I just had a related conversation with my wife this morning, actually. I was talking about the idea that revelation isn’t “completely certain” because of how difficult it is to be sure you aren’t making assumptions that aren’t true. There is always some interpretation that must go on.

I used the example of Native Americans not being solely from the Lamanites. I pointed out that many Mormons through that was a revelation, but science has basically disproven it, but that it wasn’t that big a deal to me because long before science disproved it — decades before — every Mormon scholar in the book had gone on record of not believing that and had pointed out that there is no source for that little “revelation” and it’s probably just us making assumptions.

What I didn’t tell her was that actually one can still make a logically coherent argument that the Lamanites/Nephites are the sole source for the native americans. But then I don’t believe that, so why even bring it up as a possiblity when I needed it as an example of my point?

(Incidently, I don’t feel I had a moral duty to bring up a possiblity I disbelieve in, even if I don’t assign the possiblity a zero percent change. That is to say, I’m open to it, but currently disbelieve it. This is an interesting moral question in any of itself for another time: Just what are the demands of truth in such a situation? And what are the rules for the demands of truth? Do we sometimes demand more than the demands of truth as a way of making our opponent look bad in an argument? Hint: Yes)

I’ll have to think up the best examples for explaining it in a non-threating way and share.

Agreed. I also try not to support my stance on gay marriage with the whole “the prophet can be wrong” idea. I don’t know if he is right or wrong on that matter. It is something I cannot reconcile or justify, or accept. Perhaps it is easier to do this exercise with less charged issues.

Thanks for your advice. I’m open to offline/email discussions if they are not relevant to the post: shenpawarrior@gmail.com

You are probably right about this. It’s a big church. I live in Utah in a really strong ward so I don’t see false views like this as much. Even my ward in California and Texas didn’t have views this bad that I was aware of.

But then again, my wards in Michigan.. well, it wouldn’t shock me much to hear something like this.

But let’s realize that this goes against the teachings of the church. Thus a person that believes this needs to be corrected. You are doing a good job of correcting it.

I agree with you that finding good examples is hard. The problem is that people have various ways of thinking of things so it’s hard to find an example all can agree with.

AdamF, I don’t want to start a discussion on homosexuality, but because of your stance on gay marriage, you are going to get “then what’s the point” a lot.

It’s really hard to have a sane conversation on this subject. I was looking over all the coverage we’ve done on the subject here on Mormon Matters and how utterly deficient it’s been. I feel like the only time I have had a sane conversation on it was with a long telephone call with John Dehlin, bless his heart for really trying to understand others.

I’m not suggesting you change your views here, only that this is probably a source of problems that isn’t getting specifically mentioned but is contextually relevant in some cases. (i.e. if you mentioned you were pro gay marriage in the conversation at any point, you’d get many of the results you mention regardless of other argumenst you used. Everything else would be emotionally irrelevant to the conversation.)

Sometime we should discuss off line and I’ll explain further. (Along with my current suggestions on how to improve the situation without giving up on your current views.)

The idea that a president of the Church could teaching something that is not true and be corrected by revelation later is hardwired into the DNA of the LDS church.

Perhaps for many, but I have talked with a lot (surprisingly) of members who believe not being infallible = only minor human faults, like a temper, or getting annoyed, or biting one’s nails.

The Adam-God example was just that. I welcome better examples to make the point, if anyone has them. Among the people I have talked with (all active members) there is a general consensus that Brigham Young really did believe it, and teach it that way, and that he was mistaken. Apparently, as you point out, many others in the church are not so sure about it. So yeah, if you have better examples, I am very interested.

“we need to allow for multiple interpretations”

I totally agree with this. Everyone should be allowed to make their own interpretations. The difficult part for me is when views of a prophet are dichotomous, i.e. he’s either always right, or what’s the point. Both of those views are harmful (in my view) because they either force someone to accept a lot of junk (once again, in my view), perform strenuous mental gymnastics to explain everything, or lead someone out of the church (and they hence sometimes have to nearly abandon everything that was good about it).

As for McConkie, I wish more people actually believed him when he said that, because so many people still use his pre-78 stuff in talking about the priesthood ban, or justifying it, when he basically said he was wrong… and for example, Elder Holland more recently said that the “less valiant in the pre-existence” stuff should not be taught, because it is wrong. However, this again creates too much dissonance for members, so perhaps they ignore it, or deal with it some other way.

