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

[Anddenex]

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.

Wait...what mistake did Pres. Uchtdorf make....you best be careful or you might make some of our older women in the church a little upset poking your finger at Pres. Uchtdorf (the most handsome Apostle we have).

[Vort]

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.

Not sure I understand the origin of your cognitive dissonance. Did you believe our leaders, however righteous, were infallible? Or are you afraid that their human frailties will result, or have already resulted, in us being led astray?

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Well, and even Pres. Uchtdorf's remarks reinforced that the Church would not depart from "its divinely appointed course", or somesuch thing; and it can be perplexing trying to synthesize those kinds of statements. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Church leaders being fallible has been taught and believed since Joseph Smith taught it himself. Not sure why Uchtdorf's comment is so revolutionary to some.

[baldzach]

Church leaders being fallible has been taught and believed since Joseph Smith taught it himself. Not sure why Uchtdorf's comment is so revolutionary to some.

Fallibility is one thing, but signed, read-over-the-pulpit "from the mouth of the First Presidency, yea verily" letters and instruction manuals should have been -- correctly -- interpreted as being "thus saith the Lord" type of statements, because, the Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray....

[Vort]

Fallibility is one thing, but signed, read-over-the-pulpit "from the mouth of the First Presidency, yea verily" letters and instruction manuals should have been -- correctly -- interpreted as being "thus saith the Lord" type of statements, because, the Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray....

In what way do you consider the prophets to have led us astray? Are you of the opinion that merely believing something that is incorrect is sufficient to be considered "astray"? If that is the case, can you point to any man throughout history, aside possibly from Jesus, who was not "astray"?

[baldzach]

In what way do you consider the prophets to have led us astray? Are you of the opinion that merely believing something that is incorrect is sufficient to be considered "astray"? If that is the case, can you point to any man throughout history, aside possibly from Jesus, who was not "astray"?

There are people who were excommunicated for speaking out on the "official" stance of the day. Substituting "speculation and opinion" as doctrine and subsequently disciplining members for not believing it seems to qualify as "astray."

How about scriptures? Fallible or infallible? After all, they are just writings of prophets, which are of course fallible.

[estradling75]

Personally I find no reason to go beyond this...

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Of course that leaves the burden of knowing when someone is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost to each individual... But I feel that is by design

[The Folk Prophet]

Fallibility is one thing, but signed, read-over-the-pulpit "from the mouth of the First Presidency, yea verily" letters and instruction manuals should have been -- correctly -- interpreted as being "thus saith the Lord" type of statements, because, the Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray....

You're going to have to be more specific. Which signed, read-over-the-pulpit "from the mouth of the First Presidency, yea verily" letters and instruction manuals are you talking about? And more importantly, which ones led the church astray?

[Just_A_Guy]

There are people who were excommunicated for speaking out on the "official" stance of the day.

I'm aware that a couple people were ex'ed in the 1960s for ordaining blacks to the priesthood without authorization. But I'm not aware of anyone being ex'ed for speaking out against the purported theological basis for the priesthood ban--or the ban itself. Do you have some additional info?

[The Folk Prophet]

There are people who were excommunicated for speaking out on the "official" stance of the day. Substituting "speculation and opinion" as doctrine and subsequently disciplining members for not believing it seems to qualify as "astray."

Once again, you'll need to be more specific for a proper response. Which person excommunicated for speaking out on which official stance?

How about scriptures? Fallible or infallible? After all, they are just writings of prophets, which are of course fallible.

The Book of Mormon's pretty clear. If there are errors, they are the errors of men. Sounds like potential fallibility to me.

Point being, fallible does not equal leading the church astray. Nor does it automatically translate to invalid or not useful.

[Dravin]

How about scriptures? Fallible or infallible? After all, they are just writings of prophets, which are of course fallible.

The scriptures are fallible. Indeed, the scriptures themselves make concession for the fallibility of those who wrote them. To wit:

6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dravin

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course that leaves the burden of knowing when someone is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost to each individual... But I feel that is by design

That is a very interesting thing to think about.

[baldzach]

Honestly I don't have concrete examples of excoms. Just grapevine stories.

As far as official statements goes, the 1949 FP statement, anytime Brigham Young spoke and said that everything he spoke in a sermon ought to be scripture, etc., These have been well hashed in the priesthood ban thread, however.

