A bomb went off in Salt Lake City in the 1980’s.
But this bomb wasn’t set by Mark Hofmann. It was set by Ezra Taft Benson, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
The trigger was his famous speech, The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, which he delivered to a packed house at BYU’s Marriott Center on February 26, 1980. But the bomb itself went off in President Spencer W. Kimball’s office at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City when he heard of it.
President Kimball was “concerned about Elder Benson’s February 1980 talk at BYU” and wanted “to protect the Church against being misunderstood as espousing . . . an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality.”[i]
President Kimball required Elder Benson to explain himself to a combined meeting of all general authorities the following week. Additionally, President Kimball asked Elder Benson to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but they “were dissatisfied with his response.”[ii]
A Little Background
What was it about Elder Benson’s talk that made President Kimball concerned it would be “misunderstood” as espousing “an unthinking follow the leader mentality”?
A brief survey of the talk should answer that question.
President Benson told his audience of 25,000 that the “grand key” to being crowned with God’s glory and being “victorious in spite of Satan’s fury” was to “follow the prophet.” President Benson then broke this one “grand key” down into fourteen “aspects” which he summarized at the end of his speech as follows, adding that “our salvation depends on them.”
- The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
- The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
- The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
- The prophet will never lead the church astray.
- The prophet is not required to have any
particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. - The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
- The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
- The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
- The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
- The prophet may advise on civic matters.
- The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
- The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
- The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
- The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
It is easy to see why President Kimball would be exercised at the content of this speech. He had just been portrayed to the world as a man whose words were more important than the standard works; more important than any other prophet in history; more important on any subject than what anybody else has ever said anytime or anywhere, regardless of their expertise; and whose every word could be considered scripture.
In effect, Elder Benson had just bestowed on President Kimball the thorny crown of infallibility. 
Elder Benson had presented a false depiction of the true nature of prophets. His Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet were actually Fourteen Fundamentals in Falsifying the Prophet.
And President Kimball was none too pleased about it.
But other than his private vetting of concerns and complaints, President Kimball apparently took no action to publicly repudiate, clarify, or distance the Church from Elder Benson’s fallacious statements.
And therein lies the problem.
Flashback to George Albert Smith
You see, this isn’t the first time such a thing has happened.
In June of 1945, The Improvement Era published its ward teaching message for priesthood holders to convey to other members in their monthly visit.[iii] This message contained the famous phrase, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”
Although this message seems to have caused nary a ripple (at least publicly) among the general membership of the Church, others questioned. Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City wrote a letter directly to President George Albert Smith, informing him this ward teaching message was “doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders,” and voicing his hope that “this cannot be the position of the true leaders.”
Church Members Can Do Their Own Thinking
President Smith wrote back to Dr. Cope on December 7, 1945, assuring him that the passage from The Improvement Era “does not express the true position of the Church; that even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church.”
So how did a ward teaching message so antithetical to everything the LDS Church stands for get published in an official Church magazine?
President Smith explains that “it was not prepared by one of our leaders. However, 
one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their doing so, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.”
The Only Thing Necessary for False Doctrine to Triumph . . .
Now, one might think that if George Albert Smith felt so strongly about the official Church magazine depicting the prophet as despot, he would have done something about it. Especially given his claims that members of the Church were upset about it and General Authorities embarrassed.
One might expect he would have issued some sort of official public clarification or retraction of the erroneous doctrine.
But one would be wrong.
If it were not for President Smith’s response to Dr. Cope’s letter six-months after the article was published, we would never have known he disagreed with those sentiments.
Because President Smith did not publicly contradict and clarify the false doctrine published in The Improvement Era, it gained currency in the Church and was repeated later by other leaders, including Young Women President Elaine Cannon who paraphrased it in October 1978 General Women’s Meeting as, “When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.”[iv]
And in the August 1979 First Presidency Message, N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency gave the sentiment the priesthood imprimatur of authority by quoting Elaine Cannon approvingly (while dropping the “sisters” and capitalizing “Prophet”), “When the Prophet speaks, . . . the debate is over.”
To Repudiate or Not to Repudiate; That is the Question
The idea that all thinking stops, or all debate ends, when the prophet speaks, was clearly considered false doctrine by Church President George Albert Smith.
So how did it nevertheless become established as true doctrine? Because.
Because President Smith failed to publicly repudiate it after it appeared in the pages of the June 1945 Improvement Era, this false teaching stood unchallenged.
Because it stood unchallenged, it became accepted.
Because it became accepted, it was repeated by Church leaders.
And because it was repeated by Church leaders, it became established as doctrine.
It took only 30-years for the time bomb planted in the pages of the June 1945 Improvement Era to go off. And when it did, its falsification of the role of prophets became established as official Church doctrine.
Flash Forward to Ezra Taft Benson
The same thing happened with Ezra Taft Bensons’ Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.
President Kimball had the same misgivings about The Fourteen Fundamentals as President George Albert Smith had about the 1945 Improvement Era article. President Kimball felt Elder Benson’s talk would lead to the Church being “misunderstood as espousing . . . an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality,” just as President Smith felt The Improvement Era article would wrongly imply “that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking.” (Why does that remind me of a certain Primary song?)
But like President Smith, President Kimball failed to publicly repudiate 
the false doctrine pronounced by Elder Benson at the 1980 BYU devotional.
As a result of President Kimball’s inaction, Elder Benson’s talk was repeated point-by-point in October 2010 General Conference by Seventy President Claudio R. M. Costa in his talk titled, “Obedience to the Prophets.”
And in the same General Conference, it was repeated again point-by-point by Kevin R. Duncan of the Seventy in his talk titled, “Our Very Survival.” Elder Duncan justified going over the same fourteen fundamentals in the same General Conference “[b]ecause they are of such importance to our salvation.”
Not only has Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals been repeated twice in General Conference, thereby attaining the status of uncanonized scripture, the same talk is quoted in its entirety in chapter two of the 2010 Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, as well as in the 2013 Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual.
The End of a Long and Winding Road
And now, putting the capstone on the process of transforming this false portrayal of prophets into official and orthodox Mormon Doctrine, The Fourteen Fundamentals makes its appearance in chapter 11 of the new Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manual that will form the basis for next year’s course of study.
Because President Kimball failed to publicly repudiate or clarify the speech in 1980, Elder Benson’s false teaching stood unchallenged.
Because it stood unchallenged, it became accepted.
Because it became accepted, it was repeated by Church leaders.
And because it was repeated by Church leaders, it became established as doctrine.
And again, it took only 30-years for the time bomb planted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his Fourteen Fundamentals speech to go off. And now that it has, its falsification of the role of prophets will become established as official Church doctrine.
Elder Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet is complete.
________________________
As a special Christmas bonus, and at no additional charge, I conclude with some thoughts regarding Elder Benson’s speech and its inclusion in next year’s Priesthood/Relief Society manual. I call this section, The Fourteen Fundamentals of the Fourteen Fundamentals.
1. The new manual does not list all fourteen points of Elder Benson’s speech. Instead it takes the talk and condenses and rearranges it into four main subheadings. Even though one of the primary objections to the talk when initially given was that prophets could be authoritatively involved in political activism, and most such references have been deleted, a major political reference still remains in the manual where Elder Benson quotes Harold B. Lee—“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. 
It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow. … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (I guess it was important to include that in the manual what with the whole gay-marriage thing going on right now.)
2. The Fourteen Fundamentals is cited six times in the endnotes to Lesson 11 of the new manual. It appears the editors didn’t want to make it too easy for the reader to locate the talk to read the whole thing because they give the citation to the June 1981 issue of Tambuli. What the heck is Tambuli? With a little digging, I found out that Tambuli is the name of an LDS Church magazine . . . in the Philippines! Mormons who go by the endnotes are going to have a tough time finding this particular publication, unless, that is, they happen to speak Filipino.
3. I went through the entire new manual looking at all the endnotes to see if perhaps there were other citations to the Tambuli magazine. There are none. Instead, there are crazy references to publications that no English speaking Mormon has ever heard of—publications like The Ensign; and Conference Report; and The New Era. Who would ever be able to find a citation in little-known publications like those? No, it looks for all the world like the editors of the new manual knew good and well that Elder Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals remains radioactive, and though they couldn’t quite keep themselves from regurgitating most of it, they nevertheless used a citation that would be as difficult to track down as humanly possible. Unlike the Spanish language Church magazine (Liahona), Tambuli cannot even be accessed on the Church website.
4. And another thing–Even though Tambuli can’t be accessed on the Church website, the Liahona magazine can—and it turns out the Liahona published the same talk in the same issue that it was published in Tambuli—June of 1981. Here is the link to it on the Church website. All you have to do to find it is go to the homepage and type in the search box—
“Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” You only have to get the first word typed and the search function will give you the rest!
5. Not only is the speech available on the Church website in the Liahona magazine, as well as in the other publications noted above, it is also accessible on the BYU-Speeches website that is accessible through the Church website. When you bring up the BYU-Speeches version, you will see a transcript provided together with a link you can click to actually listen to Elder Benson giving the talk. Even this would have been easier to access than Tambuli.
6. Elder Benson’s talk seems to have been trouble from the beginning. If you listen to the speech and compare it with the transcript on the BYU-Speeches website, they are not the same. Several phrases have been deleted from the talk in preparing the transcript. After that, the talk was again revised before it was published in the Liahona. Finally, it has been revised once more for publication in the new manual. One wonders why a speech given by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles should need so much revising in subsequent incarnations.
7. For example, if you compare the audio of the speech with the BYU-Speeches transcript, you will find the actual speech states it is our responsibility to “honor the principles of our inspired constitution, which at this time seems to be almost hanging by a thread.” The transcript deletes the final phrase, “which at this time seems to be almost hanging by a thread” from the end of the second paragraph. And under the Seventh Fundamental, the speech quotes Marion G. Romney as saying, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” The transcript deletes the final clause.
8. More deletions are made between the transcript of the BYU-Speech and the publication of the same talk in the June 1981 Liahona (and presumably the June 1981 Tambuli). For example, the transcript correctly quotes the talk as saying under the Eighth Fundamental, 
“There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men—between the prophet and the politician or professor.” The Liahona version of the speech deletes “politician” from the sentence. Also, under the Tenth Fundamental, the transcript correctly quotes the speech as saying, “Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government.” This sentence was dropped in its entirety from the Liahona version. Finally, Elder Benson’s description of General Conference addresses as our “marching orders” for the next six months is softened in the Liahona to “our instructions.”
9. Although most of the political statements have been completely removed in the new manual (with the notable exception of the Elder Lee quotation mentioned above), the single most problematic fundamental of following the prophet remains—the teaching that if a prophet tells you to do something that is wrong, you should do it anyway, and you will be blessed for it. But these are not Elder Benson’s own words. He is quoting from a 1960 General Conference talk by Marion G. Romney. But they are not Marion G. Romney’s own words, either. He is quoting from a private conversation with President Heber J. Grant from at least 15-years earlier (President Grant having passed away in 1945): “I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
10. The idea that we should follow the prophet even when the prophet is wrong puts the prophet above not only the standard works and all prophets who have gone before; it puts the prophet above God himself. God’s commandments become secondary in the face of a prophetic instruction to do the opposite. And apparently, God himself is bound to honor the word of the errant prophet by blessing those who follow his contradictory counsel. And some time toward the middle of next year when we get to chapter 11 of the new manual, this egregious and pernicious idea will be taught as established Church doctrine to all male and female adult members. This is the ultimate fundamental in falsifying the prophet. And the problematic nature of this idea is hardly ameliorated by the concluding statement attributed to Heber J. Grant, which he allegedly said with a twinkle in his eye, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” The Lord will just bless you for doing something wrong because the prophet told you to. Got it.
11. The Fourteen Fundamentals speech seems internally inconsistent in a number of ways. First, we know from the speech that what Elder Benson said is not necessarily scripture because he was not the President of the Church when he gave it. 
So why should it be considered binding in any sense? If it is the President of the Church who gives scripture, would it not be the concerns President Kimball expressed to Elder Benson about his speech that count as scripture, and not the speech itself? But maybe President Kimball didn’t tell Elder Benson, “Thus saith the Lord.” Oh, wait a minute. I almost forgot the Sixth Fundamental, The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
12. “The prophet will never lead the Church astray,” is the Fourth Fundamental. The quote comes from Wilford Woodruff who felt compelled to make this assertion as cover for his reversal on plural marriage in 1890. How else was President Woodruff to explain that he was for plural marriage before he was against it? Or that he (and John Taylor) had prophetically claimed plural marriage would never be rescinded? And so President Woodruff introduced this unfortunate phrase into the Mormon lexicon, which has assumed a life of its own as hardy as the sentiment is circular–“The prophet will never lead the church astray because the prophet said the prophet will never lead the church astray.”
13. The idea the prophet will never lead the Church astray is not only a perfect circle, it also admits of only two conclusions, neither of them palatable. The first is that the prophet is infallible and will only choose to do the right thing. Not only does this position make the prophet the only human being on earth deprived of moral agency, it also runs headlong into the recent Church essay laying the blame for the Priesthood ban on the influence of racist culture in the doctrinal policies of Church presidents. The second possible conclusion is that God must be pictured as a heavenly hit-man ready to take out the prophet as soon as he makes a false move. But really, this is just another way of saying the prophet will be allowed no moral agency. (Good grief! Even Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot were allowed agency to do what they wanted without being removed from the picture. 
But not so the prophet, apparently.) And it seems God was asleep in his sniper’s nest while prophets were forbidding blacks from the priesthood and the temple. But perhaps this explains why prophets are so old by the time they assume office. I mean, it’s much less suspicious for God to take out an erring prophet by making the hit look like a heart attack than by dropping a piano on him while he’s strolling down the street.
14. Finally, you know a false doctrine has really achieved the status of orthodoxy when Mormons are excommunicated for championing what was originally considered wrong. That’s what Adrian and Tausha Larsen found out a few months ago when they were excommunicated for promoting the idea that prophets are not infallible. This was enough to lose their Church membership. They are now officially outside the fold. And why? Because they sided with President Spencer W. Kimball and President George Albert Smith against President Wilford Woodruff and President Heber J. Grant.
And so, in the final analysis, it isn’t really a question of following the prophets, but rather what prophets we follow.
But don’t worry.
Even if the prophets we choose to follow are wrong, we will be blessed for it.
Just ask the Larsens.
[i] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, (Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1997), 111.
[ii] Ibid, see endnotes 352-353 on page 469 for references.
[iii] The Improvement Era was the official Church magazine at the time, being the forerunner to today’s Ensign magazine, just as “ward teaching” was an earlier incarnation of today’s “home teaching.”
[iv] Sister Cannon’s paraphrase is much closer to a statement that is printed in the same paragraph of the 1945 Improvement Era article, which goes on to state: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Great post, thank you so much. This is very timely for me because I was contemplating bringing up this topic to my stake president in my temple recommend interview this month and the history of this 14 fundamentals talk. They had the high council rep speak on this topic in November in my stake, and I wanted to share some of the backdrop history for this talk and President Kimball’s disagreement with Elder Benson at the time.
However, now I’m not sure I should bring this up at all. I had no idea that this talk has made its way into the Priesthood manuals for next year, and that it had become so pervasive. This kind of evolution of doctrine towards more insulated church culture that believes in infallible leaders is very disturbing. The fear of our current leaders to contradict each other publically is also at play here. Greg Prince talks about this is his great biography of David O’ McKay.
Unfortunately it seems we have an environment ripe for perpetuating false ideas, and the more extreme the statement, the more likely it will be perpetuated until a leader somewhere has the courage to publically and explicitly denounce the false teaching. This is a disturbing trend….
I agree with you, HFAT.
And I should probably tell you that a faithful friend of my son brought up this very issue in a recent letter to his stake president–i.e., challenging the idea that prophets are infallible–a theme that permeated last General Conference.
The stake president revoked his temple recommend and released him from his calling.
Yikes, thanks for the warning. I’m not in a hurry to burn any bridges with my new leaders, we just moved to this stake a few months ago. I think I’ll hold off on that conversation for now and try to build up some trust equity before down the road trying to use persuasion to influence these leaders on issues like this.
When the time comes, just be sure to have a copy of the George Albert Smith letter in your pocket!
The problem is that if we remain silent then it will only get worse. I wish everyone would be outraged at once. The individuals would not be excommunicated, the church would have to take notice or start cutting off whole stakes in mass. They would not do that. So the problem is that by remaining silent all those who would have agreed with you will also be silent, thinking you support the false doctrine, and you remain silent thinking you are also alone. Then as concerns are raised privately and one at a time you get excommunicated. Ever notice how the whack amole game is very easy when you are hitting them one at a time, but you loose once they all stand up at once?
When I worked on a project with Elder Robert D Hales we would go off-topic and talk. Once when that happened I told him how tired I was of hearing false doctrine preached over the pulpits of the church. He replied, “But you know correct doctine.” I said, “Yes, but what about the person sitting next to me.” He silently looked at me then teplied, “0h, you’re always thinking of others.”
Well, yes, because those “others” will begin teaching it.
I’m against demanding anything of the prophet or church leaders. I only pray for what I want from them. Right now because of the article and your comment I have decided to pray for them to find healthy ways to influence the doctrine of the church. I will pray for them to show us by example how to NOT be co-dependent (to stop passing harmful principles from one generation to the next).
Here is my list of how to sustain the prophets and WHY I came to this conclusion from studying the blacks and the priesthood issue.
HOW I SUSTAIN:
1) I don’t demand everything the prophet says be true
2) I don’t evil speak about him (or any of the Lords’ anointed, including my husband)
3) I don’t crumble and leave the church when I disagree.
4) I pray for him (especially when I disagree)
5) and of course I take the word of the prophet to the Lord.
WHY I SUSTAIN THIS WAY:
Early latter-day Saints proved too hard-hearted to accept the blacks having all the same privileges. God did not intervene beyond what we know of (The vision in Acts 10 and Jesus direct commission in Mark 16:15). Later prophets didn’t even point out the truth at any time because, as you stated, they all thought Brigham Young “couldn’t err”.
Instead one after another made racist speeches to justify Brigham Young. The members rejected God’s commandment that all worthy men should be ordained (D&C 36:4-7) so they suffered the consequences as God said they would in D&C 3:1-4. Therefore God waited for enough members to stop being racist and to pray for God to grant a revelation on the matter to his Prophet.
Mark 10:4,5 describes that Moses allowed divorce even though God was against it. Why? “Because of the hardness of the people’s hearts”. Did the prophet lead the people astray? The answer seems to be that the people lead.
1 Sam 8:4-7 The Prophet Samuel was being a bad dad by allowing his sons to continue in the judgement seats so the people demanded a King. Neither Samuel nor God wanted the people to have a King but God allowed it even though it was not His will. Why? Because the people rejected God to reign over them. So was king rulership a top-down command or a bottom-up command? Bottom-up (from the people) because it came, not as a result of God’s will, but as a result of the will of the people.
NOW members steeped in the culture of medical worship have a prophet steeped in the culture of modern medicine (symbolized by the serpent on a staff ….which system kills more people via iatrogenic illness than cigarettes kill smokers).
That is not criticizing the prophet. That would be like criticizing Moses because of a punishment the people demanded by their bad behavior. Or that Brigham Young didn’t do a lot of good things in the name of the Lord, or Samuel either.
I love President Nelson and I pray for him and I sustain him AND I don’t expect everything he says to be perfect like “….is safe and effective”.
