Church Never Go Astray Logical?

[Deborah]

and to not reject the evidences for that decision?

If you have "evidences" it would be interesting to know what they are. If there is truly something you think you know that no one else does then you raise your hand no and often the leaders will take you aside to find out why you feel that way. In any case I doubt you know something no one else does, particularly those who work with these men closely everyday. Because one or two people refuse to sustain someone doesn't mean he won't be ordained to that office and once appointed, yes you have the obligation to sustain him.

President Young gave a sermon once in the JoD (vol 9, page 88) in which he talked about a possible failure in the latter-day work. At his conclusion he said that even if every priesthood holder failed, except one elder, that elder could -- by revelation only, however-- completely restore the entire church and kingdom that the Lord authorized at the beginning of this dispensation.

You are aware Pres. Young often spoke in hyperbole? Furthermore his hypothetical was to illustrate the point that the Priesthood chain would not be broken, not to say that there was a chance that this type of thing would ever actually happen.

[Deborah]

My question is what did President Monson ever do to deserve to not be sustained?

My nephew belongs to an apostate group that focuses only on words of the dead prophets, particularly their prophecies of doom in the final days. They hang on every word of those prophecies. This group believes that no President of the church since Spencer Kimball have been true, righteous prophets. They are upset at Pres. Kimball for the Proclamation on the Priesthood and believe he was in error. They are upset at all these later prophets for not continuing to speak of the doomsday prophecies. In other words they are basically sensationalists looking for that big prediction when they the Elders of Zion will be able to come in and save the church (even though they, including my nephew, have been excommunicated).

My ex refuses to sustain the current prophets because they won't come out and speak openly about extra-terrestrial beings visiting the earth and abducting people.

In other words if a prophet doesn't sustain one's pet theories there are some who would rather think they are fallen prophets rather than consider the fact that they themselves are misguided.

[erichard]

My nephew belongs to an apostate group that focuses only on words of the dead prophets, particularly their prophecies of doom in the final days. They hang on every word of those prophecies. This group believes that no President of the church since Spencer Kimball have been true, righteous prophets. They are upset at Pres. Kimball for the Proclamation on the Priesthood and believe he was in error. They are upset at all these later prophets for not continuing to speak of the doomsday prophecies. In other words they are basically sensationalists looking for that big prediction when they the Elders of Zion will be able to come in and save the church (even though they, including my nephew, have been excommunicated).

My ex refuses to sustain the current prophets because they won't come out and speak openly about extra-terrestrial beings visiting the earth and abducting people.

In other words if a prophet doesn't sustain one's pet theories there are some who would rather think they are fallen prophets rather than consider the fact that they themselves are misguided.

Wow.

I do sympathize with you and your experiences.

If you can tell, what group does your nephew belong to?

Richard

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

(Since I posted a comment which might be seen as critical, I should note that while I believe it's possible for the Church to go astray, I do not currently have any substantive complaints about the current leadership. )

[CV75]

Hi,

I question some of your points. But what is your conclusion? Does an individual member have the right in good faith to not sustain the President of the church, and to not reject the evidences for that decision? Or is that automatic bad faith?

If it was automatically a sin to not sustain the church President, then there would be no reason to even ask for a sustaining vote.

I agree that D&C 107:81-84 is not directly about "not sustaining" the prophet. But if one is convinced there is a legitimate controversy over the President of the church then it makes sense that they would not sustain him and seek to resolve the controversy-- even by such a trial if necessary.

President Young gave a sermon once in the JoD (vol 9, page 88) in which he talked about a possible failure in the latter-day work. At his conclusion he said that even if every priesthood holder failed, except one elder, that elder could -- by revelation only, however-- completely restore the entire church and kingdom that the Lord authorized at the beginning of this dispensation.

So by that discourse the promises in 2 Nephi can all be fulfilled even if just only one Elder proves fully faithful. Only 8 people survived the flood. But I am sure that those 8 people fulfilled all the promises given to the righteous in that day.

Richard

I do not think an individual member can withhold his sustaining vote from the prophet in good faith because of the oath and covenant of the priesthood (D&C 84, especially verses 36-39). To do so, he has to lack faith in the Father, the Son, and the fellow servants in the governing quorums. And in light of my remarks about the Book of Mormon, that too.

