With Elder Nelson’s recent reconfirmation of the Church’s exclusion policy,1 I hear a lot of members defending it by saying, “The prophet will never lead the Church astray.” Let’s take a look at that argument.
“The prophet will never lead us astray.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because a prophet said it.”
“How do you know the prophet is right?”
“Because the prophet will never lead us astray.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because a prophet said it.”
“How do you know the prophet is right?”
“Because the prophet will never lead us astray.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because a prophet said it.”
“How do you know the prophet is right?”
“Because the prophet will never lead us astray.”
If the prophet will never lead us astray, why did President Uchtdorf say:
“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.” 2
Why do we have free agency if that agency always leads us to the pre-determined conclusion that what the prophet says is always right? Do we really have the freedom to choose, when the choice has already been chosen for us?
And what purpose does the Holy Spirit have if his only job is to confirm that what the prophet says is always right? Do we really need a confirmation of something that needs no confirming? Wait. Let me confirm that.
Never mind.
My head hurts.
________________________________
Notes:
1 If you are unaware of Elder Nelson’s comments, click here to read.
2 October 2013 General Conference. Click here to read entire talk.
Miguel Barker-Valdez
Miguel is a Guatemalan-American Mormon living in the Northwest with his family. He is one of the proprietors of the Rational Faiths blog.
All posts by Miguel Barker-Valdez
I just last night pointed how this topic reminds me me of the advertisement from Allstate insurance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_CgPsGY5Mw ). If you don’t want to watch it, a girl says, “You can’t put something wrong on the Internet” and the guy asks where she heard that. She replies, “The Internet.” Replace “Internet” with “top church leaders” and it feels the same (except it doesn’t make me chuckle like the ad does).
Let me say that I don’t want to “bash” church leaders. The absolute majority are giving quite a bit of their time in trying to help others. We should carefully listen to what they say and get confirmation from God they are saying his words. But I also agree with Michael that we have to allow for more nuance or many more folks are going to have their testimony crumble and leave once they see that they are not ALWAYS right. I get the feeling church leaders are literally scared to death to say anything close to this for fear of causing some to leave. Elder Uchtdorf is about the only top leader that has said maybe 2 sentences to this affect. I guess they feel they have to pick their poison and it seems clear which one they are sticking with.
The rational reply is “yes” in the same sense that we were led astray by the policy excluding men of African ancestry from the Priesthood. Of that Elder McConkie wisely said, “it is a new day–forget all that, I was wrong.” If he was wrong, so were all those who followed him in error. Surely everyone would agree then that we were led astray.
Sure, prophets can be wrong. But only dead ones, apparently.
I wonder which version of the policy God Himself personally revealed: the original, harsher policy (barring ALL children with a parent in SSM from baptism) or the softer, ‘clarified’ policy (barring children from baptism ONLY if their PRIMARY residence is with the SSM parent).
If policy version #1 was God’s will, why did He allow man to soften it? And if policy version #2 was God’s will, why didn’t He reveal it that way in the first place?
I read the Book of Mormon and had burning in my bosom. Therefore I know the policy is true.
This guy would arguably qualify as a classic Dunning-Kruger candidate… strong frequencies flowing here.
The other concern that I have (sorry if this is a threadjack) is: is God in the habit of giving revelation that only a few select members of His Church are priveliged to read? Because remember, this new policy was never intended to be public knowledge… it was *leaked*. It’s included in Handbook I, which is off-limits to the majority of Church members, even ones who pay tithing and hold a TR. (I believe that it was The Exponent who figured out that in a church of 15 million people, around 100,000 have official access to CHI vol. 1, and around 9 of those people are women.)
In the scriptures, does God give revelation to His prophet, and then command them to publish it in a manual which is supposed to be a closely guarded secret? Or does He want His words to be shared proudly with all the world?
The phrase ‘the Prophet will never lead the Church astray’ strikes me as relying on the arm of flesh – because we haven’t developed our own relationship with our Saviour. We are ‘following the prophet’ not Christ.
And, just for fun, why would God give a provision for removing a president of the high priesthood, if he can never lead us astray and never need to be removed?
D&C 107
81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.
82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.
Joni,
That’s really the heart of the problem. If God really revealed the unpublished policy in the original form (which was very broad in its scope by explicitly applying to all children of a parent living in gay relationship, whether or not the child was living with that parent, as well as not allowing any discretion in its application to any child under 18 regardless of his/her advancement), then why the hurried partial “clarification” by Christofferson’s video, and the ultimate written “clarification” after the public outcry? In other words, it appears the brethren had not thought through all the “permutations” prior to instituting the written policy. Or a God is more indecisive than previously thought.
