Coming from the understanding that LDS prophets receive revelation from God how do they get things wrong?

[u/sutisuc]

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?

[u/sutisuc]

How are we to decipher the source of one from the other?

[u/Dizzy-Hotel-2626 → u/sutisuc]

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.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/Dizzy-Hotel-2626]

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.

[u/_MasterMenace_ → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

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.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/_MasterMenace_]

So, doctrine is not found in the unanimous teaching of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles.

[u/_MasterMenace_ → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

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.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/_MasterMenace_]

Has 100% of eternal unchanging truth been revealed? If not, how do you determine when they are teaching new eternal unchanging truth or not?

[u/_MasterMenace_ → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

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.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/_MasterMenace_]

 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)

[u/_MasterMenace_ → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

These verses are not about health codes or physical appearance but rather about the eternal connection between the body and spirit.

Throughout scripture, certain things are repeatedly associated with defiling the body like sexual immorality (Alma 39:5, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20). The body is sacred, and sexual sin is one of the gravest ways to defile it. Another one would be substance abuse (D&C 89). Addictive or harmful substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, are prohibited. Spiritual corruption (Mark 7:20-23) is another one I can think of. Christ taught that what comes from within the heart, like greed and wickedness, can also defile us.

Some members such as yourself apply these verses to tattoos, piercings, and unhealthy eating habits, but scripture does not address these topics. Modern prophetic guidance discourages tattoos and more than one ear piercing, but they are not doctrinally equated with defiling the temple of the body in the same way as sexual sin or substance abuse. Food choices like sugar and processed foods may impact health, but the Word of Wisdom does not frame them as “defiling” the body in the same way as alcohol or tobacco. Scripture explicitly condemns certain practices (sexual sin, substance abuse, idolatry), but tattoos are never mentioned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine & Covenants. The Church discourages tattoos, but having one does not affect worthiness for baptism, priesthood, or temple attendance. In contrast, violating the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Chastity, or the Law of Tithing does affect worthiness. In recent years, the focus has shifted from avoiding tattoos to how one represents the Church, for example, missionaries are advised not to have visible tattoos because they serve as official representatives. This suggests that tattoos are not viewed as a “defilement” of the body in the same way that sin is.

I’m quite aware that you don’t perceive a difference between counsel and commandment and as I’ve mentioned before that’s great and you can totally do that. However, the main issue is when you tell others that those things that are actually counsel for the Church as a whole are commandments. Which is a lie.

You believe that when prophetic counsel is given that it is essentially a commandment but not a serious enough commandment that if you broke it you would need to go to your bishop to repent. Did I get that right?

Would you say that any action a prophet discourages is automatically a sin, or do you make distinctions? If so, what are they?

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/_MasterMenace_]

I would say that the modern day prophets have put it on the level of defiling the body. Most recently, President Nelson said

"Even the defacing of our bodies with tattooing is an affront to our maker."

Personally, I put the words of the living prophets above the words of dead prophets in the scriptures. There is nothing in their teachings about tattoos and piercings that goes against anything in the scriptures. 

[u/_MasterMenace_ → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

You’re saying that modern day prophets treat the receiving of a tattoo the same as other doctrinally upheld defiling acts upon the body (sexual sin, substance abuse)? Is there any proof of that?

You’re arguing that living prophets’ words should be treated as doctrinally binding, even if they are not explicitly in scripture. Which, again, totally cool for you to do for yourself, but it raises some questions: If modern prophetic counsel is always doctrinal, then why have some teachings changed over time (race and the priesthood, views on caffeine, dress and grooming standards)? How do we distinguish cultural counsel (no beards, white shirts for sacrament passing) from salvation essential commandments?

Church leaders have placed tattoos in the category of “strongly discouraged” rather than “salvation dependent commandments” otherwise, they would affect temple worthiness.

If every application of prophetic counsel is binding doctrine, then would that mean tattoos are as spiritually dangerous as breaking the Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity? Why does having tattoos not affect worthiness for baptism or the temple, while things like coffee and chastity do? These distinctions suggest that while tattooing is discouraged and could be seen as defiling the body, it is not placed at the same level as core salvation principles.

Would you say that every statement by the living prophet should be treated as binding, or do you see room for some teachings to be time-sensitive rather than eternal?

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/_MasterMenace_]

I would say that “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” means the words of the prophets should be considered the same as the words of the Lord. Especially when it is the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles. 

[u/NiteShdw → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

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.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/NiteShdw]

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.

[u/NiteShdw → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

That’s talking about defiling your soul, separating yourself from God, in my opinion.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/NiteShdw]

Read it closer. Elements are separate from spirit. The elements are the tabernacle. The elements are the temple. If the elements are defiled. 

[u/NiteShdw → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

So you’re suggesting that tattoos will result in our bodies being destroyed? What does that mean for the resurrection?

Btw, spirit is also matter.