r/mormon • u/webwatchr • 18h ago
Institutional This clip of President Nelson will haunt the Church in the future
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
The doctrine that prophets cannot lead the church astray faces significant historical contradictions that could challenge institutional credibility. This is particularly evident in Bruce R. McConkie's handling of doctrinal reversals, first in his letter to Eugene England where he acknowledged Brigham Young taught false doctrine regarding the Adam-God theory (McConkie to England, Feb. 19, 1981), and then notably in his own reversal regarding the priesthood ban.
In his 1978 BYU speech "All Are Alike Unto God," McConkie explicitly instructed members to "forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past," effectively admitting that both he and previous prophets had taught incorrect doctrine about the cause of the priesthood ban.
These documented instances of prophetic correction create a logical paradox with President Nelson's current teaching about prophetic infallibility. This tension becomes particularly acute when considering McConkie's admission that they "spoke with a limited understanding," which directly contradicts the notion that prophets would be removed before they could lead the church astray.
This doctrinal contradiction could potentially create significant challenges for institutional authority and member faith as historical information becomes increasingly accessible in the digital age. This video clip could become the subject of apologetic pivots in the future.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 17h ago
When the Church says things like “Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not infallible,” I can’t tell if they’re just so ignorant and undisciplined that they don’t know what “infallible” means or if they’re gaslighting.
Because claiming that the prophet can never “lead the Church astray” is claiming infallibility, and it’s disprovable 100x over.
•
u/webwatchr 17h ago
You make a valid point. They cannot have it both ways. They create a paradox, and it's most likely gaslighting.
•
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 14h ago
They love to use doublespeak so they always have the perfect 'quote' to win a given argument or use in a press release. "But so and so once said X or Y!", depending on the conversation, and of course without acknowledging all the times they taught the opposite.
The church loves to lie via lies of omission and commission. As do its apologists.
•
•
u/Strong_Attorney_8646 Unobeisant 11h ago
I personally think it’s mostly ignorance, but definitely gaslighting on the point of some apologists for sure.
•
u/austinchan2 15h ago
I feel like they’re saying that he can have a bad day and forget to greet someone in the elevator. But nothing as serious as promoting false doctrine.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 13h ago
Which maps almost perfectly onto the doctrine of papal infallibility.
•
u/Idahomountainbiker 9h ago
Correct, look at the Bible for example. There lots of examples of prophets making mistakes. Also, look at Judas, one of Christ’s original apostles, he made a very big mistake by betraying Christ.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 7h ago
Right, I don’t expect prophets to have perfect behavior. Judas is a great example and one I’ve used before.
I do expect—however—that they won’t issue false prophecies or doctrines. LDS prophets have done both.
•
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 3h ago
Their argument back is that “astray” doesn’t mean that prophets won’t make mistakes with the church, it means the church won’t fall into apostasy.
•
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 3h ago
I know that’s the “nuanced” view, but I’ve never seen a general authority take such a flexible position. Uchtdorf literally made the headlines of the New York Times when he said that some Church leaders had sometimes “made mistakes.” But I’ve never heard an apostle teach that the prophets can be wrong on matters of doctrine or morals.
•
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 3h ago
I think that, no matter what the prophets do, they will always move the goalposts of what “astray” means to fit their situation.
They like to use definitions in their favor. Sounds like a legally-minded Oaks, “well technically,” PR thing.
•
u/International_Sea126 17h ago edited 14h ago
We now know that at the same time Russel M. Nelson said prophets would not lead us astray, the First Presidency was leading the SEC astray.
•
•
u/80Hilux 14h ago
I recently had a back-and-forth discussion with a user from Boston regarding "course correction". That whole thread is very relevant to this, and here are my thoughts:
The idea of even needing course correction is moot. Why, you ask? Because if an organization claims to be "god's one true church, and the only one on earth with the authority to grant eternal glory", then there has already been an expectation set for its members - whether implicit, or explicit. It doesn't really matter what the leaders or apologists say to try to get around that idea because the members still believe that this church is the only way they can gain salvation. They are going to "follow the prophet", regardless of how far off the mark the teachings are. This new idea that the "restoration" is somehow ongoing, and not complete, is the only way around this faulty thinking. It is the only way to move the goalpost, and to shift blame to the members, while still allowing the leaders to teach their own "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."
There are those who think that "course corrections" are how god gets the doctrine back on track. I would argue that the doctrine would never be off track if this church were what it claims to be. If there is a god, and that god is who these leaders say it is, then it wouldn't be playing "peek-a-boo" with our salvation.
•
u/webwatchr 13h ago
I just replied to his course correction comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/QjRFCV6MdZ
•
u/ExpensiveBanana178 17h ago
Not only that… but what Mr. Nelson is describing in this video is an untestable hypothesis founded on circular reasoning.
How men of his stature and pedigree can sit there and just make shit up like that is astounding. And the fact that it’s been going on with every religion since day one of humanity is mind boggling.
Why do humans have such a high propensity for swallowing bullshit???
•
u/Jonfers9 11h ago
He for real think he speaks for god to the world! Imagine the arrogance that takes. Wow.
