consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 There seems to be a belief prevalent among Latter-day Saints that prophets are infallible on matters of doctrine. I think this view is demonstrably incorrect, but wanted to hear what others think on the issue. All the Best! --Consiglieri 3
HappyJackWagon Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 I agree that is the prevalent belief and it's easy to maintain that belief if you play around with the definition of "doctrine." Since the church has no official doctrine of "doctrine" it becomes a moving target. So if anything is deemed to be incorrect, it was by default not a doctrine. 1
RevTestament Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 They are according to Catholics. But when I ask why their Roman pontiffs used the Donation of Constantine, and it was included in their Canon of Law, I get "deer in the headlights" responses.
Zakuska Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree that is the prevalent belief and it's easy to maintain that belief if you play around with the definition of "doctrine." Since the church has no official doctrine of "doctrine" it becomes a moving target. Sounds as bad and as circular as the reasoning given for OSAS. "They never really where saved in the first place". Quote So if anything is deemed to be incorrect, it was by default not a doctrine. There's also the get out of Jail free card that is often played. 'He might have said it but it never was "Official" doctrine, so he was just expressing an opinion.'
Senator Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 22 minutes ago, consiglieri said: There seems to be a belief prevalent among Latter-day Saints that prophets are infallible on matters of doctrine. Given the expectation of the faithful, to be faithful; I don't see that it matters one way or the other.
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree that is the prevalent belief and it's easy to maintain that belief if you play around with the definition of "doctrine." Since the church has no official doctrine of "doctrine" it becomes a moving target. So if anything is deemed to be incorrect, it was by default not a doctrine. Even if the First Presidency declare it a doctrine? This sounds like a tough game to win.
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 If we worried more about obedience to God and less about being intellectually right about all our beliefs we would be more obedient and more intellectually right. 3
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 17 minutes ago, Zakuska said: 'He might have said it but it never was "Official" doctrine, so he was just expressing an opinion.' Or my personal favorite, "He was just speaking as a man."
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 8 minutes ago, Senator said: Given the expectation of the faithful, to be faithful; I don't see that it matters one way or the other. But faithful to whom? That is the question.
Senator Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But faithful to whom? ..... to the prophet.
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If we worried more about obedience to God and less about being intellectually right about all our beliefs we would be more obedient and more intellectually right. So you think being doctrinally right is not important? 1
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 9 minutes ago, Senator said: ..... to the prophet. There's the Senator I know and love!
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 Just now, bluebell said: I'm really not sure. Then one thing is sure. That you are on the road to further light and knowledge. Give my best to the UMW for me! 1
Senator Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 22 minutes ago, consiglieri said: There's the Senator I know and love! My understanding of the current teaching, is that an individual prophet may indeed be fallible, but a unanimous 1st Pres. and Qoft12 is quite infallible in doctrine. 2
Bob Crockett Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) Although what I am about to say may shock a few, it is just my opinion. The executive office which leads the church is not the "prophet." The Church is led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The First Presidency is appointed by the Twelve to act as the Executive body of the church. Statements of church policy, doctrine etc. can be made by any general authority or stake president, but when the Church speaks authoritatively it does so through the Quorum of the Twelve. Church manuals of instruction, which are particularly authoritative, are vetted not by members of the First Presidency but by committees of the Q12, then by the Q12 and then finally approved by the FP. Thus, for a president of the church to say that man will never get to the moon is not the Quorum of the Twelve talking, but one of 15 (or so) "prophets, seers and revelators" who could also be easily capable of speaking harshly to a spouse or uttering a cuss word on the golf course. Further, it is improper to assert that a "unanimous FR and Q12 is quite infallible in doctrine." Rather, it is correct to say that the Q12, as executed by the FP, is the authoritative body to state doctrine. Thus, when Peter received his vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles, he wasn't infallible by stating it, but it became doctrine when the Q12 implemented it. Infallibility is not a church doctrine. Authorities do not speak in the church ex cathedra. But the Q12 states doctrine. There is no reason why doctrine cannot change. Examples: God would not permit Moabites to enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation, but David's grandmother was a Moabite. Jesus refused to minister to Canaanites, but did so when there was enough pleading. God told Peter to not treat the Gentiles any different than the Jews, but in the church's first general conference he refused to eat with Gentile members. Edited December 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett 2
Ahab Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Yes, prophets of God are always correct otherwise they would not be prophets of God who are always speaking for God who is always correct about everything. If you meant to ask if Presidents of the Church are always speaking as a prophet/Prophet then the correct answer to that question is no. Men are prophets only when they are speaking for God.
