Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet

[mercyngrace]

Were the Jews wrong to "put stock in" the Mosaic law, even though it would be superceded with the coming of Christ?

Interesting question since the Jews largely failed to recognize Christ.

The Nephites on the other hand, taught their children that the law was dead and that salvation came only through Christ so as to prepare their children for the day when the law was fulfilled. According to Nephi, it was a concern that their children would become so attached to the law that their hearts would be hardened when things changed.

But changes in the law are one thing. I fully expect that we are working toward a celestial ideal and that we presently live well beneath our collective privileges. But how about when a practice or belief is rooted in a prophet's teaching that later turns out to be dismissed as "wrong" or "inadequate"?

Remember - wrong and inadequate aren't my words. They are Elder Holland's.

[cinepro]

We have seen established in the OP the Church-published "Fundamentals" of following the Prophet. Taken at face value, they don't seem to offer much in the way of wiggle room for Prophetic error and latitude for the followers to decipher whether or not they should follow a particular Prophetic teaching.

For those who doubt the LDS attitude of "Prophetic Infallibility", I ask you to show me where on the Church website the members can learn about not following the Prophet? Where are the articles about members being spiritually alerted to fallible Prophetic teachings and wisely disobeying? Where do we learn about Prophets expressing their own personal opinions and giving members the option of following?

I would argue that the official LDS stance (yea, even doctrine) towards the teachings of the Prophets is this:

1. Prophets Speak.

2. They will never lead the Church astray.

3. We should get a spiritual confirmation and follow them.

4. If we don't get a spiritual confirmation, we should still follow them.

5. We should always do what the Prophet says. No exceptions.

6. If the Prophet did happen to ask us to do something wrong (which he wouldn't), we'll still be blessed for following him.

If the Church has ever officially taught otherwise, please show us!

Apologists are fond of citing the principle of Prophetic Peanut Butter, where it is argued that those who would literally always follow the Prophet are unable to logically distinguish between the Prophet teaching something to the Church and a Prophet ordering a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, and therefore they are compelled to give the two equal weight as directives. This is an old canard that insults LDS by implying they can't distinguish between personal conversational utterances of the men we call "Prophets", and their official teachings done under the mantle of their office.

But such are the arguments that must be made when you don't have real sources to back you up.

[cinepro]

We have seen established in the OP the Church-published "Fundamentals" of following the Prophet. Taken at face value, they don't seem to offer much in the way of wiggle room for Prophetic error and latitude for the followers to decipher whether or not they should follow a particular Prophetic teaching.

For those who doubt the LDS attitude of "Prophetic Infallibility", I ask you to show me where on the Church website the members can learn about not following the Prophet? Where are the articles about members being spiritually alerted to fallible Prophetic teachings and wisely disobeying? Where do we learn about Prophets expressing their own personal opinions and giving members the option of following?

I would argue that the official LDS stance (yea, even doctrine) towards the teachings of the Prophets is this:

1. Prophets Speak.

2. They will never lead the Church astray.

3. We should get a spiritual confirmation and follow them.

4. If we don't get a spiritual confirmation, we should still follow them.

5. We should always do what the Prophet says. No exceptions.

If the Church has ever officially taught otherwise, please show us!

Apologists are fond of citing the principle of Prophetic Peanut Butter, where it is argued that those who would literally always follow the Prophet are unable to logically distinguish between the Prophet teaching something to the Church and a Prophet ordering a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, and therefore they are compelled to give the two equal weight as directives. This is an old canard that insults LDS by implying they can't distinguish between personal conversational utterances of the men we call "Prophets", and their official teachings done under the mantle of their office.

But such are the arguments that must be made when you don't have real sources to back you up.

[cinepro]

A great example of the LDS doctrine of implied infallibility is the Gospel Principles lesson on Prophets. Here we have the Church giving a general primer on what we should think about our Prophets and when and how we should follow them. If ever there was a great time to explain to the members that sometimes the Prophet is expressing his personal opinion over the pulpit and in Church publications, this was it.

But sadly, perhaps for reasons of brevity, they totally miss the subject.

Chapter 9: Prophets of God

But there is one point that is emphasized twice. We are specifically reminded in two different sections:

We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:

And then later in the lesson...

We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of His prophet:

[LDS Guy 1986]

A great example of the LDS doctrine of implied infallibility is the Gospel Principles lesson on Prophets. Here we have the Church giving a general primer on what we should think about our Prophets and when and how we should follow them. If ever there was a great time to explain to the members that sometimes the Prophet is expressing his personal opinion over the pulpit and in Church publications, this was it.

But sadly, perhaps for reasons of brevity, they totally miss the subject.

Chapter 9: Prophets of God

But there is one point that is emphasized twice. We are specifically reminded in two different sections:

And then later in the lesson...

This doesn't state they are incapable of making mistakes though, it only states that they cannot lead us away from the Lord. We all make mistakes that is a guarentee but at the same time we are all still progressing towards returning to the lord if we are doing our best to follow the Lord's commandments.

Doesn't the same standard apply to the prophet as well?

