"the Mormon Version Of Infallibility" (Holly Welker)

[cinepro]

The topics of "blind obedience" and "prophetic infallibility" come up often, and for years I've tried to adequately explain the problems I see with what the Church says it wants compared to what it really wants.
 
Apparently, I'm not the first person to see the incongruity.  And I'm also the least eloquent, because a recent article by Polly Welker really lays it all out.
 
The Mormon Version of Infallibility
 
Here are some of the points that I think are worth discussing:
 

As part of a priesthood lesson one Sunday, Stevens wrote the following statement on the board:

The prophet cannot err when making official pronouncements of faith and morals.

Go ahead: Like Stevens, ask a few Mormons you know if they agree with this statement. Chances are good that you’ll get results much like his: All but one man in the priesthood class said, “Oh, yeah. That’s true. That’s what we believe.”
 
When, at the end of class, Stevens admitted that this was his paraphrase of the doctrine of infallibility as explained by a Catholic encyclopedia, they said something like, “Oh, well, we don’t believe that. That’s popish nonsense.”

 

But Stevens asks what we should do with [President Uchtdorf's admission that Church leader's can make mistakes]. “Now that Uchtdorf has opened that door, I want to walk through it and discuss those mistakes,” he says, noting that the mistakes the church acknowledges tend to be well in the past—but current and on-going mistakes need to be admitted and corrected, both for the health of the church as an institution and for the health of its members as individuals.

 

The church wants to have it both ways: it wants to reject the doctrine of infallibility so that it doesn’t look quite so foolish when it changes its mind on something—say, for instance, the moral inferiority of an entire race, or the absolutely fundamental belief that those admitted to the Celestial Kingdom will be exalted as gods equal to the God we worship now. But it also wants members to behave as if leaders—not just the one man who is the prophet, but pretty much all men who give speeches in General Conference or talks reprinted in the Ensign—are infallible...

Edited March 25, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

The topics of "blind obedience" and "prophetic infallibility" come up often, and for years I've tried to adequately explain the problems I see with what the Church says it wants compared to what it really wants.

 

Apparently, I'm not the first person to see the incongruity.  And I'm also the least eloquent, because a recent article by Polly Welker really lays it all out.

 

The Mormon Version of Infallibility

 

Here are some of the points that I think are worth discussing:

 

 

It goes back even further than President Uchtdorf. It goes back to Joseph Smith Jr. himself when he said "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

We have no expectation of prophets infallibility. What we do have is a well established system by which we determine our doctrine. And one man or small group of men don't make doctrine for the Church.

[JLHPROF]

It goes back even further than President Uchtdorf. It goes back to Joseph Smith Jr. himself when he said "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

We have no expectation of prophets infallibility. What we do have is a well established system by which we determine our doctrine. And one man or small group of men don't make doctrine for the Church.

 

This is 100% true.  But the question remains:  "Is this really what the Church teaches".

 

We get statments like Ezra Taft Benson's 14 Fundamentals:

- The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

- The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

- The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

 

or Brigham Young:

- “I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”

or Heber J. Grant:

- “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”

So what you said is absolutely true - Prophets can make mistakes and are not always acting as prophets.  But when we say that only their "official teachings" when "acting as prophets" are infallible I don't see that there is a whole lot of difference in the long run.  It just opens debate as to which teachings are "infallible".

[bluebell]

The statement "The prophet cannot err when making official pronouncements of faith and morals" seems to perfectly match the teachings of the church on the subject, which is "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

 

A prophet is acting like a prophet if he is pronouncing official doctrine from the pulpit, isn't he? 

[thesometimesaint]

This is 100% true.  But the question remains:  "Is this really what the Church teaches".

 

We get statments like Ezra Taft Benson's 14 Fundamentals:

- The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

- The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

- The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

 

or Brigham Young:

- “I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”

or Heber J. Grant:

- “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”

So what you said is absolutely true - Prophets can make mistakes and are not always acting as prophets.  But when we say that only their "official teachings" when "acting as prophets" are infallible I don't see that there is a whole lot of difference in the long run.  It just opens debate as to which teachings are "infallible".

 

I have plenty of disagreements with ETB 14 fundamentals. I'm my opinion they are a detour to the same Protestant claims that the Church argues against.

 

BY also said ""the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord."

 

None of the teachings are infallible in the strictest sense of the word. But are based on our understanding of the revelation from God. So while I don't foresee any big changes in our teachings coming any time soon. It is always theoretically possible. 

