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


kayne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, first off--which of the concepts I mentioned in my post 36 to this thread have been affirmatively and specifically condemned (not just disavowed, but condemned), such that we as a Church are under a gag order not to discuss them anymore?  And is it therefore now verbotten to talk about the possible underlying reasons for all divine commandments/injunctions?  Or just the commandments/injunctions that have been rescinded?  Can we, as a Church, talk about the health benefits of obeying the Word of Wisdom?  Do Elders Oaks' and Holland's statements mean that the Church has no business explaining or defending its prior practice of polygamy?

 

Second:  I note your citation of Elder Oaks for the proposition about "trying to put reasons to revelation".  So, I take it you agree that the 1848-1978 priesthood ban was a revelation, then? 

 

If you clearly and unambiguously say "yes", I'll be happy to drop the issue for this discussion.  But I don't think you'll say "yes", unless you have evolved in your thinking over the last year and a half.  Because back then, you were on-record condemning the policy as a "mistake"

 

Thus, I can't help but suspect that you really don't believe Oaks' and Holland's statements that "the reasons turn out to be man-made" and "must never be perpetuated".  Rather, it seems logical to conclude that your position is in fact that our explanations are man-made and must never be perpetuated; whereas your explanations--in the absence of any competing reasons--must be, by default, the truth.

 

Q.E.D.:

 

 

When the Church says "we don't know why the ban existed", they mean "we don't know why the ban existed".  They do not mean "there is no reason why God might have had that policy as part of His overall plan for the church and, therefore, those who ascribe the ban to racism must win by default".  But, that's the way a lot of progressive Mormons try to spin it.  Thus, I rather suspect that in many cases the attempt to dismiss all theological explanations for the priesthood policy is in effect a thinly disguised effort to ascribe the priesthood ban to error--thus paving the way for arguing that a whole slough of modern Church teachings, policies, and practices are also subject to revision and, in the interim, not worthy of our conformance or deference.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disavowed theories are as good as folklore, and “One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated." I don't insist that theories be "affirmatively and specifically condemned." What the General Authorities say today is enough for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These excerpts are all from modern revelation articles, but in chapter 2 of the student manual "Teachings of the Living prophets", there is a section which addresses exactly this:

The Lord Will Never Permit the Living Prophet to Lead the Church Astray

•President Wilford Woodruff declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church: “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” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

•President Harold B. Lee taught this same principle: “You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).

•President Gordon B. Hinckley gave similar assurance to Church members: “The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1983, 68–69; or Ensign, Nov. 1983, 46; emphasis added).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy, I will address your question to me about the priesthood ban. However, I first want to make myself more clear about the disavowed theories. I am sorry for not being more clear before.

 

To be clear about what I’m addressing, here is some of the Race and the Priesthood essay:

 

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. 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. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin…

 

The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings…

 

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. 

 

To disavow something is more than saying, “We don’t know whether it’s true or not so we’re not going to teach it.” Actually, the Church is essentially saying, “We will no longer have anything to do with these theories.” If the position were “we don’t know,” then they would say “we don’t know.” There is a difference.

 

Here is an amalgamation of what I have read on this thread and elsewhere: “Sure, the Church disavowed the theories, but that doesn’t mean they have been condemned. Since the Old Testament says X and the Book of Mormon says Y, it’s possible that the theories are true. Until the Church clearly and specifically condemns a theory, I will go on the internet and perpetuate it. It’s not like I’m under a gag order.”

 

And then people will deny they are perpetuating a theory. Proclaiming it's possible that the disavowed theories might be true gives life to them, however faint and unintentional it may be, and the theories are perpetuated.

 

The theory “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life” is disparaging. President Hinckley said, “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ” (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng).

 

Of course, neither the Church nor I can force people to stop perpetuating the theories, but I can try. They are a massive stumbling block to Church growth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would put forth an idea.  The question at hand concerns "the Prophet" but what about the broader question of following the L-rd's dutifully anointed and appointed?  Is there actually a difference in the essence of such questions?

 

Let's take for example King David.  He was anointed and appointed king over Israel through direct revelation from G-d.  Were those that pulled back during the battle causing the death of the husband of the woman David wanted to marry; lead astray and complicit or in any way culpable in so following the anointed and appointed leader by G-d?  I believe I know the answer but I wanted to see what the experts in doctrine of this forum would put forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy, I will address your question to me about the priesthood ban. However, I first want to make myself more clear about the disavowed theories. I am sorry for not being more clear before.

 

No need to apologize.  While I disagree with both your conclusions and the manner in which you present your arguments, you have been overall admirably clear as to your overall position.  :)

 

To disavow something is more than saying, “We don’t know whether it’s true or not so we’re not going to teach it.” Actually, the Church is essentially saying, “We will no longer have anything to do with these theories.” If the position were “we don’t know,” then they would say “we don’t know.” There is a difference.

