Brigham young's infallibility

[MiserereNobis]

Some time back I asked for some recommendations for LDS films. I enjoyed Legacy (looking at it as an LDS production and not a documentary). God's Army was interesting, too.

My third film was Mountain of the Lord, which I recently watched. It had some interesting stories to tell, and by the introduction I'm guessing they were more or less accurate. However, I'd like to focus on a quote in the film. There has been some talk on the board about the (in-)fallibility of LDS prophets.

At about the 48 minute mark in the film, Wilford Woodruff (I had to look it up -- tongue-twister of a name!) is telling the reporter how the completion of the railroad allowed granite to be carried to the building site much faster than before. He then goes on to say that Brigham Young always said that the railroad needed to be completed first. He then says: "He was right. He was always right."

Here's the youtube: 

 

 

I found it interesting that an official LDS film would include this. Now, I clearly understand that this is a film, not a documentary. And I understand that the fictional Woodruff in the film was not speaking doctrinally, but off-the-cuff to a reporter. But still, why insinuate it? Were/are such insinuations common?

When I was checking on wikipedia to see if the film was an official LDS production (it is), I also saw that it was shown during the April 1993 general conference, which seems to lend the film some weight.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another if your prophet is infallible or not. That's totally up to you and your beliefs  But like I said above, it's been a topic on the board a few times, so I thought this film was an interesting bit to include in the discussion of how the LDS prophet is viewed by LDS members.

Also, and completely on the side, who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Hmm, I keep editing the topic to capitalize Young and Infallibility in the title, but it keeps reverting them to lowercase. Sorry!

ETA: I just noticed that the words in titles are all lowercase, unless it is the first word. Even poor JLHPROF got a lowercase Jesus in one of his! The English teacher in me wants this fixed. Major words in titles should be capitalized. Nemesis! A plague upon your latest board update!

Edited March 30, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

It is the normal human feeling of inadequacy when confronted by following in the footsteps of perceived giants. Virtually all the prophets whose "calling" stories are known felt the same way. I don't think leadership was trying to insinuate President Young was infallible.

The one exception is Jesus who seemed almost cavalierly irreverent when referring to Moses and Abraham. He didn't disparage them (unless saying he predated Abraham counts) but he wasn't awed by their authority.

[strappinglad]

Imagine the comments had Wilford said " he was nearly always right " . 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some time back I asked for some recommendations for LDS films. I enjoyed Legacy (looking at it as an LDS production and not a documentary). God's Army was interesting, too.

My third film was Mountain of the Lord, which I recently watched. It had some interesting stories to tell, and by the introduction I'm guessing they were more or less accurate. However, I'd like to focus on a quote in the film. There has been some talk on the board about the (in-)fallibility of LDS prophets.

At about the 48 minute mark in the film, Wilford Woodruff (I had to look it up -- tongue-twister of a name!) is telling the reporter how the completion of the railroad allowed granite to be carried to the building site much faster than before. He then goes on to say that Brigham Young always said that the railroad needed to be completed first. He then says: "He was right. He was always right."

Here's the youtube: 

 

 

I found it interesting that an official LDS film would include this. Now, I clearly understand that this is a film, not a documentary. And I understand that the fictional Woodruff in the film was not speaking doctrinally, but off-the-cuff to a reporter. But still, why insinuate it? Were/are such insinuations common?

When I was checking on wikipedia to see if the film was an official LDS production (it is), I also saw that it was shown during the April 1993 general conference, which seems to lend the film some weight.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another if your prophet is infallible or not. That's totally up to you and your beliefs  But like I said above, it's been a topic on the board a few times, so I thought this film was an interesting bit to include in the discussion of how the LDS prophet is viewed by LDS members.

Also, and completely on the side, who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

 

If the question is about whether or not the church has regularly insinuated (in the past) that one should follow the prophet because they "know the way" because even though they are said to be fallible, they are treated as if they are infallible, the answer is yes. That has been a common theme in the church. It was definitely taught to me strongly in that way in my youth and young adult life.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I found it interesting that an official LDS film would include this.

Can you try to find something more interesting?  😁

As a work of historical fiction, the character in the film is likely drawn to say things most people can generally relate to, meaning the prophet is always right about things that are important to the person saying it. I think most people of faith will generally feel that way about those servants of God they acknowledge as prophets. Until they start to nit-pick their characters and communities on message boards, at least.

The footage that was cut (I have it in the cast blooper reel that will be released on the 30th anniversary edition) has the reporter push back, with "Always right? Do you meant o say that BY was infallible?" To which the WW responded, with a twinkle in his eye, "Well, not infallible enough not to die [laugh track]. I mean, what was up with those syringes? [laugh track]. Why don't you poke around that one? [laugh track]."

