Are Prophets Infallible on Matters of Doctrine?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Sorry, I just don't like the Primary song; never has been one that appealed to me.

I don't particularly like the chorus (the music part of it is very boring and I find the way it attempts to teach the concept I interpret it to be teaching as deadening thought, not leading to enlightenment), but I find the verse part fun because it is so easy to make up new verses to.  I've made up ones for Deborah, Anna and quite a few others.

Quote

reverence

If by "reverence" you mean something approaching "worship" or "awe", I would agree, but I have no problem with giving many prophets and leaders significant respect when they have demonstrated they are good individuals.  I don't see them as deserving of some form of unique respect, there are others who have devoted their lived to serving God and their fellowmen but do not hold leadership positions that I would place in the same class of great people.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

When they put into print via canon or with the signature of all the Apostles. Then it is doctrine, and meets the requirements of Timothy. 

Do you believe it is inflallible though?

[Stargazer]

7 hours 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.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  It is NOT doctrinal that in order to exercise the Priesthood one must be worthy.  The exercise of the Priesthood always takes place in a condition of variable worthiness, in my humble opinion (but I'm right), because very seldom are we priesthood holders fully worthy at any given moment.  You can exercise the Priesthood immediately after having thought to yourself that you wish you had told your supervisor to stick it where the sun don't shine at work today, instead of just accepting a criticism of your work, and even if you immediately follow this up by chasing the darned thought away, the exercise of your Priesthood, for example, a baptism, is still valid. 

Take it a step further!  What if earlier in the day you had robbed a bank and still haven't been caught?  Is the baptism still valid?  Or do they invalidate the ordinance after they discover what you did before performing it?  My answer: the baptism is still valid.

And as far as your last statement of belief, no it doesn't make sense.  Explain it again, perhaps with an example.  Please.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Do you hold out the possibility that the Spirit may tell a person that what is being spoken by the prophet of God is incorrect?

You know, that question wasn't directed at me, but I think I will give an answer.  I think it is possible.  But I think that if the Spirit told me that something that the prophet said was incorrect, the Spirit would constrain me to keep it to myself.  His house is a house or order, after all.

But, I also think that it would be highly unlikely for the Spirit to tell me this, even if it were true.  Which also seems unlikely.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Stargazer

[volgadon]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

How does obedience tell us whether the doctrine of the pre-mortal existence is true?

Or the nature of the Godhead?

Or the King Follett Discourse?

Or the Adam-God Theory?

Or the truthfulness of any of the myriad things taught as doctrine in Mormonism?

I wrote a paper recently which touches on this. Essentially, we have a relationship (and I do emphasise the word relationship) with God based on a covenant. A relationship involves experiences, and a covenant requires deeds. Our responses tend to be action-oriented and linked to fulfilling commandments because of that, even when it comes to intellectual doubt. God is a god who acts - it defines him - and we draw closer to him through imitatio Dei because that is how we can learn who he is. Obedience strengthens our relationship with God in a way that intellectual answers cannot, no matter how important they are.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Can God give false Prophecy?

(carefull:  Amos 7, 1 Kings 22)

No, he can't. He can give conditional prophecy - if the conditions are met He may withhold or "recant" the thing He was going to do. For example a prophecy may say that He is going to destroy Ninevah unless the people repent. Well, apparently once upon a time they sufficiently repented so Johah ended up waiting in vain for the city to be destroyed.

Quote

When was the Last time any one of the 15 claimed to be "speaking for God" in an official capacity? Then why the heck are we sustaining them as prophets?

There are different ways of receiving revelation. We sustain them to authorize them to seek guidance on our behalf. Just because new sections of D&C aren't coming out, doesn't mean we don't need guidance.

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You know, that question wasn't directed at me, but I think I will give an answer.  I think it is possible.  But I think that if the Spirit told me that something that the prophet said was incorrect, the Spirit would constrain me to keep it to myself.  His house is a house or order, after all.

So if the Spirit witnessed to me in 1977 that the prophet was wrong about the priesthood ban on blacks, I should have kept it to myself?

The prophet is wrong about something, the Spirit witnesses to others the prophet is wrong about something, but the Spirit constrains everybody to keep quiet about it.