He may not get every decision right but if he is fulfilling his call to the best of his honest ability and understanding is he not still leading us to exaltation?

[JRF]

I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that when ETB gave this talk, he was not the president of the church (he was president of the 12). Does that make his 14 fundamentals less binding on us than if he had delivered them when he was church president? I think it does.

My problem with the 14 fundamentals comes in the treatment of the scriptures. In theory I agree that the lving prophets can by new revelation supercede past revelation, but the scriptures have been formally accepted by the church leaders and the menmbership as a whole in formal votes, so I think they supercede comments that have not been through that vetting process.

Best,

Jeff

[LDS Guy 1986]

I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that when ETB gave this talk, he was not the president of the church (he was president of the 12). Does that make his 14 fundamentals less binding on us than if he had delivered them when he was church president? I think it does.

As an ordained Apostle though he is still sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator so he is authorized to receive revelation, also the Church publishing his talk in the Ensign the following year give his talk scriptural status according to the doctrine of the Church.

[Jeff K.]

Has anybody ever wondered why prophets of God should be under the necessity of advancing "doctrinal expositions" rather than revelation?

Just wondering . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The two are not mutually exclusive. So they should not be listed as a "rather than".

7-The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. Doctrinal Expositions may merely help us understand the circumstances, they do not however replace revelation on the doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Not according to the Church.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Hopefully you are correct and I'm reading more into it than is actually there. But I really don't like being threatened. Idle or not.

I accept Brigham Young as having been a Prophet, along with Ezra Taft Benson,and all the others. But I didn't much like Brother Brigham authoritarian style, and disagreed intensely with Ezra Taft Benson politically and his 14 fundamentals sticks me as advocating a infallibility that I'm not willing to grant to any mortal(scientist or not ).

The threat, idle or otherwise exists from the moment we gain greater light and knowledge. You may as well state you don't like greater light and knowledge.

I appreciate your distinction of style. I agree to a certain extent regarding Young, and even Benson. Their style bothered my, I thought they could handle it better. I also thought Hinkley's style was magnificent. But it does not change the mantle all three of those brethern wore, and what goes along with it.

I would not read the 14 points and consider any one of them or all of them together as requireing infallibility in all things that a prophet does. Infallibility is only when he is carrying out the Lord's will and revelation directly. Even then I must receive confirmation of the same.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 March 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Should there be an issue with the doctrinal expositions? IE Polygamy for example? Can't you have an acceptance that polygamy can be removed, even when (at the time) prophets thought it would not be?

Of course you can. You're still missing the point.

The point isn't whether current revelation trumps past revelation.

The point is whether future revelation will trump what you presently practice and believe.

It isn't about whether you can accept that polygamy can be done away. It's about whether you can accept that one day same-sex unions could be solemnized in the temple. It isn't whether the WOW is given as a principle or by command and constraint, but whether one day, the WOW will forbid meat.

If what was revealed or spoken by past prophets can be rewritten, then what is revealed and spoken by present prophets can be rewritten. So why put stock in current teachings that may one day be superceded?

Current revelation can indeed trump past revelation or rather our interpretation of past revelation. What was spoken of by past prophets has been rewritten, clarified and even sanctified. In a sense, one could argue that your stated position is that past prophets are not infallible bur present LDS prophets are indeed fallible.

The rewriting, as you put it does not undermine doctrine anymore than the presentation of Mosaic Law by great prophets of the past somehow was more important than a change in that doctrine engineered by Christ's arrival. It was not undermined it was fulfilled. In a sense the united order may return or not depending on the needs of the saints as the Lord sees it.

Prophets of the past give us perspective, prophets of the present give us authority.

[Jeff K.]

LDS Guy 1986:

Not according to the Church.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

The fact it was emphasized in conference several times adds strength to its legitimacy and application.

[JRF]

LDS Guy 1986:

Not according to the Church.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

It's worth posting the relevant section in its entirely:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[daz2]

Jeff K. I am not sure why you say that President Benson's talk does not counsel us to follow the prophet even if the prophet is wrong. That is clearly what his quotation states, and it is clearly what was taught last week, on that basis, in my high priest group. True, the 14 points do not themselves state that, but the talk does.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

Not according to the Church.

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

Well you are wrong here because this is an inspired scripture, according to the Gospel Principles Manuel. "In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications (aka the Ensign Magazine), and instructions to local priesthood leaders. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (Articles of Faith 1:9)."

Source: http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-15,00.html ( and remarks in parentheses added by me)

So seeing that this was published in the Ensign and has been repeatedly used in General Conference it is scripture to us and as scripture it can be used to create doctrine.

[LDS Guy 1986]

It's worth posting the relevant section in its entirely:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Never let it be said that I oppose greater light and knowledge. By the same token I require a greater assurance than a "I told you so" by some mortal man. If they include the idle/or real threat that if I don't believe something that they believe I will suffer because of it. I'm more than likely to conclude they are a crank, a charlatan, and quite possibly dangerous either to my physical health or my pocketbook, and probably both.

As my fifth grade math teacher taught us "Show Your Work".

