Can a Prophet lead us astray?

[Let_Us_Reason]

First off, is this part of OD1 considered canon and therefore binding on the LDS church:

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."

So here we read that WW said it's not in the mind of God to allow his Prophet to lead the church astray. Yet this is what JFS had to say about it:

When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously. Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is.

Personally, I align more with JFS. We have both biblical and modern day precedent for being taught something that was later determined to be false doctrine or incorrect (Adam/God doctrine comes to mind).

What are your thoughts on the subject? Can WW and the JFS quote be reconciled in your mind? If not, which do you hold to?

[hagoth7]

What are your thoughts on the subject? Can WW and the JFS quote be reconciled in your mind?

Perhaps. But I don't yet see how...if you don't qualify one or both.

Trying to treat both as one-size-fits-all maxims creates something of a quandary.

If not, which do you hold to?

Either, depending on the context.

[DonBradley]

By the JFS, Jr. standard, I think we would have to reject much of what Joseph Smith said, wouldn't we? He revealed new things that one can only make fit with the some of the old things by contorting them.

Joseph Smith asserted the same authority by which the old scriptures had been written.

Don

[MorningStar]

What would you count as leading a person astray?

[Let_Us_Reason]

Either, depending on the context.

You can't do that!

[Let_Us_Reason]

By the JFS, Jr. standard, I think we would have to reject much of what Joseph Smith said, wouldn't we? He revealed new things that one can only make fit with the some of the old things by contorting them.

Joseph Smith asserted the same authority by which the old scriptures had been written.

Don

True. If JFS standard was held to too strictly, Jesus would have been rejected as a false prophet (and truthfully, he was, by a lot of people).

Hmmm.

[Let_Us_Reason]

What would you count as leading a person astray?

That's a good question and how I interpret being led astray may not be the same definition the Lord applies to being led astray.

I think if I'm taught anything that isn't the truth, I'm being led astray.

Adam/God

Blacks less valiant

(polygamy days) The teaching that any one woman must find a husband to get into heaven because the woman needs the man, the man doesn't need that woman, he could find another

But that's me.

God may look at leading astray as teaching principles that lead away from Christ and His church.

Same question to you: how do you define being led astray?

[rockslider]

I recently learned something

[MorningStar]

That's a good question and how I interpret being led astray may not be the same definition the Lord applies to being led astray.

I think if I'm taught anything that isn't the truth, I'm being led astray.

Adam/God

Blacks less valiant

(polygamy days) The teaching that any one woman must find a husband to get into heaven because the woman needs the man, the man doesn't need that woman, he could find another

But that's me.

God may look at leading astray as teaching principles that lead away from Christ and His church.

Same question to you: how do you define being led astray?

When was it taught that a woman needed a man to get into Heaven? Do you have a reference?

I haven't thought much about what it means for God not to allow a prophet to lead us astray. Does it mean that God doesn't allow a prophet to make a mistake when it comes to church matters? Or does He allow them to have a prideful moment and say something that is their own belief and will have to apologize for later? I'm not sure, but I tend to think of it as preventing a prophet from leading us away from eternal life.

[Let_Us_Reason]

When was it taught that a woman needed a man to get into Heaven? Do you have a reference?

I haven't thought much about what it means for God not to allow a prophet to lead us astray. Does it mean that God doesn't allow a prophet to make a mistake when it comes to church matters? Or does He allow them to have a prideful moment and say something that is their own belief and will have to apologize for later? I'm not sure, but I tend to think of it as preventing a prophet from leading us away from eternal life.

So based on what WW said, you believe the prophets may say some things that are untrue, but may not lead us away from eternal life, thus not leading us astray?

If so, I think that's where I stand. It's the only way I can reconcile some of the teachings on blacks, Adam/God and still not being led astray from eternal life. Heck, I think there are some mistakes in the standard works, but God said if there are, they are the mistakes of men.

(As for the woman needing a man to get into heaven, it was BY that said it, but I'll have to go digging for it. I believe I read it in the teachings of the prophets (not the manuals in church), but a large blue, leather-bound book that DB used to sell. I will look for it though, but honestly, I think I will have trouble finding it; it did stick out to me though when I read it.)

