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

[Just_A_Guy]

AKA I am not going to give him another reason to twist my words, find fault with me, and do anything he can to find something negative in what I am saying. He faults me for saying I am not understanding the TRUE meanings. And he is totally missing the point of mine.

Let's be brutally honest: Your "point" is that you are trying to slip the preachings of an excommunicated apostate into this forum at any juncture you can find an excuse to do so, while maintaining plausible deniability if and when someone calls you on it.

And you did bring FRUITS into this discussion. Back about "I will compare him to DS! He doesn't think he is evil like I do so he must be evil, logical explanation. These are the bad fruits...and you listed some ..."

You mean, my post # 40 to this forum? Your cognitive dissonance is staggering. Post #40 was was a direct response to your post #39 which invoked the "by their fruits ye shall know them" statement. Do a thread search--the first mention of "fruit" comes from you.

Not to mention you slandered an ENITRE testimony of an individual, daniel rodgers, because he interpreted ONE verse differently than you? Seriously? Who does that?

If I've slandered Rogers, it can only be because I said something that was false. What did I say that was false?

Nothing. And you know it. I merely pointed out that Rogers takes a scripture talking about people who don't truly follow the prophet winding up in the Telestial Kingdom, and cites it for the proposition that people who do truly follow the prophets wind up in the Telestial Kingdom. That's not "interpretation"--that's fact.

Its becoming apparent what you are trying to do. But I will say you probably did it out of ignorance.. I hope so. Discredit someone else, one whom the Lord himself accepted I don't care. Not to say I know he had these experiences but I do believe he did.

The experiences Rogers and Snuffer purport to have had, are utterly irrelevant. David Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon had similar experiences. It doesn't mean that the false doctrines they later promulgated must go unanswered.

I am out. Off to spiritually uplifting discussion.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[skippy740]

[MarginOfError]

Enjoy your echo chamber.

echo chamber

echo chamber

echo chamber

echo chamber

[frederick]

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'll admit I haven't read through all of the pages, but I was surprised that no one brought up this scripture from D&C 107 on the parts of the discussion I did read through.

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

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

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 107)

Not only should we be able to recognize if the prophet tries to lead us astray, it is our duty to see that he would be held in common council of the church. Thus, NONE shall be exempted from the justice and laws of God. And of course, that would also mean that NONE of us, right up to the president of the high priesthood, is exempt from going astray. We are men. We are all capable of error.

[Dravin]

I'll admit I haven't read through all of the pages, but I was surprised that no one brought up this scripture from D&C 107 on the parts of the discussion I did read through.

Post #18.

[frederick]

Post #18.

Thanks! I knew I skimmed through this thread too quickly. I looked at the first page and the last few, but missed that one.

I must admit though, I am still a bit surprised at the cursory treatment that scripture was given.

I sustain our leaders, yet I do not presume that they would be infallible. I don't think they would want us to think that either, that's an awful lot of pressure we put on their shoulders.

I think it's clear from the scripture in D&C 107:82-84, that it must be possible for the president of the high priesthood to fall or stumble. But, where does that leave us if we feel he could never led us astray? Would we recognize it if he did?

I often wonder if the Nephites or Jaredites felt they could never be led astray. Do we think we are better than they were? Christ personally ordained twelve disciples and thousands were witness of His resurrection. Yet, within 200 years, they began to fall away.

What about the removal of the Lectures on Faith? Would removal of canonized scripture without the common consent of the church be grounds to enact the procedures in D&C 107?

I simply bring up this scripture because I think the "attitude" that we can't be led astray is extremely dangerous. I believe it was this same attitude that allowed the Nephites to gradually fall away. The Children of Israel had the priesthood from Moses unto Christ. They didn't understand it, but they had authority to build a temple and perform ordinances. Yet, they still dwindled in unbelief.

