Can a Prophet lead us astray?

[wenglund]

you said "following the restoration"

I also said, and you re-quoted me as saying, "the same personal choice that has predominatly lead people astray throughout past generations and dispensations."

I was thinking of real life examples.

So was I.

have any actual examples or statistics or historical records or 2nd/3rd/4th hand reports or anything?

The scriptures are full of actual examples, as is also the history of the Church, and that should suffice. I am not aware of any statistical data, but that really shouldn't matter. What ought to matter to you is your being led astray because of pride.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

The scriptures are full of a people and individuals falling because of pride. The Book of Mormon is all about God's people becoming prideful and falling away. The classics, whether Greek or Shakespeare, are about hubris, or pride, leading to the destruction of a person or kingdom. What happens is people lean more on their own learning and strength than God or follow the learning of man over the teachings of God. It is self-evident and I'm surprised it's even questioned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I also said, and you re-quoted me as saying, "the same personal choice that has predominatly lead people astray throughout past generations and dispensations."

So was I.

The scriptures are full of actual examples, as is also the history of the Church, and that should suffice. I am not aware of any statistical data, but that really shouldn't matter. What ought to matter to you is your being led astray because of pride.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not that I want to make a personal example of some one on this board, but a certain poster has an issue with any form of polygamy. Why? There is nothing in the scriptures that universally condemns the practice of polygamy. That is that polygamy is always wrong regardless of who practiced it and it is wrong under any circumstance. When pressed for scripture reasons for this stance none are given other than "I just don't like it". That to me is a form of pride.

The scriptures are full of righteous men that practed polygamy and you can even argue, reasonably that God commanded a few of them to practice it. So if one accepts the scriptures as comming from God and we can use them as a bar for turth, then it would seem that if there is an idea that contradicts something found in there. What do we make of that?

[thatjimguy]

Wow. I think I got it. I dwelled on this before and it just popped in there.

God will not allow the church to go astray because we have the Holy Spirit to confirm it with. Simple. It has nothing to do with Prophets being perfect.

[erichard]

...

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?

Hi Let Us Reason,

In the D&C there is revelation on how to hold a trial over the President of the church, or one of his councilors. (D&C 107:81-84)

How could such a trial ever be necessary if the Lord would remove the President out of his place if he were to fall into some kind of transgression?

If President Woodruff's statement in Conference is as good as scripture, then why would not President Young's Adam-God and Seed of Cain teachings from earlier Conferences be as good as scripture?

When President Woodruff said what he said he was basically pointing the finger at himself. Surely we can double check a testimony of oneself with what the scriptures teach.

President Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. said this:

"It makes no difference what is written or about what ANYONE has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the LORD has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, Page 203

The prophet Joseph Smith said this:

"I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."

So I ask, if a faithful member of the church found scriptural evidence that he prayed about and was convinced of that led him to NOT sustain the President of the church, should this member be excommunicated because of what President Woodruff taught, or should he be allowed to remain a member and pursue seeking a trial to end the controversy over the President of the church?

You can also consider JST Mark 9.

Richard

[mfbukowski]

Wow. I think I got it. I dwelled on this before and it just popped in there.

God will not allow the church to go astray because we have the Holy Spirit to confirm it with. Simple. It has nothing to do with Prophets being perfect.

Yep. You get your own "fraud detector".

[mfbukowski]

So I ask, if a faithful member of the church found scriptural evidence that he prayed about and was convinced of that led him to NOT sustain the President of the church, should this member be excommunicated because of what President Woodruff taught, or should he be allowed to remain a member and pursue seeking a trial to end the controversy over the President of the church?

To me, it's simple. The church teaches us to seek revelation on it's truth. That would of necessity include the possibility that it is false.

No matter what in life, you have to follow your conscience. You have to be able to live in your own skin or you are in BIG trouble.

But that doesn't mean that the church has to allow you to stay in an organization you don't believe in. Why would you want to? I left one church because I didn't believe in it- I had no desire to stay. I cannot understand why someone would want to stay in a church they thought was wrong.

