Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I do think 15 people can be, and have been, errant. 

If all 15 apostles have been wrong how would you know it? 

[Kenngo1969]

With due respect to the OP (indeed, with absolutely NO DIS-respect intended toward the OP) while I hope no one gets the idea that I am a "cafeteria Latter-day Saint" (a little of this, because I don't particularly care for it; a lot of that, because I love it; none of that, because I don't care for it— at all; and so on), and while, certainly, "liv(ing) by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God" is a worthy long-term goal (as in, as much of Eternity as it takes), neither I nor my life matches "ideal Latter-day-Saint-ism" in most respects.

I don't question the inspiration and revelation underlying most all of what the Brethren teach (and even if, for some reason, I were to question it, I would be apt to take a "my-ways-are-not-Thy-ways," "I-know-not-save-the-Lord-commanded-me" approach to anything I did question).  That said,  much of it doesn't apply in my life in the ideal way that, perhaps, they envision.  What to do?  The only thing I can say is that fortunately for me: (1) He's not finished with me yet; (2) I am [to be] judged, not only by what I do, but also based on the thoughts and intents of my heart; and (3) Eternity is a very long time.  I simply don't have it in me to demand that the Church (or the Lord; Ay, there's the rub!) jettison the ideal simply because, at least at present, it doesn't conform to my reality.

My $0.02, actual value, as always, much less.  Others' mileage may, and likely does, vary.

Edited February 27 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Exactly. There’s a tremendous amount of pressure to follow all directives given by leadership.

there is absolutely no way for these human beings who lead to be always correct. In fact, imo, there are times when such directives actually do damage. 
 

It is actually a cultish mindset in my opinion to believe everything that is said or to follow every directive.

I think Joseph Smith would agree with you!

[Kevin Christensen]

D&C 1 formally spells out "mine authority, and the authority of my servants," (verse 6), and bluntly states:

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

That does not require us to assume that everything his servants say is equally inspired, nor that what we have constitutes a Big Book of What to Think.  

I think it is also important to consider the definition of the word sustain:

Quote

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort. 2.  to supply as with food or provisions: 3.  to hold up; support 4.  to bear; endure 5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg. 6.  to allow; admit; favor 7.  to agree with; confirm.

Collectively it means, "put up with the crap."  In an interview, Hugh Nibley was once asked if he would sustain Judas.  His response was essentially.  "Certainly.  He was an apostle wasn't he?  The Lord has his purposes in these things."

In the New Testament, Romans has this:

Who are thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or faileth. Yea,…God is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:4

I have a testimony of the Christ and the Restoration.   And at 71 years old, by now, I have seen much of various leaders that confirms a declaration in Acts:

We also are men of like passions with you.
Acts 14:15

But to me, at this late date, that is no big deal, not important, not something to agonize about.  It is not a trial of my faith, but just life as I expect it to be. The work of the Restoration moves along very nicely.  I can remember when most of the church still lived in Utah, when there were only a dozen temples, when the priesthood ban became very uncomfortable, but I still had a testimony and served a mission, when Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson spoke at the same conferences and the world did not end and I lived for many years before  understood that they had different political views, and when the really good apologetics volumes could be gathered on a half a shelf or less.  Much has changed, but my testimony has not only remained intact, but has gotten much stronger. That is because I have learned to pay attention to the things that matter most, rather than the things that might annoy me personally.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited February 22 by Kevin Christensen

[rpn]

On 2/20/2026 at 3:30 PM, JAHS said:

Even if all 15 Apostles agree on the directive? That's why there are 15 of them. If any one does or says anything wrong they will be corrected, and that has happened a few times. So far trusting them has not done me any harm. 

In my mind the quintessential example  on this point comes from the two times top church leadership was inspired in the 1880's and then again in the early 1900's to investigate the priesthood ban.   (Because Zebedee Coltrin outright lied and Abraham Smoot also denied that Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the priesthood in the 1880's after Brigham Young died,  there wasn't a quorum willing to hear the desires of God on the racial issue until 1978).    And given the increasing ugliness that grew up around the racial disparities during that time leaning flat into racism, it clearly is possible for all of them to go astray.   

[JAHS]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

In my mind the quintessential example  on this point comes from the two times top church leadership was inspired in the 1880's and then again in the early 1900's to investigate the priesthood ban.   (Because Zebedee Coltrin outright lied and Abraham Smoot also denied that Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the priesthood in the 1880's after Brigham Young died,  there wasn't a quorum willing to hear the desires of God on the racial issue until 1978).    And given the increasing ugliness that grew up around the racial disparities during that time leaning flat into racism, it clearly is possible for all of them to go astray.   

