"The Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray."

[Jenamarie]

So this is a phrase I've heard in church for many years, and the implication I'd always taken from it was that the Lord would "remove from office" any Prophet who tried to lead the church astray, usually by having them die, I guess.

Anyway, a thought popped into my head in Church on Sunday, that perhaps it was also through the membership of the Church that a Prophet would not be able to lead the Church astray? What I mean is: if members of the church are reading their scriptures, participating in the Ordinances of the Gospel, really studying the Gospel and learning to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, developing a personal relationship with the Lord, then a Prophet wouldn't *be able* to lead the Church astray, because the membership would recognize it immediately.

Am I off on this?

[Dravin]

By what mechanism does the membership of the Church oust this hypothetical prophet when we collectively decide he's gone off the rails? Or are you proposing that the membership of the Church would ignore this hypothetical prophet until such time as he dies a non-divinely directed death?

[Jenamarie]

By what mechanism does the membership of the Church oust this hypothetical prophet when we collectively decide he's gone off the rails? Or are you proposing that the membership of the Church would ignore this hypothetical prophet until such time as he dies a non-divinely directed death?

I suppose that the membership would either raise a ruckus and tell him to get back on course, and/or ignore the "off the rails" stuff until his time as Prophet comes to it's natural end. (I am NOT proposing the membership would "deal with it" in any sort of violent way)

[Dravin]

So the membership will counsel the prophet on his course and calling? While I appreciate the purpose of confirmation through the spirit of the counsel and commands the Lord gives through his appointed servants I'm less appreciative of a mechanism that seems to boil down to the membership telling the prophet how he needs to be leading the Church or deciding, "That's crazy talk *pushes mute*." While, if we follow Christ we cannot be lead astray in anything, this is a Church were a significant number of the people on the rolls don't attend Church. I'm disinclined to see the collective membership of the Church as the mechanism for course maintenance and correction.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Dravin

[ElectofGod]

So this is a phrase I've heard in church for many years, and the implication I'd always taken from it was that the Lord would "remove from office" any Prophet who tried to lead the church astray, usually by having them die, I guess.

Anyway, a thought popped into my head in Church on Sunday, that perhaps it was also through the membership of the Church that a Prophet would not be able to lead the Church astray? What I mean is: if members of the church are reading their scriptures, participating in the Ordinances of the Gospel, really studying the Gospel and learning to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, developing a personal relationship with the Lord, then a Prophet wouldn't *be able* to lead the Church astray, because the membership would recognize it immediately.

Am I off on this?

Could the members also cause it to be led astray instead of the leaders? Now I am not saying it will just wondering.

The problem with yourassumption, if the membership recogniznes it, they will be excommunicated. The prophet and apostles will disagree and has all authority for the church. Likewise, others will use this quote to say THEY, the members, are wrong because the prophet cannot lead us astray. Because of this belief, there is NOTHING the members can do about anything the prophet or apostles do whether its right or wrong. So they say this quote must mean that the 15 majority will never be lead astray or go contrary to God. That God himself will correct it.

Yet what happened with Grant, he did not confirm for 20 years men to the priesthood, only ordained to offices. This means for 20 years people did not "have the priesthood". Or we are doing it wrong today. Thats just one example.

The only way to rectify this quote is to say that the Lord puts in the 15 who will not lead us astray.

“…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

GOD ALWAYS gives us what we want. We have been under condemnation as a church since the beginning days of the Church (See Bensons talk in GC and Oaks confirmed this recently). We have not gotten out from it thus "we are under the bondage of sin" "in darkness" (D&C 84, also D&C 90). If we remain in condemnation and want it, which we are still under, we will remain here forever degrading further from God or finally get out of condemnation and get closer to God, so until a people want something different we will continue to fall further away from God. NOTHING is static in this world. Basically the only way WE cannot be led astray is to get POWER in the holy Ghost. That is the only sure way.

This is consistent with this promise,

Alma 12:10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

If one is under condemnation, which our whole church is, we will receive the lesser portion until we know nothing at all. We must build our foundation on the Rock. Personal revelation through the holy Ghost, which only points to the one who is Perfect, Jesus Christ. Thus why the Lord made this promise,

D&C 112:24-26 wrote:

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Want to fix this? Get out of condemnation YOURSELF. Receive the Lord through teh veil, converse with him as one man converses with another. You are correct in that if the members will get out of condemnation we can remove this curse upon us and not allow it to be led astray. How many does it take? How many does it take to start zion? Well as with noah it will be with the coming, it only took what 8 people? (plus enoch).

