Are Prophets Infallible on Matters of Doctrine?

[Kevin Christensen]

In such discussions as this, the first thing I would do is define "doctrine" from the most important formal source:

3 Nephi 11:32-40

Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

 32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

 33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

 35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

 36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

 37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

 38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

 39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

 

And the second would be to examine the Lord's formal declaration of "the authority of my servants."

D&C 1:6, 25-28.

 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants,...

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

 

It strikes me that all of the mess and controversy comes from those who ignore the formal definition of what is and is not doctrine and who therefore try to build certainty, or undermine certainty, on what Jesus formally describes as a sandy foundation.  And of course, those who want to take rhetorical advantage, in one way or another, of claims to infallibility that are expressly undercut by formal definition of "the authority of my servants."

My raising these obvious foundational issues is fairly predictable.  Neglect elsewhere remains puzzling.

All of this points to Alma 32's distinction between those who want to "know" with absolute certainty (and the accompanying absolute accountability), and those who settle for open-ended, uncertain but progressive, "cause to believe."

 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

[cinepro]

On 12/12/2015 at 11:44 AM, Deborah said:

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.

Unfortunately, that confusion seems to extend all the way up the line to the Prophets themselves.  Ultimately, the only way to truly distinguish between "doctrine" and "policy" is to see whether some future Prophet ever contradicts the previous teaching.  If they don't, then it can still be considered "doctrine".  If they do, then it was a "policy" all along (see: your reference to the Priesthood ban and Plural Marriage as "policies").

[Gray]

We can accept infallibility as soon as we are ready to let go of the notion of free agency.

[CV75]

On 12/11/2015 at 4:43 PM, consiglieri said:

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.

Here’s an interesting manual entitled “Basic Doctrines.” https://www.lds.org/manual/basic-doctrines/basic-doctrines?lang=eng At least the prophets we sustain are in agreement on them, regardless of whatever fallibility they may have experienced in compiling and explaining them. I'm not sure what might be considered inessential or peripheral doctrine, but why should we bother with that anyway (it seems to be a product of human fallibility)?

The Lord taught, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” I think this has to do with the mutual witness among the Godhead which in turn includes those who keep His word so as to be covered by grace for their sakes (John 17).

So I’d say for the sake of knowing correct doctrine, fallibility in being faithful (doing God’s will or keeping His word) is far better than intentionally not doing His will. In other words, fallibility isn’t the determining factor in knowing the doctrine, but faith and obedience at any level of good-faith performance lead to knowing it and becoming “perfect in one.”

[Thinking]

I served a mission from 1982-1984. I don't remember ever teaching an investigator that the prophet can sometimes be wrong, especially on matters of doctrine. We taught that the prophet talks to God face to face. We quoted all the relevant scriptures to argue for the need of a living prophet. I wonder what the discussion is like today with an investigator. Do the missionaries present an infallible (without saying the word) leader who always speaks the mind and will of God?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

We can accept infallibility as soon as we are ready to let go of the notion of free agency.

Do you believe that God doesn't have agency?

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 10:51 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

That is an awesome story, Robert.

I did not know that!

Thanks for sharing it.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 3:17 PM, JLHPROF said:

Which is why it is full of errors and theories.

Science or religion?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

We can accept infallibility as soon as we are ready to let go of the notion of free agency.

Bingo!

And a special prize for the orange cardinal.

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by consiglieri

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I served a mission from 1982-1984. I don't remember ever teaching an investigator that the prophet can sometimes be wrong, especially on matters of doctrine. We taught that the prophet talks to God face to face. We quoted all the relevant scriptures to argue for the need of a living prophet. I wonder what the discussion is like today with an investigator. Do the missionaries present an infallible (without saying the word) leader who always speaks the mind and will of God?

I don't think the scriptures imply that the prophets are infallible, only that they speak with God, face-to-face, etc., trace the priesthood keys to Him (3 Nephi 11 is a great example of how that works), etc. This is why we ask people to pray about the testimony of the prophets such as we find in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's accounts of seeing God and/or sharing His doctrine.

