In this post I would like to briefly outline 5 reasons for why we should believe our authorized priesthood leaders over our own reasoning.\u00a0 The purpose of this post, in contrast to many of my prior posts, is not to convince the reader that they ought to so prioritize the church leaders\u2019 beliefs over their own.\u00a0 Rather, it is more to provide a taxonomy of sorts for such reasons, if only for the purpose of clarification.\u00a0 Commenters are encouraged to specify which reasons they do and do not endorse as well as provide and categorize any reasons that I might have missed.<\/p>\n
Without further ado, here are my\u00a05 arguments for arguments from priesthood authority:<\/p>\n
Before briefly unpacking these arguments, I want to acknowledge that each of these reasons \u2013 although some more than others \u2013 requires or depends upon personal revelation in order to go through.\u00a0 As always, I insist that personal revelation is necessary to\u00a0confirm each and every one of these lines of thought.<\/p>\n
Explicit revelation<\/strong> \u2013 This is usually taken (rightly or not) by the world at large to be the prototypical case of prophetic authority.\u00a0 The prophet says something akin to \u201cThus sayeth the Lord\u2026\u201d and tells us that some teaching is not his, but the Lord\u2019s. \u00a0Furthermore, position of our priesthood leaders allows them to receive such revelation regarding the direction and doctrine of the church in ways which we cannot.<\/p>\n Unspoken revelation<\/strong> \u2013 This is usually taken (again, rightly or not) by the active membership to be the prototypical case of contemporary prophetic authority.\u00a0 In this case, we believe (again, after prayerful confirmation) that even though the priesthood leaders do not draw a clear line between their own words and those of the Lord, the words of the Lord are there all the same. \u00a0For whatever reason, they choose to play the cards of revelation rather close to the chest.<\/p>\n Unconscious revelation<\/strong> \u2013 This is a case that I think most of us have experienced in that sometimes, in hindsight, we can see that we were guided by the Lord in something we did or said, even though we didn\u2019t know it at the time.\u00a0 In this case, the words of our priesthood leaders are being guided by the Lord, even if they themselves do not realize it and thus cannot tell us where their own words begin or end.<\/p>\n Group coordination<\/strong> \u2013 This is a case in which it is better for us all to be on the same page as members of the church than it is for some of us to be on what is perceived (rightly or not) to be a better page.\u00a0 In such cases, unity and effective\u00a0action trump diversity and analytic discussion.<\/p>\n Intrinsic authority from ordination<\/strong> \u2013 In this case, loyalty to ordained authorities is a virtue in and of itself rather than being an instrument to and thus constrained by some other end. \u00a0What matters is not the validity of the teaching or even the validity of the revelation, but the validity of the ordination. \u00a0Thus, arguments from secular<\/em> authority are\u00a0indeed invalid fallacies, but arguments from the authority of the Holy Priesthood of God are something else altogether.\u00a0 Of course one\u2019s priesthood ordination over us can become null and void, but not simply by saying something which seems incompetent or wrong to us.<\/p>\n There are a few points about these arguments that I think are worth mentioning.\u00a0 First, all of these arguments are both independent of as well as consistent with each other in that none of them seems to stand or fall with any other.\u00a0 Second, those who refuse to allow priesthood leaders to trump their own reasoning, tend, in my experience, to focus on (1), assuming that the failure of (1) entails the failure of others as well.\u00a0 Third, (1),(2) and (3) all see church authority as being based in a competence of some kind in that the Lord\u2019s undisputed competence on some matter is the only<\/em> thing which gives the priesthood leaders legitimacy over us.\u00a0 This makes these arguments very democratic and modern in nature, and as such tends to focus attention on (1), it being the clearest way in which the general membership can (rightly or not) evaluate a priesthood leader\u2019s (disputed) competence at expressing the Lord\u2019s (undisputed) competence.\u00a0 Fourth, (4) basically boils down to the modern, albeit disreputable arguments for authoritarianism \u2013 although the difference of voluntary association guided by personal revelation cannot be overstated.\u00a0 Fifth, (5) is the very anti-modern argument which I have been pursuing in my recent arguments for authority.\u00a0 While it is most foreign to our modern mindset, I believe it is right at home in the traditionalist context in which most of our scriptures were written.<\/p>\n Finally, I think it worth repeating that each of these arguments or thought processes requires confirmation by way of personal revelation on our part.\u00a0 Whether a priesthood leader is guided by the Lord in an explicit, unspoken or unconscious way can only be verified by personal prayer.\u00a0 Whether being on the same page as the priesthood leaders is more important than being on what is perceived to be a better page is a question only the Lord can answer.\u00a0 Whether a priesthood leader\u2019s word in intrinsically binding over us or not can only be decided by the Lord.<\/p>\n