The Prophet Is Infallible

[cwald]

I find it amusing all the what if's and wherefores regarding "infallible" prophets. I suggest that the only reason it is mentioned here is to give people an excuse not to heed the words of the living prophet. ..... That is why the Savior warned the disciples to beware of "false prophets" (he was not talking about the prophets and apostles He placed in His own Church) those who oppose the true prophets or try to undermine their authority to speak for the Lord.

Oh really. That is a convenient disclaimer to throw into the scriptures. Nice job.

Maybe Jesus meant exactly what he said, and he was warning all people to not be deceived by false prophets and to pay attention to what their leaders were saying...maybe he was warning folks to use the spirit and some common sense when a "prophet" speaks so they don't get fooled by the likes of Warren Jeffs when he tells them not question him because he is a prophet and speaks for god, and by the way, I'm going to marry your 12 year old daughter.

If the Mormon prophet speaks truth and bares good fruit, and the spirit tells me it is true and it makes logic and reasonable sense...I have no problem with it. If it doesn't, I will not follow it or believe it. I think that just makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure why many in the LDS church has a problem with that belief? Let their fruits be the guide to truth. Please quit telling I have to accept their teachings just because they are The Prophets.

I guess just an example would be BKP comment in GC about "why would god do that to his children." Nope. He does not understand chemical biology apparently, at least according to the spirit that speak to me, so I cannot trust his opinion on that subject. Therefore, I am left to reject that council and believe his personal doctrinal opinion on the matter is false.

[cwald]

.....perhaps they are hell bent on getting approval of an unorthodox view (such as no real Adam and Eve, or no global flood) or even worse they want validation for the abomination of SS Marriage! ....

Wh wha what? Really? Global flood? An arc that held all the animal species?

I suppose main stream orthodox LDS members should believe that the tower of Babel is literal as well? You have heard of anthropology, biology, archeology, geology...the sciences in general?

[zerinus]

I find it amusing all the what if's and wherefores regarding "infallible" prophets. I suggest that the only reason it is mentioned here is to give people an excuse not to heed the words of the living prophet. I have recognized that game long ago for what it really is, a faithless disloyal, state of open rebellion. If a person says yes a prophet is infallible then at once they are bombarded with "questionable statements" that no "reasonable person" would agree with. Thus "proving" that the prophet is not infallible. If the person says no they are not infallible, then they strike at the heart of the matter- they say well if you cannot trust all the words of the prophets then you cannot trust ANY of their words! This opens up a whole vista of opinion that states that anyone's opinion can be just as inspired as the prophet's! Thus effectively nullifying the following scriptures:

Or the following:

As also the following:

I suggest that this problem is manufactured by those who do not want to sustain the prophet for whatever reason, perhaps they are hell bent on getting approval of an unorthodox view (such as no real Adam and Eve, or no global flood) or even worse they want validation for the abomination of SS Marriage! The renouncing of outmoded moral values and the endorsing of new more enlightened views is an old tactic of Lucifer. Anything to deny the spirit of revelation and to elevate the teachings of men. That is why the Savior warned the disciples to beware of "false prophets" (he was not talking about the prophets and apostles He placed in His own Church) those who oppose the true prophets or try to undermine their authority to speak for the Lord.

Well said, LB. You are the only one talking sense here.

Edited June 19, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I have a question for everyone. Is God infallible? Does He ever make a mistake? Does He put His foot in it sometimes? Does he ever forget something? Does He drop a clanger occasionally? Does He ever do something that He might later regret?

Edited June 19, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

God is perfect, we mortals are not. Further it doesn't appear that any of us will be in this life.

Edited June 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I have a question for everyone. Is God infallible? Does He ever make a mistake? Does He put His foot in it sometimes? Does he ever forget something? Does He drop a clanger occasionally? Does He ever do something that He might later regret?

... yes? Heck, why not? I, for one, certainly don't think it'd be a problem if He does. Again, remember that the word 'infallible' is only used a single time in scripture, in Acts 1:3, where the author considers the "proofs" given by Christ during the 40-day ministry to be 'infallible'. The King James Version of Genesis 6:6 says that "it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The Jewish Publication Society's Study Bible has it even more explicitly as "The LORD regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened."

I actually really love that we believe in a living, weeping God with body, parts, and passions. He's not the untouchable Unmoved Mover; He's the most moved mover. Grief and regret and sorrow are passions; assuming that there is an opposition in all things, then if Man exists in order to have Joy -- and God the Father is one of an infinite number of exalted Men -- then mistakes and regrets are just part of being alive. If God the Father dwelt on an earth, etc., why shouldn't He have His own private regrets? D&C 121 counsels us to bear with each other and show that our faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death; if our Heavenly Father and Mother are less than infallible, should we suddenly lose faith in the Plan of Salvation? I don't think so.