The cruel demanding latter-day Saint needs every utterance of the prophets to be true. They ignore the scriptures which show that griping and complaining to each other or to the prophet is the recipe for a nice little pestilence or famine (watch out an awful lot of people been praying to lose weight!).
If we look to Christ instead He turns circumstances and policies to our good.
Also, Hope for All Things, I want you to know I wasn’t trying to scare you or anything. But I do think it important to know going in that there may be some blow back.
Take care!
What page is this located? I have read the book and cannot find this story, and I really want to find it!
“The idea that we should follow the prophet even when the prophet is wrong puts the prophet above not only the standard works and all prophets who have gone before; it puts the prophet above God himself.”
You summed up the problem very well here. Current church “doctrine” teaches us to place humans above God.
The apostles of the modern church (as opposed to the pioneer era) also seem to feel that pretending to be unanimous will help the church, but it’s probably more curse than blessing, as you’ve shown here.
One more problem I have with “following the prophet” that you didn’t address here is that we have definition-creep. Prophet means what? The president of the church? The first presidency? The apostles? The GAs? The church employees? The PR department? The stake president? The bishop? I’ve heard people equate “following the prophet” with all of these.
Thanks for your comments, Anarene!
The part you quoted was one I struggled with finding the right words to express, so I really appreciate it.
I agree with you that we have a problem with “definition-creep” in the Church, but as for Elder Benson, he specifically defined who he was talking about when he said “prophet”–the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
No room for equivocation there.
If you don’t believe me, just check the June 1981 Tambuli.
;^)
There is nothing in church doctrine that teaches to place humans above God. That’s a completely false and misleading claim. One doesn’t need to go digging too deep in church doctrine and the scriptures to find all sorts of evidence that faith is to be placed in God and not man. Also, never once have I been taught that prophets are not infallible people. The nature of this existence is that we are all infallible. The doctrine, however, is that God will not allow a prophet to lead us down paths that will be destructive in our mortal journey regardless of the personal imperfections of the person who God has called as the prophet at the time. There’s a lot of digging here by people are trying to justify something. I’m not sure what it is, but there is a lot of false doctrine taught on this page.
Well said Anarene!
Corbin, thank you for the article! It summed up very well how I have felt most of my life.
I decided to explore the quotes you provided more to get a real feel for what was being said, or rather, what was trying to be said. The quote response from Pres Smith was the worst for me. The full quote is as follows:
“The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.
I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.”
The worst part about this quote, to me, is that he’s not refuting the idea at all! What I got from this was, “members can’t rely upon our testimonies, but must think and feel for themselves in order to obtain their own testimonies.” And sadly, that’s not even close to saying the message was wrong. I’m therefore left to wonder, did he actually disagree with the message? I would certainly hope so, but the full quote doesn’t instill much hope.
Also, could you expound on source number 2? I’m not sure what Ibid is.
Thanks again for the article! I certainly think you are right, and definitely want to think the leaders feel the same way.
Thanks for your comments, Matt!
There were a lot of things I was not able to go into in the depth I would have liked (I was already running long), so I am glad you quoted more of the George Albert Smith letter.
It is, of course, impossible to try to get behind what President Smith really meant when he wrote this letter, and I would rather take him at face value in that he appears to be in complete agreement with Dr. Cope.
By the way, Dr. Cope’s letter includes a description of one LDS man who came to him so upset by the Improvement Era message that he was literally in tears of distress, fearing he was losing his faith.
And “Ibid” just means that I am citing the work cited to immediately before. It saves time in not having to type out the entire citation again.
Here is the text of Dr. Cope’s letter in its entirety:
_________________________
Dear President Smith:
It has been one of the great privilege[s] of my life to have lived for the past four years in Salt Lake City, and to have become personally acquainted with many of the leaders of the L.D.S. Church. From them I have learned many things, and the spirit of friendliness which is found in our relationships is a source of unending delight to me. It is because I have found you and the other leaders so very charitable and sympathetic that I make so bold as to write you this letter.
May I first assure you of my good will; that there is not one note of hostility in attitude. I am confident that you will understand why I write, and that we have a common interest in the problem.
Last June there was delivered to my door a short religious editorial, prepared by one of your leaders, entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church.” Its message amazed me a great deal, and with the passing of weeks my distur[b]ance became very acute. It might have passed, except that several members of your Church have come to me to discuss the subject. The most recent was a prominent doctor, who, because of this tract, he affirms, is losting [sic] his religious faith. He is a large man, and I became impressed with his deep sincerity as he broke down and wept like a boy. I am convinced that he is undergoing a very dangerous experience.
Permit me to quote the passages which seem to be brought most in question:
“He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking[.]”
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy….”
I do not know who is responsible for this statement, but I am sure it is doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders. Many people are suffering because of this. My reply to each of those who have spoken to me is “please do not become distrubed [sic], for this cannot be the position of the true leaders. And, from my knowledge of the early writings of your leaders, I must assume this to be non-representitive [sic].
Several years ago, when I first became acquainted with the L.D.S. Church, I read extensively in the texts, and there are many passages which may be used to give a better expression to the vision and genius of your Faith. I cite but one, although there are many others which are familiar to you.
Quoting from the Discourses of Brigham Young, as Selected and Arranged by John A. Widtsoe, in the Chapter on “The Priesthood”:
“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 that 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 thwa[r]t the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give 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 whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”
This quotation from Brigham Young is a wonderful passage, and it has been on the basis of such freedom that persons like myself have grown to have a deep feeling of kinship with the L.D.S. Church. It is in keeping with the high traditions of my Unitarian background that the gains made by my fellow workers are seen as gains for us all. It is a source of regret to all of us when one stone is discovered to bar the way to deeper faith within any soul.
With an assurance of my continued good-will and friendliness,
Most cordially yours,
J. Raymond Cope.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/when-our-leaders-speak-the-thinking-has-been-done/
This is outstanding and distressing. Fantastic job at tracking all of these details down and tying them together. WOW….I’m somewhat gobsmacked after reading this.
Thanks Alison!
I kind of like the way the feature image looks like a Christmas ornament at first, but when you look at it closer, you can tell it’s really a bomb.
Minor correction… His name is spelled “Hofmann” not “Hoffman”. (It’s a pretty easy mistake to make.)
Whoops! Thanks for the heads-up on that, Tina.
Fixed it!!!
Thank you for this well-researched post Corbin, I loved it. I can understand why church leaders today would see a growing need to perpetrate this false doctrine. I’m sure they think it would just makes things easier for them if the intellectuals and feminists and all the other rabble rousers would stop asking their pesky questions and just FOLLOW them. And it has the added benefit of encouraging people to stop focusing on historical problems and just follow the living prophet. Heck we even have a primary song that has our small children chanting that phrase over and over. Kinda creepy.
The interesting thing for me is to think about the long term implications of this approach. I don’t think the doctrine of infallibility has worked out very well for other churches, such as the Catholics. The problem is that no man, no matter how great he is and how carefully he is managed by Church PR, can meet that standard. They will all make mistakes, some of them huge, and people will see that it simply isn’t true and leave the church. I think Proposition 8 is a perfect example of a terribly flawed idea that the “prophet” promoted as coming from God, and in doing so he led the church astray, at least in my opinion.
Its never a good idea to set the bar too high, because you might not be able to clear it.
At least the Catholics have a specific measure of what is and isn’t an infallible statement from the Pope. If the Pope announces he is speaking “ex cathedra”, it means that he is about to utter the infallible word of God. Otherwise, his word is not necessarily considered to be infallible. Interestingly enough, “ex cathedra” isn’t really invoked that much.
The problem with the LDS setup of things, is that there’s no clear system for when the Q15 are speaking as men or when they’re speakng as prophets. It seems like the general assumption is that we should act as if whatever they’re currently saying is the latter and the former is only invoked when it’s convenient or if the church needs to back down from the statement of a past prophet.
Thanks, Andrew.
It does seem sometimes like a situation of Church leaders wanting to have their cake and eat it, too.
Thanks for your comments, Porter!
I think the doctrine of imputed infallibility may be the reason it seems the prophet is unwilling to put himself out there and say anything of importance in General Conference.
It seems that most of what we get from the Q15 tends to be a mish-mash of popular feel-good advice, sprinkled with some basic Christianity that nobody could really take issue with.
I continue to wait, eager to hear the voice of a prophet of God.
Wow. This is excellent. I agree that this is completely horrible “doctrine”. It was upsetting to see that this has passed completely through the correlation committee, which is the body that essentially decides what is and is not doctrine. I’m convinced that we are were we are today because those who knew better were not willing to speak up loudly enough. It makes me sad.
Though we are not in the top echelons of the Church, maybe they will still hear us if we speak up loudly enough!
Thanks, CRL!
This was a fabulous post Corbin! Well-researched and articulated. Go give yourself a big hug.
This was my favorite point: “10. The idea that we should follow the prophet even when the prophet is wrong puts the prophet above not only the standard works and all prophets who have gone before; it puts the prophet above God himself. God’s commandments become secondary in the face of a prophetic instruction to do the opposite. And apparently, God himself is bound to honor the word of the errant prophet by blessing those who follow his contradictory counsel. And some time toward the middle of next year when we get to chapter 11 of the new manual, this egregious and pernicious idea will be taught as established Church doctrine to all male and female adult members. This is the ultimate fundamental in falsifying the prophet. “
Thanks so much, Lori!
That means a lot coming from you!
That part you like was one of the last to click into place while writing this post.
I knew there was something I wanted to say about it, but didn’t know what.
At the last minute, the heavens opened and the words flowed.
Either that, or it may have been an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, or a fragment of underdone potato.
There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!
We are kindred spirits; you and I.
Very nice article, Corbin, I always enjoy your thought provoking posts. But, I disagree with you on this, the church does want us to believe that prophets, if not infallible, are at least not to be contradicted, corrected, or shown wrong in anyway by anyone other than a current prophet.
Your examples of George Smith and SW Kimball disagreeing privately with certain public statements are just more examples in a long line of GAs stating what they think that audience wants to hear in order to placate the immediate audience. These private declarations must be wholly disregarded as they are not meant to be taken seriously.
Their true feelings must be the public statements as a prophet would certainly have the courage to publicly correct a wrong statement, even if uttered by a member of the 12. Last week’s SS lesson was on being courageous!
While you and I would like to spin the story as you’ve laid out of prophetic fallibility, they want us to officially not question the church nor its leaders. We are to look on its actions and their words as if from God himself. End of discussion.
The private musings of GAs are not their official position. The official statements and doctrine stand as publicly said, resaid, published and taught. As any true believer would say, if you don’t like it, leave it.
Very nice article, Corbin, I always enjoy your thought provoking posts. But, I disagree with you on this, the church does want us to believe that prophets, if not infallible, are at least not to be contradicted, corrected, or shown wrong in anyway by anyone other than a current prophet.
Your examples of George Smith and SW Kimball disagreeing privately with certain public statements are just more examples in a long line of GAs stating what they think that audience wants to hear in order to placate the immediate audience. These private declarations must be wholly disregarded as they are not meant to be taken seriously.
Their true feelings must be the public statements as a prophet would certainly have the courage to publicly correct a wrong statement, even if uttered by a member of the 12. Last week's SS lesson was on being courageous!
While you and I would like to spin the story as you've laid out of prophetic fallibility, they want us to officially not question the church nor its leaders. We are to look on its actions and their words as if from God himself. End of discussion.
The private musings of GAs are not their official position. The official statements and doctrine stand as publicly said, resaid, published and taught.
I think there is something in what you say, Ken.
We know from the episode with Bruce R. McConkie and his “Mormon Doctrine” that President McKay didn’t want to publicly humiliate him by openly denouncing his book because of concern that it would impede Elder McConkie’s effectiveness as a Seventy.
And we know how much Elder McConkie showed his appreciation for that olive branch!
I sometimes think Church leaders can be more concerned with hurting each others’ feelings than they are in guiding the flock.
But that’s just my opinion.
Funny enough, it was Ezra Taft Benson who said, “Not only are there apostates within our midst, but there are also apostate doctrines that are sometimes taught in our classes and from our pulpits and that appear in our publications. And these apostate precepts of men cause our people to stumble.”
Batting .500, then?
I think Elder Benson’s working definition of apostasy was anything that didn’t line up with his own beliefs, whether religious or political.
Apostasy is as apostasy does.
Wow, thank you for your insights, gotta love what got put into correlation after this…. makes for some "get in the file and rank" mentality that I personally plagues the church at present. Don't think for yourself just do what you are told, think what you are told to think, if you think anything else, you are an outsider and a threat to the institution and therefore you will either get shamed, shunned or disfellowshiped even Exed.
Thanks, Brittany!
I hope you are doing well!
Rumor has it that the Dictionary in the next LDS edition of the scriptures will define “Agency” as the freedom to do what you are told.
Fantastic article. Awesome points and well researched!
The title has me concerned. I’d like to be able to share the article with some of my more conservative “Follow the prophet” friends but as soon as they will see the title, they won’t read it.
Thanks, Sker!
What if you just copied and pasted it into an email to share with your friends and you could change the title to your specifications?
Good luck!
I would be interested in hearing their response!
"Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, " if the keeps this up he will be one of the next ones ex'ed for getting lippy about the Brethren.
“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
–George Orwell
I do disagree with, or rather find your statements contradictory. If George Smith and SWK were stating what they thought their audiences wanted to hear 'in order to placate', doesn't that show a lack of courage? Would the Savior share doubts with His apostles and then publicly say something different? Also, SWK had President Benson apologize and explain himself to the other church leaders which would suggest that he was very concerned about other church leaders repeating what was stated in the 14 fundamentals.
Do current prophets contradict past prophets and are shown wrong by them? Absolutely. Brigham Young and Joseph F Smith loudly denounced Joseph's decision to remove his garments (and telling everybody else to do the same) before going to Carthage. BY's teachings on blacks and priesthood, adam-god theory, moon/sun men, have all been denounced. Hinckley denounced polygamy and said it was not doctrinal (even though it is in the Doctrine and Covenants) while Brigham said that any man who denounced polygamy would go to hell. So much of what past prophets preached as gospel truth has been denounced by more modern prophets that it is amazing to think that people can trust the current prophet. He will just be contradicted in the future also for the things the church is currently preaching.
David O McKay had serious doubts about bringing correlation to the church; that it would lead the modern church down the same paths that destroyed the ancient church. (He was right) Protecting the facade of invulnerability is paramount to the leaders of the church. Bruce R was greatly criticized for Mormon Doctrine (over 1,000 errors) but the church refused to let the members know of this. Just told him not to publish it any more–which he ignored–so they made him an apostle.
The 14 fundamentals are carte-blanche for the leaders to do whatever they want regardless of what was done before. I can just imagine the scene where God calls Thomas and says, "Hey Tom, yeah, well, I know what I said 50 years ago but didn't see all this new stuff coming. Gotta change it now. But hey, you're the prophet so whatever the other guys said doesn't matter. We'll get it straight this time. I hope."
Ridiculous, I admit, but no other christian religion has a god who simply cannot make up his mind like the LDS. Wilford Woodruff himself prophesied from the pulpit that polygamy would never be taken from the earth until the return of the Savior. Then WW rejected polygamy. Huh?
From what I've read of Joseph Smith he would denounce the 14 fundamentals. In fact, he did denounce those who preached this kind of unthinking loyalty to the leaders of the church. Sorry, I've tried to find the exact quote but it's lost in stacks of notes. He did though, say that those who preach this kind of loyalty to the leaders of the church have evil intentions in their hearts and should not be followed.
"Some desultory talk was now had in which the following truths were told: Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar." An Apostle's Record, The Journals of Abraham H. Cannon, http://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Record-Journals-Abraham-1889-1896/dp/B000MFD1K4 Why did Joseph do this? It was said that he wanted the members of the church to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and follow Him, not to base their beliefs on the prophet. Even if that prophet was Joseph. Not so anymore.
Great comments, Gregory! Thanks for sharing them.
I think that is the reason one of the Fourteen Fundamentals is that the living prophet is more important than a dead prophet–to resolve all contradictions and inconsistencies with one sweep of the hand.
It doesn’t make any difference that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Doctrine. It was denied by President Kimball in 1976 and so that takes care of the problem.
Not because we have analyzed the issue and compared the competing doctrines with scripture, but because a later prophet overrules by fiat a former prophet.
See how easy it is?
And though I didn’t mention it in the post, one of the rich ironies in the Fourteen Fundamentals is that Elder Benson quotes Brigham Young as saying, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”
Benson quotes Brigham in support of his Sixth Fundamental that the prophet does not have to say, “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
But if Elder Benson is going to agree that whatever Brigham Young said in a sermon is scripture, he is going to experience the LDS equivalent of a flaming car crammed with clowns running into a brick wall.
Corbin, this is SO GOOD. Thanks so much for this excellent analysis.
Thanks, Holly! I appreciate your kind words!
Corbin, from the very first sentences this thing took off like dynamite! Although I've written about this topic before on my own blog, I found myself wishing I had written it this way.
This one's a keeper. Very nicely done!
Oh oh… two of my favourite Mormon bloggers on the same page – I think I’m about to pass out!
Could somebody get the smelling salts for Adam?
What an unexpected pleasure to have you drop by, Alan!
You are very gracious in your comments, and I thank you for them.
My wife and I were just reading your latest blog post together last evening. We are big fans.
We both think you Rock!
I've had first-hand experience with the coercive insistence on the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility. My temple recommend has been stripped from me, and I am under a gag order by threat of excommunication.
Thank you for the article, Corbin. You have some real beauties in there. (God as Heavenly hit man? Classic. 🙂 )
That is awful, Annalea!
I hope your post doesn’t violate the gag order!
A have a wise friend who once told me there was a reason the Protestant Minister was removed from the temple endowment in 1990.
It was because he told Adam and Eve in sinister tones, “I preach the orthodox religion.”
I am starting to think the character moved out of the temple and into the top floor of the COB . . .
You take care of yourself!
I've had first-hand experience with the coercive insistence on the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility. My temple recommend has been stripped from me, and I am under a gag order by threat of excommunication.
Thank you for the article, Corbin. You have some real beauties in there. (God as Heavenly hit man? Classic. 🙂 )
Excellent analysis. Couldn't agree more.
Thanks, Brian!
If this blog ends up causing a conflagration, I may be calling on you for some help!
Please read what I say with the following disclaimer. I dislike the pseudo-doctrine that you are trying to discredit. I don’t think they are healthy, I don’t think they are what Heavenly Father wants us to do, they have enormous capacity to foster abuse, and they make it difficult to explain away prophetic blunders modern and ancient. I’m with you in spirit.
But do Quinn’s sources say that the President and Qo12 disagreed with any particular parts of E Benson’s speech or they disagreed with all of it? The post assumes that the President and Qo12 disagreed with all of it or that they disagreed with the portions which have been repeated and reprinted. Your post also privileges a private letter (and your interpretation of the letter) and Quinn’s sources over what made it through the correlation committee. In other words, the post posits that what has been edited and printed and what has been spoken in GC and then printed after further review are inaccurate or false doctrine because they are contradicted by a private letter which hedges but doesn’t condemn and are contradicted by Quinn’s sources. Your conclusions may be right for all I know, but it is useful to acknowledge what sources you privilege above others in your analysis.
You are right to raise these issues, Sam, and I appreciate your doing so.
We are faced at the outset with the challenge of documenting these types of disagreements, because minutes are typically not kept of such meetings, or if they are, they are not available to the mortal man.