Donald Perry said

God cursed the children of Israel because they would not receive the last law from Moses. When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned. The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law . . . [but] the law revealed to Moses in Horeb never was revealed to the children of Israel as a nation. (WJS, 244)

When God gives the Saints the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the power and authority to ascend into the presence of God through temple ordinances, they must come or be damned.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/I00111-Hebrews_To_Ascend_the_Holy_Mount.html

This is the covenants of the book of mormon that brings US under condemnation as told by Benson. We have been cursed. Lets remove it.

Not to derail the thread but I felt this needed to be said. I talk to much. Enough said.

Edited November 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Quin]

I suspect it's rather the other way around... That the Prophet has to periodically drag the vast body of members kicking and screaming towards edicts we -as a whole- are absolutely against.

Q

[skippy740]

Let us recall the time and place where this phrase originally came from:

Official Declaration 1 

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. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

So, what is happening at this time and place? President Wilford Woodruff has told the members of the Church that there will be no further polygamous marriages within the Church... what would seem to be a contradiction to a prior revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself. A revelation that many members of the Church would've gladly gone to prison or died in defense of their right to practice and live by their faith.

This part of the manifesto was to help members to see that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet... and that he is not leading the Church membership astray from the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph.

When was the last time a Prophet of the Lord asked us to make a SIGNIFICANT change in our practices that caused us (members of the Church) to truly doubt if the Lord was at the Head of His Church?

The only thing that may be CLOSE is the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood... and that was to make the gospel and the practices of the Church more inclusive than it was before... and (I would say) more in harmony with what the Lord would have intended in the first place.

Prophetic warnings, such as President's Bensen and The Book of Mormon, is not considered a significant change in policy.

[McLainDow]

So this is a phrase I've heard in church for many years, and the implication I'd always taken from it was that the Lord would "remove from office" any Prophet who tried to lead the church astray, usually by having them die, I guess.

Anyway, a thought popped into my head in Church on Sunday, that perhaps it was also through the membership of the Church that a Prophet would not be able to lead the Church astray? What I mean is: if members of the church are reading their scriptures, participating in the Ordinances of the Gospel, really studying the Gospel and learning to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, developing a personal relationship with the Lord, then a Prophet wouldn't *be able* to lead the Church astray, because the membership would recognize it immediately.

Am I off on this?

I really enjoyed your post. A prophet is not a prophet every time he speaks. It is up to us a individual member to worthy to recieve inspiration and pray about what the prophet or past prophets say/said. In this church we are asked to find out for ourselves. If we follow this pattern the Lord will guide us.

[apexviper]

So the membership will counsel the prophet on his course and calling? While I appreciate the purpose of confirmation through the spirit of the counsel and commands the Lord gives through his appointed servants I'm less appreciative of a mechanism that seems to boil down to the membership telling the prophet how he needs to be leading the Church or deciding, "That's crazy talk *pushes mute*." While, if we follow Christ we cannot be lead astray in anything, this is a Church were a significant number of the people on the rolls don't attend Church. I'm disinclined to see the collective membership of the Church as the mechanism for course maintenance and correction.

You realize that the Prophet does take into consideration the feelings of others right? There are times when leaders of the church take counsel from members.

During my departing interview from my Mission President he asked if I had any counsel for HIM on what he could do better to run the mission. Although he's not a prophet, seer, and revelator, he is still a key holder yet he sought counsel from a missionary.

Take Moses for example. He tried to be the single judge for everyone. His father-in-law, Jethro, comes along and counsels him to get some help in his calling, to call other men to be judges in Israel. Moses took that counsel and applied it. The Lord God validated it and that became part of the church. That wasn't from Moses, it was from another guy who had no calling. I would say Jethro started the calling, through the Spirit, of stake presidents, bishops, and other callings that are judges in Israel.

Edited November 5, 2013 by apexviper

[james12]

When was the last time a Prophet of the Lord asked us to make a SIGNIFICANT change in our practices that caused us (members of the Church) to truly doubt if the Lord was at the Head of His Church?

The only thing that may be CLOSE is the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood... and that was to make the gospel and the practices of the Church more inclusive than it was before... and (I would say) more in harmony with what the Lord would have intended in the first place.

Prophetic warnings, such as President's Bensen and The Book of Mormon, is not considered a significant change in policy.

The problem here may be in determining what is significant. Is removing scripture significant? Are changing Temple ordinances? Is removal of certain topics from church curriculum? In short, are "small" changes over time acceptable?

[james12]

There seems to me that members of the church fall into some sort of scale regarding this topic. On the one end is the statement:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June 1945).