I think it is interesting that, with all the information available on the current and past sins of just about every public figure, which so many so gladly share on every available media outlet, no one has published any dirt on the past behavior of the members of our First Presidency and Twelve, at least not any verifiable transgression. So the basis for withholding a sustaining vote seems to be a difference of opinion on some accusation of transgression, controversy, or other failure in leadership and the source of the accusation. The question then becomes whether one’s faith is sufficient to offset his personal misunderstanding or perceptions, and whether the Lord counts him as responsible for such.

A member may bring forth evidence and witnesses to be heard, but is not his job to call for a trial of the prophet, but the directing authorities, just a bishop or stake president calls for councils to take place within their scope of responsibility once a problem comes to their attention.

I’d have to take a real good hard look at your reference before seeing how it properly relates to an expectation that the Restored Church could fail. As long it was addressing only a possibility, a restoration would not even require an Elder—but that would mean acknowledging the possibility of another apostasy (which is also not going to happen)—so I suspect his point was more accurately to emphasize that the priesthood has been restored and will not be taken from the earth again. It's like the whole "God cannot lie" discussion.

Edited November 14, 2011 by CV75

[erichard]

...

Well, I still do not trust any of your arguments.

Everything you say is an attempt to place the President of the church above the law, and above controversy-- to make it a "done-deal" that no controversy over a Church President should even be considered.

But the Word of the Lord says otherwise.

You may admit that "in theory" there could be a legitimate controversy, but are you willing to sincerely allow a member who has a controversy they recognize as valid to remain a member in good faith?

Richard

[Mudcat]

First of all, would any institution that claims exclusive truthfulness ever subscribe to the idea that it is susceptible to apostasy, meaning that the institution could one day be led astray? I mean, no church would say, yes, we have the truth now, but be careful because someday down the road this church could be way off. Who would join an institution that is destined to fail? So, isn’t it fair to say that it is illogical to believe that one’s church could never go astray because its inspired leadership claimed it to be impossible?

The belief that the church cannot apostatize makes it invincible to apostasy in the eyes its members. In other words, even if it did hypothetically apostatize, its members would not be able to recognize it because everything said by leadership (in its state of apostasy) would be supported by its members?

As a church, its easy for us to look back historically at churches in the dark ages and point out the evidences of apostasy—ordinances changed, doctrines lost or changed, corruption of leaders, etc. But in the modern church today, if ordinances were to be changed completely, it would be justified through revelation. And if any big doctrines were to be abandoned, that too would be justified by modern revelation. If church leaders make serious errors, its justified because we recognize that there are not inerrant and that they could not lead us all astray. Is this safe to believe? Logical? Is there really any merit to claiming that the church will never lead us astray?

Your thoughts welcomed.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." or so says Isaiah.

IMO, one focus of the CoJCoLDS is that the word of God does not stand forever. Apparently, given the LDS view, the word of God takes a tumble now and again. Thus a supposed need for a restoration.

What is problematic is that such a restoration, puts Isaiah in the wrong. I do think LDS believe Isaiah was a prophet, at least AFIK.

I have seen a picture posted towards evangelicals like myself on this forum. It is supposed to point to a circularity to our thoughts.

I don't have the interest to modify the picture, but you could replace "Prophet" with relevant syntax for "Bible" as pictured and arrive at the same sort of circularity.

[KevinG]

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." or so says Isaiah.

IMO, one focus of the CoJCoLDS is that the word of God does not stand forever. Apparently, given the LDS view, the word of God takes a tumble now and again. Thus a supposed need for a restoration.

What is problematic is that such a restoration, puts Isaiah in the wrong. I do think LDS believe Isaiah was a prophet, at least AFIK.

I have seen a picture posted towards evangelicals like myself on this forum. It is supposed to point to a circularity to our thoughts.

I don't have the interest to modify the picture, but you could replace "Prophet" with relevant syntax for "Bible" as pictured and arrive at the same sort of circularity.

The graphic made me smile! Personal revelation from God takes away the circularity of the argument for anyone who experiences it.