I think an attitude of humble repentance is far more likely to keep us on the straight and narrow path. I worry about pride. I see the dangers of it in the Book of Mormon. I think we are just as prone to error as any of God's people in the past.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks! I knew I skimmed through this thread too quickly. I looked at the first page and the last few, but missed that one.

I must admit though, I am still a bit surprised at the cursory treatment that scripture was given.

I think part of the issue is that it's a pretty opaque procedure. As I pointed out back in my post #19, the only two times the Common Council of the Church was ever convened, it was presided over by (in effect) the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

I often wonder if the Nephites or Jaredites felt they could never be led astray. Do we think we are better than they were? Christ personally ordained twelve disciples and thousands were witness of His resurrection. Yet, within 200 years, they began to fall away.

There's a difference between saying I can never be led astray, period, versus I can never be led astray by a particular person.

Which of those twelve apostles, or the other prophets mentioned in the Book of Mormon, was the cause of those civilizations' having been led astray? The traditional Restoration narrative, back to the time of Joseph Smith himself, is that apostasy comes when our sins and our pride leads us to listen to the prophets and apostles too little--not too much.

What about the removal of the Lectures on Faith? Would removal of canonized scripture without the common consent of the church be grounds to enact the procedures in D&C 107?

Well, if you bring D&C 107 (and its historical practice) back into play, then in 1920 there was only one person in the Church who had the right invoke that procedure against the First Presidency for that decision; and that was Charles W. Nibley. He didn't.

Oh, you could argue that any bishop has the right to initiate that procedure. But there are now about thirty thousand bishops in the Church. If any one of them could unilaterally (well, with a crew of twelve hand-picked assistants) remove the President of the Church from office, then it would be a miracle for any first presidency to stay in place longer than six months. (And even then, per D&C 43, the President arguably retains the right to pick his successor.)

I simply bring up this scripture because I think the "attitude" that we can't be led astray is extremely dangerous.

I don't discount the importance of personal revelation and intellectual/spiritual curiosity.

But there's a difference between believing that "the prophet won't lead us astray" versus "the prophet's words are the only words I ever need to learn and apply". The former is only "dangerous" to a person who sees the prophet himself as dangerous.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[frederick]

Thanks for your response. It gives me some stuff to think about.

However, I keep getting back to a point that I should have made clearer from the get go. If the prophet can't lead us astray, why is there a procedure to remove him at all? I mean, if it were not possible for him to lead us astray, then really, there shouldn't be a requirement to have those verses in section 107. Or are they just a token few verses, that really don't apply, but are in there to give an appearance of equal justice?

Also, one other point you made about Charles Nibley caused me to reflect a bit. What if he were asleep at the wheel so to speak? What if his sensitivity to the Spirit was dampened, or even better, what if he were so convinced that the prophet couldn't lead us astray, Nibley considered his actions were justified in having the canonized scripture removed. If he were convinced that the prophet couldn't lead us astray, don't you think he wouldn't be apt to question such a dramatic action? Would anyone say anything if it were decided that the book of Abraham will now be removed from canonized scripture and the Pearl of Great Price?

It seems like that it is an awful lot of responsibility to put on a single man to keep watch. Which gets me thinking of this scripture from D&C 101.

44 A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees;

45 And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.

50 And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.

51 And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees.

52 Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil?

53 Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101)

So, who's at fault here? Should the trees be at fault for being cut down? Who are the servants that were commanded to set watch? Who is the watchman that was supposed to be set upon the tower?

I realize I asked a bunch of questions. Honestly, I'd be happy to hear an answer about my first one about the necessity of having a procedure to remove the president of the high priesthood.

Thanks again for corresponding so nicely!

Edited November 13, 2013 by frederick
edited for clarity.

[Suzie]

If the prophet can't lead us astray, why is there a procedure to remove him at all? I mean, if it were not possible for him to lead us astray, then really, there shouldn't be a requirement to have those verses in section 107. Or are they just a token few verses, that really don't apply, but are in there to give an appearance of equal justice?