It seems that following this method you propose virtually ensured the church will be led astray.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

There are different ways of receiving revelation. We sustain them to authorize them to seek guidance on our behalf. Just because new sections of D&C aren't coming out, doesn't mean we don't need guidance.

But we all recognize no new revelations added to the canon have been received in almost a full century.

The question arises as to why this should be.

Is it because God decided to change his manner of communicating with his leaders?

And isn't this eerily similar of what the LDS Church teaches happened during the Great Apostasy?

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So if the Spirit witnessed to me in 1977 that the prophet was wrong about the priesthood ban on blacks, I should have kept it to myself?

The prophet is wrong about something, the Spirit witnesses to others the prophet is wrong about something, but the Spirit constrains everybody to keep quiet about it.

It seems that following this method you propose virtually ensured the church will be led astray.

 "It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called "Mormonism." He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say "I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him." A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know." - Brigham Young

 

Someone once said the people get the prophet they deserve.  If we are being led astray in any way, we bring it upon ourselves.  That's been my opinion for a while.  I've felt any way in which our leaders have gone astray (and posters here know I have my opinions on that) has been directed by the voice of the people.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[consiglieri]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Someone once said the people get the prophet they deserve.  If we are being led astray in any way, we bring it upon ourselves.  That's been my opinion for a while.  I've felt any way in which our leaders have gone astray (and posters here know I have my opinions on that) has been directed by the voice of the people.

 

 

But Joseph Smith is the one who actually did give the priesthood to blacks.  It was Brigham Young who changed it and subsequent Church leaders who codified it as doctrine.

This complicates the issue.

I also have a visceral reaction to the prevalent meme that blames the members of the Church for the inadequacies of the leaders.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But we all recognize no new revelations added to the canon have been received in almost a full century.

And isn't this eerily similar of what the LDS Church teaches happened during the Great Apostasy?

No. The Lord gave the revelations and prophecies the church needed to Joseph Smith.

The Lord gave a vision to Woodruff who prayed to know what to do, which I accept, which was about 50 years after Joseph Smith.

I believe the Lord has directed them in changes made. The President holds the keys to the temple ordinances which have been appropriately updated.  Things come up that the church seeks guidance in - such as the new laws on gay marriage etc. These things don't necessarily require a new section to be added to the cannon - the church just needs to know how to respond appropriately. So I don't want anyone to misconstrue comments I have made to mean that the general authorities don't receive needed revelation or inspiration. I was merely commenting on the type.

I don't believe the church has entered any "Great Apostasy." I have heard the voice of the Lord, and I know that the Lord lives in His church - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No matter what church has been on the earth, the Lord has to work with imperfect people. If anything needs to get corrected, it will.

Quote

The question arises as to why this should be.

Is it because God decided to change his manner of communicating with his leaders?

I believe it is because there is no prophecy the Lord feels needs to be directed at this time - it is already given. Other revelations can be received appropriately through the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe it is inflallible though?

Yes...if we indeed have Prophets, then just as inflatable as Prophets of old. However then must define "Doctrine", and it would appear that "timetables" or the "events" connected with them. 

 

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

15 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Can God give false Prophecy?

(carefull:  Amos 7, 1 Kings 22)

When was the Last time any one of the 15 claimed to be "speaking for God" in an official capacity? Then why the heck are we sustaining them as prophets?

Then we really don't need the Spirit, do we?

 

I recommend relying on the Spirit of Truth to know when any man is speaking for God our Father through Jesus Christ because I have perfect faith that the Spirit will never lead us astray.  And I not only sustain/support  any man who is a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency as prophets of our Lord when they speak as prophets, or when they have in the past, but I also sustain/support any man when he speaks or has spoken as a prophet. And yes that also includes you when you are speaking or have spoken as a prophet.  Because I enjoy sustaining/supporting any and all prophets of God.

[Thinking]

Allowing fallibility on matters of doctrine leads to descriptions of revelation as impressions, inspiration, ideas, etc. That doesn't sound very authoritative or anything like the revelations from the D&C.

[filovirus]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you could give a reference so we can see why you understand it that way?