I appreciate your input. Point is, I think prophets do teach things that are false occasionally. They do err in greater ways than just personality flaws. That view, while I think it is accurate, is also too difficult for many to take. It is not as hard for me and many people I know here and elsewhere, because it’s not an all-or-nothing idea.

If I think about it though, do I abandon my wife if she makes a mistake? Did I divorce my parents when they disciplined me unfairly in high school? Do I dropout of a graduate program when I disagree with an advisor? Do I leave the church when I find out the BY taught some racist ideas, or that Moses (arguable) killed a man? I could go on but you get the point.

In other words, there was a legitimate questions of “is it possible that the LDS Church president might discontinue polygamy and thus damn us all but we don’t even know it?” (I would agree this is an impossiblity. Indeed, if it were possible, then I’d have to believe God still wouldn’t damn anyone but the president of the Church over it.)

This would seem to go along with the idea that “don’t lead astray” is limited in scope to salvation.

This is the only possible logical conclusion, I think.

Here is the interesting thing, the people you say are arguing with you agree with this statement. They are, thus, getting stuck on your wording or your examples, not your underlying concept.

The idea that a president of the Church could teaching something that is not true and be corrected by revelation later is hardwired into the DNA of the LDS church. I think people completely accept this if it’s worded correctly to them and if you use examples they can agree with you on. Thus your statement above, that “won’t lead astray” must not mean “infallibility” is obvious to most or all members.

Adam, if I might, I suspect I know the reason why you sometimes get a negative reaction on a point like this that I can easily make without anyone disagreeing. It’s not just wording, it’s also which points you present and how you present them. For example, it’s a mistake to claim the Brigham Young taught Adam was God when there is still substantial disagreement over exactly what he meant. Right or wrong, it can’t be established for certain that his words boiled down to “Adam of the bible creation story is God the Father.”

(Here I’ll get a lot of arguments from those that think they have this all figured out or have religious reasons for wanting to believe this – I don’t mean fundies, I mean DAMUs — but since I’m only claiming uncertainty, the burden of proof is on them, not me. But for the record, I think there is a good chance that BY did teach just that. But that isn’t the point. The point is that this is legitimately an area where people will disagree due to the difficulty in making coherent sense of all of BY’s statements together and the realistic lack of information surrounding it.)

In many ways, it’s impossible to decouple a true concept like “not leading astray doesn’t mean infallible” from a person’s willingness to not claim certainty on a subject that isn’t really certain. (Which would, I fear, be nearly everything.) In other words, we need to allow for multiple interpretations or the end result would always be pointing out the perceived logical incoherence of the other point of view. (i.e. “well then what’s the point of having a prophet.” It’s not meant so much to challenge you personally as point out a possible logical incoherence to what they perceive you as saying.)

Your McConkie example is more obvious and isn’t controversial. No one claims that McConkie didn’t teach some things that even he admitted weren’t true later on. Thus everyone can agree this is an example of “not leading astray” not meaning “won’t ever teach false doctrine.”

So what I am saying is: pick your battles wisely.

I think a lot of it has to do with having all the church look to you as an example. That is what I think regarding higher expectations, e.g. if I saw an R-rated movie, who cares? But if my Stake President saw one, I’m sure there would be rumbling in the stake.

I especially like your second question, and it seems to hit on what Ron was saying in #30. I’m sure adultery would be a decent way low cut-off point, and I only point that out because wasn’t an apostle exed some time back for it?

However, I don’t think it is as black-and-white as it appears you do. While I do think there are “limits” I am not sure what exactly those may be, and even if teaching a false doctrine disqualifies anyone. Flip your question around and you have “How good can the true doctrine of an uninspired plebeian get before he is called as a prophet?”

My point is that the pope, Gandhi, Obama, Richard Dawkins, Moses, and prophets have flaws, they are human, just as we all are. The difference between prophets and members in the LDS faith is prophets have been given the responsibility to guide all the members, and so on down the line. Also, I personally believe that those in callings have an added “mantle” as it is said, that gives them more authority, or teaching or leading ability. I had it as a missionary. Obviously that is a subjective, personal experience for me, but I felt it. And I felt it leave after I came home.

I just know that many people now hold modern prophets to a standard that essentially would eliminate all former prophets from consideration – especially since we only have a very limited, subjective, carefully-constructed, airbrushed snapshot of those former prophets. Too often, people forget that basic fact.