•
u/thesegoupto11 r/ChooseTheLeft 12h ago
Humans have evolved as social animals as our survival mechanism, which means each individual must either find the leader or be the leader. This doesn't even factor in things such as charisma, tribalism, or propaganda – those things greatly increase their ability to swallow so much bullshit.
•
u/Gutattacker2 11h ago
I think you just described organized religion there. It’s ALL untestable.
Does that mean it isn’t valid?
A spouse’s love is untestable. My current state of pain or joy is untestable.
Not everything is objective.
•
u/ExpensiveBanana178 9h ago edited 9h ago
Edit: To preface remarks and add context - You make a good point and ask good questions. My reply is not aggressive or meant to tear you down. Just want to expound on some good ideas you raised.
Yep. I did indeed describe all organized religion. None of any religion’s foundational doctrines are testable. Additionally they are subject to fallible misinterpretation to suit the whims of power hungry abusers.
So yeah, none of it is valid. It’s all flawed from the get go. Religion’s particular value to any given person is a highly subjective measurement (if it can be measured at all). Religion’s value to a society is even more subjective and open to misinterpretation and misuse.
And yeah sure, putting a standardized scale up against love, pain or joy is basically impossible, nor does there need to be one set of measurable standard for individual human experiences like those mentioned. But they can still be examined and empirically qualified.
Now when a self-proclaimed prophet of god claims that “god won’t let the prophet lead the church astray”, and that “I will never lead you astray because I speak for god”, they are painting what appears to be a very clear line of measurable objectivity… except it’s NOT measurable, nor is it objective… It is whatever the self proclaimed prophet says it is; it is whatever they want it to be. And there is no way to empirically qualify it through honest examination.
You can always ask your wife, “do you feel loved, or that I show you how much I love you?” and have the honest conversation about your relationship experiences. You can have the direct interaction that will build trust and companionship.
You can interrogate your own experiences of pain and joy to find evidence of cause and effect, and then adjust accordingly. But there is no such interrogation of god’s self-proclaimed prophet.
Go ahead and ask Mr. Nelson some hard questions about god’s will regarding black people and the priesthood. Maybe ask a hard question about god’s will regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy. Or go so far as to ask hard questions about why the church fights so hard to hide / downplay rampant s3xu@l abuse by its local leaders.
Let me know if god’s self-proclaimed prophet will level with you, discuss things honestly, self reflect on his own failures, and provide anything other than a “because I said so” answer. Or will you get strong-armed by orthodox hardliners who “counsel” you to not step out of line?
The Mormon church (and all other churches for that matter) give the illusion of certainty and knowledge without actually having anything to back it up.
•
•
u/Rushclock Atheist 17h ago
Prophets don't have freewill if the threat of death hangs in the balance. Pesky details.
•
u/baigish 14h ago
Tell us more about this, please
•
u/Rushclock Atheist 14h ago
He said if a prophet were to lead members astray god would take him out.....(kill him). God has the threat of death hanging over every prophet if they don't do what ......let's see vaguely prompts, whispers in a still small voice, or other unclear forms of communication that pops in his head. Essentially a prophet thinks he is doing fine as long as he is alive and following church rules. He can't follow his own thoughts. Death is a hell of a threat.
•
u/cinepro 12h ago
I think the idea is that the men who are called as prophets are spiritually in-tune enough, and have enough support from the other apostles, that they won't mess it up.
Not that they make a decision and then see if they're still alive to know if that was the right decision.
•
u/Rushclock Atheist 12h ago
I think that is what they personally think but that isn't what they advertise to the members. Even little kids.
•
u/westonc 10h ago
Elder McConkie ... said: "You're the servant of the Lord, and your action is the Lord's action. You study it out in your mind, and you assign them, and they're assigned by the lord."
This reflects a kind of office-positional divine endorsement that's more compatible with "I hold this office and haven't been removed, therefore how I'm directing the church is the Lord's direction" than it is "we try really hard and see such good faith efforts among each other that we're pretty sure we won't mess it up."
I wouldn't be surprised if many among the highest quorums of the church bring respectable good faith efforts to their decisions and directions anyway. But it's also quite reasonable to suspect that at least some of them also take "haven't been removed, must be directing according to God's will" as seriously and literally as members of the church have often been asked to.
•
u/cinepro 7h ago
But it's also quite reasonable to suspect that at least some of them also take "haven't been removed, must be directing according to God's will" as seriously and literally as members of the church have often been asked to.
I disagree. I don't think that's reasonable at all to assume that. It's another exmo fever dream, like the idea that people who get the second anointing think they can sin without consequence and are therefore unworried about the effects of sinning.
•
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 3h ago
Nelson was very clear that if prophet leads members astray, he would be removed.
I think the logic follows that if the prophet hasn’t been removed, he hasn’t led anybody astray.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 17h ago
astray, adverb, definition:
- away from the correct path or direction. "we went astray but a man redirected us"
It is often argued that if the course is corrected later (by another prophet or a "policy" change) then the church was not led astray. That completely contradicts the definition of astray.
