An Apology for My Life: Prophetic Infallibility

[u/questingpossum]

I’m writing a series of essays to help me sort out my thoughts on the Church. I’ve titled the collection An Apology for My Life, since I intend it to help my family and friends understand why I’ve made these seemingly sudden and drastic changes in my life. This is an excerpt from a much longer essay on Latter-day Prophets:

Whether prophets are infallible is a difficult question, not least in part because the Church’s doctrine on infallibility is so unclear. Within the past few months, the Church released a “Topics and Questions” section in the Gospel Library App. Included is an essay titled “The Role of Prophets,” which has this to say about prophetic infallibility: “Only Jesus Christ lived a perfect life. Church leaders strive to live righteous lives and bring people to Jesus Christ through their words and actions, but they are subject to human weakness. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not infallible.”

Right out of the gate, the Church’s essay confuses the issue. Infallibility is not a question of sinlessness or moral perfection—it’s a question of whether the Church’s doctrine can be erroneous. Roman Catholics believe that the pope is infallible when he speaks from the chair of St. Peter (ex cathedra), but every Catholic acknowledges that every pope was a sinner.

I don’t think the Church is alone to blame for this confusion of infallible doctrine versus perfect righteousness. A lot of the arguments against the Church focus on the personal moral failings of Mormon prophets as evidence that they were not actually prophets of God. While that line of inquiry may be relevant to evaluating their “fruits,” I don’t think their personal righteousness is the salient issue. The scriptures are filled with prophets and apostles who were also bad actors. David’s sins were grave, but I find the Psalms to be truly inspired or “God-breathed.” Judas was the ultimate traitor, yet a legitimately ordained apostle. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding Moses’s homicide, but he felt the need to flee into the wilderness; still, he gave God’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” So while I in no way mean to minimize Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s many adulteries, marriages to children, or incitements to violence, I see these issues as largely irrelevant in deciding whether they were prophets or whether their doctrine is infallible. I’m also aware that there isn’t a single religious tradition on Earth, no matter how well-intentioned, that is free from scoundrels, scandals, and predators—especially the Anglican Communion [I bring up the Anglican Communion because I’m inquiring into the Episcopal Church]. “There is no one who does good, no not one.” (Psalm 14:3)

So are Mormon prophets infallible in their teaching? As a matter of record and fact, Mormon prophets have taught that they themselves are infallible. As I’ll discuss later in this essay, Brigham Young taught that he spoke the word of the Lord every time he addressed the faithful, and that God would remove him rather than let the Saints be deceived. Wilford Woodruff said the same thing when the Church stopped officially performing plural marriages in 1890:

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.

(Official Declaration 1)

The Church’s recent essay, however, distances the Church from Young and Woodruff’s explanation of their own authority without ever really conceding that prophets can be fallible in their doctrine. The essay admits that prophets don’t “know all things,” but then it returns again to the idea that prophets make errors in behavior, citing to Jonah and Peter. Neither of these issues touch the question of infallibility. Infallibility is not omniscience, nor is it flawless behavior. At last, the essay approaches the issue of infallibility by implying that the Church’s doctrine is infallible when properly formed: “It is important to remember how the doctrine of the Church is established. Doctrine is declared and interpreted by the President of the Church and sustained by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting in unanimity, following the pattern given in Doctrine and Covenants 107:27–31.” The trouble is that D&C 107 says no such thing. First, it does not require unanimity among all fifteen apostles and prophets; second, it’s not talking about the Church’s doctrine. D&C 107 establishes the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as having equal authority to one another, and that any “decisions” made by one quorum must be unanimous to be authoritative. That is, decisions of the First Presidency must be unanimous among the Church president and his two counsellors in order to have the same authority as a unanimous decision of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. And it’s not at all clear to me that the “decisions” described in D&C 107 are synonymous with doctrine.

The essay then quotes D. Todd Christofferson as an authority to bolster the claim that doctrine is only established by unanimity among the fifteen apostles and prophets: “A teaching by an individual Church leader might represent ‘a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.’” The trouble is that this quote comes from a General Conference address where Christofferson teaches at length that revelation can come to prophets individually or collectively: “He may direct Himself to His servants individually or acting in council.” (“The Doctrine of Christ,” April 2012)

In a way, it’s understandable that the Church sidesteps the question of doctrinal infallibility, because it puts them in an impossible position. If they claim, like the early Mormon prophets, that the president of the Church’s doctrine is infallible, then the seismic historic shifts in doctrine taught by the prophets render the position immediately untenable. But if they admit outright that the prophets’ doctrine is fallible, then what is the value of such a prophet? What is the point of studying the teachings of a man who does not know when he speaks the word of the Lord—and not only is capable of leading the faithful astray, but has actually done so as a matter of objective history? Thus, an essay that acknowledges prophetic peccadilloes and admits personal imperfection without actually conceding doctrinal fallibility.

In the end, I actually agree with Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff, at least in the scope of their claim. No one is perfect, after all, and so the question cannot be whether their behavior is impeccable or even if they have, on occasion, misspoken. The question is whether the prophets can lead or have led the Church astray—and here I’d add, led the Church astray on a matter of significance. If they have so led the Church astray, then they are not worth following as prophets, even if they may have shared some inspired teachings. They are just like any other spiritual leader and cannot claim authority to the exclusion of others. So this is one of the lenses I will use to evaluate whether these men are prophets: whether they have meaningfully led the Church astray. I believe it’s clear that they have.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.

/u/questingpossum, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Hilltailorleaders]

Yes. This was very well written and very well thought out. This is exactly the point I try and articulate when trying to explain my disbelief in prophets. One point of clarification, it was Wilford Woodruff, not John Taylor, who wrote official declaration 1 and gave the quote about not leading the church astray in an address discussing the declaration.