You conclude the article by stating your head hurts. The reason your head hurts is because you’re again straining at gnats in order to create a controversy where none exists. No one has ever argued that prophets are perfect. Any rationale thinking mormon agrees that prophets are imperfect and will make many mistakes along life’s path; yet that doesn’t mean we can’t rely on them to not lead us astray. In an admittedly weak analogy, most good parents won’t lead their families astray yet they’ll make plenty of mistakes in their day-to-day life.
Michael, I’m not trying to be rude, but your post is just so nit-picky. You’re creating controversy where none exists. If you were to ask Uchtdorf if his statement (that church leaders have made mistakes) contradicts the representation that “prophets will not lead us astray” he would most assuredly answer ‘no’.
I think you just need to find a different church — when where you’re in charge and can call the shots; otherwise you’ll just continue to criticize everyone and everything that’s done that doesn’t jive with your spiritual, social, or political mindset.
A couple of quotes that seem fitting for this conversation:
•Criticism is the manure in which God’s servants grow best. Bishop Stephen Neill
•Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson
•Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Ambrose Bierce
•I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. Galileo Galilei
As I have studied how many other faith traditions come to a knowledge of truth, it is through dialogue and prayer. What you consider criticism in this article, is simply the use of reason in trying to understand the background of this new policy. This is especially important on subjects like this because of the harm created by policies such as this one enacted on our LGBT brothers and sisters.
It’s interesting that church members will say prophets aren’t perfect and they make mistakes. I would like for the church to own one specific mistake from a leader in the last 150 years. Joseph Smith was pretty open about his shortcomings and the lost 116 pages seem to be a mistake. Outside of him, I can’t think of an example in which the church owns a leader’s specific mistake. It’s much easier to keep it general, like “prophets are human, they make mistakes”. I think the reason for this is if you can identify something as a mistake, it begs the question, “What are they saying now that could be later identified as a mistake?” Once you realize prophets were wrong you open the possibility that prophets can be wrong now, which is unacceptable and really threatening to the church. I think polygamy and the priesthood and temple bans are clear mistakes. I think the current stance on gay marriage is a mistake.
Prophets receive revelation from God for the time that it's given. Maybe you all have the insight to see into the future and be certain that this will be something God changes His mind on. I'm comfortable saying I don't have that insight.
Do I understand/agree with the policy change? No. Am I going to follow God regardless? Yes. However, I'm not a blind follower, or senseless in any other fashion as some may suggest. I see very clearly what is happening, and I am frustrated. I'm frustrated with my lack of understanding/acceptance – and the lack of belief that others display so forwardly in public view. As if chastising God or his revelatory leaders has ever been a wise thing to do.
One of the things that has always set the church apart from a great portion of the rest of the world’s religions is that we believe in modern day revelation. We believe in a “living gospel.” We believe in prophets, seers and revelators. God does not run a democratic society in our view. Like it or not, with respect to His kingdom – God is a theocratic totalitarian. He allows us to have our free agency and choose what we want to follow. He asks though, that if we want to return to live with him, that we accept His will, and His way. Perhaps this too is something you all have insight into… perhaps you know that this will change in the future. I don’t know this, and I can’t fathom that this is something He would change because according to all the information we have – he’s run things this way since the beginning of recorded time.
I would ask those that are finding it so difficult to accept church teachings, policy, beliefs, doctrine and practices to question inwardly if they really believe that God leads this church. Do you believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost? Do you believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth? Do you believe that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God?
Do you trust that he reestablished His church on earth, that it exists today and is led by men and women (imperfect as they may be) which he has called to their positions? Do you believe that God would remove them in one way or another if they were leading members of the church, followers of Christ and believers in God away from the truth that would bring us back to God’s kingdom?
Try to really think about what it means to believe, to trust and to honor. If we honestly believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-saints is the restored Christian church of old… then we must believe that it is led by the Lord, and our Savior. With God being so strict in His word about how we must act and who we must be in order to return to live with Him – it doesn’t make sense that he would allow the leaders of His truly restored church to lead us down the wrong path.
