But is Consensus all that it is cracked up to be? Is Consensus always considered a good thing? President Monson openly acknowledges that it is not always for the best to be in Consensus and that sometimes Dissension is necessary and right.
So sometimes Consensus is right and sometimes Dissension is right.
It seems that since neither is 100% true of 100% of all situations it must needs be that a balance must be struck between them in our lives, even in our Church lives. Sometimes we must maintain a Consensus with the Church (whether led by God or by Men, and indeed this can apply to all Churches and not only to the Latter Day Saints) in such occasions as the caring for the poor and the needy. For example, I think most of us can agree with the Church that looking after refugees fleeing pain, war and destruction is an excellent Christlike endeavor. Sometimes however, we must learn to choose wisely (and not blindly) what we believe to be right and be willing to "defy the Consensus" and "choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong", at times that indeed might mean to defy the Church on a particular issue or topic.
Now any active member of the Church reading this might instantly try to discredit that view but I assure you that my analysis is based on complete scriptural accounts from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which of course means I have two witnesses teaching the same principle.
I'll start by sharing the story from the Old Testament, 2 Chronicles 18. At this point in Biblical history the Kingdom of Israel has been divided for quite some time after the death of King Solomon. The King of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) is the infamous King Ahab who is well known as a wicked yet complicated King who frequently has mixed communications with the Prophets Elijah and Elisha. The famous Bible story detailing Elijah calling down fire from heaven to ignite the sacrifice on a water soaked altar involved King Ahab. The King of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) is King Jehoshaphat (who is less famous than his neighbor but still known for rebuilding the wealth and power of Judah and being a good and noble King before God.
Ahab and Jehoshaphat had at some point formed an alliance together and were considering a joint military venture on the city of Ramoth-Gilead. Jehoshaphat initially agrees to the proposal but then requests that Ahab inquire of the Lord about the matter. Ahab gathers over 400 "Prophets of the Lord" who all prophecy in consensus! Go up to Ramoth-Gilead and you shall prosper, they all said. Ahab was convinced by this unity and consensus from these Prophets but Jehoshaphat still had his doubts. I should add that we are given no indication in the scriptural account that these men did not have Priesthood authority nor that they were somehow not a legitimate part of the Church, for all intents and purposes to the best of our knowledge they were indeed men of the Church as advertised. King Jehoshaphat asked if there were any other Prophets who might be inquired of and Michaiah was brought before both Kings.
At first Michaiah prophesied with the consensus of the other Prophets, but when pressed he revealed what turned out to be the real and true will of the Lord, that if Ahab went up to war against Ramoth-Gilead he would die. Furthermore, Michaiah explained that the Lord had allowed another spirit (presumably Satan) to give a false prophecy to Ahab's Prophets "to entice him" to go up to Ramoth-Gilead. Two of the King's regular Prophets responded angrily and asked: "Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?" We see that Michaiah was regarded as an inferior by his fellow Prophets and we see that they felt they had a proper claim to knowing the mind and will of the Lord. Yet Michaiah defied the consensus of his peers and spoke according to what he knew from God. His council was rejected by both Kings and they went up to war as planned and as supported by the consensus of 400+ Prophets. But in the final verse of chapter 18 we read:
And the battle increased that day: howbeit the king of Israel [Ahab] stayed himself up in his chariot against the Syrians until the even: and about the time of the sun going down he died.
There you have one story proving that going with the Consensus of what you are told to be right and from God is not always what it seems. In that same story we also see proof that God at times will allow a lying spirit to test his Prophets, just as happened to Peter and Judas in the New Testament.
From the Book of Mormon we find the famous LDS story of Abinadi. His story is incredibly famous in the Church so I'll skip giving all the details of the story. In Mosiah chapter 11 we see the wicked King Noah rise to power over his Nephite kingdom and appoint new Priests over the Church in his kingdom. Now there is no doubt that this authority in the Church was legitimate since there is no account of that authority being replaced later on in the story of the Prophet Alma who was one of King Noah's Priests and a future Prophet of God. In this same chapter we are introduced to Abinadi who the author describes as a Prophet. We are told nothing about this man's background or history. We are not told if he was a former Priest or if he even had the Priesthood in any way, instead we are introduced to this famous Prophet with the words "And it came to pass that there was a man among them whose name was Abinadi; and he went forth among them, and began to prophesy". We also cannot claim that he passed on any sort Priesthood to Noah's Priest, Alma who repented of his own wickedness because of Abinadi's preaching; Alma left the area while Abinadi was in shackles and there was no opportunity for such a bestowal of authority on the young Alma. That same Alma immediately began organizing missionary work and teaching of the scriptures among the people after the death of Abinadi.
For all we know from the words of scripture Abinadi could have been a righteous man brave enough to speak against the established institution of the Church that had been corrupted by King Noah, despite the fact that the Church still had the proper Priesthood authority. There was Consensus among those Priests that justified their wickedness but it was a Consensus directly challenged and defeated by the Dissension of Abinadi and later Alma.
From these two stories we see very clearly that Consensus in the Church does not always indicate the Will of the Lord. But does Dissension always prove to be from God? No it does not. An extreme example would be the Betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot. Judas was in the minority (among the Disciples) in his animosity towards Christ and his Dissension is accredited to him as an evil action. Also in the Book of Mormon, specifically in 3 Nephi chapter 1, after the sign was given regarding Christ's birth there was a group, members of the Church, who tried to preach by the scriptures that the people were no longer bound to the Law of Moses. This minority were judged to have misunderstood the scriptures and were described as soon being convinced of their error. They defied the Consensus of the Church and were proven wrong, thus requiring that they rejoin the Consensus being taught.
As I said before, neither Consensus nor Dissension work in 100% of all situations involving right and wrong. But there a bigger truth behind both, that truth is an individual's voice. No matter what positions we have on doctrine, beliefs, the Will of God etc. we all should make our voices heard and be willing to have the discussion regarding who might be right and who might be wrong. If we have these conversations, if we defy the Consensus or correct the Dissension we allow people and institutions the opportunity to grow and repent. If we avoid these discussions at all costs we do service to no one but the Devil who will use that silence to foster doubt and resentment in the human heart. As Elder Oaks taught in this last General Conference, Opposition is what enables us to grow. Sometimes that opposition needs to come from the inside to keep ourselves honest and true.
No comments:
Post a Comment