Edited June 19, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

That is why the Savior warned the disciples to beware of "false prophets" (he was not talking about the prophets and apostles He placed in His own Church) those who oppose the true prophets or try to undermine their authority to speak for the Lord.

The only problem with this is that every church believes it is the "Lord's True Church" so how are we supposed to tell the true prophets from the false?

Someone mentioned Warren Jeffs- who claims he is the leader of the Lord's true church.

If he is right, then we should all follow him, according to this logic. The only way we could possibly distinguish the true church is that the test MUST apply to all possible prophets- even those in the Lord's church.

[DBMormon]

I guess just an example would be BKP comment in GC about "why would god do that to his children." Nope. He does not understand chemical biology apparently, at least according to the spirit that speak to me, so I cannot trust his opinion on that subject. Therefore, I am left to reject that council and believe his personal doctrinal opinion on the matter is false.

CWALD - Actually President Packer has spoke a different tone on multiple occasions and should get the benefeit of the doubt here.

] Past and Present Teachings

There are at least six talks in which President Packer has addressed homosexual or other sexual sin.¹⁴ I here highlight several themes that directly contradict the interpretation by critics—both within and outside of the church—of the 2010 conference address. These themes also confirm that the clarification was precisely that—a clarification—rather than a recantation made under pressure. Not every talk addresses every theme, but their collective message is unambiguous and unmistakable. When a talk is first cited, I include a quotation in the footnote which justifies my decision to read his remarks as referring, at least in part, to homosexual temptations or acts.

1. It may be necessary to resist such temptation for a lifetime.

Contrary to the claim that Packer-2010A taught that any inclination to homosexual sin could be eliminated, numerous of his past addresses teach that such temptations may persist throughout one's entire life and must be resisted:

• Establish a resolute conviction that

you will resist for a lifetime, if necessary

, any deviate thought or deviate action. Do not respond to those feelings. . . .

f they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them. . . . No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for a long period of time, and thereafter continually, some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health. [Packer-1978] 

15

• Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—

all of your life, if need be

. [Packer-1990] 

16

• You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and erase these temptations. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings

. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them. [Packer-1990

• How all can be repaired, we do not know.

It may not all be accomplished in this life

. [Packer-1995] 

17

• That may be a struggle from which you will

not be free in this life

. [Packer-2000] 

18

Even the initial form of Packer-2010A makes the intended meaning clear in context. Immediately after the citation that caused such consternation, President Packer went on to say, "Paul promised that 'God . . . will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it' (1 Corinthians 10:13)" [Packer-2010A and -2010B]. The appeal to Paul makes it clear that when Packer-2010A refers to those who believe that they "cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural," he is talking about sinful acts, rather than the existence or persistence of temptation to sin, which we must sometimes simply "bear." He goes on: "There is also an age-old excuse: 'The devil made me do it.' Not so! He can deceive you and mislead you, but he does not have the power to force you or anyone else to transgress or to keep you in transgression" [Packer-2010A and -2010B].

President Packer also invoked the same scriptural argument in Packer-2000:

When any

unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them

(see James 4:6–8; 2 Ne. 9:39; Mosiah 3:19). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1).

Thirty-three years ago, Elder Packer drew a frank analogy between those engaged in the difficult process of breaking from same-sex behavior and a major surgical operation to correct a life-threatening condition. As always, he focused on behavior since "the solution to this problem rests with the 'thou shalts' and the 'thou shalt nots'":

[surgical patients] count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable? [Packer-1978]

In the same talk, he noted that his audience "will have to grow away from [their] problem with undeviating—notice that word—undeviating determination." Since the situation is compared to a patient who might have to accept "a limited life-style thereafter . . . in order just to live," and this requires "undeviating determination," it is hard to believe that the same speaker believes (as the critics claim) that temptation and inclination will necessarily cease. On the contrary, President Packer's earlier writings are completely congruent with the clarifying edits made to Packer-2010B and his intent in the context of Packer-2010A.

2. Acting on sexual temptation is not inevitable.

• It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. One

does not just have to yield to it and live with it

. . . . If you are one of the few who are subject to this temptation, do not be misled into believing that you are a captive to it. That is false doctrine! . . . You have a God-given right to be free and to choose.

Refuse the unnatural; choose the moral way

. You will know, then, where you are going. Ahead is but the struggle to get there. Do not try merely to discard a bad habit or a bad thought. Replace it. [Packer-1978]

• A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and

should not be resisted

. [Packer-1990]

• If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural

behavior

is a fixed part of your nature. [Packer-1995]

• The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and are

compelled to live in sin

. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ. [Packer-2006] 

19

Temptation does not lead inevitably to acts, and all six talks emphasize that experiencing temptation is not sin, as outlined below.

