N. Givens on prophetic fallibility

[MrShorty]

This essay by Nathaniel Givens came across my computer a couple of days ago. As this is a central issue in my own faith crisis/journey, I thought I would share and invoke some discussion. https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-importance-of-prophetic-fallibility/

To set up an expectation, from the conclusion:

Quote

If you were hoping that this essay would take a position on the controversial issues where prophetic fallibility is being (mis)used: tough luck. This isn’t that essay. The reality is, prophetic fallibility should have nothing to do with those debates because it should be baked into the conversation from the outset. Yes, a prophet could be wrong. Done. Now the question of whether or not they actually are/were … that’s a whole separate issue.

Givens doesn't even address any example of prophetic fallibility, so the entire essay is speaking in generic terms. One comment I would make here is that, while I might agree that prophetic fallibility should be "baked into" the conversation from the beginning, it is usually not (and I think it gets difficult to bake it into the conversation when our current prophet and his wife insist that "prophets always speak truth")

My summary of the entire essay is that understanding and accepting that prophets can make mistakes is a necessary part of our moral development in this life. I find this a frequent topic that Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife tackles (as a sex therapist, it is often framed in terms of the propriety of sexual activities, but it easily extends beyond that field) where she talks about needing to develop our own moral compasses. In essence, I see Givens's essay arguing that prophetic fallibility is a feature (not a bug) because we need to take our own moral discernment seriously. Certainly prophetic voices can be a part of our moral calculus, but the point of this life is to develop and strengthen our own ability and responsibility to discern right and wrong and choose right. Ultimately, we cannot and should not "outsource" that process to some kind of default "the prophet must be right so I won't wrestle with it." For all intents and purposes, I agree with Givens.

One reaction to the idea, though. If we really believe what Givens is selling here, it seems to me that we ought to be a lot more tolerant of differing opinions and viewpoints within our Church spaces. Someone who comes into Sunday School who proclaims that they don't believe X, maybe ought to be given respect and consideration for making the effort to exercise their moral judgement. We may disagree on the conclusion, but how much of life is supposed to be about reaching the right conclusion and how much is about exercising moral discernment? If it's about being right, then squash the opposition. If it's more about exercising discernment, then let's allow people to exercise their judgement. If they are wrong, perhaps our own experience with the same topic will help them further their quest for truth, or maybe we just need to let God be the One to offer correction in His time, but let people experience the process.

Of course, this usually tends to bring up the question of boundary maintenance -- how much disagreement should the Church tolerate in its public spaces. I don't know how best to balance "let people exercise moral judgement" and "protect the Church from anarchy and embarrassment." It feels to me like we are a bit too quick to protect the Church from embarrassment than we are to encourage people to exercise moral judgement, but that could just be my impressions.

Any other reactions to Givens's essay?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Givens doesn't even address any example of prophetic fallibility, so the entire essay is speaking in generic terms.

Which is where the discussion usually stays --- in the theoretical or hypothetical realm. Most people are unwilling to name examples of current prophets being wrong. Only those safely in the past (the more distant, the better). They insist that the Church has always taught fallibility, but refuse to give any concrete modern examples.

It's a tough needle to thread, because it approaches the line of criticism or murmuring (or can appear to approach it). 

[MrShorty]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

Which is where the discussion usually stays --- in the theoretical or hypothetical realm.

I agree. Often and essay like this leaves me hungry for a follow up essay where examples are tackled. Givens hasn't indicated that he intends such a thing, but it certainly seems like a natural follow-up -- an essay tackling any one example.

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

Which is where the discussion usually stays --- in the theoretical or hypothetical realm. Most people are unwilling to name examples of current prophets being wrong. Only those safely in the past (the more distant, the better). They insist that the Church has always taught fallibility, but refuse to give any concrete modern examples.

It's a tough needle to thread, because it approaches the line of criticism or murmuring (or can appear to approach it). 

Since hindsight is 20/20, it may be wise to withhold judgment on current prophetic claims -- if there are any.  The harshest critique of infallibility I am aware of in recent decades was the very strong rejection of his own and that of previous (named) prophets' claims about African American priesthood by Elder McConkie in the summer of 1978 at BYU.  He was unsparing, and rightly so.  Much later, Pres Uchtdorf made it clear that the Brethren could and have made mistakes.  They leave little room for pretense, even if the general membership of the LDS Church is unaware of the frequent strong disagreements among the Brethren.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

............ our current prophet and his wife insist that "prophets always speak truth").....................

