"the Mormon Version Of Infallibility" (Holly Welker)

[Bernard Gui]

A good example is the struggle Brigham and others went through to accept the practice of polygamy or

the deprivation of Zion's Camp.

Or for the Saints who followed Brigham west in the face of hardship and mortal danger.

Or the first apostles who left their homes and work and followed a stranger.

 

What do these have in common? 

 

Blind obedience? I don't think so.

 

It all comes down to our personal relationship with God. Do we know Him well enough

to recognize when His servants speak the truth?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I thought the saying was that a prophet could not willingly lead us astray. Not that he could not make a mistake or err even from his own understanding.

[mormonnewb]

I thought the saying was that a prophet could not willingly lead us astray. Not that he could not make a mistake or err even from his own understanding.

 

Here's what Pres. Woodruff wrote in OD 1.

 

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

 

It doesn't seem to make a distinction between an intentional or inadvertent error on the part of the President.  Although I guess that "If I were to attempt that" could be read to mean that the President was acting in a deliberate "attempt" to lead the church astray (as opposed to taking a deliberate action that had the unintended consequence of leading the Church astray).  The problem with this reading though is that it would have given little comfort to the saints who he was trying to persuade to give up polygamy.  It would have only protected them from a devious attempt by Pres. Woodruff to lead them astray.  I don't suspect that many saints needed assurance that Pres. Woodruff had their best interests at heart.  I think they needed assurance that what he was telling them was correct and from God. 

[cdowis]

I have a simple rule to resolve the issue of doctrine  ==>>

 

BY gave some advice -- when a leader teaches something from the pulpit, don't follow it like sheep.  Find out for yourself if it is true.

 

I wish I had the reference and the exact wording.

Edited March 26, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

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.

I think your examples show rebellion incompatible with being a member.

As to your Elder Holland example, that doesn't apply to an ordinary member such as myself. Before 1978 there was nothing I could have done to bring about change; if I had ordained a black person I would have been excommunicated.

Nor am I a politician. Plus, it isn't a "mistake" for the Church to have urged members to support Proposition 8, or to oppose liquor by the drink during the 1970s and 1980s in Utah, or to oppose the MX Missile in 1980, or to oppose the ERA. I personally opposed Prop 8 until I was asked to contribute time and money to the campaign, which I did. I stood on street corners and canvassed for hours. Asking me to align my poiltical views with the church's isn't asking me to make a mistake or follow error, unless you apply a very subjective view of mistake and error.

As to your example of a member who believes in same-sex marriage, that member is obviously not in full alignment with church teachings, any way you slice it. A member that thought and taught that iced tea and iced coffee were acceptable would not be leaders or teachers. Unlikely to teach the youth in most wards.

Sustain means to obey.

Really, now, Holly Welker's essay really doesn't offer much hope to someone who agrees with her. Thst is the ultimate problem with your position as well as your Ohio friend's. What to do except be out of harmony and not suitable for service in the church. Better to volunteer at the homeless shelter as a Unitarian.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

A good example is the struggle Brigham and others went through to accept the practice of polygamy or

the deprivation of Zion's Camp.

Or for the Saints who followed Brigham west in the face of hardship and mortal danger.

Or the first apostles who left their homes and work and followed a stranger.

 

What do these have in common? 

 

Blind obedience? I don't think so.

 

It all comes down to our personal relationship with God. Do we know Him well enough

to recognize when His servants speak the truth?

 

Just to be clear, in the context of this thread, you would be saying that polygamy, Zion's camp, the exodus west, and the apostles' call were all mistakes.

[Storm Rider]

I think there has always been an effort to not quickly or promptly correct the statements of leaders. It allows for times when individuals state certain things that are not in strict keeping with the position of the Church, but because they are not corrected it is easily assumed that what was said is official. I also think that each of us can say things in one context that does not apply to all situations i.e. in our minds we are thinking of a specific context, the people we are talking to, and the purpose for talking. 

 

Too often members of the Church think that when a leader speaks it is doctrine. We put an unrealistic expection on the leader. We are far too simplistic and we don't follow the consistent advice to pray about what was said and find out own testimony of the truths shared. Our teaching on becoming like the Savior demands that we be not blind to WHY we follow. Our heart directs our path and for our heart to follow we have to a strong foundation of truths upon which to build. Never praying, never contemplating, never thinking is not the Lord's way. 

 

Our critics can say silly things, but discipleship demands that we have a good understanding of scripture and why we believe what we believe. When we are able to comfortably allow both Reason and Faith to walk together is when we can most effectively serve our Father and our human family. 

[hoo rider]

I think your examples show rebellion incompatible with being a member.

As to your Elder Holland example, that doesn't apply to an ordinary member such as myself. Before 1978 there was nothing I could have done to bring about change; if I had ordained a black person I would have been excommunicated.

Nor am I a politician. Plus, it isn't a "mistake" for the Church to have urged members to support Proposition 8, or to oppose liquor by the drink during the 1970s and 1980s in Utah, or to oppose the MX Missile in 1980, or to oppose the ERA. I personally opposed Prop 8 until I was asked to contribute time and money to the campaign, which I did. I stood on street corners and canvassed for hours. Asking me to align my poiltical views with the church's isn't asking me to make a mistake or follow error, unless you apply a very subjective view of mistake and error.

As to your example of a member who believes in same-sex marriage, that member is obviously not in full alignment with church teachings, any way you slice it. A member that thought and taught that iced tea and iced coffee were acceptable would not be leaders or teachers. Unlikely to teach the youth in most wards.

Sustain means to obey.

Really, now, Holly Welker's essay really doesn't offer much hope to someone who agrees with her. Thst is the ultimate problem with your position as well as your Ohio friend's. What to do except be out of harmony and not suitable for service in the church. Better to volunteer at the homeless shelter as a Unitarian.

 

You should rethink your statement in red.  Elder Holland wasn't called as a GA until 1989.  The priesthood ban was lifted in 1978.  When Elder Holland was praying for change, he was an ordinary member.  

 

CFR for your statement in blue, or please affirm it is just your opinion.  

 

I disagree with your position.  I believe there is lots of room for independent thought in the church.  We run into trouble when we publicly advocate against our leaders.  I don't believe that inaction generally means you are standing in opposition to leaders.  

[Kevin Christensen]

Sustain, according to my dictionary:

1. To keep up; maintain, prolong.

2. to supply as with food or provisions.

3. to hold up, support.

4. to bear, endure.

5. to suffer, experience: "She sustained a broken leg.:

6. to allow, to admit, to favor.

7. to agree with; confirm.

If I permit myself to consider the full range of meanings for the word "sustain" I can also see a full range of options to employ when dealing with other LDS members in all their varieties of temperament, maturity, and level and quality of knowledge. If I select and apply only the last meaning, I may be letting myself in for a world of pain.

Personally, ever since my wife and I looked up "sustain" for a lesson she was preparing, I've realized that it is a super word, just right, just what a community should understand in relating with each other and with those called to leadership.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, pA

[Ahab]

A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such. And when is he acting as such? When tbey do what prophets do, which is to speak for God. And how can we and others discern when they are speaking for God? By getting our own testimony from God to assure us that what they are saying is true and inspired by God.

God is the one we look to as the infallible one, and when anyone else is speaking for God by saying the same things God would be saying or is saying they are infallible too, at least as far as what they are saying. Because that is what it means to be a prophet of God.

And btw, the saying is to "follow the prophet", which doesn't quite mean the same thing as "follow the president of the Church". Unless of course the president of the Church always speaks as a prophet of God.