Wisdom From Those “In the Know”

By Eleazar, 2002

This contains a few personal experiences that are related to this website and may be valuable to pass on to others.    In LDS culture, there is an emphasis placed on hierarchical authority and those in leadership positions are considered to be those who know and can be looked to for guidance.   Here are a few experiences with LDS church leaders that may be worthy of careful consideration, not because they proclaim a dogma on one way or another, but because they provide important starting points for new avenues of thinking.   As always, none of these comments of my own pretend to be authoritative, but are offered only as food for thought.    One must always be in a position to consider that their own way of thinking is incorrect and I should do no less.   With that said, here are a few incidences of counsel from LDS leaders that have occupied a prominent place in my own thoughts.  

            The temple endowment is not very symbolic.    A half dozen or so years ago, I was moved to write an essay on the symbolic meaning of the apron.   At the time, I was laboring under the usual worldly ego and notion of wanting to share my newfound knowledge with everyone I could find to listen.   I was sure that everyone would see it the same way that I did and would be as amazed as I was.    In my zeal, I gave a copy of the essay to a fellow I knew (Steve F.) who is currently the local (Buffalo, NY) Stake President, and asked him to read it and tell me what he thought of it.    After an appropriate time, I happened to see him on other business and conveniently asked him what he thought of it.   He handed the essay back to me and said that it went way too far into trying to uncover the symbolism in the apron because “the endowment is not very symbolic.”

            We don’t know much about it.     When a member of the ( Toronto , Canada ) temple presidency was informally asked (in the temple) about what might be the symbolism in the apron worn in the endowment ceremony, he replied “We don’t know much about it”.    

            Lucifer tells truth.     In an informal private conversation with Steve F. (who is now President of the Buffalo, NY Stake, though not at the time of this conversation  -- he held a different Stake position), we got into a discussion of a popular axiom sometimes stated in LDS classes that “Lucifer tells nine truths and then slips in one lie.”    I took issue with this idea, claiming that Lucifer always lies.    Steve took a supportive stance on the axiom, pointing out as an argument in his favor that Lucifer tells truths in the endowment.   We went around and around that bush for a long time without either of us yielding our ground.    It was an experience that I remember because I thought it ironic that here was a LDS church leader holding ground that Lucifer tells truth in opposition to someone (me) who many view as LDS apostate claiming apparent nonsense that Lucifer lies all of the time.

            You cannot trust your conscience.     Prior to a disciplinary court being held for me creating and maintaining this ( Temple of God ) website, the Stake President (Gary B.), asked if I would meet with him, to which I agreed.      In the course of our conversation, Gary told me that one must listen to the leaders first and foremost because “none of us can trust our conscience.”     He gave Osama Bin Laden as an example, saying that following his conscience was his problem.   I disagreed, countering that Osama Bin Laden’s problem was hanging on too tightly to religious dogma rather than following his conscience.  We continued to disagree on this and many other things, but in the course of our conversation, the Stake President threatened to excommunicate me if I did not follow his counsel (which included taking down the TOG website).    I felt that he had it backwards in demanding that I follow him in favor of trusting my conscience.   I also felt that it was ironic that church doctrine maintains that one of the most horrible sins one can commit is to deny the Spirit, but at times the leaders will threaten you if you refuse to do exactly that.

                 A question of authority.     In 1997, the local LDS Branch President (BP) (who was Gary W.) came to my home and privately met with me in order to find what I thought about my wife being called to a major local leadership position.   Before answering, I asked him to clarify the purpose of the conversation we were having.    In particular, I was curious whether or not my answer in this matter was binding, so I asked him in a very frank way.   Gary responded that he was visiting as a courtesy, but ultimately it is his prerogative as leader in the church to do as he wished in calling  my wife to the leadership position.    I felt moved to respond to him that I would seek revelation on it and get back to him in a few days.   I sincerely sought revelation on what to say and, at the appropriate time, told him that the Spirit had clearly told me that God was not calling my wife to the relevant position, but that the idea for the calling had originated in the mind of the Branch President himself.   Moreover, the Spirit was very clear in saying that the decision to accept or reject the calling belonged to my wife alone and that it was neither the BP's decision nor mine.   The answer caused me to think about it and to admire its deep wisdom, but Gary seemed to want to forget it.    Later, Gary told me that he would perform his solemn duty to "not allow anyone else to hear what you are saying."  (quoting his exact words).    As a result of that experience, I began realizing that the highest authority under God resided with the individual rather than  with church leaders as I was taught in church.   And it seemed so obvious all along, but why couldn't I see the obvious?   Incidentally, it turns out that my wife sought her own guidance and ended up rejecting the call.  

Home