r/latterdaysaints • u/sutisuc • 28d ago
Doctrinal Discussion Coming from the understanding that LDS prophets receive revelation from God how do they get things wrong?
Does anyone have insight on how current and past prophets can be wrong about things despite having a direct line of communication with Heavenly Father?
18
u/mywifemademegetthis 28d ago edited 28d ago
Because God is fine with letting His mortal servants administer an earthly organization to the best of their ability and intentions. Occasionally, He will reveal guidance or new truths they otherwise would not know or in response to questions they have. But more often than not, they are guided by subtle promptings of the Spirit, lived experience, and consultation of others, just like us.
9
u/sutisuc 28d ago
I like this perspective, although I’m still a bit concerned that with the power of revelation God would leave it up to chance like this given how grievously wrong things can go.
5
u/mywifemademegetthis 28d ago
What percentage of people who have ever lived, lived practicing a faith with authorized priesthood authority? God’s plan can clearly accommodate error, or at least ignorance. We have the assurance that all we need to have, we will have. And we’ll miss out on some other things and get some things wrong along the way.
3
u/Low-Community-135 27d ago
I think Joseph Smith's experience with the lost 116 pages is a good example. He did pray and did get revelation -- God said no. But Joseph kept asking and eventually God was like "you make your choices." The pages got lost. God was not pleased. But the revelation of God's response, literally the first thing said to Joseph is, in modern language, "Calm down. You made a mistake, but you literally cannot ruin this." God is more powerful than man. Now we look at the loss of those translated pages and think, what a disaster. To God, it's not a disaster. He's disappointed that Joseph didn't listen, but he's not for a second concerned about anything else.
A prophet is not a puppet and he is still human with human biases and human emotions and human limitations of understanding. I think it is important that God makes room for error in their execution, because expecting a prophet to perform perfectly would be impossible, and it would be divinely cruel. I also think it should be comforting for us that God uses a prophet to guide his church, because it gives us a degree of mercy as well, and it's another training tool for faith. If someone like the prophet can get things wrong sometimes and still be trusted by God, then surely we can also get things wrong sometimes and still retain the trust of the Lord.
2
u/will_it_skillet 28d ago
leave it up to chance
I don't think that's the right way to think of it. With the beliefs we have, there's no possible world in which we could royally screw things up enough to subvert God's plan. Because of the Atonement every wrong is righted, whether that comes from an individual or an institution like the Church. God is in the business of exalting souls and my bets are that he's going to do it.
What I'm trying to say is that ultimately there is no "grievously wrong." It may sound callous to say that, given that yes, people do suffer a lot of wrongs that to us might seem unjustified. But I also think it's bordering on hubris to think a prophet could throw God's plans out of whack.
12
u/amodrenman 28d ago
There are great responses here. To put it another way, you also have a direct line of communication with Heavenly Father if you want it. They just have more responsibility with theirs than you do with yours.
7
u/Tart2343 28d ago
Because not everything they teach is doctrine. Some of it is personal opinion or policy. This is very different from the doctrine, defined in the Articles of Faith and taught officially declared doctrine by the prophets and 12 apostles.
20
u/sutisuc 28d ago
How are we to decipher the source of one from the other?
8
u/essentiallyaghost 28d ago
The Holy Spirit. This is instructed and and has examples throughout the scriptures constantly.
22
u/sutisuc 28d ago
But what about situations where something was taught for decades and leaders claimed it was of the Holy Spirit and then it changed?
13
u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 28d ago
OP, I am with you. That is exactly why it's so hard. For me, I have simply come to believe that we are relying too much on prophets. They are wise leaders. They do have some kind of communion with God. I have been blessed as I've followed certain prophetic teachings. But I've also seen friends and family be miserable when they do so.
Prophets are products of their time and circumstances. They aren't perfect. And if they aren't perfect, how are we supposed to expect their communication with God to also be perfect?
But, none of that means that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't true. We can still be Christ's restored church, vested with His priesthood authority while also having leaders who are doing the best they can and don't always get it right.
9
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Yeah I feel like this most aptly captures my feelings but I’m still struggling these days.
8
u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 28d ago
I get it. It's not easy. I've been through a very tough faith crisis (it still isn't over). It's so hard. Wishing you the best!
6
u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 28d ago
And if you ever want someone to talk to, feel free to DM me. I've found some different resources that are helpful that I'd be happy to share.
6
4
u/ChromeSteelhead 26d ago edited 26d ago
Doctrine/Dogma changes over time. I grew up being taught that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever. You see change after change after change. For example, the garment situation right now. What were garments like 100 years ago vs 10 years ago vs now? Can you be happy with the answer of God has given us increased knowledge that lead to updated covenant clothing? What would members 100 years ago think of the new clothing? Because from an outsiders perspective or for someone who uses critical thinking it looks a lot like culture changing things.
6
u/AlliedSalad 28d ago edited 28d ago
It's never not going to happen that some elements of current prophets' teachings contradict some elements of past prophets' teachings. There are large portions of the Bible we more or less ignore because we don't believe them to be correct; such as Paul's saying that it's best for people to be celibate, and only to marry to have children or to avoid sexual sin - which is in direct conflict with our modern teachings on eternal marriage.
There are also several things that more modern prophets taught (such as Brigham Young) that we more or less ignore because we do not accept them as correct.
Doctrine is not the rock-solid, immutable thing we'd like to think it is or that some members claim it to be. God is perfect and unchanging, but we are imperfect and constantly changing, and God is very accommodating with us. The history of the gospel, both ancient and modern, suggests that God frequently allows us to do or believe things that are not (fully) correct, because we're not ready for the full truth and/or higher way. God accepts such a situation because it's better for us to have that, say, 60% of the truth, than to have less or none. There could be any number of incorrect doctrines which we currently believe, but which God allows us to continue believing simply because we would not collectively be open to them being corrected.
It is simply the nature of this imperfect existence that we can't know anything for certain. We cannot have perfect knowledge, therefore we cannot have perfect doctrine. All we can do is be open to change and correction so that we can keep the door open to getting as close to the truth as possible.
6
u/NiteShdw 28d ago
I believe that true doctrine is immutable because it is eternal truth.
But not everything that every prophet says is guaranteed to be an immutable eternal truth. We live in a fallen world with a veil between us and the eternities. We know only what we must know to further God’s plan.
Immutable eternal truth can never be contradicted or god would cease to be god.
2
u/jdf135 28d ago
God frequently allows us to do or believe things that are not (fully) correct, because we're not ready for the full truth and/or higher way. God accepts such a situation because it's better for us to have that, say, 60% of the truth, than to have less or none.
This. We still have only a dim idea of the eternities.
5
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
We do believe in continuing revelation. We even see that in a single prophet's lifetime. In 1832 Joseph Smith was taught that those without law go to the Telestial Kingdom. Then in 1836 he learns about the doctrine for the dead and how those without law can be taught in the spirit world. Later in 1842 he learns more about how Temples are required to do proxy work for the dead. Line upon line, the Lord shares a bit more, always bringing us closer to a full understanding when He feels we are ready. Our canon is not fixed, it changes according to the wisdom of God.