It is not the word of God that takes a tumble as much as mankind separating themselves from God... Thus the need to restore the eternal truth of God's Gospel to mankind.

[mfbukowski]

I don't have the interest to modify the picture, but you could replace "Prophet" with relevant syntax for "Bible" as pictured and arrive at the same sort of circularity.

I have discussed this at some length where Rob Bowman has basically made the same argument.

I think the argument is not correct; the reality is that we think that the only way we can know a prophet is indeed a prophet is by revelation.

We do not accept prophets by their declaration that they are prophets, we accept them because we believe we have received direct personal revelation from God that the individual is indeed a prophet.

The beginning of my discussion of this point can be found here- it includes three or four different lengthy posts.

Rob

At the core of the argument is how does one know that a prophet is a false prophet? I would argue that this is an example of a false prophet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h

But how can I know that? I can't without relying on the circularity of the Bible, unless I rely on personal revelation.

Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is a Bahai scripture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit%C3%A1b-i-Aqdas

How do we know that it is or is not equivalent to the Bible? The only possible non-circular answer is "personal revelation".

[CV75]

Well, I still do not trust any of your arguments.

Everything you say is an attempt to place the President of the church above the law, and above controversy-- to make it a "done-deal" that no controversy over a Church President should even be considered.

But the Word of the Lord says otherwise.

You may admit that "in theory" there could be a legitimate controversy, but are you willing to sincerely allow a member who has a controversy they recognize as valid to remain a member in good faith?

Richard

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you have a blind spot.

Everything I cited places the President of the Church on equal standing with every other member as far as how controversies over his transgressions are addressed through due process. A bishop manages these affairs in his ward, a stake president in his stake, and the First Presidency and Twelve for their members. They consider the controversies, whatever they may be and however they come to light.

I haven’t seen any word of the Lord to show otherwise or to offset the oath and covenant of the priesthood and related principles as I described them, nor to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Restored Church to succumb to general apostasy. The suggestion that one Elder will rise up to restore an apostate LDS Church actually smacks of putting one man above the promises of the Lord as an excuse to not sustain or to undermine its leadership..

A member that has his own controversy about the prophet can raise his hand in opposition to the prophet, and has a way to have his concerns addressed. Once the transgressing prophet is released, there is no need for anyone to sustain him. If the transgression is unfounded or forgiven, such a member may opt to not sustain the prophet anyway, but would lose his membership if his lack of sustaining represents a transgression or is part of apostate activity to the point that such disciplinary action is in everyone’s best interests.

[CV75]

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." or so says Isaiah.

IMO, one focus of the CoJCoLDS is that the word of God does not stand forever. Apparently, given the LDS view, the word of God takes a tumble now and again. Thus a supposed need for a restoration.

What is problematic is that such a restoration, puts Isaiah in the wrong. I do think LDS believe Isaiah was a prophet, at least AFIK.

The word of God stands forever, but mankind rejects, changes or loses it from time to time, and this is what necessitates a new dispensation (in our case, the Restoration).

The word of God is obviously more than printed words on a page. It is the living Christ, ongoing revelation (prophetic and personal), and the words in the eternal covenants that are found in ordinances of salvation. These also stand forever on God’s end of the equation but mankind often fails.

[jo1952]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you have a blind spot.

Everything I cited places the President of the Church on equal standing with every other member as far as how controversies over his transgressions are addressed through due process. A bishop manages these affairs in his ward, a stake president in his stake, and the First Presidency and Twelve for their members. They consider the controversies, whatever they may be and however they come to light.

I haven’t seen any word of the Lord to show otherwise or to offset the oath and covenant of the priesthood and related principles as I described them, nor to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Restored Church to succumb to general apostasy. The suggestion that one Elder will rise up to restore an apostate LDS Church actually smacks of putting one man above the promises of the Lord as an excuse to not sustain or to undermine its leadership..

A member that has his own controversy about the prophet can raise his hand in opposition to the prophet, and has a way to have his concerns addressed. Once the transgressing prophet is released, there is no need for anyone to sustain him. If the transgression is unfounded or forgiven, such a member may opt to not sustain the prophet anyway, but would lose his membership if his lack of sustaining represents a transgression or is part of apostate activity to the point that such disciplinary action is in everyone’s best interests.

