Some thoughts on the counsel sent to members of the #ChurchOfJesusChrist of #LatterDaySaints living in Utah by the Area Presidency asking all Latter-day Saints in Utah to wear masks in public.
1/17

I understand why some members of the church are concerned about both government overreach in mandating mask wearing, as well as the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
2/17

Regardless of those concerns, church members should take the instructions and counsel of priesthood authorities very seriously.
3/17

Most members fall short in their personal efforts to live the gospel in one way or another. But there is a very real difference between falling short of counsel that you agree with vs actively disagreeing with and rejecting the counsel or policy itself.
4/17

Disagreeing with the guidance from the Area Authorities doesn’t make you an apostate. But if you are not careful, what you do with that disagreement can lead you down a path that eventually leads to apostasy.
5/17

Let’s say that, hypothetically, the Area Presidency over Utah sent out a letter asking that members in Utah start making in-home ministering visits _every week_.
6/17

In general the ministering program is purposefully more flexible and less prescriptive than that. So these hypothetical instructions from the Area Presidency seem to run contrary to the general way the ministering initiative is administered in the Church.
7/17

If I disagree with this hypothetical area-specific instruction, what is the appropriate way to express that disagreement?
8/17

Would it be appropriate for me to openly disagree with their counsel and publicly encourage those within my influence to reject it too? No. That isn’t how the church works.
9/17

Even if someone decides to disregard the counsel for themselves, there should be a strong hesitancy to publicly advocate against the counsel or to encourage others to disregard it.
10/17

The 1st Presidency has explicitly delegated some degree of authority to the Area Presidencies, & specifically regarding responses to COVID-19 in their areas. They are acting within their stewardship, with proper authority, and under the direction of the 1st Presidency.
11/17

Disagreement should be properly communicated privately to Stake Presidents who can communicate the disagreement up to the Area Presidency and other General Authorities. That is the pattern of the church.
12/17

Turning instead to social media to build up public resistance and rebellion is contrary to the order of the church. And if that rebellious attitude is allowed to get a hold it can eventually lead to apostasy.
13/17

Rebelling against the counsel of priesthood authorities and encouraging others to do likewise is inappropriate and spiritually dangerous— whether it is for progressive reasons or conservative reasons.
14/17

I admire those who personally disagree with mask wearing but have decided to submit to the counsel of the Area Presidency. And I admire those who respect the authority of the priesthood enough to make a conscious effort to avoid undermining the authority of their leaders.
15/17

Disagreeing with local authorities is clearly not the same as disagreeing with the 1st Presidency & Quorum of the 12. But it isn’t something a faithful member of the church can engage in with abandon. It isn’t something to trifle with or engage in lightly.
16/17

In the #ChurchOfJesusChrist of #LatterDaySaints there are appropriate ways to disagree with priesthood authorities and inappropriate ways. Publicly rebelling against them and encouraging others to do likewise is inappropriate and definitely a red flag.
17/17