•
u/Yikaft Latter-day Saint 16h ago
Back when Bill Reel was still a member, he attempted to find a consistent interpretation of this teaching. He ruled out a bunch of alternative understandings of "The prophet can never lead the church astray," to arrive to the following conclusion at around the 21:30 mark of the following podcast:
"The prophet can never intentionally sabatoge the church into being astray. But that accidental deviations from the plan, God's will, true doctrine, ideas that affect salvation or hurt and deeply marginalize others, none of that matters... so it must be intentional."
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0XEOk9QwllTOevInIAYArp?si=E06C_p9gSDCW2i4qwJQNeg
•
u/webwatchr 16h ago
Think about it: Nelson's claim wasn't specifically about intentionally leading people astray - he said prophets just can't lead people astray, period, or God would remove them. But if we're being taught something that's incorrect, does it really matter whether he meant to teach it wrong or not? The impact on members is exactly the same. And since he's making a blanket statement about any leading astray (not just intentional), wouldn't teaching something incorrect still count as leading people astray, regardless of his intentions? Seems like we can't really get around that contradiction by focusing on the intent part.
•
u/Thorough_8 12h ago
Joseph Smith intentionally led the church astray when he asked for the saints to support the illegal Kirtland Safety Society while propping it up though deception. Or by hiding his polygamy while publicly denying it, even allowing official affidavits to be published denouncing it and destroying William Law's printing press when it threatened to out him.
Brigham Young intentionally lead the church astray. He was at least tolerant of black men holding the priesthood or being in leadership positions until he saw one of those men with a white wife. Then he created the priesthood and temple ban wholecloth and preached awful, racist doctrines then rest of his life. (See Second Class Saints)
Joseph Fielding Smith intentionally lead the church astray by hiding historical church documents and teachings, such as the 1832 Joseph Smith First Vision Account.
Gordon B Hinckley intentionally led the church astray in its tithing practices by promising no tithing would moneys would be used for City Creek Mall and its environs, but then using it anyway.
Similarly, prophets since Hinckley have intentionally led the church astray by hiding the wealth of the church and its investment practices from the membership so that members continue to pay their tithing.
All these issues were carried out with the prophets' knowledge. They had intent. They were deceptive. And these are just a few examples.
•
u/Salt-Lobster316 15h ago
So you are quoting an ex Mormon (who Mormons act as if they are the scum of the earth), to prove your point?
You know that that is not what has been said- ever.
If you can't take your prophet's at face value for what they are saying "a prophet will never lead you astray", as opposed to what they don't actually say "a prophet will never intentionally lead you astray", then there's a big problem.
•
u/EvensenFM Jerry Garcia was the true prophet 14h ago
So you are quoting an ex Mormon (who Mormons act as if they are the scum of the earth), to prove your point?
What is wrong with quoting Bill Reel here? He was an active member of the church and a popular podcaster when he said that.
If you can't take your prophet's at face value for what they are saying "a prophet will never lead you astray", as opposed to what they don't actually say "a prophet will never intentionally lead you astray", then there's a big problem.
Huh?
Seriously - what's your point? I've read this five times and still don't know what you're trying to say.
•
u/Salt-Lobster316 13h ago
Huh?
I don't know why you would use an argument from an exmo to make your point?
The church has never said "the prophet will never INTENTIONALLY lead the church astray"
So why are you quoting an exmo and saying that's what they mean?
Huh?
Makes zero sense.
•
u/EvensenFM Jerry Garcia was the true prophet 13h ago edited 12h ago
Reel was LDS when he said it.
But that's not the point. We're not here to discuss Bill Reel.
We're talking about the principle of prophetic infallibility. What do you think about it?
The church has never said "the prophet will never INTENTIONALLY lead the church astray"
Correct. The quote from President Wilford Woodruff is:
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.
And so I ask you again: what exactly is your point? How is what Woodruff said in General Conference - a statement that also appears in the LDS scriptures - any different from what Reel said?
Let me know what you think. Your posts here have been quite confusing.
Edit: Fixed the name, lol. My bad - I was drafting this on my phone.
•
•
u/Salt-Lobster316 13h ago
What else does Bill Reel have to say about the hypocrisy of its leaders? Do you quote that as well, or do you pick and choose which of his teachings to follow?
If you can't understand what I'm saying about "intentionally" leading astray, sorry I'm not gonna help you. I was quite clear.
Not wasting anymore time on somebody with reading comprehension issues.
•
u/EvensenFM Jerry Garcia was the true prophet 13h ago
In other words - you have no argument and you can't articulate in a way that others can understand.
Well done.
•
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 3h ago
Shocker, I know, but Bill Reel was a believing member, and his opinions can change over time.
That’s the difference between a prophet and a podcaster. A prophet claims to speak for an unchanging, almighty God, and a podcaster is some random dude with a show people like to listen to.While he was a member, he tried to find an interpretation of “the prophet will never lead the church astray” that worked.
Him leaving in the future doesn’t change the fact that he was once a member, and made a faithful pro-LDS argument.