A very good and helpful clarification!! I was thinking that you two were talking past each other. Hopefully this post will help.

Regards,

jo

[CV75]

A very good and helpful clarification!! I was thinking that you two were talking past each other. Hopefully this post will help.

Regards,

jo

I am happy to oblige!

[Mudcat]

I have discussed this at some length where Rob Bowman has basically made the same argument.

I think the argument is not correct; the reality is that we think that the only way we can know a prophet is indeed a prophet is by revelation.

Here is the rub, bold mine, your acceptance of your own unique experiences vindicates that JS is a prophet. However your unique experiences are not evidential to anyone beyond yourself. This isn't to say that a person doesn't have good reason to believe what they perceive.

We do not accept prophets by their declaration that they are prophets, we accept them because we believe we have received direct personal revelation from God that the individual is indeed a prophet.

Personal revelation is quite a trump card. However it does not account for conflicting revelations. Many people believe they are following a true prophet of God and many people don't believe that such a person is actually the same fellow.

At the core of the argument is how does one know that a prophet is a false prophet? I would argue that this is an example of a false prophet:

http://en.wikipedia....27u%27ll%C3%A1h

But how can I know that?

If your personal revelation is your method of convincing people that such a person is a false prophet, good luck with that.

I can't without relying on the circularity of the Bible, unless I rely on personal revelation.

Here is the conundrum.. if we allow personal revelation to supersede given revelation then it doesn't matter what revelation has been given. There is no real standard other than what a person chooses to accept as their own individual revelation. I can't put your revelatory beliefs or anyone else beliefs in any testable mechanism.

You accept your own, because you believe it is what you have been given and you reject others because they are not what you believe you have been given.

This is a Bahai scripture:

http://en.wikipedia....%C3%A1b-i-Aqdas

How do we know that it is or is not equivalent to the Bible? The only possible non-circular answer is "personal revelation".

Bold mine, I think a better question would be, How does a person who believes they have personal revelation of Bahai scripture find themselves in contention with your revelation and because of your revelation they should consider that such Bahai works are the product of a false prophet?

What could you possibly appeal to, beyond your own direct experience to convince them of that?

I'd be curious for your answer on that. I believe our spiritual experiences are more for defense than offense.

All the best,

Mudcat

Edited November 15, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

If you look at it the way I do, you will see that what I am about to say is pretty straight up Mormon doctrine. Yes it is my personal way of seeing it, but the key is that you must realize that we take progression and "salvation" as a thing that goes on after death. We do not finish our progression in this life, which is but one stage and gets us only part the way there.

Here is the rub, bold mine, your acceptance of your own unique experiences vindicates that JS is a prophet. However your unique experiences are not evidential to anyone beyond yourself. This isn't to say that a person doesn't have good reason to believe what they perceive.

You are presuming that spiritual experiences are scientifically verifiable- ie: that they can be expressed and observed by others. They cannot any more than the experience of "red" can be shown to others.

Personal revelation is quite a trump card. However it does not account for conflicting revelations. Many people believe they are following a true prophet of God and many people don't believe that such a person is actually the same fellow.

This presumes that the role of prophets is not to teach personal spiritual growth, but to teach objective facts.

That is not the case. The Bible is not a scientific book. The "truths" it teaches are not objective, they are spiritual. God teaches us what we need to know to progress- in stages. I don't know the spiritual things you know, you don't know what I know.

So clearly you need to learn things I don't need to learn and I need to learn things you don't need to learn. Differences in beliefs are OK- we learn what we need to progress, and eventually we will, I believe, hopefully end up in the "same place".

Yes there is "one truth" ultimately- but we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Underlying this is the whole idea is the notion of "redemption of the dead" Mormon style. Our progression will continue past death. Neither of us have the full truth here- but honestly, I think I am on a "truer" path.

But honestly, not that much "truer". And how true the path is, doesn't have much to do with how close someone is to the Lord in following that path. I am certain many Evangelicals are closer to the Lord than many Mormons, and vice-versa.

