Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

[poll=94]

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.

According to the dictionary, to know has 6 different contemporary meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty; e.g. “I have a clear and certain understanding of eternal families.  My dead grandfather came back and said ‘yup’ that’s the way it is.”
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory; e.g. “I would be able to pick Jesus out of a line-up.”
3. to be cognizant or aware of; e. g. “I am aware of their being a devil on my shoulder, prodding me to do evil; can you guys see this?”
4. to be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report; e.g. “I have met Thomas S. Monson, and he sure looked like a prophet to me.”
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive);  e.g. “I understand the gospel because I have lived it and it makes my life better.” 
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another;  e.g. “I know this church is the one that Jesus leads vs. those other false ones that Jesus merely dabbled with.”

To believe, on the other hand, has the following 5 meanings (when used with a direct object): 

1. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.);  to give credence to; e.g. “I have confidence in the idea of the atonement and that it will apply to me.”
2. to have confidence in an assertion;  e.g. “I believe that the church is a restoration of the early Christian church.”
3. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation;  e.g. “I believe Jesus was resurrected.”
4. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause);  e.g. “I believe in the counsel that was given at General Conference.” 
5. to believe in a) to be persuaded of the truth or existence of; b) to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of; e.g. “I believe I have heavenly parents who care about me.”

Ether 12:6 - I would show unto the world that ^afaith is things which are ^bhoped for and ^cnot seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no ^dwitness until after the ^etrial of your faith.

Alma 32: 18 & 21 – 18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to ^abelieve, for he knoweth it. 21 And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

What do people at church mean when they say they “know” things they relate in their testimony?  Here are some possibilities:

1. They aren’t certain, but they’ve decided to act on their hope (the first stages of faith).
2. The language of certainty is the norm; they are simply spouting cliches or don’t want to sound “different” by expressing what they believe or hope.
3. They haven’t questioned to this point in their life or experienced doubts; therefore, they are “certain” by default.  They still have the unblinking faith of a child.
4. They have experienced a witness of a specific concept after acting on their faith.  They “know” this specific thing based on that witness.
5. They have experienced some general sort of “witness” (loosely defined) that they are applying holistically to all concepts taught at church, assuming that one witness covers all points of doctrines (all win or lose together).

So, what do you think it means when people say they “know”?  Is it a cliché that is damaging to those who don’t “know” but assume everyone else does?  Is it dishonest?  Is it an act of faith to say we know when we only hope or believe?  Would you rather hear more accurate language in testimonies?

Discuss.

This is why I love President Monson! He has the common touch and appears to love people.

If you watch the video linked above, you will see the news piece on Salt Lake TV. At the very end, President Monson ends the informal report by flashing a peace sign, saying “Peace!” and chuckling. I was completely enamored of him once again.

So watch him in the Pioneer Day parade and enjoy!

If you want to comment, feel free:

Would President Hinckley have flashed a peace sign?

Is this a subtle pro-Obama signal from our revered ecclesiastical leader?

Are Mormons just stuck in the 1960s?