Prophetic fallibility/infallibility

[Vort]

Vort and MormonGator: This may be true. I personally don't feel that I am anywhere near the camp that wants to attack our chruch leadership.

Just to be clear: I didn't think you were. I was responding purely to your question, not to some sneaky idea of what you were really asking.

[Vort]

Let me take the opportunity of theSQUIDSTER's insightful post to make a point I think is important.

 

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.

This statement was absolutely and undeniably true. This was in fact the practice of the Church at the time McConkie wrote it.

 

"The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord. The principle is the same as will apply when all men are judged according to their mortal works and are awarded varying statuses in the life hereafter."

This statement was clearly speculative, though I expect at the time he wrote it, McConkie didn't think it speculation so much as obvious fact.

 

When McConkie said "Forget everything I have said on the subject", he was obviously talking about statements of the second sort, not the first. Similarly, when the Church disavowed certain ideas as doctrinal, they were obviously ideas of the second sort, not statements of fact like the first sort.

 

I bring up this fact because there are many enemies of the Church, many of them actually within the Church, who are falsely claiming that the Church has disavowed the divine origin of the former doctrine of the Priesthood being withheld form those of black African descent, or of its continuation. This is false. The Church has done no such thing. It is the "why" teachings that seek to explain the Priesthood ban, and not the ban itself, that the Church has disclaimed.

[Just_A_Guy]

When McConkie said "Forget everything I have said on the subject", he was obviously talking about statements of the second sort, not the first.

 

In point of fact, I don't think McConkie himself was even talking about those particular kinds of statements, some of which he actually reaffirmed in the same sermon in which he provided the (in)famous "forget everything" quotation (see my recent post here). 

 

I'll concede that the Church has been trying to distance itself from such ideas; but such a concession is based on what the Church has actually said, particularly over the past decade--not on something I might wish Elder McConkie had said thirty years ago.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[theSQUIDSTER]

I bring up this fact because there are many enemies of the Church, many of them actually within the Church, who are falsely claiming that the Church has disavowed the divine origin of the former doctrine of the Priesthood being withheld form those of black African descent, or of its continuation. This is false. The Church has done no such thing. It is the "why" teachings that seek to explain the Priesthood ban, and not the ban itself, that the Church has disclaimed.

 

Vort, I'm glad you brought this up.  There are those who are saying or at least implying that the priesthood ban was some kind of mistake and that there never should have been a ban in the first place. I personally don't think it was a mistake.. anymore than I think that the priesthood and gospel first going to the house of israel and THEN going to the gentiles was a mistake...  It wasn't.  The Lord has wise reasons for many such things and their particular timing.  People sometimes speculate as to what those reasons are.  One day we will know all the reasons why.  But today is not yet that day for most of us.  I have my own personal beliefs of what I think the reasons (or some of them) were and are.  But they're speculative at best.  I have a feeling that if the Lord had definitively revealed such things to me personally then I probably would also have received the mandate to NOT reveal those things to the rest of the world... because the Lord has his own timetable on this and many other things... and will reveal them in HIS time... and through his appointed servants, called to reveal to the church and the world if and when the time is the right time.  He can bless individuals with revelations, healing, etc... but for wise reasons he will often tell these to keep such things sacred and secret until the time that they are meant to be revealed.

Edited December 27, 2014 by theSQUIDSTER

[Misshalfway]

I like this thread.  I think the ideas presented by the OP are important ones.  At least they've been important for me to consider as my testimony and religious practice has evolved.

 

I remember listening to Elder Oaks once.  I'm sorry I can't post a link but I believe he was asked if people should sustain the brethren even if they were off or wrong in something. His answer was "yes".  I think there is something important here.  That we are suppose to "sustain" the brethren through it all.  He didn't say "to agree with absolutely".  Just sustain.  