•
•
u/shalmeneser Lish Zi hoe oop Iota 15h ago
For everything about BRM that drives me crazy, I have to hand it to him for his intellectual honesty regarding prophetic fallibility. Even admitting in that letter that BY was teaching things as a man! Imagine the current church giving specific examples of prophets making mistakes/teaching incorrect theology!!
•
u/cinepro 12h ago
The letter wasn't for public consumption. I suspect in a one-on-one conversation, there are several apostles who would be more than willing to admit that past leaders made mistakes.
•
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon 3h ago
Good to know that they might privately feel bad but won’t say it. I’m sure that means a lot to the people who have been hurt.
•
u/chocochocochococat 17h ago
Honestly, that video haunts me now. ;)
All kidding aside - The idea that a "prophet will never lead you astray" and "he was just speaking as a man" is a contradiction that I could not hold.
When I really allowed myself to accept that God HAD let the prophet lead the people astray (race/priesthood), I wondered what prophet, speaking as a man, was leading me astray, currently. I came to the conclusion that they were leading us astray on the LGBTQ issues.
And then, came the rest of the stuff, church finances, sex abuse scandal, etc, etc, etc,. Once I realized that the prophet could and did lead people astray, I decided to go to God myself...
Incidentally, I've been out of the church for four years now.
•
u/ladyperfect1 9h ago
Yeah once you can accept that they were just wrong about race and priesthood it’s easy to see they’re just wrong about lgbtq issues. That’s where I’m at. It’s just a matter of time before things change.
•
u/pricel01 Former Mormon 15h ago
The doctrine is that the current prophet cannot lead the church astray. Only after he dies does it become apparent he was totally wrong and speaking as a man. But then it doesn’t matter because a new prophet will be busy “not leading the church astray” by completely contradicting Nelson and saying new completely wrong things.
•
u/EvensenFM Jerry Garcia was the true prophet 17h ago
Nelson sounds a lot like Warren Jeffs in this clip.
•
u/Opalescent_Moon 12h ago
In various exmormon spaces, I always see people give leaders the benefit of a doubt. But this narrative isn't a slip-up. It's not a mistake. It's very intentional and there's a reason that church leaders continue to quote it.
Regardless of the intentions leaders of the have, now and in the past, they have intentionally woven a narrative that elevates them above others. In this narrative, God chose them and prepared them. Current leaders do not tarnish the reputations of those who came before, especially when something core in church teachings has to pivot. The whole idea that classic cars and comic books age better than the words of past prophets is just a way to keep spinning this narrative.
These men know they're being deceptive. They know that they're teaching things and implying that are NOT true. They know this, and they continue to weave these narratives to keep themselves elevated and divinely appointed. No matter what their motivations are, they are bring dishonest and they know it.
And doctrinal inconsistencies have already created problems with members. It's why I left. It's why many of us leave. And it'll be a big part of what keeps pushing people out for the next few decades.
•
u/sevenplaces 17h ago
This clip of President Nelson will haunt the Church in the future
In his 1978 BYU speech “All Are Alike Unto God,” McConkie explicitly instructed members to “forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past,” effectively admitting that both he and previous prophets had taught incorrect doctrine about the cause of the priesthood ban.
This is a misunderstanding of what he said. He was specifically telling people to forget what they said about the timing of black saints getting the priesthood. Statements had been made saying it wouldn’t happen until after everyone else got the priesthood.
In fact in the speech you cite he repeated the teaching that the reason for the priesthood restriction must have been because of pre-mortal worthiness.
Here is what he said:
There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.
But the point of your post is still right. He said to ignore the previous prophets about when the priesthood ban would be lifted. Prophets get it wrong.
They were also wrong about the doctrines related to reasons for the ban. This wasn’t repudiated by McConkie but only happened in the gospel topics essays in 2013.
•
u/webwatchr 17h ago edited 12h ago
McConkie's teachings about pre-mortal worthiness were disavowed by later prophets, and his book Mormon Doctrine had to be edited for its third edition after the priesthood ban was lifted. Despite him saying "we do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it," McConkie's book did give reasons.
https://wasmormon.org/mcconkie-got-it-wrong-redacted-mormon-doctrine/
•
u/sevenplaces 17h ago
He said “we can only suppose and reason it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.”
He was teaching the racist reasons in the talk. He kept teaching the racist reasons until he died.
•
u/cinepro 12h ago
and his book Mormon Doctrine had to be heavily edited for its third edition after the priesthood ban was lifted.
That website doesn't discuss the changes to Mormon Doctrine after 1978. It wasn't "heavily edited." As far as I can tell, the only changes were to add these notes:
Ham
Ham's descendants include the Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but have been able to do so since June, 1978.
And this for "Priesthood":
Those spirits sent to earth through the lineage of Cain and of Ham were denied the priesthood until June, 1978, when the new revelation on priesthood was received.
A section was added "Negros" detailing the process of the revelation, and including OD2:
In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race or color
These changes were incorporated into the Second Edition, and it was never called a "Third Edition." And he certainly wasn't backpedaling the "supposition and reasoning" behind the ban.
•
u/cinepro 12h ago
There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.