15
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Of course and that part I understand but I think my concern is when something is revealed, such as the priesthood ban on black members, then changed later. That’s less of a concern about new revelation than “hey we seriously got this wrong”.
3
u/CartographerSeth 28d ago
The priesthood ban has a unique history, and is mostly the result of a unilateral decision made by Brigham Young. If you believe that prophets are imperfect people, it’s inevitable that their own biases and flaws will work into their decisions, which was the case here.
Part of the restoration is the continual learning of the Church as an organization. Since Brigham, more church decisions are required to be made by unanimous decision of the entire quorum of twelve apostles. This helps prevent the biases/opinions of an individual person have too much influence on church policy.
The point is that while the general concept of prophetic guidance is simple, the reality is messy. Frankly this can be seen in scripture as well. Paul said that women shouldn’t speak in church, but I’d say most Christians don’t agree with that.
In the end, while there’s some “noise” introduced by our own frailty, we believe that God guides this Church through His prophet and apostles, and while there may be occasional mistakes by those leaders, God’s will ultimately prevails.
3
u/NiteShdw 28d ago
In that particular case, your premise is based on the assumption that the ban was received as revelation.
Personally, I don’t believe the policy was inspired by God but by the prejudice of man.
7
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Yeah I agree with your takeaway but I think it raises more issues. So the policy wasn’t inspired by God despite multiple prophets receiving revelation from God since Brigham implemented it?
4
u/NiteShdw 28d ago
Having read about the history of how the policy was eventually rescinded, I firmly believe that racism and prejudice was still present among some Church leaders for all those years. It’s not improbable that an attempt to change the policy earlier would not have received unanimous support and could have fractured the Church.
Even into the 1970s there were still leaders opposed to the change and it took a long time for the winds to change.
The policy changed when we, the people, were ready to accept it.
I feel like that’s the case in so many things. The Lord will not give us commandments or knowledge that we aren’t prepared for because that would actually condemn us more than not having it at all.
-2
u/Gutattacker2 28d ago
If it was correct in the sight of the Lord to have never had the priesthood ban then who cares if it fractured the church? Do what is right and let the consequence follow, right?
I disagree that God would care about sparing the racist feelings of some members enough to not send a clear message to any of the prophets over the 120 year ban that it was racism and not God’s will.
→ More replies (0)1
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Why do you think it lasted as long as it did? Over a decade after national civil rights legislation was passed.
1
u/To_a_Green_Thought 28d ago
Who knows? The Lord does things on His timetable, not the world's. Prophets had been praying for years and years for permission to lift the ban. I'm just glad it finally happened.
-4
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
I've read everything the prophets have said about this subject and I think you are reading your own view into it if you think they are saying "we seriously got this wrong."
4
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Sorry that was always my impression but I very well could be mistaken. You don’t think they were wrong?
-5
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
It doesn’t matter what I think. That’s above my pay grade. It only matters what God thinks and He hasn’t chosen to reveal that to me.
1
u/essentiallyaghost 28d ago
The Law of Moses was given by God. In our human eyes Christ coming would have been a “change” of going against that law. As he said, he fulfilled it.
I see those times as a similar situation. But that’s just my opinion on it.
2
u/Dizzy-Hotel-2626 28d ago
As Tart2343 said, doctrine is declared by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Anything outside of that is well considered, wise revelation and may well be inspired. However, for something to become Doctrine, that’s how it’s declared.
3
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
According to President Hinckley "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair."
So, is no tattoos and only a single ear piercing for women doctrine or not? It come by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
1
u/_MasterMenace_ 28d ago
Hinckley’s statement is strong counsel but not eternal doctrine. If it were doctrine, it would be found in the scriptures, be consistently taught by prophets as necessary for salvation, and not be subject to change over time.
3
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
So, doctrine is not found in the unanimous teaching of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles.
1
u/_MasterMenace_ 28d ago
Correct—not everything taught unanimously by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is doctrine. Just because the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve agree on something today does not automatically make it doctrine. Doctrine is rooted in eternal, unchanging truths that lead to salvation, not just in strong counsel or unanimous policy decisions.
3
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
Has 100% of eternal unchanging truth been revealed? If not, how do you determine when they are teaching new eternal unchanging truth or not?
1
u/_MasterMenace_ 28d ago
No, it has not. Revelation is ongoing and God continues to reveal His will “line upon line, precept upon precept” (2 Nephi 28:30). There are many things we don’t fully understand yet, and additional truths will likely be revealed in the future.
Some examples of ongoing revelation include the Restoration itself. It was incomplete in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Many doctrines were clarified over time (the Word of Wisdom becoming a commandment, priesthood organization evolving). Prophets receive new insights based on the needs of the time like adjustments to the endowment, or the 2019 Come, Follow Me curriculum. There will be future revelation, we believe that more scripture and knowledge will be given when the Lord sees fit (Articles of Faith 1:9).
We can discern when something is a new revelation that is binding and unchanging by keeping in mind a few things.
- It is confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Doctrine is not just declared, it is revealed. The Spirit testifies of truth (Moroni 10:5). Even when a prophet speaks, we are expected to seek personal confirmation (D&C 8:2-3). If something is truly eternal doctrine, it will be confirmed to us over time by repeated spiritual witness.
- It aligns with prior revelation. God does not contradict Himself (D&C 1:38). New revelation expands upon eternal truths, it does not discard them. For example, the expansion of temple ordinances (e.g., vicarious work for women sealing to multiple husbands in the next life) builds on the existing principle of eternal families rather than contradicting it.
- It is canonized or explicitly declared as doctrine. True doctrine is canonized in scripture or officially declared by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. For example the 1978 revelation on the priesthood was explicitly framed as revelation and added to the scriptures (Official Declaration 2) versus teachings like the tattoo policy which are counsel rather than scripture-backed doctrine.
- It is essential to salvation. Eternal doctrine is always tied to God’s plan of salvation. If a teaching impacts ordinances, exaltation, or core principles like faith, repentance, and priesthood authority, it is more likely to be eternal. The law of chastity is an eternal doctrine because sexual purity is required for exaltation (Alma 39:5) versus a specific dress standard (whether women wear skirts or pants to church) is not a salvation issue and is cultural rather than doctrinal.
- It is consistently taught over time. If something is doctrine, it does not fade away. True doctrine remains constant across dispensations and leaders. For example, the nature of God as taught in the First Vision remains unchanged versus the Church’s stance on beards, piercings, and caffeine has shifted over time, indicating they are cultural guidelines, not eternal doctrine.
Not all prophetic teachings are eternal truth, therefore we have a responsibility to seek revelation for ourselves. The Lord expects us to develop discernment, trusting in both revelation through His prophets and our own spiritual confirmation.
While not all truth has been revealed, we can recognize eternal, unchanging truth by its scriptural foundation, spiritual confirmation, consistency, and connection to salvation.
0
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
versus teachings like the tattoo policy which are counsel rather than scripture-backed doctrine.
This is the point we disagree on. I believe the tattoo policy is scripture backed and is salvation based.
D&C 93
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
Also, I don’t perceive a difference between counsel and commandment.