So a well-rounded exposure and recognition of Church teachings will allow one to acknowledge that the Church prophets do not teach that they are infallible, but that everyone can count on and obtain the testimony of Christ, or the spirit of prophecy, which sustains them in their role in exercising the keys of the kingdom which have been restored to the earth after the Great Apostasy.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the question is about whether or not the church has regularly insinuated (in the past) that one should follow the prophet because they "know the way" because even though they are said to be fallible, they are treated as if they are infallible, the answer is yes. That has been a common theme in the church. It was definitely taught to me strongly in that way in my youth and young adult life.

 

Yes, and there seems to be an increasing pattern to support following even if it might be wrong, the fact of obedience taking precedence.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, and there seems to be an increasing pattern to support following even if it might be wrong, the fact of obedience taking precedence.

Well, it is the first law of heaven.  It's why Christ was Christ.  It's how the world was created.  There's a principle there.

Edited March 30, 2021 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you try to find something more interesting?  😁

Well, I did bring up the bordering-on-pedophilia scene, too  

It's interesting because of the times on this board that such issues have been discussed. I wanted to toss this in. This isn't a "gotcha" or a criticism or attack. If there hadn't been discussions about it here previously, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it while watching.

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The footage that was cut (I have it in the cast blooper reel that will be released on the 30th anniversary edition) has the reporter push back, with "Always right? Do you meant o say that BY was infallible?" To which the WW responded, with a twinkle in his eye, "Well, not infallible enough not to die [laugh track]. I mean, what was up with those syringes? [laugh track]. Why don't you poke around that one? [laugh track]."

Nice!

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So a well-rounded exposure and recognition of Church teachings will allow one to acknowledge that the Church prophets do not teach that they are infallible, but that everyone can count on and obtain the testimony of Christ, or the spirit of prophecy, which sustains them in their role in exercising the keys of the kingdom which have been restored to the earth after the Great Apostasy.

How would you respond to HJW post that prophets are treated as if they are infallible? Is there an example of a prophet acting in an official capacity but it turns out later he was actually wrong and the action is officially disavowed as being wrong?

Thanks!

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some time back I asked for some recommendations for LDS films. I enjoyed Legacy (looking at it as an LDS production and not a documentary). God's Army was interesting, too.

My third film was Mountain of the Lord, which I recently watched. It had some interesting stories to tell, and by the introduction I'm guessing they were more or less accurate. However, I'd like to focus on a quote in the film. There has been some talk on the board about the (in-)fallibility of LDS prophets.

At about the 48 minute mark in the film, Wilford Woodruff (I had to look it up -- tongue-twister of a name!) is telling the reporter how the completion of the railroad allowed granite to be carried to the building site much faster than before. He then goes on to say that Brigham Young always said that the railroad needed to be completed first. He then says: "He was right. He was always right."

Here's the youtube: 

 

 

I found it interesting that an official LDS film would include this. Now, I clearly understand that this is a film, not a documentary. And I understand that the fictional Woodruff in the film was not speaking doctrinally, but off-the-cuff to a reporter. But still, why insinuate it? Were/are such insinuations common?

When I was checking on wikipedia to see if the film was an official LDS production (it is), I also saw that it was shown during the April 1993 general conference, which seems to lend the film some weight.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another if your prophet is infallible or not. That's totally up to you and your beliefs  But like I said above, it's been a topic on the board a few times, so I thought this film was an interesting bit to include in the discussion of how the LDS prophet is viewed by LDS members.

Also, and completely on the side, who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

 

All I can say is that actor who played Brigham Young in this movie had the smoothest and most buttery voice I've heard anywhere. Even if he was wrong he sounded right. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some time back I asked for some recommendations for LDS films. I enjoyed Legacy (looking at it as an LDS production and not a documentary). God's Army was interesting, too.

My third film was Mountain of the Lord, which I recently watched. It had some interesting stories to tell, and by the introduction I'm guessing they were more or less accurate. However, I'd like to focus on a quote in the film. There has been some talk on the board about the (in-)fallibility of LDS prophets.

At about the 48 minute mark in the film, Wilford Woodruff (I had to look it up -- tongue-twister of a name!) is telling the reporter how the completion of the railroad allowed granite to be carried to the building site much faster than before. He then goes on to say that Brigham Young always said that the railroad needed to be completed first. He then says: "He was right. He was always right."

Here's the youtube: 

 

 

I found it interesting that an official LDS film would include this. Now, I clearly understand that this is a film, not a documentary. And I understand that the fictional Woodruff in the film was not speaking doctrinally, but off-the-cuff to a reporter. But still, why insinuate it? Were/are such insinuations common?