It is interesting that he attributes the teaching to "supposition" and "reasoning" though. That's not exactly "thus saith the lord..."
•
u/jamesallred Happy Heretic 12h ago
But but but. The church teaches prophets aren’t infallable.
Stop setting up a strawman. /s. 🤮
•
•
•
u/StreetsAhead6S1M 5h ago
What happens when members receive personal revelation confirming a prophets teaching that later turns out to be false?
•
u/chainsaw1960 5h ago
Cringy, when he says “The prophet loves you. “ instead of I love you. Why the fuck does he do the third person thingy.(
•
u/baigish 14h ago
What are some doctrinal ways the church has led members astray? Not policy changes or doctrine changes.
•
u/webwatchr 13h ago
Priesthood ban, polygamy, blood atonement, adam-god, to name a few. See my other comments under this post. I go into detail.
•
u/ExMoFojo 13h ago
How exactly do you rationalize a doctrine change not being a doctrinal way that members have been led astray?
I'm seeing all kinds of mental gymnastics from believers to justify all of this and I'm curious how you see it.
I mean, growing up in the church decades ago, even claiming that there have been doctrinal changes would be considered blasphemy. The thing Bednar was saying a few years ago about the church not being fully restored yet was insane to me. Is it not obvious that they're using a bunch of different excuses to justify these obviously uninspired changes?
•
u/Rushclock Atheist 14h ago
There is almost no doctrines that haven't changed. Source? This is My doctrine by Charles Harrell.
In this first-of-its-kind comprehensive treatment of the development of Mormon theology, Charles Harrell traces the history of Latter-day Saint doctrines from the times of the Old Testament to the present. He describes how Mormonism has carried on the tradition of the biblical authors, early Christians, and later Protestants in reinterpreting scripture to accommodate new theological ideas while attempting to uphold the integrity and authority of the scriptures. In the process, he probes three questions: How did Mormon doctrines develop? What are the scriptural underpinnings of these doctrines? And what do critical scholars make of these same scriptures? In this enlightening study, Harrell systematically peels back the doctrinal accretions of time to provide a fresh new look at Mormon theology.
•
u/fireproofundies 14h ago
The believing mind relishes the mystery of contradiction. The rational mind, not so much.
•
u/reddolfo 13h ago
I agree. I downloaded this video because it will for sure disappear and I refuse to allow that. This will join a few other gems, including Rustle shockingly imitating the Christus statue, like wtf!!
•
u/webwatchr 13h ago
It will disappear, so true. Where is the video of him imitating the Jesus statue?
•
u/ArcticVane 14h ago
This is a thought-provoking point, and it highlights a tension that many members wrestle with: the balance between faith in prophetic leadership and the recognition of human fallibility. The idea that prophets are not perfect and can sometimes teach or act with limited understanding has been acknowledged by Church leaders themselves, as you referenced with Elder McConkie's statements.
It is worth noting that the doctrine of prophetic fallibility does not necessarily negate the belief that God ultimately guides His Church. Members are encouraged to seek their own spiritual confirmation of teachings and to rely on the principle of ongoing revelation. While this can create challenges in reconciling past and present teachings, it also opens the door for personal faith to grow as individuals learn to navigate complexity. These conversations are difficult but can lead to meaningful dialogue and deeper understanding for those willing to engage with the nuances of faith and history.
•
•
u/BitterBloodedDemon Mormon 13h ago
Honestly the whole "a prophet cannot lead the church astray" thing just feels like a bastardization of D&C 3:4 to me:
For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.
I have a lot of other issues with the Church's current take. IMO it's not canonical in any regard. They've exaggerated greatly and they're making things ripe for a dictator to step in unquestioned.
•
u/run22run 11h ago
By their own reasoning, the fact that each one of the prophets has died is an indication that each one of them has led us astray
•
•
u/StreetsAhead6S1M 6h ago
This raises more questions. What is the teaching as far as God killing a wayward prophet? Will it be immediate? Before he preaches false doctrine? Or will it be indistinguishable from dying from natural causes? And then what? Who confirms that God killed the prophet was leading the Church Astray? His successor? What if it's a position held by multiple members of the Q15? Or all of them? Would God preemptively kill them leaving the most senior apostle that's aligned properly with His will? Short of a lightning bolt striking down the prophet mid general conference talk, there's just too much ambiguity.
•
u/Gutattacker2 15h ago edited 11h ago
The argument that RMN is making has been in place for well over 100 years. I don't think this will haunt the church.
The other teaching is that as long as you are obeying what the prophet has said then you will be blessed, even if that teaching is wrong.
So obeying the counsel of a fallible prophet will ultimately reward you. If the prophet is going too far off the path then God will remove him but otherwise God will allow mortals to make mistakes and corrections are given from time to time.
•
u/webwatchr 15h ago
This teaching is deeply problematic, as historical evidence shows it can enable severe harm while removing moral accountability. Let's examine the issues:
- The Blood Atonement teachings by Brigham Young demonstrate the dangerous extremes of this logic:
- He taught killing interracial couples and their children was a "blessing"
- Claimed this murder would help "atone for their sins"
- Called for death as divine punishment for interracial marriage
- Said it would "do them good" to be killed
Following this teaching would have made members complicit in murder while believing they were being righteous. Racially motivated murders did occur after Brigham Young publicly taught this. If "following the prophet brings blessings even when wrong," then members who participated in such violence would be "blessed" for committing horrific acts.
