FAIR article about prophets not leading us astray

[Anonymous]

“FAIR: Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 23: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [D]”

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/09/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-23-the-early-church-blacks-and-the-church-d” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/09/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-23-the-early-church-blacks-and-the-church-d

I don’t cope well with slow-burn articles that require me to remember an array of ideas while the author makes an overarching point, so perhaps I misunderstood the main drive of the article above.

My take from it was that if we believe what ordained prophets say to us (which, in the past, were often delivered using fire-and-brimstone, shouty words), we have failed to do due diligence. That isn’t how I was raised — nor is it how local governance functions. I was raised to accept the words of prophets verbatim, otherwise I was faithless. Am I wrong?

I have posted a response to that effect. It is pending moderation, of course, and I very much doubt it will see the light of day. My parting comment was, “If a prophet were to say, ‘You, my dear, are fat beyond measure,’ you might justifiably be offended, despite their having perhaps intended to convey the spiritual ‘fatness’ spoken of in Proverbs 13:4. In my view, the responsibility for clarity lies with the author.”

[Anonymous]

I skimmed the article, stopping and reading sections that caught my eye. I like what I’ve read so far and plan to fully read it when I have more time.

This part really stood out to me:

Quote:

“In its complete original context, Wilford Woodruff’s teaching emphasized that the prophet would not … lead people ‘astray from the oracles [or revelations] of God and from their duty.’ Prophets will not lead us away from their true witness of Jesus Christ, from His revelations or from the path, however hard it may be, to follow Him.

If you follow these thoughts to their natural conclusion, you arrive at President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto. If the main body of the Church was ever led too far astray, the Priesthood keys would be lost and removed from the Earth just like they were back during the Great Apostasy. Because the Lord has promised us that the Priesthood would never again be taken from the Earth, this means that the prophet and the majority of the apostles can’t lead us astray.

So, as you can see, the way that Faulk presents that line is not the way that the Church treats it. It’s not that prophets can never make a mistake. It’s that prophets can never lead the Church into such deep apostasy that the Priesthood keys will again be removed from the Earth.

Adopting the idea that the prophet and the rest of the GAs can be wrong has made it a lot easier for me to stay LDS. Naturally, this has led to a few discussions with my more orthodox family and friends and “the prophet can never lead us astray” bit always inevitably comes up. The difference between being incorrect vs leading the church into apostasy is a huge distinction that most people never make.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, this is fully apologetic or defensive of the church. FAIR is devoted to this cause.

The author makes some pretty good points in regards to prophets being imperfect, making occasional mistakes, being influenced by their environment and culture, receiving revelation line upon line, sometimes having to interpret impressions, and even “sometimes they explore paths that don’t work out.”

Carburettor wrote:

My take from it was that if we believe what ordained prophets say to us (which, in the past, were often delivered using fire-and-brimstone, shouty words), we have failed to do due diligence. That isn’t how I was raised — nor is it how local governance functions. I was raised to accept the words of prophets verbatim, otherwise I was faithless. Am I wrong?

Because this is an apologist or defensive article, I felt that it minimized the errors that are made by church leaders by saying that they “aren’t perfect,” or “make occasional mistakes,” or “They aren’t suddenly gifted with infinite knowledge and wisdom when they’re set apart.” It made it seem like my former childlike faith and trust in the church leaders was my own fault.

“Why do we insist on holding our prophets and apostles to an impossible standard that even God Himself doesn’t hold them to?” I assume this question is rhetorical and it is not clear of who it is being asked. Given the context, it seems to be asked of me and people like me that had formerly put the prophet on a pedestal.

The answer, of course, is that we believed what we were taught. Which brings up the next idea…

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Another common refrain is, “What do you expect when the Church teaches us songs like ‘Follow the Prophet, he knows the way’?”

What we expect is that when we teach kids simple, black-and-white concepts, their understanding will expand and deepen as they grow older.

For example, we teach kids not to talk to strangers, but as they get older, we expect them to realize that sometimes, they have to converse with strangers. When you buy something at the store, you usually have to talk to the cashier. When your internet goes down, you have to talk to the guy who comes out to fix it. When you take your car in for repairs, you have to speak to the mechanics. You have to speak to strangers in job interviews. Some of us have to engage with customers at work. Etc.

