Screed on Infallibility

[Sleeping in EQ]

It never ceases to amaze that people don't actually read the scriptures. I'm going to list just a few sources of my POV that a Church member can reject the insinuations that everything that is spoken or written by a Church leader must be agreed with (including the recent California memo). These are the sorts of passages and quotes that zealots habitually ignore, but frankly, I think that we as a Church should pay more attention to them.

If the Church wants someone opposed to the California memo to take it more seriously, they know what to do. Follow the scriptures. This would mean ceasing to try to push people around with a memo and putting a document forward to the voice of the people as revelation for the Church to be canonized. If this issue is as important as the memo declares, then there should be a willingness to do this. In my view, the bureaucratic mentality has gotten way out of hand. Memos are taken as revelation. The people are subject to a Handbook of Instructions that they do not have free and unfettered access to, let alone any meaningful input regarding. Common Consent has become a meaningless Communist Party vote, with sychophants and toadies feeling justified in trying to declare "settled doctrines" as they go about imposing their views on others. And all of this in the name of convenience for leaders.

I offer the following scriptures and quotes as food for thought. I've offered others at other times, but these may be "new" to some:

Deut. 18:21-22:

"You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?" If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it." (NRSV)

D&C 107: 81-84:

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.

D&C 26:2
2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

D&C 28:13
13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

And then from some Church leaders:

Brigham Young, May 8, 1854:

"I have known many times that I have preached [w]rong but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of the people and I believe he always did drop the [veil] over it."

Orson Hyde (on the occasion of Sidney Rigdon's proposed guardianship):

"There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us the plan, says he, when all the quorums are assembled and organized in order, if it pass one let it go to another, and if it pass that, to another, and so on until it has passed all the quorums; and if it pass the whole without running against a snag, then says he, it wants enquiring into: you must see to it. It is known to some who are present that there is a quorum organized where revelation can be tested. Brother Joseph said, let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested here. Now I would ask, did Elder Rigdon call the quorum together and there lay his revelation before it, to have it tested? No, he did not wait to call the quorum; neither did he call the authorities together that were here. He endeavored to ensnare the people and lure their minds by his flowery eloquence; but the plan was defeated. The voice of the people was in favor of sustaining the Twelve to be their leaders....When any man comes here with a revelation purporting to be from God, we feel duty bound to question its validity. This is a kind of furnace to prove all things, and Elder Rigdon don't like to come into the furnace." [emphasis mine]

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."

The source of the undoctrinal notion that Church leaders do our thinking for us: the Ward Teachers Message of June 1945:

"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."


And President George Albert Smith's reaction to the Ward Teachers Message of June 1945:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah

December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope
First Unitarian Society
13th East at 6th South Street
Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:
I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me. 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 Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof. On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.
In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be,
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

I am right with you.

The DOCTRINE of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is no coercion and only gentleness kindness and longsuffering in persuasion with no institutional sanction for independent thought.

The POLICY of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands in contrast to the scriptures. It is well stated in this month's First Presidency Message:

So the purpose of the prophet is what?

[Sleeping in EQ]

There is a clear procedure, outlined in scripture, that says what should be done to make something authoritative for the Church. If you believe scriptures such as D&C 20:63-66, 26:2, 28:13, 38:34, 104:21, the burden of inspired governance of the Church is hefted as much by the collective membership as by the leadership.

My position is strong and very consistent with being a faithful Church member. It's found in scripture and is backed up by Church leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith. If a modern prophet wants something to have the weight of scripture, the weight of the standard works, he has to present it for the voice of the people. Anything else weighs less than scripture.

I found this ditty in my files too:

George Q. Cannon, Oct. 19, 1891:

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.
Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think we confuse the terms "prophet" and "President of the Church".

Nibley was every bit the prophet ETB was. I can be a prophet, and have been on occasion. You can be a prophet too. Anyone who speaks by the Spirit is a prophet. Samuel the Lamanite was a prophet--so poorly thought of by the church in his day that they didn't even include his sayings in the records and had to be told to do so by Christ. A prophet has no requirement of position in the church.

The President of the Church leads the Church, by inspiration via the Spirit, and very occasionally, by revelation via divine manifestation. He is an administrative head of a bureaucracy. This is necessary--someone has to issue the mission calls and coordinate the ad campaign and write the checks for the property tax on the Temple. Someone has to decide where to put the new girls camp site and maintain the records of ordinances.

But, I firmly believe, and I believe it was taught by Joseph Smith and is taught in the scriptures, that the President of the Church is not a calling for a more holy or more noble man than other men. It is not a position which grants the holder the right to receive revelation for me outside my church callings.