....and pursue seeking a trial to end the controversy over the President of the church?

What does that mean?

You mean like a "Church Court" or something? Disciplinary councils have nothing to do with doctrinal controversies.

[All-Seeing Eye]

I consider it possible that WW was leading the church astray when he made the statement that the Lord would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray.

[Cold Steel]

Wilford Woodruff was speaking a true principle, as were those who came before.

Hyrum Andrus never taught that the gospel would need to be re-restored under any circumstance. He knew the scriptures too well.

As for what Joseph Smith said regarding prophets leading us astray, keep in mind that what later authorities said applied to presidents of the church. In the New Testament times, Agabus was a prophet, but he wasn't the president of the church. In our day, any man holding the higher priesthood (or even the lesser) can be a "prophet" and can prophesy. All of our apostles are prophets. Bishops can, and should be, prophets over their wards, and stake presidents are prophets over their stakes.

The teaching is: The President of the Church can in no wise lead the church astray. In other words, divine oversight is such that God simply won't allow it.

This does not mean that every word that the church president utters is infallible. I just got an email from a fellow who rather obtusely wrote: "LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith states that Joseph Smith said the hill in Palmyra New York is Cumorah. So, where are all those steel swords, helmets, spears, bones of men, women, children, horses, and last but not least elephants?" And he asked, "Can the tenth president of the church be wrong?" When Smith made his declarations, he was not the tenth president of the church, but an apostle. In this fellow's worldview, if any of the ancient apostles were alive today, every word they uttered would be a prophetic reality and they would not be burdened with any personal opinions. From God's mouth to their ears! The strawman here is clear and reflects widely entrenched Protestant notions that grew up during the Apostasy. It's only reasonable, at least to me, that while even church presidents can be wrong about something, they can't be wrong to the extent that it derails the entire church.

Even Muslims give in to this infallibility doctrine. After Mohammad's death, sayings of "the prophet" were collected for years and compiled into hadiths of varying degrees. If two or more people heard him say the same thing, that hadith would carry more weight. I once compared the LDS view of prophets with a woman who was a Sufi. She was just astounded at our views. Her holy men lived in big mansions and had fleets of cars, and she donated every cent she got through meditation, and a good deal of her own money, to send a hazrat who lived out in California. She had volumes of his sayings, all of which carried the weight of utterances of God. In fact, one Sufi hazrat declared:

The next thing in the attainment of the inner life is to seek a spiritual guide - someone whom a man can absolutely trust and have every confidence in, someone to whom one can look up to, and one with whom one is in sympathy - a relationship which would culminate in what is called devotion. And if once he has found someone in life that he considers his Guru, his Murshad, his guide, then he should give him all confidence, so that not a thing is kept back. If there is something kept back, then what is given might just as well be taken away, because everything must be done fully, either have confidence or not have confidence, either have trust or not have trust. On the path of perfection, all things must be done fully. (The Inner Life, Hazrat Inayat Khan, Orient Books, 1980, P. 43)

So not a thing is kept back, especially $$$$, which is why there are no poor hazrats.

When Joseph Smith made his statement about prophets, it was earlier in the church, before the command structure was in place. What later leaders taught was that the Gospel had been restored for the last time. Anyone claiming that apostasy had once again crept into the church and there was a need for a secret transmittal of priesthood keys, or for a re-transmittal, are deceivers. Even if a church president is wrong about something, one can still be blessed through the principle of obedience. President Heber J. Grant's urging of the saints to vote against the repeal of Prohibition is an example of where the saints should have been obedient, and weren't.

That's what I think the early church leaders had in mind.

.

[erichard]

To me, it's simple. The church teaches us to seek revelation on it's truth. That would of necessity include the possibility that it is false.

No matter what in life, you have to follow your conscience. You have to be able to live in your own skin or you are in BIG trouble.

But that doesn't mean that the church has to allow you to stay in an organization you don't believe in. Why would you want to? I left one church because I didn't believe in it- I had no desire to stay. I cannot understand why someone would want to stay in a church they thought was wrong.