Question, pray for answers, be hurt and empathetic, be frustrated, yell at the Lord if you have to… but don’t belittle him and those he’s called if you truly believe Him – Especially publically where He already has enough criticism from those that don’t believe in Him in any context.
And if they do not like what a prior prophet said then the excuse is that he was just speaking as a man. That philosophy puts everything in question.
We all have the Spirit which teaches us what is right and what is wrong. This is what I have to say in regards to this policy: "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." 40 years from now, I firmly believe the church will be using a similar statement in regards to homophobia.
Comment
MW,
But the brethren claim that they did think through the permutations.
Just an FYI – I'm a practicing Mormon, and I don't use that excuse.
Kamis Dewey It's quite possible. Hopefully people that struggle with their testimonies now will stick around long enough to see that day.
Michael Burr,
Well said Michael Burr. Comment
This brain imaging research study shows why we should be skeptical of claims that a god speaks to people:
The church already condemns homophobia. We are to love God and our neighbors, but we don't have to agree with them and often times we shouldn't agree with them. We should however agree with God and he has spoken on the matter. The policy that was put in place is to make sure that children have a better chance at being raised in a righteous home and taught correct principles in order to be baptized, otherwise the sin is on the parent.
I understand the comparison to racism, but it is an overused excuse. The fundamentals of the gospel and entire Plan of Salvation rests on overcoming sin and becoming eternal families and one cannot achieve that without Christ and being united as man and woman. So as much as everyone wants to continue believing that the Lord will change and move on the matter, it isn't going to happen especially when it comes to eternal laws which were estabished before the world was. You can question the validity of the church all you want, but as far as I'm concerned that should only happen when the church responds in favor of sin…
Christopher,
I for one feel like it is VERY much the same as the race issue. It comes down to, “Can the prophet error?” as they did with the temple and priesthood ban. To me it is crystal clear and as I have studied issues like that I concluded long ago that I will need to (in fact the Lord requires me to) follow him by the voice he has given inside of me. Otherwise I am leaning on the weak arm of someone else’s flesh. If my flesh is wrong, I will have to ask God why I wasn’t able to hear him as he knows in my heart I was trying. I can’t feel comfortable meeting my savior and not standing for those that need in comfort. Maybe I am misguided, but can you understand that motivation?
Thank you…I agree with all you have said. Obedience is the first law of the Gospel.
I always thought that the first law of the gospel was love.
Margaret, I also was taught, “Obedience is the first law of Heaven” (not “of the Gospel”, but we are splitting hairs).
But when I looked into it, it seems to me this was used to try and get the saints to stop practicing polygamy after the first maifesto.
I don’t hear Christ saying this as a key part of his Gospel when I read it. But in Mormondom we have turned it into THE most single marker of “faith” while I see some (not you Margaret) using that to beat others over the head. That does not seem Christ like.
I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
BB – comment of the year, right here. Maybe comment of the millennium. Maybe even – dare I say it – comment of the dispensation.
so when Brigham Young chose slavery for the Utah territory are you saying that was the right revelation for that time? I would think that slavery was never right for any time.
The OP FTW.
Thanks for the post. That is very interesting.
Matthew
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Wes Miller – it was an unfortunate practice that occurred at the time. To be honest, it was so prevalent at the time, that I doubt Brigham Young even consulted what God thought on the issue. In my opinion this is actually part of the reason that it took so long for Black men to receive the priesthood. The prophets didn't consult with God on the issue. Slavery, segregation, all things of the sort were practiced by the majority of white Americans at the time, that is not an excuse for anyone's behavior – but it does explain why the practice permeated religious borders… heck even race borders. There were black people that owned black slaves. It was a tainted part of American history, and as a result it’s a tainted part of religious history.
Would it have been great if the church led the abolishment movement? Of course! Unfortunately, we didn’t and it’s now a mark that we have to live with. The short answer to your question is, no one said Brigham Young “received revelation” to “choose slavery” for the Utah territory.
I agree with what you said Michael. But Brigham Young did not stop there. He dictated that anybody that was in a mixed marriage should have a javelin to the heart.
If he as the leader of the church could go around and say stuff like that, then why are some people getting in such hot water over just saying, “I really don’t think that last policy change is what God is telling us we should do.”
Comment
Christopher Saunders,
One of the lessons that my father always pounded in my head was, “Your actions speak louder than your words.” I hear your post that, “The church already condemns homophobia.” However, for most of us who have gay family members and friends and have experienced their generous hearts, this new policy cannot be seen in any other light than homophobic.
