Blind or Unwavering or Faith Obedience

[mic0]

Here it is. What are all of y'all's* thoughts on this answer? While I appreciate that interesting quote Tally M. found, I really disagree with it! Hah. It is very clever of him to compare the concept of "blind obedience" with one where you have faith and are not "blind" and can see. I can see how there is a difference between obedience with zero thought and questioning and a kind of obedience where you rely on faith that is grounded in your experience. But in a way I still feel like that is a type of blind obedience, and accepting that is not a bad thing? I'm tired, so let me know if that didn't make sense, and seriously I'd love to read all of your opinions on this somewhat semantic issue.

*y'all's was not underlined in red! y'all's is recognized as a word apparently!

[NerdGirl]

I just saw it, and am hoping to read it later, but it is too hot and my brain is broken right now. I did, however, want to say that I really enjoyed the puppy picture. I have nothing more useful than that to say right now, but this is an interesting topic to me and later I will be more coherent.

[Tally M.]

I guess for me, I've recognized that, in past experiences, things that I've been counseled to do have ended up well for me, and I trust that the teachings I'm given will continue that same pattern.

[Portia]

I know I've brought it up before, but I maintain that it is disturbing that the examples used are murder. That's not "obedience" I'm okay with, period.

[wryness]

I'm excited to see this thread! I've thought about this topic quite a bit. Please accept the following stream-of-consciousness which I have attempted to edit for more clarity:

I think this is mostly a question of connotation and denotation. The reason why the term "blind obedience" leaves a sour taste in our mouths is because of the ideas it connotes--that of following someone without thought or knowledge, as mic0 talked about. But the kind of obedience God desires is different from that.

The literal definition of "blind" is "unable to see," and when we act with faith we definitely can't see everything. So, technically the type of obedience that God requires of us is sort of "blind," in that we have to sometimes "take a step out into the darkness" and trust that we will understand the reasons why we have to obey at some later time. BUT! Following God is not "blind" in the same way that following some random political pundit or scholar can be "blind." I may not understand all the rationale between a particular commandment (because surprise! I'm not God), but I have had experiences that give me faith and a testimony. So, as I think on those experiences and remember my testimony (another important gospel topic), I obey. I don't know absolutely all of the reasons behind every commandment, but I know the most important reasons I need to obey--the gospel is true, the scriptures are true, and we have a modern-day prophet speaking God's will. And since I know those rock-solid truths, I don't have to deliberate every time after the prophet speaks. I've already deliberated before, and my choice to obey has already been made. So, I'm still thinking about what the prophet says, but I'm not questioning it, because my prior experience has already confirmed that it's unnecessary for me to do that.

(There's definitely a difference between thinking and questioning/challenging, which I think church leaders have discussed and taught before. I believe God definitely wants us to think, but there are positive and negative forms of thinking.)

Christ taught in paradoxes--the meek will inherit the earth, he who abases himself shall be exalted, etc. Worldly blindness goes hand-in-hand with ignorance. But God requires us to "see" not just with our eyes and minds, but with our hearts. Revelation goes to the mind and to the heart. (D&C 8:2-3) When we follow God without knowing all of the reasons why, but knowing the most important reasons, then people in the world might call us "blind," but we can ultimately see better than those who don't follow the commandments. Understanding often comes after we have demonstrated our obedience to the commandments. And as we obey, we gain even more light and knowledge, dispelling even more of that mortal blindness.

D&C 50:24
That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

So, yes; we need to accept that we obey without knowing and seeing absolutely everything, but it's not the kind of "blind obedience" most of the world talks about.

I hope that all came out the same way it has been brewing around in my head.

[Marduk]

I worry more for the person who would absent-mindedly follow anything they were told by a spiritual leader than one who questions even the good that leader tells him.

John Taylor said "I was not born a slave! I cannot, will not be a slave. I would not be a slave to God! I’d be His servant, friend, His son. I’d go at His behest; but would not be His slave. I’d rather be extinct than a slave. His friend I feel I am, and He is mine. A slave! The manacles would pierce my very bones—the clanking chains would grate against my soul—a poor, lost, servile, crawling wretch, to lick the dust and fawn and smile upon the thing who gave the lash! . . . But stop! I am God’s free man; I will not, cannot be a slave."