When it comes to this aspect of the Kimball/Benson issue, it is always D. Michael Quinn who is cited, because he has personally spoken with witnesses who were present at the meeting. (I went to my personal copy of Mormon Hierarchy to crib the quotes.) I believe Quinn is a credible historian. And if we are not going to get the “inside scoop” in this manner, how will it ever be known? Probably never, it seems to me.
This means it is either Quinn interviewing actual witnesses, or nothing . . . unless the actual witnesses want to talk to somebody else.
This is why I sought to buttress the Benson/Kimball account with the letter exchange between GAS and Cope over the 1945 Improvement Era passage. It seems to me this lends credence to the Quinn accounts, at least insofar as a similar issue seems to have been privately disagreed with by a sitting Church president on another occasion; again with nothing being done publicly to rectify the situation.
Having said that, I am not sure I am “privileging” certain sources in this article. If the Church had come out and denied that what Quinn reported was true, or the Church had said independently that everything was hunky-dory between Kimball and Benson and the 12 after the speech, then I would have to “privilege” sources to go with one over another. In other words, I don’t think I have to privilege one source over another unless there are sources that actually contradict each other.
As it is, I am just trying to follow what scant evidence there is as best I can to where it leads me.
Thanks for your insightful comments!
Mr. Volluz.
Your article has a problem regarding what you reference is the Tambuli.
You state “What the heck is Tambuli?”
For the record: It is a long-stemmed trumpet is often associated with the ceremony of heralding the arrival of royalty. Symbolically, the statue of Moroni atop the Salt Lake Temple, fitted with this instrument, is an inspiring reminder to the viewer that the King of Kings, Jesus Christ himself, will soon come to reign over mankind. It also symbolizes the preaching of the restored gospel throughout the world.
a type like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=harzymnJ1xc or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkD0MxNY_Bw
or try searching fanfare trumpet on google images and pay attention in Disney movies.
You reference that articles in the Tambuli cannot even be accessed on the Church website, as if to say the Church is hiding something in an obscure reference.
You state:
4. And another thing–Even though Tambuli can’t be accessed on the Church website, the Liahona magazine can—and it turns out the Liahona published the same talk in the same issue that it was published in Tambuli—June of 1981. Here is the link to it on the Church website.”
This is incorrect. The Tambuli article can be accessed on the Church Website. In fact you already accessed it.
The Tambuli was one name of the international version of the LDS church publication, published under various names in different nations and cultures. Until the April 1995 edition, the English-language version of the magazine was called Tambuli; other language versions of the magazine had different titles. Since 1999, all the languages have adopted some form of the title “Liahona.”
The Liahona is now the common name of all the international versions of the LDS Church magazine.
With the international consolidation of LDS magazine under one name “Liahona” since 1999, the old versions of the magazine, by whatever title have been consolidated under that name, thus when you accessed the 1981 article , you were actually accessing the Tambuil article.
On Dec 9 Comment for a reply, as if to say check this abnormal obscure unfindable reference, you state “If you don’t believe me, just check the June 1981 Tambuli.” Well – you already did.. you already quoted it.
So you’re saying the new manual cites the “Fourteen Fundamentals” to a Church publication that no longer even exists?
It’s worse than I thought.
No, the publication still exists, just under the name Liahona instead of Tambuli. When you search pre-1999 back-issues of international Church publications through the Church website, in order to simplify the search process (or hide the fact that so many changes have been made), the publications are referred to as “Liahona” even though they were actually called by different names in times past. It’s possible too that even though the original source of the “Fourteen” talk was a BYU speech, the compilers of the lesson manuals try to avoid citing anything that isn’t an official publication of the Church. Therefore, rather than citing the actual source of the talk, they cite a more downstream instance of the talk in order to make its content look more authoritative and avoid appearing to elevate “BYU” things above “Church” things.
These are great comments. Thanks for sharing the information!
But surely, the editors citing to “Tambuli” must be aware on some level that they are reproducing the substance of the 14-Fundamentals in a manual that will now be considered authoritative, regardless of the sources cited.
Just more fodder for your fire:
“Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, reported: “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made … with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. … A leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’ ”16
Chapter 16 in the Joseph Smith Manual
So the teachings about living oracles trumping dead works goes back to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham young.
Whether you accept this, or reject it, or explain it away based upon you own rationalization it up to you to believe.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Two questions.
1. Why was it Wilford Woodruff who told this story, and why was it told in October General Conference of 1897?
2. Why did Wilford Woodruff wait 60-years to report this incident, when it seems to be preserved in no other contemporary source by the witnesses he describes as being present?
Hint–I think you will find both answers tied to the 1890 Manifesto and President Woodruff’s need to assure the saints he was not leading them astray.
*Standing ovation
“My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, my sister thanks you, and I thank you!”
The foundation of Corbin Volluz’s article is the assertion that President Kimball disagreed with the 14 points taught by Ezra Taft Benson. The evidence presented does not support that assertion.
The first evidence given in the article is a quote that President Kimball was concerned and wanted, “to protect the Church against being misunderstood as espousing . . . an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality.” This statement does not show whether President Kimball disagreed with the points themselves or not. It is possible to agree with the 14 points, and yet be concerned that some people might misunderstood them, or that they could be misconstrued as advocating an unthinking blind following mentality. That in fact describes my position on the 14 points.
The second evidence presented is that, “President Kimball asked Elder Benson to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but they ‘were dissatisfied with his response.’” There is no indication what specifically he was asked to apologize for and thus no indication that it was for errors in the 14 points. As noted in other areas of the article there were some political statements in the speech as well. Some of these have been subsequently removed. These statements could have been the subject of the purported requested apology.
Both of these evidences are also of extremely low reliability. They are apparently taken from interviews with an anonymous witness by an excommunicated member. The possibility of bias seems extremely high and there is absolutely no corroborating evidence. However, my point is that even even if completely factual they do not indicate President Kimball’s position on the 14 points.
The evidence relating to the Improvement Era article also does nothing to indicate that President Kimball disagreed with the 14 points or even that George Albert Smith would have. The offending statement in the Era article is, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” The 14 points do not make a statement remotely like this. Although there may be a concern that the 14 points could encourage an unthinking mentality, the points themselves do not advocate that.
When incorrect doctrine is taught, there are two ways to address it: 1. To publicly correct or repudiate the original teaching, and 2. To emphasize the correct doctrine. The article states that the 14 points where never publicly repudiated. I wondered what doctrine was emphasized in the general conference just two months after the alleged “bomb” went off. I searched for the word “prophet” in the April 1980 conference looking for statements about following the prophet. Here are a few quotes that I found.
First of all, there was a Proclamation presented (signed by the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles) that includes the statement, “The heavens are not sealed; God continues to speak to his children through a prophet empowered to declare his word, now as he did anciently.”
President Romney (Second Counselor to President Kimball) taught, “It’s a great thing to labor with men like President Kimball and President Tanner. They are men without guile. They are men who do Herculean tasks, who labor far beyond their normal strength and who are held up and prospered by the power of the Lord that rests upon them.”
President Tanner (First Counselor) taught, “We have that same gospel restored in these latter days, with the living prophet today, even Spencer W. Kimball, to speak for God, as has been God’s method of communication with man through the ages. The answers to all life’s problems are to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Continuous revelation keeps us advised on current problems.”
James E. Faust (Quorum of the Twelve) taught, “Beginning with Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, there have been living oracles of God designated to communicate minute by minute, day by day, and hour by hour, as needed, to the leaders of the Church…. Who is the prophet of the world today? I testify that the prophet upon the face of the earth today is President Spencer W. Kimball.”
Bruce R. McConkie (Quroum of the Twelve) taught, “If we, as a people, keep the commandments of God; if we take the side of the Church on all issues, both religious and political; if we take the Holy Spirit for our guide; if we give heed to the words of the apostles and prophets who minister among us—then, from an eternal standpoint, all things will work together for our good.”
Hugh W. Pinnock (Quorum of the Seventy), “First, utilize in personally helpful ways the advice and counsel of our prophet. One of our unique characteristics, as a people, is the fact that we have a divinely appointed leader, a heavenly designee, whose authoritative responsibility has persisted for 150 years, beginning at this very spot with the first elder of the Church, Joseph Smith. A prophet’s words are designed to provide joy for us and for those we love, to include direction that will intensify our eternal effectiveness.”
These statements and other less direct statements given in the same conference all emphasize the same thing as the 14 points, basically, that a prophet speaks with authority for God in his day, and we will be blessed for following him. I found no emphasis in the conference on the fallibility or humanity of a prophet and certainly nothing emphasizing an alternate view of a prophet’s role.
I can’t imagine so many statements, of such strength and clarity, being made publicly, if two months earlier President Kimball had blown up to his councilors and the members of the twelve in disagreement with President Benson’s 14 points.
The article goes to great lengths to point out the many times the 14 points have been quoted, including in prepared, official publications. Despite the author’s attempts to twist this in favor of his argument, what greater evidence could there be that in fact the prophets of the church do agree with these 14 points. For those who believe in personal revelation, it is also evidence that God agrees with the 14 points. If He does not, then why would so many good, righteous people seeking to know the will of God in preparing their talk or preparing curriculum, be inspired to include the 14 points?
There is a distinct difference between teaching unthinking, blind obedience, and teaching the broad scope of a prophet’s authority. There is also a big difference between saying people shouldn’t think for themselves and saying they will be blessed for following the prophet.
The underlying issue is whether or not Prophets are actually authorized to speak for God. Not only do current prophets in every conference teach that they are, prophets in canonized scripture teach the same thing. “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38 also see Amos 3:7) In fact, prophets are even authorized to act for God, “Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.” (Helaman 10:7 also see D&C 132:46)
There are also many examples in the scriptures of different prophets teaching different courses of action at different times. To fight or be submissive, to escape or to bear your burdens, to be circumcised or not, to preach the gospel to all people or just the covenant people, to preach to the wicked or to fight them. We can not know God’s will in the current situation solely by analysis of scripture or by humanist principles. We must have continuing revelation. God’s stated pattern to provide revelation to a group is through a prophet. Paul taught that Christ, “…gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:11-14)
The 14 points are teaching these principles. They are simply being specific and clear that the common justifications people use when they don’t agree with the prophet are not in fact justifiable.
I agree that prophets are fallible, imperfect men. Despite those facts, I believe they are men with authority to speak for God and lead His church. I agree that members of the Church often put prophets on a pedestal and think of them as perfect. I think we need to keep working on overcoming that inclination. I agree that members of the Church often, maybe even usually, do not invest enough effort in pondering and prayer to understand and internalize what is taught by the prophets and thus can be said to be unthinkingly or blindly following them. We need to do more thinking and internalizing. However, the problems that these weaknesses cause are generally of much less severity than the disastrous spiritual effects that occur in the lives of people who reject the counsel of the living prophets and think they know the will of God better than the living prophet does.
Thanks for your research and insightful comments, Darren!
I can’t respond to all your points at present, though I would initially take issue with your casting doubt on reputed historian D. Michael Quinn on the basis that he is an “excommunicated member.”
If I were to cut to the chase, I would ask whether you believe we will be blessed for doing what the prophet asks, even if the prophet is wrong?
That is one teaching that has survived the various permutations from the original speech to next year’s manual.
And to me, it seems the most problematic.
I have already indicated that I agree with the 14 points. I have not yet had time to write about your criticisms of them. I hope to make the time.
I will mention that I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God and many of your arguments seem to assume a limited God. Most obviously your statement, “The idea the prophet will never lead the Church astray is not only a perfect circle, it also admits of only two conclusions.”
My arguments do not assume a limited God, but a limited prophet, whom Latter-day Saints have been trained to view as God.
I look forward to hearing some of your criticisms.
All indications are that If there is a god he is equally as limited as the prophet.
Corbin, I believe you have been a member far too long to assume anyone but the ignorant would believe that the average Mormon believes the prophet to be God. Saying so is offensive. I believe you can make your point appear rational without falsifying the opposing view to make it appear irrational. Thanks.
Thank you for pointing out my poor wording referring to D. Michael Quinn in my original comment. Here is a replacement paragraph that hopefully better represents what I was trying to say.
Both of these evidences are also of extremely low reliability. My understanding is that they are from interviews with an anonymous witness. Although “anonymous sources” are now the norm, they are clearly less reliable. Also, the interviewer was D. Michael Quinn who was excommunicated for essentially not following the prophet. I am not suggesting he manufactured the evidence, but clearly he has a conflict of interest and may have brought some element of bias to the questions and answers. However, I bring these issues up only peripherally, because my contention is that even if these quotes are completely unbiased and factual, they do not indicate President Kimball’s position on the 14 points.
Nicely done, Corbin. Thanks for fleshing out the truth of church history on this!
You are most welcome, Nathan!
Thanks for taking the time to read the article!
I second Sam on this:” I dislike the pseudo-doctrine that you are trying to discredit. I don’t think they are healthy, I don’t think they are what Heavenly Father wants us to do, they have enormous capacity to foster abuse, and they make it difficult to explain away prophetic blunders modern and ancient. I’m with you in spirit.”
My difficulty following is in your argument about the elements of the address included in manuals referencing the version published in church magazines (Liahona/Tambuli). On the one hand you seem to be complaining that it differs to the original address (which original address you didn’t like, and which was the version requiring an apology, if I followed that correctly). We are not unfamiliar with redactions – some we complain about online (Poelman), whilst others we seem to welcome (Packer, Christofferson). The logical line of thought would seem to be that the version published in the magazines is sufficiently redacted to pass muster so far as the church is concerned. I’m not sure why referencing that version would be seen as especially sinister.
I was also wondering given how much of the redacted material you describe as political, whether it wasn’t the politics for which ETB was required to apologise, rather than the other sentiments expressed. Political sentiments would be especially inappropriate globally, so could explain further redaction between the speech transcript and Liahona/Tambuli version.
Hi, Hedgehog!
Thanks for your comments!
In tracing some of the changes between the original speech and next year’s manual, I was trying to keep my language clean so as not to give the impression I was complaining about the changes, but rather doing “nothing but to show you how a king can go a progress through the guts of a beggar.”
Though you are right I couldn’t resist wondering out loud why Elder Benson’s comments had to be changed with every permutation.
And I think you are right that one of the main things that distressed President Kimball about the speech, in addition to the “follow the leader” mentality it espoused, was that it advocated the prophet’s role in politics.
One of the Fourteen Fundamentals was that the prophet may counsel in civic matters.
Most of those references to politics have been omitted, which is why I was surprised to see that a very strong political component remains in the new manual; that being Harold B. Lee’s quote cited in my article.
I mean, if the goal is to remove all references to politics, why don’t the editors remove all references to politics?
And I want to mention that, in the Liahona/Tambuli article, another story is told that shows how far Elder Benson went in this regard; which can be summarized briefly by saying that a member is on the high road to apostasy if he disagrees with the Church president about social security.
Seriously.
At least I can be grateful that this particular story (another reference to Marion G. Romney) was left on the cutting room floor.
Fascinating stuff! So it seems like a conclusion for GAs might be that whoever is most self-assured gets to set the doctrine. The self-assured ones speak confidently on everything, sure that they’re representing God’s will. The ones who are still considering things hold back, or don’t openly repudiate the confident ones, so the confident ones set the doctrine. Is that a fair summary?
I think you hit the nail on the head with this observation, Ziff.
Though the meek may inherit the earth, it doesn’t look like they set a lot of Mormon Doctrine.
Corbin, This is wonderful!
Thanks so much, Linda!
I’m glad you liked it.
Grand SLAM!!! I was on the edge of my seat reading the whole piece. Thanks for sorting out all the who said, who said stuff. It's fascinating how circular and non-scriptural the official doctrine is. Makes me sick to think how deluded I have been, not reasoning this out for myself. Even sicker to think of the millions of blind followers out there. It's a sick twisted thing.
Thank you, Daryl!
This piece started as a pretty straightforward linking of the inaction of Church presidents to correct wayward doctrinal expressions resulting in the ultimate codifying of the wayward doctrinal expressions as orthodoxy.
It was basically the first part of the article.
But the more I thought about it, the more ideas kept coming to me. Putting these ideas into the original piece kept detracting from the flow of the narrative, and so I kept having to take them out and put them by the wayside.
Eventually, I had so many ideas that I was able to construct a second part listing them in fourteen subsections.
The comparison of the different versions of Elder Benson’s speech took up more time than I had anticipated, but it ended up being kind of fun and very interesting for me to track down some of the major changes.
The two things I was most surprised by was not what was deleted for the new manual, but what was retained–the Harold B. Lee quote about politics, and the Marion G. Romney/Heber J. Grant story about doing what the prophet says even if it is wrong.
This last story I am becoming inclined to consider latter-day pseudepigrapha, given its shaky provenance.
And now you know . . . the rest of the story.
Would you care to comment on the fact that despite the private reprimand, Elder Benson’s talk got published in the Liahona a year later, while President Kimball was still in office? How did that slip through the cracks?
That is a fantastic question, Julie! And of course I would care to comment!
First, we know from the George Albert Smith episode that the Church president, even when in good health and mental function, could be completely unaware of the subject matter being published in a Church magazine in his own language.
But here, we have a Church magazine published in June of 1981 in Spanish; as well as the publication in Filipino. Your question actually may help us understand why Elder Benson’s speech was not published in The Ensign where it might more readily have come to President Kimball’s attention.
It is also important to note that, though President Kimball did not pass away until 1985, he suffered severe physical difficulties, due to throat cancer and also three subdural hematomas on his brain.
In the summer of 1981, President Kimball’s health began to decline rapidly. He began suffering from bouts of confusion and difficulty speaking. (Kimball, Edward L. (2005). Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 397.)
Realizing his deteriorating capacity and the poor health of his two counselors in the church’s First Presidency, Kimball called Gordon B. Hinckley as an additional counselor to assist in the church’s daily administration on July 23, 1981.
Shortly following Hinckley’s selection, Kimball developed a third subdural hematoma of greater seriousness than the previous two. The subsequent surgery left Kimball with intermittent difficulty in speaking and activity, and further damaged his vision and hearing.
By 1982, Kimball was rarely well enough to appear in public, and his leadership as church president was largely limited to giving final approval or denial to more important church matters brought to him by Hinckley. (Ibid, 402.)
President Kimball’s last speech in General Conference was April of 1982, where he was not expected to speak, but rose for the occasion to give a very brief message at the close of proceedings.
Because President Kimball was almost entirely incapacitated during his final years, the question becomes whether Ezra Taft Benson might have used this fact to forward his agenda by having his speech published not in the English version of the Church magazine, but in the Spanish and Filipino versions.
While this might sound outlandish, the fact is that Elder Benson had followed a similar pattern during President David O. McKay’s declining years in the late 1960’s.
Not only did Elder Benson almost get an official for the John Birch Society to speak in General Conference, he was a hair’s breadth away from having David O. McKay’s photograph on the cover of the Birch Society magazine. This was avoided only because other Church leaders inadvertently became aware of the plan in the nick of time to put the kibosh on it.
Connecting all these dots–the publication of Benson’s talk in June of 1981 just when President Kimball’s mental functions were failing and the month before he called Gordon B. Hinckley to be his third counselor; and the fact it was not published in the English magazine but in Spanish and Filipino, could all lead to the possibility that this was a political move on Elder Benson’s talk to have his speech preserved for posterity.
If so, time certainly seems to have vindicated Elder Benson in following this procedure.
Thanks for the great question!