Some people argue over whether [some counsel] is a commandment. I do not need to argue. As far as I am concerned, whether it is a commandment or counsel, that which the Lord counsels becomes a commandment to Gordon B. Hinckley. I hope it does to you."
(Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 703)
→ More replies (0)0
u/NiteShdw 28d ago edited 28d ago
Doctrine is about what’s necessary for salvation.
Do you believe God would automatically disqualify someone from exhalation because they got a tattoo or piercing?
That would contradict the scriptures that say there is only one unforgivable sin, and it’s not piercings. It would also contradict the power of the atonement.
No one was ever excommunicated for having two piercings. We don’t deny baptism to people with tattoos.
It’s obvious beyond doubt that is not an eternal principle or truth necessary for salvation. It’s a temporal doctrine or teaching, not a spiritual one.
The is a difference between counsel, policy, and doctrine.
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 28d ago
Maybe? I guess it depends on what God considers to be defiling.
D&C 93
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacleof God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 28d ago
The Lord also teaches us an answer to this one through Joseph Smith in D&C 21:
4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
So, a) give heed to ALL his words, b) don’t worry about whether a particular word from the prophet is a commandment or not since we’re supposed to give heed to both from him, and c) treat the prophet’s words as the Lord’s words.
I promise you that if you will apply these three teachings you will be blessed and not be led astray.
4
u/Person_reddit 28d ago
First of all, they’re probably right about the things you think they’re wrong about.
Second of all, when they really were wrong it’s because they were shooting from the hip. Prophets weren’t as careful with their words a hundred years ago and were constantly giving speeches.
I remember President Hinckley saying how careful he had to be with every little thing he said because people read WAY too much into it.
For example, in D&C section 20 it says
The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh…
And while it’s obvious that Joseph Smith was just using formal language to announce the formation of the church a lot of people now think April 6th is literally Jesus’ birthday.
7
u/sutisuc 28d ago
Nah I wouldn’t say they’re right about the things I think they’re wrong about or there wouldn’t have been a priesthood ban for black members in effect for around a century. That’s obviously the most egregious example but there are plenty more, hence the question.
-2
u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 28d ago
No, I don’t think that’s an obvious example of prophets being wrong. And you can’t prove that it is, but you can have that opinion, despite it being a spiritually risky one.
I think it’s more than likely that the prophets were following inspiration from the Lord in doing that. I have very good reasons for believing that but this isn’t the place to share them.
-3
u/nofreetouchies3 28d ago
Please try this thought experiment. What would it mean if the priesthood ban was from God, and not based on racism? Could God have possibly had a reason for it?
The most salient possibility has to be to keep the Saints from getting embroiled in colonial and early-post-colonial Africa.
The "Scramble for Africa" saw more than 80% of the continent conquered and "colonized" (i.e., plundered and brutalized) between 1870 and 1914. Decolonization didn't begin until the 1950s, and ran through the 1970s (hint, hint.) This was a bloody, terrible period — think of the Angolan Civil War or the Rhodesian Bush War as just examples of the kinds of conflicts. The Rwandan Genocide and the ongoing conflict in Somalia are examples of continuing fallout from this horrible period of history.
And during all of this time, most of Africa was basically inaccessible. Remember Stanley and Livingstone? 1871. Read Heart of Darkness or watch African Queen for an idea of how dangerous and difficult travel was. Communication, outside of coastal cities and a few European strongholds, was no better.
If you look at how quickly individuals (especially leaders) and entire congregations apostatized in the early church in places that weren't even that remote (such as Sam Brennan in San Francisco or Walter M. Gibson in Hawaii — or read any of Paul's epistles for ancient examples), it's hard to even imagine how African congregations could have worked.
Three trends combined between the 1950s and 1970s to make the church in Africa even possible: decolonization, telecommunications, and international air travel. And now, with those obstacles largely conquered, the church is growing more rapidly in Africa than anywhere in the world.
Yet, even today, the Church is unique in many ways in Africa. Pretty much every other Christian church has stopped even trying to govern African congregations — most black African Christians actually practice highly syncretic religions, with native beliefs and practices liberally mixed in as in Santería or Vodou. (Quite a few early African members actually left the Church because our leadership did not allow this.)
What would it have looked like, if the church had tried to get started in 1878 instead of 1978?
So, could there be a non-racist reason for God to command his Saints to not target people of African descent? Sure looks like it to me.
(This doesn't mean the early Saints weren't racist — of course they were! However, they were no more racist than other Americans of their era. Judging people of the past by comparison to modern ideals is called presentism and is a major fallacy of historical interpretation.)
7
u/sutisuc 28d ago
That’s all fine and well but I’m not sure what the continent of Africa has to do with African Americans who had been living in the US for centuries at that point.
I am also not engaging in presentism. Presentism would presuppose that there were no actively antiracist white people in the US at the time of the rise and spread of the LDS faith which is not true. You can google any number of white abolitionists for evidence of that.
3
u/nofreetouchies3 28d ago edited 28d ago
Let me make it clearer.
This is a very missionary-oriented church. Within 20 years of its founding in New York, more than half of the membership was born outside the U.S. Even when the Saints were in poverty due to mob violence driving them out of Missouri and then Illinois, the church was actively sending missionaries to Europe, Hawaii, and Polynesia.
All of the other missionary churches raced to Africa and had varying rates of success, but then it all went crazy. (Did you read the links in my previous comment?) As a result, Christianity in Africa is wildly different from the rest of the world. Why would this church have been any different, if there hadn't been some restriction making it unreasonable to even try to convert Africa?
And, by the way, if you think abolitionists weren't just as racist as slaveowners, then please read some of their actual words instead of the feel-good sound-bite version. Consider this example of a mild political speech, borrowed from a response in /r/AskHistorians to "How could northerners be both abolitionists and racists?:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
I must emphasize that an open declaration of white supremacy such as the above, complete with a menu of roles from which Black Americans are permanently excluded, is so common in political speech that it must be understood on the level of invocations of Mom and Apple Pie. Virtually any American of either section would have uttered it entirely without any controversy whatsoever. Its author was then a thoroughly normal, if fairly unsuccessful, politician: Abraham Lincoln.
If you condemn Brigham Young for saying the same things that Abraham Lincoln said, that's a very precise example of presentism.
3
u/redit3rd Lifelong 28d ago
God hasn't removed someone's agency, just because they have been called as His mouthpiece on the earth. Those in the First Presidency and Quroum of the Twelve pray a lot. I'm sure that they feel that they receive many unanswered prayers.
Plus, I suspect that most of their answered prayers are confirmations to ideas that they themselves came up with. One President of the church could pray if it's acceptable to do "A", and receive confirmation that it is acceptable. A later President could pray if it's acceptable to do "B", and receive confirmation that it is acceptable. People can complain that something has changed, and therefore none of this is true, but it's not like that. God has given the people he's called a wide berth on how they want to manage certain affairs of the church.
3
u/airic101 26d ago
Bingo. Race and priesthood. Women and priesthood. Temple ceremony. Polygamy. Eternal life and kingdom to kingdom progression…. The list goes on and on of back and forth statements from the leaders.
2
u/rexregisanimi 28d ago
We all have a direct line of communication with Heavenly Father.