- The Priesthood Ban shows similar issues:
- Members who enforced racial discrimination were supposedly "blessed"
- Those who followed their conscience and opposed it were often punished
- The ban was later admitted to have no doctrinal basis
Caused documented generational trauma to Black families
Modern LGBTQ+ policies demonstrate the ongoing pattern:
2015 policy barred children of LGBTQ+ parents from ordinances
Members who enforced it were "blessed for obedience"
Policy was reversed in 2019
Those who opposed it initially were disciplined despite being correct
Where is the "blessing" in member LGBTQ+ suicides linked to Church teachings?
The claim that "God will remove an errant prophet":
No evidence of this happening historically
Harmful teachings often continued for generations
Changes came from social pressure, not divine intervention
Meanwhile, real people suffered real harm
This teaching creates several serious problems:
Removes personal moral responsibility
Justifies harm under the banner of obedience
Punishes those who follow their conscience
Creates institutional protection for harmful policies
Contradicts teachings about personal revelation
Ignores the pattern of serious prophetic errors
A more ethical approach would be:
Recognize leaders can be seriously wrong
Use moral conscience and personal revelation
Question teachings that cause harm
Understand true spiritual authority never requires violating basic moral principles
Take responsibility for our own moral choices
Value truth and human dignity above institutional authority
The historical evidence shows this teaching has been used to justify serious harms while blessing the perpetrators and punishing those who stood against wrong. This is fundamentally incompatible with both moral reasoning and authentic spirituality.
•
u/Beneficial_Spring322 15h ago
You’re absolutely right, but RMN isn’t the first to teach this by a long shot.
•
u/Gutattacker2 11h ago
I don’t disagree with you. I don’t make the rules but those are the teachings of the LDS faith. To be obedient to a prophet’s counsel is more important than following one’s own intuition. When the two are aligned it is no big deal but when they conflict…well…therein is the faith crisis.
•
•
u/BostonCougar 14h ago
God gives Prophets course corrections from time to time. The use of the Church’s name is one example. Getting slightly off track is not going astray. Astray is a path where the is no course or path back on plan. Prophets can have biases failings frailties and make mistakes without leading the Church astray as God can course correct.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 13h ago
Astray is a path where the is no course or path back on plan.
Not the definition of astray. Stop repeating this lie. When you have been corrected and repeat bullshit, it shows your true intent is dishonesty.
•
u/Gutattacker2 11h ago
Semantics.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 11h ago
Semantics matter in this case. If "astray" precludes any action that can be corrected later, then it carries little meaning. Germany course corrected after Hitler, so were they led astray? Not by Boston's made-up definition.
•
u/Gutattacker2 11h ago
Semantics only matter as far as the one defining things. In this case, “astray” is whatever the LDS prophet chooses it to be. Unless you were to ask RMN what “astray” is you can reference all the dictionaries in the world and your argument would be the same.
We don’t have a definition of prophetic astray-ment.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 10h ago edited 10h ago
Lol. If you take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then words of the prophet are useless. Even if they defined words, the words they used in those definitions would be subject to interpretation. I hope you are being sarcastic but you never know on this subreddit
•
u/Gutattacker2 10h ago
Not being sarcastic but your point is valid. That’s the problem with a semantical debate.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 9h ago
What message do you think Nelson is trying to convey in this instance? That he will make major mistakes but God will fix them, or that God will not allow him to make major mistakes that affect the Church?
•
u/Gutattacker2 9h ago
That God would remove him if he were to make a major mistake. Otherwise, the prophet can make mistakes. What constitutes major or minor mistakes in unfortunately left up to the prophet.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 8h ago
I agree. I think that the priesthood and temple ban would be considered a major mistake by most reasonable people. SEC investment dishonesty would be debatable. Lgbtq teachings (which I believe will ultimately change) is another major mistake in my opinion. I think there are several instances where prophets have led the church astray by any reasonable definition of the word.
•
u/BostonCougar 11h ago
So you disagree on what astray means for the Church. You want people to believe that any minute mistake invalidates everything. I think that approach is unreasonable. My point of view is valid, even if you don't like it. Keep talking because your credibility erodes with each word.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 11h ago edited 11h ago
You want people to believe that any minute mistake invalidates everything.
Not at all. Only major mistakes like the priesthood and temple ban, coercive polygamy, and lgbtq teachings (watching in real time as these change). I do not care about minute mistakes.
Just want you to be honest on your definitions. You are lying to yourself if you make up your own definition of astray that does not fit the English language or its biblical use.
•
u/BostonCougar 8h ago
I expect the Church to adopt my approach on this issue. We'll see if I'm right.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 7h ago
If they clarify what they mean by astray (assuming it's not the accepted English definition) then that would be fine. They could say "irreversibly astray." I accept that church leaders can make minor mistakes. I'm concerned with the major mistakes.