So if Pres. Monson issues a call for me and my quorum to walk back to MO to build Zion, I start marching. He would be leading the Church within his right as President. I would seek my own confirmation, but would be strongly inclined to follow.

If Pres. Monson issues a call for me to live the gospel (by teaching my children with more attention, or by avoiding addiction or by being honest) I listen in the same way that I listen to any good man teaching the gospel. If Pres. Monson ever said, "The Lord told me to bring this specific message the Saints: ................." I would pay special attention. But no President of the Church as said "Thus saith the Lord" for a very very long time.

If Pres. Monson came to me and told me he had received revelation as to how to specifically raise my kids or specifically deal with my wife--I would not believe him--it isn't his stewardship. He has the right to lead the Church, not my family. If he asks for my daughter's hand in plural marriage, I tell him no and show him the door.

Most members of the Church intuitively feel this is all true and believe this and behave the way I do, but they are incredibly uncomfortable with an honest recitation of the situation. They want to pretend they will always follow the Prophet, but carve out their own lives from the Prophet's domain.

So the long answer to your question is that the purpose of a prophet is to call people to repentance and testify of Christ.

The purpose of the President of the Church is to make the trains run on time.

Confusing the two is an endemic problem.

Adam is spot on about how members articulate things versus what they actually do.

I don't recall a lot of women quitting their jobs after ETB told them to stop working and stay home.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think we confuse the terms "prophet" and "President of the Church".

Nibley was every bit the prophet ETB was. I can be a prophet, and have been on occasion. You can be a prophet too. Anyone who speaks by the Spirit is a prophet. Samuel the Lamanite was a prophet--so poorly thought of by the church in his day that they didn't even include his sayings in the records and had to be told to do so by Christ. A prophet has no requirement of position in the church.

The President of the Church leads the Church, by inspiration via the Spirit, and very occasionally, by revelation via divine manifestation. He is an administrative head of a bureaucracy. This is necessary--someone has to issue the mission calls and coordinate the ad campaign and write the checks for the property tax on the Temple. Someone has to decide where to put the new girls camp site and maintain the records of ordinances.

But, I firmly believe, and I believe it was taught by Joseph Smith and is taught in the scriptures, that the President of the Church is not a calling for a more holy or more noble man than other men. It is not a position which grants the holder the right to receive revelation for me outside my church callings.

So if Pres. Monson issues a call for me and my quorum to walk back to MO to build Zion, I start marching. He would be leading the Church within his right as President. I would seek my own confirmation, but would be strongly inclined to follow.

If Pres. Monson issues a call for me to live the gospel (by teaching my children with more attention, or by avoiding addiction or by being honest) I listen in the same way that I listen to any good man teaching the gospel. If Pres. Monson ever said, "The Lord told me to bring this specific message the Saints: ................." I would pay special attention. But no President of the Church as said "Thus saith the Lord" for a very very long time.

If Pres. Monson came to me and told me he had received revelation as to how to specifically raise my kids or specifically deal with my wife--I would not believe him--it isn't his stewardship. He has the right to lead the Church, not my family. If he asks for my daughter's hand in plural marriage, I tell him no and show him the door.

Most members of the Church intuitively feel this is all true and believe this and behave the way I do, but they are incredibly uncomfortable with an honest recitation of the situation. They want to pretend they will always follow the Prophet, but carve out their own lives from the Prophet's domain.

So the long answer to your question is that the purpose of a prophet is to call people to repentance and testify of Christ.

The purpose of the President of the Church is to make the trains run on time.

Confusing the two is an endemic problem.

Indeed. Prophet and priest are often confused as well. Women can be prophets (or "prophetesses," if you like. Deborah was both a prophetess who spoke in the voice of "Thus saith the Lord" (Judges 4:6) and a judge in Israel. Then there's Huldah and Ana, and you could probably make a case for Eliza R. Snow, sister of Lorenzo).

There's nothing sex-specific about the gift of prophecy.

[Indy Coug]

The terms "THE prophet" and "President of the Church" are not confused.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The terms "THE prophet" and "President of the Church" are not confused.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Deborah was a prophet who judged Israel and spoke "thus saith the Lord."

She wasn't a priest in the tabernacle cult, though.

Sometimes prophets have also been priests, or the presiding high priest (i.e. president), but the two have not always gone together. It's worth remembering this distinction.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The terms "THE prophet" and "President of the Church" are not confused.

By playing games with the word, he deftly avoided your question.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The terms "THE prophet" and "President of the Church" are not confused.

Rather, the common usage illustrates the confusion of the terms in the minds of the church members.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Rather, the common usage illustrates the confusion of the terms in the minds of the church members.

Which is part of what I am getting at.