If your personal revelation is your method of convincing people that such a person is a false prophet, good luck with that.

Obviously- I would never do that.

There is no real standard other than what a person chooses to accept as their own individual revelation. I can't put your revelatory beliefs or anyone else beliefs in any testable mechanism. Here is the conundrum.. if we allow personal revelation to supersede given revelation then it doesn't matter what revelation has been given.

Yep- that's the problem all right. So how can you prove that the Bible is true and the Bahai faith is not?

You accept your own, because you believe it is what you have been given and you reject others because they are not what you believe you have been given.

Yeppers again. So? We are talking about personal growth- not objective truth. We have all been given different talents and understandings.

Bold mine, I think a better question would be, How does a person who believes they have personal revelation of Bahai scripture find themselves in contention with your revelation and because of your revelation they should consider that such Bahai works are the product of a false prophet?

Well they would not be in contention for one thing, because they think all revelation is the same- but you are quite right that there is no way to objectively show that "my revelation is better than your revelation". Again, personal revelation is- PERSONAL

What could you possibly appeal to, beyond your own direct experience to convince them of that?

Nothing, and I wouldn't try that method. I would ask them to read the Book of Mormon and seek their own revelation of its truth. If they did not feel they received an answer, then so be it. That's all we ask of all investigators.

I'd be curious for your answer on that. I believe our spiritual experiences are more for defense than offense.

Well we do our best not to be "offensive" but we don't always succeed.

All the best,

Same to you as always.

You didn't read all those posts did you?

Edited November 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[SeattleGrunge]

Fortunately I don't believe that. How on earth can we depend on the Lord if we can't depend on his prophets. It is up to him to keep them in line and I've been in the church long enough to know that he does just that.

For both what you wrote Deborah and what Mudcat wrote below, the key in my opinion is held with each person. We are morally obligated to verify everything for ourselves to God through the spirit and not rely on the Prophets alone. We are even told by them to verify (get our own testimony) of everything they say from God. Not doing so is irresponsible.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." or so says Isaiah.

IMO, one focus of the CoJCoLDS is that the word of God does not stand forever. Apparently, given the LDS view, the word of God takes a tumble now and again. Thus a supposed need for a restoration.

What is problematic is that such a restoration, puts Isaiah in the wrong. I do think LDS believe Isaiah was a prophet, at least AFIK.

I have seen a picture posted towards evangelicals like myself on this forum. It is supposed to point to a circularity to our thoughts.

I don't have the interest to modify the picture, but you could replace "Prophet" with relevant syntax for "Bible" as pictured and arrive at the same sort of circularity.

[Deborah]

For both what you wrote Deborah and what Mudcat wrote below, the key in my opinion is held with each person. We are morally obligated to verify everything for ourselves to God through the spirit and not rely on the Prophets alone. We are even told by them to verify (get our own testimony) of everything they say from God. Not doing so is irresponsible.

Why is it everyone assumes if you believe in following the prophet that somehow you are not involving your own personal revelation. The thing is when we vote to sustain the prophet we are recognizing this is Christ's disciple. Having prayed about the church and asking God to guide the prophet has already given a degree of assurance that he, God, will not let him lead us astray. When Pres. Monson was sustained I could see the mantle of the office fall on him. So why on earth would I question every word that comes out of his mouth. Of course we should have our own spiritual verification, but do you really think that means every time he says something, particularly if it doesn't fit what we want, we should question it. That seems to be what some here are saying.

I think praying for revelation is a daily process that begins with scripture reading and prayer so that when something is said we already have the spirit to discern right from wrong. I'm wondering about those who think you have to pray about every word whether that person is really in tune with revelation because that should be something you already have if you are doing what you ought to do. We should also be in tune to know when the prophet is speaking counsel and not doctrine without having to nitpick every word, and to understand counsel is something that is given to a very wide audience but must be applied on an individual level.

I'm sure some like to think they are far more advanced than the rest of us and can see fault where we can't, but I wonder how much of that fault is a projection of that person and not what is real. I am seeing so many faithful members get off the path of the iron rod because they think they know better than the man who is trying to guide us through the the mist.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Deborah

[Cobalt-70]

One difference between us and the previous dispensations that I think protects us from being led astray is that it is clearly definied that 15 apostles and prophets run the Church, not one, and they are all given equal authority (the FP and Qo12) in D&C 107. I suppose it could be argued that the Church organized by Christ during his mortal ministry might also benefit from this, but there is so far nothing to indicate so specific a line of authority for that period.

