Who to follow:

[RMGuy]

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question.

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

-RM

[FunkyTown]

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question.

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Trick question. Please provide examples.

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

This has been discussed. By David A. Bednar, two weeks ago here in England. Pray for confirmation. If you're told something contrary to the gospel, speak to your Bishop and Stake President about it.

[RMGuy]

FT,

Thank you for the response.

Let me address the second part of your post 1st if I may. Do we always equate the words of the prophet as synonamous with the gospel? I know that we hold fast to the concept that it is possible for a prophet to sometimes speak as a man and not as a prophet, so the general question resolves around that in some regards. Hence, what happens in a situation where the prophet tells us one thing and the spirit another? It seems that there woud be two possible explinations.

1. The individual is not in tune and is therefore recieving counsel contrary to the prophet.

2. The council of the prophet is NOT what the Lord would have for that specific individual

It is possible that some might argue that there is a 3rd possibility - That the prophet is wrong. Let's discount that one for the moment however. So dealing with only the first two explinations is 1 ALWAYS the case or is it possible that 2 exists?

Now for the first part of your post, and I'll use a scriptural example.

Nephi was instructed by the Spirit to kill Laban, and yet he was in possession of the commandment that THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Not only did Nephi have the commandment issued by an (to him) ancient prophet, but I would assume that all of his church leaders would have reinforced the commandment written by the very finger of the Lord. Yet, the Spirit directed him to do otherwise. That in no way negated the commandment for the rest of the church, or led (as far as we know) to church discipline for Nephi.

In all fairness, your advice to go to a bishop or SP and talk through the issue is a good one, but in this case Nephi did not have that luxury. He was faced with a very difficult choice. The question centers around what would you do.

-RM

[Dravin]

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Christ obviously.

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

-RM

As Funky talks about, discussing things is a good idea. Ultimately you have to go with the personal revelation you've received. Considering you talk about the prophet giving revealed council and direction I'm picturing a scenario of general council for the general audience of the Church being different than direct personal revelation on a subject.

I imagine a lot of people reading the thread are immediately conjuring up huge differences, but it can be something as simple as receiving personal confirmation that you should take the job that requires you to work on Sunday over the one that doesn't. The problem is what comes to mind is less following A over B, but simply confirmation that your situation does fall under excepting principles or situations that tend to comprise general advice.

[Blackmarch]

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question.

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

to have that happen would require to have both the prophet and Christ present... In which csase it would be christ.

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

-RM

double check.

[Guest mysticmorini]

The lord will NEVER allow the Prophet to lead the church astray

But if I knew the Lord's will contradicted what the Prophet said I would have to follow Christ. That would also mean that the Church was not true by implication.

[rameumptom]

The Church's official website explains much of this: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Basically, there are official doctrines that come from Scripture, Official Proclamations and declarations and the Articles of Faith.

There are two types of doctrine: core doctrine and ordinary doctrine. Core doctrine does not change, is necessary for salvation, and is what we base our faith upon: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, repentance, etc. Regular or ordinary doctrine includes whether the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or not (it does not affect our salvation, one way or the other).

Other teachings, such as one-offs, given by a Church leader are for us to consider. However, these are not binding upon us, unless the Holy Spirit witnesses of it to the individual, and then it is binding solely on the individual. This also applies to regular doctrine, as it is not necessary to believe concepts that may change (polygamy as necessary for exaltation, for instance).

Here are some key points from the article:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Now, if a prophet speaks as a prophet, and the teaching is supported by scripture or official proclamation, then it is the word of Christ for us - at least at that time. Another prophet may later be inspired to teach us otherwise. We should seek to gain a witness of all things, but if we have already obtained a witness that the Lord has called the person as Prophet, and we have sustained that person, then we should uphold the teaching to the best of our ability, even if it hasn't been verified by the Spirit.

BTW, Christ's teaching and the living prophet's teaching will not differ. The prophet receives the will of the Lord, even though he may not know the reasons behind that command.

Example: Brigham Young announced a ban on priesthood for black members. Reasons were given that a variety of members, including some leaders, interpreted from the scriptures. Some insisted blacks would not receive the priesthood until the end of the Millennium, while others also claimed that the ban was due to a curse.

When later prophets had research done regarding such issues, no evidence of an initial revelation or reason were ever given in the Church records. Pres McKay asked the Lord if the ban could be lifted, since as far as he could determine it wasn't established by revelation. The Lord told him he could not, but the ban remained in place until Pres Kimball also took the issue to the Lord during a time when the Church was going global, with a temple ready for dedication in Brazil (where there are many people of mixed race), and many blacks in the USA wanting to know more about the Church. Today, the Church's answer is we do not know why it was begun, we only know that the ban ended via revelation.