 

And I can do that.  I do that when I honor my human parents or my human bishop or my human VTers.  I can do that with the brethren too even if I think they miss the mark a little.  I mean I look at every General Conference I've witnessed since I can remember.  I don't have one moment where I came away feeling anything less than uplifted.  There have been times that some speakers didn't resonate with me in the moment.  Or speakers that I didn't feel as much spirit with as others.  But that never bothered me.  I've assumed that those sermons weren't expedient for me but might be for someone else.

 

I've seen the church evolve and will admit that some of those changes have caused me to pause and consider....even doubt.  But at the end of the day...I still feel Father in Heaven stop my criticisms with a firm hand as He instructs me to follow the priesthood and it's respective offices and hand the humanness to Him.  That direction means more to me than any intellectual measure of "correctness".  At the end of the day, Father commands and I must heed his voice.  And if I'd been an early Saint, I would have sold my farm, smashed my dishes, and left it all for a pipe dream in SLC.  "and shall we die before our journey's through....happy day.  all is right."

 

Prophets are humans.  They have a job to do.  A really hard one, at that!  And I have a job to do too.  And sometimes believing is hard too.  So, I guess it's hard all over.   :)  Makes sustaining each other so important!  Maybe that's why I think this thread is important.  I'd like to see the church do a better job at sustaining each other through our seasons of doubt or trial or midst of darkness.  I'm wearied by the way we judge each other with such superiority and harshness.  I wish instead for a body of the church that meets such weakenings/or strengthenings (depending on how you look at it) with understanding and sustaining encouragment, love, and support.  I think if we could understand this principle and apply it, we'd be better off.  Maybe even a little more like the city of Enoch.  At least I hope so.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Misshalfway

[MrShorty]

I have a problem with the idea that everything has to align with the scriptures or we are duty bound to reject it. By this thinking we must all reject that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment.

 

I think I will agree with you -- we don't really want a strict LDS version of sola scriptura. Along the way, then, becomes the difficulty of identifying "new revelation" from someone's wise counsel from someone's speculative ideas.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think I will agree with you -- we don't really want a strict LDS version of sola scriptura. Along the way, then, becomes the difficulty of identifying "new revelation" from someone's wise counsel from someone's speculative ideas.

 

I'm not sure it's a matter of difficulty. It doesn't matter if it's new revelation, wisdom, speculative, or what-have-you. Those in authority are those in authority. And I will follow them. I don't need to distinguish whether the counsel is revelation to them or not before deciding this. I have already decided this when I raised my hand to sustain them.

 

Obviously there is a time and a place to prayerfully question things. But any time I've had need to do such, the Spirit has firmly put me back in the exact same path I would have chosen had I not questioned in the first place. Sustain. Follow. Obey.

 

Is there a time and a place to tell a leader to go jump? Perhaps. But the idea, certainly, is not the standard the church functions under. And when and if the time is right to react to any given thing with rebellion instead of support, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be inspired by indignation, frustration, anger, fear, or other similar feelings.

[Misshalfway]

Folk Prophet...does sustaining the brethren, to you, mean that you believe everything they say is gospel fact? Where do you draw your lines?  With me for example, I don't include Deseret Book into the cannon.  I only accept what is said in GC or when a formal letter is read to the congregations. For me, sustaining is a different thing than idolizing or idealizing.  I find it difficult to idealize in my adulthood but as a child I was very much taught that was the essence of what sustaining was about.  What are your thoughts on the nuances?  I'm not even sure "support" means "agree".

Edited December 28, 2014 by Misshalfway

[spamlds]

I was talking to my wife about this topic. Anti-Mormons try to set up a false dichotomy. Would we follow the Prophet or would we follow the Bible? My sweetheart always has a way of succinctly getting to the point. She said, "Would you obey Noah and get on the ark or would you argue with him because God didn't say anything to you?" That's a good way to approach it. Modern sectarians would stand there with previously given scripture in hand and argue with Noah, telling him that they couldn't find anything about building an ark or a flood before it came. Indeed, if they followed today's pattern, they would try to stop the ark's construction via the zoning board saying that it was too tall, had inadequate parking, disrupted traffic, and harmed the residential character of the neighborhood.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folk Prophet...does sustaining the brethren, to you, mean that you believe everything they say is gospel fact? Where do you draw your lines? 