When I was checking on wikipedia to see if the film was an official LDS production (it is), I also saw that it was shown during the April 1993 general conference, which seems to lend the film some weight.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another if your prophet is infallible or not. That's totally up to you and your beliefs  But like I said above, it's been a topic on the board a few times, so I thought this film was an interesting bit to include in the discussion of how the LDS prophet is viewed by LDS members.

Also, and completely on the side, who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

 

You have mentioned one of my favorite film productions by the Church. 
 

I think you may be reading too much into that snippet of dialogue. If I were to say in an off-the-cuff remark that my wife is always right, I would not be declaring her infallibility, but rather, saying that between the two of us, she has the better judgment. I dare say that a typical Latter-day Saint viewer would attach a similar meaning to the line of dialogue about Brigham Young. 
 

And does it really strike you as strange that one of our filmmakers might in a peripheral scene portray some young woman in the Church, as being flirtatious? I mean, we are humans. If you cut us, do we not bleed? (I hope that, being a teacher of English, you recognize that facetious nod to the bard.)

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you may be reading too much into that snippet of dialogue. If I were to say in an off-the-cuff remark that my wife is always right, I would not be declaring her infallibility, but rather, saying that between the two of us, she has the better judgment. I dare say that a typical Latter-day Saint viewer would attach a similar meaning to the line of dialogue about Brigham Young. 

Sounds reasonable enough.

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And does it really strike you as strange that one of our filmmakers might in a peripheral scene portray some young women in the Church, as being flirtatious? I mean, we are humans. If you cut us, do we not bleed? (I hope that, being a teacher of English, you recognize that facetious nod to the bard.)

Years ago I attended the Utah Shakespeare Festival. Fantastic festival! It was great watching the various productions in a Globe-like theatre. It's the only time I've seen Merchant of Venice. I've taught the play a few times since. The Anti-Defamation League has some great resources on how to deal with the questions of anti-semitism that surround the play. I appreciated that they didn't try to answer whether or not the play should be taught in school, but instead gave tools on how to effectively discuss the issues of anti-semitism with students. It's been a successful experience.

Back to Mountain of the Lord. I don't think the scene with the girl rises to scandal (that's why I'm approaching it with humor), but it is definitely odd. I mean, she's got to be what, 8 or 9 years old? I wouldn't call her a young woman, and I don't think it's normal 8 year old girl behavior to flirt with grown men they do not know. But again, I brought up the scene more as bantering, so we don't have to go round and round about it  

[webbles]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

How would you respond to HJW post that prophets are treated as if they are infallible? Is there an example of a prophet acting in an official capacity but it turns out later he was actually wrong and the action is officially disavowed as being wrong?

Adam-God theory is one that I can think of.  It was taught in the temple by Brigham Young and is now disavowed by the church.

There's also the revelation from John Taylor on the continuation of polygamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation).  His son (John W. Taylor and was an apostle) strongly believed it was authentic.  There's debate over its meaning and authenticity, but it is disavowed by the church.

About HJW's comment, there's the old phrase: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.”  Personally, I'm much more comfortable believing and accepting that the prophet is fallible.  Probably one of the reason I don't have very many issues with the church history is that I assume the prophets to be fallible.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, I did bring up the bordering-on-pedophilia scene, too  

It's interesting because of the times on this board that such issues have been discussed. I wanted to toss this in. This isn't a "gotcha" or a criticism or attack. If there hadn't been discussions about it here previously, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it while watching.

Nice!

How would you respond to HJW post that prophets are treated as if they are infallible? Is there an example of a prophet acting in an official capacity but it turns out later he was actually wrong and the action is officially disavowed as being wrong?

Thanks!

I understand what might have prompted your interest in fallibility, but why/how on earth would you be predisposed to see a bordering-on-pedophilia message in the child's prayer scene? But now that you mention it, the reporter would make a good serial killer, especially if he were to don clown makeup.

With regards to the HJW post, I think people are raised to understand the gospel differently in different homes, and sometimes extrapolate that predisposition to what they see in the Church in general (or in Church films for that matter!).

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

........................... Wilford Woodruff (I had to look it up ...................... says: "He was right. He was always right."
............................. the fictional Woodruff in the film was not speaking doctrinally, but off-the-cuff to a reporter. But still, why insinuate it? Were/are such insinuations common?

.................. the film was an official LDS production (it is), I also saw that it was shown during the April 1993 general conference, which seems to lend the film some weight.

.......................... who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

The LDS Church has no canon lawyers or professional theologians, and such scripts are produced quite innocently, without any real thought about the implications.  Woodruff may actualy have made such a statement, which should be taken in any case as hyperbole.