Excellent essay and there’s a bit more to the picture as Howard W. Hunter during his short tenure as president of the church spoke IN CONFERENCE that it is the duty and obligation of any member to correct their leaders when they teach false doctrine, yet another reiteration of what Joseph F. Smith taught in the early 20th century.
False doctrine like this is always prevalent because of the church’s pride in the idea of “modern revelation” but there are 3 catches:
1. Joseph Smith taught that a true revelation from God will never contradict a previous revelation.
2. The D&C states the prophet must also be walking in all holiness before the lord.
3. There are two examples in the Book of Mormon where a prophet was called from outside of the established hierarchy- Abinadi and Samuel the Lamanite- because the church had become so corrupt. Since the Book was written to, for and about the restored church those examples are basically saying it can and will happen again.
If you don’t mind my asking, how old were you when you joined the church and have you lived in Washington your whole life?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for your great comments, Dave!
I went to high school in Washington (Sumner), joined the Church right after I graduated in 1978 when I was 18, went on my mission to Japan from 1979-81, and then returned to my family in Austin, Texas, who had moved in the meantime.
I attended the University of Texas undergrad where I majored in dance (1981-84) and then attended law school there, as well (1986-89). After graduating, I took a job with the Skagit County Prosecutor’s Office in 1990, and I have lived in Washington since.
But enough about me. As to your observation about prophets, I think it is easy for Mormons to lose sight of the fact that almost without exception, prophets we read about in the scriptures are on the outside of the religious and political power structure and are typically portrayed as inveighing against the excesses and wickedness of those in charge.
Jesus is the obvious example.
And you are right the Book of Mormon gives us more.
This should make us less than comfortable.
I also stumbled onto this second witness shortly after leaving my original comment: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/can-prophets-come-from-outside-the-church
Thanks for the link, Dave.
It is hard to be familiar with the scriptures to any degree and not hold a similar opinion that prophets are almost always portrayed as dissenting voices from the outside, I think.
Actually, the converse is true, Mark.
I have been a member long enough to know that the average Mormon does believe the prophet to be God.
Now, if you were to ask the average Mormon if he or she believes the prophet is God, the answer would of course be no.
But if you were to ask the average Mormon whether what President Monson said last General Conference were the words of God, the answer would of course be yes.
Most average Mormons would accord that same degree of authority to anything said by any general authority in the last conference.
When it comes to parsing out whether the prophet is actually God, or a person whose every word is treated as if it came directly from God, the distinction becomes vanishingly small.
And President Benson’s 14-Fundamentals Speech only makes the distinction that much more difficult to discern . . .
. . . by the average Mormon, at least.
Excellent job, Brother Volluz! I think you hit the nail on the head. One question that you might know the answer to, seeing as how you’ve researched this topic (if this question has been asked above, then please forgive the repetition; I didn’t see it):
IIRC, the primary source for President Kimball’s private disagreement with the 14 Fundamentals is the biography by his son, Edward Kimball, called “Lengthen Your Stride”, and to my knowledge that is the only source for the claim (I haven’t read Quinn’s work, but my understanding is that he cites Kimball’s biography for his source). The difficulty for me arises from the fact that when the talk was published in the Tambuli/Liahona in 1981, it was published as the First Presidency Message, while President Kimball was still alive.
My question is this: if President Kimball was so opposed to it, why did he allow it to be published as the First Presidency Message while still alive? I can’t think of a good answer, but I’m not well versed in this subject.
Thank you for your time! God bless.
Thanks for your comments, Matthew!
I answered most of your question to Julie above, but because it is so important, and because it involves new research I did after posting the blog, I will repeat it here.
But I do want to clarify one thing, first. The 14-Fundamentals Speech published in the June 1981 edition of the Liahona (and Tambuli, don’t forget!) was not the First Presidency Message.
Elder Benson was not a member of the First Presidency in either 1980 or 1981, but the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.
With that said, here is the rest of the response to your question:
First, we know from the George Albert Smith episode that the Church president, even when in good health and mental function, could be completely unaware of the subject matter being published in a Church magazine in his own language.
But here, we have a Church magazine published in June of 1981 in Spanish; as well as the publication in Filipino. Your question actually may help us understand why Elder Benson’s speech was not published in The Ensign where it might more readily have come to President Kimball’s attention.
It is also important to note that, though President Kimball did not pass away until 1985, he suffered severe physical difficulties, due to throat cancer and also three subdural hematomas on his brain.
In the summer of 1981, President Kimball’s health began to decline rapidly. He began suffering from bouts of confusion and difficulty speaking. (Kimball, Edward L. (2005). Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 397.)
Realizing his deteriorating capacity and the poor health of his two counselors in the church’s First Presidency, Kimball called Gordon B. Hinckley as an additional counselor to assist in the church’s daily administration on July 23, 1981.
Shortly following Hinckley’s selection, Kimball developed a third subdural hematoma of greater seriousness than the previous two. The subsequent surgery left Kimball with intermittent difficulty in speaking and activity, and further damaged his vision and hearing.
By 1982, Kimball was rarely well enough to appear in public, and his leadership as church president was largely limited to giving final approval or denial to more important church matters brought to him by Hinckley. (Ibid, 402.)
President Kimball’s last speech in General Conference was April of 1982, where he was not expected to speak, but rose for the occasion to give a very brief message at the close of proceedings.
Because President Kimball was almost entirely incapacitated during his final years, the question becomes whether Ezra Taft Benson might have used this fact to forward his agenda by having his speech published not in the English version of the Church magazine, but in the Spanish and Filipino versions.
While this might sound outlandish, the fact is that Elder Benson had followed a similar pattern during President David O. McKay’s declining years in the late 1960’s.
Not only did Elder Benson almost get an official for the John Birch Society to speak in General Conference, he was a hair’s breadth away from having David O. McKay’s photograph on the cover of the Birch Society magazine. This was avoided only because other Church leaders inadvertently became aware of the plan in the nick of time to put the kibosh on it.
Connecting all these dots–the publication of Benson’s talk in June of 1981 just when President Kimball’s mental functions were failing and the month before he called Gordon B. Hinckley to be his third counselor; and the fact it was not published in the English magazine but in Spanish and Filipino, could all lead to the possibility that this was a political move on Elder Benson’s talk to have his speech preserved for posterity.
If so, time certainly seems to have vindicated Elder Benson in following this procedure.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense, Bro. Volluz–thank you. One thing, though: according to the archived version on lds.org, “14 Fundamentals” was indeed the First Presidency message of the Tambuli/Liahona in June of 1981 (https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06?lang=eng), even though Pres. Benson wasn’t on the First Presidency at the time. Whatever/whomever was responsible for pushing that agenda was able to get it billed as the First Presidency message, probably on the grounds that it had to do with the President of the Church.
Holy crap, Matthew!
You are right! It WAS billed as the First Presidency message!
So how does a message given by a person not a member of the First Presidency become the First Presidency message?
I can only think that President Kimball’s diminishing mental capacity, together with the infirmity of his counselors (Tanner and Romney) must in some way account for this.
And by that, I mean in not being cognizant enough to know what was going on in the non-English language Church magazines.
It makes me wonder what the First Presidency Message was in The Ensign for June of 1981.
Let me check . . .
Turns out it was a message by N. Eldon Tanner titled “Sacrifice.”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/06/sacrifice?lang=eng
So in the same issue (June of 1981), we have a First Presidency message in The Ensign by a member of the First Presidency, but in the Spanish (and Filipino) magazines, we have a First Presidency Message from a non-member of the First Presidency.
Let me check a little further . . .
I haven’t had the chance to go through every single issue of The Liahona, but I have looked at all issues in the year of 1981 and, surprise, surprise, every other First Presidency Message was actually written by . . . wait for it . . . a member of the First Presidency.
This is really strange, Matthew.
Good catch!
I recently wrote a lengthy comment giving evidence that President Kimball and other leaders of the Church agreed rather than disagreed with President Benson’s 14 points. I would now like to address the criticisms leveled at the 14 points themselves.
Corbin Volluz argues, “The idea the prophet will never lead the Church astray is not only a perfect circle, it also admits of only two conclusions, neither of them palatable. The first is that the prophet is infallible and will only choose to do the right thing…. The second possible conclusion is that God must be pictured as a heavenly hit-man ready to take out the prophet as soon as he makes a false move. But really, this is just another way of saying the prophet will be allowed no moral agency.” Not only does this argument require the assumption of a very limited God, it ignores scriptural precedent.
Everyone is familiar with the story of the Prophet Jonah who initially chose not to follow God’s command to preach to the people of Nineveh. He was certainly not infallible, nor was he killed or forced. God was able to help him repent and fulfill his prophetic assignment to call the people of Nineveh to repentance.
A less well known, but similar scriptural example is found in Numbers 22. The prophet Balaam is tempted to curse the Israelites to gain money and position. God sends an angel with a sword to stop him, and also miraculously allows his donkey to save him. This experience strengthened Balaam’s resolve to resist the temptation. He testifies, “I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the Lord saith, that will I speak?” (Numbers 24:13) As commanded by God, Balaam blessed Israel in defiance of the King’s desires.
These are just two recorded examples of fallible prophets who were not allowed to frustrate God’s purposes. God has told us that he speaks through prophets, that they have authority, and that we are to to follow them (see Amos 3:7; Jeremiah 1:7; Ephesians 4:11-14; D&C 1:14; D&C 20:26; D&C 21:4-6; D&C 43:1-7; D&C 132:46; 1 Nephi 22:2; Helaman 10:7). God is omniscient and omnipotent. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows each of his children perfectly. Christ is the head of His church. It is a small matter for God and Christ to ensure that the man they choose to become their mouthpiece has been taught, tested, tried and prepared for that role. And God still has _infinite_ options to ensure that the prophet does not lead the church astray without removing his agency or “taking out the prophet.”
It would not be logical for God to declare that he speaks through the prophet and command us to follow him, and then allow the prophet to lead us away from Him! It would also not accomplish the purpose of a prophet as described in Ephesians 4:14, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
Corbin Volluz’s says, “…the single most problematic fundamental of following the prophet remains—the teaching that if a prophet tells you to do something that is wrong, you should do it anyway, and you will be blessed for it.”
As I have indicated, I don’t believe God will allow a prophet to lead the church astray, or to lead them away from God; however, prophets do make mistakes or may do, “something that is wrong.” Let’s look at a few documented mistakes in the lives of prophets.
A well documented mistake in the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith was the loss of the 116 manuscript pages. Imagine if there was a trusted confidant or family member that recognized the mistake, counseled Joseph not to do it, and then got upset and left when Joseph did it anyway. Think of the blessings that person would have missed out on for not continuing to follow the prophet even though he was doing something wrong!
In the Book of Mormon we find a clearer example of this principle. Lehi is a Prophet and patriarch to his family, and yet Nephi relates, “my father began to murmur against the Lord his God; yea, and they were all exceedingly sorrowful, even that they did murmur against the Lord.” (1 Nephi 16:20). Nephi may have been tempted to take over the spiritual leadership of the people at that time, but he did not. He records, “And I said unto my father: Whither shall I go to obtain food?” (1 Nephi 16:23) Nephi continued to follow his father despite his father making mistakes at the time. The result – Lehi repented, and the Lord blessed the family. Imagine if Nephi had chosen not to continue following Lehi.
There are numerous examples in the scriptures when people think the prophet is wrong and choose not to follow and are punished. For instance, Samuel told Saul he would meet him in Gilgal and offer sacrifices to the Lord. Saul waited for Samuel seven days, and then decided he would offer the sacrifices himself.
The exchange between Samuel and Saul after Saul’s disobedience is quite instructive, “And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.” (1 Samuel 13:11-14) In other words, Saul thought he new better than the prophet, but his disobedient actions showed he was not, “a man after his own heart” and he was on a path that led to the loss of his kingdom.
In 2 Samuel we are taught another story of a man reaching beyond his own responsibility and calling and being punished for it, “And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.” (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
Corbin Volluz snidely remarks, “it seems God was asleep in his sniper’s nest while prophets were forbidding blacks from the priesthood and the temple.” While I do not agree with Brother Volluz that Prophets instituting or continuing the ban were leading the people against the will of the Lord, it is clear that, “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.” (Gospel Topics, Race and the Priesthood) In other words, there were mistakes made.
I love the perspective of Marcus Martins, a black man who was baptized into the church while the ban was in place. He makes the following comment, “Looking in retrospect almost thirty years since the revelation [to remove the ban] was received, I would argue that the priesthood ban, perhaps more particularly the hypotheses used to justify it, afforded me and other Latter-day Saints with Black African ancestry a still ongoing opportunity to display the depth of our commitment to the Lord and his kingdom in a specific way that our fellow Latter-day Saints of other races will never be able to experience.” (Martins, Marcus (2012-09-11). Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood (Kindle Locations 806-808). Millennial Press. Kindle Edition)
He also says, “So, between 1972 and 1978 I could not hold the priesthood, but I had the power of the Holy Ghost and the promise of eternal life. And the question is, wasn’t that enough? Sure, it would have been wonderful to have enjoyed every available blessing before 1978, but in the scriptures and in our patriarchal blessings we could find solemn promises that one day we would enjoy every available blessing of the restored gospel. That’s why I ask the question, “Wasn’t that enough?” Nobody lost anything by becoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before 1978 without being able to hold the priesthood. A person could enjoy most of the blessings of membership in the Church. But here we are, and the good news is that that’s in the past, and today all of us can enjoy all blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Ibid, Kindle Locations 604-605)
In other words, Marcus Martins considers himself blessed for following the prophets, even while some of them were teaching false things. Now imagine if he had chosen to leave the church and had not followed those mistaken prophets. Clearly he would not have enjoyed those blessings.
Think of the disastrous consequences for the children of Israel that thought Moses was wrong and refused to put blood over their doorways, or that thought it ridiculous to look upon the brass serpent after being bitten by the poisonous serpents. The scriptures record, “…there were many who perished.” (1 Nephi 17:41) Nephi goes on to say, “And they did harden their hearts from time to time, and they did revile against Moses, and also against God” (1 Nephi 17:42)
Stephen taught this same thing in word and though his death. He said, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers…When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth…. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him:” (Acts 7:52,54,57,58)
Unfortunately, our natural inclination when we’re told something we don’t like is “revile” against it to “gnash” our teeth, to cry out “with a loud voice.” In other words, we reject it, or try to justify it. If we give into those natural inclinations we are not blessed. If we resist them and follow God’s word through his prophets, we are blessed.
I welcome President Benson’s teachings because they help me to be on the lookout for the false justifications I might naturally be inclined to make when I am tempted to revile against the word of God given through the prophets. I am very grateful for the prophets and have found through my own experiences that I am always blessed when I follow them!
So you believe you are “always blessed” when you follow the prophets even though you acknowledge numerous instances where they were mistaken?
It sounds like you are in accord with Heber J. Grant’s purported statement that you will be blessed if you follow the prophet even when he is wrong.
Can you see why some might consider that position problematic?
I believe I have already shown that my answer to both these questions is yes.
I shared multiple scriptural examples to make my points. Please do the same to make your points. For instance:
1. Please share instances where disobeying or not following the prophet is praised or blessed by God.
2. Please share instances where following the prophet (teaching something wrong or right) is condemned by God.
Darren….maybe we need to introduce you to what is kindly referred to as circular logic. Do a little research on that and you will find just how ridiculous your last comment is.
ZING!
Lets examine this one….the prophets are supposedly the mouth piece of the lord, writing down what he tells them to write. You are asking us to go and find from their writings ,where they are claiming to speak for the lord, something they have written that indicates it’s ok to not do what they say and still be blessed. You are also asking us to find instances where the lord condemns someone for following the words that he claims are from God that no one can actually verify.
I’m laughing at the circular logic required to make all that work….it’s really fun to play this game and I think we should play more.
Maybe I misunderstood. I know that Garrett doesn’t believe in God, scriptures, or prophets, but I thought that Corbin did. In fact, I thought Corbin was arguing that we needed to make decisions by analyzing the scriptures said which is exactly what I was doing.
Darren, the fact that I don’t believe in god is irrelevant in this conversation. The questions that you asked do nothing but take someone in circular motion over and over. Of course these guys aren’t going to write that it’s OK to disobey what they are writing. The writings are them supposedly writing gods will so why on earth would a god say in his communication That it was OK to disobey? In order to make it work you have to turn to circular logic…it’s the only way that any of it can work….and circular logic proves nothing
Thanks for your comments, Darren.
But I probably disagree to a greater or lesser extent with pretty much everything you have to say here.
1. Anonymous sources are not inherently less reliable. Frequently highly-placed people speak only on condition of anonymity because the true facts they are relating will get them in hot water if it is found out they are disclosing confidential and sensitive information. Their anonymity frees them to be truthful where, on the other hand, they have to be untruthful or silent when speaking in their official capacity.
2. You say you are not alleging Quinn manufactured the evidence, but suggest a bias on his part due to his having been excommunicated. This is a possibility, of course, but Quinn is a highly reputed historian who makes every attempt to get things right and to be fair and balanced.
3. Most of his information does not come from anonymous sources at all. In his footnotes referenced in the blog, he gives such sources as Edward L. Kimball, Camilla Kimball, George T. Boyd, and others. It is the general authority who talked to George T. Boyd whose identity is anonymous because George T. Boyd asked that it remain so.
4. While these sources, including the anonymous source, may be harder to corroborate than official minutes of the meeting, this is the position the Church puts its members in by refusing to be more transparent. I feel like those trying to find out the truth (like Quinn) are damned if they do; and damned if they don’t.
The Church intentionally withholds information from the members and then, when a member tries to find out what happened through alternative channels, the Church (or its members) blame the member for not citing to official sources–sources that the Church never provided.
5. Finally, it seems obvious to me that President Kimball was upset with Elder Benson’s speech. Why would President Kimball demand an apology if he felt Elder Benson did nothing wrong?
It is fascinating to hear an attorney argue the benefits of hearsay testimony from an anonymous witness.
I have already given an alternate reason President Kimball could have asked for an apology. I do have to say that I can’t imagine President Kimball demanding an apology for anything. It just seems out of character.
You have completely ignored the stronger arguments I gave in both of my comments and focused on minor differences of opinion.
I didn’t address your other arguments because they seemed very weak to me.
You in essence admit that numerous prophets have made egregious mistakes, but nevertheless urge us to follow prophets anyway because things will turn out all right in the end even if they are mistaken.
This is worse than a doctrine of prophetic infallibility to my mind. It admits prophets can lead us astray but posits that if we follow them and allow ourselves to be led astray, that is somehow a good thing.
We know modern LDS prophets taught false doctrine in denying blacks the priesthood for over 100-years.
Were Mormons (both black and white) blessed for so doing? How can that be a blessing when prophets taught it was a curse?
And another of your (weak) arguments seems to be that because you quote one black Mormon who is “okay” with the priesthood ban, that means that I should be, too.
It doesn’t work that way.
I don’t care how many Mormons are “okay” with the priesthood ban, or what the color of their skin may be. It doesn’t mean that I have to be “okay” with it.
And I am not “okay” with it, as I wrote about in my blog last December.
Finally, I can give you an interesting Bible story where following the words of a prophet who spoke in the name of the Lord led not to blessing, but rather to death . . . and a gruesome death at that, involving being eaten by a lion.
You can find it in 1 Kings 13.
I recommend it to you.
They should have been very easy to address then.
You twist my words. I was very specific in saying that prophets do not lead us astray, but can make mistakes. That is not the same thing.