[MorningStar]

If you can't find it, maybe someone else can. I've seen people get it confused, thinking that women can't enter the Celestial Kingdom alone, but it's actually exaltation you can't receive without a spouse.

[Let_Us_Reason]

If you can't find it, maybe someone else can. I've seen people get it confused, thinking that women can't enter the Celestial Kingdom alone, but it's actually exaltation you can't receive without a spouse.

I've done a little Google research and I'm beginning to think my memory has betrayed me. I'm going to strike it from the record for now.

[rockslider]

Let_Us_Reason,

Adam/God would be of the speculative/metaphysical type of doctrine. Let's take a less controversial topic, Say Eternal Progression. Is God Progressing? Actually, this is just about as controversial in the history of things.

The teachings on the very nature of the God head has shifted over the years.

I remember once upon a time, how badly I wanted to be a High Priest, an Alma Chapter 13 HP.

I think it could well be expected for Ecclesiastical High Priests to error a bit more, from time to time.

An old friend of mine, Hyrum Andrus, used to preach that the gospel would need to be restored "again", and this teaching was scripturally solid.

[MorningStar]

I've done a little Google research and I'm beginning to think my memory has betrayed me. I'm going to strike it from the record for now.

Happens to everyone.

[nosmelone]

Let_Us_Reason,

Adam/God would be of the speculative/metaphysical type of doctrine. Let's take a less controversial topic, Say Eternal Progression. Is God Progressing? Actually, this is just about as controversial in the history of things.

The teachings on the very nature of the God head has shifted over the years.

I remember once upon a time, how badly I wanted to be a High Priest, an Alma Chapter 13 HP.

I think it could well be expected for Ecclesiastical High Priests to error a bit more, from time to time.

An old friend of mine, Hyrum Andrus, used to preach that the gospel would need to be restored "again", and this teaching was scripturally solid.

I've read some stuff by Hyrum Andrus and he was amazing, he is actually a good friend of Charles McCurdy (my grandfather in law) spoke very highly of him and introduced me to some of his books.

[mfbukowski]

All members need to be converted to the gospel by receiving a testimony from the Holy Ghost.

If such a testimony can tell you that the church is "true", it would be totally inconsistent to say that we should ignore such further revelation that a prophet had led us astray.

One must always follow one's own conscience above all else. You must be true to yourself. Blind obedience is not the gospel.

[mfbukowski]

Let_Us_Reason,

Adam/God would be of the speculative/metaphysical type of doctrine. Let's take a less controversial topic, Say Eternal Progression. Is God Progressing? Actually, this is just about as controversial in the history of things.

The teachings on the very nature of the God head has shifted over the years.

I remember once upon a time, how badly I wanted to be a High Priest, an Alma Chapter 13 HP.

I think it could well be expected for Ecclesiastical High Priests to error a bit more, from time to time.

An old friend of mine, Hyrum Andrus, used to preach that the gospel would need to be restored "again", and this teaching was scripturally solid.

Do you remember which scriptures he cited to show that?

[nosmelone]

First off, is this part of OD1 considered canon and therefore binding on the LDS church:

So here we read that WW said it's not in the mind of God to allow his Prophet to lead the church astray. Yet this is what JFS had to say about it:

Personally, I align more with JFS. We have both biblical and modern day precedent for being taught something that was later determined to be false doctrine or incorrect (Adam/God doctrine comes to mind).

What are your thoughts on the subject? Can WW and the JFS quote be reconciled in your mind? If not, which do you hold to?

I believe that WW's quote is more along the lines of, if a prophet knowingly and purposely attempts to lead the church astray, then the Lord will intercede in behalf of the church. Most of the teachings that have been questionable in the church may have caused disputations but I highly doubt they were taught or given to us in hopes to lead the church astray.