Brigham always insisted that silly notions of his infallibility be subjected instead to the witness of the Holy Spirit, rather than automatic acceptance and belief.  In our own day, we have heard Apostle Bruce R. McConkie tell us that Brigham was wrong on the priesthood of Black men because he spoke without light and knowledge.  That and the scene of a good Mormon girl flirting with a reporter would be de rigueur for LDS film making.  That is about as risque as it gets in the LDS community.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, and there seems to be an increasing pattern to support following even if it might be wrong, the fact of obedience taking precedence.

There sure are some people who feel that way, even about secular leaders.  It has been over 70 years since I was baptized during the Presidency of George Albert Smith, and I was never taught that the Brethren were infallible.  And I never entertained that belief about them or Abraham, Moses, or any of the classical Israelite prophets.  I have always suspected that there was something wrong with those who believed such nonsense.  Seemed more like an affectation than true faith.

Obedience is important in an organization, and when I was in the USMC I learned that one obeys regardless of individual opinion.  Otherwise the organization cannot be effective.  But actual belief is another matter entirely.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

tongue-twister of a name!

Killed me growing up. Kept getting him confused with Woodrow Wilson

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Also, and completely on the side, who the heck green-lighted that strange scene where Woodruff's very young granddaughter is flirting with the reporter during evening prayers? 😁

About how far into the movie is it?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That and the scene of a good Mormon girl flirting with a reporter would be de rigueur for LDS film making.  That is about as risque as it gets in the LDS community.

I think posters here are assuming she is older than she is from MN’s first remarks. 
 

I want to see it because I will admit to having some teasing exchanges with my Primary kids and grandkids trying to get them to close their eyes during prayers.  It may have been poorly directed and appear flirtatious rather than a kid and adult mutual tease.  We have gotten more hyper vigilant to child abuse as time goes on and may see things as inappropriate where once they were viewed as harmless because they mostly were (my husband no longer gives hugs to kids at church unless they don’t give him a chance to back off).

[webbles]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

About how far into the movie is it?

The grandkids show up at 49 minutes.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sounds reasonable enough.

Years ago I attended the Utah Shakespeare Festival. Fantastic festival! It was great watching the various productions in a Globe-like theatre. It's the only time I've seen Merchant of Venice. I've taught the play a few times since. The Anti-Defamation League has some great resources on how to deal with the questions of anti-semitism that surround the play. I appreciated that they didn't try to answer whether or not the play should be taught in school, but instead gave tools on how to effectively discuss the issues of anti-semitism with students. It's been a successful experience.

Back to Mountain of the Lord. I don't think the scene with the girl rises to scandal (that's why I'm approaching it with humor), but it is definitely odd. I mean, she's got to be what, 8 or 9 years old? I wouldn't call her a young woman, and I don't think it's normal 8 year old girl behavior to flirt with grown men they do not know. But again, I brought up the scene more as bantering, so we don't have to go round and round about it  

It has been years since I’ve seen the movie, and I have to say I don’t recall that particular scene, much less the age of the girl, so I’m taking your word for it. 
 

Even so, you have me curious enough that I might pluck it from our DVD collection and watch it again. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Adam-God theory is one that I can think of.  It was taught in the temple by Brigham Young and is now disavowed by the church.

Wow, that's a pretty good example, since it was taught in the temple (which I imagine gave it some preeminence).

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

The grandkids show up at 49 minutes.

I think it was the supposed awkwardness of the reporter feeling out of place that bled over into it reading as being too aware of the little girl’s curious glance at him during prayers and the automatic kiss on the cheek of an adult who is being treated as a family member by her.   Just seeing it by itself and having heard MN’s response made me uncomfortable while watching it, but I don’t think I would have read it that way originally. Rather I would have read it as the reporter didn’t know how to act around kids as well as the religious setting making him feel awkward in his surroundings in the first place. 

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think it was the supposed awkwardness of the reporter feeling out of place that bled over into it reading as being too aware of the little girl’s curious glance at him during prayers and the automatic kiss on the cheek of an adult who is being treated as a family member by her.   Just seeing it by itself and having heard MN’s response made me uncomfortable while watching it, but I don’t think I would have read it that way originally. Rather I would have read it as the reporter didn’t know how to act around kids as well as the religious setting making him feel awkward in his surroundings in the first place. 

Yeah, I watched this movie on my mission probably more times than I should have. I didn't get pedophilia vibes. Just saying. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been years since I’ve seen the movie, and I have to say I don’t recall that particular scene, much less the age of the girl, so I’m taking your word for it. 
 

Even so, you have me curious enough that I might pluck it from our DVD collection and watch it again. 

He posted a link and Webbles gave the time stamp around 45/49 minutes.  It was very short, a quick glance during the prayer and then a kiss goodnight on his cheek. 
 

I have never seen the movie before, btw. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Calm