No we don’t. We know the reasons for denying the blacks are not known despite theories and teachings that were put forth. Again, they are different things.
Thanks for the scriptural reference in 1 Kings 13. It is one I will study more. But my initial thoughts are: 1. The “man of God” was given a commandment directly from the Lord. 2. According to the JST the prophet was testing the man. 3. The language of the test seems significant. “an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.”
The prophet will not lead us astray is probably the most problematic sentiment and teaching to me personally. Taken to magnitudes beyond comprehension if we go with following a prophet even if they are wrong, and somehow believing we will be blessed for that.
The problem in the basics of the teaching seems to be one of agency, or the removal of. The entire teaching seems set up as to remove both the agency of the prophet, and the agency of the people he is to guide (“When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”) This is hugely problematic for me, because it seems like that was the plan of the deceiver. And if we are to believe that a true prophet will not lead us astray, do we then call into question the prophetic authority of current times since mistakes have been made in many areas? Are they then not true prophets?
Breaking down agency, and taking it away just seems to lead to a line of thinking that brings everything into question. Agency seems so vital that I just can’t imagine that even the chosen servants of a just, and loving God would have it taken away, or limited. But hinging on prophets never leading us astray, and being infallible (or worse, fallible but supposed to follow those things anyway) puts them in an impossible place where even one mistake brings into question all of it, rather than bringing into question just the mistake itself.
Dear Dusty,
I agree one hundred percent!
I think you have done an excellent job of showing exactly why the insistence of the LDS Church on promoting this view of prophets is simultaneously destroying this view of prophets.
If you are going to promote infallibility, beware the single failing!
And if you are not going to promote infallibility, please don’t say that we should do what the prophets say even when they are wrong.
The end result of this type of argument is not a church but a dictatorship.
Corbin, you have said what you believe is wrong, so what do you believe is right? What is a prophet’s role and what is the responsibility of a follower of Christ in respect to the prophets? Perhaps it would be useful to create your version of the fundamentals of the prophet.
Being taught to follow the prophet and being taught that the prophet won’t lead us astray does not take away agency in any way.
Garrett thinks it is all fantasy and chooses not to believe or follow at all. You and Corbin don’t believe it either and apparently will decide not to follow when you think they are mistaken.
We are all clearly making choices and exercising agency unhindered by this teaching!
Mormons are not taught that prophets are infallible. Mormons are not taught not to think. Mormons are taught to study and listen and learn and seek to understand by the Spirit of the Lord.
They are teaching to come unto Christ, to follow his commandments and his example. To use his atonement to change and grow and help one another return to our Father in Heaven.
“The prophet will never lead you astray.” doesn’t leave much room for mistakes or fallibility. Especially when the words and teachings of the prophet are said to come directly from God, whom we are taught is perfect.
How does being taught to follow the prophet and that he will not lead us astray not take away agency? The picture painted is that God would not ever allow the prophet to lead us astray. So if the prophet were to ever choose to, boom, he’s gone right? So your argument is he still has the agency to choose that and be taken out (preventing him from following through)? Not much of a choice or agency when a gun is basically being held to your head. Same thing for us. The teaching leaves no room for grey areas. It’s pretty black and white. What the prophet tells us is right, 100%. Can’t be wrong (or worse, you should do it anyway.) This way you can be blessed and receive eternal glory, and all these blessings. Don’t do it though, and you are damned. You get nothing. You don’t get to spend eternity with your loved ones, those you hold so dear to you and would do anything for. Agency in this case is just a BS facade.
Mormons are taught many things. Sometimes contradictory things. Explain the statement “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.” if we are taught to think for ourselves? Explain why we are only encouraged to study, listen, and learn from correlated, bishop approved sources, and anything outside of that is often considered “apostate” or “anti-mormon.”
If I am to come unto Christ, and follow his example, should I not do as he did and rebel against the system and institution? Rebel against the rule mongering. The counting of steps on the sabbath so to speak. The constant teachings of obedience over all else. Or should I do as he did, and place loving and forgiving those I meet ahead of all the details (even if it means forgiving a prophet for his mistakes?)
You say prophets can make mistakes, but cannot lead us astray.
At what point do prophetic “mistakes” cross that threshold?
We know LDS prophets claimed it as doctrine that blacks could not hold the priesthood because of misdeeds in the premortal existence. See the 1949 First Presidency statement on the subject, a document well known in this area of study, but wholly overlooked in the Church’s priesthood ban essay a year ago.
This was a mistake.
Did it lead the Church astray?
It seems obvious to me that it did, although because your rule is that prophetic mistakes can never lead the Church astray, no mistake, no matter how egregious or racist, can lead the Church astray.
This is why your conclusion is determined from the outset before even looking at the evidence.
How do you know that the prophet will never lead the Church astray?
Because a prophet said the prophet will never lead the Church astray.
This is the circular reasoning Garrett mentions.
And it actually is known why the priesthood ban was put into effect by Brigham Young, and the Church essay even mentions it–because of racist cultural prejudice–not because of any revelation from God.
When you say we don’t “know” why the ban was put into effect, that is wishful thinking, I’m afraid.
And it also sounds kind of silly for a Church that claims to have a prophet at its head with a direct pipeline to God to claim it doesn’t “know” why that same Church denied priesthood and temple blessings on the basis of race for over 100-years.
Do you see what I am saying?
What is a prophet good for if he can’t answer questions as simple as this?
If you will read my post of December 16 you will see that I did not use a statement from a prophet to say that prophets will not lead us astray.
You may have misunderstood me, then, Darren.
I did not say that we need to make decisions by analyzing the scriptures, though there is much wisdom contained in them.
Also a lot of hokum.
And a lot of bad interpretation.
How can we know which is which?
That is the tough part, and the part that throws it all back on us.
By the Holy Ghost that has been given each of us.
This is why I think that Joseph Smith at the end of his career spoke of having the oldest book in his heart, referring to the Holy Spirit.
It is that oldest book we have in each of our hearts that I would consider the scripture we should consult.
We can’t shift our agency off on other people, regardless of their position.
We can’t shift our agency off on other records, regardless of their status.
We must use our agency to determine what is right and then to do it.
We must follow the light as God has given us the light.
That is the only sure path.
As soon as we start farming our agency out to other sources, we begin following Satan’s plan.
That is why such bondage is referred to as the chains of hell.
On this we agree.
It reminds of how Elder Neslon ended his April 2008 conference address. “Attention has been focused upon the sacred titles of prophets and apostles. But the final responsibility to prepare for salvation and exaltation rests upon each person, accountable for individual agency, acting in one’s own family, bearing another sacred title of mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, or grandfather.”
The responsibility of a follower of Christ is to follow Christ regardless of what the prophets say.
While this may be true in theory, Darren, the fact is that Mormons do tend to believe their prophets are infallible; that following them is the only way to salvation.
(This is another instance of the conflation of LDS prophets with God, I think.)
If Mormons say their prophets can make mistakes, they generally mean only whether they prefer Coke or Pepsi.
In other words, they can make mistakes, but nothing of any consequence.
Again, the priesthood ban that lasted over a century in the LDS Church, a racist policy instituted at the direction of prophets who claimed it to be doctrine, suggests that prophets can not only make mistakes, but that those mistakes can be “of deepest consequence.”
LDS are taught to study things out, but only out of correlated materials that give the orthodox answers; and LDS are taught to pray about things, but they must pray until they come to understand that what their leaders teach is true.
There is no mechanism in current LDS correlated teaching to deal with a situation where a Mormon comes to understand that what the leaders are teaching is NOT correct.
Such a Mormon is either not praying hard enough, or being led astray by Satan.
That is because the foundational teaching of the modern LDS Church is that the prophets are infallible, and if you do not agree with them, the fault, dear Mormon is not in our prophets, but in ourselves, that we are heretics.
“Such a Mormon is either not praying hard enough, or being led astray by Satan.
That is because the foundational teaching of the modern LDS Church is that the prophets are infallible, and if you do not agree with them, the fault, dear Mormon is not in our prophets, but in ourselves, that we are heretics.”
This helps to show how damaging to people the prophetic infallibility mindset is. If you have questions, or don’t feel right about something you are assumed from the start (even by yourself) to be wrong, mislead, or possibly even unworthy. Going through this in the very volatile teenage years is like a self esteem time bomb waiting to go off, and the place you have been taught to turn to for comfort the Lord and his chosen church becomes a place of emotional torment.
If you are lucky you walk away branded as a heretic. If you aren’t you walk away branded as an apostate… because the prophet must be right, and you must be wrong or the narrative doesn’t work for many.
Great follow-up comments, Dustin!
And you have managed to serendipitously tumble to the next blog I am planning, which is about how the LDS Church blames everybody for everything . . . except itself . . . for anything.
I am thinking of calling it, “Blame Game–The Mormon Edition.”
What do you think?
I like the title. That or “Unaccountable but Counting.”
That one is good, too, Dusty!
I just wanted to state for the record that I appreciate Darren Croft’s posts and the push-back he is giving to my blog.
I appreciate push-back to my blogs, because I think it tends to help in the quest for truth.
Merry Christmas, everybody!
You too, Dusty and Darren!
Merry Christmas! I also enjoy differing points of view, no matter how much I disagree with them. It is always good, and adds to life experience to see what somebody else presents through their eyes or mind. We’ve all had different experiences, and I think that we as people are the greatest resource for learning and expanding our own understanding just because of how vastly different our experience and interpretations of pretty much anything around us can be. I find it fascinating, and wonderful.
Corbin, I think there are several critical issues embedded in this concern. I doubt that I am going to be able to articulate the issues I see or my feelings about them very well but I will try. I hope you will respect the effort and strive to really understand what I am saying.
Perhaps the deepest issue I see is, what is “correct?”
If we go back to what we agree on, that we each have an individual responsibility to determine what God is teaching us through the spirit and then follow it, it seems obvious that there are going to be many versions of “correct.” We do not all learn by the spirit in the same way, or at the same rate. In addition our individual circumstances, concerns, and needs are very different. I think that even if we are all doing our best there will be instances where what I determine is “correct” for my area of responsibility is not going to be the same as what you determine is correct for your responsibility. I don’t see a problem with that in many situations and I don’t believe that fact disputes revelation, the workings of the Spirit, or the existence of God. I realize I have not given any arguments for any of this, but hope you agree or at least are following what I’m saying.
Nevertheless, I believe there are situations where everyone in the church should be at the same consistent level at the same time. One such situation, would be the ordaining of blacks to the priesthood in 1852. In order to keep going, I will assume you agree with both of these points as well.
Clearly it is the President of the Church who has responsibility for the entire church and thus it his responsibility to know what Christ would have the entire church do. What I have tried to express previously, is that I believe Christ has an infinite variety of methods to make sure that the prophet knows and is prepared to express Christ’s will at any given time. What you have expressed is that because the prophet is imperfect and has agency he may somehow not know or follow Christ’s will and Christ will let that stand.
I started by saying that the deepest issue I see in your statement is, “what is correct?” but because of our opposite perspectives, I think we should set that aside for a moment. I’d like to examine the following question, “What should I do if I feel I have received an answer different than the President of the Church feels he has received.” Note that I’m assuming with this phrasing that both the President and I are acting with sincerity and integrity.
Here are some possible basic responses I could choose:
1. Leave the Church
2. Publicly campaign/teach that the prophet is wrong and I’m right
3. Privately get word to the prophet or other leaders that they have it wrong
4. Publicly pretend to go along with the prophet, but privately do all I can to subvert him
5. Feel badly about the promptings I’ve had and follow the prophet unquestioningly
6. Continue to follow the promptings I’ve had within the boundaries of my responsibilities while following the direction the prophet is leading the church and continuing to seek further revelation and understanding
Clearly there are many combinations of things I could choose and I have intentionally written these basic options in an exaggerated way to distinguish them.
Are there other basic options you think exist, or that you think should exist?
You seem to worry that the church is advocating option 5, or at least that members are choosing option 5.
I see the church advocating option 6, and I believe most members are choosing option 6 when they have concerns.
You don’t seem to believe option 6 is is a good choice. Why is that? What do you think members or prophets or Christ should do differently?
Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself at length, Darren. I will do my best to give a meaningful response.
I believe it is indisputable at this point in time that presidents of the Church have taught wrong things as doctrine.
The priesthood ban is a good example, though many others could be used, in my opinion.
The reason I think the priesthood ban is a good example is because we have documentation that Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood (or at least authorized it); that it was subsequently revoked by Brigham Young and his successors in the presidency; that it was taught as doctrine in 1949 and 1969 First Presidency Statements; that the ban was lifted in 1978 by President Kimball; and that the Church has now released an essay at least tacitly laying the blame for the ban at the feet of racist American culture of the past.
The concern I have was best voiced by Elder McConkie who of course had been quite outspoken on this issue, echoing his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith, who was echoing his father Joseph F. Smith, who was echoing Brigham Young, that blacks would not receive the priesthood until every white man had the opportunity to do so.
Elder McConkie (and his successors) were proven wrong on this point when President Kimball renounced the ban in 1978.
A few years later, Elder McConkie stated publicly that everybody in the Church needed to “forget” everything he had said about the ban, and everything that any other past Church president had said about the ban, because new light and knowledge had come into the world, and we were bound to follow it.
First, I think that was a gracious thing for Elder McConkie to say, because he more than any other living authority in 1978 had to eat crow over the issue.
But the implications of his statement are stunning.
What his statement suggests is that there may be OTHER things the prophet is telling us today are doctrine, but that in a future day may be overridden, and that we may again be told the same thing–that we are to forget everything that any church authority said in the past on the issue; that new light and knowledge has come into the world; and that we are bound to follow it.
This could cover literally anything.
Most similar to the issue of the priesthood ban on blacks is the priesthood ban on women–not to mention the gay-marriage issue.
Elder McConkie (and the entire priesthood ban on black experience) tells us the church president right now could be wrong about these issues, or any issue, for that matter; and that we may be told in a not-too-distant day to forget everything the current president said about it.
If that scenario is a viable option, which Elder McConkie proved it is, the question comes into sharp relief:
Is it proper to hold the wrong position in the here-and-now because Church leaders advocate the wrong position?
Or is the proper thing to do to hold, believe and teach the right position even though Church leaders haven’t gotten around to changing their position yet?
Should we be obedient or ethical?
Obedience is doing something that is wrong because we are told to.
Ethics is doing what is right even though we are told not to.
And here we come down to the nubbin of the issue of agency, and why it is I think agency must be more than simply doing what we are told . . .
. . . no matter what person is telling us, or what his or her position may be, or what office they may hold.
What do you think?
I appreciate your article Corbin.
Here is part of a Patriarchal Blessing given a while back to a young person by an authorized LDS (Mormon) Patriarch. I am quoting it exactly as it is written.
“You have a great intelligent mind, but, you will never become more intelligent than the Prophet of God. You will always raise your hand to sustain Him in knowing that He is God’s spokesman, and you will know that He receives revelation. Even though you might be great in your academics, you will always know that His wisdom and knowledge supersedes yours. You will always be
obedient. You will always sustain the living Prophet.”
This is clearly an effort to convince this young person, who is in fact quite intelligent, that they must never question in the least the church Prophet– and by extension all and everything in the church supporting the Prophet.
This person is being told, as from God, that it is a “done-deal” that the church Prophet should automatically always be trusted and should thus automatically always be sustained.
But this “done-deal” doctrine is not scriptural. Read this link:
http://www.lds-awakening.info/Publications/Issue3.pdf
It sounds like the Patriarch who gave that blessing was an advocate of the 14-Fundamentals.
It is always a temptation to take the responsibility incurred by our agency and foist it upon another person.
It is a temptation Mormons are taught is a good thing to do–so long as that other person is the president of the Church.
And the Church takes it a step further (or several steps, actually), by saying we must not only follow the president of the Church, but also his counselors, the 12 apostles, and every general authority on down to the local authorities beneath them including our stake president and bishop, all of whom become imbued through this process with the aura of priesthood infallibility.
I consider it a dangerous enough doctrine when applied to one person, but that danger is multiplied exponentially when applied to everyone under the president’s priesthood multi-level pyramid.
And women must feel this most of all, because they get to have their husband added as the last link in the chain.
It is a hard thing not to have one’s agency crushed under such a pile of priesthood.
Corbin, If I understand your comments correctly, you are saying that someone who believes differently than the prophet should be able to publicly campaign and teach contrary to the prophet, but that currently he can’t do so.
My response is that people are free to teach contrary to the prophet. We have agency and we can absolutely oppose the prophet in any number of ways. Agency is not in danger. God has given all his children agency and no one can take that away.
I believe your real concern is with the possible consequences of the exercise of agency. What I think you are really advocating is that church members should be able to criticize the prophet, and teach contrary to the prophet, or in other ways oppose the prophet, and not have any consequences in regard to the privileges of temple attendance or church membership. Your reason for believing that there should be no consequences to the exercise of agency in opposition to the prophet is that prophets have been wrong in the past and may be wrong again in the future. Have I understood you correctly?
Whether you believe as I do that Christ is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and He has chosen a prophet to speak for Him, or whether you believe that the church is an organization of men not directed by God, what you are advocating seems foolish to me.
Offering an opposing point of view in a council is one thing, but in the military or even in a business, continuing to oppose a leader after a decision is made is called insubordination. Wouldn’t you agree that in most organizations a person who continues to be insubordinate is removed from “membership” in one way or another? It is true that in the United States we value freedom of speech and that speaking against the policies of the country or the President is protected and does not strip us of citizenship. I don’t really think that a government is the same as a company or other organization like a church. However, even with freedom of speech, if you continue in opposition and end up breaking a law, there are consequences.
Going back to a religious example, Adam and Eve were given commandments to obey. When they transgressed one commandment, arguably to “do what was right” and obey a higher commandment, they still suffered the consequences of their actions.
As for the “ethical” question you raise, I don’t see these types of issues in the church as moral or ethical dilemmas. If a soldier is ordered by his superior to rape a villager, he must decide between obedience and morality. However, the question of whether blacks and women should receive the priesthood or whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry in the temple, are issues regarding participation in the church itself. It is true that we believe this participation carries eternal significance and consequence, but I doubt you are trying to argue that a policy instituted contrary to the will of God during mortality would be enforced eternally.
The question of whether same sex couples should marry civilly is not about participation in the church, but when a President of the Church speaks on that issue he is not declaring the outcome, He is only trying to influence it.
The biggest challenge I see with your argument about these dilemmas is actually knowing what God wants the church to do at any given point in time, or as you put it, what is “right” for the church.
You said, “Or is the proper thing to do to hold, believe and teach the right position even though Church leaders haven’t gotten around to changing their position yet?” To me that shows incredible hubris. I don’t understand how someone can feel they know what God wants the church to do, better than the President of the church knows – or if someone doesn’t believe God leads the church, how someone can feel they know what is “right” for the church better than the President does. By virtue of being President, and being the oldest living apostle, the President has more perspective, more facts and more history than any other person. He is also able to counsel with all of the other general authorities who in turn counsel with Stake Presidents and Bishops who in turn counsel with other members of the church. Of course, I also believe Prophets are trained by God throughout their life and church experiences and that God leads them to make decisions, so that probably influences my perception. I guess some argue that the prophets’ age and experience handicap them and make them averse to change, but even so, what you are advocating seems to me like the Private telling the General how to run the war. Neither the General or the President of the church is infallible, but both are certainly in a better position to lead than the Private is. Not because a Private has lower rank, but because a Private lacks experience, facts, and most importantly, perspective.