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K. I am not sure why you say that President Benson's talk does not counsel us to follow the prophet even if the prophet is wrong. That is clearly what his quotation states, and it is clearly what was taught last week, on that basis, in my high priest group. True, the 14 points do not themselves state that, but the talk does.

I think that is your interpretation, show me where and how and I will reply regarding your concerns.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Never let it be said that I oppose greater light and knowledge. By the same token I require a greater assurance than a "I told you so" by some mortal man. If they include the idle/or real threat that if I don't believe something that they believe I will suffer because of it. I'm more than likely to conclude they are a crank, a charlatan, and quite possibly dangerous either to my physical health or my pocketbook, and probably both.

As my fifth grade math teacher taught us "Show Your Work".

I suppose I would have to ask if there is a pattern of prophets in this dispensation or past ones in which those prophets were allowed to undermine doctrine by teaching false doctrine of one sort or another?

I would also argue that the position of the church at its core is that the spirit must witness it to you before you may fully accept it. It is with that underlying basis that I believe the choice remains while the emphaisis on listening seriously also exists.

[mercyngrace]

Current revelation can indeed trump past revelation or rather our interpretation of past revelation. What was spoken of by past prophets has been rewritten, clarified and even sanctified. In a sense, one could argue that your stated position is that past prophets are not infallible bur present LDS prophets are indeed fallible.

Not at all. Prophets in every age are fallible hence the conundrum.

The rewriting, as you put it does not undermine doctrine anymore than the presentation of Mosaic Law by great prophets of the past somehow was more important than a change in that doctrine engineered by Christ's arrival. It was not undermined it was fulfilled. In a sense the united order may return or not depending on the needs of the saints as the Lord sees it.

So the present prophet is infallible? Is it only after he dies that he begins to have personal opinions?

Prophets of the past give us perspective, prophets of the present give us authority.

So if someone disagrees with a prophet, maybe the best option is simply to wait him out.

The issue (contrary to what LDS Guy supposes) isn't a matter of wanting to ignore the current prophet. On the contrary, my family and I live well within the standards of the church. What I find odd is that current prophets can dismiss previous prophets and apologists on this very board (myself included though I'd hardly claim to be much of an apologist given my limited knowledge) are quick to dismiss troublesome statements by previous church leaders with the "It was his opinion" claim but for some reason, the current leadership is exempt from the same standard.

Take for example the quote by Elder Holland that I posted earlier in the thread where he dismisses the attempts by earlier church leaders at explaining the priesthood ban. How do I know his dismissal isn't just an opinion? How do I know that Elder Holland is right instead of say, Joseph F. Smith who spoke of Cain fathering an inferior race? (I agree with Elder Holland, btw, but just for the sake of the argument...)

Elder Holland could die tomorrow and be contradicted by another prophet who supports both lifting the ban and President Smith's reasoning behind the ban.

So I find myself back at my original assessment. This doesn't seem internally consistent to me.

[LDS Guy 1986]

So if someone disagrees with a prophet, maybe the best option is simply to wait him out.

That's a dangerous game of spiritual Russian roulette your playing, especially if you then decide to lie about sustaining the prophet (you can't sustain him if you don't believe him) in your Temple recommend interview.

My advice (which probably will have no impact or weight at all but I will still offer it) is if you have a problem accepting the prophet, study harder, ponder more deeply, fast more often and pray your heart out till your receive confirmation.

[mercyngrace]

That's a dangerous game of spiritual Russian roulette your playing, especially if you then decide to lie about sustaining the prophet (you can't sustain him if you don't believe him) in your Temple recommend interview.

My advice (which probably will have no impact or weight at all but I will still offer it) is if you have a problem accepting the prophet, study harder, ponder more deeply, fast more often and pray your heart out till your receive confirmation.

It was a rhetorical question, LDS Guy.

[cinepro]

He may not get every decision right but if he is fulfilling his call to the best of his honest ability and understanding is he not still leading us to exaltation?

President Monson has been the Prophet for a little over three years.

Can any LDS who believe in Prophetic fallibility explain to me any mistakes or errors he has made over the pulpit or in print in that time?

Consider this a CFR on the claim that President Monson if fallible.

[LDS Guy 1986]

It was a rhetorical question, LDS Guy.

I didn't feel that anything so dangerous should be left as rhetorical, IMO, to each there own but this idea of waiting out the prophet has serious implications if you want to be an active temple recommend holding member of the Church.

Added by Edit:

There is no such thing as a rhetorical question in a discussion, since a rhetorical question prohibits someone from answering.

[LDS Guy 1986]

President Monson has been the Prophet for a little over three years.

Can any LDS who believe in Prophetic fallibility explain to me any mistakes or errors he has made over the pulpit or in print in that time?

Consider this a CFR on the claim that President Monson if fallible.

I don't believe he is infallible, but that doesn't mean if he makes mistakes in his call as a prophet that those mistakes will lead the Church away from the Lord. It simply means it is something that God will allow to happen to President Monson or one of his successors fixes through future revelation.

You do not have to believe that a man is infallible to believe he cannot lead you away from the Lord. All you have to believe is that he the mistakes he makes will not be of enough significance to stop his or our spiritual progression.