I think we can reasonably use the term "always" in the context of their teaching about and organizing the saints around the Basic Doctrines because those doctrines point to Christ who is not making mistakes, especially for those who sincerely try the doctrine by doing God's will.

I think the same principle holds true for someone confirmed by an unworthy priesthood holder, or baptized by someone who has to repeat the ordinance until he says the right words, or any of us who take the sacrament that is prepared, blessed and passed by fallible priesthood holders. If he qualifies, we will still receive the remission of sins, baptism of fire and Holy Ghost, etc. These fallible servants, just like those who hold the keys they operate under, "always" deliver the ordinances and the ordinances do what they are designed to.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Do you believe that God doesn't have agency?

I don't view God as an agent, so no, I don't think of God as having agency.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Do you believe that God doesn't have agency?

I believe that God does have free agency.

And that maybe that is what the Book of Mormon is hinting at when it says God would cease to be God if he ceased to be just.

Or it could just be hyperbole . . .

But I still believe God has free agency.

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think we can reasonably use the term "always" in the context of their teaching about and organizing the saints around the Basic Doctrines because those doctrines point to Christ who is not making mistakes, especially for those who sincerely try the doctrine by doing God's will.

...

These fallible servants, just like those who hold the keys they operate under, "always" deliver the ordinances and the ordinances do what they are designed to.

This attitude is so different than when I was growing up and listening to apostles like Bruce R. McConkie.

Quote

There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal life is reserved for those who know God and the One whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. (BYU Devotional Address, Mrch 2, 1982)

Of course it's possible that BRM was only speaking as a man, but it sounds to me like it's about more than just ordinances.

[hope_for_things]

History shows that doctrines are in a constant state of evolution, the OT, NT, BoM, D&C, etc all show different doctrines that often contradict and show various different view points, and that continues today as modern church leaders are influenced by culture and their environments.  That doesn't eliminate the idea that God is involved in the inspiration process, but it should show the need for a large measure of humility with respect to the ability of fallible humans to interpret the will of the divine.  

Some prominent theologians have taught that God never changes, is the same throughout all eternity, while others taught a progressing God who's learning and growing in understanding.  I'm not sure anyone knows, or whether it matters or not which better describes the nature of God.  I kind of like the progressing God idea, but maybe that's just me.

 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This attitude is so different than when I was growing up and listening to apostles like Bruce R. McConkie.

Of course it's possible that BRM was only speaking as a man, but it sounds to me like it's about more than just ordinances.

I joined the Church in 1975 while in college. I voraciously read Mormon Doctrine after being ordained an elder 15 months later, having the feeling I had a lot to catch up on. I sensed an occasional “tone” in the book that didn’t accord with a softer authority I sensed from other leaders and teachers and that was carried by the Spirit when He bore witness to me, but I figured no writer / speaker is perfect when trying to sound his best or exert emphasis or influence. And I got a lot out of the book regardless.

Every scriptural account of the prophets I can think of show that they are imperfect, feel imperfect, appear imperfect, etc.

The article you linked ties back to the Basic Doctrines as far as I can tell, and makes no claim of infallibility — do you see something in there that doesn’t accord with what the Brethren at large would sign off on? If so, that’s only an example of fallibility.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/11/2015 at 1:43 PM, consiglieri said:

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

They are infallible on nothing, and there is no doctrine, so there you go.

Prove it by the spirit- end of story.

How do I know that? Because there is no way to know if prophets even exist without the spirit, therefore epistemologically the spirit is prior.  It's like asking whether or not the conversation in the next room is true or false with the door closed and you can't hear the conversation.  It doesn't much matter what is being said if you cannot hear it.

First you have to hear the conversation before you can decide if it is true or false.  Without the spirit to tell you if the alleged "doctrine" is allegedly "true" (good for you to live by) you first have to have the spirit.  The Lord does not expect us to obey by blind obedience.  This is not Jonestown.

Prophets are inspired men but they are just men.  You must verify every belief for yourself by the spirit or there is no reason to accept it into your life.

I am not following the thread further.  Just my two cents.