Those verses are there for a reason and they are very clear. Prophets are human.

However, keep in mind that a Prophet these days (thank goodness)doesn't get up to preach or talk or write about any particular "new" doctrine to the Church unless the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles approves it and agrees unanimously, so even if he might try to do anything contrary to what the Lord wants him to do or tries to give us some crazy doctrine, you have a bunch of sweet old men ready to stop him.

[Durzan]

Elder Holland and the Twelve to the rescue!

15 sweet old men = pure awesome.

Yeah, I think that the Prophet isn't likely to lead us astray... and if on the off chance he does, then there is a defense mechanism in place.

But... I trust President Monson.

[Anddenex]

In my personal study I thought this statement from Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting Wilford Woodruff is relevant, "The Lord would not permit me to occupy this position one day of my life, unless I was susceptible to the Holy Spirit and to the revelations of God. It is too late in the day for this Church to stand without revelation. Not only the President of the Church should possess this gift and give it to the people, but his counselors and the Apostles and all men that bear the Holy Priesthood, if they magnify their calling, although they may not be called to give revelations to lead and direct the Church. The spirit of revelation belongs to the Priesthood." (The Family and Eternity)

[Wormwood]

My thought on this is simple: if a past prophet taught a doctrine and claimed it was eternal and then many years later another prophet invalidates what was taught, again, as eternal, then one of them has already led the church astray. Why? Let's say a prophet led the church for 40 years preaching xyz doctrine. During those 40 years, many people FOLLOWED the prophet, correct? Well, let's say that 125 years later, a new prophet changes everything the old prophet taught as doctrine, then all the people under the new prophet are being led astray since two prophets contradict each other in doctrine. One said the doctrine was eternal and the other invalidated such doctrine. Since God is unchangeable - at least that is what is taught - He wouldn;t teach a prophet an eternal doctrine 125 years ago and say it was eternal only to CHANGE it later and say it was temporary or a theory. You can't have contradictions in eternal doctrines or someone is not in tune and therefore may inadvertedly mislead people.

[The Folk Prophet]

If the prophet can't lead us astray, why is there a procedure to remove him at all?

The answer seems to be in the question.

[Just_A_Guy]

My thought on this is simple: if a past prophet taught a doctrine and claimed it was eternal and then many years later another prophet invalidates what was taught, again, as eternal, then one of them has already led the church astray.

In another thread I offered the following which may be of some application to the current discussion:

Well, let's look at the context of Woodruff's statement:

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. (Emphasis added.)

When Woodruff says the Church President won't lead the Church astray, he isn't saying that the Church President won't ever say anything that is wrong. He's saying that the Church President won't do anything that separates the Church from "the oracles of God" (revelation) or from "their duty" (lead them to actually do things that are contrary to the will of the Lord).

[estradling75]

My thought on this is simple: if a past prophet taught a doctrine and claimed it was eternal and then many years later another prophet invalidates what was taught, again, as eternal, then one of them has already led the church astray. Why? Let's say a prophet led the church for 40 years preaching xyz doctrine. During those 40 years, many people FOLLOWED the prophet, correct? Well, let's say that 125 years later, a new prophet changes everything the old prophet taught as doctrine, then all the people under the new prophet are being led astray since two prophets contradict each other in doctrine. One said the doctrine was eternal and the other invalidated such doctrine. Since God is unchangeable - at least that is what is taught - He wouldn;t teach a prophet an eternal doctrine 125 years ago and say it was eternal only to CHANGE it later and say it was temporary or a theory. You can't have contradictions in eternal doctrines or someone is not in tune and therefore may inadvertedly mislead people.

You could take that approach... or you could take a more scriptural approach.