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

Hm.  Well I am more likely to believe that people are so intrinsically flawed that they cannot look beyond their own biases and see things in a godly way enough to enact changes that would invite us all to grow. 
If God waits for us to be ready for everything what is the point?

[rpn]

31 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

Why would He have prompted two separate prophets to investigate the issue ,  if He didn't think it was time?  He may have known that despite prophetic efforts to get the investigations going, He wasn't going to find willing ears?  But two separate prophets were inspired to conduct the investigations.

[Tony uk]

Maybe God, in certain circumstances at least. Allows people to work things out for themselves. If that doesn't work out as planned, maybe that is when God intervenes. This could be through prompting people accordingly.

Edited February 22 by Tony uk

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Why would He have prompted two separate prophets to investigate the issue ,  if He didn't think it was time?  He may have known that despite prophetic efforts to get the investigations going, He wasn't going to find willing ears?  But two separate prophets were inspired to conduct the investigations.

Or perhaps the two leaders are two completely different humans with different leanings. 

[The Nehor]

On 2/20/2026 at 6:49 PM, JAHS said:

If all 15 apostles have been wrong how would you know it? 

By judging what they say the same way you would judge what anyone else says.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

Why would He have prompted two separate prophets to investigate the issue ,  if He didn't think it was time?  He may have known that despite prophetic efforts to get the investigations going, He wasn't going to find willing ears?  But two separate prophets were inspired to conduct the investigations.

The number two is the key issue here. It never turned into fifteen. The system worked the way it should have worked. Even though those two may have had the right idea; it wasn't the right time. Maybe their prompting helped to get the rest of the church leaders and church membership in general time to study and pray about it over the next few decades to eventually lead to a real change. 
Kind of like the Word of wisdom not being so strict at first to give time for members to get over their addictions to certain things.

Edited February 22 by JAHS

[Rain]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By judging what they say the same way you would judge what anyone else says.

Or you would know the same way you know when all 15 are right.

Edited February 23 by Rain

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

Why would he do that?  Why delay it when it could bring such joy to the members and lessen the impact of racist beliefs on the Church by decades?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Even though those two may have had the right idea; it wasn't the right time. Maybe their prompting helped to get the rest of the church leaders and church membership in general time to study and pray about it over the next few decades to eventually lead to a real change. 

Which means it was hard hearts in the Church that delayed it, so that it wouldn’t be accepted, not God thinking it wasn’t the right time.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Which means it was hard hearts in the Church that delayed it, so that it wouldn’t be accepted, not God thinking it wasn’t the right time.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but you said it so much better:) 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

This is exactly what I wanted to say but you said it so much better:) 

In that case (which I don’t know if it’s true or not), then it seems to me when Pres McKay felt he received a ‘don’t ask me again’ response, it might have been ‘don’t ask me because you will just get in deeper because you (speaking collectively or individually) don’t listen anyway when I tell you it needs to change now’).

Quote

The system worked the way it should have worked

Maybe.  Wanting unity can also put the power into the hands of the ones who veto change, even one apostle not listening to the Spirit prevents action when the Spirit is instructing change.  Good if the action is not a good or particularly helpful thing, not so good if it’s exactly what is needed.

I do believe that unity is very important and in most cases a very good thing as I see it as more likely to prevent errors from happening if people are both committed to hearing actual thoughts rather than rubber stamping and having a unified voice that represents all, not just the dominant voice.  So I can see God patiently waiting for a unity of acceptance of change, but I think it’s likely he got tired of waiting and inspired Pres Kimball to alter the strategy for once.  Pres Kimball was apparently very much into seeking a consensus among the apostles, letting each speak, taking time to prepare and reflect.  This seems contrary to his usual behaviour, imo.

Mostly speculation:  Pres. Kimball seemed to be okay in this case with applying some pressure to become unified when they likely weren’t (why not talk about it before when everyone was there or after the two apostles returned if they were already unified) and moving forward though by presenting the topic with the two likely most negative voices not present at the time, so that when they did come to add their voice the potential negatives knew the others were already unified around the revelation, ready for cessation of the ban and likely excited about it and they didn’t want to be the party poopers (I think if everyone around them was discussing it as a revelation, the two would also consider it as a possible revelation and be more likely therefore to receive it themselves even if still possessing overconfidence in tradition or whatever was impeding them receiving the Spirit on this before).

Edited February 23 by Calm

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Which means it was hard hearts in the Church that delayed it, so that it wouldn’t be accepted, not God thinking it wasn’t the right time.

