where does it say "the prophet cannot lead us astray"???


kayne
 Share

Recommended Posts

so i was curious where that whole The Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us astray came from?

the earliest ive read is brigham young said it(got it from his journal of discourses so i think that is pretty reliable). but considering the church fails to teach and in many cases rejects a lot of what young taught i would find it odd that they kept that even ironic.

i have heard but cannot find it that supposedly Christ told Joseph smith this? if this is true can anyone point me to the source of that information?

thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was mentioned by someone else, it doesn't get more "official" than what is written in our scriptures.

Is there another question behind this question?

well i was curious as to whether that part about Christ telling JS was true or not as i had never heard of it...especially curious as Brigham Young makes mention of this same promise too. and well to be honest until recently i was unsure on where the entire wording came from.

ive just been researching the issue some lately and was curious. and then it came up in a conversation....the Christ telling JS part.

my main question i am asking is how accurate that really is....many leaders of the church have fallen. the church in the past has fallen into apostasy over the years(book of mormon and im sure in the bible). and a general realization that belief in the church is false and following the prophet is not a phrase to be found(unless you can point me out a reference to it) in the scriptures. all of which say follow Christ and Live in the Gospel....dont misunderstand me the gospel is found within the church but the two are not the same exact thing and i am not saying Monson is the wrong guy or a bad person(i have prayed about it he is the current president) merely questioning the act of whether it is possible he is the right guy or whether we just put him there and whether him or any of the other GA's could say something in error because again back to old Mr. Young a lot of what is taught by him is now denounced. this is the question behind the question.

a reevulation of what the gospel, church, Christ, Heavenly Father, and the general authorities are was in order. this is merely one of the questions along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 1:24-28

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they werehumble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

No one ever said that a prophet will always be perfect in all ways and in all things.

I have personally come to understand that the phrase "a Prophet will never lead the Church astray" means that the Prophet will never lead or teach the members of the Church to sin and to not follow Christ.

Yes, there have been many errors that have been repudiated. But that doesn't mean that the past Presidents of the Church were intentionally misleading members through "false doctrines".

Consider these statements of past leaders of the church. (It appears that I may have found your quote.)

“I make no claim of infallibility.”

Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, June 1970, p. 93

“We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.”

James E. Faust, Ensign, November 1989, p. 11

“The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”

George Q. Cannon Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, 1957, 1:206

“We respect and venerate” (the prophet), but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”

Elder Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, 54:191

“Even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.”

Elder J. Reuben Clark, quoted in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 82

“…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly, or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:100

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:205

“Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.”

Official Church web site The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

“The Lord uses imperfect people…He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth “line upon line, precept upon precept” in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.”

Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 47

“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 general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, June 2006, p. 16

“I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 10: 57-58

“We are all liable to error; are subject, more or less, to the errors incident to the human family. We would be pleased to get along without these errors, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:212

“Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices, and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal principles.”

Elder Ronald Poelman, 1984 General Conference

“Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said… that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, CES Conference, August 1978

“We set up assumptions, based on our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.”

Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 127

“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.”

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 331

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my main question i am asking is how accurate that really is....many leaders of the church have fallen. the church in the past has fallen into apostasy over the years(book of mormon and im sure in the bible).

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

and a general realization that belief in the church is false and following the prophet is not a phrase to be found(unless you can point me out a reference to it) in the scriptures. all of which say follow Christ and Live in the Gospel....dont misunderstand me the gospel is found within the church but the two are not the same exact thing and i am not saying Monson is the wrong guy or a bad person(i have prayed about it he is the current president) merely questioning the act of whether it is possible he is the right guy or whether we just put him there and whether him or any of the other GA's could say something in error because again back to old Mr. Young a lot of what is taught by him is now denounced. this is the question behind the question.

Most of your question is answered by many of the statements I posted above. The good news is that you are questioning things. There are too many "blind followers" in my opinion.

In the formation of the church, remember that 100% of the members back then were converts... and brought many of their own beliefs, thoughts, and customs into the church. The church has had to grow just as we all do.

Consider this: When members bear their testimony and say that the "Church is true"... what does that mean? To them, it probably means that the church has the doctrines, priesthood authority, ordinances and the path to lead us back to the Father. True is a noun in this instance.

