FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Mormonism and prophets/Criticisms related to modern prophets"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|S= | |S= | ||
|L1=Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events? | |L1=Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events? | ||
| + | |L2=Question: Do Mormons consider their prophets to be infallible? | ||
| + | |L3=Question: Can a prophet make mistakes? | ||
| + | |L4=Question: How is it possible for a Church leader or prophet to have been influenced by racism, yet be consistent with the Lord not allowing prophets to lead the Church astray? | ||
| + | |L5=Neil L. Andersen (2012): "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine" | ||
| + | |L6="Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine" | ||
| + | |L7=Charles W. Penrose (1912): "Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?" | ||
| + | |L8=Question: How are Church members protected against error by leaders? | ||
| + | |L9=Question: Should Church members simply have "blind trust" in their leaders? | ||
| + | |L10=Question: Were Biblical prophets infallible? | ||
| + | |L11=Question: How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets? | ||
| + | |L12=Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"? | ||
| + | |L13=Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place? | ||
| + | |L14=Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership? | ||
| + | |L15=Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions? | ||
}} | }} | ||
</onlyinclude> | </onlyinclude> | ||
{{:Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?}} | {{:Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?}} | ||
| − | + | {{:Question: Do Mormons consider their prophets to be infallible?}} | |
| − | {{ | + | {{:Question: Can a Prophet Make Mistakes?}} |
| − | + | {{:Question: How is it possible for a Church leader or prophet to have been influenced by racism, yet be consistent with the Lord not allowing prophets to lead the Church astray?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Source:Neil L. Andersen:Trial of Your Faith:Ensign:Nov 2012:A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine}} | |
| − | + | {{:"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"}} | |
| − | + | {{:Charles W. Penrose (1912): "Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?"}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: How are Church members protected against error by leaders?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: Should Church members simply have "blind trust" in their leaders?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: Were Biblical prophets infallible?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership?}} | |
| − | + | {{:Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions?}} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | }} | + | |
| − | |||
| − | {{ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
| − | |||
| − | {{ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
| − | |||
| − | {{ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
| − | |||
| − | {{ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
| − | |||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Mormonism and church finances/No paid ministry | |link=Mormonism and church finances/No paid ministry | ||
Revision as of 19:56, 23 May 2019
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Contents
- 1 Criticisms related to modern Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
- 2 Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?
- 3 Question: Do Mormons consider their prophets to be infallible?
- 4 Question: Can a prophet make mistakes?
- 4.1 The principle that the Lord will not ever allow the President of the Church to lead the Church astray means that He will not allow that man to lead the Church into apostasy
- 4.2 This statement does not mean that the Lord's servants are perfect or that they will never make mistakes, display weaknesses, sometimes be irritable, have bad breath, or display the characteristics of old age
- 4.3 We should receive and follow the counsel “words and commandments” of the current President of the Church “in all patience and faith”
- 5 Question: How is it possible for a Church leader or prophet to have been influenced by racism, yet be consistent with the Lord not allowing prophets to lead the Church astray?
- 5.1 The goal of the Church is to bring people unto Christ
- 5.2 The prophets will not lead the Church astray from the mission of leading people to Christ: This does not exempt prophets from saying or doing things at times that may be incorrect
- 5.3 The Lord uses imperfect people to run his Church
- 5.4 If we go in with the expectation that the prophets will never do or say anything wrong, we will be disappointed
- 5.5 There is a possibility that we may get things wrong, because we are NOT Jesus Christ: He allows us to learn as we go along
- 6 Neil L. Andersen (2012): "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"
- 7 "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"
- 8 Charles W. Penrose (1912): "Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?"
- 9 Question: How are Church members protected against error by leaders?
- 10 Question: Should Church members simply have "blind trust" in their leaders?
- 11 Question: Were Biblical prophets infallible?
- 12 Question: How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets?
- 13 Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?
- 14 Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place?
- 15 Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership?
- 16 Why use a public affairs department?
- 17 Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions?
- 18 Church News, "Five Ways to Detect and Avoid Doctrinal Deception"
Jump to details:
- Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?
- Question: Do Mormons consider their prophets to be infallible?
- Question: Can a prophet make mistakes?
- Question: How is it possible for a Church leader or prophet to have been influenced by racism, yet be consistent with the Lord not allowing prophets to lead the Church astray?
- Neil L. Andersen (2012): "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"
- "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"
- Charles W. Penrose (1912): "Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?"
- Question: How are Church members protected against error by leaders?
- Question: Should Church members simply have "blind trust" in their leaders?