This is one of my favorite quotes. I think it demonstrates the difference between the two sides of the coin. We have to remember that the war in heaven was fought over this very question. Too many of us would surrender our minds to someone we think has all the answers, I contend this is a deadly proposition, even if it be to the prophet of God. Our purpose in this life is not to do exactly as God says per se, it is to become diligent stewards of our God given agency. After all, he who is commanded in all things is a slothful and lazy servant.

To do this I think it necessary not only to think about what the prophet says, but to question and challenge it. Test it out, so to speak. Hold it up against other standards of action and other ideas. Do this for every leader who tells you anything. As children of God, we have to be confident that truth will reign supreme, and that truth has nothing to fear from falsehood. When equally tested, truth will triumph.

[mic0]

I know I've brought it up before, but I maintain that it is disturbing that the examples used are murder. That's not "obedience" I'm okay with, period.

Hahaha - oh wait, but seriously, that's pretty strange I agree.

Thanks for all your answers. So it sounds like most of you agree with the idea Schultz suggested of "faith obedience." And that this is different from blind obedience because it should be thought out and decided rather than accepted without question.

That said, what do you think about this statement from the quote: "Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s commandments is not blind obedience." I'm not sure how one can say that unquestioning obedience is not blind obedience. Should you think but not question? (Obviously Marduk thinks we should think and question! BTW, Marduk, do you just keep a list of your favorite quotes? I feel like you are good at quoting things.)

I don't particularly feel like I was encouraged to blindly follow in the Church. That said, now that I've not gone to church regularly for over a year and only think about religion 30% of the time instead of 95% (rough estimates ), I feel like there were many times that I didn't even consider questioning or thinking about things which I would now take a second or third look at.

There is of course the time of Prop 8 in 2008ish when there seemed to be a divide of people who were "blindly" following what the Church said and those who were questioning the whole thing. How is someone supposed to decide when to blindly follow versus think something through? Is there a default which is better? I hope this isn't going too off-topic, I feel like these are all related concepts.

[mic0]

Wryness, I'm glad you're so excited about this topic; me too! When you said "take a step out into the darkness" I must admit I thought of Indiana Jones and his "leap of faith." He had the information, he knew that this was *supposed* to work, and there was some reason to believe it, but he couldn't be 100% sure until he tried.

I do have a question about one thing you said, though.

BUT! Following God is not "blind" in the same way that following some random political pundit or scholar can be "blind." I may not understand all the rationale between a particular commandment (because surprise! I'm not God), but I have had experiences that give me faith and a testimony.

How is following "some random political pundit or scholar" a different kind of "blind"? I feel like this is almost a perfect analogy for blindly following God. There are people who will study out a political pundit or a scholar; they will listen to speeches, read the papers, watch the person's actions, and then decide who to support. There are people who do the same with religion. And there are people who just do what their parents/peers/culture says is best, non-questioning. Was there a different distinction you were thinking of that makes following a political pundit or scholar more "blind" than someone who follows, say, the teachings of the Bible for no reason other than their parents did?

[bobtheenchantedone]

I am so, so much happier now that I really think about everything I'm told and decide for myself whether or not it is true. Because it's not always true. This past Conference there were several talks that I disagreed with, and that I felt comfortable disregarding them based on my personal connection to the Spirit.

Sure, there's the platitude of "even if they're wrong, you'll be blessed for being obedient!" but I cannot believe that is what God truly wants from us. At best it's a kind of lesser law to be followed until we mature enough to seek out and verify truth for ourselves.

[S.A.M.]

Nephi's example includes some pretty clear questioning about killing Laban:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/4?lang=eng

I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

He seems to have really struggled with this, and had to reason it out. If, upon being constrained to kill him the first time, he would have simply gone up and done it, that to me would be more of a blind obedience. He had to be told three times to do it. A blind obedience is an unquestioning obedience.

We don't know what was going through Abraham's or Isaac's mind on their 3+ day journey to Moriah:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/22?lang=eng

Being unwavering in your obedience leaves room for thinking, struggling, wrestling with things that may be difficult to accept or do, yet you do them anyway. You can be unwavering, and still seek to understand why something is done the way it is. I believe this questioning, while we are doing what we have been asked to do, is what helps us learn and grow, and change things that need changing. Often it is the mastery of some precept that leads to us questioning (not doubting, but seeking to understand) its purpose, and we learn and discover further light, because we are ready for it.