3. Unsought feelings, thoughts, or temptations are not sins—immoral acts and encouraging such acts are.

• Is sexual perversion wrong? There appears to be a consensus in the world that it is natural, to one degree or another, for a percentage of the population. Therefore, we must accept it as all right. . . . The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction.

When practiced

, it is immoral. It is a transgression. [Packer-1978]

• You

may not be able, simply by choice

, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the

immoral expression

of them. [Packer-1990]

• We cannot, as a church, approve

unworthy conduct

or accept into full fellowship individuals who

live or who teach

standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires of Latter-day Saints. [Packer-1995]

• With some few, there is the temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman. . . .

If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt

. [Packer-2000]

• In the Church, one is

not condemned for tendencies or temptations

. One is held accountable for transgression. (See D&C 101:78; A of F 1:2.)

If you do not act on unworthy persuasions

, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline. [Packer-2003] 

20

• If you are bound by a habit or an addiction that is unworthy, you must stop conduct that is harmful. Angels will coach you, and priesthood leaders will guide you through those difficult times. . . . You can, if you will,

break the habits

and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. [Packer-2010B]

President Packer has also emphasized that the causes of such temptations are not known to church leaders, and he cautioned against believing there is any "quick fix." Significantly, and contrary to the critics' interpretation, he also endorses the idea that one may inherit a tendency to such acts and dismisses the idea that most people consciously choose homosexual temptation:

4. There is no quick fix, and the causes are not usually known.

•

I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all

. . . [to] instantly kill this kind of temptation—or any other kind, for that matter. [Packer-1978]

• Psychologists and psychiatrists have struggled for generations to find the cause. Many have searched with resolute dedication and have studied everything that might have a bearing on it—parent-child relationships,

inherited tendencies, environmental influences

, and a hundred and one other things. These things and many, many more remain on the scope.

They either have some important effect on this problem, or they are affected in important ways by this problem

. [Packer-1978] 

21

• It is hard to believe that any individual would, by a clear, conscious decision or by a pattern of them,

choose

a course of deviation.

It is much more subtle than that

. [Packer-1978]

• We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have

a compelling attraction, even a predisposition

, toward things that are destructive and forbidden. Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that

their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency

. . . . It is

not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation

. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. [Packer-1990]

22

And, finally, despite critics' shrill insistence to the contrary, President Packer nowhere teaches that those who succumb to sin should be ostracized, mistreated, or rejected.

5. Those who sin are beloved and not rejected.

• Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power—an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you. . . . God bless you, the one. You are loved of Him and of His servants. [Packer-1978]

• Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. . . . While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late. [Packer-1990]

• Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all conduct. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy conduct. [Packer-2000]

• We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We

do not

reject you, only immoral behavior. We

cannot

reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We

will not

reject you, because we love you. [Packer-2003]

In sum, the critics ask us to believe something quite extraordinary—that President Packer chose to alter his teaching and perspective, expressed for over thirty years, only to be forced after the fact to censor himself because of pressure from the public or displeasure from his apostolic colleagues for violating the current "party line."

CWALD - would do me a giant favor and read this paper http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=820 and ponder methods used. I get it, some leaders seem to have a negative connotation in our mind becasue of what we read and hear on other sites.... but at the very least... President Packer gets a pass here. He has made it clear what he teaches and simply made a mistake delivering his talk and deserves a chance to make his intended meaning more clear.

[DBMormon]

the "why would god do that to his children." was meant to convey that he doesn't and rightfully so believe God does not give his children temptations that they can't resist. That is what was meant and it becomes obvious when weighed against his previous talks.

[staccato]

Exactly, CASteinman.

The human filter is an impure one. Therefore, nothing coming from man can be a perfect communication from God.

[Aliwe]

Prophets are wrong enough to give you room to do what you feel is best if and when the spirit directs so. To rebel simply because you don't want to follow or you would rather do your own things then you will be accountable

The Book of Mormon seems to be of the opinion that everything a prophet declares will come to pass.

3 Nephi 5:1 And now behold, there was not a living soul among all the people of the Nephites who did doubt in the least the words of all the holy prophets who had spoken; for they knew that it must needs be that they must be fulfilled.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I don't understand why anyone would say that the prophets are "infallible" when the word "perfect" is available and more easily understood.

You show me one prophet who has ever claimed perfection, and I will accept your point. The PROPHET is what you appear to be saying is perfect. This is a CFR...... I would like a clarification, cause I only know of one being who has been perfect on this planet....

[CASteinman]

You show me one prophet who has ever claimed perfection, and I will accept your point. The PROPHET is what you appear to be saying is perfect. This is a CFR...... I would like a clarification, cause I only know of one being who has been perfect on this planet....

If you understood my post you would not need any such evidence. You would have simply laughed.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If you understood my post you would not need any such evidence. You would have simply laughed.

O.K., cool....... just makin sure is all....... I couldn't imagine you making such a silly mistake......