What if true was a verb? As in "truing" ourselves to the mind and will of the Lord?

D&C 1:30

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

A living Church is one that would grow over time as well, right? Just my own thoughts.

a reevulation of what the gospel, church, Christ, Heavenly Father, and the general authorities are was in order. this is merely one of the questions along the way.

D&C 124:125-139

125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.

126 I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church.

127 I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council;

128 Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.

129 They are Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith;

130 David Patten I have taken unto myself; behold, his priesthood no man taketh from him; but, verily I say unto you, another may be appointed unto the same calling.

131 And again, I say unto you, I give unto you a high council, for the cornerstone of Zion—

132 Namely, Samuel Bent, Henry G. Sherwood, George W. Harris, Charles C. Rich, Thomas Grover, Newel Knight, David Dort, Dunbar Wilson—Seymour Brunson I have taken unto myself; no man taketh his priesthood, but another may be appointed unto the same priesthood in his stead; and verily I say unto you, let my servant Aaron Johnson be ordained unto this calling in his stead—David Fullmer, Alpheus Cutler, William Huntington.

133 And again, I give unto you Don C. Smith to be a president over a quorum of high priests;

134 Which ordinance is instituted for the purpose of qualifying those who shall be appointed standing presidents or servants over different stakes scattered abroad;

135 And they may travel also if they choose, but rather be ordained for standing presidents; this is the office of their calling, saith the Lord your God.

136 I give unto him Amasa Lyman and Noah Packard for counselors, that they may preside over the quorum of high priests of my church, saith the Lord.

137 And again, I say unto you, I give unto you John A. Hicks, Samuel Williams, and Jesse Baker, which priesthood is to preside over the quorum of elders, which quorum is instituted for standing ministers; nevertheless they may travel, yet they are ordained to be standing ministers to my church, saith the Lord.

138 And again, I give unto you Joseph Young, Josiah Butterfield, Daniel Miles, Henry Herriman, Zera Pulsipher, Levi Hancock, James Foster, to preside over the quorum of seventies;

139 Which quorum is instituted for traveling elders to bear record of my name in all the world, wherever the traveling high council, mine apostles, shall send them to prepare a way before my face.

You will notice in verse 127 that Brigham Young was the president of the quorum of the twelve apostles... and that after the death of any president of the church, it has been traditionally done that the President of the Twelve becomes the President of the Church.

The rest of the verses describe the roles and authority of the general authorities of the church. It's all there in the scriptures.

***

Now, if you're having trouble with the current church leadership, I suggest additional prayer and counseling with your bishop to share your concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so i was curious where that whole The Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us astray came from?

the earliest ive read is brigham young said it(got it from his journal of discourses so i think that is pretty reliable). but considering the church fails to teach and in many cases rejects a lot of what young taught i would find it odd that they kept that even ironic.

i have heard but cannot find it that supposedly Christ told Joseph smith this? if this is true can anyone point me to the source of that information?

thanks in advance

its an inaccurate usage of the principle that were the prophet to lead the church astray/go against the Lords commands, he would be removed from his place. probably the closest example of this is Jonah in the Old Testament. (altho there might be some near examples as well with Moses).

Some other examples that are somewhat related and my be worth taking a deeper look into is Saul's conversion in the New Testament, as well as Alma the Younger's. while these men did not go against God's will while as a prophet, they definitely were such beforehand.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prophet cannot lead the Church astray under the guise of (false) revelation. He would be removed from office if this were to happen.

This is different than saying the prophet is infallible. Of course the prophet is human and makes many errors like the rest ot us. OK maybe not so many. But in general we are protected as a church, because the only doctrine we have ever had so far in the scriptures has been approved by the membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

The prophet cannot lead the Church astray under the guise of (false) revelation. He would be removed from office if this were to happen.This is different than saying the prophet is infallible. Of course the prophet is human and makes many errors like the rest ot us. OK maybe not so many. But in general we are protected as a church, because the only doctrine we have ever had so far in the scriptures has been approved by the membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Lds.org essays we now ( no longer believe the theories of the curse of Cain taught by President Young) we don't believe that people are born with a black skin because of pre earth events . Brigham taught this and it followed more than a hundred years. I guess my question is why wasn't he removed if we teach that doctrine was wrong. I understand they were racist like the rest of the country at that time. But the Lord wasn't . Is the statement true then that a prophet can't lead the people into error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Lds.org essays we now ( no longer believe the theories of the curse of Cain taught by President Young) we don't believe that people are born with a black skin because of pre earth events . Brigham taught this and it followed more than a hundred years. I guess my question is why wasn't he removed if we teach that doctrine was wrong. I understand they were racist like the rest of the country at that time. But the Lord wasn't . Is the statement true then that a prophet can't lead the people into error.