On the other is something like this from Brigham Young:

Salvation is an individual operation. I am the only person that can possibly save myself. When salvation is sent to me, I can reject or receive it. ...There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. "I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own," say they, "to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem." (Journal of Discourses 1:312)

I think the whole matter may be boiled down to why we follow the prophet.

1. Do we follow because we have heard the Lord's voice in his instruction?

2. Do we follow the man, because he is Prophet?

While this distinction may seem minor I believe there is a large gulf between the two statements. In the first instance we follow the Lord, in the second we follow a man. This may happen in many circumstances and on many occasions.

I love Elder Eyring's words about a man who learned how to follow the Lord.

When I was the president of Ricks College years ago, I remember having a man who was my priesthood leader come to my house each month to interview me about my home teaching. He brought with him a gray notebook in which he wrote notes. He recorded not only my report as a home teacher, but my observations about the gospel and life as well.

I remember at first being very flattered. Then one Sunday he and I were visiting what was then called junior Sunday School. He was a few rows in front of me. The speaker was a little girl, no more than six or seven, probably not yet old enough to have the gift of the Holy Ghost. I glanced over at the man and noticed with surprise that he had that same gray notebook open. As the little girl spoke, he was writing with as much speed and intensity as he had in the study of my home. I learned a lesson from him that I haven’t forgotten. He had faith that God could speak to him as clearly through a child as through the president of a college. (Listen Together, Sep 4, 1988)

Can we hear the Lord's voice in the words of a child? Can we hear them in the words of the Prophet? If not, in the end it does not matter who else we follow.

[Dravin]

You realize that the Prophet does take into consideration the feelings of others right? There are times when leaders of the church take counsel from members.

Yep. There is a lot of things he does, relevance? Taking into consideration of the feelings of others is not the membership telling him what he needs to be doing. Asking for advice is not analogous to what is being discussed.

During my departing interview from my Mission President he asked if I had any counsel for HIM on what he could do better to run the mission. Although he's not a prophet, seer, and revelator, he is still a key holder yet he sought counsel from a missionary.

And this is not analogous to what is being discussed either.

That wasn't from Moses, it was from another guy who had no calling.

It was not from the children of Israel rising up and saying, "Moses, you're doing it wrong. You need to do it this way or we're going to ignore you." So again, not analogous to what is being discussed. You do realize there is a distinction to be had between someone close offering advice, or a priesthood leader soliciting advice, and the membership of the Church collectively going, "Do it how we say or we are going to ignore you." as a mechanism the Lord is using to maintain the course of his Church right?

Edited November 5, 2013 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

Skippy sort of says this too, but (to put it another way) the historical context of Woodruff's quote is that he is defending the Manifesto at a stake conference. In that context, it makes no sense for him to say "hey, if you think I'm wrong, just ignore me and at some point the Lord will put it to rights". The only logical interpretation, in the context, is "the fact that I'm standing here, alive, means that the Lord thinks I'm leading you right."

Yet what happened with Grant, he did not confirm for 20 years men to the priesthood, only ordained to offices. This means for 20 years people did not "have the priesthood". Or we are doing it wrong today. Thats just one example.

That assertion is historically inaccurate. In the early LDS Church, there was no formal liturgical separation of conferral of priesthood versus ordination to office. In 1900 then-apostle Joseph F. Smith published a book called Gospel Doctrine, which advocated a two-step ordination process. This caused a great deal of consternation in the Church because--frankly--no one had been doing it this way; and when Heber J. Grant became the prophet he circulated a letter to the effect that either method was fine. The two-step process was formally adopted by the Church in the 1960s. (Source.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Skippy sort of says this too, but (to put it another way) the historical context of Woodruff's quote is that he is defending the Manifesto at a stake conference. In that context, it makes no sense for him to say "hey, if you think I'm wrong, just ignore me and at some point the Lord will put it to rights". The only logical interpretation, in the context, is "the fact that I'm standing here, alive, means that the Lord thinks I'm leading you right."

Yet what happened with Grant, he did not confirm for 20 years men to the priesthood, only ordained to offices. This means for 20 years people did not "have the priesthood". Or we are doing it wrong today. Thats just one example.

That assertion is historically inaccurate. In the early LDS Church, there was no formal liturgical separation of conferral of priesthood versus ordination to office. In 1900 then-apostle Joseph F. Smith published a book called Gospel Doctrine, which advocated a two-step ordination process. This caused a great deal of consternation in the Church because--frankly--no one had been doing it this way; and when Heber J. Grant became the prophet some years later he circulated a letter to the effect that either method was fine. The two-step process was formally adopted by the Church in the 1960s. (Source.)