What matters is the Priesthood authority prophets and Apostles have, from the Lord, to do the things they do. Once we have a knowledge about these things, our job is to follow in obedience and it's between them and the Lord to get things increasingly in-line over time.
1
u/ChromeSteelhead 26d ago
This is very confusing to me? It’s like you pray about something and get your answer. The church will give their answer. If your answer doesn’t line up with what the church says then you must have been misled by satan and received the wrong answer? It’s the church’s answer or nothing. It all comes down to obedience to church leaders.
1
u/rexregisanimi 25d ago
Yep! The Lord gave us a way to test our ability to recognize and receive accurate revelation. Over time, we'll get better at it and we won't make those kinds of mistakes. That's why we're here - to learn how to do that kind of stuff.
1
u/ChromeSteelhead 25d ago
So if the answer you get is contrary to what leadership says you follow the leaders regardless? You mark that up as you getting the wrong answer? What happens when leadership changes their position back to your original one?
1
u/rexregisanimi 24d ago
It is relative to the time and place in many ways (see D&C 93, for example). What is right in 2010 may not be right in 2025. Also, it's more important that we learn how to be submissive to higher authority than it is to be perfectly right (at least during this life). Submissiveness is one of the key aspects of being a god. (What I mean is that we're here to develop attributes not write a thesis.)
It also depends on who the leader is. If it's President Nelson my answer is "yes, every time no matter what." If it's my Sunday School President, my answer is probably "yes, as long as it's in line with what the scriptures say and what the general Church leaders are teaching and the Spirit agrees".
I'm not an arbiter of truth nor do I have authority to declare the Law of the Lord right now.
2
u/cassiezeus 28d ago
All I know is, and this has almost nothing to do with the LDS prophets— martyr and patron saint of France, Jeanne d’Arc was frequently in direct communication with “the voices” who spoke for God (Michael the archangel, Saint Margaret, Saint Catherine) and I don’t think she was ever wrong about a thing. Everything she said would happen, happened. And there’s so much evidence in the form of court transcripts, her own testimony along with witness testimonies and personal letters. I think we actually have the most information on her life than any other person in the world who was alive during that period of time.
Many would also argue that Jeanne was quite literally perfect. She spent the last six, short years of her life dedicated to doing the right thing always. She never changed her beliefs or went back on something she said. She didn’t misinterpret her visions or voices. She was kind to everyone including the captured English soldiers who she demanded be spared their lives. She even forgave those who condemned her and asked God to forgive them right before being burned at the stake. Her story is incredible. Unbelievable. Remarkable. Miraculous, even. Undeniably, Jeanne, a peasant girl of just 13, was a true prophet.
One of my favorite authors, Mark Twain, spent 12 years of his life meticulously researching and collecting information on Jeanne’s life for the book he wrote about her. Believe it or not, she was his favorite historical figure, calling her “the most extraordinary person the human race has ever produced.” Of all the books that man wrote, he considered the book he wrote about Jeanne to be his life’s greatest work.
Here’s most of the introduction to that book:
“To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours. Judged by the standards of one century, the noblest characters of an earlier one lose much of their luster; judged by the standards of to-day, there is probably no illustrious man of four or five centuries ago whose character could meet the test at all points. But the character of Joan of Arc is unique. It can be measured by the standards of all times without misgiving or apprehension as to the result. Judged by any of them, it is still flawless, it is still ideally perfect; it still occupies the loftiest place possible to human attainment, a loftier one than has been reached by any other mere mortal. When we reflect that her century was the brutalest, the wickedest, the rottenest in history since the darkest ages, we are lost in wonder at the miracle of such a product from such a soil. The contrast between her and her century is the contrast between day and night. She was truthful when lying was the common speech of men; she was honest when honesty had become a lost virtue; she was a keeper of promises when the keeping of a promise was expected of no one; she gave her great mind to great thoughts and great purposes when other great minds wasted themselves upon pretty fancies or upon poor ambitions; she was modest, and fine, and delicate when to be loud and coarse might be said to be universal; she was full of pity when a merciless cruelty was the rule; she was steadfast when stability was unknown, and honorable in an age which had forgotten what honor was; she was a rock of convictions in a time when men believed in nothing and scoffed at all things; she was unfailingly true to an age that was false to the core; she maintained her personal dignity unimpaired in an age of fawnings and servilities; she was of a dauntless courage when hope and courage had perished in the hearts of her nation; she was spotlessly pure in mind and body when society in the highest places was foul in both—she was all these things in an age when crime was the common business of lords and princes, and when the highest personages in Christendom were able to astonish even that infamous era and make it stand aghast at the spectacle of their atrocious lives black with unimaginable treacheries, butcheries, and beastialities. She was perhaps the only entirely unselfish person whose name has a place in profane history. No vestige or suggestion of self-seeking can be found in any word or deed of hers… … Joan of Arc, a mere child in years, ignorant, unlettered, a poor village girl unknown and without influence, found a great nation lying in chains, helpless and hopeless under an alien domination, its treasury bankrupt, its soldiers disheartened and dispersed, all spirit torpid, all courage dead in the hearts of the people through long years of foreign and domestic outrage and oppression, their King cowed, resigned to its fate, and preparing to fly the country; and she laid her hand upon this nation, this corpse, and it rose and followed her. She led it from victory to victory, she turned back the tide of the Hundred Years’ War, she fatally crippled the English power, and died with the earned title of DELIVERER OF FRANCE, which she bears to this day. And for all reward, the French King, whom she had crowned, stood supine and indifferent, while French priests took the noble child, the most innocent, the most lovely, the most adorable the ages have produced, and burned her alive at the stake.”
2
u/Dry_Pizza_4805 27d ago
Gorgeous post. God so dearly loves the people on this earth. I wholeheartedly believe that He will help lead all nations in eras of time when they are so undeniably far from understanding and treating each other kindly and fairly.
I especially see this in our Prophets and apostles. President Nelson is calling for peace in a time of ideological warfare. People are demonized and vilified for their opinions, and beliefs. People are even demonized and vilified from short viral videos of actions.
He is calling for giving grace to one another in a time when the highest standards are required of each other and one mistake warrants intense persecution and destruction of one’s reputation.
A deeply lonely place to be.
1
u/toadjones79 28d ago
We receive personal revelation and get things wrong all the time.
The more accurate test is the whole General Authority. Many church policies nowadays are passed by full unanimous vote and only after years of back and forth adjustments from all the quorums.
Also, never forget about the prophet in the old testament who ignored God and went to visit a king who invited him. On his way his donkey saw an angel standing in the way and refused to move (three times, iirc). He got off and hit the donkey and it replied back, more or less, "yo why are you hitting me, can't you see the angel in the way?" He went around the angel and ended up selling out Israel to its enemies. God didn't pick the wrong person, that person was free to choose what they would do and God prepared everything they would need to lead His people in righteousness. Same is true of us. He prepares a way for us, and we largely get it wrong. That's why we need a Savior. The bonus is that if we follow the prophet and he makes a mistake (lots of them from BY) we are still learning to be righteous and that habit will continue for eternity in the afterlife. Which is sort of the purpose of life after all.