Hi Popeye,

In my faith the church can be true, but leaders in it can be in error. So why would one want to leave the Lord's restored church just because leaders were in error? For one thing, because it is the Lord's church the Lord is bound to eventually set things in order again.

I remain convinced that placing the President of the church above the law, and above possible controversy is directly in contradiction to the revelation I quoted in D&C 107 and also it contradicts JST Mark 9:40-48.

It also contradicts the concept of sustaining or not sustaining the church President. Why even ask for a sustaining vote if it is automatically apostasy to not sustain him?

It may seem correct to assume that if this is the Lord's church then it is guaranteed that the head of it should automatically be trusted and sustained, but these two scriptures, and the principle of sustaining, do not support this assumption.

What it appears is really going on is the "politics of men". Men in the flesh with blood in their veins are teaching that they are above possible controversy, and above being questioned-- and that it is automatic apostasy to seek a legitimate controversy over them. Pretty normal human behavior, actually.

You may feel very convinced that the present church President should be sustained. But if another member was spiritually convinced the President should not be sustained, and was convinced he should not reject the evidence for that decision, and that he should seek for a D&C 107:81-84 trial to settle the controversy over the matter-- then do you believe this other member should be allowed to pursue this course, or do you believe he should be cast out of the church?

Richard

[wenglund]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curious that those who seem most concerned about prophets leading people astray, are themselves, in the eyes of the Church, the ones who have been lead astray--erichard being the latest case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curious that those who seem most concerned about prophets leading people astray, are themselves, in the eyes of the Church, the ones who have been lead astray

Kind of like those who are most concerned with how the church spends its money are the ones who don't contribute. I suspect they are trying to find some kind of justification for why they do what they do. Though I suppose that could be turned around to say that those who believe have to justify why they keep believing so they have to support the prophet.

I really do think that when the statement was made about the Lord taking a prophet before he could lead the people astray, it was akin to Joseph being told if he lived to a certain age he would see the second coming. In other words it ain't going to happen.

[mfbukowski]

Kind of like those who are most concerned with how the church spends its money are the ones who don't contribute.

I love it!

[mfbukowski]

Hi Popeye,

In my faith the church can be true, but leaders in it can be in error. So why would one want to leave the Lord's restored church just because leaders were in error? For one thing, because it is the Lord's church the Lord is bound to eventually set things in order again.

I remain convinced that placing the President of the church above the law, and above possible controversy is directly in contradiction to the revelation I quoted in D&C 107 and also it contradicts JST Mark 9:40-48.

It also contradicts the concept of sustaining or not sustaining the church President. Why even ask for a sustaining vote if it is automatically apostasy to not sustain him?

It may seem correct to assume that if this is the Lord's church then it is guaranteed that the head of it should automatically be trusted and sustained, but these two scriptures, and the principle of sustaining, do not support this assumption.

What it appears is really going on is the "politics of men". Men in the flesh with blood in their veins are teaching that they are above possible controversy, and above being questioned-- and that it is automatic apostasy to seek a legitimate controversy over them. Pretty normal human behavior, actually.

You may feel very convinced that the present church President should be sustained. But if another member was spiritually convinced the President should not be sustained, and was convinced he should not reject the evidence for that decision, and that he should seek for a D&C 107:81-84 trial to settle the controversy over the matter-- then do you believe this other member should be allowed to pursue this course, or do you believe he should be cast out of the church?

Richard

That is for discipline if necessary against even a prophet who commits serious transgression, not for every yahoo who wants to challenge the authority of the prophet.

Are you suggesting that every critic of the church be allowed to cause a "court" to be convened to "try" the president for what said critic believes is "apostasy"?

There would be no time for anyone to do anything else- it is an absurd idea.

[thatjimguy]

Did the Nephites have a prophet during the time of Samuel?

All in all about this subject, if we believe that the holy spirit is the guide, then what are we even arguing about?

Does the holy spirit confirm it? Is yes, you are good to go. If no, then there is a problem that needs to be taken care of. Simple.