CFR

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR

I bet it's in these talks. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-three-invitations-to-latter-day-saints-california

Today it can be difficult to know who speaks the truth,” she said. “It is my testimony that prophets of God always speak the truth. While many in the world’s great and spacious building convincingly profess that evil is good and good is evil, prophets speak the truth.  While many tout and even celebrate new approaches to, and rationale for, breaking God’s commandments, prophets speak the truth.

“It’s almost impossible to maneuver through the morass of information, and the war of words, that surround us. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a more important time in the history of the world, or the Church — not a more crucial time than right now — to follow the prophets because prophets speak the truth.”

Edited March 10, 2022 by Tacenda

[MrShorty]

Tacenda has one reference, the other is Pres. Nelson's devotional in fall of 2019 at BYUP where he also said that prophets, even when unpopular, always speak truth.

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since hindsight is 20/20,...

I agree that this sort of thing is a lot easier in hindsight rather than foresight. However, if I understand what Givens is trying to say, It has to apply to foresight as well as hindsight. If we can only consider prophetic fallibility while looking backwards, it will be difficult to "bake it into" our everyday discernment on current moral issues. My impression or interpretation of what Givens wants to emphasize, is that fallibility is part of our forward looking moral calculus. Yes it is more difficult that way, but I don't think we can entirely adopt a wait and see attitude for every moral conundrum that a prophet/apostle may speak to.

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Today it can be difficult to know who speaks the truth,” she said. “It is my testimony that prophets of God always speak the truth. While many in the world’s great and spacious building convincingly profess that evil is good and good is evil, prophets speak the truth.  While many tout and even celebrate new approaches to, and rationale for, breaking God’s commandments, prophets speak the truth.

“It’s almost impossible to maneuver through the morass of information, and the war of words, that surround us. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a more important time in the history of the world, or the Church — not a more crucial time than right now — to follow the prophets because prophets speak the truth.”

Amen!

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Amen!

If prophets are fallible, then there are times when they don’t speak the truth, right?

Edited March 11, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If prophets are fallible, then there are times when they don’t speak the truth, right?

Absolutely, including when they play poker and when a wife asks how she looks in her new dress!

My gratitude to the Lord for the gift of former-day and latter-day prophets only grows.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

What is truth?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is truth?

“And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

Though this was revealed by a fallible prophet.

Edited March 11, 2022 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Tacenda has one reference, the other is Pres. Nelson's devotional in fall of 2019 at BYUP where he also said that prophets, even when unpopular, always speak truth.

Sounds like a very idealized notion -- such as that of Jeremiah, whose scribes edited his book.  We fully expect that he is speaking God's very word every moment.  Yet his words have been fully edited for him, and we do not now know what he actually said from moment to moment.  No more so than for a modern prophet.  We need perspective, which means time and experience.

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that this sort of thing is a lot easier in hindsight rather than foresight. However, if I understand what Givens is trying to say, It has to apply to foresight as well as hindsight. If we can only consider prophetic fallibility while looking backwards, it will be difficult to "bake it into" our everyday discernment on current moral issues. My impression or interpretation of what Givens wants to emphasize, is that fallibility is part of our forward looking moral calculus. Yes it is more difficult that way, but I don't think we can entirely adopt a wait and see attitude for every moral conundrum that a prophet/apostle may speak to.

I wasn't thinking at all of foresight, because the main job of a prophet is not to foretell the future, but instead to advise the people of God on God's will, and to discomfit those who do not want to hear from God.  Only in retrospect can we get any real grasp on the success of this or that prophet.  The notion of fallibility must be baked into our reception of any and all prophets and other sorts of leaders.  Why?  Because it is a matter of history and doctrine that "a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such."  Not at other times.  In other words, the reception of prophetic counsel must always be conditioned by personal revelation/inspiration and testimony.  It is no good to allow someone else to do your thinking for you.  Only the Holy Spirit can close that gap between the raw message and the estimate of its validity.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

One reaction to the idea, though. If we really believe what Givens is selling here, it seems to me that we ought to be a lot more tolerant of differing opinions and viewpoints within our Church spaces. Someone who comes into Sunday School who proclaims that they don't believe X, maybe ought to be given respect and consideration for making the effort to exercise their moral judgement. We may disagree on the conclusion, but how much of life is supposed to be about reaching the right conclusion and how much is about exercising moral discernment? If it's about being right, then squash the opposition. If it's more about exercising discernment, then let's allow people to exercise their judgement. If they are wrong, perhaps our own experience with the same topic will help them further their quest for truth, or maybe we just need to let God be the One to offer correction in His time, but let people experience the process.