[Traveler]

So this is a phrase I've heard in church for many years, and the implication I'd always taken from it was that the Lord would "remove from office" any Prophet who tried to lead the church astray, usually by having them die, I guess.

Anyway, a thought popped into my head in Church on Sunday, that perhaps it was also through the membership of the Church that a Prophet would not be able to lead the Church astray? What I mean is: if members of the church are reading their scriptures, participating in the Ordinances of the Gospel, really studying the Gospel and learning to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, developing a personal relationship with the Lord, then a Prophet wouldn't *be able* to lead the Church astray, because the membership would recognize it immediately.

Am I off on this?

I actually think you are on to something that should be considered. The first point I would like to make in this discussion is that a prophet is a person just like the rest of us dealing with a mortal existence. They are not superheros with extraordinary powers beyond that of any other member. In truth, though a prophet holds keys they have no more priesthood than does any other Melchizedek priesthood holder. And every member living worthy has as much right to revelation as do they. Every member has right to be led by the same spirit and receive conformation concerning every revelation - and - this is important. At our general conference the members sustains the prophet by common consent. This is not a meaningless activity but part of our covenant responsibility as Saints. I believe this to be part of our covenant with G-d and a viable means to prevent the Saints of G-d from being misguided. I submit that it would not be possible for a corrupted Prophet to mislead Saints that honor G-d and their covenants - this simple act of sustaining would - in and of itself - prevent a prophet for leading the Saints astray.

However, there is another point I wish to make and I believe this to be even more important. The second point comes from my own experience in callings that I have received from everything from teaching primary children, home teaching to being in a bishopric. It would be nice if I could tell the forum that I have never faltered in any calling I have served - but that simply is not the case. I have made mistakes in my callings. I have failed my G-d. And when I have fallen - what has happened. Seldom was I removed from my calling but rather G-d has given me an example from those that I serve that has brought me to repentance and renewed my resolve to serve. As I am creating this post I recall an 8 year old girl is a primary class telling me that she did not feel good about something in class. The effect was immediate and strong and made me a better primary teacher. I think that many posters underestimate greatly the effects of just one worthy member that honors their covenants has on their leaders and fellow members. I have learned that my strength as a leader is not so much my devotion but many times relies greatly on the strength and commitment of many that I am called to serve. Thus I believe that our commitment will inspire otherwise faltering individuals (including a prophet) to better fulfill their calling.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

There seems to me that members of the church fall into some sort of scale regarding this topic. On the one end is the statement:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June 1945).

Ugh. What a nasty, horrible, incorrect bit of false doctrine that was. It's still held out today by our critics to prove we're a church full of blind brainwashed fools who unthinkingly go wherever we're pointed.

The full quote is even worse:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

What nonsense. It's an embarrassment this thing ever saw print, even if it was only in a "Ward Teacher's Message".

When this came out, it caused much concern among many inside and outside of the Church. Dr. J. Raymond Cope of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, sent a letter to President George Albert Smith in November of that year. The letter was cordial, expressing concerns that the article was "doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders... this cannot be the position of the true leaders."

President Smith's letter back (bolding mine):

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah

December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope

First Unitarian Society

13th East at 6th South Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:

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

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

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

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he'll be,

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven."

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

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]

[Found in the George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36, Box 63-8A), Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. More detailed information on this topic can be found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), 35-39.]

[skippy740]

The problem here may be in determining what is significant. Is removing scripture significant? Are changing Temple ordinances? Is removal of certain topics from church curriculum? In short, are "small" changes over time acceptable?

Was removing the cafeteria from larger temple designs significant change to doctrine in the designing and building of smaller temples?

I remember hearing that the Endowment used to take a full day. Was refining the temple ordinance a 'significant change'?

Was removing the Lectures on Faith 'significant'? Was it really scripture?

Are we going to hold on to every little thing as significant because of "traditions of our fathers"?

Unless these changes are causing us to fall away from the core tenants of the Gospel, these are not changes that would cause a Church leader to "lead the Church astray".

We do not want a "Korihor" to be a Church leader, let alone the President of the Church. Such a person would be discovered and (rightfully so) removed from such a place of influence.

Alma 30 

[Vort]

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June 1945).

Ugh. What a nasty, horrible, incorrect bit of false doctrine that was. It's still held out today by our critics to prove we're a church full of blind brainwashed fools who unthinkingly go wherever we're pointed.

Then our critics are fools. Fools mock, but they shall mourn.