 

As I said, it is irrelevant. The lines drawn have nothing to do with belief and everything to do with commitment to act.

[MrShorty]

As I said, it is irrelevant. The lines drawn have nothing to do with belief and everything to do with commitment to act.

 

Interesting "line" to draw. As a faith that tends to emphasize action over belief, perhaps this becomes an important part of this. Many of the things that seem to commonly enter into this kind of thing are about things we believe (like the April 6th example I gave, or some of the examples Elder McKonkie used like literal/figurative interpretation of Genesis), and less about what we should "do".

 

Is that a part of this process of "discernment"? Trying to get beyond the "belief" into the "what are the consequences as far as my behavior" of this belief? If the belief does not impact my actions, then put it on the pile of "things to worry about later, when further light and knowledge are given."

 

Of course, there are a few things that do impact action and behavior... Not sure what to do with some of those.

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course, there are a few things that do impact action and behavior... Not sure what to do with some of those.

 

For example?

 

Of course, there are some beliefs that are core to action. Belief motivates action. Belief is important. Is the church true? Is the Book of Mormon true? Etc. But these other little nit-picky things...? Who cares, sez me.

[MarginOfError]

While certain hot topic issues like same sex marriage or female ordination get a lot of attention in these discussions, I feel the effects of this debate a lot more profoundly in much more mundane matters.

 

I heard indirectly through my spouse that my bishop would really like to get me involved my ward's scouting program (our current scoutmaster is moving in a few months).  And yesterday, our Young Men's president talked to me in the hall and said he wished he could get someone of my expertise involved in the scouting program.  In the course of the discussion, he described the program as having "some small successes."  But that its success was limited by having very little adult support (in a ward composed of primarily medical students, residents, and fellows), only a half dozen boys, and a scoutmaster who--through no fault of his own--doesn't have adequate time to commit to the program.  

 

I told the Young Men president that, quite simply, they couldn't lure me into the ward's scouting program unless they were willing to a) overlook it when I ignored a lot of the LDS policies related to scouting, or b) enroll the boys in a non-LDS troop (namely, the troop I've been working with for over 7 years now).  I assured him of my belief that doing so would turn "some small successes" into "many more successes" and he openly admitted that there would be many advantages to joining a community troop.  

 

I've been proposing this solution for the 7 years I've been in this ward.  The place where it always gets stuck is the weekend campouts that extend into Sunday.  At it's core is the infallibility of the prophet argument, where the Church has been very strict in its policies that no campouts should extend into the Sabbath.  While I appreciate the sentiment (and even agree with the benefits of the Sabbath), I have to question if the same benefit of avoiding Sunday campouts apply to units that have no good camping options within two hours and have programs so small that the campsite reservation fees would cost around 80% of the annual budget.  My question is if there is a point at which there might be more benefit to 'disobeying the prophet' over 'following the prophet.'  

 

Reading the forum here, it's clear that there are some that will say, "always follow the prophet" and some that will say that there may exist unique circumstances that justify rejecting that same counsel.  

 

These are the situations that make the question really potent, in my mind. A person's civic beliefs about same sex marriage and female ordination and the like aren't issues that we have to wrestle with to give little Timmy the best chance possible at developing a testimony that will sustain him through young adulthood.  And I think we do a poor job of teaching ourselves how to evaluate those difficult decisions.  Instead, I feel like, institutionally, we want to be told what to do because that absolves us of the responsibility if things don't turn out well.  I'd like to think we're better than that, but I have yet to be convinced.

[The Folk Prophet]

These are the situations that make the question really potent, in my mind. A person's civic beliefs about same sex marriage and female ordination and the like aren't issues that we have to wrestle with to give little Timmy the best chance possible at developing a testimony that will sustain him through young adulthood.

 

Wouldn't teaching Timmy to ignore the prophet and/or disregard the sanctity of the Sabbath be exactly the wrong approach to helping him develop a testimony that will sustain him?