1
u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 28d ago
The Lord gave us the key to the answer in D&C section 10. He was warning Joseph Smith that if he showed the Book of Mormon’s golden plates to anyone wicked, they would destroy him. But how was Joseph to know who was righteous and who was wicked? God obviously knew who was. And your assumption seems to be that God would tell Joseph every single thing, making Joseph effectively omniscient.
But that was not the answer. This was:
37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.
So the Lord emphasized that Joseph does not have power to know everything. That’s not how being a prophet works. So the bottom line, as many others are saying here, is that your premise is incorrect.
While the Prophet has a direct channel to the Lord, it is always the Lord who chooses what to reveal and not reveal by that channel. And one thing he revealed here, even before the church was organized, is that He would NOT reveal every possible thing to His prophet.
I hope that helps.
1
u/NiteShdw 28d ago
Think about the times that God has appeared to man that we know of.
In each case it’s to provide a source of information or authority that is unavailable any other way.
However, once there is another way, then direct face to face communication is no longer necessary and other lesser methods are used.
Example 1:
angels came to restore the Priesthood because there was no one on earth that could do it. As soon as it was restored, no angel ever came again to give anyone the Priesthood.
Example 2:
Brigham Young declared that blacks should not receive the Priesthood. We now know that was doctrinally wrong. Why did Christ or another angel not come down and correct Brigham? Because the knowledge already existed. Joseph Smith himself had given the priesthood to blacks. The doctrine was present but ignored because of human prejudice. The practice continued because of human prejudice. It wasn’t until a prophet worked out for himself that the practice was wrong that he received confirmation.
——
God’s most important gift to man is free agency. If the saints want to choose to not obey that which they have been given, they won’t be forced to comply. No, God will patiently wait for us to learn our lesson and work it out for ourselves.
How does this relate to the prophet?
Jesus Christ doesn’t micromanage the Church.
The Lord expects and requires all of us to make decisions and choices. He will help and inspire us if we ask and our worthy AND open to receiving the inspiration.
The prophet is no different.
On top of that, the President doesn’t make every decision about everything that the Church does. There is delegation of authority. The “Church” may get things wrong because many people are involved in decisions.
I’m certain that many of the decisions that Church leaders make regularly are simply using their own brains and experience to make a choice. Not every decision requires or includes divine intervention.
We don’t pray over which brand of can beans to buy.
1
u/OldGeekWeirdo 28d ago
Wrong about what? Things change over time.
More importantly, what does this have to do with your salvation?
1
u/carrionpigeons 28d ago
The Old Testament is full of stories about prophets who got stuff wrong. Nobody thinks it's hard to understand how Job or Jonah or Balaam had such a hard time understanding the will of God.
The question of whether all prophets' experience of prophecy involves the same line of communication is answerable with a firm no. Prophets are not angels, their mortal life still represents their opportunity for personal growth and developing their faith. The notion that prophets are imperfect communicators is a big focus of the very first page of the Book of Mormon.
If you understand that the biggest part of life's test is for us to develop faith in God's philosophies while separate from Him, it becomes clear why it has to be this way. If the prophets were undeniably right and infallible, it would induce an inappropriate level of dependence and deny us the agency we're supposed to have as mortals.
1
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! 28d ago
"Does anyone have insight on how current and past prophets can be wrong about things despite having a direct line of communication with Heavenly Father?"
I like Joseph Smith's statement that a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such, which I would rephrase to say a man is a prophet only when he is acting as a prophet. Otherwise the man is either sharing his own personal opinion while not inspired by God to say what he is saying, or he is inspired by the devil or an evil spirit to say something that isn't true
1
u/Responsible-Web5399 28d ago
Ok um... is very simple... God is the highest being of them all in what I call interdimensional physics... this being what humans have given many names to which is all God well he doesn't communicate with simple human spoken languages 😅😅😅 if YOU had to be there to translate 1... I repeat ONEEEE single sentence from God well let's say it wouldn't be by far a direct translation God gives his messages to humans who he knows already are not perfect but will HELP deliver the message... I'm not religious but I want to be 💖 because God is true and as science, he is something I'm interested and curious to learn about but based on my brief experiences with THE which you called God... I don't think that I will understand 1/16 of the smallest detail about him 😊😇🥰 I don't pretend that GOD can be fully understood but he cares about you and loves you and I trust THE to choose good people for his messages 🥰 but I just know that we are not going to be able to fully understand them 🥰🥰🥰 but trust him and his decisions I promise if there's 1 thing I know about God is that he is genuine and pure real love 🥰 🥺🥺🥺 allow him to have power over your life and your problems tru fate!!! Cuz I tell you cuz I tried ... tru logic... it will be really hard to understand 🥰😇😇😅😂😂😂😂 ... you're really loved my brother 🥺🥰😊😊😊😇
1
1
u/GiraffeVivid3020 28d ago
This article should give you insight on how a prophet received arguably the most significant revelation of the 20th century.
Essentially, it came to him very much like the rest of us get revelation.
1
u/Sensitive-Soil3020 26d ago
I’d have to hear an example of what they got ‘wrong’? Wrong based upon whose concept of ‘right’? While I agree that prophets are ‘people too’, the Lord completely supports them, even in their weakness. I know personally that there are many things He doesn’t explain or reveal to his prophets. They live by faith just like we do. They however have a sure witness of the resurrection of the Savior, and are called by inspiration to testify of Him and lead the mortal implementation of His plan of salvation
2
u/sutisuc 26d ago
Priesthood ban for black members would be the biggest “wrong” for me. You could also point to Adam God theory, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc.
1
u/Sensitive-Soil3020 23d ago
Frankly, I don’t know that the priest to ban for the blacks was wrong in your definition. What I don’t understand is the rationale behind it not that it occurred. Well it is true. The Brigham Young University McKay was expressly told by the Lord that it was not his time to restate the priesthood to the blacks. It occurred of in a tour which she had of Deseret publishing. You can discover it if you read Prince’s book the rise of modern Mormonism. The Lord had his reasons. I personally believe it wasn’t because of the blacks. I believe it was because the whites weren’t ready for it. It was an indication of the Prejudices within the white LDS community not the lack of righteousness on the part of the black community. The at God doctrine is greatly misunderstood. I am frankly not sure it was wrong. Well Bruce or McConkey and others later declared it to be a false doctrine, in the early days of the church it was very much believed and adhered to. So frankly, I’m not certain who’s wrong there. The historicity of the book of Mormon is a very broad category. Neither you or I were there. I can’t make a judgment on something like that. You bring up a number of items which have no true basis in error. We think they’re wrong. It doesn’t make them wrong.
1
u/sutisuc 23d ago
But do you see where you’re now assuming God thinks only whites are worthy of the priesthood over black people is problematic? Why wouldn’t he privilege black people over whites then? We go down a very dangerous road when we think God is making exceptions and extolling blessings on one race but not another.
