Prophets, Infallibility, And Authority

[Zeta-Flux]

I started a thread recently about the priesthood ban (which I'm not repeating here). Specifically, I was concerned that people were misrepresenting history. The responses were three-fold:

1) Prophets are not infallible.

2) There is a difference between doctrine and tradition/practice.

3) Modern prophets have changed the doctrine.

I don't want to revisit the priesthood ban issue (except peripherally) but rather I want to discuss the ideas underlying these comments.

Prophets are not infallible

This is a true statement. However, it seems that this response is only valid when the other side is asserting that merely by the privilege of position, or right from God, the prophet's words are irrefutable. It should be noted that I was not arguing this (in fact, expliciting saying that I would like the teaching officially refuted).

A similar, but distinct, argument was given by Joseph Smith, when asked about being a prophet and he said (paraphrasing): A prophet is only such when he is acting as a prophet.

But what do we do when a prophet does act in his calling as a prophet? Well, we don't immediately assume that the prophet was correct--they are not infallible. I agree with JeremyOrbe-Smith on that point. But we cannot dismiss out of hand what was said either. Furthermore, we do not stand in a position to correct what the prophet said. Their teachings, until corrected/changed, represent the churches official teachings (and I emphasize, this is only when the prophet is acting in his calling).

There is a difference between doctrine and tradition/practice

This response is appropriate when no reasons are given for a tradition/practice. There are many things in the church which have developed their own pseudo-doctrine. As Ares rightly said: "The burden of proof is on those who say something was presented as doctrine (as distinct from tradition and practice)."

There have been more than enough threads on what constitutes doctrine (and very little agreement). Let me just say that if a prophet of the Lord says, in the name of Jesus Christ, that something is true, that seems to me to be the beginning of a doctrinal teaching. If that teaching is continually taught in manuals, by general authorities, etc..., then it starts getting hard to say it wasn't (at least for a while) doctrine.

Modern prophets can change doctrine

Again, this is true. It's one of the great things about our church. Our doctrine can evolve and even be corrected. I would suggest, however, that just as there is a burden to showing that prophets have really said what they have said historically, and that a teaching was given repeatedly, in official venues; similarly, to establish that a teaching has been publicly refuted it takes more than a one-paragraph statement that doesn't directly address the previous teaching.

That said, my argument was about historical context. Is it valid to call previous doctrines "myths" assuming they were later refuted, but were at one time official?

[inquiringmind]

Is it valid to call previous doctrines "myths" assuming they were later refuted, but were at one time official?

Has anything that was once official doctrine been refuted?

[juliann]

I hope this thread gets shut down, too. Pres. Hinckley answered your question unequivocably and without reservation, even using such words as racial slur and racial hatred. Pres. David O. McKay is on record as referring to the ban as "policy". So as you were told by Ares as he closed your other thread, the burden of proof is on you to claim the ban was doctrine. But you are starting up again as if nothing had been said.

[inquiringmind]

But has official doctrine ever actually been changed, rescinded, or refuted?

[ebeddoulos]

But has official doctrine ever actually been changed, rescinded, or refuted?

No

[juliann]

Nope, that incident in 1978 never happened.....

Gordon B. Hinckley was very old and confused when he denounced those who arrogantly thought that others couldn't hold the priesthood and he also never said “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”

::::::::Cue Twilight Zone music::::::::

(edited to correct date typo)

Edited February 26, 2012 by juliann

[Zeta-Flux]

I hope this thread gets shut down, too. Pres. Hinckley answered your question unequivocably and without reservation, even using such words as racial slur and racial hatred. Pres. David O. McKay is on record as referring to the ban as "policy". So as you were told by Ares as he closed your other thread, the burden of proof is on you to claim the ban was doctrine. But you are starting up again as if nothing had been said.

juliann,

This thread is not about the priesthood ban. Please don't try to make it such. This is about prophets, infallibility, and authority. It is about how we come to understand what is authoritative, and how we teach our past. So on that topic let me ask you some questions:

If the current (or more recent) prophet says something that seems to contradict what previous prophets have said on a subject, does that make those previous teachings "myths"? Is it accurate to characterize them as such? I understand that the current prophet has the right to correct false teachings. Does that mean that we look back at our history with a lense of "that was never authoritatively taught"?

(If you want to start a separate thread to discuss your quotation from Pres. Hinckley, and how you interpret it as invalidating Brigham Young's statements, feel free. But this thread is not the place.)

Edited February 26, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[inquiringmind]

Nope, that incident in 1987 never happened.....

Gordon B. Hinckley was very old and confused when he denounced those who arrogantly thought that others couldn't hold the priesthood and he also never said “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”

::::::::Cue Twilight Zone music::::::::

What incident in 1987?

What are you talking about here, and what does it have to do with official doctrine?

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Zeta-Flux]

Regarding doctrine vs. practice: If one prophet says that a practice is "policy" does that mean it is not doctrinally based? Further, does that imply that it was not understood as such previously, by previous prophets?

[juliann]

juliann,

This thread is not about the priesthood ban. Please don't try to make it such. This is about prophets, infallibility, and authority. It is about how we come to understand what is authoritative, and how we teach our past. So on that topic let me ask you some questions:

If the current (or more recent) prophet says something that seems to contradict what previous prophets have said on a subject, does that make those previous teachings "myths"? Is it accurate to characterize them as such? I understand that the current prophet has the right to correct false teachings. Does that mean that we look back at our history with a lense of "that was never authoritatively taught"?

(If you want to start a separate thread to discuss your quotation from Pres. Hinckley, and how you interpret it as invalidating Brigham Young's statements, feel free. But this thread is not the place.)

You continue to create false dilemmas. Anything said now must be an invalidation of someone else. The "myth" was referring to the priesthood ban, nothing else so that is misleading to take a term that you objected to and insist it apply to something else but then refuse to name that something else. So what do you want to talk about? Is this a "what if" thread?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The only authority is truth. Amen to the Priesthood of the man who tries to coerce belief based on nothing but the office they hold. None are required to tamely and blindly submit to anyone just because they have a portion of the Priesthood. If we would do or believe anything we are told to do by those who Preside over us, even if we knew it was wrong, then I think such obedience is worse than folly; it is slavery in the extreme, and the person who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings. This goes all the way to the top; if the works of justice are destroyed, then Gods themselves cease to be worth worshipping.

If something is taught as doctrine which is untrue, then obviously the teacher and the doctrine is wrong, and based on what light is available in the world at that time. If we err, then insofar as we are humble and teachable, we can receive corrective wisdom from time to time. One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth, let it come from where it may. If the claims of a faith will not bear to be investigated, or if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.

God remembers the heathen, and Jew and Gentile are alike unto God; the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. This means we can learn from everyone, we can gather all the good and true principles wherever they are found.

In fact, we are told in the D&C to search out the best books to teach each other wisdom. If we have to search out truth and wisdom, that implies that we do not currently have it all. “Mormonism” embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all part of the Gospel that we have embraced. We believe in all good; if you can find a truth in Heaven, earth or Hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it.

Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the Prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration. I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear; doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self.

As B. H. Roberts said:

Disciples [...] in the world of religious [...] opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the disciples pure and simple -- people who fall under the spell of a person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching to get a nominal hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend: for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly be the whole truth [...] We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense. They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.

On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort [...] They [...] bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields springs up in their soil, and bears fruit -- thirty, sixty, an hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such men are the disciples that it is worthwhile for a master to have [...] Disciples of the second sort co-operate in the works of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder stages of development.

I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half -- not one-hundredth part -- not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded, either to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun.

The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fullness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truth received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Ares]

This thread is not about the priesthood ban.

I disagree.