Edited December 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

 

The word itself, prophet, refers to someone who is speaking for God, as in actually and truly speaking for God.  So wake up and realize that when we are talking about a prophet we are talking about a prophet as someone who is speaking for God and not just someone who is claiming to speak for God when he actually and truly is not.   And yes there is a good,  tried and true way to find out if any man is a prophet or speaking as a prophet but that test is not what we are talking about when we are talking about whether a prophet is speaking for God because when we talk about whether or not a prophet is speaking for God we are supposedly already aware of the fact that a prophet,  by definition, is someone who is speaking for God. 

Sheesh, it sounds as if some people don't even know what the word prophet refers to in regards to who a prophet speaks for.

 

 

 

 

[consiglieri]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

History shows that doctrines are in a constant state of evolution,

 

You are completely right about this, and this includes Mormon Doctrine as well, as Charles Harrell irrefutably demonstrates in his book, This Is My Doctrine.

The question then becomes whether we think there is no more evolution that will take place after this present moment.

Do we have it all exactly right as of 14 DEC 2015?

Or may there be additional evolutions that will occur hereafter?

It seems to me that, the past being predictor of the future, there will indeed continue to be further evolutions in LDS Doctrine.

This is just one reason I think it imprudent to believe we have everything just right as of 14 DEC 2015.

But this one reason standing alone is sufficient to think so.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Unfortunately, that confusion seems to extend all the way up the line to the Prophets themselves.  Ultimately, the only way to truly distinguish between "doctrine" and "policy" is to see whether some future Prophet ever contradicts the previous teaching.  If they don't, then it can still be considered "doctrine".  If they do, then it was a "policy" all along (see: your reference to the Priesthood ban and Plural Marriage as "policies").

I disagree, cinepro.  Some people are indeed confused, and we see that confusion frequently on this board, but I maintain that it is primarily based on lack of familiarity with history and theology.  I have yet to see a legitimate argument from either sphere which would make the priesthood ban more than a policy, and of plural marriage less than a doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

The word itself, prophet, refers to someone who is speaking for God, as in actually and truly speaking for God.  So wake up and realize that when we are talking about a prophet we are talking about a prophet as someone who is speaking for God and not just someone who is claiming to speak for God when he actually and truly is not.   And yes there is a good,  tried and true way to find out if any man is a prophet or speaking as a prophet but that test is not what we are talking about when we are talking about whether a prophet is speaking for God because when we talk about whether or not a prophet is speaking for God we are supposedly already aware of the fact that a prophet,  by definition, is someone who is speaking for God. 

Sheesh, it sounds as if some people don't even know what the word prophet refers to in regards to who a prophet speaks for.

Some people here in this thread are really asking a different question, which is, How do we know which claimant is in fact the Deputy of Christ on Earth?  Pope Francis, Pres Monson, et al.?  Who in fact holds the Keys of the Kingdom?  How would any of us know?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't view God as an agent, so no, I don't think of God as having agency.

So will we no longer have agency when we become gods?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So will we no longer have agency when we become gods?

Of course we will.  God has agency.

But his nature is so perfect he's not going to exercise that agency for evil.

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some people here in this thread are really asking a different question, which is, How do we know which claimant is in fact the Deputy of Christ on Earth?  Pope Francis, Pres Monson, et al.?  Who in fact holds the Keys of the Kingdom?  How would any of us know?

 

The answer to that question is the presiding high priest of our Lord's true church and anyone who accepts/receives the testimony of Jesus Christ, also known as the spirit of prophecy, will thus have our Lord's assurance of who that is and also which church is our Lord's church.

But let's realize that any prophet of the Lord is always speaking for our Lord and there is never a time when he is not.  It just needs to be understood that any man is speaking as a prophet only when he is speaking for God.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

......................................................

But let's realize that any prophet of the Lord is always speaking for our Lord and there is never a time when he is not.  It just needs to be understood that any man is speaking as a prophet only when he is speaking for God.

............................................................

Joseph claimed that a prophet was only a prophet when he was speaking as such, which would fit in with your second sentence here, but not with your first sentence.  Perhaps you mispoke yourself in that case.

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course we will.  God has agency.

But his nature is so perfect he's not going to exercise that agency for evil.

I see something different when I look at the evening news . . .