[Vort]

There are people who were excommunicated for speaking out on the "official" stance of the day.

For example?

Substituting "speculation and opinion" as doctrine and subsequently disciplining members for not believing it seems to qualify as "astray."

Are you suggesting that someone at some time in the past was disciplined for NOT teaching that e.g. blacks were the seed of Cain? I do not believe this. Please provide evidence of this extraordinary claim.

How about scriptures? Fallible or infallible? After all, they are just writings of prophets, which are of course fallible.

Yes, how about them?

Guess I'm missing your point.

[baldzach]

I guess what it comes down to is that everything the church publishes -- websites, official statements, Ensign articles, even General Conference talks -- aren't necessarily "binding" or "doctrine" and may very well still be "mistakes" by "imperfect people" and we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear.

[The Folk Prophet]

I guess what it comes down to is that everything the church publishes -- websites, official statements, Ensign articles, even General Conference talks -- aren't necessarily "binding" or "doctrine" and may very well still be "mistakes" by "imperfect people" and we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear.

I don't know that I agree. It's not our place to blow off apostle's words because we disagree. That's a sure road to apostasy.

It really depends on what you mean by "binding" and "doctrine" though. Is "doctrine" what the church teaches or what is eternally, ultimately, perfectly true. The church has certainly had doctrinal stances that have been corrected through the years. As far as "binding". Well, obedience is binding. Following the council of prophets and apostles is binding. Failure to follow their council will certainly be accounted against us, both in this life and in the hereafter.

[Vort]

I guess what it comes down to is that everything the church publishes -- websites, official statements, Ensign articles, even General Conference talks -- aren't necessarily "binding" or "doctrine" and may very well still be "mistakes" by "imperfect people" and we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear.

Not at all. I don't know if you are feeling or intending to be cynical, so I am not trying to accuse you of such. But I do believe such feelings to be deeply cynical, and as such destructive to the spirit. We most assuredly are NOT to "decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear." Rather, we make very specific covenants, and we are to adhere scrupulously to those covenants. As our understanding of the covenants we have made deepens, so too must our adherence to them.

This whole topic is a red herring, distracting you from the important things of the kingdom and of your life. I would encourage you to put it behind you and move forward.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that I agree. It's not our place to blow off apostle's words because we disagree. That's a sure road to apostasy.

It really depends on what you mean by "binding" and "doctrine" though. Is "doctrine" what the church teaches or what is eternally, ultimately, perfectly true. The church has certainly had doctrinal stances that have been corrected through the years. As far as "binding". Well, obedience is binding. Following the council of prophets and apostles is binding. Failure to follow their council will certainly be accounted against us, both in this life and in the hereafter.

Naturally, though, there are countours to that. I agree that it's generally inappropriate to publicly try to undermine something that a current LDS apostle/prophet is teaching--and the closer the current leadership is to "unanimous" in embracing that teaching, the more closely I'm dancing with apostasy when I fight it.

On the other hand: I don't consider myself personally bound by--say--every theological teaching that Bruce R. McConkie or (to take a living example) Dieter F. Uchtdorf, ever says.

Baldzach's statement that "we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear" is mostly true; but that little bit that isn't quite right can get us into a lot of trouble if we aren't careful. We are certainly under an obligation to determine, in conjunction with the Spirit, how we will comport ourselves--that much is certainly correct. But we are not laws unto ourselves; we have--as Vort points out--covenant obligations to the Church and to its leadership; and the teachings of the GAs--while perhaps not infallible--are not to be lightly disregarded.

[The Folk Prophet]

Naturally, though, there are countours to that. I agree that it's generally inappropriate to publicly try to undermine something that a current LDS apostle/prophet is teaching--and the closer the current leadership is to "unanimous" in embracing that teaching, the more closely I'm dancing with apostasy when I fight it.

On the other hand: I don't consider myself personally bound by--say--every theological teaching that Bruce R. McConkie or (to take a living example) Dieter F. Uchtdorf, ever says.

Baldzach's statement that "we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear" is mostly true; but that little bit that isn't quite right can get us into a lot of trouble if we aren't careful. We are certainly under an obligation to determine, in conjunction with the Spirit, how we will comport ourselves--that much is certainly correct. But we are not laws unto ourselves; we have--as Vort points out--covenant obligations to the Church and to its leadership; and the teachings of the GAs--while perhaps not infallible--are not to be lightly disregarded.