Evolution Origin of Life

Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 ( 1954)

EVOLUTION AND RELIGION CANNOT BEHARMONIZED

ADAM DID NOT EVOLVE FROM LOWER FORM OF LIFE. Do you think that Adam, this great and important prince, the archangel before the presence of God, was a half-breed monkey? In other words, that he had just developed gradually from the animal kingdom, from some animal form, so that the Lord could put a spirit in him and call him a man? Do you think that? There are people who do believe that. That is why I ask you that question.

Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent-absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both. 5

CANNOT BELIEVE BOTH GOSPEL AND EVOLUTION. I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.

If you believe in the doctrine of the evolutionist, then you must accept the view that man has evolved through countless ages from the very lowest forms of life up through various stages of animal life, finally into the human form. The first man, according to this hypothesis known as the "cave man," was a creature absolutely ignorant and devoid of any marked intelligence over the beasts of the field.

 

I believe evolution and the Gospel can coexist together. That evolution is a means God used to create Adam and Eve. Maybe this is my own faithlessness, but the more I learn about science, the more it testifies that God knew what he was doing. I don't want to get into an evolution debate, just give a reference and clarity to my statement.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps science may be seen as another form of revelation.

But with science, it is man, not God, doing the revealing.

[volgadon]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Perhaps science may be seen as another form of revelation.

But with science, it is man, not God, doing the revealing.

When even our arguably mist conservative thinker - Joseph Fielding Smith - declared that the scientific discoveries and advancements of the 20th century were a fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel about God pouring out his spirit on all men, you aren't likely to convince a lot of Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours 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.

I don't agree.  I do not find this idiotic belief in the infallibility of Mormon prophets to be prevalent at all, nor do I find that LDS doctrine is a moving target.  Most of those giving examples of what they believe to be doctrinal changes in the LDS faith have not read widely enough and are basically misinformed -- or are simply anti-Mormons out to take a shot at the faith they love to hate.

Take the priesthood ban, for example:  Joseph Smith had no problem ordaining Black people (African Americans), but after his death Brigham and some others introduced racism into the matter (objected to by Orson Pratt).  This is not a change in doctrine, but in policy, and Pres McKay was later able to determine that it was mere policy, i.e., there was no revelatory basis for it.  Yet we still have yokels on this board who insist that the ban was revelatory -- even though they can find no Scripture or revelation to justify that silly belief.

So too, permission to practice polygyny can be granted or denied according to the current purposes of God.  Thus, both monogamy and polygyny are doctrinal.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Perhaps science may be seen as another form of revelation.

But with science, it is man, not God, doing the revealing.

Science is often a voyage of discovery, but it can also be revelatory:

“In the 19th century, a vision of Ouroboros gave the German chemist Friedrich August Kekule von Stradonitz the idea of linked carbon atoms forming the benzene ring.” -- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 9:13.

[Zakuska]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No, he can't. He can give conditional prophecy - if the conditions are met He may withhold or "recant" the thing He was going to do. For example a prophecy may say that He is going to destroy Ninevah unless the people repent. Well, apparently once upon a time they sufficiently repented so Johah ended up waiting in vain for the city to be destroyed.

There are different ways of receiving revelation. We sustain them to authorize them to seek guidance on our behalf. Just because new sections of D&C aren't coming out, doesn't mean we don't need guidance.

Tell me Rev... did this happen?

Amos 7

 1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.
 2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

How about this?

 

4 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.

If it didn't come to pass by definitiion it was a False Prophecy.

Here God uses a lie, to get the King of Israel killed and removed from his throne,

1 Kings 22

20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

God can do anything he wants to. He is the Law Giver.

 

Edited December 12, 2015 by Zakuska

[Deborah]

I don't know if this has been addressed but the problem comes in distinguishing what is doctrine and what is policy. Some have already mentioned the Priesthood ban as policy. Another example is plural marriage. The doctrine is the New and Everlasting Covenant which includes marriage. Under that falls plural marriage, which is a practice sometimes allowed and sometimes not. Whether we do or not doesn't change the doctrine of celestial marriage. I think many confuse doctrine with practice.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So if the Spirit witnessed to me in 1977 that the prophet was wrong about the priesthood ban on blacks, I should have kept it to myself?