It was right to sustain Pres Young or Pres McKay in maintaining the restriction. And it was right to sustain Pres Kimball when the ban was lifted. Such is a non-core teaching/doctrine.

[estradling75]

Lets be clear for those who might be lurking or stumble across this later

The question as it is written is a no brainer... We have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ, we belong to his church. We follow Christ. Period.

What I think the OP is really trying to get to is what do we do when for some reason we start getting conflicting directions on what the will of Christ is for us. That a much more subtle and nuanced question which is the direction I think alot of people are taking the question.

Lets not open this up to a debate on if Mormons follow Christ or not.

[RMGuy]

There are some really good answers here.

Dravin is exactly right, this is not intended to be a minor thing, but rather what do you do when personal revelation contradicts counsel. Now clearly, we recieve counsel about a number of different aspects of daily life. And we will all respond to that counsel differently. My question is which of those to follow where a conflict arises or exists that cannot be reconciled.

Estradling, thank you for the clarification. It was not my intention in anyway to question or debate whether we follow Christ or not. Thank you for addressing that.

I agree that we need to consider and ponder the counsel that we are given and come to a personal knowledge regarding that counsel. When faced with that choice in the past there have been times when I have chosen to "follow the prophet" even without confirmation and sometimes it has worked out...sometimes it has not. I have tended to lean more towards the seeking confirmation route and then acting appropriately.

One thing I have personally struggled with in the past is perhaps being too judgemental with others in the church when I:

1. Know that they have heard the council of the prophet

2. Appear not to be following that council.

I have worked on this considerably over the last several years. Do you think that we have a problem with judging our brothers and sisters in the gospel over these types of issues? If so, how do you think we can collectively do better at this? If you don't think this is a problem why not?

-RM

[spamlds]

This is one of those questions that anti-Mormons put out there to undermine faith. They want to separate you from Christ by separating you from his anointed servants.

Imagine someone asking a first century Christian that question. "If the Spirit told you to do something that disagreed with what Peter or Paul counselled you to do, which would you pick?" Can you imagine any way that those men who gave their lives for the testimony of Christ would do anything contrary to his will? Were any of those men perfect? No. Were there ever disagreements among their ranks? Yes. The Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants tells us so.

Nevertheless, despite their mortal flaws, would any of these men have led you astray from the Master for whom they would lay down their lives? Never.

Likewise, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and every prophet in our time down to Thomas S. Monson are cut from the same cloth as Peter and Paul. Any one of them would lay down his life for the testimony of Jesus. It is unimaginable that they would lead any of us astray.

Furthermore, the Lord himself has said he will never permit such a thing to occur. You may count on that. If we receive an answer contrary to the teachings of the prophets, it is ourselves that is out of harmony. We should ask what is amiss in our lives. If we are not getting the same answer as God's anointed messenger, it is our problem and we need to find out what is wrong and get it fixed.

I have encountered cases like this. For example one guy was a staunch political conservative and he had built a gospel "cult" around Ezra Taft Benson. If a current president of the Church didn't emphasize the political views of ETB, this guy was prone to say that the Prophet had fallen from grace. When challenged, the guy wasn't praying regularly, he didn't pay tithing, he had a little "porn" problem, etc. In other words, he wasn't qualified to get an answer and he was making up his own from his strongly held opinions. Even when overt unworthiness isn't a problem, a person can manufacture his own impressions out of a sense of anxiety.

There are two guidelines that are foolproof. The correct answer lies in this statement:

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Corinthians 14:32).

The messages of the Lord's prophets echo the same spirit as those who went before. It may not be precisely the same instruction, but they will share the same spirit and tone.

If I might be a bit bold--and I mean no personal offense toward any individual here--in many LDS forums, I find that there are many good latter-day saints who don't look for their answers in the scriptures. Very often the answers are right there, easy to find with a topical guide or by searching on LDS.org. But they are lazy and want someone else to dig out the answers for them.

When I have had the privilege of sitting with General Authorities in question and answer sessions, they always find their answers in the scriptures. When I find a member who is confused and thinks that the prophet is wrong about something, I find they don't know the scriptures. We are repeatedly exhorted to search the scriptures.

If we are familiar with what is in the scriptures and we live so as to have the Spirit of God with us, we will find that the prophet's counsel never wavers from that which the Spirit gives us.