I would think that scriptures would be the best source. In 3rd Nephi, chapter 27, the Lord outlines what criteria we should look for:

1. verse 8: ‘called in His name’ This one is pretty easy
2. verse 8-9: ‘built upon His gospel’ I would submit that we must clearly understand the gospel as the Lord defines it in the scriptures. In this chapter and also in D&C 33:11-12 and D&C 39:6 we find where the Lord defines His gospel. If the church preaches a broader or different definition of the gospel that what is found in the scriptures, I would suggest that is cause for alarm.
3. verse 10-11: ’show forth the works of the Father’ and not ‘the works of man’ For Christ to recognize the church as his, it should demonstrate the healings and miracles as we read in 3rd Nephi 26:14-15. The condition of the church should not be meaaured by the buildings or temples erected, or the tithing paid, or the temple sessions completed. The verity of the church is not determined by the tons of food shipped to disaster areas. These are the works of man.

How do you think we measure up?

Aaron, I do think that prophets, apostles, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, etc. etc. all have increased accountability and responsibility. Perhaps how much of an increased standard, and what that increased standard looks like is the question.

“Wanting modern prophets and apostles or Pope with inherent authority but without any increased standard of accountability and responsibility is downright shallow. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

The title is the post is,

“What if Thomas Monson, Pope Benedict XVI, and John Piper began teaching that the practice of homosexuality was morally praiseworthy?”

Happy New Year’s!

I have another thought I’ve been pondering – if God allowed His Church to fail during the Great Apostasy and then restored through Joseph Smith during the 19th century – what is going to stop Him from allowing it to happen again? And how are we going to know if the LDS Church loses its authority?

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right. It has been the custom of parents to break the will until it is weakened, and the noble, Godlike powers of the child are reduced to a comparative state of imbecility and cowardice. Let that heaven-born property of human agents be properly tempered and wisely directed, instead of pursuing the opposite course, and it will conquer in the cause of right. Break not the spirit of any person, but guide it to feel that it is its greatest delight and highest ambition to be controlled by the revelations of Jesus Christ; then the will of man becomes Godlike in overcoming the evil that is sown in the flesh, until God shall reign within us to will and do his good pleasure.

Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.

————————
On to my rambling,

I don’t see the leaders of our church as anything more than old men who have been tapped by God for a high leadership role. Old men are still men and mistakes are made. One of the things that defines an inspired leader is the humility required to admit when a mistake has happened and to try to correct it. The real bottom line is that we are responsible for our own salvation, not the church. It’s up to us to make sure (via the spirit) we are being correctly led and if we are not being correctly led, we should not sustain the leader. It is unreasonable to hang the validity of the restored gospel on the actions of the church or its leaders. However I do hold the church responsible for what its leaders do in its name… Is it our leaders that make the restored gospel true? It is dangerous to fuse your testimony of the restored gospel to the earthly entity that is the church. These are two vastly different concepts.

#10/#17 – Ron
Many members of the church have been taught (some since birth) that the brethren are infallible. They don’t know any other way. So when there is a discrepancy such as “the church will lose its authority if this happens…” and “this” later happens or when the president of the church pronounces fraudulent documents authentic, they can’t really handle it. Their world comes crashing down. I don’t think they’ve been “led astray” however they are treated that way which only serves to push them farther out. They are just going through a rough patch and need support. John Dehlin put together a screencast on this and it’s the best explanation I’ve ever seen or heard on the subject. If it can be dug up, it would be well worth the viewing.

That aside, there are plenty of examples in the scriptures of apostasy where the path was tred by the leaders or dictated by the membership or both. Think of it… Christ was personally among the Nephites, performed miracles and baptized them with fire and the Holy Ghost, yet only four generations later, they were out of the way. Are we so enamored with ourselves to think it can’t happen here?

In the end, no leader or general authority has any bearing on our conversion and sanctification. It is up to each one of us to seek and understand what is expected of us to gain entry to His kindgom (example found in 3 Nephi 27:19-21). We must each work out our salvation for ourselves. Relying on the arm of flesh, be it our own or that of a prophet, living or dead, will not move us one whit toward the kingdom of God.

Nevertheless he cried again, saying: Alma, arise and stand forth, for why persecutest thou the church of God? For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people. (Mosiah 27:13)

But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 124:32)

I think we have plenty of other things to build our faith. As an aside, while I don’t believe “logic” is the ultimate answer to everything (as human reason often fails us, or me at least), it is important. Sometimes things don’t make sense to me (e.g. the issue of gay marriage and the church) but that is when I guess I put logic down and just live on the goodness and faith that I have experienced.

Great response!

I agree with the rest of your statements, as well – however, I especially liked this one