[thesometimesaint]

The statement "The prophet cannot err when making official pronouncements of faith and morals" seems to perfectly match the teachings of the church on the subject, which is "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

 

A prophet is acting like a prophet if he is pronouncing official doctrine from the pulpit, isn't he? 

 

Yes and no.

SEE Common Consent

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

[JLHPROF]

 

None of the teachings are infallible in the strictest sense of the word. But are based on our understanding of the revelation from God. So while I don't foresee any big changes in our teachings coming any time soon. It is always theoretically possible. 

 

I personally think one of the strangest parts of the Mormon view on infallibility is encapsulated in this statement.

 

If we accept that the teachings of the prophets are fallible, why do we ALWAYS assume that the more recent the teaching the less mistakes it's likely to have.  Why would we assume that President Monson's teaching is less likely to have errors in it than President Benson's or President Hinckley's?

Do we assume that moving towards improved correctness is the only path possible.  Is it not at least theoretically possible that something that is taught today is LESS correct than something that was taught yesterday?  Do our prophets become increasingly infallible down through the decades?

[Wanderer7]

I would suggest that the early prophets, such as Joseph and Brigham, didn't have the training and measuring sticks that today's brethren have. So it's not that the prophets now are less fallible, but that they have more experience and precedence by which to judge their statements and actions.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If a President of the High Priesthood cannot err, why is there a procedure in the D&C for removing him?

[thesometimesaint]

I personally think one of the strangest parts of the Mormon view on infallibility is encapsulated in this statement.

 

If we accept that the teachings of the prophets are fallible, why do we ALWAYS assume that the more recent the teaching the less mistakes it's likely to have.  Why would we assume that President Monson's teaching is less likely to have errors in it than President Benson's or President Hinckley's?

Do we assume that moving towards improved correctness is the only path possible.  Is it not at least theoretically possible that something that is taught today is LESS correct than something that was taught yesterday?  Do our prophets become increasingly infallible down through the decades?

 

Hopefully as we learn more about the ways of God we experience less error. But we here are all mortal humans, and we continue to make errors, and sometimes that involves one step forwards and two steps back.

[JLHPROF]

Hopefully as we learn more about the ways of God we experience less error. But we here are all mortal humans, and we continue to make errors, and sometimes that involves one step forwards and two steps back.

 

Agreed.  But it is still a religious and cultural curiosity that we always assume we're moving forward.  Our early Christian brothers thought they were moving forward, and wandered straight into apostasy.

I think it's a dangerous thing to view EVERY change in teaching as a forward step (and a move towards infallibility of doctrine).

 

But we have to have faith I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.  But it is still a religious and cultural curiosity that we always assume we're moving forward.  Our early Christian brothers thought they were moving forward, and wandered straight into apostasy.

I think it's a dangerous thing to view EVERY change in teaching as a forward step (and a move towards infallibility of doctrine).

 

But we have to have faith I suppose.

 

We no longer wear togas. So that is a step forwards.

[mercyngrace]

How would an organization maintain cohesion without individuals coalescing around a singular authority?

 

Whether it's a constitution, a creed, a charismatic individual, an office, or in the case of a fan club, some celebrity, band, or popular cause, organizations have to be held together by some overriding shared purpose. The LDS version of infallibility causes people to coalesce around certain priesthood offices. Unfortunately, as Welker points out, when errors are made, we are left to either defend them (and look pretty silly doing so), acknowledge the error but paint it as a rare exception (effectively maintaining the infallibility doctrine), or scratch our heads and start to question whether those priesthood offices should be the ties that bind after all.

 

My personal opinion is that if the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ aren't enough to bring you into Christlike communion with other believers, then you need a deeper conversion, not the illusion of infallible leaders. But that's just me. 

[Gray]

How would an organization maintain cohesion without individuals coalescing around a singular authority?

 

Whether it's a constitution, a creed, a charismatic individual, an office, or in the case of a fan club, some celebrity, band, or popular cause, organizations have to be held together by some overriding shared purpose. The LDS version of infallibility causes people to coalesce around certain priesthood offices. Unfortunately, as Welker points out, when errors are made, we are left to either defend them (and look pretty silly doing so), acknowledge the error but paint it as a rare exception (effectively maintaining the infallibility doctrine), or scratch our heads and start to question whether those priesthood offices should be the ties that bind after all.