This would go very poorly.

[Robert F. Smith]

@Tacenda

Quote

 

I bet it's in these talks. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-three-invitations-to-latter-day-saints-california

Today it can be difficult to know who speaks the truth,” she said. “It is my testimony that prophets of God always speak the truth. While many in the world’s great and spacious building convincingly profess that evil is good and good is evil, prophets speak the truth.  While many tout and even celebrate new approaches to, and rationale for, breaking God’s commandments, prophets speak the truth.

“It’s almost impossible to maneuver through the morass of information, and the war of words, that surround us. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a more important time in the history of the world, or the Church — not a more crucial time than right now — to follow the prophets because prophets speak the truth.”

 

I think that Wendy Nelson is well-intentioned, but she means her advice to be taken generically.  She is not making a statement about infallibility, and would not want us to take her words as absolute.  In any case, her words are not in any sense authoritative, any more than your or my words.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Tacenda has one reference, the other is Pres. Nelson's devotional in fall of 2019 at BYUP where he also said that prophets, even when unpopular, always speak truth............................

Pres Russell M. Nelson, “The Love and Laws of God,” BYU Devotional Address, Sept 17, 2019, online at https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-byu-transcript-september-2019 ,

Quote

“The arbiter of truth is God”

“It is precisely because we do care deeply about all of God’s children that we proclaim His truth. We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!”

“our commission as Apostles is to teach nothing but truth.”

Nelson is obviously talking about delivering a message from God, which is his job, just as it was for Jeremiah.  That does not make every personal opinion he might have correct, and he is also saying that God is the final arbiter of truth.  He is talking about the divine commission which he has received, along with the other Brethren.  That in no sense makes any of them infallible.  Indeed, if fallibility is not baked into your notion of human efforts, then you will not be able to serve God adequately.

Meantime, we all need to learn to cite our sources exactly and to place them in proper context.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Buckeye]

As one who really appreciates and usually agrees with Givens, I think the biggest failing in this article is not the failure to identify specific prophetic failures, but to clearly state whether he’s discussing ‘mistakes’ in general or doctrinal errors. Everyone agrees prophets can get a date wrong or take a wrong turn driving down university avenue. The real issue is whether they can declare ‘thus saith the lord’ and be wrong. And even bigger is whether the combine first presidency and Q12 can get doctrine wrong (since the president of the church is no longer allowed to unilaterally declare doctrine).  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Which is where the discussion usually stays --- in the theoretical or hypothetical realm. Most people are unwilling to name examples of current prophets being wrong. Only those safely in the past (the more distant, the better). They insist that the Church has always taught fallibility, but refuse to give any concrete modern examples.

It's a tough needle to thread, because it approaches the line of criticism or murmuring (or can appear to approach it). 

Hindsight is always clearer too as one can see results of decisions as opposed to being in the middle of them, nor knowing how they will turn out.

I think more might be willing to say that a certain decision might end up being a problem than declaring it a definite right or wrong when they are well aware they are not knowledgeable enough to make a final judgment.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Absolutely, including when they play poker and when a wife asks how she looks in her new dress!

My gratitude to the Lord for the gift of former-day and latter-day prophets only grows.

Do you believe LDS prophets are infallible when it comes to moral and theological issues?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you believe LDS prophets are infallible when it comes to moral and theological issues?

That would be contrary to our doctrine. Only God is infallible.

Personal experience: A member of the Seventy came to our stake conference some years ago, and during the Saturday evening adult session, he began railing on male returned missionaries with facial hair. He said, roughly, 'You need to maintain the missionary look. You should look like General Authorities. You should look like Heavenly Father and Jes ...'

I'm assuming he had mental images of the Father and the Son appear in front of him at this moment since he froze, eyes wide, for several awkward moments, before resuming speaking by completely changing the topic.

I almost laughed out loud. Instead of teaching the actual doctrine of Christ, he had foolishly chosen to pursue a personal pet peeve, and that choice caused him to stumble.

I suppose I could have ignored everything else he had to say during our conference because of this, but I didn't, just like I choose not to ignore everything the Apostle Peter taught after his rash betrayal of the Lord in the courtyard at the high priest's house. Doing so would put me at odds with the Saviour Himself (Matthew 10:41-42, etc.).