 

I feel like, institutionally, we want to be told what to do because that absolves us of the responsibility if things don't turn out well.

 

Even if this were 100% true and 100% of the story (which, in my thinking, this is only a very small part of any motivation behind following the prophet and or supporting policies), is there anything particularly wrong with this? You imply there is by suggesting we should be better than this. Why? Why is it a problem to want to depend on the rules to avoid culpability?

[omegaseamaster75]

I have a problem with the idea that everything has to align with the scriptures or we are duty bound to reject it. By this thinking we must all reject that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment.

Our doctrine must align with the standard works, our policies should expand on that doctrine, your example is a perfect one. If we as members were able to practice the word of wisdom as it is outlined in D&C there would be no need for the policies that outline specific items of which we can and cannot partake of.

 

Our leaders are called to lead us in these latter days. Were I think we get into trouble as members is when we grasp on to something that a Prophet said and interpret it as doctrine. 99.9% of the time it is not. Should we follow their teachings? YES are they inspired men of God? Yes. Do they establish policies by which we should live and conduct our lives? Absolutely. When I hear the primary song "follow the prophet" I honestly think that we should. 

 

Hindsight is 20/20, political and cultural norms change over time and as human beings our leaders are subject to these things. This is why the policies of the church have changed and adapted with the times.

Edited December 29, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[MarginOfError]

Wouldn't teaching Timmy to ignore the prophet and/or disregard the sanctity of the Sabbath be exactly the wrong approach to helping him develop a testimony that will sustain him?

 

This isn't an either/or proposition though.  You can give Timmy a quality scouting experience and teach him the sanctity of the Sabbath and help him develop a testimony that will sustain him.  One potential solution would be to have all of the young men gather at someone's house at the end of the trip for a Sacrament meeting.  There are a number of ways you could accomplish all of those goals.

 

 

 

Even if this were 100% true and 100% of the story (which, in my thinking, this is only a very small part of any motivation behind following the prophet and or supporting policies), is there anything particularly wrong with this? You imply there is by suggesting we should be better than this. Why? Why is it a problem to want to depend on the rules to avoid culpability?

 

Because I would rather tell the Savior that a broke a rule when I had a firm conviction that it was ill-suited to Timmy's personal development than tell the Savior I steadfastly held a rule at Timmy's expense.  With that preference, I will accept the risk that some of those calls I make may be the wrong call (in either direction), but I'd still rather consider the circumstances of the individual and take my stripes when I get it wrong.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've been proposing this solution for the 7 years I've been in this ward.  The place where it always gets stuck is the weekend campouts that extend into Sunday.  At it's core is the infallibility of the prophet argument, where the Church has been very strict in its policies that no campouts should extend into the Sabbath.  While I appreciate the sentiment (and even agree with the benefits of the Sabbath), I have to question if the same benefit of avoiding Sunday campouts apply to units that have no good camping options within two hours and have programs so small that the campsite reservation fees would cost around 80% of the annual budget.  My question is if there is a point at which there might be more benefit to 'disobeying the prophet' over 'following the prophet.'  

 

I wonder, though; whether the push-back you're getting is purely "Tom Monson said we shouldn't, so we won't"; or more of a "The Church teaches that this isn't an appropriate thing to do on the sabbath; and I personally agree with the Church on this". 

 

On this particular issue (and I hope I'm not distracting too much from the overall point of this thread), I think there's enough wiggle-room in Section 8.10 of the Scouting Handbook that, in conjunction with the dearth of nearby campsites that you mention, one could justify being on a campout on Sunday so long as we have some sort of Sabbath observance and avoid doing high-adventure-type stuff or setting up/breaking camp on that day.  Someone might retort back with "well, we can't have a weekend camp stretch into Monday, especially during a school year!", to which I would ask (sincerely, and not trying to be smarmy or manipulative):  Why is it such a terrible thing for Scouts to interfere with school, but perfectly acceptable for it to interfere with church?

