This was a systems failure. Therefore, blame cannot be placed in just one place (scapegoat). However, apostles and prophets are not infalible and it seems that Franklin Richards was in error of putting faith before wisdom. The Book of Mormon teaches “O be wise, what can I say more.” Before the ultimate decision was made, there seemed to be an open discussion. Then, everyone seemed to unite together behind the presiding priesthood authority. That decision was clearly wrong. But I think it is instructive that despite the error there seemed to be little “ark steadying,” “evil-speaking,” “Second guessing,” or “Monday morning quarterbacking” by the company. They remained unified and God continued with them in their extremity. How much worse of a tragedy could it have been if the companies had lost the Holy Spirit to the spirit of contention and murmurring. This is an example of Franklin Richards tipping the ark, but the companies were faithful in not steadying it. That was the job of God and Pres. Brigham Young.

I’m sorry, but most references that I see on blogs to ark steadying are real abuses of the term. There is a difference between a commandment given with a penalty of instant death and a suggestion to migrate this year rather than waiting for next year. This is an especially poor example to apply the term to as people did in fact die. For the comparison to be valid the original ark steadying story would have to include hundreds of people dropping dead for obeying and NOT touching the ark.

This is a fascinating example. It is easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight at it and other examples of screw-ups by Church leaders in the early days. The thing that really fascinates me is (to the points above) the people just did it as they were told. I wonder how many of us would do that today? I really doubt that I would – if my life and those of my family were in danger, why wouldn’t I wait a year to go and save all our lives???

I don’t think they just did as they were told. My wife has ancestors in the willie and martin company and from what she understands, they got together and counciled together and they all really decided together to go. Now, they may have been greatly influenced by an impassioned speach by Franklin Richards to place faith before wisdom but I think most everyone was unifide despite the warnings.

Anyways, this is an important lesson in why we council in the church and in families. When a decision is to be made I try to make sure my wife and I have studied things out together and prayed about things together and make a decsion united together. Because, then if things get hard later she is not tempted to “ark steady” or “second guess” saying: “I was never in agreement with this plan in the first place, this is all your fault.” Instead we say, “hey we both felt like this is what we were to do, so lets keep going and continue in our Faith in Christ and things will get better.”

Is there a middle ground between strict obedience to the Lord’s annoited and following one’s conscience? That seems to be what DKL is asking. If so, where is that middle ground, and what kind of sacrifices does one have to make to occupy such a position? Sometimes history vindicates the heretic or disobedient, as it appears to have done in the case of Levi Savage. But had the Willie and Martin handcart companies made it safely to SLC, what would history say of Levi Savage? What would it say of the faith of Franklin Richards and the members of the Willie and Martin handcart companies? Sometimes the difference between faith and foolishness is nothing more than luck.

Me, I welcome the council of prophets, apostles, and armchair know-it-alls, but ultimately I answer to my own conscience. Does this make me a heretic? If “obedience” is truly “the first law of heaven,” then it does.

Matt,
What helps me in that question is some counsel given by Elders Oaks and Nelson about rules versus exceptions. I have links to their comments here.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
CES Fireside for Young Adults, February 6, 2005. Brigham Young University

“Through the years you will note that apostles and prophets teach the rule. We don’t teach exceptions to the rule. Exceptions are left to individual agency and accountability. The Lord knows we live in an imperfect world. He knows it is ‘ripening in iniquity’ (D&C 18:6). His judgments will be fair, just, and merciful.”

Elder Oaks explained the same principle in a talk given May 1, 2005, at a CES broadcast, and reprinted in the June 2006 Ensign.

“The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.”

The Best.
The Best.