This anti-Mormon question has a tendency to work like a cancer. It instills doubt in your heart and will grow if you don't kill the infection. The question itself is harmful to faith--intentionally so. Don't set up a false dichotomy. The Lord's servant will never deviate from the Lord's will. The Lord knows the hearts of all men. If a prophet sought to lead us a stray and follow his own path, the Lord would remove him from his calling, most likely by death. Trust the Lord and trust his prophets. There is no more sure message from the scriptures.

[Dravin]

Dravin is exactly right, this is not intended to be a minor thing, but rather what do you do when personal revelation contradicts counsel. Now clearly, we recieve counsel about a number of different aspects of daily life. And we will all respond to that counsel differently. My question is which of those to follow where a conflict arises or exists that cannot be reconciled.

Actually I'm talking about the minor stuff. The confirmation that you are indeed one of the situations which the Proclamation to the World is referring to when it talks about circumstances requiring individual adaptation from the norm. I don't expect anything like the Book of Mormon is true from one, and the Book of Mormon is false from another to come up, which is what I picture when I think of major stuff.

One thing I have personally struggled with in the past is perhaps being too judgemental with others in the church when I:

1. Know that they have heard the council of the prophet

2. Appear not to be following that council.

I think the words of Elder Oaks are relevant here:

If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.

I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.

He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”

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

Linky: Dating versus Hanging Out - Ensign June 2006 - ensign

[spamlds]

It doesn't matter whether it's major or minor stuff. In the instance you cited where the distraught man wrote to Elder Oaks about his participation in the Korean War and having to take life in that circumstance. If the man sought his answers from the Lord and in the scriptures, surely he would have read this passage in Alma chapter 43 one day:

"47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion."

In Alma 51, we read that Captain Moroni compelled political dissidents who objected to a war to take up arms in defense of their country at the point of the sword. The Lord knows we live in a violent world filled with bad people who would take away our liberty. He knows we must fight to stay free sometimes or to protect the liberty of others.

I don't diminish the suffering this man went through that Elder Oaks spoke of. Perhaps, if he had read those passages prayerfully, a feeling of peace and forgiveness might have come to him instead of letting unnecessary guilt haunt him for decades. He would have known for himself and the Spirit could have confirmed it to him.

This is what I meant in my previous post. Latter-day saints often do not know what is in their own scriptures. They fail to find peace, comfort, consolation, and surety because they are driven with every wind of doctrine.

It doesn't matter big or small--follow the prophet. If he says don't go see R-rated movies, it is no longer the movie that is in question, but whether or you really believe he is a prophet of God. If he says don't get tatoos or multiple body piercings, etc., then if you really believe, you'll do it the Lord's way. The same goes for tithing, word of wisdom, church attendance, home teaching, food storage, etc. If you don't think he is a prophet, then it doesn't matter whose counsel you follow. The end result is not going to be beneficial.

[RMGuy]

Imagine someone asking a first century Christian that question. "If the Spirit told you to do something that disagreed with what Peter or Paul counselled you to do, which would you pick?" Can you imagine any way that those men who gave their lives for the testimony of Christ would do anything contrary to his will?

Short answer? Yes. Since you like Corinthians 14 (see below, we can start there) 1 Corinthians 14:33-34. If that was written to me from an apostle I would read it as written, namely that women should not speak in church. Comparing that with past experiences of the Saviour (who had a great respect for the women in his life) and after careful pondering and consideration I would be forced to conclude that perhaps Paul was a little off here and perhaps teaching his personal beliefs as doctrine. Am I right in that? Perhaps not, but at least I am being honest with you in where I am or would be.

Nevertheless, despite their mortal flaws,

Your words not mine. We as LDS recognize that these are not perfect men. Would they intentionally lead individuals away from the Lord? You have stated no. But would they perhaps allow personal biases, opinions, and believes to influence their council? I think we have to acknowledge that this is possible since the church itself does.

Likewise, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and every prophet in our time down to Thomas S. Monson are cut from the same cloth as Peter and Paul. Any one of them would lay down his life for the testimony of Jesus.

That makes them good men. It may imply that they are inspired men. It doesn't make them infallible.

Furthermore, the Lord himself has said he will never permit such a thing to occur. You may count on that.

Actually the prophet Wilford Woodruff said this....which is what concerns me. We treat the words of a prophet as through they always came directly from the Lord.

If we receive an answer contrary to the teachings of the prophets, it is ourselves that is out of harmony. We should ask what is amiss in our lives. If we are not getting the same answer as God's anointed messenger, it is our problem and we need to find out what is wrong and get it fixed.