Look, no one wants to think that a Prophet is going to do us any harm. You don't exactly kids singing "Question the Prophet" right? But the holy spirit is the ultimate failsafe. And we should be using it, right? No one has said never to confirm it and just go along. Who would dare complain about one confirming it with the Holy Spirit anyway?

[erichard]

That is for discipline if necessary against even a prophet who commits serious transgression, not for every yahoo who wants to challenge the authority of the prophet.

Are you suggesting that every critic of the church be allowed to cause a "court" to be convened to "try" the president for what said critic believes is "apostasy"?

There would be no time for anyone to do anything else- it is an absurd idea.

Hi,

I am suggesting that the church live by the instructions given in D&C 107:81-84. I am not suggesting that anyone but faithful Priesthood holders should have the rights I advocate.

I am not going to try to define exactly how that law should be lived. But I have faith these instructions are true revelation, and refusing to even try to live by them because "there would be no time for anything else" is clearly bad faith.

Since the D&C 107 trial would be before a bishop, should not even a "lowly" Priesthood holder who felt strongly that the evidence was there to not sustain the church President-- should he not at least be able to meet with someone in the presiding bishopric and seek to resolve the issue?

I realize that the evidence that the present church President is a successor to the authority restored by the Prophet Joseph is pretty good evidence. I actually accept it myself. But where is any evidence for the last 120 years that the present church President is a successor to the gifts of revelation and translation that was given to the Prophet Joseph? It is mind boggling to some of us that many cannot see this elephant in the living room.

Remember that the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had the authority they claimed to have. Jesus never questioned their claims to authority from Aaron. But they had lost the spirit. And eventually they lost any authority they had.

D&C 38 says:

24 And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practise virtue and holiness before me.

25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.

It is wrong to esteem the church Priesthood authorities as somehow more guaranteed to be righteous than the local Priesthood holders. The leaders are called to be servants for the others in the Priesthood body. They are being tried in all things like all of us, and are simply not guaranteed to never fail.

Without the right of real legitimate dissent, even by the "lowly" Priesthood holders, can you not see that the church is not fully living by Celestial principles? You say it would cause problems to allow such dissent, but is it not by overcoming problems that we grow?

Richard

[erichard]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curious that those who seem most concerned about prophets leading people astray, are themselves, in the eyes of the Church, the ones who have been lead astray --erichard being the latest case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Your argument is circular, and you did not address any scriptures. It actually supports my concern about the matter.

If there is a problem in the church, it is ultimately the membership who are responsible. Because there is plenty of evidence that God gives people the leaders they desire.

If the Lord's Gentile church members do not really want to live by the D&C instructions, there is no reason to believe the Lord would not eventually give them leaders for what they really want. No one can be happy doing something they do not really want to do. Does not God desire your happiness?

Question: is it a "done deal" that every church President in the restored church should always be sustained, and members never need to worry about possibly not sustaining him?

Richard

[mfbukowski]

I am suggesting that the church live by the instructions given in D&C 107:81-84. I am not suggesting that anyone but faithful Priesthood holders should have the rights I advocate.

I am not going to try to define exactly how that law should be lived. But I have faith these instructions are true revelation, and refusing to even try to live by them because "there would be no time for anything else" is clearly bad faith.

Since the D&C 107 trial would be before a bishop, should not even a "lowly" Priesthood holder who felt strongly that the evidence was there to not sustain the church President-- should he not at least be able to meet with someone in the presiding bishopric and seek to resolve the issue?

What you are saying is a practical impossibility. First, you are saying that a "faithful Priesthood holder" would desire to bring the President of the church up on charges of apostasy because said "faithful" Priesthood holder thought that the President of the church was in "apostasy".

How does one define "faithful Priesthood holder" if he does not sustain the President? It is a bit of a Catch 22!

Secondly, you are presuming that a Bishop would agree with said "faithful Priesthood holder" that it was correct for the Bishop to bring charges against the President for apostasy.

Good luck on that one.