In Doctrine 19 God gives us the Key to understanding the use of word Eternal

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

From this we can easily see that God uses words like Endless and Eternal differently then we do. Now this scripture is talking about punishment and torment as an example... But there is nothing there that says it does not apply to any and everything else God might command... So lets do a simple replacement in the same verses go from punishment to doctrine

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this Doctrine, but it is written endless Doctrine.

7 Again, it is written eternal Doctrine; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the Doctrine which is given from my hand is endless Doctrine, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal Doctrine is God’s Doctrine.

12 Endless Doctrine is God’s Doctrine.

Of course you can continue to define Eternal (and endless) the way the rest of the world does and force yourself into all kinds of mental gymnastics trying to hold it all together. Or you can accept the key to the mystery that God given us.

[The Folk Prophet]

You could take that approach... or you could take a more scriptural approach.

In Doctrine 19 God gives us the Key to understanding the use of word Eternal

From this we can easily see that God uses words like Endless and Eternal differently then we do. Now this scripture is talking about punishment and torment as an example... But there is nothing there that says it does not apply to any and everything else God might command... So lets do a simple replacement in the same verses go from punishment to doctrine

Of course you can continue to define Eternal (and endless) the way the rest of the world does and force yourself into all kinds of mental gymnastics trying to hold it all together. Or you can accept the key to the mystery that God given us.

Hmm. Interesting. Possible. A bit of a stretch imo.

I think it's more likely and obvious that people tend to misunderstand what it meant by "astray". The church, in spite of corrected doctrines, is not astray (contrary to certain *cough*snuffer*cough* points of view). Even with practices that may or may not be 100% perfect and correct the church is not astray.

The church and it's practices are not perfect. But God will not allow us to be lead astray if we follow the prophet. Fairly straight forward as I see it.

[estradling75]

Hmm. Interesting. Possible. A bit of a stretch imo.

I think it's more likely and obvious that people tend to misunderstand what it meant by "astray". The church, in spite of corrected doctrines, is not astray (contrary to certain *cough*snuffer*cough* points of view). Even with practices that may or may not be 100% perfect and correct the church is not astray.

The church and it's practices are not perfect. But God will not allow us to be lead astray if we follow the prophet. Fairly straight forward as I see it.

I was addressing more the thought that 'Eternal doctrine' that isn't as a problem then the "Not leading astray" quote. I tend not to like that quote and disagree with the interpretation/implication that many give it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I was addressing more the thought that 'Eternal doctrine' that isn't as a problem then the "Not leading astray" quote. I tend not to like that quote and disagree with the interpretation/implication that many give it.

Right. I understand. I think the eternal doctrine philosophy as it relates to leaders stating a doctrine is eternal is a bit of a stretch is what I mean. I am only stating this as my opinion though, accepting that it is a possibility and an interesting thought.

As to tying it back into the quote...well, that's the thread topic...so....

I will, for the fun of it, address your last sentence here. I agree, though perhaps not in the same way. I think the quote means what it says at the most simple level. We just, simply, do not have to worry about our prophet leading us astray. We can, and should, follow him without fear. And this goes for prophetic declarations as well as simple advice or counsel. Follow the prophet and do not fear. It's as simple as that.

[Irishcolleen]

Out of curiosity what would happen if a prophet gave advice that conflicted with past prophets or teachings? For instance, how would the church respond if the prophet said to allow gay sealings or to allow polygamy again?

I know these are big "what if's" and not likely to happen. I am just curious as to how LDS members would handle such a situation.

[The Folk Prophet]

Out of curiosity what would happen if a prophet gave advice that conflicted with past prophets or teachings? For instance, how would the church respond if the prophet said to allow gay sealings or to allow polygamy again?

I know these are big "what if's" and not likely to happen. I am just curious as to how LDS members would handle such a situation.

They are big what ifs. However, equating gay sealings in the temple to allowing polygamy again doesn't work. One contradicts a myriad of other concrete doctrines. The other is canonized scripture.

Regardless, the answer is the same. Follow the living prophet and current revealed truths.