But what if we are living in accordance with the gospel. What if we are a faithful tithe payer, living the WoW, honoring our temple covenants etc. Your answer seems to indicate a devotion to loyalty over truth.

I have encountered cases like this. For example one guy was a staunch political conservative and he had built a gospel "cult" around Ezra Taft Benson. If a current president of the Church didn't emphasize the political views of ETB, this guy was prone to say that the Prophet had fallen from grace. When challenged, the guy wasn't praying regularly, he didn't pay tithing, he had a little "porn" problem, etc. In other words, he wasn't qualified to get an answer and he was making up his own from his strongly held opinions. Even when overt unworthiness isn't a problem, a person can manufacture his own impressions out of a sense of anxiety.

There are two guidelines that are foolproof. The correct answer lies in this statement:

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Corinthians 14:32).

The messages of the Lord's prophets echo the same spirit as those who went before. It may not be precisely the same instruction, but they will share the same spirit and tone.

Understand, and I DO agree with you on a lot of this. My questions is posed NOT inorder to find an excuse to not follow the counsel of a living prophet. Rather, it is posed with regards to what happens in the situations in which we are honestly at odds with that counsel and it cannot be reconciled. My example earlier of Nephi disobeying the council to not kill when he has the spiritual prompting to kill Laban.

If I might be a bit bold--and I mean no personal offense toward any individual here--in many LDS forums, I find that there are many good latter-day saints who don't look for their answers in the scriptures. Very often the answers are right there, easy to find with a topical guide or by searching on LDS.org. But they are lazy and want someone else to dig out the answers for them.

When I have had the privilege of sitting with General Authorities in question and answer sessions, they always find their answers in the scriptures. When I find a member who is confused and thinks that the prophet is wrong about something, I find they don't know the scriptures. We are repeatedly exhorted to search the scriptures.

If we are familiar with what is in the scriptures and we live so as to have the Spirit of God with us, we will find that the prophet's counsel never wavers from that which the Spirit gives us.

This anti-Mormon question has a tendency to work like a cancer. It instills doubt in your heart and will grow if you don't kill the infection. The question itself is harmful to faith--intentionally so. Don't set up a false dichotomy. The Lord's servant will never deviate from the Lord's will. The Lord knows the hearts of all men. If a prophet sought to lead us a stray and follow his own path, the Lord would remove him from his calling, most likely by death. Trust the Lord and trust his prophets. There is no more sure message from the scriptures

I'm afraid I don't see it as an anti-Mormon question at all. Our Heavenly Father gave us many gifts, including intellect and reason. To suggest that we should not question but rather follow obediantly and meekly without seeking confirmation for ourself is disingenious at best. To suggest that we can only receive the same answer as the leader and that when we fail to do so it represents some flaw in the individual is potentially dangerous, perhaps even evil.

-RM

[Suzie]

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Christ of course, the only perfect man who ever walked on this Earth.

About the whole "never lead us astray" topic I think it should be a thread in itself!

[bytebear]

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

If you truly knew the will of Christ above the all others, wouldn't you be the prophet?

[Snow]

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question.

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

-RM

And how would one follow Christ, short of following the prophets?

It's not like Christ speaks to anyone, writes books, broadcasts on PBS? The only think people know about Christ is from what they've read about him by people claiming to be prophets or apostles, or anonymous authors... or from others that have read what those people have written.

It's not that people follow God. they follow the words of people who claim to speak for God.

[mrmarklin]

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question.

If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow?

Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do?

-RM

The prophet speaks for Christ so there is no possible contradiction. This is really a very silly postulation.

See Amos 3:7

[FunkyTown]

I imagine a lot of people reading the thread are immediately conjuring up huge differences, but it can be something as simple as receiving personal confirmation that you should take the job that requires you to work on Sunday over the one that doesn't. The problem is what comes to mind is less following A over B, but simply confirmation that your situation does fall under excepting principles or situations that tend to comprise general advice.

You are, of course, absolutely right. However, considering that the very first example he gave was of Nephi killing Laban, I suspect he isn't talking about 'What if you were told it was okay to wear a black shirt with a white tie to church?'

The problem with the scenarios he's giving is that there very simply isn't enough information to adequately answer them. I have heard of people saying they received confirmation from the holy spirit that smoking pot was all right. I've also heard people saying they received confirmation having an affair was okay.

I will always come firmly down on the side of following the prophet and christ. If you feel that you are being told different to what revealed truth has been given, clarify that and clarify it again: Talk to someone who has stewardship over you who also has the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[HiJolly]

If you truly knew the will of Christ above the all others, wouldn't you be the prophet?