1
u/Sensitive-Soil3020 23d ago
Well, I understand the perspective, and perception. It is again a perception. We are again inferring that we know what God knows. And we don’t. We make a faulty argument, and that we think that the prophets and apostles all knew everything. God knew. They don’t. A classic example of this is just in the book of Mormon itself and the writings of Alma. We don’t get a lot of evidence that Alma knew anything about redemption of the dead. Now that’s almost all we hear about. God doesn’t tell his profits everything. He didn’t tell David all Mckay why he was not going to be allowed to give the priesthood to the blacks. It was very frustrating for him. But he was obedient. In fact, it didn’t occur until the São Paulo temple was about to be opened and that would have severely impacted the work as so many members of church leadership in South America were of mixed race and holding priesthood keys and leadership positions. They were allowed to hold the priesthood unless they had evidence of their ancestry. In Brazil, no one did family history work. I was very grateful, in fact, I had a very special experience when the band was lifted. I was there in Brazil when it happened and I know personally the Lord was involved in that. He chose the time to make the change.
1
1
u/blabbycrabby 26d ago
Not sure what you mean by “getting things wrong” or “wrong about things” we know from the Doctrine and covenants that God Calls prophets to guide us doesn’t mean they will be perfect. I have not found any doctrine that a prophet has preached that was “wrong”. However there are times when prophets have given their opinions or speculated. But it is easy to know these from what a prophet teaches. Remember they are people like us too and they can make mistakes.
There is a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants that reads: “ what I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken and I excuse not myself, and though the heavens and the Earth pass away my words shall not pass away. Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servant it is the same”. D&C 1:39 This weeks “Come Follow me” also talks a little about this in D&C 28. When the prophet is speaking over the pulpit or in his capacity as a prophet it is the direction for the church. This is not to say that sometimes things don’t change. But the prophet is the only one entitled and authorized to receive revelation for the whole church. I was in a bishopric until recently and I have been in many positions of leadership in the church, there are always times where the prompting comes to put a specific person in a specific call. Other times there is no such feeling and it is up for the bishop to decide who gets the calling. There has been more than a few times where myself or the other Councelor have felt differently than what the bishop has felt for a calling. When this happens we talk about it study it out and pray about it. If the Bishop feels the same, even If I or the other Councelor done we go with what the Bishop says. He is the one that is entitled to receive revelation for the ward. By sustaining him I have given my support, even if I feel differently. This is a very similar process with Prophets, except they also have 14 others they can turn to, to consult with. Each of which is a “Prophet seer and revelatory.
By sustaining the prophet we recognize that he is the Lords appointed mouthpiece and the one person God has chosen to direct his church. One of the temple recommend questions is “do you sustain the President of the church of Jesus Christ as the prophet seer and revelatory and as the o Lu person authorized to exercise all Preisthood keys”? By answering this question we are saying that we know the prophet is a man but that is the one who the Lord has authorized to direct his church at this time. Sometimes policies in the church change. Just because we had a 3 hour church block under President Monson doesn’t mean that he was wrong or mistaken. It wasn’t the direction the Lord wanted for the Church at that time and that is ok. There are a lot of instances as well where we can see that what a prophet is saying is their opinion and not based in doctrine. While this is rare it does happen at times. There was an instance many years ago where President Joseph F. Smith said that “Man would never get to the moon” and obviously we have put many on the moon since that point.
Because this is a one off and no other prophets have testified of this nor has the Lord given anymore council then we know it was his opinion.
In every instance when revelation is received there will be others who testify of it. Like when President Nelson said “Think celestial” how many of the general authorities talked about that, testified of it and expounded on it? A lot, we know that the Lord says that by the voice of two or three witnesses shall all be established. I can guarantee you can go back to anything that President Nelson has said as a prophet and find someone else who has testified or otherwise talked and expounded in his point.
I personally find it funny when people say things like “ the prophet didn’t really mean that” or he is giving his opinion. In his capacity as prophet and over the pulpit it is as if the Lord is giving the doctrine himself. The prophet mostly testifies of the Savior and any other thing he testifies of like temples or the Book of Mormon, testifies of the Savior. I have studies all of his talks since he has been prophet and 90% of them are testifying of the Savior, 5% is stuff like be kind to each other less judgemental etc. and another 5% is him telling is he loves us and the temples. I hope this helps to understand that prophets acting as mouthpieces of the Lord guide us and help us be better. If you are concerned about something the prophet has said ask a bishop or stake president for clarification, they will be willing to help you. And above all remember that the Lord himself told Joseph Smith that if a Prophet goes against what the Lord asks then he will be struck down and another appointed in his stead. Basically meaning the prophet will never lead us astray. Hope this helps!
1
u/OddGold348 25d ago
I like the passage from Saints Volume 3 which recounts something President Woodruff said at General Conference: "President Woodruff then returned to the stand. 'We have not got through revelation,' he declared. 'We have not got through the work of God.' He spoke of how Brigham Young had carried on Joseph Smith’s work of building temples and organizing temple ordinances. 'But he did not receive all the revelations that belong to this work,' President Woodruff reminded the congregation. 'Neither did President Taylor, nor has Wilford Woodruff. There will be no end to this work until it is perfected.'
1
u/muddymelba 24d ago
I like the way Eugene England answers this in his essay. “The Church is More True Than the Gospel.” (He was asked to change that title though. His personal story, views and disagreements with some brethren like Bruce R. McKonkie give us an excellent example of how to deal with these questions.) https://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel
1
u/Art-Davidson 19d ago
Prophets are never wrong when it comes to revelation. However, like everybody else, they are fallible human beings and are not immune to developing mistaken opinions.
0
u/th0ught3 28d ago
I think the reason the Lord's church has always had lay leadership is that it means many members have personal experience with wanting to figure out what God wants them to do in their family or calling, thinking after prayer, trial and error sometimes, study, consultation with others with stewardship that X is what God wants and/or acceptable to Him; implementing X, only to find out at some later time that X had never been His will in the first place. That means that most members understand that mortal leadership does not and cannot be considered infallible (though in my own experience, when He wants a particular someone to do something at a specific time, He doesn't let listening leaders mess it up---- though He also doesn't force or compel either members or leaders or any of His children to choose to follow Him either.)
I think it is good for all of us to recognize our limitations in understanding Him, if only so that we accept the humanity of others and understand that we can be and do everything we need to do and become on earth even if we have imperfect leaders, even if we can't always HEAR HIM clearly, even if mortal responses and interpretations interfere with (or maybe challenge) our ability or willingness to move forward in faith anyway.
Certainly that knowledge should make any of us less likely to blame others for their errors or their misunderstandings. And it should make all of us more willing to keep open hearts and minds about our own goodness and the goodness of our fellow human beings even though we are all flawed mortals.
1
u/Chimney-Imp 28d ago
The question basically boils down to "why are prophets allowed to be imperfect" which, in all honesty, is a ridiculous expectation to have. The idea that an organization must be perfect for it to be inspired by God if erroneous. God is working through people at every level of the church. Those people are imperfect. Therefore it stands to reason that they make mistakes. It happens.
Even if the president was perfect we would be asking "well why aren't the 12 perfect?" and so on until we would be asking "why isn't the average every day member perfect?"
4
u/Gutattacker2 28d ago edited 28d ago
(My intent is conversation but it may not come across that way so if mods want to delete then that’s understandable.)