 

Can you point me to the section that says we on longer believe in the curse of cain? Joseph Fielding smith (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23). Talked about the Lamanites dark skin as a sign of the curse, but the curse itself was the seperation from God.

 

I also agree with DHK in that mormonism did not exist in the early years of our church, they were growing as they were learning, what ever habits and beliefs they grew up with in other churches still had an influence as they learned and converted themselves to the restored gospel.

 

There is so much oversight these days in the way our organization is structured that I would think any leader that has questionable intentions will easily be discovered. Our local leaders do not get paid and the higher up leaders that do receive money, greed is not a driving force to cause them to falter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my main question i am asking is how accurate that really is....

 

Like has been said...how much more official can you get than, "in our scriptures"?

 

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

 

We can quibble about what "astray" means, of course. But whatever it means...we know that -- per canonized scripture -- we cannot be led there by the prophet.

 

whether him or any of the other GA's could say something in error 

 

Is one of them saying something in error really the definition of being led astray?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Lds.org essays we now ( no longer believe the theories of the curse of Cain taught by President Young) we don't believe that people are born with a black skin because of pre earth events . Brigham taught this and it followed more than a hundred years. I guess my question is why wasn't he removed if we teach that doctrine was wrong. I understand they were racist like the rest of the country at that time. But the Lord wasn't . Is the statement true then that a prophet can't lead the people into error.

Well, let's go back to what President Woodruff said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

So, the removal doesn't come from being innocently wrong about something per se. The removal comes when the prophet is so wrong--and, apparently, deliberately so--that the incorrect teaching either separates people from the channels of revelation, or else stops them from doing the specific things that God actually wants them to do.

Brigham Young's having taught "Curse of Cain" and other similar ideas, while certainly discomforting, doesn't require me to reject him under the Woodruff analysis; because it has yet to be shown that this idea was the sole and proximate cause to any inhibiting of revelation or otherwise wrongful action; let alone that Young was acting out of any form of mens rea. Now, the idea of the priesthood ban being contrary to God's instructions would, I think, would be more problematic. But then, the Church has never conceded that the ban was inappropriate under the circumstances or that Young exceeded his authority in enacting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Can you point me to the section that says we on longer believe in the curse of cain? 

 

 

According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained. 

. . . Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

24

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's go back to what President Woodruff said:

So, the removal doesn't come from being innocently wrong about something per se. The removal comes when the prophet is so wrong--and, apparently, deliberately so--that the incorrect teaching either separates people from the channels of revelation, or else stops them from doing the specific things that God actually wants them to do.

Brigham Young's having taught "Curse of Cain" and other similar ideas, while certainly discomforting, doesn't require me to reject him under the Woodruff analysis; because it has yet to be shown that this idea was the sole and proximate cause to any inhibiting of revelation or otherwise wrongful action; let alone that Young was acting out of any form of mens rea. Now, the idea of the priesthood ban being contrary to God's instructions would, I think, would be more problematic. But then, the Church has never conceded that the ban was inappropriate under the circumstances or that Young exceeded his authority in enacting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Just_A_Guy, June 15, 2015 - Duplicate
Hidden by Just_A_Guy, June 15, 2015 - Duplicate

Well, let's go back to what President Woodruff said:

So, the removal doesn't come from being innocently wrong about something per se. The removal comes when the prophet is so wrong--and, apparently, deliberately so--that the incorrect teaching either separates people from the channels of revelation, or else stops them from doing the specific things that God actually wants them to do.

