Failure to follow counsel and faulty reasoning

Occasionally I quote another blogger's post verbatim. My first post on this blog was just such a "rip off". I didn't have the courage to write my own post and so I borrowed another's words, with attribution. (Thanks, Lisa, for getting me started!) This post is likewise a "robbery". Below "Clean Cut" speaks on the hazards of obedience, particularly with regard to LDS Church teachings and authority figures. (Few of us would imagine there would ever be any such hazards, but there are!) Clean Cut likewise quotes liberally from an essay developed from remarks delivered almost 30 years ago by L. Jackson Newell at a Sunstone Theological Symposium, later expanded for delivery to the B. H. Roberts Society. (It is interesting that this issue was "percolating" even that long ago!)

A lot of damage is now being done in the name of "obedience" to Jesus Christ and "submission to authority" in His Church. Rock Waterman addressed this issue in a recent post (as always, in his humorous, homespun manner). Jackson's remarks (particularly the selection promoted by Clean Cut) strike forcefully at the heart of the issue. (I quote them below.)

Perhaps this issue tears so violently still at me because the damage is on-going. Those who think they serve the Lord (or the LDS Church) by persecuting me and my family actually think they are doing God a favor(!) by being "obedient" to His servants (or their "counsels") in the service of His Church. Barbara Hanks well encapsulated the matter with this quote on Rock's blog: "Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

On a bright note, Denver Snuffer (in the first 5 minutes of his tenth talk on Zion), addresses our inability (by divine design) to keep all the commandments of God. We are given inherent weaknesses. We are prevented (by heavenly handicap!) from enjoying a fulness of the Spirit without measure and living as we otherwise would live (as Jesus lived). We are here to be proven -- in this circumstance of weakness and darkness -- not to prove. He came to prove. (He has already demonstrated His ability and unique worthiness to do so.) Our weakness is but a gift to help us keep this important status in perspective, lest we take strength to ourselves and be blinded by basking in the spotlight of our own brilliance (as others have been). 

Jesus came to serve, not to be served; to bless, not to curse; to communicate, not to excommunicate or coerce; to recover and reclaim, not to condemn and cast out. Those who forsake the former to do the latter follow a spirit and a master that are not from above. The limits of power and influence demarcated for us by D&C 121:41-44 demonstrate how utterly out of tune we may be with the heavens and identify for us what more we may need to repent of before we can be approved.

Those who now undertake to judge, condemn or destroy in the service of "obedience" to an institution, a principle, or other mortal authority figures -- in the absence of definitive, direct, and personal revelation from God -- do so at their peril.

Those who choose to act on others choose to be acted upon by others in like manner -- for they demonstrate how they would like to be treated! As they judge, so they shall be judged. As they condemn, so they shall be condemned. As they cast out, so they shall be cast out.

The Lord, in His grace, does not invite such to accompany Him in His kingdom unless and until they repent. Their present behavior is incompatible with the manner of happiness and He cannot look upon sin (or them) with the least degree of allowance. I, being a principal offender in this regard, have much yet to learn before I may be invited to ascend where He is.

Now to this excerpt from the essay by L. Jackson Newell:

Do we all passively note the increasing references to obedience as the first commandment, and the passing of free agency as a tangible LDS belief, without remembering the beauty of Matthew 22: 36-40, or the savage rationalizations and emotions that led to Dachau, My Lai, or Mountain Meadows? The obedience path is one which has a ditch on either side, and I am convinced that present fears of the disorder on the one side are pushing us toward the abyss on the other. 

The abyss is described by Stanley Milgram in his 1974 book, "Obedience to Authority", which reports his extensive work on the destructive consequences of blind obedience of being submissive to control from others. In a famous series of laboratory experiments begun at Yale University and repeated at different sites around the world, student assistants were instructed by university researchers to administer electric shocks to fellow students who were participating in a study to determine the effect of negative feedback on learning. The more mistakes the learner made, the higher the intensity of the charge sent by the student behind the one-way glass. As the learners writhed increasingly from the pain being inflicted upon them when they made mistakes, some of the student assistants said they did not want to hurt the subjects and wished to stop. Their consciences were speaking to them. When reassured by the white jacketed scholars that this was an important experiment that had to be carried on to conclusion and that many other people had been willing to carry through with these same responsibilities in previous runs of the experiment, most of the students proceeded to inflict well-nigh unbearable suffering, even when those behind the glass begged and pleaded to be unwired and one subject screamed, "I've got a weak heart!'', then slumped in his chair. In truth, the electric shocks were not actually being sent; the recipients were all actors. The real subjects in the study were the student assistants themselves. Milgram was trying to determine the limits of obedience and the vulnerability of personal conscience when authority and precedent press hard against it. He was sobered by what he found. A pre-experiment prediction was that not even one in a hundred assistants would go to the limit of the electronic equipment. In reality, nearly two-thirds of them did.