We teach children by degrees, the same way that the Spirit teaches us. We give them basic concepts when they’re young, and as their maturity and understanding grows, so does the way we discuss these topics.

So, if your thinking on this particular topic hasn’t grown or expanded since you were four years old and singing simplistic songs in Primary, that’s a problem. You should probably talk to somebody about that, because that isn’t normal cognitive function.

I think that the church teachings try very hard to keep us in childlike, black and white, simplistic, or fowler’s stage three belief. When someone feels deceived or betrayed, telling them that they kinda deserved it by being too gullible or failing to do their homework or failing to read the small print is not helpful and is not kind. This is because those that feel betrayed is not the target audience for this article. I believe the target audience is for remaining members of the church that would like very much to have a justification do dismiss, marginalize, and dismiss the concerns of those that feel betrayed. Now these members can feel comforted by wrapping themselves in the shawl of their own righteousness as they turn up their noses and say to themselves…

Quote:

if your thinking on this particular topic hasn’t grown or expanded since you were four years old and singing simplistic songs in Primary, that’s a problem. You should probably talk to somebody about that, because that isn’t normal cognitive function.

[Anonymous]

PazamaManX wrote:

Adopting the idea that the prophet and the rest of the GAs can be wrong has made it a lot easier for me to stay LDS.

That’s a fair point that is entirely understandable. However, if you’re in a Sunday School class and you express a view that you don’t take a particular aspect of doctrine too seriously “because, well, that prophet had his flaws,” you are likely to be veritably roasted. Marshmallows, anyone?

Roy wrote:

When someone feels deceived or betrayed, telling them that they kinda deserved it by being too gullible or failing to do their homework or failing to read the small print is not helpful and is not kind.

It is neither helpful, nor kind, nor true. It is contrary to the essence of what we, as a church, teach about prophecy; it’s simply an apologist get-out-of-jail-free card. A prophet whose words require filtration because they may or may not be inspired is no better than a drunk on the street corner.

Take a look at this page from the Liahona magazine: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2016/09/youth/to-the-point/what-should-i-do-if-i-question-something-a-prophet-has-taught?lang=eng

Quote:

Joseph Smith also said that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” This means that “a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.” It’s usually obvious when the prophet is “acting as such,” such as addressing Church members in an official capacity.

It is our privilege to ask Heavenly Father for our own witness “about whatever His prophet has proclaimed.” If we don’t receive a witness, then we should study what other prophets have said about the matter and choose a course of action. The best course of action is to follow the combined, consistent counsel of the prophets “in all patience and faith.” As we do, we will be blessed.

Let us be clear; we are welcome to study and act all we like in private after a prophet has spoken from the pulpit. However, there is no space for due diligence in respect of our public church membership when a senior leader speaks in an official capacity — and especially so when various messages are in concert with each other. These statements are either officially canonised, or they become unofficial scripture and commandments. We don’t get to question them and remain on the right side of church discipline — even if, sometime later, the Church discards them for reasons of convenience.

[Anonymous]

When Wilford Woodruff said, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray” I think it came from a place of fear, frustration, and desperation.

The context for the quote is Official Declaration 1, trying to get the church to move off of the doctrine of polygamy. I imagine that such a drastic departure from what was taught before was creating a schism among members; the old guard that wanted to keep practicing polygamy, the people that may have had a mild faith crisis because they firmly believed in unchanging and infallible doctrines, people that felt the current prophet was fallen, and so forth. I see the quote as Woodruff attempting to flex some authority and inject some confidence into the membership, all in an effort to keep the church from splintering into factions.

We’ve since proof-texted that teaching to imply that prophets are infallible when teaching doctrines. Every member understands that prophets aren’t perfect, meaning they’re capable of sinning, but I think the overwhelming majority of orthodox members out there would say that the doctrines a prophet teaches are infallible.

What do you do with the member that feels like a doctrine the church has taught has shown cracks of imperfection? If the linked article is any indication, you respond with a combination of gaslighting and victim blaming.

