Panel discussion on Prophetic Infallibility

[Calm]

Thought some might find the interesting since we are always discussing it

Quote

 

In this special episode, Sarah Allen and Zachary Wright host a panel discussion on the question "Are Prophets Infallible?" Panel participants: Don Bradley: https://gregkofford.com/collecti... Ben Spackman: https://benspackman.com/ J. Max Wilson: https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/
 

 

[OGHoosier]

That's quite the panel. Will give it a listen. 

[Calm]

The discussion on the “leading astray” doctrine starting a little after an hour is fantastic imo.

Ben Spackman suggests (very loose paraphrase) that what is actually meant is intentionally misleading for personal gain as opposed to unintentional error, large or small.  If I understand correctly, his interpretation comes from the context of criticism Pres Woodruff was receiving at the time, haven’t finished listening yet, but he wasn’t specific so far on what that was….but given the recent criticism of our leaders I can imagine something along the lines of accusations of not having enough faith and being too wimpy so as wanting to avoid having to remain in hiding, etc; being corrupt or wanting worldly praise so kowtowing to government demands…

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[rpn]

I wish they had talked about the fact that the church organization and lay leadership  means that each member has likely had the personal experience of really trying to know what God wants them to do in something, of praying, fasting, and study and ultimately chosen to do something that we believe is His will, only to know for certain as some future time that we got it wrong somehow.    I think that is is intentionally part of the Plan.

[manol]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

The discussion on the “leading astray” doctrine starting a little after an hour is fantastic imo.

Ben Spackman suggests (very loose paraphrase) that what is actually meant is intentionally misleading for personal gain as opposed to unintentional error, large or small...

Thank you for pointing this out!  Imo the "no leading astray" doctrine is a very big deal, so imo arriving at a somewhat different conclusion is potentially a very big deal. 

This part of the discussion starts at about 106:31 and goes for a few minutes (and, that's the only part I watched thus far).  Here is the relevant Wilford Woodruff quote, from the D&C: 

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Spackman focuses on the fourth sentence, that the Lord would remove the President of the Church if he were to "attempt" to lead the Church astray... in other words (if I understand Spackman correctly) the Lord would intervene if the attempt was intentional and deliberate, but not necessarily if an honest mistake was being made. 

Here is that first sentence again:  "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray."  

Does that sentence taken in isolation accurately and fully convey what Wilford Woodruff intended?  The next two sentences seem to reinforce it; but the fourth can arguably be interpreted as introducing the conditionality Spackman proposes.

So it sounds to me like Spackman is saying "What Wilford Woodruff really means is this:  'The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to deliberately attempt to lead you astray.'" [inserted bolded words imo implied by Spackman]

Which imo is a big change from the "no leading astray" doctrine, because it does not proscribe unintentional leading astray.  Imo this would greatly reduce the scope of the doctrinal safety-net against Church presidents making big mistakes.

@Calm, or anyone else, what do you think? 

Edited November 16, 2024 by manol

[rpn]

So long as our leaders are human, they will make mistakes.   I don't recall a single scriptural or modern prophet who claimed to be without sin and perfect, or who claimed to always know that everything they teach comes straight from the mouth of God.   (And  President Woodruff is the prophet who got revelation that Joseph Smith did the dynastic sealings wrong and direction to corrected it (which we all learned in RS/EQ during the year we studied him).   Seems to me that the quote can't possibly have meant what it  described sometime as saying  (or it could have been the catalyst for God telling Pres. Woodruff  to correct Joseph Smith's error in that matter, depending on the relative timing of the correction and the Wilford Woodruff quote.

Edited November 16, 2024 by rpn

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, manol said:

Spackman focuses on the fourth sentence, that the Lord would remove the President of the Church if he were to "attempt" to lead the Church astray... in other words (if I understand Spackman correctly) the Lord would intervene if the attempt was intentional and deliberate, but not necessarily if an honest mistake was being made

That is how I understood it.