I have spent considerable time studying and responding to the major contentions in your blog post and in your subsequent comments. I have come to better appreciate the problem of members of the church thinking of the prophets as infallible. I agree with you that we are all responsible individually for our own salvation. However, I am even more convinced and committed, that even though prophets make mistakes, I will exercise my agency and follow Jesus Christ and His chosen prophets to the best of my ability.
But what happens when a member sees following Jesus as different than following the president of the Church?
That is the crux of the issue.
To me, it is more important to follow Jesus regardless of what the prophet may say.
If you are saying we should follow the prophet even when the prophet is wrong, which you admit he can be, that seems a sure fire way for the church to go astray.
I believe this happened for over 100-years with the priesthood ban on blacks.
If you are saying, on the other hand, that following the prophet is the same thing as following Jesus, that seems to be the same thing as saying the prophet is infallible.
Maybe an example will help:
1. When Joseph Smith was giving the priesthood to black men, would it have been the right thing to support him or oppose him?
2. When Brigham Young through Harold B. Lee were refusing on religious grounds to give the priesthood to black men, would it have been the right thing to support or oppose them?
3. When Spencer Kimball announced on June 8, 1978 that black men could receive the priesthood, would it have been the right thing to support or oppose him?
4. And finally, what about the time period between June 1, 1978, when the revelation was received, and June 8, 1978, when the revelation was announced? During that week after President Kimball had received the revelation, but before it was publicly announced, what would have been the right position to hold?
I believe it would have been the right thing to be in favor of blacks holding the priesthood all the way along.
And I believe it would have been the right thing to speak out in favor of such.
What do you think?
This seems so very black and white in thinking, not allowing for different steps in learning or understanding. My only question is if agency isn’t in any danger, and cannot be taken away then why does the LDS church continue to try to do so, or to try and limit it by the extreme encouragement to submit our own wills to that of another? That is slavery, when one person has complete authority over others and their wills like that.
This all reminds me of a quote by JFK. “Let us not seek the republican answer or the democratic answer, but the right answer.” I believe Corbin is looking for what is right period. Not what is right for a certain organization or system, just what is right.
Dusty, I’m afraid I don’t understand your definition of agency. Teaching commandments and enforcing restrictions for not keeping the commandments is not taking away agency. Because we have agency we can choose whether to follow what we’re taught. Choosing to follow is exercising agency. Choosing not to follow is exercising agency.
I guess I think of it in terms of justice going hand in hand with agency. And your view of agency is not justice. It’s a predetermined path, where your agency doesn’t truly matter. You follow the path, or you lose. Or in this case, you follow the path, even if you know it is wrong because this one prophet said that prophets like him wouldn’t lead you astray or you lose.
And look what happened to JFK . . .
Maybe not in so many words, but here is the closing paragraph of your 12/16/14 post:
_________________
I welcome President Benson’s teachings because they help me to be on the lookout for the false justifications I might naturally be inclined to make when I am tempted to revile against the word of God given through the prophets. I am very grateful for the prophets and have found through my own experiences that I am always blessed when I follow them!
________________
Elder Benson’s teachings that you welcome include his fourth fundamental that the prophet will never lead the Church astray, and includes statements by (and third-hand stories about) prophets to support his point.
The fact must be that that prophets CAN lead the Church astray.
If they cannot, they have no agency.
It is one thing to say they can but have not.
It is another thing entirely to say it is not in their power to do so.
But once we admit leading the Church astray is in the prophet’s power, then we can talk about whether their teachings and practices have, in fact, done so.
Without having the conclusion that they have not done so predetermined from the outset.
Corbin, I think the difference between our perspectives is that I believe Christ is the head of His church. For instance, even though Joseph Smith made a mistake and lost the manuscript of the 116 pages, it was OK. Christ had a plan and Joseph’s mistake did not mess up the church. The work of the Lord moved forward. I do not think following the prophet when he makes a mistake will lead to the church going astray.
I think the right thing all along is to treat black men and women with love and respect and dignity. In regards to their participation in the church I think the right thing to do is honor the authority of the prophet to declare that decision in the moment. So, your questions are easy for me to answer:
1. Support him
2. Support them
3. Support him
4. The publicly announced decision.
When the Pharisees questioned Christ’s authority, he taught them two parables (see Matt 21:23-46). There is a lot that can be learned from those parables, but the point I’d like to make is that the wicked husbandmen who rejected the servants of the owner also rejected the son of the owner. For me, following the prophet is part of my commitment to Jesus Christ and His Church.
Wow….Just wow…..if Christ is the head of the church then he loves the difficult path that leads to confusion and more confusion. Couldn’t a perfect, all knowing, all powerful God come up with a better way of doing things?
You are seemingly ok with whatever the decision the prophet makes since jesus is supposedly leading it…so that tells me you honestly don’t think the prophet could lead the church astray since jesus leads it. hopefully at some point you come to the realization of how ridiculous this actually is
Funny that the version of the endowment prior to 1990 has Adam saying in response to the preaching of the Protestant Minister, “To me it is a mass of confusion.”
Those words seem applicable here, as well.
If you follow a path (or mistake) that is wrong, are you not astray? If you follow a mistake that a prophet made, you are undoubtedly astray. I honestly do not see how anybody could ever think this is ok, or how following such a mistake could ever truly be a good thing, or the right thing to do.
Some of the mistakes that have been made are not simple “whoopsy daisy” type mistakes either. They are serious, have caused incredible harm, damage, and/or emotional trauma to people type mistakes. Comparing losing pages of a book to the encouragement of racist practice that excludes a whole group of people from eternal blessings makes the former seem very much a “whoopsy daisy” type little mistake comparatively. And that’s just one leading astray mistake that has happened.
The problem I have with what you say is the unstated assumption that undergirds your entire argument.
It is that Jesus equals the Church equals God equals Church leaders.
As long as we assume that everything we are told by the Church is what God wants us to hear, there is no problem.
Until we start recognizing that Church leaders have told us things that were just plain wrong. And not just about the brand of deodorant we should use; but important things like whether black men should be allowed to have the priesthood, and whether black men and women should be allowed into the temple to receive the ordinances of exaltation.
When we begin to confront this, the question rises whether we are going to throw this type of racism at God’s feet, or are the leaders going to have to take the responsibility?
When it comes down to the question of whether God is a racist, or whether Church leaders have been racist, I feel it safest to go with the Church leaders every time.
I am uncomfortable with a line of reasoning that amounts to God being the racist.
I am also uncomfortable with the position that Church leaders receive all the revelation God sees fit to give, but that God wasn’t paying enough attention for over a century to tell any of them that they had the priesthood ban all wrong.
Something has to give.
And for me, what has to give is the idea that Church leaders are infallible in their doctrinal pronouncements.
And what also has to give is the idea that Church leaders cannot lead the Church astray.
There is no evidence to support such an assumption, and an ever growing mountain of evidence to suggest the contrary.
If Church leaders can be wrong in their doctrinal pronouncements, as they demonstrably were with the priesthood ban, how can we say with confidence that such errors can never lead the Church astray? Because other Church leaders have said so? That makes no sense to me.
If we know that Church leaders can be wrong about doctrinal pronouncements, why should we think they are somehow right when they say they can never lead the Church astray?
And oddly enough, the single teaching “the prophet will never lead you astray” seems to have the greatest potential to actually lead astray.
I have said it before and will say it again:
“I imagine every previous church that went into apostasy must have believed their leaders would never lead it astray.”
Thanks for your comments, Dusty!
Darren Croft wrote:
“When the Pharisees questioned Christ’s authority, he taught them two parables (see Matt 21:23-46). There is a lot that can be learned from those parables, but the point I’d like to make is that the wicked husbandmen who rejected the servants of the owner also rejected the son of the owner. For me, following the prophet is part of my commitment to Jesus Christ and His Church.”
There is a lot to unpack here, Darren, but I will try to keep it brief.
Why were the Pharisees challenging Jesus’s authority in the first place?
Because Jesus was a prophet on the outside of the accepted religious establishment calling its leaders to repentance.
Did Jesus run into people who rejected his message because they were sure that the leaders of the Jewish religion would never lead the church astray?
You can bet on it.
That is why I find it problematic that you equate following the prophet with following Jesus Christ.
In order for Jewish people in Jesus’s own day to follow him, they had to reject the accepted Church leaders of their own religion.
Do you think it even possible that the same situation might pertain to the LDS Church today?
I am not asking if you believe this is the case.
Just whether you can even envision it as a possibility.
I agree with your sentiments, Dusty.
To be clear, I make no claims myself to infallibility. In fact, I claim absolute fallibility. But still I press on as best I can.
I am concerned that some Latter-day Saints are so certain the Church is led by ongoing revelation that they will persist in that belief in spite of a dearth of any evidence that this is the case.
We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of the last revelation to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 138 in 1918).
And before section 138, it was 71-years since the last revelation received (Section 136 in 1847).
I am beginning to detect a pattern . . .
What was that verse from Isaiah we used to use as evidence of the apostasy?
Found it!
Isaiah 29:10–“For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.”
Ironically, it is right before this verse:
29:11–“And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:”
Looks like the LDS Church has become what necessitated the restoration in the first place.
I think you have pinpointed Darren’s position, Garrett.
Darren believes Christ is at the head of the LDS Church, that Christ leads his prophets, that sometimes the prophets may make mistakes, but Jesus never lets it get so bad that the prophets lead the Church astray.
I think this is a faith-based statement; one in contravention of the evidence.
But I respect Darren’s right to hold such a belief.
Corbin,
Once again you set up an argument by creating a few limited possibilities and then attempt to prove your point by making the other options you created sound ridiculous.
Your philosophy appears to be very humanistic, with very little room for a God or a Christ that doesn’t fit within your philosophy.
That is very revealing. It puts you in the position of a new prophet, come to warn the people of the false teaching of leaders who have gone astray. In November I wrote a post based on bible teachings about judging between true and false prophets and teachings.. When I apply those standards to you and to the current and past leaders of the church I choose to follow the leaders of the church.
Absolutely many of my statements are faith based statements. We are after all talking about faith in God and Jesus Christ and following the prophets of God — fundamentally matters of faith. I disagree that it is in contravention of the evidence. You are taking great leaps with the small pieces of “evidence” you are presenting and you are ignoring many other pieces and types of evidence. From my perspective, your arguments are based on your faith in humanism.
Corbin has claimed, and owned up to far too much fallibility to ever be a prophet by current general LDS thinking. Just saying 🙂
To me it is interesting that in your article you would focus a decent amount on “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Yet, when the fruit ends up rotten or spoiled, you seem to discount that or brush it aside, and in this discussion even encourage us to partake of those rotten fruits if they came from the LDS church’s prophet. There just seems to be a major disconnect there.
The fruits of racist taught doctrines, or polygamy etc. are overwhelmingly corrupt fruits. They harmed so many people, and even to this day harm the church itself, leaving it with visible scars that keep some people away even though it is no longer on those paths.
Those scriptures also leave no room to evaluate situations, or teachings separate from the one presenting it. Good trees only produce good fruit. Corrupt trees only produce corrupt fruit. A teaching like this seems to require us to wholeheartedly accept a prophet and everything they say, or wholeheartedly reject them and everything they say (with fear then being used, because doing this places your eternal well being in danger.) Does this mean Brigham Young was a false prophet then because of his racist teachings that are now disavowed? Or because of his teachings about the Adam-God theory? Or his statements about people living on the moon? Was he a corrupt tree only capable of producing corrupt fruits since we now have evidence of those teachings being false, and harmful (in the case of racism)? If that is the case, then what of the prophets that came after him and followed his lead?
Think of the implications those scriptures place on the line of prophets, and the prophet today.
I think you have done an excellent job of describing how the all-or-nothing approach to prophets ends with disaffection.
Good job!
Hi, Darren.
I will try to get back to some more of your points later.
For now, I will just point out that it seems strange for you to talk about “standards” to apply to judging between true and false prophets.
If I understand you correctly, you use no such “standards.”
You decide a priori whom you accept as a prophet and then accept everything that comes out of his mouth.
No standards apply.
Well, there is technically one standard…
…that the true prophet is the one member of the Quorum of the Fifteen who manages to outlive the other fourteen.
I agree wholeheartedly!
But your humorous comment has brought an idea to mind.
Maybe the fundamental problem is the fact that LDS have come to refer to the President of the Church as “the prophet.”
My understanding is that until the David O. McKay administration, Church presidents were referred to simply as “Church president” and not as “the prophet.”
“The prophet” was a title reserved exclusively for Joseph Smith.
Once we began to refer to the Church President as “the prophet,” all sorts of baggage began to accumulate with the title.
More on this later.
Okay. Now for a bit more.
Once we have decided to call the Church president “the prophet,” the baggage that naturally ensues is to believe everything “the prophet” says if from God.
If “the prophet” says some true stuff, but also says some false stuff, and there is no way for us to really tell which is which, what good is “the prophet”?
I think this may be at the heart of why it is that it is so attractive to ascribe infallibility to the Church president.
If we just continued calling the Church president “the Church president,” I think most of the desire to consider him infallible would drop to the wayside.
Also, when we call the Church president “the prophet,” I think it tends to beg the question of whether what he is saying is true, correct or moral.
It becomes true, correct and moral, not because of the merits of what “the prophet” says, but simply because he says it.
Once we have made that logical leap, I think it only natural that so many LDS consider following “the prophet” to be the equivalent of following Jesus.
It is precisely where that logical leap occurs that I am trying to get at, and where I believe the problem lies.
I would just like to add that over time we have even taken it one step further where all the apostles are called as “prophets, seers, etc.” and often times we are encouraged to take their words as if they were “the” prophet themselves (which just adds to and multiplies the dilemma.) Do you know when this started to happen by chance? That has been my experience within the church since growing up in the 80’s at least.
Continuing, the believe that the Church president is “the prophet” is not a conclusion.
It is a predicate on which conclusions are based.
The conclusion most frequently based on this predicate is that the Church president can never lead the Church astray.
It is common for us to base our conclusions on predicates while examining the conclusions, but never examining the predicate on which the conclusion is based.
My goal is to examine the predicate itself.
Let me give an example, with which most Mormons would agree.
Some fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the literal Word of God–that it is without error–that it an infallible guide to God’s wisdom and truth.
Because of this predicate, such Christians will spend their time studying the Bible in order to learn what God wants them to do, or preaching to others God’s Word from the Bible.
Rarely does it cross their mind to examine the predicate belief that undergirds all their Bible study and preaching.
It is simply taken for granted.
The LDS have a very different view of the Bible, believing it to contain errors and interpolations of men.
LDS look at fundamentalist Christians askance for not being able to see the problem with their predicate belief in Bible infallibility.
But at the same time, LDS have trouble seeing they are doing a similar, if not identical thing, with the president of their church.
One more thing for now–if a Mormon shows a fundamentalist Christians any of the numerous errors and contradictions in the Bible, what is the response?
The response is for the fundamentalist Christian to go through any number of mental gymnastics and gyrations in order to show that the errors are not really errors at all, and the contradictions not contradictions.
The fundamentalist Christian must do this in order to preserve believe in the predicate that the Bible is without error.
A similar thing happens when Mormons are shown any of the numerous errors and contradictions that past Church presidents have said.
The response is for the Mormon to go through any number of mental gymnastics and gyrations in order to show that the errors are not really errors at all, and the contradictions not contradictions.
The Mormon must do this in order to preserve belief in the predicate that their Church presidents are without error.
The remarkable thing is that Mormons can see it so well in fundamentalist Christians but not in themselves.
It makes me wonder where does this all come from? Because we don’t seem to stop with just the prophet being infallible, and unable to lead us astray. We take that and run with it. Run with the idea we are right, with no room for us to be wrong. We then also use the comforting blanket of “the one and only true church.” Which seems in the same boat as an infallible prophet. We will never be lead astray, and have the only true church. It’s like the armor of God we are putting on here to comfort us or our claims is the very thing deceiving us, and I know I’ve harped on this many times in the past, but it seems to boil down to the slippery slope of pride. That desire, want, or need to be right, rather than know right.
“We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately.”
Fitting that should have been said by another guy named Benjamin.
I didn’t see this comment until today, Benjamin, but wanted to comment.
I think you are right. The internet is making it possible for LDS members to find out they are not alone in their unorthodox view of things, and that other Mormons have similar questions and concerns.
It is indeed getting very difficult for the LDS Church to continue whacking every mole that sticks his head up out of the ground and asks what the bright light in the sky is.
I think a manifestation of that is the fact Kate Kelly was excommunicated but John Dehlin so far has not.
The backlash from the first made the Church retreat from completing the second.
At least, that’s one way to interpret the events.
And, as far as I know, Rock Waterman’s threatened discipline has yet to materialize.
Whack too many moles at once and people start to wonder what the LDS Church has against moles.
Hi, Garrett!
One of the radical things about the Mormonism taught by Joseph Smith is that it assumes a limited God.
Although Joseph gave no indication that he was aware of what he was doing with such a teaching, he was cutting the Gordian Knot of the problem of evil.
In spite of Joseph’s teachings regarding a limited God, the LDS Church seems to have lapsed pretty quickly into the old Protestant view of God Joseph himself protested against–that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
I agree there is a tendency to downplay the harm done by the mistake of banning blacks from the priesthood and the temple, as well as the harm done to non-black Mormons by teaching them racist doctrine.
I think there is also a tendency to downplay the harm currently being done by the mistake of not ordaining women to the priesthood, as well as the harm done to male Mormons by teaching them sexist doctrine.
I agree with this. Seeing the harm manifest in my own family, as my 12 year old daughter came up to me about a month ago and said “Dad, are boys just better than girls? Like are they just able to do more? It seems like when I’m at church, and anything important is happening or needs to be done, it’s all boys. My job is to just sit there quietly, and support it even if I am uncomfortable.”
Isn’t that exactly what Christ came to free us from?
Okay, another thought about prophets.
Joseph Smith, like Moses, tried hard to get everybody to become prophets. He wanted his followers to experience what he had experienced. To receive revelations as he received them. To have visions as he had visions.
In his later sermons, he cited to Revelation where it says that “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
He then said that a person who has the spirit of prophecy is by definition a prophet.
Therefore, anybody with “the testimony of Jesus” was a prophet in Joseph Smith’s parlance.
Joseph was busy trying to shove power down to the rank and file Mormons.
Since then, Mormons have been busy shoving the power up to the top.
I don’t see this as something Joseph Smith would have wanted; and perhaps something he would not even recognize.
I think there is a lot of confusion in Mormon terminology about what “prophet” means.
We say “The Prophet” when we talk about the current Church president.
But then we say that all of the Q15 are “prophets,” as well.
We have gotten away from the idea endorsed by Moses where he wishes that all God’s people were prophets, and that God would pour out his spirit upon everyone.
This was the same idea prophesied by Joel.
Mormons today seem to believe this in theory, but not in practice.
When it comes to actual practice, the only real “prophets” are the Church presidents.
But even when we restrict the word “prophet” to the man who is the president of the Church, we run into problems.
The problem is that they have contradicted each other, and things have been changed by later prophets over what earlier prophets have said.
I think this is the reason the Church now insists that the living prophet trumps the dead prophet.
It is a tacit admission that such contradictions exist without going into the details of what those contradictions actually are.
It also provides a way to determine which prophet is right without getting into the messy business of actually evaluating their conflicting teachings.