Most of the nation and most church members hearts in the early days of the Church were hard about this topic.  Therefore God decided it wasn't the right time for it. I didn't mean to suggest it was God's fault. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Most of the nation and most church members hearts in the early days of the Church were hard about this topic.  Therefore God decided it wasn't the right time for it. I didn't mean to suggest it was God's fault. 

That is still God’s fault. God could act whether their hearts were hardened or not.

[JAHS]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is still God’s fault. God could act whether their hearts were hardened or not.

And if He did the Church might have fallen. There were too many who were still conditioned to believe that blacks were nothing more than to be used as slaves and that they were an inferior species. It's kind of like the word of wisdom that was not followed strictly at first.  President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And if He did the Church might have fallen. There were too many who were still conditioned to believe that blacks were nothing more than to be used as slaves and that they were an inferior species. It's kind of like the word of wisdom that was not followed strictly at first.  President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits. 

I don’t buy it. If God’s primary concern was that unpopular teachings could destroy the Church either from within or without why bring in plural marriage? Also why wait until the world was morally further along then the church to rescind it? Doesn’t add up.

Also I was taught all through my youth that we had to stand up for what is right and not for what is popular. Yet God doesn’t do that….really?

Edited February 23 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2026 at 8:24 PM, Pyreaux said:

In the administration of the church, they have the absolute right to make policies, if we value our membership, we must comply with even if they are wrong and we might disagree. I'm thinking of the priesthood ban, while wrong, those excommunicated for openly violating the policy were also wrong. 

The military "Lawful Order" doctrine, if a culture allows individuals to choose which orders to follow based on personal judgment, the chain of command dissolves. When they give an order, it happens. Order must be followed, even if it seems tactically "stupid" or "wrong", as long as it is legal.

You really think one must follow policy even if the top leaders are wrong? Do you really think the comparison to the military is a proper one. And as you note, a member of the military is obligated to disobey illegal orders. Certainly wrong orders may still be legal so yes a member of the military should obey a wrong order. Still I do not like the comparison. Church membership is not the military. The old teaching from I thon Heber J Grant that one will be blessed for following the prophet even if he is wrong, but don't worry, the lord would take a prophet before allowing him to lead us astray. How did that work for the priesthood ban?  You admit it was wrong so I guess leader can lead us astray right?  

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You really think one must follow policy even if the top leaders are wrong? Do you really think the comparison to the military is a proper one. And as you note, a member of the military is obligated to disobey illegal orders. Certainly wrong orders may still be legal so yes a member of the military should obey a wrong order. Still I do not like the comparison. Church membership is not the military. The old teaching from I thon Heber J Grant that one will be blessed for following the prophet even if he is wrong, but don't worry, the lord would take a prophet before allowing him to lead us astray. How did that work for the priesthood ban?  You admit it was wrong so I guess leader can lead us astray right?  

Uh, that conflates "being wrong" with "losing the keys" or "jeopardizing salvation". The military analogy, that there is a distinction between an error and a war crime, actually helps clarify the Church's position. A General orders to take a hill that turns out to be strategically worthless, is a wrong order, but it is not a war crime. Those who refused to obey the lawful order are wrong. In an LDS context, the most solid example is the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, or policies that are later retired. These don't jeopardize the "salvation" of the membership. Even Priesthood ban, the Church continued to provide the "Saving Ordinances" (Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament) to all members. The core mission of the Church remained intact. Church is not the military, but the psychology and emphasis on order is very similar.

I recall Wilford Woodruff said the Lord would "remove" him before he could lead the Church astray, he was speaking specifically about the Manifesto ending Polygamy.

Edited February 23 by Pyreaux

[JAHS]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t buy it. If God’s primary concern was that unpopular teachings could destroy the Church either from within or without why bring in plural marriage? Also why wait until the world was morally further along then the church to rescind it? Doesn’t add up.

Also I was taught all through my youth that we had to stand up for what is right and not for what is popular. Yet God doesn’t do that….really?

Plural marriage was a real part of the original doctrine of God and was therefore part of God's restored doctrine in these latter-days. It was never rescinded. It was and still is a doctrine of the restored church. We simply don't practice it in this life right now, but there are many who are practicing it in the next life. All those plural marriage sealings have not been voided. 
Blacks receiving the priesthood was never an original part of God's doctrine.  It was something that was prophesied to be allowed sometime in the future. It was finally allowed through revelation from God. And it was done at the best time for this life. All people of all races living and dead can now receive it.  

[The Nehor]

If I show up to the Final Judgement and find myself using the Nuremberg Defense that might be a cause for some self-reflection.