 

I think TFP is quite correct in that we've already parsed the definition of "disavow" several times in this thread.  I stand by mine (and his) earlier arguments on this issue.

 

Here is an amalgamation of what I have read on this thread and elsewhere: “Sure, the Church disavowed the theories, but that doesn’t mean they have been condemned. Since the Old Testament says X and the Book of Mormon says Y, it’s possible that the theories are true. Until the Church clearly and specifically condemns a theory, I will go on the internet and perpetuate it. It’s not like I’m under a gag order.”

 

And then people will deny they are perpetuating a theory. Proclaiming it's possible that the disavowed theories might be true gives life to them, however faint and unintentional it may be, and the theories are perpetuated.

 

I agree with your first paragraph, except that I would amend the bolded text to "and point out that some of these theories have not been clearly and specifically condemned".

 

As for your second paragraph:  Speaking truth does not make the speaker responsible for the way that people with foul motives might twist that truth to their own ends.  Else, John the Revelator has a whole lot to answer for.

 

The theory “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life” is disparaging. President Hinckley said, “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ” (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng).

 

But isn't a policy that "black skin is a bar to priesthood ordination" also "disparaging"?

 

You've been dancing around this question for a week now, Timpman, and this is now at least the third time I've posed it to you in this thread.  It's time you answered it openly, honestly, and unambiguously: 

 

The 1848-1978 priesthood ban:  Divine injunction, or mortal usurpation? 

 

Of course, neither the Church nor I can force people to stop perpetuating the theories, but I can try. They are a massive stumbling block to Church growth.

 

In general, I would agree that some of the theories--especially as you've chosen to word them in this thread--are wrong and damaging.  On the other hand, you seem utterly unwilling to try to parse out the baby from the bathwater.  Nor have you seem particularly concerned in teasing out the nuanced differences between the theories as you describe them, and the theories as their proponents actually presented them. 

 

If you want to force people to stop perpetuating a specific theory, it strikes me that the best way to do that is 1) accurately describe the theory, 2) find an on-point, authoritative statement that specifically and affirmatively debunks the theory; and 3) offer a systematic harmonization showing why any canonized scriptures previously used to support the theory can and should be re-interpreted.  But rather than engage in that sort of discussion, you have repeatedly sought to end discussion in this thread through repeated screams of "racism, racism!", as if gives us sufficient light and knowledge to resolve the issue at hand. 

 

The net effect of all this smacks of a deliberate endeavor to create a doctrinal vacuum, which (in the absence of viable competing expositions) can then be filled with the declarant's own pet theories.  That places the declarant squarely within the same category as Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Bruce McConkie, and any other individual who formulated, embraced, or perpetuated the competing theories you claim to abhor.  In our zeal to establish that the Church leaders have said things that are wrong, we are completely avoiding the issues of what they have said that is right or even merely possible. 

 

As for "stumbling block to Church growth"--I can think of several others right off the top of my head that are probably bigger impediments:  Chastity.  Tithing.  Word of Wisdom.  Time-intensive church callings.  Temple recommends. Surely, none of those things ought to be changed in the name of boosting our membership rolls?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would put forth an idea.  The question at hand concerns "the Prophet" but what about the broader question of following the L-rd's dutifully anointed and appointed?  Is there actually a difference in the essence of such questions?

 

Let's take for example King David.  He was anointed and appointed king over Israel through direct revelation from G-d.  Were those that pulled back during the battle causing the death of the husband of the woman David wanted to marry; lead astray and complicit or in any way culpable in so following the anointed and appointed leader by G-d?  I believe I know the answer but I wanted to see what the experts in doctrine of this forum would put forward.

 

We've been explicitly told that following commanders in the times of war makes the commanders culpable. Though I think there's a definite and obvious time to say, "No, I will not murder that baby on your command", for the most part, you fight for your country per your duty. The Lord's anointed has little to do with that, of course, but if your command happens to be the Lord's anointed, it seems like it increases their culpability more, but the rule would apply the same, if not more so.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been explicitly told that following commanders in the times of war makes the commanders culpable. Though I think there's a definite and obvious time to say, "No, I will not murder that baby on your command", for the most part, you fit for your country per your duty. The Lord's anointed has little to do with that, of course, but if your command happens to be the Lord's anointed, it seems like it increases their culpability more, but the rule would apply the same, if not more so.

 

I agree with this...  More specifically with the idea we are accountable for What we do which is modified by Why we did it.  The warriors of King David whom were commanded to fall back and not support, didn't do it with the idea of murder, they did it because they trusted their commanders saw the bigger picture...  Now there was also the commander whom seems to have known King David order's intent was to effectively murder the man.  I do not think he is free of such a charge.  I think that case is closer to the "Murdering of the baby on command"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think following a secular authority versus a wholly religious authority, are two very situations.  A soldier who refuses to serve, in many jurisdictions is subject to imprisonment or death; so the Lord in His mercy removes the sin from the soldier's head and places it onto the head of those who made the conflict necessary.