The statement is not intrinsically offensive, not at all, not even the longer version you provide. It is offensive only to those who insist on taking offense.

"The thinking has been done" need not be interpreted as "don't think about this any more." A more natural and truthful interpretation is, "The decision has been well-studied and carefully wrought, and not made rashly." Or, if you prefer, "When our leaders speak, they have thought and prayed plenty about the issue, and are not speaking off the cuff."

[Smeagums]

By what mechanism does the membership of the Church oust this hypothetical prophet when we collectively decide he's gone off the rails? Or are you proposing that the membership of the Church would ignore this hypothetical prophet until such time as he dies a non-divinely directed death?

By the mechanism given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

I personally don't believe that the president of the Church cannot lead the Church astray.

[Just_A_Guy]

By the mechanism given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Minor caveat: On the only two occasions that the Common Council of the Church convened, the trials (first of Joseph Smith, then of Sidney Rigdon) were presided over by the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

[Anddenex]

Within scripture we are provided examples of this being true that a prophet would not be allowed to lead us astray. I think it instructive when Moses was told by a certain group of Israelites that he was in the wrong that the Lord proved a point by opening the earth and burying these Israelites ( and it appears households ) alive.

When Balaam wanted to curse Israel instead of blessing Israel the Lord was willing to send forth an Angel to strike him down.

We shouldn't have any fear of a prophet leading us astray and we will be more benefitted by following the prophet than by thinking we know better than the Lord's anointed. Yet, I do like your thought, because we definitely are able to help keep other leaders in check (i.e. Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc...). We do not have any promise that these leaders will not lead us astray, and actually I know of experiences of a whole ward being dissolved because the ward members were unwilling to step up and let the bishop know he was acting out of line with correct doctrine, policies and practices (if I am remembering correctly this lead to more than one disciplinary council also).

As for me I have no fear of our prophet leading us astray because we do have promises that he won't be able to.

EDIT: Also we only have to look to our own history of those who decided to "steady" Joseph Smith, considering him a fallen prophet, or that he was no longer inspired, and how they ended up.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Anddenex

[james12]

Was removing the cafeteria from larger temple designs significant change to doctrine in the designing and building of smaller temples?

I remember hearing that the Endowment used to take a full day. Was refining the temple ordinance a 'significant change'?

Was removing the Lectures on Faith 'significant'? Was it really scripture?

Are we going to hold on to every little thing as significant because of "traditions of our fathers"?

Unless these changes are causing us to fall away from the core tenants of the Gospel, these are not changes that would cause a Church leader to "lead the Church astray".

We do not want a "Korihor" to be a Church leader, let alone the President of the Church. Such a person would be discovered and (rightfully so) removed from such a place of influence.

Alma 30Â*

I just think that judging a prophets words by "significance" and the number of people led astray is a poor measuring stick.

[DBMormon]

This quote comes from Wilford Woodruff speaking off the cuff to a young kid. It is not a doctrinal statement IMO.

[estradling75]

This quote comes from Wilford Woodruff speaking off the cuff to a young kid. It is not a doctrinal statement IMO.

Incorrect

Official Declaration 1

Edited November 8, 2013 by estradling75

[yjacket]

Anyway, a thought popped into my head in Church on Sunday, that perhaps it was also through the membership of the Church that a Prophet would not be able to lead the Church astray? What I mean is: if members of the church are reading their scriptures, participating in the Ordinances of the Gospel, really studying the Gospel and learning to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, developing a personal relationship with the Lord, then a Prophet wouldn't *be able* to lead the Church astray, because the membership would recognize it immediately.

Am I off on this?

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. A little background, when the Church was first formed political and religious conventions were extremely common. The Revolution was started at political conventions. In fact, up until prob. about the 1970s attending mass meetings and state conventions to elect delegates for the US Presidency was very common. I read an LDS General Conference talk by I believe Pres. Kimball published in the 70s who advocated that members attend their local mass meeting (it was national election time) to elect delegates. Voting in this country used to very personal and done mostly through delegates elected at conventions.

Now from what I've read in history the Church was formed in this political environment and in the US where nobody liked to be told what to do. When JS died, the church held a religious convention and at that convention the body (or majority) of the saints "sustained" or elected Brigham Young to lead the church. I believe the sustaining that we do in Church today came from that environment.

It has morphed into little more a perfunctory act and rubber-stamping at this point, however I believe that if the body (or majority) of the saints in a particular ward decided they did not want a Bishop, or in a stake the Stake President or church-wide even a Prophet to lead them they would simply have to "vote-down" when the sustaining happened.

It is my belief that the members have more power over this than they particularly realize.