Why did students lack the courage to say no to their superiors? The fact that the experiment was described to them as being highly important, the assurances that others had obediently carried these responsibilities through in the past, and the air of confidence shown by the authorities, all contributed to the successful suppression of personal judgment and the courage to act on it. When interviewed following the experiments, many of the students said they felt sure what they were doing was wrong, but their belief that they were part of something larger, and the authorities' calm assurances, led them to surrender the claims of their own conscience. 

People of any age, but especially the young, are susceptible to control by others. This is particularly true among Mormons, precisely because of our strong emphasis on respecting those in authority. Even those who believe that obedience to religious authorities can never be excessive must recognize that a blindly obedient mentality nurtured within a religious context can lead to extreme vulnerability outside it. The scale of scams and success of swindlers in Utah is one evidence that Mormons too easily defer judgment to others if, for whatever reason, they decide to trust them. An obedient people is a people easily led--by whoever comes along. 

The analogy of the fasces -- the bundle of flimsy sticks bound tightly with cords to form a mighty instrument -- is often used to justify organizational discipline and obedience to a single person or elite. It illustrates the strength of directed thought and action, yet despite the fact that this image appeared on the American dime for decades, we must remember that it was the symbol from which the fascists (or Nazis) took their name. Willingness to blindly accept orders from other persons involves the transfer of control from inside the self to an external locus. The individual feels an increasing sense of duty to the leaders but loses a sense of responsibility for his or her own actions and their consequences, thus producing the "crimes of obedience'' that have ravaged virtually all totalitarian societies and from which no society or group can claim immunity. 

Free societies, however, are based on the ideal that each individual is an irreducible, independent moral agent. Those who are able to think for themselves, are not only essential to the existence of free institutions but also fully prepared to enjoy and benefit from the blessings of life itself. For them, obedience is to principles, not persons; an informed conscience is their guide. General Alexander W. Doniphan possessed the unusual courage to resist a written military order, and Joseph Smith was spared execution on the morning of 1 November 1838 (HC 3:190-99). We honor Doniphan for disobeying his military superior; his ultimate loyalty was to principle. 

The irony today, regarding the obedience issue within the LDS Church, is that distinctions are rarely made between loyalty to leaders and loyalty to principle. It is simply assumed that they are one and the same. Yet this union would require a claim of infallibility, not only for the president of the Mormon Church but for the entire priesthood. Omni-infallibility. Since such a claim has never been made and scriptures clearly warn us about the dangers of exercising unrighteous dominion (D&C 121:39), we inevitably face the task of making distinctions about obedience. My ultimate loyalty may be to God, but how do I know God's will? Through the study of scripture? By listening to Church leaders? By applying gospel principles? Or, by sensing the still small voice? These sources of understanding are not always consistent; but even if they were, they could not fully anticipate or inform every action or judgment I must make. New situations constantly confront me; only an enlightened and prayerful conscience can blend divine intent with personal knowledge to guide my decisions. No one has the wisdom or right to do this for me. 

Gospel principles and the Church are not synonymous. But one reason these concepts have become so blurred is that we seem to be making obedience to Church into a terminal principle, rather than an instrumental one. It has become an end in itself. Therein lies the confusion about the first commandment: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22: 37-40). Loyalty to God and love of neighbor are the ends. Obedience to enduring principles is a means. Once obedience itself becomes an end, however, the believer no longer takes full responsibility for the consequences of his or her own actions. If things go awry, the sin be on someone else's head. Never mind those sinned against. Fortunately, "love thy neighbor as thyself," the ultimate principle, dams this stream of faulty reasoning.