You are right about this. What seems to happen is that because the president is considered to be led infallibly by God, that means those he chooses to be apostles are chosen by God, those the apostles choose to be GA’s are chosen by God, the stake presidents are chosen by God, the bishops are chosen by God, and so forth.
It’s turtles all the way down!
And with this idea comes along the companion idea that everything done by those in the chain of authority is sanctioned by God–from the president all the way down to your home teacher.
It is a problematic view, and subject to almost immediate falsification.
I think we are witnessing a change in how doctrine is defined in the Church.
It used to be that whatever the prophet said was what we needed to believe and follow.
Then, Elder Benson enlarged on that (in Fundamentals 13 and 14) to include not only the president of the Church, but also his counselors. (This is a part of Elder Benson’s talk that conflicts with the prior “fundamentals” which talk about following only the prophet.)
But now, we have Elder Christofferson saying in General Conference that doctrine is not what any Church leader may have said in the past, but can be established only by what all the Q15 are unified in speaking together.
This makes it much more difficult to establish what the Church believes is doctrine.
It used to be that First Presidency Statements were considered authoritative.
But now that is no longer the case, according to Elder Christofferson’s new definition of doctrine.
I suspect this change may be caused by the fact that prior First Presidency Statements were in error, as shown by the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency Statements regarding the priesthood ban on blacks.
Corbin and Dusty we have very opposite views of the role of and need for prophets. In your view the prophet has no authority to set doctrine or policy. Basically you seem to be saying that everyone sets their own doctrine and policy. This seems like chaos to me. What about the racist member in 1980 who feels it is “right” to continue to deny the priesthood to blacks. Is he right simply because he believes he is right? What if he is the Bishop or Stake President and won’t ordain worthy men? If you advocate for disobedience to the prophet in one direction, how can you require obedience in the other?
As I have shared previously, both the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine of Covenants teach that God calls prophets and that prophets speak the word of God. We both admit to prophets being fallible. You say that means we don’t need to follow them. I say we should follow them despite their fallibility. I like what Elder Holland said recently, “So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.” (“Lord, I Believe,” April 2013 Conference)
It is also interesting to me that the scriptures teach that we are to strive to obey all commandments and live by every word that comes from God (see Deuteronomy 8:3, Luke 6:46, D&C 98:11, D&C 84:44) and yet you are both advocating the opposite, that we pick and choose what we feel good about or what seems right from a humanist viewpoint. I realize you believe that what the prophet says is not what God says, but I think it is very clear that the way God normally communicates with man is through prophets. That is what the scriptures are – the words of God to the prophets.
There is also a huge disconnect between what you are teaching about agency and what God has taught. Agency is choosing, and choices have consequences! “Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” (2 Nephi 10:23-24).
No Christ did not come to take away consequences of agency! Christ performed the atonement to give us the opportunity to repent. The atonement takes away the stain and imperfection of sin and give us the power to change, but we still need to make that change!
Dusty brought up some good points about looking at the fruits. I agree that can be confusing. I don’t think the “fruits” referred to are how a teaching is received or viewed. For me the primary “fruits” to examine are whether the prophet is teaching people to come unto Christ and be perfected in him.
In the end it comes down entirely to faith and personal revelation. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are told to seek revelation to know whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God, whether Jesus Christ is at the head of this church, and whether the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are prophets of God. If we seek those answers, and come to know those things are true, then it makes absolute sense to follow them, even when we may not understand or have concerns about some principles. On the other hand, a person who has not received those answers by revelation, is going to have lots of concerns and challenges and probably become disaffected as Corbin mentions.
Finally, I don’t see the logic and purpose of your positions. To agree with your positions I would have to either see the church leaders as apostate or I would have to see the church as a social organization with no authority or direction from God. In either case that would mean the church was built on a foundation of lies and for me it would not be worth being a member or wasting any time on it – if the foundation is lies, it can’t be fixed, it has to be rebuilt from the foundation up.
Contrary to this view, I see a church that is led by Christ, that is teaching people to come unto Christ, to repent, and to strive to be like him. I see people who repent and follow the teachings of the prophets and have great joy. It brings to mind the words of Alma to Korihor, “believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?” (Alma 30:35).
I have sought personal revelation, I have received personal revelation. I am grateful for living Prophets who teach the word of God and I gladly strive to follow their teachings. I feel badly that there are people with concerns, and people who feel hurt either by church doctrine, or policies, or more often by individuals within the church. But that does not mean that the Church is false or corrupt or that we should not listen to the prophets.
I think you are putting words in our mouths that we haven’t spoken. And it is all way too “all or nothing.” for my liking. I cannot speak for Corbin (though I do agree with him on much of this.) I can only speak for myself though.
In one hand you seem to paint the prophet as our absolute moral authority figure, but in the other you absolve him of all responsibility such a mantle would carry. It isn’t that we think the prophet has no authority, it is that we don’t think he has absolute authority. Believing you are right, doesn’t make you right, just like believing a prophet is right doesn’t make him right. It doesn’t take supernatural wisdom or ability to see racism (and the products of such, like slavery) as being wrong, harmful, and morally unacceptable. This thought exists within us with or without a prophet or authority figure telling us. It is a very easy line for us to draw in our minds “I wouldn’t like to be treated that way, so I imagine others wouldn’t like it either. Maybe we should not do that so things can be better for all.”
I also don’t think either Corbin or myself have stated people should not follow the prophet. We have stated you should not follow harmful, or wrong teachings regardless of the source. We are looking at the teaching separate from the person giving it, and basing it on its own merits rather than the merits of the person, or the mantle of the person. That is precisely where we are trying to express where so much danger is coming from. In the LDS church, we far too often conflate the two things together. “Since the prophet said this, it must be true and we have to do it. Even if he’s wrong and it hurts people.” That is just abuse and control taken to the next level. We say we can each receive personal revelation, but then the church offers no outlet, or no teaching on what to do if that personal revelation comes up contradictory to the Prophet. It forces us to have a conclusion, before we can even explore the questions, and if we don’t reach that conclusion we must be in error somewhere along the line. This is what I mean when I say it tries to limit or take away our agency, or makes agency just a facade.
Scripture saying we need to obey all commandments and follow every word of God is just going to get into circular reasoning. That just goes back to “who wrote those words?” etc. that has already been discussed. It also doesn’t address that the scriptures often offer up many contradictory things. My understanding was also that when Jesus came, he fulfilled all the old laws and gave a new commandment which we were to live by. “Love one another” in short.
The view you (or possibly the LDS church) presents about God/agency frightens me in a way. It seems to paint him as a mafia boss. He created us, made the plan (and the consequences), then immediately placed us all in debt. Now we can “choose” to pay that debt (follow his commandments, obey him/those that claim they are speaking for him etc) and be rewarded (get to stay in his good graces) or have our legs broken (be cut off, not make it to the celestial kingdom, lose out on being with our families forever etc.) Are we choosing to have our legs broken, or is he choosing to break them? It just boggles my mind how many people can support that view of a God and still call him “loving.” Who really benefits from this system? It’s certainly not us.
I do agree with you that the “fruits” of these teachings isn’t about how it is received or viewed. It is absolutely about what the teaching has done in action, or caused. The ban on black people receiving the priesthood, and temple ordinances (requirements for exaltation) specifically did not allow those people to be perfected in Christ as you put it. It inherently prevented that, and was designed to prevent that. The fruit of that teaching is, or at least should be completely self evident. And then if we go to what you seem to be proclaiming when you mention scripture, and quote scripture to us is that we must take it literally, and word for word with absolute trust and obedience. Thus, the tree that produced that corrupt fruit can only produce corrupt fruit and it begins to place the entire system of modern prophets in jeopardy. Unless of course, we add the caveat that “Well, the prophet will never lead you astray.” to justify, and encourage us to follow such a harmful thing.
The logic of my position is really quite a bit more simple, and far less black and white than you are perceiving it, or than I have thus far presented it. I haven’t presented things as absolutes, or made any connecting dots such as “Well if this prophet made a mistake, then he is apostate and offers no value.” My position only offers the room for us to examine the merits of each teaching individually (which is also supported through LDS teachings in the form of personal revelation) separate from the individual. It leaves room for growth, and change rather than strict adherence to something that may be harmful and faulty.
I think it’s great that you have seen people repent and come unto your view of Christ and find great joy. People finding great joy is a wonderful thing in my opinion. I’d like everybody to be happy, or find happiness. But your statement isn’t unique to just following your (or the LDS) view of Christ. I’ve seen people live in what the church would consider sin, and they have found a lifetime of great joy and peace with themselves. How could they have had such joy in their hearts if they were deceived?
People don’t just feel hurt by some of the church doctrine or teachings, they have been hurt (black people, or any non white and delightsome people for that matter, women, gay people, etc. This is no small number of people, either.) More often than not it is the teachings themselves, or the covered up truths that they eventually find that leads to some of that hurt, not some individual. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to the prophets, but it does mean that maybe we should do a little bit more ourselves than just feel bad for the people that we are actually hurting by passively condoning such harm.
This last sentence is so artfully and powerfully constructed, all I can do is take my hat off to you, Dusty.
Bravo!
I’ll take a living prophet over a dead one every time. The scriptures point out this fact time and time again. I also agree with all 14 points. I’m glad we will be studying his words this year.
So why are we wasting so much time studying the words of dead prophets?
So you don’t see a problem with how the first 10 steps set up a mortal man with absolute authority over us? Then with 11 it absolves him of any responsibility such a mantle would carry, and puts all responsibility on us. Then the last two set up his closest advisers as people we must also follow, and puts a gun to our head. “Follow them, or suffer!”
When was the last time a prophet spoke on relevant events of the world, rather than releasing statements through the church PR department for plausible deniability if it’s a sensitive subject? Does following a living prophet also include having to live by the words of all these proxies? Each time we get a new prophet (a complex process which is entirely composed of the ability to outlive your peers) does that mean it’s a clean slate, and everything before them is moot if the new guy goes slightly away from it? Does that undo any of the harm caused by previous teachings? Will the next prophet start trying to undo the harm being caused by current ones?
There are so many questions, and so few answers. Prophets no longer seem to provide answers or prophesies for their people. They are far removed from their people. They seem more like authoritative, above the law wardens meant to keep us jailed on the straight and narrow (mind) of the old teachings.
I would also argue that these 14 steps don’t encourage us, or teach us how to listen to the chosen messenger of God. They lead us to treat the messenger as God himself… idolatry.
quote: “I would also argue that these 14 steps don’t encourage us, or teach us how to listen to the chosen messenger of God. They lead us to treat the messenger as God himself… idolatry.”
I agree. The quote I gave earlier from a patriarchal blessing was clearly pushing idolatry. Idolatry is as evil as adultery in scripture. Clearly as 2 Nephi 28:21 warns, “All is well! can lead to hell”. This is not a minor issue.
The scriptures do not allow members of the church to dictate doctrine or policy to the church leaders. But the scriptures do give members the right to NOT sustain the leaders and have a controversy over them.
Why do I use the word controversy? Because that is the word the revelation uses in D&C 107:81-84 when it gives instructions for having a special trial over the President of the church or one of his counselors. Verse 83 says, “And their decision upon his head shall be an end of CONTROVERSY concerning him.”
This clearly allows LEGITIMATE controversies over the President of the church until, if it comes to such measures, such a trial settles the matter.
But what has happened in the Lord’s Gentile church is that the church leaders have pushed for the idea that the Prophet is above any controversy. The “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” talk and the Patriarchal blessing I quoted are only two of many, many examples of this type of idolatrous teaching.
President Young clearly taught that it was revelation that the Priesthood was not to be given to the Negro. He said it in the name of the Lord. I could give you quotes if you want.
Now, if members did not accept this they had the right to NOT sustain him and claim they had a legitimate controversy over him.
The special trial mentioned in D&C 107:81-84 does not settle spiritual matters. This special trial is over temporal matters before a Bishop and twelve counselors.
So it would only resolve if President Young was being honest when he claimed it was revealed to him that the priesthood should not be given to the Negro.
The church needs to learn to live by correct principles. Especially the principle that all Priesthood brothers are to esteem each other as themselves. (D&C 38:24-25)
The leaders are NOT to be deemed as superiors. Disagreeing with the leaders is NOT insubordination, because the leaders are NOT superiors.
The leaders are called to hold specific Priesthood offices and keys as servants for the Priesthood body. But they are never above being questioned and above controversy.
Right?
Dusty, I apologize for responding as if you and Corbin held the same positions. I appreciate your thoughtful post of January 4.
Personal revelation is personal. You and I cannot receive personal revelation as to what the church’s policies or doctrines should be, we do not have that authority.
Personal revelation is vital. Through personal revelation we can receive our own confirmation that a prophet is called of God and that any individual teaching or commandment is from God.
We can also receive personal revelation as to how to apply those doctrines and teachings in our own lives. For instance, you may have received revelation that you should show greater love, empathy, and compassion to people with same gender attraction.
These are the roles of personal revelation in regards to the doctrines and policies of the church.
You say there is no recourse when you don’t get confirmation through personal revelation. If you mean there is no way to appeal or argue your point of view, I agree. That is consistent with the Church’s teaching that the prophet speaks with authority to declare doctrine and policy.
On the other hand, there is no time pressure on receiving a confirmation. A member of the church who is struggling with a particular doctrine or position of the church can continue to seek confirming revelation. However, a member of the church can’t set himself up as an authority to declare the prophet wrong. As I have explained previously, secularly we call that insubordination, and religiously we call that apostasy.
When someone will receive a confirmation is entirely up to the Lord. It is also clear that we need to seek revelation sincerely and with real intent. I understand real intent to mean that we seek answers intending to follow the answer we get through revelation, whether the answer fits with our personal philosophy or not.
It is a fact that some people believe they have received revelation opposing what the prophet teaches and other people feel they have received revelation confirming what the prophet teaches. I think much of this can be explained by the sincerity and real intent of the seekers, but not all of it. In my opinion this diversity of opinion is another reason we need someone with authority to declare the direction of the church so that there is unity and consistency within the church. Christ himself taught this as I have quoted before (see Ephesians 4:11-14).
You have made several comments that prophets have made mistakes that limit the eternal blessings of different groups. I don’t believe that is true and would like to comment specifically on several of the issues you have mentioned.
First, in regards to the ban on the blacks having the priesthood. The majority of people who have lived on the earth (of any race or color) have not had the chance to receive the blessings of church membership, the priesthood, or the temple while on this earth. However, all of them, as Heavenly Father’s children, will have the opportunity to have the same eternal blessings through the power of the atonement and temple work. Brigham Young also taught that blacks would receive the priesthood eventually. The quotes I gave earlier from Marcus Martins also shared great perspective from a black man on the issue of eternal and mortal blessings for blacks.
You also seem to be saying that Brigham Young taught that blacks should be treated poorly. I don’t believe that is true and someday hope to make the time to do more research. Here is one example where Brigham Young said whites needed to repent in their treatment of blacks, “If the government of the United States in congress assembled had the right to pass an anti polygamy bill they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race the whites will be cursed unless they repent.” (Journal of Discourses Vol 10 p.111)
In regards to the false teachings of black inferiority, just like millions of other injustices in the world, those who were hurt can be healed through the power of the atonement. And most likely will receive other compensations, considerations, and blessings in eternity for what they suffered mortally.
It is also clear that even though women are not ordained to the priesthood, their eternal blessings are not limited. In fact, in order to receive all the possible eternal blessings a man needs to be sealed to a woman and a woman needs to be sealed to a man. They can receive all blessings only if they receive them together! Women are not limited at all.
In regards to homosexuality, it is true that unrepentant homosexual behavior limits eternal blessings. This is exactly analogous to how unrepentant adultery or fornication limits eternal blessings. This goes back directly to agency. We choose how we act and our choices have consequences. It is also true that we all have different strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities and God is aware of all that.
No I don’t see God as anything like a mafia boss. I see Him as a loving Father trying to help us grow and develop and become more like Him. He has declared, “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39) I don’t see His plan, or the consequences of sin, as an arbitrary set of requirements and punishments, but as a process of becoming better. I believe God knows perfectly what will help us become who we need to be to receive eternal life. I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ is absolutely essential and central to God’s plan. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we can gain the power to keep the commandments and make the changes necessary to grow. We are also able to repent and be cleansed from our mistakes so that we may become perfected or complete and able to live in the presence of God. And, through the atonement, we can be healed from the injuries, injustices, and travails that we experience as part of this life.
How do we benefit from the commandments and the plans of God? In every possible way! Commandments are loving guidance from our perfected Father in Heaven to help us on our path to eternal life.
Cherry picking,.,,it’s the way of anyone that attempts to be an apologist/pseudo apologist….take one thing that fits your opinion and then ignore everything else.
Brigham young on blacks….he was one of the most racist people this church has ever seen. You did a great job of finding one single quote to meet your end. I can find quote after quote that demonstrate his racism and bigotry.
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
He was also really good at declaring everything he said as correct and as scripture. However, it’s interesting that so many of the teachings of BY have turned into folk doctrine and señor brigham has been run over by the proverbial bus time and again by the modern church.
“I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
“I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).
On lesbians and gays. The ignorance needs to stop. It is not a choice just like being black is not a choice. Quit calling it a sin. Everytime this BS notion comes up from mormons it makes you look so ignorant and so easily duped by shear stupid opinions of men that don’t know anything about it. If these prophets and apostles are so close to God you’d think that is God would give them a message that was a little more clear….and it would be something like this :hey guys, I know when you were growing up people didn’t science as much…..but people are sciencing more nowadays and the whole notion that being gay is a sin is about as accurate as native Americans being descendants of a lamanite population that never existed. Please stop the ignorance.
If there really is a god he is embarrassed that these men that lead the church have a stranglehold on the intelligence of people.
You don’t have to apologize to me for that, or for anything really. It’s been a good discussion even though we disagree with each other and see things very differently. You seem like a good person trying to do what’s best as far as I can tell. Like most people.
I agree that personal revelation is personal, but what is somebody supposed to do with it when it goes against what the prophet and the church are teaching? Hold it in, keep it to themselves and be passive about seeing such harm done? The church provides no outlet or room for disagreement with the prophet even through personal revelation. The person that received that revelation will be vilified, shamed, and have their moral character attacked for it until they fall in line with the prophets will. Like you said, they will immediately be branded as “apostate” and that word carries such a tremendous amount of weight with how heavy of a sin the church has placed it to be.
Also like you said, and like the church teaches we can continue to seek the “right” revelation in that the prophet is always right, no matter how harmful. We are totally free to keep trying till we get to that conclusion. That is the very essence of the problem I was stating when I said that when it comes to asking questions in this church, we are encouraged to have that answer before even asking because anything other than that just won’t count. This does not allow for corrective measures to be taken when it comes to harmful teachings. This goes completely against the whole works + faith concept. We just have to have faith that God will take care of things when he’s good and ready, so we don’t have to do anything.
I agree with you on what real intent means, but disagree with your assertion that people going contrary to what the prophet says on certain things were lacking in some way of real intent. Their convictions are no less worthy and strong than yours or mine. I don’t disagree with there being some form of authority to guide the church along in this manner. Organizations (whether social, business, religious etc.) benefit from that, but I do wholeheartedly disagree with giving that person such ultimate authority while also absolving them of any responsibility to mistakes, and allowing for no outlet for the people he/she has authority over to express concern, or try to fix the mistakes. Bottom line, that’s tyranny.