[JAHS]

44 minutes ago, manol said:

So it sounds to me like Spackman is saying "What Wilford Woodruff really means is this:  'The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to deliberately attempt to lead you astray.'" [inserted bolded words imo implied by Spackman]

Which imo is a big change from the "no leading astray" doctrine, because it does not proscribe unintentional leading astray.  Imo this would greatly reduce the scope of the doctrinal safety-net against Church presidents making big mistakes.

 

This sounds like a reasonable interpretation to me. And if a church president did unintentionally lead us astray and we followed what he said God would not hold us responsible for it and He would inspire the prophet to make a correction. It seems unlikely that this would ever happen though because all 15 of the prophets have to agree with and receive confirmation for whatever doctrine comes forth. 

[manol]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

if a church president did unintentionally lead us astray and we followed what he said God would not hold us responsible for it

Is this official Church doctrine?  I've encountered this idea before but don't recall its source.  Is there a source in the LDS canon? 

[Dario_M]

The video is quite long i allready see. Is this really from the church? 

Edit, i hear them saying that they are Saints so that will do. 

Edited November 16, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

The video is quite long i allready see. Is this really from the church? 

Edit, i hear them saying that they are Saints so that will do. 

It is not from the Church.  FAIR is the organization that I belong to that answers questions about and defends the Church against criticisms.

There is no requirement to watch it.  Only if you want to.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

Edited November 16, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is not from the Church.  FAIR is the organization that I belong to that answers questions about and defends the Church against criticisms.

There is no requirement to watch it.  Only if you want to.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

I've allready watched a little portion.

But i needed to go to the supermarket  (15 minutes walk) to buy some things. I allready went.

I rather wanna leave early, because it's Saturday today, and further on the day it will get pretty busy in the store. 

Now i'm home again and i will watch it futher. 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, rpn said:

I wish they had talked about the fact that the church organization and lay leadership  means that each member has likely had the personal experience of really trying to know what God wants them to do in something, of praying, fasting, and study and ultimately chosen to do something that we believe is His will, only to know for certain as some future time that we got it wrong somehow.    I think that is is intentionally part of the Plan.

Yes, and I seem to recall a recent Church President recounting his experience as a bishop, in which he gave advice to a young man which turned out to be wrong.  Was that Pres Monson?

[JAHS]

14 hours ago, manol said:

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

if a church president did unintentionally lead us astray and we followed what he said God would not hold us responsible for it

Is this official Church doctrine?  I've encountered this idea before but don't recall its source.  Is there a source in the LDS canon? 

Nothing official in the cannon, it's something that just makes sense to me. But I think the point is that God would not allow it to happen in the first place.

President Woodruff said:
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

Of course we have to assume that President Woodruff is not leading us astray with that statement. 😉

We believe we are accountable for our own sins and not Adams transgressions (AofF #2). So it makes sense that we would also not be held accountable for the sin of a prophet who leads others astray.

[manol]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

President Woodruff said:
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

Of course we have to assume that President Woodruff is not leading us astray with that statement.

Imo you do not have to make that assumption, but obviously you can choose to.  To hold that belief and align yourself to it is a choice.

In my opinion we are each responsible for our actions, our reactions, our beliefs, our attitudes, our thoughts, and our feelings.  But I do not believe God is in the business of collecting grievances to hold against us.  So imo it's not a question of who God assigns punishment to if there is a mistake; rather, it's a question of whether we individually choose the highest path we are able to in the moment.  I think that's what we're supposed to do, and sometimes it can call for a lot of courage. 

Of course I could be wrong.

Edited November 16, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

I noticed the title in the podcast cover art strikes out the "Inf", leaving "allibility". Does this mean the prophets always have an alibi?

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I noticed the title in the podcast cover art strikes out the "Inf", leaving "allibility". Does this mean the prophets always have an alibi?

It looks to me that only the “In” is crossed out, suggesting the possibility that prophets are fallible. 

[rpn]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Woodruff said:
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

In addition to declaring the dynastic sealings wrong, Pres. Woodruff stopped polygamy.   Was this statement in the context of saying that revelatory change happens and it won't happen without God's participation and approval?