There's also an application factor to it. What I mean by that...do I agree with everything every apostle has ever said? No. But disagreeing somewhat with a philosophy and failing to follow council are two different things.

I'll give a personal example: I don't believe that tolerance is a virtue. I believe that other principles that are virtues dictate when and how we should be tolerant. There are times when we should not be tolerant. So when one of the apostles teaches that we should always be tolerant, I don't necessarily agree. But I believe that the reason I don't agree is simply because they are not using the word correctly. I do agree with what they're meaning. I have to interpret what they say, somewhat.

For me to just take the advice and blow it off as wrong would be apostate. To reconcile it with truths taught in the scriptures and by other prophets and apostles is necessary and important.

So I can agree that there is a contour to it, but that contour is heavily weighted, in my thinking, towards trusting and following the chosen servants of the Lord.

There is also another factor to this that I've mentioned in a few other threads but I'll mention again here since it is applicable. There are specific instances where apostles of prophets have said something that has been clearly repudiated by later statements. When this is the case, we take the later statements as our basis for doctrine. But there is a trend of using these cases to blow off other things said by either the same apostle, or simply blowing off anything we don't agree with, siting precedence via these instances. Poor McConkie is a prime example of this. A few misspoken ideas and the guy is lambasted as entirely untrustworthy. (Please note: I am not accusing you of this, just making a point.) But he was an apostle. And in spite of any mistakes he made, I still take anything he says that has not been corrected as revelation and truth. And I believe it is proper to do so. To do otherwise is sort of the epitome of "because they are learned they think they are wise."

I also want to expand your thought on Baldzach's statement that "we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear" as more than mostly true. It is entirely true. But that doesn't mean we are in the right when we make the wrong decision. :)

[estradling75]

That is a very interesting thing to think about.

I think so to... Consider for a moment... most of us would not think that this promise (the subject of this thread) applies to a fallen prophet... We are warned in the scriptures that a prophet can fall. The Lord gives us the power to remove a fallen prophet in the Doctrine and Covenants. So how are we to know when/if this happens and we need to remove them?

[The Folk Prophet]

I think so to... Consider for a moment... most of us would not think that this promise (the subject of this thread) applies to a fallen prophet... We are warned in the scriptures that a prophet can fall. The Lord gives us the power to remove a fallen prophet in the Doctrine and Covenants. So how are we to know when/if this happens and we need to remove them?

I believe that's the Presiding Bishop's purview, not the membership's.

[estradling75]

I believe that's the Presiding Bishop's purview, not the membership's.

And how many members do you think would have serious issues if the Presiding Bishop held court on the Prophet, and excommunicated him, declaring him fallen?

Sometimes I hear people invoke the 'Not astray' as if it is physically impossible. It seems a more clear reading to me that its a reminder that the Lord has already set things up to handle erring prophets when/if they reach the point that they need to be removed.

[The Folk Prophet]

And how many members do you think would have serious issues if the Presiding Bishop held court on the Prophet, and excommunicated him, declaring him fallen?

I'm not sure of your point here. I suspect there would be plenty who went one way or the other. Doesn't change the fact that it's the Presiding Bishop's purview.

Sometimes I hear people invoke the 'Not astray' as if it is physically impossible. It seems a more clear reading to me that its a reminder that the Lord has already set things up to handle erring prophets when/if they reach the point that they need to be removed.

I agree. Though it sort of amounts to the same thing until the President of the Church is brought up on charges of apostasy by the Presiding Bishop and all. Otherwise, we can pretty safely assume that we're not being led astray.

[Finrock]

Every prophet and apostle I have ever read has always taught me to rely on the Spirit.

They have taught me that the Spirit matters most.

They have taught me that they are only speaking doctrine when moved upon by the Spirit.

They have taught me that if I am to discern the spirit of prophecy I must obtain and have the spirit of prophecy.

When I am obeying the Spirit, regardless of what is being taught by the apostles, not only am I obeying what the prophets and apostles have taught me, I am doing what God has commanded me to do and I am avoiding being damned if I don't obey the Spirit.

In the end the Spirit matters most.

-Finrock

Edited January 22, 2014 by Finrock
Clarification