filovirus Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Here is my take: The Doctrine (capital D) does not change. It is the points of the doctrine that can be argued. For example, it is doctrinal that in order to exercise the Priesthood, one must be worthy. The point that can be argued is who is considered worthy. So the priesthood ban was not a doctrinal issue, it was an issue of understanding the points of the priesthood doctrine. The same can be said of the Adam-God theory. The doctrine is that God is our Father in Heaven and we are His spirit children. The points of this doctrine that can be argued is who he is exactly. Adam? Elohiem of the Old Testament? I believe that the prophets are infallible when it comes to the Doctrine, but can be fallible when it comes to the points of the Doctrine. Hope that makes sense.
Senator Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Men are prophets only when they are speaking for God. ........and have the sustaining vote of the other 14. 1
Mystery Meat Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 The better question is: What is the appropriate response if we BELIEVE that they are? (Hint: read my sig line)
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 28 minutes ago, Senator said: My understanding of the current teaching, is that an individual prophet may indeed be fallible, but a unanimous 1st Pres. and Qoft12 is quite infallible in doctrine. Yes, the LDS Church seems to be drawing the circle of what constitutes "doctrine" smaller and smaller. It seems we have decided that "doctrine" is to be determined not by direct revelation to the prophet, as I was taught when I joined the Church, but instead by the deliberation of councils. Something I was taught was a sign of the apostasy from the church Christ established. 1
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Although what I am about to say may shock a few, it is just my opinion. The executive office which leads the church is not the "prophet." The Church is led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The First Presidency is appointed by the Twelve to act as the Executive body of the church. Statements of church policy, doctrine etc. can be made by any general authority or stake president, but when the Church speaks authoritatively it does so through the Quorum of the Twelve. Church manuals of instruction, which are particularly authoritative, are vetted not by members of the First Presidency but by committees of the Q12, then by the Q12 and then finally approved by the FP. Thus, for a president of the church to say that man will never get to the moon is not the Quorum of the Twelve talking, but one of 15 (or so) "prophets, seers and revelators" who could also be easily capable of speaking harshly to a spouse or uttering a cuss word on the golf course. Further, it is improper to assert that a "unanimous FR and Q12 is quite infallible in doctrine." Rather, it is correct to say that the Q12, as executed by the FP, is the authoritative body to state doctrine. Thus, when Peter received his vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles, he wasn't infallible by stating it, but it became doctrine when the Q12 implemented it. Infallibility is not a church doctrine. Authorities do not speak in the church ex cathedra. But the Q12 states doctrine. There is no reason why doctrine cannot change. Examples: God would not permit Moabites to enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation, but David's grandmother was a Moabite. Jesus refused to minister to Canaanites, but did so when there was enough pleading. God told Peter to not treat the Gentiles any different than the Jews, but in the church's first general conference he refused to eat with Gentile members. And some people say the LDS Church is too legalistic . . . 2
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes, prophets of God are always correct otherwise they would not be prophets of God who are always speaking for God who is always correct about everything. If you meant to ask if Presidents of the Church are always speaking as a prophet/Prophet then the correct answer to that question is no. Men are prophets only when they are speaking for God. So how is one to tell the difference?
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 10 minutes ago, filovirus said: Here is my take: The Doctrine (capital D) does not change. It is the points of the doctrine that can be argued. For example, it is doctrinal that in order to exercise the Priesthood, one must be worthy. The point that can be argued is who is considered worthy. So the priesthood ban was not a doctrinal issue, it was an issue of understanding the points of the priesthood doctrine. The same can be said of the Adam-God theory. The doctrine is that God is our Father in Heaven and we are His spirit children. The points of this doctrine that can be argued is who he is exactly. Adam? Elohiem of the Old Testament? I believe that the prophets are infallible when it comes to the Doctrine, but can be fallible when it comes to the points of the Doctrine. Hope that makes sense. So when Brigham Young said the world needed to believe the Adam-God teaching or they would not be saved, that was just a "point of doctrine"?
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: The better question is: What is the appropriate response if we BELIEVE that they are? (Hint: read my sig line) Actually, I think that begs the question.
Recommended Posts