[3DOP]

On 11/15/2024 at 1:16 PM, rpn said:

I wish they had talked about the fact that the church organization and lay leadership  means that each member has likely had the personal experience of really trying to know what God wants them to do in something, of praying, fasting, and study and ultimately chosen to do something that we believe is His will, only to know for certain as some future time that we got it wrong somehow.    I think that is is intentionally part of the Plan.

I am not LDS, but I am a theist who believes that God shows His existence to man through His creation. I am after that, also a Christian and a Catholic believing that we all are created by God for reasons that are not completely revealed to any of us.

I am convinced that those of us who try to understand and do the will of our Creator and accidentally do or find the "wrong" thing, are more pleasing to our Creator than those who, without seeking the will of their Creator, accidentally do or find the "right" thing.        

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

In addition to declaring the dynastic sealings wrong, Pres. Woodruff stopped polygamy.   Was this statement in the context of saying that revelatory change happens and it won't happen without God's participation and approval?

This statement was given after the manifesto was presented for vote.  It is the very end of his talk.  His entire talk is trying to reassure the members that the manifesto was correct.  He gives other reasons why the manifesto was correct.  One is that he will die soon and so will see Joseph, Brigham, and Christ and he wouldn't issue this manifesto unless he was sure it was God's will.  He also talks about how the Jackson County temple never was finished and that God was ok with His people doing their best while not succeeding.

You can see the article at https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1542458.  There might be a transcribed version somewhere as well.

[MrShorty]

Since this particular issue is central to my own faith crisis/deconstruction/reconstruction process, I was excited to see what FAIR would put together here in this podcast. I'm inclined to say that it was good conversation with a good panel of people involved. My big disappointment, again, as one for whom this is the central problem, is that they seemed to mostly repeat what others have said about the topic without providing anything really new that might take the discussion further. Things I would throw out to take the conversation deeper:

1) As important as it is to acknowledge God's grace, it sometimes seems to me that this becomes an excuse or something so that we don't have to face up to consequences for our errors and not have to try to do better. After all, if God simply redeems prophets in/from their mistakes, and God redeems the church that followed the prophets into their mistakes, and God redeems those who were turned away from the church by prophetic errors, why bother trying to be right about moral stuff? Do we believe that there are consequences (even if God will redeem those in the next life) for prophetic error?

2) Sometimes it feels to me like we start to put other virtues higher than the quest for truth. Pres. Oaks implied that loyalty to the church and the brethren might supersede the quest for truth in 2018. Others like to suggest that prophetic errors are  actually "loyalty/obedience test" that God is orchestrating to see if we will follow the prophets even when they ask something that seems morally questionable to us. Our superficial rhetoric usually focuses on the virtue of following the prophet into truth and righteousness, but the topic of prophetic fallibility sometimes seems to cause us to put some other virtue above truth and righteousness. Sometime I see this take a turn into "the important thing is that prophets have authority for essential ordinances/sacraments, which is much more important than whether or not they are teaching correct precepts and principles."

3) I sometimes think one of the hardest part of discussing prophetic fallibility is that we always speak in vague, generic terms. As soon as someone suggests a specific example (Kirtland Bank, priesthood and temple tan, or whatever), we immediately jump to defending the person/character of the prophets/apostles involved, but never seem explore the errors the prophets and apostles make. IMO, I think it would be helpful for someone (whether FAIR wants to do it or not, I don't know) to carefully explore specific examples of where prophets/apostles may have made mistakes so we can understand something about what it means for prophets to be fallible. Personally, I think the priesthood and temple ban might be the best case study, because we have decent historical documentation of what happened from the colonial Christians that originated some of the problematic ideas about race before the Restoration even began, how those ideas infiltrated (or didn't) the early Restoration, the implementation (in fits and starts as Paul Reeves puts it) of the ban, when it became solidified, the process of getting the ban lifted, the eventual disavowal of the justifications, and today's efforts at anti-racism. The  highly emotional nature of issues around race tends to make it a bit fraught, but I think it makes a good case study.