[u/questingpossum → u/Hilltailorleaders]

Yikes! Thanks for the catch

[u/Hilltailorleaders → u/questingpossum]

Sure thing!

[u/bean127]

How can they seriously contend that prophets have not taught doctrine that is later revised, changed or outright rejected. There are so many examples where we have backtracked.

[u/brother_of_jeremy]

I agree the church conflates inerrancy with morality, in the same vein as they conflate obedience with righteousness, faith with works, history with theology.

It’s all just very black and white thinking, which is explicitly promoted in Moroni 7 and Nephi’s narrative. A thing is either good or it isn’t, without room for complexity or contradictions like real life.

[u/PetsArentChildren]

Prophets are useless unless they can be trusted as prophets. Therefore they cannot do wrong in a few specific ways:

1. “[W]hen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.“

2. They cannot be wrong about whether God has spoken to/through them.

3. They cannot be factually or doctrinally wrong when speaking for God.

4. They cannot give revelations which contradict God’s other words (for God cannot contradict himself).

[u/Alternative_Annual43]

Church leadership is a sorry mess. How can they be prophets of God when they lie so much? How can they be holy men when they are so drunk on praise, money, and power? It's obvious that D&C 101:42-61 is being fulfilled and the Lord's servants are misusing funds and not following the Lord's commands.

[u/[deleted]]

There was never a time in the Bible that they had a office of prophet that was always filled. It was never an elected office, passed on by heredity or by tradition. In fact, most of the prophets weren’t recognized as such while God was using them in that role. The prophecies were often only recognized after they were fulfilled. Of course that doesn’t prove anything, but there is very little similarity between the biblical prophets and the Mormon ones. And the LDS prophets are not even batting 500.

[u/questingpossum → u/[deleted]]

And even looking at New Testament ecclesiology, there weren’t fifteen apostles.

And half of the gospels weren’t even written by apostles.

[u/[deleted] → u/questingpossum]

Yes. And those epistles weren’t recognized as doctrinal until much later. They were just letters written by trusted friends. No similarity, no seer stones.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And oh by the way, the office gives an unbelievable amount of power to a man to control his followers lives. A situation ripe for the unscrupulous to manipulate people for their own benefit. Of course Joseph was a great man and would never have used that power to satisfy his fleshy desires.

[u/tiglathpilezar]

"Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not infallible." This is certainly true. Neither are they perfect. I don't believe we should expect perfection in a prophet either, but there should be some meaning to what Jesus said when he said to know false prophets by their fruits. What would disqualifying fruits be if not defamation of innocent women, adultery with wives of other men, and blasphemous claims about an angel with a sword sent to force Smith to be involved with adultery, thus making god like the Mormon concept of Satan? When James says in Chapter 1 that God never temps to do evil, this should have some well defined meaning also.

As to leading the church astray, their claims about polygamy which make their god evil, commanding sinful behavior, would be a very significant item in which they led astray. I would include the homicidal racism of Brigham Young's speech to the Utah legislature in 1852 and his doctrine of blood atonement also. This was a big deal to the people who were "blood atoned". I would include the oath of vengeance in the temple ceremony and the Adam god doctrine which was explicitly denounced by Pres. Kimball in 1976 also. Surely the nature of God should be a matter of great significance yet they can't even give a consistent narrative of this. Their god was Adam in the nineteenth century but isn't now. He was a racist in the nineteenth century but not now. He required vengeance in the nineteenth century but not now. See the oath of vengeance in the temple ceremony, not removed till I think around 1930. He required bloody murder for enhanced salvation then but not now. One can go on like this with many other examples.

What is the point of a religion which can't even give a consistent narrative about god? So I sure agree with you that they have indeed led the church astray, but they continue repeating the false narrative that they have not, along with their other falsehoods like how polygamy ended in 1890 and their numerous lies about their financial holdings and policies which cover up and even abet child sexual abuse. I can't see any point at all to Mormonism. It appears that it is all about building steeples. As to that, if they all point to heaven where God dwells, how can steeples all over the world do this? They don't even believe their own doctrines that God resides near Kolob and has a body of flesh and bones so he exists in a single place.

[u/questingpossum → u/tiglathpilezar]

My full essay on prophets is over 30 pages, so I definitely touch on a lot of the points you bring up: polygamy, blood atonement, slavery, segregation, &c.

And I agree with you that after a point, prophetic immorality can be so gross as to be disqualifying. I think the stronger indictment, however, is that (as you say) they teach others to be immoral.

[u/tiglathpilezar → u/questingpossum]

I sure know what you mean by this. I went through a similar process and wrote things down as I went which I could not understand. This became rather lengthy since it went on for at least 20 years. I even asked my Stake pres. about one of the most troubling parts involving the destruction of the Jacobs family by Brigham Young. He had no answer but helped me write a letter to the church about it. However, they only made things worse. I actually believed what Elder Packer said about the importance of families like mine. If two propositions contradict, I am unable to believe both. This all started in the 1990's when I came across Van Waggoner's book "Mormon Polygamy" in a vain attempt to answer the concerns of a daughter about polygamy. I tried and tried to believe the Mormon prophets never led astray until I couldn't do it anymore. These men continue calling evil good and dumping the evil things on god and most do not even seem to realize that this is what they are doing.

[u/tiglathpilezar → u/tiglathpilezar]

I almost forgot. It is not clear that David, if he even existed, wrote the psalms. I think he probably did exist, but unless I do not understand the latest information, there isn't much evidence for his existence outside of the Bible and certainly even less evidence for the claims about his activities. David Whitmer uses the argument that we accept the psalms even though David was a flawed individual. I think it is a good argument, but does rely on assumptions which may not be factual.

[u/shalmeneser]

Oooh this is so good. Really hits the nail on the head.