 

In the church today, we are under no such threat.  Having been given the liberty to act for ourselves, we are expected to learn for ourselves how to act.  That doesn't mean we should innately approach prophetic injunctions with a degree of skepticism or suspicion; or that we'll never be asked to take a leap of faith in the absence of personal revelation.  But, to my mind, it does mean that if I have a personal revelation to do A and the prophet tells me I am to do B; I have a responsibility to reconcile that conflict before blindly pursuing either course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TFP is quite correct in that we've already parsed the definition of "disavow" several times in this thread.  I stand by mine (and his) earlier arguments on this issue.

 

As per our standard modus operani, JaG is decidedly more diplomatic and...what's the word...tactful? nice?...in his manner of reply than me.

 

Thank you JaG for your example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That places the declarant squarely within the same category as Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Bruce McConkie, and any other individual who formulated, embraced, or perpetuated the competing theories you claim to abhor. 

 

With the, should be obvious, exception that some-joe-on-the-web doesn't equate in authoritative right to the above mentioned. But that may be a bit argumentative, as really the intent is to pit our current apostles' comments or tacit approval of websites against the words of previous apostles and prophets. Of course, as I have explained, that is, in my opinion, a very bad idea, so perhaps not so argumentative for the sake of argumentation after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it does mean that if I have a personal revelation to do A and the prophet tells me I am to do B; I have a responsibility to reconcile that conflict before blindly pursuing either course of action.

 

Interesting thought. Not sure I totally agree.

 

A to Z of me thinking it through......

 

A. I have a solid testimony that the prophet is a prophet.

B. I have a "revelation" against something the prophet says.

C. I know that revelations can mislead

D. Ergo: Follow the prophet.

E. Or....wait...was my initial revelation that he prophet was a prophet in error?

F. Wait....no....I know what I know. The prophet is the prophet.

G. See D.

E. But I had a revelation to the contrary?

F. Did you?

G. Yes!

H. Okay...do what JaG says.

I. No! Wait...Follow the prophet and you will be blessed.

J. But...revelation. God supersedes the prophet.

K. Hmm. Well, how did this revelation come?

L. I was praying for it.

M. Ah. See the story of Martin Harris and the Lost 116 pages. Also the Hyrum Page story. And Satan appearing as an angel of light. And...a myriad of other teachings about false prophets.

N. Um...no...I mean I wasn't praying for it. It just came to me in the temple.

O. Ri......ght.

P. No, really. I just suddenly had a revelation that in my case being gay married was okay. And...love.

Q. Um.

R. You can't tell me I'm wrong. The Spirit told me so so I know it's right.

S. Um. Okay...do what JaG says.

T....NO...wait. Just follow the prophet.

U. But...blind obedience is bad.

V. Says who? Show me that in the scriptures.

W. It just is. Obviously. And Brigham said his worst fear was that we'd follow our leaders to hell.

X. See A.

Y. Your a sheeple!

Z. Thank you (John 10:27). (Follow the prophet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was ignoring questions about the priesthood ban and I was going to say so. I just didn’t want to promulgate my opinion on it and argue with anyone, but I’ll address it since my writings from 2013 are already out in the open. First, I’ll answer to this:

 

Just_A_Guy: I note your citation of Elder Oaks for the proposition about "trying to put reasons to revelation".  So, I take it you agree that the 1848-1978 priesthood ban was a revelation, then? 

 

I posted the quotes by Elders Oaks and Holland to provide examples of apostles saying general authorities can be wrong. Just_A_Guy then asked, “which of the concepts I mentioned in my post 36 to this thread have been affirmatively and specifically condemned…?” My reply was, “The disavowed theories are as good as folklore…I don't insist that theories be ‘affirmatively and specifically condemned.’ What the General Authorities say today is enough for me.” I didn’t make myself clear at that time, but I was thinking specifically of the Race and the Priesthood essay when I wrote today.

 

Still, I have to acknowledge what Elder Oaks said. He clearly referred to the priesthood ban as a revelation and/or commandment during an interview in 1988. Well, I think he was working under an assumption then and that assumption is not supported today. I still believe the what Elders Oaks and Holland said about the explanations for the ban. Things in this post will point to why I do.

 

So, was there a revelation from God instituting the priesthood ban? Brigham Young didn’t mention a revelation. A Church statement  says, “For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

 

FairMormon doesn’t try to argue that there was a revelation. It says:

 

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban.

 

Members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

1. the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball

2. the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young by revelation

3. the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

 

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

a) there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but

b) many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and

c) priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

 

If a revelation occurred, it would be one of the most important things to include in the Race and Priesthood essay, but it doesn’t even hint that there might have been one. The essay states, “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

 

Edward L. Kimball’s paper “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood” is insightful. He notes that Hugh B. Brown “urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation, it could be vacated without revelation.”