4) Ultimately, the underlying issue involves questions of epistemology, which is why I find Spackman's comments about prophets/scripture being mostly human endeavors with occasional divine inputs (as opposed to what I think most LDS think of as prophets are mostly operating under divine influence with occasional human errors) an intriguing idea. I think Spackman has some interesting insights into this, but the big question is what do we really believe about the nature of prophets and revelation? I'm inclined to agree that the process of revelation seems to be a lot of human prophets doing their best with the information they have coupled with occasional divine inputs, but I think this is heterodox enough to need some more time and pushback and discussion (and probably some inputs from higher authorities if they were willing to validate such a model). Perhaps the discussion needs to also include Givens "vice roy" model of prophets to see how that model might contribute to our understanding.

5) Part of the real challenge of the prophetic fallibility is less about history and more about implications for the here and now and the future. LGBTQ+ issues (do we really believe that the recent trans policies the church implemented came from God?? I don't), Women's equality (complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, priesthood ordination or not), and other current issues tend to cause division and strife in the church, and part of the division centers on the question of whether our current leaders are correctly discerning God's will or are holding on to outdated traditions of men. I think this is where the rubber really hits the road, as we try to wrestle with the current issues and the question of whether I will remain active and participating in the church.

6) I've mentioned before that one of the big insights from Paul Reeves' book was how the prophetic fallibility fits under the broader umbrella of the problem of evil (discussion here https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75457-paul-reeves-prophetic-fallibility-and-the-problem-of-evil/ ). As this problem continues on in my faith journey without real resolution, I'm finding more and more that the underlying problem is a question of why God would choose (assuming He has a choice and is not constrained by some higher power/law) not to intervene when prophets make mistakes. Of course, this is substantially the same question of why God doesn't intervene to prevent natural disasters or inequity or injustices of all kinds or human on human violence. I find the problem of evil to be essentially intractable, even though there are some very good ideas and theodicies out there to consider. Ultimately, maybe the problem of prophetic fallibility is essentially unanswerable, and we ultimately have no real recourse other than God's grace and mercy to redeem us from the consequences of prophetic errors.

Edited November 18, 2024 by MrShorty

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

, why bother trying to be right about moral stuff? Do we believe that there are consequences (even if God will redeem those in the next life) for prophetic error?

Because people suffer when errors are made even if ultimately all are healed. Even if for purely selfish reasons, we should try and avoid error as much as possible in this life so less suffering occurs in the here and now because we are still here in the here and now and I don’t know about others, but I would prefer less suffering myself. 

Edited November 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Pres. Oaks implied that loyalty to the church and the brethren might supersede the quest for truth in 2018

If you change loyalty to love, are you more comfortable with the priority?  I am not saying that you should be, just curious. 

[manol]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

... this is substantially the same question of why God doesn't intervene to prevent natural disasters or inequity or injustices of all kinds or human on human violence. I find the problem of evil to be essentially intractable...

Ime this is an area where near-death experiencers have a lot to offer because they can speak from an arguably relevant perspective that is not normally available to the rest of us.  Here is a YouTube channel which has compilations of excerpts from NDE accounts arranged by topic:

NDE Compilations - YouTube

In the video @Calm linked to this insight came up:  "Prophets are forthtellers, not foretellers."

With this in mind, might there be "prophets" on earth today who are not members of the leadership of the LDS Church?

If so, might they have anything to say that would be of value to members of the LDS Church? 

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

If you change loyalty to love, are you more comfortable with the priority?

I may have to think about it some more, but maybe or probably. I think it depends on what implications we might assign to the idea of "loving the church." For example, does this idea include the concept of "tough love" -- the kind of love that is often invoked whenever we want to confront sinners who need to repent. My concern with prioritizing loyalty over truth is how that delays or impedes change when it is needed, and I think I can see the same concern with love.

Maybe at the end of the day, the question isn't really one of ranking virtues, but a deeper discussion about how different virtues come together to bring about goodness. I think there is something to the idea that the hardest moral and ethical dilemmas are when different virtues are in competition or conflict with each other. Maybe that's what I'm really looking for here is a deeper, more nuanced discussion of how truth, righteousness, loyalty, obedience, love, and other virtues exist in tension when we are talking about prophets making mistakes.