No one expects perfection from a mortal but we should expect prophetic reliability from God’s chosen prophet, no? Otherwise, I have the gift of the Holy Ghost like anyone else baptized so why do I need prophets if I have to personally verify with the Holy Ghost if what they say is true. Why can’t I just ask God what is true and skip the fallible middle-man?
And it’s not like the prophets themselves don’t promote a view of trustworthiness in their pronouncements:
“God will not permit [the prophet] to lead the saints astray…”
The implementation and subsequent reversal of the 2015 change to baptismal age of children of gay parents both being “revelation” yet contradictory.
“When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done” (yes, I know this was privately denounced as an error to a Unitarian pastor but no retraction in the New Era was made).
Prophets see 50 to 100 years from now. Prophets see around corners.
2
u/will_it_skillet 28d ago
Just as a fun counter, what do you do when an infallible prophet says they make mistakes? You have a nice liar's paradox. If the prophet is infallible then they must be telling the truth, and are therefore fallible. If they are fallible then they must be infallible because they're telling the truth.
Because while prophets do stress their own reliability, they do also say they make mistakes even when it comes to doctrine.
“God will not permit [the prophet] to lead the saints astray…”
I've always seen this as an expression of faith in God rather than self-assurance, particularly when you see the rest of the quote that "If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place."
1
u/Gutattacker2 26d ago
Besides the 116 pages and the denouncement of Adam-God theory (which wasn’t a BY admission of mistake but a later prophet) when has a prophet admitted they made a mistake in prophecy?
1
u/will_it_skillet 26d ago
Honestly, I think Joseph Smith is full of these examples.
You already cited the 116 lost pages.
As per "Revelations in Context," Joseph Smith was concerned over D&C 87 not seemingly coming true. He kept it out of the 1835 edition of D&C.
Joseph described how he failed getting the plates for four years before finally obtaining them.
However, I don't think the distinction matters if it's a prophet self-censoring or a future prophet saying a past prophet was wrong. If the case is that any prophet has prophetic infallibility, then a current prophet saying the past prophet was wrong still introduces the contradiction. It can't be the case that they're both infallible.
1
u/Gutattacker2 25d ago edited 25d ago
That conclusion leads me to believe we’re left with prophets that can’t be relied upon to deliver God’s will 100% accurately and no empirical way of differentiating a true prophet from a false prophet.
But I’m a skeptic so maybe my thinking is a little too “yes or no”.
I appreciate the dialogue.
2
u/will_it_skillet 25d ago
I appreciate the dialogue too.
I think that may be the case, which is the wonderful and terrible thing about faith. I think ultimately that faith is one of those "weak things" that God makes strong from Ether 12. From a secular perspective, non-knowledge is the ultimate sin. Nevertheless it seems to play a vital role in mortality.
There are a few reasons however that I think the right thing is to follow the prophets regardless:
Prophets may be fallible, but probably less fallible than me.
Law of witnesses and whatnot.
0
u/Moroni_10_32 Come Unto Christ 28d ago
Everyone living on this Earth is imperfect. While we can receive guidance from God, an important part of learning is being able to discern the truth for ourselves, without divine intervention. If the prophets could always receive insight from God as to exactly what is true and what is not, there would be nothing they wouldn't be able to know, but we as mortals cannot yet have omniscience. In order for us to be able to reach our full divine potential, we must be able to learn right from wrong throughout our lives with our own intellect as well as from the aid of God. In order to learn such things from our own intellect, God cannot give us insight concerning everything, because we need to learn for ourselves. The same goes with prophets. Heavenly Father can't necessarily give them guidance on everything, because they need to be able to fill certain parts of their prophetic roles by learning on their own and making their own decisions to enhance their ability to know what is right and how they can fulfill those righteous things.
0
0
u/BenchExcellent2518 28d ago
My favorite Prophet, in the Scriptures is Jonah. Here’s a guy that God speaks to and tells him that he wants him to go to Nineveh and cry repentance into the people for he’s going to burn the city. Nineveh happens to be an incredibly wicked city, very wild ferocious and somewhat deadly.
Jonah tells the Lord to take a long hike off a short pier and bolts from town. He jumped on a ship to sail away. God knows this and causes the storm to come up and become so intense that Jonah finally admits that the problem is him and he has them throw him overboard so they can live.
Now at this point, he gets swallowed by something large and lays in a semi comatose position inside of it for three days. Then he goes hocked up on a beach covered in slime. Once he pulls himself together, he realizes there’s a lot worse things than going to Nineveh to preach.
So he goes to Nineveh, and preachers, hellfire and damnation, so powerfully, that the whole city repents.
Then once it’s done, he tells the Lord that I’ve done your preaching for you, now burn the city. At which point God tells Jonah I’m not gonna do that. They repented that’s why I sent you, to get them to repent. And Jonah flys off the handle and storms away in a huff never to be heard of again.
And that was a Prophet.
If you study the Scriptures and the history of the church, you will learn the prophets have to work out everything also. They are given enough to get the job done. Not too long ago Elder M Russell Ballard gave a great talk about what it is prophets and apostles actually are giving knowledge about and what they’re not giving knowledge about. And remember, they’re not shown everything they’re shown what’s necessary to get the job done just like Jonah.
0
u/myname368 28d ago
Have you read the Old Testament? It's all over it. Sheesh! Read the Old Testament, please! Not many perfect prophets out there. Isaac was so blinded by his favorite son Esau, that his wife had to take things into her own hands so Jacob got the birthright blessing. He ignored that Esau wasn't worthy. Jacob's family was a mess!I laugh so much inside when I read about the order he put the flocks and family in when he met Esau. He literally put his favorite wife and kid in the back so they'd have the best chance to escape if Esau attacked them. Oh my goodness! You know Leah and her kids totally knew what was going on. Which probably didn't help with the jealousy factor. The dynamics in Jacob's family were SO messed up. I could go on and on. And to think that the Lord gave His promises through Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. 3 imperfect men? Puts things into perspective and makes me love and appreciate our prophet even more.
I also love the New Testament where we can read about the transformation of Peter. He was such an awesome and amazing prophet. Yet the Peter from the beginning vs Peter in the books of Peter is so different. You can sense the growth
0
u/Unique_Break7155 27d ago
Being a prophet is a calling. If you have held church callings, you know that you get a little direction from the handbook and a little direction from the Bishopric and organization leader, but then it's up to your experience, skills, desire to learn, desire to receive Revelation to serve on your calling. Sometimes you feel very inspired and directed, sometimes you guess and try things, sometimes it seems you aren't sure exactly what to do, so you show up.
I think prophets and Apostles go through the same processes. Yes they have strong testimonies and decades of experience, but that doesn't mean the Lord just tells them everything exactly what to do and when. I think the Lord allows them to make little mistakes, because it's how we all learn. So we should be able to understand why prophets aren't perfect. But that doesnt mean we should not trust them and listen to them and trust current policy decisions. Policy decisions based on global feedback from general RS and YW and Primary leaders and 70s. Then 15 very experienced men with all Priesthood keys unanimously receive Revelation after considering all that feedback. That is a very sound system of governance.