On the other hand, if church policy simply changed on such extreme matters without a concrete statement from the prophet it would be more difficult. This isn't likely to happen though, I think. If the leadership is unified on any given point then we should trust and follow.

As long as throwing out what ifs. What if the quorum of the 12 split in two over one of the above issues, 7 or 8 of them broke off, declared one of them the prophet, and the church split in two over it. Who do you follow? :)

The clear and obvious answer is get on your knees and pray like mad with all humility and listen to the spirit. Of course this applies to all of the above.

[estradling75]

Out of curiosity what would happen if a prophet gave advice that conflicted with past prophets or teachings? For instance, how would the church respond if the prophet said to allow gay sealings or to allow polygamy again?

I know these are big "what if's" and not likely to happen. I am just curious as to how LDS members would handle such a situation.

How did the early Christian church respond to Peter's vision to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles? Something that the Jews never really did, nor did Christ. Yet Peter upended all that with a vision.

While I don't see either of your cases happening... Yet historically we rarely do such until it does happen. Then people will respond to it. Some will find reasons to believe and some will find reasons to disbelieve

[baldzach]

How did the early Christian church respond to Peter's vision to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles? Something that the Jews never really did, nor did Christ. Yet Peter upended all that with a vision.

While I don't see either of your cases happening... Yet historically we rarely do such until it does happen. Then people will respond to it. Some will find reasons to believe and some will find reasons to disbelieve

Personally, I have no problem with the church coming out and claiming new revelation that now allows XYZ when XYZ was not allowed in the past. Ending the racial ban on the priesthood, for example -- no problem. It was the will of God, no the will of God is this, and that's cool.

I'd be fine if the church came out and said "God has revealed that now the blessings of marriage should be extended to all couples regardless of orientation" or that polygamy was to be reinstated. I am perfectly willing to accept that God's ways are not my ways and that he knows what I don't know and he has his reasons. All good.

What I have a problem with, however, is when the church says "God's will is now THIS, and we don't know why the past prophets thought it was something else -- it never was. This has always been God's will, and previous prophets didn't understand it, even though they definitely sounded like they had direct revelation explaining it, they really didn't."

[skippy740]

Ephesians 4:14

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Polygamy was instituted in biblical times and the early days of the Church. If it is to come back, it would be consistent with ancient and modern scripture.

Who is the Gospel to be preached to? All the world, which should extend all blessings of the gospel to all the world. This is documented in all scriptures.

Same sex marriages? There is no scriptural or other historical precedent for it within the gospel, so I'd have a REALLY hard time accepting this as a doctrinally inspired revelation considering the entire Plan of Salvation.

Otherwise, good post.

[Just_A_Guy]

What I have a problem with, however, is when the church says "God's will is now THIS, and we don't know why the past prophets thought it was something else -- it never was. This has always been God's will, and previous prophets didn't understand it, even though they definitely sounded like they had direct revelation explaining it, they really didn't."

I agree with you in general; though it's probably worth noting that the Church has not come out and said that the priesthood ban was a contradiction of God's will for His church given the situation that existed in the applicable time periods. (I agree with you that it's walked back its rhetoric on the doctrinal basis for the policy; but we've done the rounds on this here recently and my read is that the Church has not claimed the policy itself was a mistake.)

[baldzach]

I agree with you in general; though it's probably worth noting that the Church has not come out and said that the priesthood ban was a contradiction of God's will for His church given the situation that existed in the applicable time periods. (I agree with you that it's walked back its rhetoric on the doctrinal basis for the policy; but we've done the rounds on this here recently and my read is that the Church has not claimed the policy itself was a mistake.)

Agreed. I guess I should say I don't like the cognitive dissonance I'm struggling with that church leaders make mistakes (a la Pres. Uchtdorf) and the topic of this thread from OD1. It just has come to a head with the recent "speculation and opinion" statements on race in the last two years.