BTW, if someone wanted to get the attention of a general authority, I might suggest that they become holy. Pray at least 30-40 minutes a day. Meditate. Read and study scriptures at least 30-40 minutes a day. Put in at least 2-3 hours of community service every week in addition to a temple session each week and fulfilling your church callings, especially home teaching. Be extremely honest at work. People who do that tend to be listened to after they have four or five years in.

I’ve written about how a group can approach its leadership [ http://adrr.com/living/ss_5.htm ]. But the classic archetype for those who want to counsel G.A.s are the fourth tier academics who tried to school Dallin Oaks (whose academic credentials included having been Chicago Law School’s acting dean, and many other academic accomplishments). I had a hard time thinking their spiritual presence was any more significant than their academic one.

How is it that Stephen Marsh knows or thinks that the 4 issues presented in the preamble are issues that a new General Authority would be concerned about?
How many General Authorities were interviewed concerning their new duties, in preparation for this essay?

“Those are the four experiences that would be a constant in your life and that would shape your perspectives on the needs of the Church and it’s members”.

I would counter that the only thing that would be a constant and would shape my perspectives on the needs of the Church and it’s members, – would be revelations, given by the Head of the Church – Jesus Christ.

And when one is “new” in this type of position would not be the time to promulgate any kind of changes.
When one is called to this position, it would be a time to listen. – Very carefully.

Well said Hawkgrrrl. For whatever reason this point about the young man’s failure to consider his fiance “…as a human being with actual thoughts and feelings.” is beyond profound. Thank you.

I couldn’t agree more.

I don’t think we know if he was really in love with her, although it depends what one means by love. From my point of view, he could have been in love with her, yet was threatened enough by her earrings (as unfortunate as that may be) that he couldn’t marry her. Perhaps he didn’t view her enough as a human being with thoughts and feelings, but marriage is not a charity project, and if this was a significant issue while they were dating, it is probably best they called it off. All that being said, again, I agree, it is unfortunate that things like earrings are elevated to the status of disobeying the Lord of the Universe.

Yes, there are GAs who have said things that imply none of us need to have thoughts in our heads and we should instead be vacuous Stepford-like automatons just executing the instructions of the Brethren, but they are not the majority, just the strident minority in a church with an open mike. I think that if YOU were called as a GA is the point of the post, and if YOU were, you might not agree with those statements at all, but you would inherit the legacy of them anyway.

- Classic BKP: When the leaders speak, the thinking is done

- As referenced above, when GBH talked about earrings and tattoos, in the next conference, Elder Bednar talked about a girl breaking off an engagement to a man she apparently loved because he wouldn’t “follow the prophet” to the letter with regards to earrings / tattoos, and was there essentially an apostate.

- Re: investigating evolution / creationism: JFS calling evolution deceit of Satan

- Stories about BY telling someone to build a wall a certain thickness in their house, so they tore it down and rebuilt it.

- Teachings that we should do ANYTHING that a church leader tells us to do, and if it’s wrong, we won’t be accountable for it.

Like it or not, there is both very explicit and implicit doctrine in the church that when a GA or other church says something, we are expected to support them or we are in de facto apostasy. So to hear Church leaders express frustration that the general membership of the Church looks too closely at what they said is a bit strange when that’s what they’ve conditioned us to do for generation after generation.

I have to also include my wife in the “led by God” part. I can’t believe that I am in charge – we both are together.

So I agree with you Adam in a very practical sense, but as far as what the Church teaches, how it is structured, and what the membership generally should expect, well…

If I were called as a GA, I would instantly know that there’s a lot less special about them because I know how imperfect I am. I’ve enjoyed this series, Stephen.

The bottom line is that we need to have a relationship with God, not the GA’s. If we make that our focus we will be able to work through things that may be said by them that are difficult for us to understand or accept.

“Accepting a call as a GA by it’s very nature implies that you believe that God communicates to you how you should lead those within your domain.”

For example, what about being a parent? As a father, I believe God “communicates” with me, or that I can receive revelation on how I should lead those within my domain (i.e. my son). That does NOT mean that I think everything I say to him is from God, nor that my son must accept that as a fact.

I don’t think the church hierarchy drives this anymore, and if anything I think they must be incredibly frustrated at times having to figure out the balance between “follow to the prophet” and “the prophet is fallible.” Believers naturally will gravitate to the former. That is not a religious issue, but a human one. It is a lot easier to follow something when it’s all or nothing.

Good question. The fact that your hypothetical will never happen is my point. The church allows the myth by not actively preaching reality to its members. Most of us have been in a meeting where the prophet enters the room. It becomes totally silent, as if God himself is entering the room. To me that reflects the beyond-reality conception members have of church leaders. Elder Bednar came to our stake a while back and he was all members spoke of for at least a year. It was downright scary.

The members have not arrived at these widespread feelings on their own. The feelings are the result of the teachings over a long period of time as to the implied if not expressed super-spiritual nature of GAs.

I find comfort in the teachings of other churches because they don’t have the need to express knowledge certain. They live by faith. LDS more often than not ridicule that faith and the perceived inability to come to knowledge. Members grow up in a church where kids express “knowledge” of God when they still wet their pants. As they grow older, they are expected to use the word “know” and become, in my mind, incapable of distinguishing faith from knowledge. I find faith in Rev Gomes of Harvard, a man whose life is devoted to God, saying he believes because there is no confort in believing otherwise. I feel more honesty in that statement than people saying “they know”.

Regarding following their counsel, I think it is safe to say that the guidelines are nuanced. We follow the prophet and if we are unsure, we can go directly to the Source. I prefer that method to our Protestant brothers who argue that the Bible is the source and if you can’t find one of the 500 interpretations that works, you shouldn’t pray because feelings are an unreliable confirmation of revelation.

This is the trouble of trying to live up to our claims. We claim that leaders of the Church are given revelatory abilities in a trickle down fashion for everyone/situation within their domain. This is the message given to investigators considering joining the Church, and to the members, ie, the counsel to follow our leaders. It should be no surprise then that that is just what the membership does. They place their confidence in the idea that “following” Church leaders, is the same as following God himself. So, yeah, this invites scrutiny – and, that is how things should be. The Church creates this high level of dependency with the overemphasis and following leaders, so I am not certain that I “feel” for general authorities who then want to dismiss their obvious errors by criticising the members for having the “juvenile” expectation that everything a GA says must come from God.

I think the essence of the gospel doesn’t need changing but is a beautiful song, as you describe. I think the problem is that the Church has evolved to have a great number of extra “flourishes”. Each person needs to leave their little mark, which becomes a de facto past of the score.

Simple examples:
- Tattoos and earrings have nothing to do with the gospel. GBH mentioned he didn’t like them. By the next conference, Elder Bednar had equated getting a tattoo or earring with apostasy.
- The wild interpretation of “hot drinks” to have anything to do with Coke, while completely ignoring the easy to understand requirement to “eat meat sparingly in times of famine”.
- The white-shirted, beardless “uniform” that leaders from bishops on up are essentially expected to wear. This has nothing to do with the gospel.
- The focus on numbers in missionary work, home teaching, visiting teaching, etc.
- Etc.

The gospel is simple and beautiful in its simplicity. And just like in a fine piece of music, sometimes the spaces between the notes are what give the piece its character. Any notes put in there just muddy up the music.