This policy is harmful to our gay brothers and sisters and does not recognize the worth of their souls. I can only say, “An enemy is someone whose story we don’t know.” Jewish Proverb
I don't speak for God or even for the LDS church but I know that there is a God. And I know that He does not lie and that He has said that He, personally, will never allow us to be led astray. President Nelson's address was all about learning for ourselves not only how God feels about us individually but that we can ask him questions directly and receive answers for ourselves. The answers don't come right away. It takes work. It takes nights of prayer and seeking and reading God's word and being still to listen for His voice. President Nelson promised that if we ask God He will tell us that President Monson is His prophet and that President Monson does speak the mind and will of God–then we can ask God about specific things that President Monson (or President Nelson) has said. And God will answer us. He will confirm to us that truth.
I know that God is a God of truth. I trust Him implicitly. I know that he speaks to us today because I have felt His spirit in very sacred and specific experiences I have had in prayers and throughout my life. I also know that when God speaks to His prophet and the Prophet tells us what is God's will we are to use our agency–not to decide whether what the prophet says is true (if you ask God, He will tell you it is true)but whether or not you will take the Prophet (or apostles acting in their calling as apostles) at his word and do it.
I promise any of you who read this that if you take President Nelson at his word and you pray with real intent desiring to know how God feels about you and why you are here, if you pray about the prophet and the things he has told us that God wants us to know and do OVER TIME, as president Nelson said, through our struggles to know and be intune with God we will know for ourselves that God lives and that He loves us and exactly how He feels about us and our role on this earth and what His living prophet has said.
You don't have to take me at my word. Take God at his.
He lives. I know this to be true. You can too. Regardless of what the voices of the world say. Regardless of what is popular.
Courtney says “I know God is a God of truth. I trust Him implicitly.”
I believe in a God of Truth. Can a God of Truth tell his prophets to lie or use “carefully worded denials”? Ponder if your implicit trust is placed in a God of Truth, or “the arm of flesh”.
Courtney,
I also know that God does not lie. I also trust God and feel he speaks to us.
But on some other areas you so nicely described, I can’t say we are in sync.
What do you say for people that have been praying for almost their entire lives to be free of same sex attraction, but feel that God is telling them this is how he created them? What about the parents that have prayed for most of their lives to understand what God’s will is for their gay child, but feel after all that prayer that gayness is not a sin against God?
I go back to the priesthood and temple ban on blacks. There were members that had prayed and studied the issue for decades and still felt it was wrong. I recall even the nephew of Elder McConkie and Elder Wirthlin felt the same way. He said he prayed and was clearly told, “You are correct, it is wrong and it will be corrected.” I can’t help but feel we could be in the same situation now.
I don’t need to be yelling and call names of anybody, but am I to stand for what I feel God telling me, or for what the current church leaders are saying? When I die and don’t think I am going to be called to the judgement bar of President Monson. I will be called before the judgement bar of Christ. So I am sticking to that until I get a change from what it seems he is telling me now.
As a gay man in a (successful) mixed orientation marriage, I would just like to throw out there that I gave up trying to pray the gay away along time ago. I also don’t advocate for or against mixed orientation marriage. We need to teach our youth (and adults for that matter) the principle of personal revelation and then not burden them with extreme institutional pressure to go hetero or homo. This goes just as much for society as the church. Society wants to be so accepting (a good thing) that sometimes it may unwittingly pressure people to accept their LGBT-ness when in fact they are just Q. Give them space to question. Support them in their questioning.
I was wondering when your next dyspeptic rant would come forth. One shouldn't hold one's blue bilgewater in one's gut too long. I'm sure this is extremely therapeutic. For your next offering, I suggest a joust with Sir John Polkinghorne and the higgs boson. Your scope is exceedingly narrow. Is there a God Particle?
Kay Hinckley,
Wow, Kay. You’ve sure let Michael Barker get under your skin: what he thinks matters to you so deeply that you not only keep track of what he writes, you comment and offer suggestions for what he should write next! I guess you speak from experience when you note that “one shouldn’t hold one’s blue bilgewater in one’s gut too long” and that’s why you offered your own “dyspeptic rant.” For your next crazy comment, maybe you should tell everyone concerned with illogic in the LDS church and its effects on its members that those are dumb things to care about and suggest everyone “get a life.” After all, nothing conveys your contempt for a topic or a blog like paying a lot of attention to it.