 

My personal opinion is that if the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ aren't enough to bring you into Christlike communion with other believers, then you need a deeper conversion, not the illusion of infallible leaders. But that's just me. 

 

Beautifully said

[3DOP]

It goes back even further than President Uchtdorf. It goes back to Joseph Smith Jr. himself when he said "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

We have no expectation of prophets infallibility. What we do have is a well established system by which we determine our doctrine. And one man or small group of men don't make doctrine for the Church.

 

Hi thesometimesaint,

 

That clearly means that the prophet can sometimes err, when he is not "acting as such". Understood. Popes are the same way as far as error goes. But what about when the prophet IS acting as such? Unless he can err while "acting as such", that is virtually the formula for infallibility that Catholics have.

[thesometimesaint]

Hi thesometimesaint,

 

That clearly means that the prophet can sometimes err, when he is not "acting as such". Understood. Popes are the same way as far as error goes. But what about when the prophet IS acting as such? Unless he can err while "acting as such", that is virtually the formula for infallibility that Catholics have.

 

We are governed by the principle of Common Consent. So just no one man or small group of men determines our doctrine.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

 

As I understand it Catholics have a somewhat similar idea in papal Iinfallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

[Scott Lloyd]

The topics of "blind obedience" and "prophetic infallibility" come up often, and for years I've tried to adequately explain the problems I see with what the Church says it wants compared to what it really wants.

 

Apparently, I'm not the first person to see the incongruity.  And I'm also the least eloquent, because a recent article by Polly Welker really lays it all out.

 

The Mormon Version of Infallibility

 

Here are some of the points that I think are worth discussing:

 

Some of this appears to be based on false assumption.

 

I don't recall ever being taught authoritatively in the Church that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was based on belief in "the moral inferiority of an entire race."

Edited March 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The statement "The prophet cannot err when making official pronouncements of faith and morals" seems to perfectly match the teachings of the church on the subject, which is "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".

 

A prophet is acting like a prophet if he is pronouncing official doctrine from the pulpit, isn't he? 

I agree.

 

The question the instructor posed in that class strikes me as a trick question, the sort of thing that makes me distrust rather than respect a teacher.

 

I feel fortunate there are not teachers like that in my ward (that I know about).

Edited March 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

But Stevens asks what we should do with [President Uchtdorf's admission that Church leader's can make mistakes]. “Now that Uchtdorf has opened that door, I want to walk through it and discuss those mistakes,” he says, ...

 

To put it another way, he wants to use a General Authority's conference sermon to rationalize carping and faultfinding.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

To put it another way, he wants to use a General Authority's conference sermon to rationalize carping and faultfinding.

Right.

 

I wonder where error on the part of the prophet would lead a true believer to act differently if he subscribed to the notion that he detected error.   Continue to practice polygamy?  Be gay?  Not pay tithing?  Ordain a woman, or in the 1970s a person of African ancestry?  Openly teach that it is ok to have premarital sex?   

 

Sure, it seems, there have been errors.  But what's the consequence of following those errors?  Nathan told David to go ahead and build the temple until the Lord corrected Nathan.  Would David have been condemned to hell for spending a few days or weeks getting ready to build the temple?  

 

Or, if a bishop believes the Church has erred on doctrine, should he grant temple recommends to somebody who is in a gay marriage?  

 

Where does this lead?  I mean, when you join the Shriners, you wear the funny hat or you're out. 

 

If you say you sustain the brethren and you do so publicly, then it seems you follow them right or wrong or just don't follow them and be a non-sustainer.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

Sure, it seems, there have been errors.  But what's the consequence of following those errors?  

 

There might not be a "consequence" for following an error, but it's good to remember that there also isn't a consequence for not following an error. 

 

That's the difference between the errors and the stuff they get right.  It's a pretty big difference, and one that makes it worthy of discussion, I think.

[thesometimesaint]

Right.

 

I wonder where error on the part of the prophet would lead a true believer to act differently if he subscribed to the notion that he detected error.   Continue to practice polygamy?  Be gay?  Not pay tithing?  Ordain a woman, or in the 1970s a person of African ancestry?  Openly teach that it is ok to have premarital sex?   

 

Sure, it seems, there have been errors.  But what's the consequence of following those errors?  Nathan told David to go ahead and build the temple until the Lord corrected Nathan.  Would David have been condemned to hell for spending a few days or weeks getting ready to build the temple?  

