Question about prophetic fallibility

Wilford Woodruf blessing people that the would live to see the second coming. John Taylor and his reported revelation of the Savior and JS coming to him and telling him that polygamy would never be discontinued. Joseph Fielding Smith saying that man would never walk on the moon and that the church’s position on evolution is that “it is a great fake”. Henry D. Moyle bringing the church to near insolvency with his programs that led to inflated and fraudulent baptisms and over building of chapels. Franklin D. Richards and his insistence that the Martin and Willys companies just needed to have faith and they’d be fine. JS and polygamy.

The following quotes may come in handy.

“The burdens which roll upon me are very great. My persecutors allow me no rest, and I find that in the midst of business and care the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Although I was called of my Heavenly Father to lay the foundation of this great work and kingdom in this dispensation, and testify of His revealed will to scattered Israel, I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times” (History of the Church, 5:516).

In a sermon preached a little over a month before he was martyred, he declared, “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

“He said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect,” an associate recorded. “If they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities” (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 2, Journal, 1832–1842, ed. Dean C. Jessee [1992], 489).

As Nibbler stated these do support imperfect prophetic behavior HOWEVER, they also seem to reaffirm the correctness of the doctrine.

This does not appear to be a battle that can be won.

ch a list would be useful to demonstrate that the Q15 have a stewardship for managing a church of 15+ million people, which is different than the stewardship of each individual for stewardship of his/her selves and their families. I believe they should be listened to and then each individual must decide how to apply that guidance in his/her own stewardship.

You may be more successful focusing on the idea that prophetic counsel is for the church generally and that “individual adaptation” should be applied to personal circumstances. While there may be varying interpretations, only the most extreme hardliners would oppose using any personal judgement/revelation in how to apply the prophet’s words to individual circumstances.

Personally, I would approach this as a chance to teach correct principles and have people govern themselves. Any other approach is a potential landmine, imo.

In other words, I would be very careful of providing specific examples and focus more on the idea that all of us are mortal and subject to the limitations of mortality. I might open up a conversation about instances in my life when I felt prompted to do something differently than the general counsel to the overall membership – and I can think of a few that are innocuous enough to make the point without causing a firestorm. I might then ask others if they have examples in their own lives where they felt prompted to act differently than the general counsel for the overall membership.

If I wanted to make the point from a more orthodox perspective, I might quote from Elder Oaks’ talk “Two Lines of Communication” – since he said in crystal clear terms that too many members want to rely on leaders for their personal decisions and that individual members are entitled to revelation for their own lives. (There is a summary of that talk in a lesson I taught my Sunday School class. Search out archives for the title, if you are interested to see how I framed it for them.)

This will be useful for the upcoming PR lesson #11, I think, on following the prophet

For clarification – are you teaching lesson #11?

If you are then you will have greater freedom to direct the course of the meeting.

If not then adding more than one or two thought provoking questions could be seen as hijacking the lesson.

There is quite a bit about lesson #11 and how the “14 fundamentals of following the prophet.” If that is what you are looking for, I have it on my todo list to look these all up in preparation for that lesson being giving in HPG. From SWK being ticked at ETB, ETB being called in front of the Q12 for giving the talk (which from what I have read, ETB didn’t seem to care what his fellow apostles thought – they told him to back off the John Birch society and he turned around and published something that the average lay member would assume was an endorsement from the church).

# Noah, built the ark, then went off and became drunk, got involved in bad things.

“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” (Genesis 9)

# Moses “And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.” (Exodus 2)

# David, wrote the Psalms, then came along that Uriah and Bathsheba business. (2 Samuel 11)

# Doubting Thomas (John 20)

# Peter denies Christ three times (in every Gospel)

# Paul was a persecutor of Christians originally.

# Joseph Smith went and lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.

These are three examples I can think of which are

Dallin Oaks gave an interesting talk Oct 2012 entitled “Two lines of Communication” in which he describes two lines of communication to God: the Personal line and the Priesthood line both of which he says are necessary. I like that he recognized the essential role in Personal Revelation, I think he doesn’t give it sufficient credit. Nor does he IMO distinguish clearly the different stewardships of Church and the Individual.

That talk can be found at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

My biggest problem with Oaks’ remarks was that I felt he trumped trumped personal revelation with priesthood revelation.

Perhaps I’m oversensitive. In my youth, I personally experienced to much emphasis from my file leaders telling me not only what to believe, but what to feel.

A BofM seminary class I took, started the year by promising anyone who reads the BofM through the year and gets a testimony of it will get an “A”. Nine months later at the “exit interview” I did not feel I could say I knew the BofM was true, despite reading and praying about it. I believed it, but the teacher insisted that no matter what I said, that I had a testimony.

I believe the long term affect of that interview was to compromise my sense of personal integrity (him telling me what I felt). Most every F&T meetings I get very annoyed at the kiddy parade of children, some of which must be held up to reach the microphone. It is obvious that they have been tutored and trained to spout the party line with no way of understanding what the words meant. Occasionally I will be pleasantly surprised by a pre-teen who can talk with a sincerity and use her own words to describe her feelings. But most of the time I just turn off my ears for a good part of the meeting.

IMO a similar problem is that Missionaries are told to encourage people to get their own conviction, and then the church tells people to shut up and follow the prophet. No exceptions, no allowances. Just shut up and obey. I used to do that but not any more.

I thought the same thing, Ray. I generally like that talk by Elder Oaks and I’m about to write a talk where I quote from it.