I know the article is apologetic for the church but it tramples all over my and many other members’ experiences. Pretending my experiences didn’t happen or that I’m at fault because I dutifully did my best to follow what I was taught is not going to be a winning strategy. The article just adds to the abuse.

Ok. Point conceded. The church doesn’t teach that members have to follow the prophet 🙄 🙄 🙄. That’s really not the point. The point is that in the past prophets have taught things that were wrong. That leads us to this discussion were we point out how prophets aren’t perfect. Now take that conclusion and apply it to present day. The sitting prophet can teach things that are wrong because he’s not perfect.

When you suggest something like that you get the contradicting apologetic that no, you have to follow the prophet because they’re 100% right about whatever doctrine is being discussed. Then you reboot and start the apologetics all over again from the beginning.

No, no one ever said follow the prophet.

Good, I won’t.

But you have to follow the prophet.

Why? He’s wrong.

Do you want that temple recommend? Do you want that eternal family? The Lord will bless you if you follow the prophet, even when he’s wrong, so just do it.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

What do you do with the member that feels like a doctrine the church has taught has shown cracks of imperfection? If the linked article is any indication, you respond with a combination of gaslighting and victim blaming.

Sadly, this is true.

nibbler wrote:

I know the article is apologetic for the church but it tramples all over my and many other members’ experiences. Pretending my experiences didn’t happen or that I’m at fault because I dutifully did my best to follow what I was taught is not going to be a winning strategy. The article just adds to the abuse.

It does.

nibbler wrote:

Ok. Point conceded. The church doesn’t teach that members have to follow the prophet.

I may be oversimplifying it, but that is precisely what I have learnt throughout my lifetime of membership. I have learnt that prophets are real people with feelings and failings; but if we don’t follow them, we’re going to the bad place. Even when they’re wrong, they’re right — because we must overlook their foibles for the greater good.

nibbler wrote:

Do you want that temple recommend? Do you want that eternal family? The Lord will bless you if you follow the prophet, even when he’s wrong, so just do it.

Everything you say is true. I think I need to abandon FAIR. I subscribed only to find out what happens to comments that question their dogma. I now know. They suppress dissent — just like everyone who is defending territory.

It is for this reason that I must step away if/when DHO takes the reins. I will not turn myself a hypocrite on account of his failings. He won’t be just another guy in a suit, he will be someone I have covenanted to follow. I won’t do it. I’ll come back later.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

It is for this reason that I must step away if/when DHO takes the reins. I will not turn myself a hypocrite on account of his failings. He won’t be just another guy in a suit, he will be someone I have covenanted to follow. I won’t do it. I’ll come back later.

I found it interesting that in 1934 the instructions for bishops in regards to temple recommend applicants stated that the candidate should “sustain without reservation the general and local authorities of the church.” and this instruction remained until 1976. The bad news is that this instruction does not seem to allow for members to support the leaders of the church but also have some concerns or topics on which they might disagree and still be considered in good standing. The good news is that this instruction was removed almost 50 years ago. The bad news is that old habits die hard and simply ceasing to actively enforce something is a very, very slow way to make change.

[Anonymous]

I found it interesting that the author seems to be facing quite quandary of circular logic.

Prophets can sometimes be wrong:

Quote:

They may have thought at the time that they were preaching revealed doctrine, but we know today that they were not. [snip] What I can say for certain is that before 1978, multiple prophets believed it came from revelation and that the Lord would not allow them to change it.

But maybe they were right, who are we to judge?:

Quote:

They believed they were following the direction of God, and we can’t say for certain that they weren’t.

The only way we can know if past leaders were wrong is if current leaders tell us:

Quote:

Sometimes, we get those details wrong, because we’re still learning how to recognize His voice and what He’s saying to us. [snip] Sometimes, it means relying on assumptions and inferences that turn out to be incorrect once more light has been shed. [snip] Church leaders today say that those statements were theories because they were speculative statements based on opinion and ignorance rather than revelation. They may have thought at the time that they were preaching revealed doctrine, but we know today that they were not.