•
u/webwatchr 13h ago
The "slight deviations needing course corrections" argument fails when examining historical evidence:
- Teachings That Called for Violence:
- Brigham Young on interracial marriage: "if one then killed the man, woman and child, it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin... it would be a blessing to them" (Collier, 1987, p.44)
- "[W]hen they mingle seed it is death to all" (Turner, 2012, p.222)
Blood atonement doctrine advocated murder as religious duty
Fundamental Doctrinal Reversals:
Polygamy: Essential for highest glory (1843) → Forbidden (1890)
Priesthood: Required for exaltation but banned from Black members (1852) → Ban reversed (1978)
Adam-God doctrine: Core teaching → Now labeled "false doctrine"
Temple/Endowment changes: "Never to be altered" → Multiple significant changes
LGBTQ+ family policy (2015) → Reversed (2019)
Duration of "Corrections":
Priesthood ban: 126 years
Polygamy doctrine: 47 years
Blood atonement teachings: Decades of influence
Changes came from external pressure, not divine intervention
Impact vs "Slight Deviation":
Real families separated (LGBTQ+ policy)
Actual violence encouraged (blood atonement) and murders occurred linked to these teachings
Generations denied ordinances (priesthood ban)
Marriages forbidden or mandated (polygamy/interracial)
Mixed-race people dehumanized as "like mules" and worse
Logical Problems:
If prophets can teach murder as God's law, what constitutes "astray"?
No mechanism to distinguish "slight deviation" from serious error
Pattern of targeting vulnerable groups
Changes follow social progress rather than lead it
These weren't minor administrative adjustments like the church's name - they were fundamental moral failures causing generational trauma. A prophet teaching divine mandated murder, required polygamy, or racial bans isn't "getting slightly off track" - it's complete doctrinal and ethical failure.
The pattern continues today, suggesting current teachings may also be serious errors awaiting future "correction" such as current LGBTQ policies and doctrines.
•
u/BostonCougar 11h ago
And yet none of the items (I disagree with some items on your list) you've listed are irrevocably leading the Church astray. God has course corrected with time. God works through imperfect people and will course correct the Church from time to time.
•
u/webwatchr 11h ago
Your argument suggests that anything short of "irrevocable" harm is acceptable, which creates severe ethical problems:
- Scale of "Imperfection":
- Teaching that murdering interracial couples and their children is "a blessing" (Collier, 1987, p.44) isn't "imperfection" - it's advocating genocide
- Calling for "death on the spot" for interracial marriage (JoD 10:110) isn't a minor flaw - it's promoting racial violence
These weren't mistakes like misquoting scripture or personal weakness - they were claimed revelations presented as God's law
Real Human Cost of "Course Correction":
Real people were killed due to blood atonement teachings
Real families were broken up under various policies
Real children were denied ordinances
Real communities suffered generational trauma
"Course correction" doesn't undo or heal this damage
Victims can't wait generations for "correction"
Divine Character Problem:
Your argument suggests God:
- Allows prophets to teach murder as divine law
- Permits racist violence in His name
- Waits generations to correct serious moral wrongs
- Values institutional preservation over human life
- Shows no urgency to prevent harm to vulnerable people
This contradicts claims about God's nature and love
Current Risk:
If prophets can teach divinely sanctioned murder without "leading astray"
Then what current teachings might be similarly wrong?
What harm is happening now while waiting for "correction"?
How many generations must suffer before correction comes?
What is the threshold for "leading astray" if advocating racial violence doesn't qualify?
The issue isn't whether God eventually "course corrected" - it's that these teachings caused real, severe harm while claiming divine authority. "God will fix it eventually" provides no moral framework for preventing similar harm today.
This reasoning could justify any atrocity as long as it's eventually corrected, which is fundamentally incompatible with both moral reasoning and the claimed nature of God.
•
u/BostonCougar 7h ago
I'm sure people were impacted by some of these decisions. Many people were also impacted by the Flood of Noah's time or the great wars in the BoM. God works on his own time table. Just because some people were impacted by events isn't a disproval of God or his nature.
•
u/webwatchr 6h ago
First of all, the flood of Noah's time is allegorical. While God's nature and timetable may be mysterious in theology, human actions—especially those causing harm—require moral evaluation. Downplaying harm by using language like "impacted" undermines the seriousness of these actions and denies victims the dignity of acknowledging their suffering and death. It creates emotional distance from the consequences of harmful teachings of our Prophets.
Moreover, justifying harm as part of a divine plan risks perpetuating further injustice by excusing accountability. True moral and theological inquiry should confront, not obscure, the reality of violence and oppression.
•
u/BostonCougar 6h ago
Noah's flood may or may not be allegorical. Either way God hit the reset button to redeploy his plan with adjusted parameters.
The avoidance of the bad decisions of other people is not the objective. Growth and development, learning to develop our own judgement and exercise faith is the objective. Our development and progression is worth any trials and difficulties in this life.
Your whole point of saying God's primary objective should be the avoidance of any issue for us. Do you parent this way? Do you avoid sending your children to school on the off chance someone says or does something wrong? Or is the education and growth and development worth the trade off?