 

Or, if a bishop believes the Church has erred on doctrine, should he grant temple recommends to somebody who is in a gay marriage?  

 

Where does this lead?  I mean, when you join the Shriners, you wear the funny hat or you're out. 

 

If you say you sustain the brethren and you do so publicly, then it seems you follow them right or wrong or just don't follow them and be a non-sustainer.

 

Sustaining doesn't mean that. I am under no obligation to follow anyone into Hell.

[Buckeye]

Right.

 

I wonder where error on the part of the prophet would lead a true believer to act differently if he subscribed to the notion that he detected error. Continue to practice polygamy? Be gay? Not pay tithing? Ordain a woman, or in the 1970s a person of African ancestry? Openly teach that it is ok to have premarital sex?

 

Sure, it seems, there have been errors. But what's the consequence of following those errors? Nathan told David to go ahead and build the temple until the Lord corrected Nathan. Would David have been condemned to hell for spending a few days or weeks getting ready to build the temple?

 

Or, if a bishop believes the Church has erred on doctrine, should he grant temple recommends to somebody who is in a gay marriage?

 

Where does this lead? I mean, when you join the Shriners, you wear the funny hat or you're out.

 

If you say you sustain the brethren and you do so publicly, then it seems you follow them right or wrong or just don't follow them and be a non-sustainer.

 

Actually, it's not that simple.

 

One example of what to do when leaders err is found in the example of Elder Holland. He lived at a time when the FP had declared that blacks would not receive the priesthood until after all non-cursed men had the opportunity (see 1949 FP statement). Apparently, Elder Holland thought the teaching was a mistake, because he chose to pray for the ban to be lifted, even though a lifting of the ban would prove the doctrine false. Elder Holland talks about his prayers in his interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons. I'm very glad Elder Holland stuck with the church even though he couldn't sustain the (now disavowed) doctrine that blacks would be denied until all non-cursed had the opportunity to be ordained. We would be a much poorer church if he and others believed the "all or nothing" garbage that some members spout.

 

Another example is found in politicians who disagree with the church on a matter of policy and believe the church's stance is in error. These faithful members vote/advocate their conscience even though the church teaches otherwise. Doing so does not conflict with their sustaining of church leaders as church leaders.

 

A third example (and likely a growing one) would be a member who does not agree with the church's teaching on some point of morality - say, e.g., that married homosexual intercourse is a sin. What if that member is called by his bishop to teach a sunday school class. The member says "I'd be glad to. However, you know I think the church is wrong on gay marriage and so I cannot teach that doctrine. But I'm happy to teach the rest of the course and either skip the gay marriage part or let someone else teach that day." The bishop prayerfully decides to allow that accomodation, accepting the member's 30-fold or 60-fold offering, even though he would prefer a 100-fold offering.

 

"Sustain" does not mean "obey." It means to approve the calling and support the leader in all ways that one believes are correct. A member can sustain his/her leaders and also follow his/her conscience by abstaining when the leader is in error. It's no different than a family (which, by the way, is the only eternal unit we are building). A child can sustain his/her parents, but not follow their instructions when the parent is in error. I'm sure most all of us are walking that line personally.

[bluebell]

I agree.

 

The question the instructor posed in that class strikes me as a trick question, the sort of thing that makes me distrust rather than respect a teacher.

 

I feel fortunate there are not teachers like that in my ward (that I know about).

 

This is kind of what i was thinking as well.

 

I don't know that he meant to be tricky in asking the question the way he did, but there is definitely a very reasonable way to interpret his question in a way that it does actually agree with the LDS idea of fallibility of leaders.

 

In that the LDS church seems to teach that leaders are fallible, but that when someone is acting in the specific calling of Prophet, what they say is infallible.

[JLHPROF]

Where does this lead?  I mean, when you join the Shriners, you wear the funny hat or you're out. 

 

If you say you sustain the brethren and you do so publicly, then it seems you follow them right or wrong or just don't follow them and be a non-sustainer.

 

   hehehe *shriners....

 

But seriously, I don't believe that sustaining and following are always the same thing.  We still to this day sustain Brigham Young in his prophetic office, but we don't subscribe to all his teachings.  And just because I sustain Pres. Monson as God's prophet doesn't mean I have to agree or follow every word he says.  As long as I don't fight against his calling I can still decide for myself.

 

It's a dangerous notion to decide for ourselves I agree, but is it more dangerous than those who have committed great sins because they thought they were following a prophet?