[wryness]

[Warning: Long post ahead in which I attempt to respond to several things which have been said at once, which may not be a good idea, but here goes!]

I like SAM's point a lot! I don't think I've considered those situations that way before. It's good to remember that the prophets weren't already perfect; they had their moments of doubt and growth too.

That was a powerful quote, Marduk. I think the "servant" metaphor still works in terms of (relatively?) unquestioning obedience. If a servant knows and trusts his master, then he'll obey the master. (And if the master knows everything, which is true in God's case, then the servant can feel secure to obey in all things--more on that in a sec.) God doesn't command us in all things, but when he does command (and when we know it's Him speaking--that's key, of course), then we should obey. We know in Abraham 3:25 that the Lord said we are being tested to see if we'll do "all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command [us]." So, if we know that a commandment is coming from God, I think we're supposed to obey. Of course, there is some disagreement/variation among us about when certain church leaders are speaking God's will and when they're not, but that's a slightly different can of doctrinal worms. (Actually, if anyone has some quotes from church leaders on that, I'm very interested in that.)

How is following "some random political pundit or scholar" a different kind of "blind"? I feel like this is almost a perfect analogy for blindly following God. There are people who will study out a political pundit or a scholar; they will listen to speeches, read the papers, watch the person's actions, and then decide who to support.

Good question. I think what I mean is that if someone has strong faith that God knows everything, they don't feel "blind" while following Him, whereas with random mortal people there is always that thought of, "Well, he or she knows more than I do about ____, but maybe he or she still doesn't know enough and is still wrong." I can't find the exact source of the quote right now (though I'm sure I heard a recording as a missionary), but Neal A. Maxwell once said something along the lines of "the reason why we can have perfect faith in God is because He knows everything." (A similar source, but not the one I'm thinking of.) In other words, God isn't going to say "whoops, I learned something more and that changed my mind and it turns out I was wrong before about ______." We should definitely follow the same pattern with political and social figures that we do with God's words--by studying their words, putting them into practice and seeing the results, etc., but it is possible that they can eventually fail us, while God never will. (Of course, again, there is still that question many of us ask of "what percent of what Leader X says comes from God?" I wonder if maybe that is the wrong question to ask, though. I don't think it's a simple matter of percentages. Hmm...)

We could maybe say that our questions about certain counsel from certain church leaders boil down to two things (others feel free to add to or modify this list):
1. How much faith we have in the Lord, and how confident we are that following Him will bless us, and
2. When we are each individually sure we are "hearing" the voice of the Lord in a commandment. (Through personal feelings/promptings? Through the scriptures? Through the prophet/apostles/general authorities/local church leaders? Etc.)

"Case studies" where #1 and #2 are present or not present in varying amounts: Some people might never question what the prophet says but be more willing to take their bishop's words with a grain of salt. (Or several grains of salt. I have met a bishop who was not the easiest person to get along with and sort of inadvertently encouraged people to do that with him.) Some people might have a testimony of the Church and have an easy time following most of the counsel they receive from church leaders but struggle to make personal or life decisions because they might not trust their own ability to receive certain kinds of revelation. Some people might believe cognitively that God knows everything but still not feel that enough to not doubt when faced with a certain commandment that they believe comes from Him. (Actually, I think that's normal, though, because unless you have perfect faith--and probably none of us do--then doubt will be filling in the gaps where we still lack faith. Increasing our faith and eliminating our doubt is a lifelong process.)

So, for example, on the last part of your post, mic0--I'd say that if someone simply follows the Bible because his parents did and he doesn't necessarily believe that the Bible contains God's words, he is being "blind." He might be walking on approximately the right path, but he's doing so with his eyes closed (and brain turned off). And because of this, he doesn't keep the commandment in quite the same way as a believer, because he isn't obeying God with his heart or his mind--he's obeying his parents, or whatever. And because of that, I think he might also be missing out on some of the blessings for keeping the commandment. "The Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind" (D&C 64:34) and He wants us to serve Him with all our "heart, might, mind and strength" (D&C 4:2). So, in order to obey in the right way, we have to get our hearts and our minds into it. We have to be willing servants, like in that quote Marduk shared, and consciously choose to submit our wills to God's.