But prophets can sometimes be wrong.

and around and around it goes.

It basically means to follow the living prophet. If the prophet says the sky is green and he knows this through revelation then it must be true. Unless a later prophet says that the previous prophet was mistaken and that he knows this through revelation – then the sky is actually brown. Maybe the sky was green and then changed or maybe it was never green but the most important part is that we all agree that it is now brown … unless an even later prophet says otherwise.

[Anonymous]

The moral of the story appears to be that the prophets rely on the same mechanisms for understanding the will of deity as the rest of us and they have a track record that’s similar to the rest of us.

The question then shifts to whether we want to move forward with an internal vs. external source of authority (or a gradient mixture of both). Just don’t be vocal about it at church if you’ve progressed beyond the need for a prophet. Having a need for a prophet is the glass ceiling of Mormonism.

[Anonymous]

PazamaManX wrote:

I skimmed the article, stopping and reading sections that caught my eye. I like what I’ve read so far and plan to fully read it when I have more time.

This part really stood out to me:

Quote:

“In its complete original context, Wilford Woodruff’s teaching emphasized that the prophet would not … lead people ‘astray from the oracles [or revelations] of God and from their duty.’ Prophets will not lead us away from their true witness of Jesus Christ, from His revelations or from the path, however hard it may be, to follow Him.

If you follow these thoughts to their natural conclusion, you arrive at President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto. If the main body of the Church was ever led too far astray, the Priesthood keys would be lost and removed from the Earth just like they were back during the Great Apostasy. Because the Lord has promised us that the Priesthood would never again be taken from the Earth, this means that the prophet and the majority of the apostles can’t lead us astray.

So, as you can see, the way that Faulk presents that line is not the way that the Church treats it. It’s not that prophets can never make a mistake. It’s that prophets can never lead the Church into such deep apostasy that the Priesthood keys will again be removed from the Earth.

Adopting the idea that the prophet and the rest of the GAs can be wrong has made it a lot easier for me to stay LDS. Naturally, this has led to a few discussions with my more orthodox family and friends and “the prophet can never lead us astray” bit always inevitably comes up. The difference between being incorrect vs leading the church into apostasy is a huge distinction that most people never make.

:thumbup: Agreed. There’s that adage “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.” In reality I don’t hear many members admitting the prophet can be fallible but that my directly relate to the last part of the quote. I was Catholic and didn’t believe the pope to be infallible and I think many Catholics agree. The prophet is certainly fallible, but to your point fail to make that connection that being wrong about something isn’t necessarily leading the church astray. It would be nice if they could admit they were wrong and then correct it – and they could do that relatively unscathed under the guise of “further light and knowledge,” which happens to be a tenet of our religion.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Let us be clear; we are welcome to study and act all we like in private after a prophet has spoken from the pulpit. However, there is no space for due diligence in respect of our public church membership when a senior leader speaks in an official capacity — and especially so when various messages are in concert with each other. These statements are either officially canonised, or they become unofficial scripture and commandments. We don’t get to question them and remain on the right side of church discipline — even if, sometime later, the Church discards them for reasons of convenience.

We can mostly certainly disagree with a prophet, but not necessarily publicly. I feel comfortable sharing things I don’t believe with some family and close friends, and even to some extent under the appropriate circumstances with a church leader. I could not say most of it from the pulpit. In that respect I agree, we can’t openly question and remain free from church discipline (think September Six, although I’m not sure the same thing would happen today). But they cannot control our thoughts. And depending on your point of view, church discipline might not be the worst thing – so what? Do what you want, it doesn’t change my personal relationship with God.

I am certainly not a believer in the unofficial canon, I do not believe GC or the Liahona are scripture.

While I believe there are plenty of things prophets past and present have been wrong about, at the forefront of these are polygamy, Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and current treatment of LGBTQIA+ members. There are many others such as women and the priesthood and temple rites for dead people.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

It basically means to follow the living prophet. If the prophet says the sky is green and he knows this through revelation then it must be true. Unless a later prophet says that the previous prophet was mistaken and that he knows this through revelation – then the sky is actually brown. Maybe the sky was green and then changed or maybe it was never green but the most important part is that we all agree that it is now brown … unless an even later prophet says otherwise.