Brigham Young's having taught "Curse of Cain" and other similar ideas, while certainly discomforting, doesn't require me to reject him under the Woodruff analysis; because it has yet to be shown that this idea was the sole and proximate cause to any inhibiting of revelation or otherwise wrongful action; let alone that Young was acting out of any form of mens rea. Now, the idea of the priesthood ban being contrary to God's instructions would, I think, would be more problematic. But then, the Church has never conceded that the ban was inappropriate under the circumstances or that Young exceeded his authority in enacting it.

Link to comment

We believe we are accountable for our own sins and not Adams transgressions , we believe the descendants of Cain were cursed for Cains sins??the mark apon Cain was to identify him so others wouldn't kill him, the curse was that the earth wouldn't yield her strength. Why was it ok for Joseph to ordain blacks to the priesthood and not Brigham ? the essays conclude we disavow those theories taught by Brigham. He taught Adam God and it was taught by others as well . President Kimball said it was false and believing would be damning . I don't believe those men would intensionally lead others away from God . But like all men they have believed and spoken false ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

We believe we are accountable for our own sins and not Adams transgressions , we believe the descendants of Cain were cursed for Cains sins??.

Except that we don't believe that, as you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We believe we are accountable for our own sins and not Adams transgressions , 

 

Yes.

 

we believe the descendants of Cain were cursed for Cains sins??t

 

No. Never. Ever. Not even the now disavowed teachings said this.

 

Why was it ok for Joseph to ordain blacks to the priesthood and not Brigham ?

 

Why is it okay that we ordain those of the tribe of Ephraim to the priesthood now but not in the days of Moses.

 

He taught Adam God and it was taught by others as well . President Kimball said it was false and believing would be damning .

 

This is a different issue altogether, of course, and lumping it in is unhelpful. We can discuss Adam/God if you want, but let's not just throw everything and the kitchen sink into the mix just to try and overwhelm the issue. One thing at a time please.

 

But like all men they have believed and spoken false ideas.

 

All men have, reasonably, believed and spoken false ideas at some point. All men were once children. All men grow and learn line upon line. However, that is different than a prophet of God preaching false doctrine from the pulpit. I'm not saying it has never happened, of course. But I think it's pretty dangerous ground to stand on our millennial know-it-all soapboxes and authoritatively proclaim we know better than a prophet did.

 

A disavowed theory is different than proclaimed revelation. There is no canonized proclaimed revelation that the disavowed theories were false. There is a proclamation that they are disavowed as doctrine -- as in we don't know so don't teach, preach, or otherwise expound on these things. But that is very different than a "Brigham was wrong" conclusion.

 

What is safe ground is what has been proclaimed. We don't know. We disavow the theories given behind why as doctrinal. We reject racism. Reading more into the capability, understanding, and revelatory prowess of the early church prophets beyond this is not useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Kimball said it was false and believing would be damning.

 

Conceding that for a moment that Kimball actually said such a thing (I seem to recall Elder Bruce McConkie and Elder Mark Petersen saying things along the same lines, but at the moment I don't recall President Kimball adding his voice to that position):  Frankly, in the 1970s, there probably was (and maybe, still is) a link between embracing Adam-God and losing one's salvation; because pretty much the only groups openly embracing it were/are polygamous offshoots whose other activities and teachings are positively toxic. 

 

But, that doesn't mean that believing in Adam-God in 1850 or 1870--even if the idea were wrong--was inherently dangerous, spiritually speaking. 

 

The whole point of having living prophets is so that we can adapt our conduct, and even our discourse, to new situations and avoid new dangers posed to the body of the Saints by ever-evolving social conditions--conditions that may not have existed a hundred, or fifty, or even twenty years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A disavowed theory is different than proclaimed revelation. There is no canonized proclaimed revelation that the disavowed theories were false. There is a proclamation that they are disavowed as doctrine -- as in we don't know so don't teach, preach, or otherwise expound on these things. But that is very different than a "Brigham was wrong" conclusion.

 

What is safe ground is what has been proclaimed. We don't know. We disavow the theories given behind why as doctrinal. We reject racism. Reading more into the capability, understanding, and revelatory prowess of the early church prophets beyond this is not useful.

TFP has this one right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Oct 1976 conference (President Kimball):

 

 

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share