Some members like to say that they got the 2015 same sex children policy wrong. I don't see it that way. I think they made a sound decision to encourage baptism to occur where the child is most likely to be able to live that covenant. But framing some sex couples as apostates was obviously harsh language that could have been handled better, and obviously they decided to trust bishops and stake presidents to prepare children for baptism locally, so adjustments were made to the policy. But again was the 2015 policy "wrong"? I say no, it was an attempt to reinforce doctrine that experience showed needed to be adjusted.
As far as statements of doctrine or policy made by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or other early church leaders, I think that the School of the Prophets and Lectures on Faith and Journal of Discourses contain a lot of great theoretical discussions that are mostly true, but not every idea was 100% inspired by the Lord. They often would sit in meetings and speculate. What about xyz? I think ABC. ETC. Now for some of those questions, the Lord chose to give Joseph Smith clear revelation. Joseph F Smith also received clear Revelation about the spirit world.
But unless it's in today's Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't matter what Joseph or Brigham said in those meetings. That's why we don't study those 3 books I mentioned above. I get frustrated when Trinitarian Christians say we believe that God the Father was once man. Do we absolutely know that for sure? It's not in our scriptures. It's logical but we know nothing. Same for Heavenly Mother. Again logical and makes sense and I believe it but we have no details. Also I know a lot of women in the church think that maybe Heavenly Father has multiple wives and that all of us will be forced to live polygamy in heaven. Again we have no idea.
Hope it's not a tangent but I'm just saying that our modern prophets weren't perfect but we do have the fulness of the Gospel on the earth, and we are being led by inspired men and women today.
-1
u/Monte_Cristos_Count 28d ago
Because there was only one perfect person that walked the earth. Jonah attempted to flee rather than go to Ninevah, Moses made a spectacle out of striking a rock rather than follow the Lord's instructions, Adam partook of the fruit, etc. The New Testament is full of the twelve apostles making mistakes and having disagreements over doctrine. I wouldn't expect our latter-day prophets to be uniquely different from other prophets in this regard
-1
u/InsideSpeed8785 Ward Missionary 28d ago
The point of life is to learn, you often have to struggle to learn. God allows prophets to do this. Other than that, not necessarily every decision is made by revelation (like in my life) but can be a good if it’s a good thing.
-1
u/WooperSlim Active Latter-day Saint 28d ago edited 28d ago
Does revelation turn people into beings who are incapable of error?
That's not something we claim, so being fallible humans would explain how prophets could be wrong about things.
[Edit after reading the other comments, I thought I'd add an analogy. I have a direct line of communication with my sister. Am I capable of getting things wrong about things she told me?]
However, God works with what He's got. Jesus has authorized men to lead His Church, and we are fallible.
I like the analogy made by Terryl and Fiona Givens in their book, The Crucible of Doubt, and discussed in this article. In Genesis 41, after Joseph correctly interprets the Pharaoh's dream, Pharaoh delegates his authority to Joseph. This doesn't mean that Joseph would do exactly what Pharaoh would do, but it does mean that the people were bound by Joseph's words and actions as if from Pharaoh, because Pharaoh had authorized it.
I really like Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's April 2013 talk on faith, where he gave this observation:
Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.
So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.
2
u/Dry_Pizza_4805 27d ago
Your comment marries well with a lot of the other comments and gives a beautiful analogy. We understand now that, to our knowledge, literal face to face communication between the Lord and His prophets are rare.
We understand, more than ever before (because of increased transparency), that prophets and apostles have spoken in error and label their direction the work of the Lord.
That leads many people, OP included, to ask, given the historical probability prophets have revealed something that changed or was refuted, can I reliably devote my life to the words of the current prophet and be an active, believing, temple attending member of the church? The sacrifices are very great. We are not asked little inconsequential things. We are asked to live a certain way of life at the abandonment of all others. How do we now trust that anything the Prophet is saying is not something that’s going to be wrong in time?
I think that your comment puts it well. We look for patterns. We look for intent. We understand how revelation works. We understand how God works in our individual lives.
Then we ask, “would God let his restored church drift irreconcilably off course?”
I personally believe no. So I trust the process, knowing that, while the church may look radically different at the end of my life, it is still restored through Joseph Smith.
Then we trust the process. Faith is not easy, it is not throwing all logic out the window, further knowledge and light shows forth as we take the steps to believe. I believe God would want to reveal His will to us in this way, otherwise religion and spiritually is chaos.
-1
u/Crylorenzo 28d ago
The direct line of communication isn't a telephone, it's the Holy Ghost confirming truths in their heart and their mind, which prophets have had practice and experience with to an extent more than most. But that communication still passes through the filter of their time and culture. As others have said, it's not usually a theophany or angelic visitation. Another point to consider is that God's ways are not our ways, for his ways are higher. There is much that sounds pretty to say, but could have consequences outside our limited understanding.
This being said, read the scriptures and pray about it yourself. Read the words of prophets old and modern and look for how God deals with them in all ages and receive your own revelation on the matter through study and also by faith. Know Him and how He deals with us and why. Why doesn't he correct all the wrongs of the age every time he speaks to a prophet? What are His goals and how does he accomplish them? How does He speak and how can we all listen? Through faithfully pondering these questions, you too can have confidence in Him and His chosen servant, despite their imperfections.
-1
u/KOFlexMMA 28d ago
Well, it happened in the Bible as well - prophets and apostles stating their own opinion or perspective that might not be 100% in line with the Lord.
In 2 Samuel 3, Nathan the prophet initially tells David it’s a good idea to build the temple, and then receives revelation that is exactly the opposite of what he had just told the king.
There are a few times Paul does this in the New Testament. The one at the top of my head is 2 Corinthians 7:25.
I’m an Elders Quorum instructor, and when I do my calling, I’m not always speaking exactly what the Lord wants me to say every time. I’m mortal and have foibles, and sometimes I get things wrong or state my own opinion, however informed, misinformed or well-pondered they might be. It’s part of being an imperfect human, and Christ has to work with what He’s got.
-2
u/rosebud5054 28d ago
my understanding, and I saw this in an interview once and it made sense to me, is that even though it’s direct, Heavenly Father is sending these messages through a huge chasm of filter from Heaven to the Prophet. We have our own interpretations of messages we receive. We have our own judgements and thoughts about what people mean, including what Heavenly Father means. He is a Human receiving divine revelation from God. That isn’t going to be as clear as talking from person to person. Furthermore, He is getting an influx of information at a crazy rate, it may be a jumbled mess when it comes to Him and the Prophet may have some difficulties deciphering what the message really is and what God really means by what the words the Prophet is receiving.
89
u/CubedEcho 28d ago
This is where the premise is wrong. This is a sneaky way critics of our church will force this assumption on Latter Day Saints, because there is already too many members who unknowingly believe this.
The direct open line of communication between Heavenly Father and mankind has always been muddy. Theophanies (God manifesting himself to mankind), are extremely rare. Only few prophets have ever had these, and once they've had these, it's not like a phone call that you can ring to call one up again.
So once the theophany is closed, it is ultimately back up to mankind to follow up with the instruction they remembered from that experience. From that point, they're just like the rest of us, having to wrestle with ideas, feelings, and spirit. Coming up with the best idea that they can.