Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
What if you were in the situation where you were asked to do something that deep down in the seat of your being, you couldn't bring yourself to do, and you knew that the consequence of not doing so was excommunication.
Juanita Brooks is the example that comes to mind. She was told to shut up about John Lee's covenants and blessings being restored or she would be excommunicated. This was not told to her by a bishop or stake president. It was told to her by an apostle.
From the account I read, she believed that the apostle was wrong, and she couldn't, in good conscience, be silent.
Clearly she chose her conscience over her membership.
I very much doubt God will hold such people in reproach.
|
Tough to say. My conscience would never require me to continue to share my view of something if I was told in no uncertain terms not to. I would probably even feel the same way about a historical matter ala Ms. Brooks. I'm not sure why her conscience required to keep talking. I can see why she would want to, but not why it is a matter of right and wrong for her. If I am a believing member then I am ready to subjugate my own judgment on a matter like that. If I don't believe, then obviously I am choosing excommunication if not purposefully, then at least knowing it is likely to result.
On the other hand if I knew that a crime had been committed I couldn't stay quiet about that.
I do wonder, however, how many interesting little tidbits are out there in the collective knowledge that will never come to light because people made the opposite choice Ms. Brooks did. This can't be the only time someone was asked to be more discrete about an embarassing fact.