 

(I say this as a son of elementary schoolteachers who had few compunctions about us kids missing either church or school for the sake of a family vacation.)

Edited December 29, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

I wonder, though; whether the push-back you're getting is purely "Tom Monson said we shouldn't, so we won't"; or more of a "The Church teaches that this isn't an appropriate thing to do on the sabbath; and I personally agree with the Church on this". 

 

On this particular issue (and I hope I'm not distracting too much from the overall point of this thread), I think there's enough wiggle-room in Section 8.10 of the Scouting Handbook that, in conjunction with the dearth of nearby campsites that you mention, one could justify being on a campout on Sunday so long as we have some sort of Sabbath observance and avoid doing high-adventure-type stuff or setting up/breaking camp on that day.  Someone might retort back with "well, we can't have a weekend camp stretch into Monday, especially during a school year!", to which I would ask (sincerely, and not trying to be smarmy or manipulative):  Why is it such a terrible thing for Scouts to interfere with school, but perfectly acceptable for it to interfere with church?

 

(I say this as a son of elementary schoolteachers who had few compunctions about us kids missing either church or school for the sake of a family vacation.)

 

I actually don't have a problem with the kids missing a little school for the sake of a campout.  What gets to be more problematic is the leaders' time, and it's the same problem that prevents us from taking the boys out on Friday.  If I have to take a vacation day for each campout, it will cost me 10 vacation days, plus 5 for scout camp, plus 5 for the high adventure trip.  That's 20 vacation days of my 28 and seriously cuts into my ability to spend that time with my family.  It's too much of a burden to place on the leaders. 

 

You might say that the solution to that would be more leaders who don't have to take as much time off, but most of the wards in the not-so-predominantly-mormon parts of the country struggle to maintain the bare minimums of adult leadership.  (and I imagine that's somewhat true in higher density areas as well).

 

So, yeah, there are a lot of variables in the problem and not one single good solution.   

[Just_A_Guy]

That's a bummer that you guys can't go out on Fridays.  I find with my 11-year-old campouts (of course, we only do 4 per year!) that I usually take a half-day off on Friday afternoons; I'm pretty sure the leadership for our older scouts does the same thing--but of course, we're on the Wasatch Front, and have lots of good campsites within a pretty short distance; so driving time isn't much of an issue for us.

 

I would say that the "solution" probably would have to implement an LDS scouting program that from your perspective, is frankly mediocre to what you've already been doing with your current unit.  But then again, maybe five Saturday-to-Monday campouts per year plus five days of Scout Camp and no high-adventure activity, would actually be an improvement on what the boys in your ward are currently doing . . .

Edited December 29, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

This isn't an either/or proposition though. 

 

I agree that camping and keeping the Sabbath holy isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. But obeying is. You either obey or you don't. And what benefit is little Billy gaining from said camping experience as he also learns that obedience isn't really that big of a deal? Which lessons in life here are really the important ones, after all?

 

This, in my mind, is why we supposedly, "want to be told what to do". Not "because that absolves us of the responsibility if things don't turn out well." But because learning obedience is the most important lesson we have in this life.

 

Because I would rather tell the Savior that a broke a rule when I had a firm conviction that it was ill-suited to Timmy's personal development than tell the Savior I steadfastly held a rule at Timmy's expense.  With that preference, I will accept the risk that some of those calls I make may be the wrong call (in either direction), but I'd still rather consider the circumstances of the individual and take my stripes when I get it wrong.

 

I say the expense of breaking the rule is potentially greater than the other so-called expense.

 

Mind you, I don't entirely disagree -- in that there is a time and a place to bend or break rules for whatever given reason. Institutionally, however, no. We follow rules. We use guidelines. And we do so strictly because it has important meaning. Personally, on the other hand, we follow the Spirit. If the Spirit guides, we obey. Whatever the rule is, when the Spirit tells us we follow, and we are justified by the Spirit in said actions.

Edited December 30, 2014 by The Folk Prophet