You would be *a* prophet, not *the* prophet.

HiJolly

[Snow]

The prophet speaks for Christ so there is no possible contradiction. This is really a very silly postulation.

See Amos 3:7

Yep - everybody is sure theirs is the real prophet who really speaks for God. Bless the stars that you are right and the rest of humanity is wrong.

[RMGuy]

The prophet speaks for Christ so there is no possible contradiction. This is really a very silly postulation.

See Amos 3:7

So you have never had or foresee an instance in which a prophet may speak contrary to God's will? Never an instance in which a life might have been better off through following the Spirit?

That seems like an pretty big stretch.

-RM

[gregoryzim]

Ihave to say that They firstly can be no prophet AND Jesus Christ on the Earth at the same time - so you will never have to choose between one or the other.

Secondly - IF - thats the big IF that only you can answer truthfully - IF you are living the gospel properly and to the best of your ability - you will know if something a prophet says is from a prophet rather than the man. Im my life I know only of one example that I can say for certain I knew it was from the man th emoment I read it and it was in an Ensign and later the prophet actually retracted the comment! It was Spencer W Kimball (one of the greatest of modern prophets in my estimation) but still a man too - who said in the mid seventies - on trying to explain where dinasaurs came from - that Quote" the remains being found are remnants of another planet left over from when this earth was formed" end quote. When I read that in my mid twenties I knew it wa rubbish and said to to my wife (who was not amused at my comment !! :) ) Howver I was adamant it was rubbish and we now it was total rubbish and it was not long before he retracted it too ! So - yeah we are all men and have foibles and falability - but was he a Prohet - absolutely, one of the most spiritual and humble we ever had as a people. Was he man ? Yup. Was he often wrong - hardly ever. Its why we have the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Snow]

Ihave to say that They firstly can be no prophet AND Jesus Christ on the Earth at the same time - so you will never have to choose between one or the other.

So when Jesus returns, first he'll kill off all the prophets?

Peter James and John were prophets?

John the Baptist wasn't a prophet?

[Matthew0059]

RMGuy, this is a good question that needs to be addressed because of the difficulties of the coming trials. I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread, but it seems that most people have taken the stance that the doctrine "the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will never lead the Church astray" is true. I firmly believe that the phrase may be correct, but not because it is based on eternal principle.

I don't have GospelLink nor the time to root around on the internet, so maybe someone else would be so kind as to find the quote from the Prophet Joseph (our Dispensation King and Lawgiver) where he says that those who say they would follow any commandment he gave them, even if they knew it to be wrong and against GOD's will, are seriously flawed in their judgment; he also said that we should never trust any mortal man as an infallible source of wisdom and guidance (i.e., he never would have condoned such teachings as "the Prophet will never lead you astray, it's not in the program"). Since the Prophet Joseph, our Presidents- though good and powerful men of God- have dramatically decreased in their roles as Seers and Revelators and have focused more on their role as Stewards of the Church. Thus, we have no reason to believe that the current Prophet/President (Thomas S. Monson) is more infallible than Joseph Smith.

As an example: it was not an uncommon thing for the Prophet to go to some of the early Brethren and ask them to give him their wife to be one of his (Joseph's) plural wives. This wasn't a common request, but common enough that it got some people talking. Some, upon hearing of the practice, said that if Joseph ever asked that of them their reaction would be "go to hell" (I think it was Wilford Woodruff who recorded that).

The one example I remember most adamantly is Heber C. Kimball. When Joseph went to Heber and said that he wanted Heber's beloved wife, Vilate, Heber was so upset at this proposition that he spent 3 days unable to eat or drink as he sought the Lord's counsel. Ultimately, Heber learned that it was indeed the Lord's will that Vilate was to be given to Joseph. With heavy hearts they both went to the Prophet and Vilate gave her hand to Joseph. Joseph wept at seeing such a sacrifice made, and put her hand back in Heber's. He said (something along the lines of) "Heber, I never wanted your wife; I was told by the LORD to test the brethren to see whom I could trust". The Prophet sealed Heber and Vilate on that very spot.

What was the difference between the two reactions and the two rewards? One sought the will of the LORD and then did it. The others, by their words, showed that they would never even try. Had Heber refused to do the LORD'S will (give up Vilate) he undoubtedly would have grown bitter and apostatized. Those who receive difficult counsel and refuse to learn the LORD'S will in the matter or refuse to do the LORD'S will once learned are damned until they repent.

The example may seem at odds with the question, but the eternal principle- Seeking the Will of the LORD and Doing it- is the same.