The prophet is wrong about something, the Spirit witnesses to others the prophet is wrong about something, but the Spirit constrains everybody to keep quiet about it.

It seems that following this method you propose virtually ensured the church will be led astray.

I rely upon the Lord to ensure that it is not led astray.  It's HIS church, and if He doesn't give me the authority to run it, then I don't have the right to try.  Eventually, the Lord will prevail.  Now, it is my opinion that the priesthood ban, since you bring it up, should have been lifted well before it was, but the FP&Q12 were not united upon the subject, and the Lord either would not, or could not prevail upon them all to act as one.  Probably because of long-held and hard to shake prejudices.  Or maybe because the Lord had other ideas than I did (imagine that).  BUT, consiglieri, the Lord has set the pattern for how things are done in HIS church, and regardless of my opinion (or yours), it is the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which have been given the mandate to run the Church, not me, and not you.  For either of us to go full Kate Kelly on a matter we feel strongly about is to rebel against the Lord, who has set those men in their places for a reason that I assume is adequate for Him.

Now, you may choose otherwise, but that's your lookout.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Perhaps science may be seen as another form of revelation.

But with science, it is man, not God, doing the revealing.

Which is why it is full of errors and theories.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Tell me Rev... did this happen?

Amos 7

 1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.
 2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

No, not entirely. As I understand that scripture it is speaking of Pul the King of Assyria coming upon Israel. The Lord is showing Amos what will happen. It seems Pul was the king who did the "king's mowings." The Lord seems to be showing Amos that after that grasshoppers ie Assyrians, will shoot up and devour what is left for the people ie the latter growth.

You left out verse 3 where the Lord says it shall not be. This seems to be telling Amos that he is to intervene to prevent the grasshoppers from devouring everything. Amos probably arranged for Pul to be paid off or induced into an agreement to leave with his troops rather than stick around. So the vision was not a prophecy as you seem to interpret it, but a warning for Amos.

Quote

How about this?

4 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.

If it didn't come to pass by definitiion it was a False Prophecy.

Again no. It seems you are reading from some Bible critic? This verse is probably a reference to the next Assyrian invasion it seems by Tilgath-Pileser(Sp). Again, the Lord seems to be showing that the fire/war would devour the great deep/the people. And again you omit the verse where the Lord says this shall not be. So the Lord is instructing Amos what to do to avoid the above eventuality. This is not some failed prophecy as you presume. The Lord does this type of thing all the time. He is constantly steering events. That doesn't mean the other things He sees could happen are "False Prophecy."

Quote

Here God uses a lie, to get the King of Israel killed and removed from his throne,

1 Kings 22

20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

God can do anything he wants to. He is the Law Giver.

God is not a man/read a mortal weak man/ who would lie. The word makes Him who He is.

In this instance we see the Lord has decided that Ahab should go - since he is leading the people astray. In this instance some of the court make proposals. The scripture says a "lying spirit" is allowed to go. Do we learn what "lie" is told? No. It may have just been half-truths to induce Ahab into believing he would be successful so he would go. So we aren't even sure if this is a spirit of the assembly or an evil spirit. Even if it is an evil spirit, God is not lying. He is simply allowing this spirit to go, because He knows what this spirit is planning will successfully induce Ahab. God also allowed Satan to tempt and harass Job. Did that make God wicked? Is God wicked for allowing Satan to tempt us on this earth? In Zech 5 God tells us that he "will bring forth" a flying scroll which is "wickedness." I believe He tweaked parts of it. This is so Satan's plan will fail in the end. In other words God can control even Satan who can't stop him. I don't believe that makes God a liar or wicked, but does show He is omnipotent.

[Senator]

On 12/12/2015 at 10:00 PM, Calm said:

Perhaps you could give a reference so we can see why you understand it that way?

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency ... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. - LDS Newsroom

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them…. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. - Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 9:91-92)

An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be. - Joseph Fielding Smith (Ensign, July 1972, 88)

I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. - Joseph Fielding Smith (Ensign, July 1972, 88)

 

These were taken from ScottWoodward.org

Edited December 14, 2015 by Senator