I am still working on mastering parts of both #1 and #2 in my own life, so here's to gradually increasing our faith and understanding. And speaking of mastery--oof, this post was long; sorry I am not a master of brevity.

[wryness]

Okay, after talking to a friend about this for literally like two minutes, he gave a summary I like better than my whole post, I think. I mentioned a situation where someone I know felt like they were receiving personal revelation about a potentially life-changing decision, and they felt like they should go one way and a church leader told them to go the other way. (This wasn't about the law of chastity or anything; it was about life plans and both options were technically good.) Here's basically what my friend said.

"I think we freak out too much about stuff. Is the Lord going to punish the person for obeying their church leader? No! Is the Lord going to punish the person for following what they felt was a prompting from Him? No!"

[My sidenote here: So, in the "followed the leader" scenario, the person is ideally thinking something like, OK, maybe my personal emotions are influencing me here. I believe my church leader is actually right, so I'll go with that. So, either way the person is trying to obey what they ultimately feel like is God's will. Now back to my friend.]

"You're never going to get in trouble for trying to do good things."

I think we should be prepared to hear the voice of the Lord in every message we hear from a Church leader, and not be predisposed to ignore some of them. I'm confident that we can hear something from God that we need to do in every single Church message. But at the same time I agree with my friend that we worry about this more than we ought to. We just need to do our best to obey God.

[Katya]

"You're never going to get in trouble for trying to do good things."

What if you hurt someone else in the name of being obedient to God or to a religious leader?

[Emiliana]

I had the same thought as Katya, more or less. I'm no longer religious (and even I was I came from a protestant tradition that didn't have anything like prophets or popes, and even the preachers' and elders' authority only extended to individual congregations). So my opinion on these matters is bound to be different. But throughout history people have done some pretty atrocious things 'cause their religious leaders told them to (Crusades, anyone?). I don't mean to diss anyone's religious views, but doing something only because your leader said so is dangerous. From my interactions with the Board, it seems like there's a lot of emphasis in the LDS church on seeking out the truth for yourself. This seems like a pretty good place to apply that.

[S.A.M.]

God isn't going to say "whoops, I learned something more and that changed my mind and it turns out I was wrong before about ______.

But apostles and prophets do:
http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

Also from a wonderful eulogy for McConkie:
His answer was simply, “I was wrong.” A prophet may have a wrong opinion and a man of God with great confidence in his place in life simply admits it, quickly and firmly, and moves on unruffled and secure.

[vorpal blade]

I think the comments given here have been great and thought-provoking. I liked Tally M.'s answer and thought it was very good.

I also would like to say that thinking, pondering, and looking into things is a good idea. "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8) We are commanded to "study it out in your mind," which to me is the opposite of "blind obedience." Yet the way to know the truth is not to rely exclusively on what your mind says, as the answer comes as a feeling of what is right.

Most of the time I just know in my heart that what I hear in General Conference is the truth. There is no question in my mind of the truthfulness of it. Most of us are entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost, which leads us to know how to distinguish right from wrong, truth from error. One of the great challenges of life is to learn how to distinguish between the voice of the Spirit, and other voices, internal or external, that we are bombarded with in this life. I'm still struggling to better learn that distinction.

I reread the Book of Mormon every year. One of the scriptures that always makes me pause and reflect comes from Enos, Chapter 1.

5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.

6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.

7 And I said: Lord, how is it done?

8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. And many years pass away before he shall manifest himself in the flesh; wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole.

How did Enos know that the voice he heard came from God? How did Enos know that God could not lie? Was it blind obedience, or the intelligent, experienced trust that comes from much thought and study that led him to believe that God could not lie? Was it wrong for Enos to question God by asking "how is it done?" How can we have faith in something we have never heard or seen before?

[wryness]

Ooh, I liked your post, Vorpal. I think that gets at the heart of a lot of this.

What if you hurt someone else in the name of being obedient to God or to a religious leader?