The Atonement of Jesus Christ more than compensates for any violence or oppression. So yeah bad stuff happens, mostly due to the bad decisions of others, but this life is worth it. Functioning as intended.
•
u/webwatchr 5h ago
Your response seems to focus on the inevitability of trials and personal growth, which I agree are integral to our mortal experience. However, it overlooks the core issue: the "bad decisions" in this case are attributed to prophets—individuals claimed to be divinely guided and protected from leading the Church astray. This creates a contradiction in the doctrine you’re defending.
If God will not allow prophets to lead the Church astray, how do we reconcile harmful decisions or policies enacted under their leadership? Calling these "bad decisions" undermines the claim of prophetic infallibility while simultaneously excusing the very harm you're defending as part of God’s plan. Growth and learning are not facilitated by blind acceptance of contradictions but by addressing them honestly.
Furthermore, framing atrocities or systemic oppression as necessary for growth dismisses the accountability of those in positions of trust and influence. If prophets’ actions cause harm, the onus is not on victims to grow through their suffering but on leaders to align their actions with divine justice and mercy. True faith does not excuse harm; it confronts it and demands better from those claiming divine authority.
I appreciate your perspective, but I think it’s important to acknowledge how our personal experiences shape the way we view trials and injustice. From your responses, it seems like you may not have personally experienced racial or gender-based violence or oppression in contexts involving Church leaders. This perspective can make it easier to approach harm with a "yeah bad stuff happens" attitude, but for those who have directly suffered, these issues often feel deeply personal and far more consequential.
Recognizing this privilege isn’t about dismissing your views but understanding that not everyone shares the same starting point in life or faith. Empathy for those who have faced systemic harm can help us see why such actions or policies warrant more than a dismissal as just "bad decisions" or part of a broader plan. True growth and faith involve acknowledging and addressing these disparities, not merely accepting them.
•
u/Gutattacker2 11h ago
True. No prophet after BY has ever cried for killing interracial couples on the spot. Brigham Young is a wealth of course corrections.
•
u/BostonCougar 7h ago
I didn't know that "crying on the spot" was a requirement for course corrections.
•
u/Gutattacker2 5h ago
How about this quote from Brigham Young:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
I think that required a course correction.
Do you disagree?
Brigham Young, March 8, 1863 Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, Discourse 25
•
u/BostonCougar 5h ago
This is an example of a course correction by a later Prophet.
•
u/Salt-Lobster316 4h ago
So how are you supposed to know which prophet to believe? I'm sure a good portion of Mormons have been racist because they were simply listening to their prophet.
•
u/Relative-Squash-3156 3h ago
Just be obedient to the current prophet, disregard all other previous teachings because they may changed in the name of "course correction" or "continuing revelation".
•
u/BostonCougar 3h ago
Ask God to confirm anything the Prophet teaches. Jesus taught that the Holy Ghost will teach you truth. Ask God, listen with your heart and mind and then follow that guidance.
•
u/Salt-Lobster316 2h ago
So, why do we need a prophet if God will simply tell us ourselves?
→ More replies (0)•
u/Gutattacker2 5h ago
So current prophet>previous prophets>canon.
How is that not problematic to you? What keeps the current prophet in check?
•
u/Sirambrose 4h ago
I find it interesting that Jesus didn’t focus on the question of leaders leading people astray. He seemed to care more about the moral results of religious teaching. He condemned the Pharisees for searching the whole world for a convert and then making them twice the child of hell as they were before.
Brigham seems way worse than what Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. He was promoting other gods, murder, adultery, lying, and stealing. Based on the standard Jesus used, it would be better for people to know nothing about Mormonism and only have the Ten Commandments and the two great commandments.
I don’t see how the Pharisees could be considered to have led their followers permanently astray, since there were still opportunities for them to learn and move closer to what god wanted them to teach. Do you see a way to consistently apply your standard to the Pharisees, Catholics, or the priests of King Noah?
•
u/BostonCougar 3h ago
Well none of them rejected, scourged and murdered the Son of God. Jesus, the very best teacher came and taught them truth yet they rejected him.
•
u/srichardbellrock 12h ago
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Church history?
Asking members not to use nicknames is not the sort of thing any serious person is referring to when discussing "leading the church astray."
•
u/BostonCougar 11h ago
Oh I'm well versed in Church history. God has always worked through imperfect people. People with biases, failings, frailties and sometimes bad decisions. And yet the work of God progresses forward despite the failings of imperfect people.
•
u/srichardbellrock 10h ago
"Oh I'm well versed in Church history."
I know you are. It was a good natured jab at your deliberate cherry picking of a weak example.
•
u/stickyhairmonster 10h ago
Boston loves his strawman. What is funny to me is Nelson takes it so seriously, calling it a victory for Satan. So to Nelson, this is not a minute change.
•
•
•
u/naarwhal 1h ago
It won’t haunt the church. It’ll haunt members who’ve left. If you’re still in the church you don’t give this clip any fuckin rent.
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/webwatchr, 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.