As for JFS's quote I believe that the key phrase is with the revelations the Lord has given us". As in Alma's seed test, or Moroni's promise each of us has a responsibility to search these revelations out for ourselves and take it to the Lord ourselves to find out if they are true and the Lord will reveal it to us by the Holy Ghost (Galations 5). This way we can know for sure if a revelation is truly contrary to the previous teachings of the Lord and his prophets or just in addition to.

[David T]

I don't believe the Lord will allow a Prophet to consistently teach something that, if practiced, will bar individuals - and the Church - from Salvation and Exaltation.

As unfortunate (and incorrect) as some of Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith's opinionated teachings may have been, in the scheme of Personal Application in our Plan of Salvation, they don't really matter. Their unfortunate teachings had to do with the framework built around the applicable Gospel itself - not the core. In Boyd K. Packer's terms, they may have tarnished the Box at times, but they did not damage the Pearl contained within, and in fact did much to emphasize and brighten the Pearl.

[Deborah]

The question is did something like Adam-God, as understood by the early saints and by BY, not as interpreted by modern day critics, have any affect on one's exaltation? The answer is no. It had nothing do to with covenants and obedience to the commandments and doing good to one another.

Plural marriage was once a condition of the New and Everlasting Covenant but even then not all participated and it wasn't a requirement for exaltation.

Blacks could not have the Priesthood but they were not denied any other blessings of the church and were promised that they would be able to receive all the blessings of the Lord if not in this life then the next. That was more than any other church was offering blacks or anyone else at the time.

In other words some things are theory, some are practice for the time only. But to say that any of these things led the church astray would not be accurate. As long as people were keeping their covenants, obeying the commandments and doing good to one another and supporting the church leaders in their running of the church, how could we say they were led astray. Being led astray is having someone not authorized coming along and leading a group to break off from the church as authorized by God.

God gives his prophets lots of leeway. As long as they are doing what he is telling them to for the church as a body, they are free to have their own ideas and to even make some mistakes as they try to move the church forward.

Our latter-day leaders have learned from the past that sometimes saying too much is not wise, even when it's true, because too many people will take things out of context and twist it to their own agenda.

[CV75]

What are your thoughts on the subject? Can WW and the JFS quote be reconciled in your mind? If not, which do you hold to?

A prophet would have to attempt to lead people astray, or to hell, which is not in the programme and not the mind of God--in other words, intentionally abusing the keys to attempt to destroy the saints. God will intervene by removing said prophet. A prophet may teach things that are not correct, without attempting to lead people astray. God will intervene by clearing things up in due time.

[rockslider]

Do you remember which scriptures he cited to show that?

Jacob 6:2 was one of them, but there were many. Hyrum used to do multi-day firesides. Some of these had been taped. There was one "session" (about an hour) that was dedicated to this topic. Once upon a time, I had a set of about 50 of his tapes. I wish I still had them.

Hyrum also held to the idea that God and JS had all things "restored" for a moment in time (i.e. things like JS king, Council of the 50 etc.) which just never carried on past Nauvoo .

edit:

wow, my wife stuffed them away, I still have the tapes, I need to find a cassette player, I hope they are still good.

These should be captured digital!

If anyone is familiar with this, I have the Snowflake set as well as one or two others, don't remember where they were done at.

[MDalby]

Let_Us_Reason,

An old friend of mine, Hyrum Andrus, used to preach that the gospel would need to be restored "again", and this teaching was scripturally solid.

If Andrus taught it, he was wrong. I don't think he taught it.

34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this ahead of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters

[rockslider]

If Andrus taught it, he was wrong. I don't think he taught it.

34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this ahead of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters

[Obiwan]

The Church has a system of "checks and balances", so that no prophet can ultimately lead the Church astray.

Thus, BOTH words of the Prophets are true....

BTW.....

Adam/God issue you don't understand what he was teaching, thus you incorrectly think it a false teaching. Brigham was teaching what is still taught in the Temple today as to Adam.

Yes, blacks being less valiant would be a false assumption taught and believed by some, but not supported by the scriptures nor other words of the Prophets, thus NOT taught and believed by most. Most simply believed what we today believe, that we "don't know" the reasons for the ban, some scriptural possibilities, but no "revealed" reason.