I doubt that part of D&C 107 is effectively in force. If it came down to it, does anybody really think that the Quorum of the Twelve (or the Seventy, or a body of stake high councils) could, in practice, vote to impeach the First Presidency? There are several parts of D&C 107 that we know are obsolete. For example, the First Presidency is not, as D&C 107:22 directs, "chosen by the body" of the church. Instead, the President is chosen by the Twelve, and the remaining members of the First Presidency are chosen by the President.

Also, stake high councils no longer have equal authority to the Twelve or the First Presidency (D&C 107:36). The church has also done away with the Presiding High Council, which had even more authority than the Twelve, according to D&C 102. Plus, thanks to the lack of Sidney Rigdon's charisma in comparison to Brigham Young, the power of the First Presidency was weakened to the extent that unlike other quorums such as the Twelve, the First Presidency automatically dissolves upon the death (or presumably, excommunication or retirement, if that were ever to occur) of its president, thus ultimately giving the Twelve the supreme power in the church. The power to appoint is the ultimate power.

[SeattleGrunge]

...but do you really think that means every time he says something, particularly if it doesn't fit what we want, we should question it. That seems to be what some here are saying.

Nope, just anything new that you don't already have a personal testimony of. A prophet can't lead the church astray until he says something new so I think this is implicit in the discussion.

Edited November 15, 2011 by SeattleGrunge

[ERayR]

For both what you wrote Deborah and what Mudcat wrote below, the key in my opinion is held with each person. We are morally obligated to verify everything for ourselves to God through the spirit and not rely on the Prophets alone. We are even told by them to verify (get our own testimony) of everything they say from God. Not doing so is irresponsible.

The problem with this is two fold. First LDS do not consider the prophets as infallible. Second there is the little thing called personal revelation. Nobody is asked to believe(follow) the prophet because he said so. Members are admonished and taught to seek and receive their own revealed testimonies.

[cinepro]

Members are admonished and taught to seek and receive their own revealed testimonies.

You mean like this?

When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration, convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also, they should understand that directions for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head. All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, and for those over whom they are appointed and ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, and is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, demonstrated truths, or good common sense.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,

ANTHON H. LUND,

CHARLES W. PENROSE,

First Presidency.

A Voice of Warning

Official Letter of Declaration by the First Presidency

Improvement Era, 1913, Vol. Xvi. September, 1913 No. 11

Edited November 16, 2011 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

What about agency? If it is impossible for the leaders of the church to apostatize, then logically, they have lost their agency. The church is led by men. If it is impossible for those men to fail, then they have no choice in the matter, and Lucifer's premortal plan is vindicated. Right?

[Senator]

....So why on earth would I question every word that comes out of his mouth.

I can't speak for you.

But for me..

It's because he's still a mortal man and like all of us is subject to "looking through a glass, darkly"

Of course we should have our own spiritual verification, but do you really think that means every time he says something, particularly if it doesn't fit what we want, we should question it.

Yes.

You seem to hold a negative view of the act of questioning. To me, 'to question', means to take everything he says and place it upon the table for consideration. This is not to necessarily doubt him, but to use my God given autonomy to employ intellect, contemplation, reason and spiritual discernment to weigh the truth of his words.

I'm sure some like to think they are far more advanced than the rest of us and can see fault where we can't, but I wonder how much of that fault is a projection of that person and not what is real.

You may be engaging in a bit of projecting youself here.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Senator

[CV75]

What about agency? If it is impossible for the leaders of the church to apostatize, then logically, they have lost their agency. The church is led by men. If it is impossible for those men to fail, then they have no choice in the matter, and Lucifer's premortal plan is vindicated. Right?

The Lord’s anointed have agency, and since the prophecies show that the Restored Church will not apostatize, a sufficient number of them will remain faithful to keep it intact and fulfill the Lord’s promises.