them, is not only an instinct of ‘the natural man,’ but can be called Satanic.
We so often want to be ourselves; to dictate our own actions, think that we are taking the road less traveled by, and being different from the others. And yet, in doing this, we are often acting just like many people have before us. We are not really very original in ourselves. But, when we give ourselves to Christ, and let Him help us develop our talents and character, we can become more than we expected. I think that if we put trust in Him, we can grow more, develop in more directions, and become more unique than we could ever do on our own. The more perfected our community of Saints becomes, the more diverse it will be; everyone could be branching off in different directions of truth and beauty, while being alike in righteousness and love. Thus, anyone who wants to ‘find himself’ needs to give himself to Christ first. You only have to look around to see that Heavenly Father appreciates variety far more than we do. He did not create only one kind of tree or insect. There are countless varieties of life, each suited to its own purpose.
We ordinary humans, however, often seem to want to make everyone and everything the same. We prefer to grow one or two kinds of grain out of the thousands that exist. We like to be with people who are like ourselves, and have to work to overcome our fear of the different. We sometimes think that our way, whatever it may be, is the right one, and someone who is not like ourselves couldn’t really be as good a Saint as we are. We need to remember that variety exists because it is beautiful and useful, and because Heavenly Father likes it that way.
When the choice is to conform to a single rigid standard or be disobedient to the rulers, then yes originiality would be disobedience.
So, Iconoclast, did a missionary kick your dog when you were little or something? Jeez, snipe much?
Actually, I am in disagreement witht he LDS posters, and explaining why and they are responding.
What YOU are doing here is sniping. I’m sorry if my questioning of aspects of Mormonism upsets you but it is certainly my right to point out and defend my criticisms of this or any religion.
So you must break laws all the time then, right? I mean, we have these single rigid standards like speed limits, anti-theft laws, etc. How can you possibly have any originality in such a world, according to your resopnse above? :rolleyes:
Seriously, the over-simplistic statement makes it impossible to answer in any meaningful way. Obedience does not imply lack of originality. Conformity is not a bad thing in and of itself–conformity to what is a more important question. Conformity to law isn’t a bad thing. Conformity to kindness is not a bad thing.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of LDS leaders (and, indeed, about religious leaders in general). They are not rulers. They are leaders which we have voluntarily chosen to follow, and I believe them to be chosen of God. Why would I voluntarily choose to follow them and then ignore their counsel?
Actually, law in the US does not demand a single rigid standard overall as an authoritarian religion does so the two are not directly comparable in this way. The law often recognizes degrees and shades of gray and it certainly does allow for a great deal of freedom of expression in the context of things such as earring wearing.
Conformity to law can indeed be a very bad thing, as can comformity to kindness. Laws can be bad and kindness can be dangerously inappropriate in certain circumstances.
Leaders you have chosen to follow would certainly fit under the definition of “ruler”. It makes no difference to my point here if you choose to obey or are forced to obey.
Why do you have to ALWAYS obey them? Why can’t you evaluate their counsel using logic and reason, look at all sides of the issue and then make your own decision rather than just deciding to follow them?
I mean, as an American I choose to follow US government authority but only to an extent. I don’t blindly do whatever they tell me.
No, but you do troll the SDMB.
Monty, greengreek, and Schadenfreude, I’d like to ask you if you would be willing, here or in another thread to avoid hijacking this one, the basis of your belief in the validity of LDS doctrine – why do you accept the teachings of the church as valid prophecy, rather than as, to cast about for a fair comparison, the sort of semi-believed, semi-scam thing that most people would call Scientology? What are your grounds for believing that Joseph Smith was not merely on the level but in possession of a new revelation? (I’m not talking the tablets, but the underlying belief structure.)
I would hope by now that the first two of you would realize that, while I do not agree with LDS doctrine, I have no ax to grind and am not inclined to “Mormon bashing.” I tried to ask these questions last year and the thread got hijacked by someone who was so inclined.
Since I’ve been willing to present my non-LDS Christian views to such scrutiny, I feel that I can in good conscience ask the same of you. And I want to stress that I’m not so much interested in “a defense of Mormonism” as in what your personal thoughts and feelings leading you to accept it as “the straight goods” might be.
I respect the two of you I have come to know from these boards immensely as people of probity leading difficult lives with integrity, and I see no reason why I should think any different of 'freude – just that this thread has been my first encounter with his postings.
So if you would be so kind…