Oof, that's tough. That's probably the most extreme scenario there is. In the case of murder, the scriptural exceptions in the Old Testament (and the one, I think, in the Book of Mormon, and none anywhere else in all of the canon of LDS scripture, unless I'm mistaken) are difficult to understand completely. (Here's one of those things I think we'll have to wait for a while, still, to understand completely--though we have some nice not-necessarily-100% doctrinal discussion from Elder Holland about Nephi, back before he was Elder Holland.) Emiliana and Vorpal brought up that some soul-searching is required to obey God. People who are trying to do good and serve God will (hopefully!) recognize if they are being asked to do something contrary to His will. And if someone thinks they are following God's will by murdering or hurting someone--well, I'm not going to presume to know how God will judge them for doing something He didn't want. I imagine He would be sort of pleased with their basic desire to serve Him (if that was really their desire, which only He'll know for sure), but He'd probably be grieved if they hadn't thought things out all the way, searched the scriptures, prayed to Him about the correct course of action, etc. But these complicated scenarios are the exception, not the rule, and so much no doubt depends upon the state of each individual's heart and mind, that I'm glad God is the final judge and not any of us.

I think the same details roughly apply in the situation S.A.M. brought up--i.e., the issue of black people receiving the priesthood, some LDS church leaders' misguided perspectives on it. (I'm interested now in that eulogy--thanks, S.A.M.!) It could be that God was just waiting on the church leaders, and if they had asked the Lord about this issue much earlier, then the Lord would have told them much earlier that all men should receive the priesthood. It could also be that God had reasons (still unbeknownst to us) for the restrictions, and they were lifted finally because He knew it was "time." We don't know the answer yet, but for those who believe the Church is true, we believe that God's will would have been done eventually either way. He won't let us mess up His Church, or at least not for too long, and He will bless His children with what He wants them to have, either now or in the boundless eternities. If people are really and sincerely trying to seek out God's will and follow it--and only God knows that for sure, not us--then He takes that into account. Honestly even the smartest of us is quite foolish compared to Him, so I'm glad that He is the ultimate judge, and not any of us.

So, once again, I think it really does boil down to consciously seeking out God's will and then following it, which essentially translates into being the best people we can and not being complacent about how we're doing--we should still be "listening" for ways that God wants us to improve. It sounds simple, and it sort of is, but at the same time many people have pointed out that there are complex real-life scenarios that come into play when mankind tries (or fakes trying) to do God's will. I think we need faith to accept the parts that are simple and do them, and we need faith to deal with the complex parts and patiently await the answers we still don't have yet about them.

[S.A.M.]

I think it really does boil down to consciously seeking out God's will and then following it

I like this. "Blind" obedience could be reflexively accepting what you are told is God's will and following it. "Faith" obedience could be consciously seeking out whether what you are told is God's will and then following it. It seems either form could be unwavering.

[mic0]

From my interactions with the Board, it seems like there's a lot of emphasis in the LDS church on seeking out the truth for yourself. This seems like a pretty good place to apply that.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone else, I'm simply stating my experience. It is definitely true that the LDS church emphasizes seeking the truth for yourself (hey, the whole religion is based on someone doing that!). But! That being said! "The truth" is pretty narrow, and while there are people in the Church who accept that different people find different truth, there are just as many if not more who think that if "the truth" you find isn't the LDS church then you went about the question wrong/weren't faithful enough/etc. That is a bit tangential, but it is something I struggled with while going through my religious ponderings and I just wanted to point it out.

I think it really does boil down to consciously seeking out God's will and then following it

I like this. "Blind" obedience could be reflexively accepting what you are told is God's will and following it. "Faith" obedience could be consciously seeking out whether what you are told is God's will and then following it. It seems either form could be unwavering.

This is great! I feel like this discussion overall has gone in a direction where I can't contribute much without asking annoying questions that test some basic assumptions and to which there are no answers. So, you guys continue on, and let me just say I really enjoy reading all your thoughts!

[Katya]

What if you hurt someone else in the name of being obedient to God or to a religious leader?

Oof, that's tough. That's probably the most extreme scenario there is.

In terms of something like murder, yes, I'd say that's an extreme scenario. But in terms of, say, disowning a gay or lesbian child, I don't think that has been uncommon at all, even though the official church rhetoric is now in opposition to such behavior.