 

The essay provides no indication that inspiration was involved. Rather, it mentions the “church being established during an era of great racial division in the United States.” It says slavery and racial prejudice “influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” It offers no defense or excuse for the ban. In my opinion, it implies Brigham Young was influenced by the times to implement the ban. I see nothing in it that contradicts this opinion.

 

I have heard it argued that God must be behind the ban since He didn’t direct President McKay to lift it. I think that’s a stretch and there are other possible explanations. I imagine God’s view on the matter could have been, “Since the time the priesthood ban was instituted without my approval, various theories to support it have been promulgated. As a result, too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices and the Church is not ready for a change. They need to suffer the consequences of the ban for a bit longer so they will learn their lesson.”

 

Edward Kimball wrote, “As the doctrinal foundations of the policy grew increasingly problematic, members focused on its social aspects. Armand Mauss, Eugene England, and Elder Marion D. Hanks, among others, hypothesized that change in the policy perhaps depended on LDS members’ willingness to accept black men and women in true fellowship.”

 

Was the priesthood ban based on scripture? Edward Kimball wrote, “In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.”

I don’t really understand why only Levites were made priests among the people of Israel. However, we know the priesthood was not strictly limited to Levites. Otherwise, by what authority did Lehi offer sacrifices? I also don’t really understand the situation with the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t race-based - my children and my brother’s children are of the same race. It seems the Lamanites could repent at any time and receive the priesthood. What I do understand is that the Lord revealed to Peter that the Gospel should go to the Gentiles and any supposed discrimination by God that occurred prior to that time is irrelevant.

 

So I give the following as my opinion:

1. The priesthood ban was not inspired by God.

2. Brigham Young instituted the ban on his own and people eventually began to assume it was based on revelation.

3. God did not intervene to prevent the ban because He sometimes allows His children (including prophets) to make mistakes (even big ones) and suffer the consequences. Other examples of God allowing bad things include divorce among the Israelites (Matthew 19:7-8), a king for Israel (1 Samuel 8), and the loss of the 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript (D&C 3).

4. When enough time had passed for most Church members to be willing to accept a change, and when all members of First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were prepared enough to receive a revelation, God granted the revelation to lift the ban.

 

It is not my objective to loudly proclaim that Brigham Young was wrong. In my view, I am just acknowledging that he was wrong in this instance. That doesn’t mean I am encouraging anyone to doubt the prophet today. I say to myself, “At least 99% of what the prophets have taught us is true. I can accept that 1% may not be true without rejecting them outright. Jesus is still my Savior, the priesthood was restored, and this is still God’s church.”

 

Since what I have presented here is only my opinion and I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept it, there’s no need for anyone to get upset over it. I also might not reply to any disagreements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard it argued that God must be behind the ban since He didn’t direct President McKay to lift it. I think that’s a stretch and there are other possible explanations. I imagine God’s view on the matter could have been, “Since the time the priesthood ban was instituted without my approval, various theories to support it have been promulgated. As a result, too many members of my Church have deep-seated racial prejudices and the Church is not ready for a change. They need to suffer the consequences of the ban for a bit longer so they will learn their lesson.”

 

I'm mostly going to stay out of this because JaG's...nicer...but this theory of yours (while I understand was probably a bit off the cuff) is a bit silly. The white people need to suffer the consequences of the black people not getting the priesthood to learn their lesson? Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So I give the following as my opinion:

1. The priesthood ban was not inspired by God.

 

2. Brigham Young instituted the ban on his own and people eventually began to assume it was based on revelation.

 

So by your own admission, your bias is that a prophet instituted a Priesthood ban because of his own prejudices.

 

The only reason you argue so vehemently against the old explanations that the Church has disavowed (which you wrongly assume means "preaches against") is because you want to uphold your pet theory that Brigham Young did a racist thing. If you did not have that deep-seated prejudice coloring (no pun intended) your view, you could have no objection to the possibility that not all of the old explanations were completely false, and that in fact some of them might be true, or at least partially true.

 

It is not my objective to loudly proclaim that Brigham Young was wrong. In my view, I am just acknowledging that he was wrong in this instance.

 

Aside from the fact that you have no authority to "acknowledge" Brigham's mistake in this area (and that it is disloyal and treacherous of you to make any such public judgment), you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It clearly is your objective to loudly proclaim that Brigham Young was wrong; this is foundational in your view of the subject and your absolute insistence that all past explanations that you personally deem "racist" be abandoned.

 

Since what I have presented here is only my opinion and I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept it, there’s no need for anyone to get upset over it. I also might not reply to any disagreements. 

 

Unsurprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share