Brigham Young did teach that black people would eventually receive the priesthood. I hear that often, but the person quoting it rarely is aware of the full statement because the last part of that is he taught when. After every single white man that is ever going to be born has come and had the opportunity to receive it, then will black people start being allowed. Placing a whole group of people second to another based solely on the color of their skin is what racism is. While I enjoyed your story of Mr. Martins and applaud him, it shows his personal perspective and personal belief on eternity for himself. It is also a single anecdotal account that cannot erase the harm the racist teachings caused throughout church history to so many people, and the harm it causes even today. Because of the racist teachings, people even still today want nothing to do with the church, and if this is the one and only true church and one and only path to eternal glory… well that seems pretty harmful.
Nothing good came out of the racist teachings and practices. They are indefensible. I do not know why any of us would justify, or accept any part of that from any prophet that taught, or reiterated it just so we can maintain their perfect authority over us, and indulge in our own laziness of letting God sort it out in the next life rather than pointing out a mistake of our leader, admitting it, apologizing for it, then going forward and all trying to make life better for everybody.
It doesn’t matter if Brigham Young taught specifically that black people should be treated poorly (though arguably he did teach that they should be treated poorly, especially with his vile teachings about interracial marriage.) What matters is the results of his teachings about black people. Those results are that they were treated poorly by being treated as second class. They were treated as less than white people, and unable to receive the same blessings. This is being treated poorly. I would also make much the same argument toward the way women are treated in the church today. Sure, we aren’t actively out there trying to harm women. But they are treated as different than men and left out of every major decision making committee and priesthood responsibility when in the very early days they weren’t. They are treated poorly, because they are treated as second class. Especially considering that every church meeting and church function could go on without a single woman present or involved. Not one of them can go on without men.
I respect your belief on the atonement being able to heal those that have suffered. I like that idea, but I feel like we have a responsibility to each other as people. Let us let the atonement be a comfort and healing tool, not an excuse to be complacent toward injustices and harms caused to other people.
It is not clear that the eternal blessings of women are not limited, but getting into this topic would be another several week debate on it’s own. The temple ceremony itself is very unclear, and very one sided. It definitely does not clear things up or espouse equality, or even the divine potential of women. If you wish, we can go further into discussion with that, but I’d wager we likely won’t see eye to eye on it. Suffice it to say, it’s not been made clear, there is still a lot of room for understanding to be had there.
Homosexuality is a sensitive subject. It is one where I will admit up front that I am very much opposed to the church’s view on it, and very much condemn the harm their teachings have caused (of which I have seen firsthand, and with much regret have been a part of perpetrating in the past), and continue to cause this group of people. The term “homosexual behavior” seems so simple to understand, yet it is full of misunderstanding. “Homosexual behavior” will be punished for example. So it is justice for a person to be punished for loving somebody so much they would give their life for them? They should be punished for their behavior spending every day with an ailing partner. Watching them die, but never leaving their side? They should be punished for standing by a loved one and weathering the storm of ridicule, violence, disrespect and insults of inferiority that are constantly tossed at them by a society that claims to “love them” just not their “sin”? They should be punished for the behavior of adopting children that otherwise wouldn’t have families, and loving them as unconditionally as humanly possible. Providing for them, and finding such great familial joy as they go through the ups and downs of what it is to be parents, and a family? If we stop for even a moment to look at the implications we place with our words we will see that “homosexual behavior” in reality is just like “heterosexual behavior”.
Now I know that is probably not what you meant, and were more likely referring to the law of chastity. This is a very small part of being gay, just like it’s a small part of being straight. Gay and straight people seek the same things. Love, life, acceptance, and happiness. That is the majority of what it is to be alive, and be human. To be children of God if you will. We are born the same in so many ways, we just happen to be born different in this one way.
We take double standards up a notch when it comes to gay people in that regard. Does a straight couple have to repent, or will they be disfellowshipped for kissing or holding hands before marriage, or going on a date? No. A gay person/couple could be. This one is blunt without going into detail, and I do not mean to make you or anybody uncomfortable, but if a straight couple is married and they engage in certain sex acts that are often attributed to homosexuality, must they repent? No. Yet we treat this as such shameful and vile behavior between couples of the same sex, and of course recognize it as always going to be sin because we won’t recognize their marriages or allow them to be married.
None of this is analogous to adultery and fornication. We aren’t born adulterers. We aren’t born fornicators. Those are things we actively choose to do. We don’t actively choose to be attracted to a certain gender. These things cannot be compared, or tossed in the same boat. Adultery is adultery whether it’s a straight person cheating, or a gay person cheating. It’s not “gay adultery.” It’s not different, and it causes the same harm regardless of the couple. Causes the same mistrust, the same hurt from betrayal, so it’s easy to see why adultery is very much discouraged. And sure, we choose how we act, being gay isn’t a choice or even an act though. Again, we don’t choose to be straight, or gay any more than we choose to be male or female etc. Being gay is not a weakness, or a strength for that matter. It’s just a part of what some people are, and until we can stop treating it as weakness to be overcome we will continue harming people with such ignorance.
I respect your belief about the atonement. I respect your statement about commandments at the end there. I am actually fine with that. I am not fine with commandments being brought forth by a man claiming they are from a loving father figure God, when that commandment inherently causes harm to others, and it is readily apparent and easy to see the harm it causes. I won’t make excuses or justifications for that teaching, no matter the authority or mantle of the teacher. I don’t see the value in waiting for the next life to be better for people. I hope it is, but as I carry that hope I will seek for the lives of people to be better here also, because life in all it’s joy and sorrow just seems like too beautiful of a gift to let go to waste waiting around for what (if anything) is next.
What's most troubling about Volluz’s blog piece here is that it goes far beyond President Kimball's purported concern about wanting "to protect the church against being misunderstood as …espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality," as reported by his son and biographer, Edward Kimball. Volluz generously imputes explosive reactions to President Kimball that are not credibly supported at all (e.g., a figurative “bomb itself went off in President Spencer W. Kimball’s office;” Pres. Kimball was “exercised at the content of the speech;” “Pres. Kimball “was none too pleased about it;” etc.).
D. Michael Quinn’s narrative about Elder Benson supposedly be called on the carpet in Pres. Kimball’s office in a meeting of all GA’s to explain himself is extremely unreliable. Quinn’s largely discredited book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,” was published after his resignation in 1988 and excommunication in 1993 as one of the “September six.” To slightly alter and paraphrase something Elder Maxwell said about trustworthy sourcing, if you want to know more about Peter, one of the original apostles and President of the Church in the meridian of time, you wouldn’t ask Judas. My experience is that progressives find Quinn’s (and, e.g., Fawn Brodies’ ) stuff more believable than anything some of the prophets write (e.g., Pres. Packer, Elder Oaks, Pres. Benson, etc.). Get your head wrapped around that.
The author also all too frequently presents his opinions and conclusions (conveniently juxtaposed to Pres. Kimball’s concern, at least as reported by his biographer) as fact (e.g., “Elder Benson had presented a false depiction of the true nature of prophets”)! Who is being deceptive, Elder Benson, or Volluz?
As if all of the above isn’t enough, Volluz (and other progressive bloggers who have written on the issue with the same disrespectful, derisive, and flippant tone) have the temerity to suggest that the only reason the bulk of Pres. Benson’s 14 fundamentals’ talk continues to be re-taught over the pulpit at GC and re-published and circulated in official church publications (including the new RS and Melch. Priesthood manuals this year) is because Pres. Kimball didn’t formally repudiate it. Seriously? He’s chalking it up to an oversight 35 years and 4 prophets later? Not even remotely likely brother, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Well….there was thats light oversight for a few 130+ years where the prophets taught erroneously on blacks….only to have that entire doctrine and teaching tossed out and run over by a bus….but that’s probably the only oversight that has ever happened in the church. There’s no way another oversight could have ever happened since these men are so inspired to never make mistakes.
What's most troubling about Volluz’s blog piece here is that it goes far beyond President Kimball's purported concern about wanting "to protect the church against being misunderstood as …espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality," as reported by his son and biographer, Edward Kimball. Volluz generously imputes explosive reactions to President Kimball that are not credibly supported at all (e.g., a figurative “bomb itself went off in President Spencer W. Kimball’s office;” Pres. Kimball was “exercised at the content of the speech;” “Pres. Kimball “was none too pleased about it;” etc.).
D. Michael Quinn’s narrative about Elder Benson supposedly be called on the carpet in Pres. Kimball’s office in a meeting of all GA’s to explain himself is extremely unreliable. Quinn’s largely discredited book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,” was published after his resignation in 1988 and excommunication in 1993 as one of the “September six.” To slightly alter and paraphrase something Elder Maxwell said about trustworthy sourcing, if you want to know more about Peter, one of the original apostles and President of the Church in the meridian of time, you wouldn’t ask Judas. My experience is that progressives find Quinn’s (and, e.g., Fawn Brodies’ ) stuff more believable than anything some of the prophets write (e.g., Pres. Packer, Elder Oaks, Pres. Benson, etc.). Get your head wrapped around that.
The author also all too frequently presents his opinions and conclusions (conveniently juxtaposed to Pres. Kimball’s concern, at least as reported by his biographer) as fact (e.g., “Elder Benson had presented a false depiction of the true nature of prophets”)! Who is being deceptive, Elder Benson, or Volluz?
As if all of the above isn’t enough, Volluz (and other progressive bloggers who have written on the issue with the same disrespectful, derisive, and flippant tone) have the temerity to suggest that the only reason the bulk of Pres. Benson’s 14 fundamentals’ talk continues to be re-taught over the pulpit at GC and re-published and circulated in official church publications (including the new RS and Melch. Priesthood manuals this year) is because Pres. Kimball didn’t formally repudiate it. Seriously? He’s chalking it up to an oversight 35 years and 4 prophets later? Not even remotely likely brother, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
What's most troubling about Volluz’s blog piece here is that it goes far beyond President Kimball's purported concern about wanting "to protect the church against being misunderstood as …espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality," as reported by his son and biographer, Edward Kimball. Volluz generously imputes explosive reactions to President Kimball that are not credibly supported at all (e.g., a figurative “bomb itself went off in President Spencer W. Kimball’s office;” Pres. Kimball was “exercised at the content of the speech;” “Pres. Kimball “was none too pleased about it;” etc.).
D. Michael Quinn’s narrative about Elder Benson supposedly be called on the carpet in Pres. Kimball’s office in a meeting of all GA’s to explain himself is extremely unreliable. Quinn’s largely discredited book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,” was published after his resignation in 1988 and excommunication in 1993 as one of the “September six.” To slightly alter and paraphrase something Elder Maxwell said about trustworthy sourcing, if you want to know more about Peter, one of the original apostles and President of the Church in the meridian of time, you wouldn’t ask Judas. My experience is that progressives find Quinn’s (and, e.g., Fawn Brodies’ ) stuff more believable than anything some of the prophets write (e.g., Pres. Packer, Elder Oaks, Pres. Benson, etc.). Get your head wrapped around that.
The author also all too frequently presents his opinions and conclusions (conveniently juxtaposed to Pres. Kimball’s concern, at least as reported by his biographer) as fact (e.g., “Elder Benson had presented a false depiction of the true nature of prophets”)! Who is being deceptive, Elder Benson, or Volluz?
As if all of the above isn’t enough, Volluz (and other progressive bloggers who have written on the issue with the same disrespectful, derisive, and flippant tone) have the temerity to suggest that the only reason the bulk of Pres. Benson’s 14 fundamentals’ talk continues to be re-taught over the pulpit at GC and re-published and circulated in official church publications (including the new RS and Melch. Priesthood manuals this year) is because Pres. Kimball didn’t formally repudiate it. Seriously? He’s chalking it up to an oversight 35 years and 4 prophets later? Not even remotely likely brother, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
What a long and interesting thread. My takeaway from all this is that even among general authorities that there are disagreements, but the policy is to keep them hidden. In “David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism we can read the account of Bruce McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine” being criticized by several general authorities, and McConkie either advised or directed not to republish it. Yet years later it was republished. The book about President McKay also discusses general authorities disagreeing with then Elder Benson’s promotion of the John Birch Society. Yet another biography of Benson totally disregards this. I think the policy to not make public disagreements among the apostles and prophet can cause misunderstandings in the church and give rise to intrigues. We read in the New Testament of disagreements between apostles, specifically Paul and Peter. The openness is refreshing, and enlightening. For me, Bro. Volluz’s essay, and the ensuing discussion, points out that keeping disagreement under wraps may cause misunderstanding, even as it tries to avoid it.
I think that was brilliantly put, Deacon Blues!
Indeed, the policy of trying to avoid misunderstanding by keeping disagreement under wraps ends up causing it.
Well said!
I can prove you wrong in one word–Tambuli.
If the editors of the manual don’t know about the controversy surrounding this talk–why do they cite to the Tambuli magazine?
It is the only time in the entire manual that they cite to Tambuli, as I demonstrate in a comment above.
A reasonable person might think they were trying to hide something . . .
Dusty, I appreciate the respectful tone of the last post. Hopefully we are coming to understand one another better, even if we aren’t changing our opinions.
Let me start by saying that I agree completely with your statement, “Let us let the atonement be a comfort and healing tool, not an excuse to be complacent toward injustices and harms caused to other people.” Our difference is in what we see as injustice and harm and who is causing it or what needs to be done to correct it.
In regards to women’s eternal blessings not being limited, I thought it was clear because they are promised exaltation with the same conditions men are. I guess it is never safe to say something is clear 🙂
Yes when I said homosexual behavior I was referring to sexual relationships. Many of the qualities you mentioned I consider exemplary human behavior whether between friends, neighbors, spouses, or homosexual partners. I agree that attraction to the same sex or the opposite sex is not a sin.
The primary issue with sexual sins is not what act is performed, but who performed the act and when. If I am a single man and have sexual relations with a man or a women, both are a sin. If I am a married man and I have sexual relations with a man or a woman that is not my spouse, it is a sin. It doesn’t matter whether I really love the other person or not. It doesn’t whether I feel more attracted to men or women. Either way it is a sin.
As an unmarried man or a married man, gay or straight, I have to learn to control my passions. Even between a husband and wife I need to be considerate and respectful and loving with my spouse and think of her first before my own sexual gratification.
Yes the church teaches that people attracted to the same gender should never have sex with someone of the same gender. I argue that expectation is the same for people who are attracted to the opposite gender but for whatever reason do not marry in their mortal life. The majority of the people in that situation are likely not there because of same gender attraction.
As you said, sex is a small part of life and there are people who live happy fulfilling lives without ever having sex. In fact, I would argue for those who never have sex in this life, the primary regret is not the lack of the physical sexual experience, but the lack of children. But sex with the same gender does nothing to change the loss of children.
I am not trying to say that life without sex is the ideal. On the contrary, I think Christ expressed the ideal very well, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt 19:4-6)
You are saying that the prophets are harming people who have same gender attraction by teaching that sexual relations between same genders is a sin. I believe prophets are showing their love and the love of God by warning people away from actions that will not bring eternal happiness. I understand that for people with same gender attraction these warnings can be frustrating, painful, and depressing but that doesn’t mean true principles shouldn’t be taught. For those who believe these commandments are from God, it would be like saying we shouldn’t warn about the dangers of driving under the influence because it will make people who drink beer feel guilty. Or maybe a closer comparison, it would be like saying we shouldn’t warn about the dangers of obesity because it hurst people.
I understand and share your concern and love for people with same gender attraction, but I don’t understand your basis for believing the Old Testament, New Testament, and modern prophets are are all teaching lies. If you don’t believe the Bible teaches against homosexuality, you may be interested in an article I wrote last year. http://currenteventreality.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html
Your last comment was, “…life in all it’s joy and sorrow just seems like too beautiful of a gift to let go to waste waiting around for what (if anything) is next.” I agree with this also. I am not advocating people with same gender attraction just waste their life waiting around for the next life. I don’t think the prophets are either. There is so much good that can be done in this life. There are so many ways to serve and help and love one another. Worldly wisdom teaches people with same gender attraction to define themselves as gay – to make that their primary identity. God teaches us to define ourselves as His children, and to identify as beings with divine potential, and to spend our lives in the service of others. We can do that whether we are attracted to the same gender or the opposite gender.
And yet, the very points you claim Kimball denounces appeared in the June 1981 Ensign Magazine for all the world to see. Huh? And it appears as the First Presidency Message, at that. And Benson was not a member of the First Presidency, but the President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. It was thought highly enough of that the First Presidency refrained from publishing their normal article and published this instead. I don't understand.
Kelly Knight: I just read the First Presidency Message from June 1981. What I read had nothing to do with "following the prophet," rather it was about sacrifice. Can you point out the message you refer to in your comment?
Just leaving a brief comment to explain the situation, which was mentioned quite a few comments above and some time ago.
Elder Benson’s talk did not appear as the First Presidency Message in the June 1981 Ensign. That was actually given by a member of the First Presidency.
Rather, Elder Benson’s talk appeared as the First Presidency Message in the June 1981 Liahona/Tambuli, a foreign language Church publication.
I write at some length in a comment above as to how it may have been Elder Benson pulled off this particular coup-de-tat.
Fantastic article. I find something innovative in a bunch of sites each day. It will always be rousing to find out subject material out of different consultants plus understand a tad there. I choose to make use of a number of this post in my own , personal weblog if you ever don thought process. Natually Il offer a great attribution to the web-site. Thanks a ton pertaining to spreading.
Corbin,
thank you. Things finally culminated at the end of June 2015 with a Larsen-style double excommunication before the high council for my husband and I.
Our main offense was our beliefs differing significantly from the “doctrine of the church”. Not the doctrine of the scriptures, for they had no rebuttals for our very straightforward, scriptural answers to their questions. At this point, differing in the doctrine of the church is almost a badge of honor, although it still breaks my heart that that’s the case.
The Mormon version of Kristallnacht continues.
Forget following the prophet! Follow Corbin Volluz he knows the way!
I read this article and agree with pretty much all of it.
One thing I think worth adding is the extent to which this can go to.
John D. Lee who was excommunicated (and executed) for the mountain meadows massacre, basically said this: my church leaders commanded me to carry out the attack on the wagon train and to make it look like the Indians (er um Native Americans or whatever the pc term is these days) carried it all out. (That’s the history simplified, basically the oath of vengeance from the temple which BY added to the endowment made required patrons to pray for vengeance against those who killed the prophets, and to teach their kids to do the same thing. Then Brigham Young said strong words from the pulpit, like they would kill any wagon train that attacked them and the federal government if they invaded Utah, and that he would would be blessed for it. According to his deathbed confession to his lawyer, he said that his church leaders said he’d be blessed for it). (http://www.salamandersociety.com/library/the_life_and_confessions_of_the_late_mormon_bishop_john_d_lee_or_mormonism_unveiled-john_d_lee.pdf)
Then one of the people in the wagon train ran his mouth off and said something to the effect of he shot Joseph Smith, or his gun was the one that shot him. The local stake president and militia leaders said they needed to kill them for it, and asked Lee to be in charge of it, and told him he’d receive celestial glory for obeying.
They also sent a message to Brigham Young to make sure what they were doing was right.
Well those he was to have carry it out screwed it up, and so he went with a couple more people (I believe his stake president IIRC, and another guy) went and ‘cleaned up’ by executing any remaining adults in the train.
Then after the massacre they got the reply from Brigham Young to let them live.
All of this being said, does anyone actually believe John D Lee was blessed for what he did? I can’t answer for anyone else, but it’s a question that’s worth pondering, since salvation could depend on it.
2 Ne 28:31:
“Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.”