I’m afraid it’s worse than that.

I decided to be one of those annoying people who write to FAIR using the Contact form.

I wrote about the unresolved topic that confronts me every day without levying criticism at anyone — I simply pointed out that there exists a vacuum where once there was pejorative revelation, but now there is nothing (without a retraction of the former revelations). All that does is compound the problems.

Yesterday, I received a response from a lovely FAIR volunteer. I am grateful for the time she spent formulating her email to a stranger, but she hasn’t realised that her response undermines (or is undermined by) the FAIR article discussed in this thread.

She shared two other FAIR articles with me.

Article 1

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/01/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-ive-received-revelation-different-from-apostles-and-prophets” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/01/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-ive-received-revelation-different-from-apostles-and-prophets

My summary: rather than questioning the Lord’s prophets, we should question ourselves and/or simply be patient.

Article 2

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/09/28/evaluating-claims-that-contradict-the-prophets” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/09/28/evaluating-claims-that-contradict-the-prophets

My summary: the Lord’s prophets do not dispense revelation on demand. Those who seek to fill in perceived gaps or to correct prophecy are guilty of priestcraft. Even if we receive true personal revelation that contradicts or complements prophecy revealed to date, it is for our personal benefit only, and we are forbidden from sharing it.

It seems that the apologist’s position is that even if a prophet (or prophets in concert) makes a mistake — and we can see it — we are not permitted to do anything but wait for them to correct their mistake (if ever), else we put ourselves in a position of apostasy. Sadly, I therefore infer that I’m already an apostate because I published my letter to the Office of the First Presidency on a website. Oops.

My response to the lovely volunteer from FAIR (whom I thanked for her gracious response) included a reference to the unknown number of saints who continue to commit suicide on account of previous punitive revelations that seem to be vanishing into thin air: “My faith in the Lord Jesus Christ remains as robust as it has been for decades. My confidence in the Church as an organisation that holds influence over the choices we make on a daily basis, however, feels destined to wane for as long as the bodies pile up.”

[Anonymous]

The definition of apologist is fairly broad, and at its simplest means “defender of the faith.” Among such defenders there seems to be quite the wide range of responses (“defenses”). Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens certainly fit the definition of apologists, but the response from either of them is likely to be quite different from the responses in the linked articles above. As I started my transition of faith, toward the end of the crisis phase, I tended to lump all apologists together because FAIR was what was mostly accessible and they weren’t doing the trick. They were essentially saying the same things that led to the crisis to begin with and that was very unhelpful (for example in the link above blaming the victim). After some time I realized there were different kinds of apologists (or perhaps they just used different styles). While FAIR does sometimes have some useful/helpful stuff, I generally ignore them because they are mostly unhelpful and almost always resort to spewing the party line while often asking people to make connective leaps that are not reasonably there.

Carburettor wrote:

It seems that the apologist’s position is that even if a prophet (or prophets in concert) makes a mistake — and we can see it — we are not permitted to do anything but wait for them to correct their mistake (if ever), else we put ourselves in a position of apostasy. Sadly, I therefore infer that I’m already an apostate because I published my letter to the Office of the First Presidency on a website. Oops.

By your definition you probably are an apostate, and so am I. I generally admit such jokingly. You may in fact already be on the radar of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. (Yes, it does exist.)

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

By your definition you probably are an apostate, and so am I. I generally admit such jokingly. You may in fact already be on the radar of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. (Yes, it does exist.)

Ha! I doubt I’m on anyone’s radar; I make a point of posting my position anonymously (albeit with a means to contact me) to protect the sensibilities of my wife and children.

If by questioning what prophets past and present have said about my pet topic is tantamount to apostasy, the cap does fit — and I will wear it. If, however, I should be called to account for my actions, I will condemn the distortions of truth that have led us to our current predicament.

Since I don’t publish my name with my accusations, bringing me to “justice” would require a confession of sorts from me. I will confess only to defending truth — whereas the publicly stated views of certain individuals have been anything but that.

[Author]

Posts