Then you are saying that assuming it got that far, the President of the church, when summoned, would drop everything and rush off to some ward in Timbuktu because some "faithful priesthood holder" and some strange Bishop decided he was in apostasy.

And every time some other weirdo somewhere else decided to do this also, the prophet would show up and be "tried" again.

And you really see no problem with this?

That revelation does not apply to the case you are suggesting, as I already said, it applies to a case in which some high presiding authority does something gravely wrong-- you are misinterpreting the scripture.

And anybody, priesthood holder or not, can talk with their bishop of stake president if they have a problem with sustaining the president.

But for me, it is clear we are listen to the spirit and make our own decisions. If we do not sustain the President, we have some decisions to make, and regardless of if we are right or not, imagining that an individual could bring the President of the church to a "trial" because he disagreed with some doctrinal issues is just plain fantasy.

Sorry, but that is the truth. And it would be true in any institution of the size of the church. You get to vote with your feet, period, end of story!

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Your argument is circular, and you did not address any scriptures. It actually supports my concern about the matter.

I didn't make an argument. I made an simple observation. My observation wasn't circular, nor was it intended to address the scriptures. It simple exposed the irony of your misdirected concern--not that I expect that you would understand (you are too busy looking past the beam in your eye for the supposed mote in the eyes of LDS prophets).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Question: is it a "done deal" that every church President in the restored church should always be sustained, and members never need to worry about possibly not sustaining him?

Is that what this is about? You are afraid that something will happen to someone who does not sustain the prophet?

[Let_Us_Reason]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curious that those who seem most concerned about prophets leading people astray, are themselves, in the eyes of the Church, the ones who have been lead astray--erichard being the latest case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For the record, the OP wasn't a "gotcha" post. I've lurked long enough to realize that there probably isn't a single topic a critic can bring up that would surprise an apologist or long-time poster.

It was more of a "what do you think" post, and I'm glad for those that thoughtfully posted their answers and comments to it. Thank you.

[erichard]

I didn't make an argument. I made an simple observation. My observation wasn't circular, nor was it intended to address the scriptures. It simple exposed the irony of your misdirected concern--not that I expect that you would understand (you are too busy looking past the beam in your eye for the supposed mote in the eyes of LDS prophets).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I still think you should forget being judgmental of me, and simply address the scriptural issue I am bringing up. But at any rate, you are a likable guy, and I have no desire to argue.

Richard

[erichard]

Is that what this is about? You are afraid that something will happen to someone who does not sustain the prophet?

Afraid? Well, I am "concerned" that something will happen to a member who does not sustain the church president. He will be considered apostate and possibly just cast out of the church. Do you believe that is the way a non-sustainer should be treated?

Why even ask for votes for or against the church President if it is automatically a sin to not sustain him?

What if someone got up and said, "All in favor of now allowing everyone to commit adultery, raise your right hand."

Adultery is NOT an issue of common consent, it would be a mockery to have a sustaining vote over it.

But sustaining the President of the church IS an issue of common consent. It simply cannot be a sin to not sustain him. And if one has the right to not sustain him, they must also have the right to have a legitimate controversy over him.

It is very normal in a

[wenglund]

Wade,

I still think you should forget being judgmental of me, and simply address the scriptural issue I am bringing up.

I know. From long experience I have oft found that there are few things the critics dislike more than to have the light of their criticism shined back on them.

But at any rate, you are a likable guy, and I have no desire to argue.

The sentiment is mutual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[erichard]

I know. From long experience I have oft found that there are few things the critics dislike more than to have the light of their criticism shined back on them.

...

Hi,

I am glad you desire to be friendly about this.

From my point of view, it is just as prejudice to automatically assume that the Church leadership are righteous and correct as it is to automatically assume that -- say-- a homeless person is lazy and crooked.

I do not consider myself a judge of the church President. The trial will end the controversy, so I do not have to judge the matter myself. And that is fine with me.

But those who desire to place the church President above the law and above any possible reproach, and thus judge the matter themselves, are often bitter towards anyone who questions their right to prejudge the leaders as automatically righteous against any evidence.

Does any of this shine back on you?

Richard