I also don't worry that I'm somehow sinning by sporting a very manly beard. After all, I was encouraged by a General Authority to look like Heavenly Father and Jesus! If that advice was wrong, I'm certain that the Holy Spirit can correct me.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

As one who really appreciates and usually agrees with Givens, I think the biggest failing in this article is not the failure to identify specific prophetic failures, but to clearly state whether he’s discussing ‘mistakes’ in general or doctrinal errors. Everyone agrees prophets can get a date wrong or take a wrong turn driving down university avenue. The real issue is whether they can declare ‘thus saith the lord’ and be wrong. And even bigger is whether the combine first presidency and Q12 can get doctrine wrong (since the president of the church is no longer allowed to unilaterally declare doctrine).  

I think the priesthood ban for over a hundred and twenty years an example of prophets getting it wrong in a doctrinal way.  And "we don't know why" is not a credible defense in MHO.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the priesthood ban for over a hundred and twenty years an example of prophets getting it wrong in a doctrinal way.

And other people, like my devout black housemate, see the matter very differently. That's part of what Bro Givens has tried to address in his essay.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Today it can be difficult to know who speaks the truth,” she said. “It is my testimony that prophets of God always speak the truth. While many in the world’s great and spacious building convincingly profess that evil is good and good is evil, prophets speak the truth.  While many tout and even celebrate new approaches to, and rationale for, breaking God’s commandments, prophets speak the truth.

Guys, read the sentence!

It is his TESTIMONY that prophets always speak "the truth".  That means he always agrees with the prophets, since testimony is the only measure of truth in a religious context !!

Testimony is the only test possible, and if your testimony differs, it differs.

It's like saying that A=A when your testimony agrees with that of a prophet who agrees with your testimony!

In religious contexts, the only evidence we can have as a proof of "truth" are testimonies.  If your testimony always agrees with the prophets, both you and the prophets will always agree that you are seeing truth, and you will be right.

If your testimony disagrees with the prophets, you will be also be right.

There is no way to measure religious truth but testimony 

[kimpearson]

I don't think fallibility is the interesting question as no prophet modern or old has ever claimed to be infallible.  My question is how much of the day to day decisions, policy, callings and talks are given under direct inspiration from God which should be infallible and how much is based on the human feelings and opinions of prophets which are very prone to fallibility.  I was studying today about a number of bishops guilty of child abuse.  Each one was approved by the first presidency.  President Kimball taught mixed race marriages between blacks and whites were a sin.  President Nelson stated that the use of the term Mormon was a mistake and needed to be corrected.  That means President Nelson believes previous prophets were not listening to God about the proper name of the Church.  Several talks have been given about each missionary being called by divine guidance but at the same time many of those missionaries have unrepentant and unconfessed sins.  There has been no publicly stated visions or visits from heavenly messengers in a very long time.  There has been only 4 canonized revelations since Joseph Smith yet we have a basic statement of belief that "we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".  I am unaware of any apostle or prophet publicly bearing witness to a personal visit from Jesus Christ other than those in scripture.  I personally just don't see much evidence of most actions by prophets being made by revelation but rather most decisions are based on the personal opinions and feelings of prophets.  Now I believe prayerful guidance is sought but I believe most of the time God doesn't give direct guidance because prophets have the scriptures and a lifetime of experience under other prophets to make decisions.  That is where fallibility occurs.  Many callings are based on personal feelings and opinions and people unworthy are sometimes called.  Unworthy missionaries get called.  Missionaries are sent to wherever the numbers are needed on the day they get called.  Incorrect ideas are taught as doctrine by prophets because it was based on their own opinions and feelings.  Correct doctrine is taught not because of inspiration but because of study and experience.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, kimpearson said:

My question is how much of the day to day decisions, policy, callings and talks are given under direct inspiration from God which should be infallible and how much is based on the human feelings and opinions of prophets which are very prone to fallibility.

No part transmitted is infallible since humans are the ones sharing and implementing God’s direction.

The personal experience from God may contain “infallible” information, but the receiving is incomplete at best and can be messed up in other ways when being communicated to others since we cannot share the actual experience that we or in the specific case of prophets experienced. 
 

Could be an intentional attribute of mortal human communication that was constructed specifically to be less reliable or it may be a natural side benefit of mortal experience that the only “infallibility” in our lives may be our fallible awareness of those pure moments encountering God.  If we wish to center our lives on something both beautiful and unshakable, we need to learn to center our life around God. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Calm