- Question: Were Biblical prophets infallible?
- Question: How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets?
- Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?
- Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place?
- Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership?
- Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions?
Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?
Prophets have many roles, only one of which is to prophesy future events: The key issue is the possession of divine authority, in that they give whatever message(s) God wishes communicated to His children
Some critics say that Latter-day Saint prophets aren't really "prophets" because they don't prophesy by foretelling unknown events. They commonly issue challenges such as, "If Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, tell me one event that he's prophesied." Do LDS prophets "prophesy"?
Prophets have many roles, only one of which is to prophesy future events. Most modern LDS prophets have been forthtellers rather than foretellers. The key issue is the possession of divine authority, in that they give whatever message(s) God wishes communicated to His children.
The LDS Bible Dictionary has a good response to this:
The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. The message was usually prefaced with the words "Thus saith Jehovah." He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past.... It was also the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller.[1]
The Anchor Bible Dictionary treats prophesy as "inspired speech at the initiative of a divine power"[2] and includes the following:
- Predictions or apparent predictions
- Eschatology or apocalyptic
- Social or religious criticism
- Commissioned messages from deities
Furthermore, according to the Bible, the key role of "prophecy" is to testify of Christ, for "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10).
Clearly, foretelling future events is only one calling of a prophet; many Biblical and modern prophets have carried out their calling by focusing on other roles. For example, Elijah is considered one of the great prophets of the Old Testament, and yet he didn't prophesy about the future. In a similar way, President Gordon B. Hinckley has made numerous social criticisms on topics such as the ills of pornography, the importance of the role of the family and the need for self reliance. In doing so, he has evoked warnings of previous prophets while not necessarily making a direct declaration of some pending event. At the same time, he has acted as a commissioned messenger for God with statements such as the Proclamation on the Family,[3] published in 1995 over the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and read by President Hinckley to the sisters of the Church in a General Relief Society talk.
One example of LDS prophets "forthtelling" is Family Home Evening. In 1915 President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency began a Churchwide effort to strengthen the family. They called on parents in the Church to gather their children once each week for a "Home Evening." Families were to take time to pray and sing together, read the scriptures, teach the gospel to one another, and participate in other activities that would build family unity.
The stated purpose of Family Home Evening was to strengthen families, which may have seemed curious at that time, when families were strong by today's standards. We now live in an age when about half of all marriages end in divorce, and the need for Family Home Evening is readily apparent. LDS prophets implemented a solution that addressed the future weaking of the institution of marriage, something infinitely more valuable than simply prophecying its demise.
Question: Do Mormons consider their prophets to be infallible?
Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation
Some people hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views. This leads some to assume that prophets are infallible. [4]
Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.[5] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:
The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."[6]
Lu Dalton, writing in the Church's periodical for women, explained:
We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.[7]
Other authors have long taught the same thing:
1887 B. H. Roberts, Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48 (November 28, 1887): 760-763; a portion of which reads: “Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible” (762)
1889 Charles W. Penrose, Editorial: Judge Anderson and ‘Blood Atonement,’ Deseret Weekly 39. 25 (December 14, 1889): 772a-773c. [Editor is Charles W. Penrose; in his response to the lengthy statement by Judge Anderson, he quotes from the same pamphlet which the Judge had quoted from: Blood Atonement, by Elder Charles W. Penrose, published in 1884; Penrose quotes a statement which the Judge had not] “’The law of God is paramount. When men give their views upon any doctrine, the value of those views is as the value of the man. If he is a wise man, a man of understanding, of experience and authority, such views are of great weight with the community; but they are not paramount, nor equal to the revealed law of God’” (773ab)
1892 21 March 1892: Elder Charles W. Penrose, at the time a counselor in the Salt Lake Stake Presidency: "At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet . . . we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God." Millennial Star 54 (21 March 1892): 191
1902 Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902. "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” - Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Signature, 2007), page 121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902.
1907 March 26, 1907. [The following was first published in “An Address. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World”, in Millennial Star 69. 16 (April 18, 1907): 241-247; 249-254; also in Improvement Era 10 (May 1907): 481-495; reprinted also in Messages of the First Presidency, Volume IV, compiled by James R. Clark (Bookcraft, SLC 1970): 142-157; “We refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon our beliefs, or by what they allege must be the practical consequences of our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think may be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves do not accept. We are to be judged by our own interpretations and by our own actions, not by the logic of others, as to what is, or may be, the result of our faith”, page 154.
1921 B.H. Roberts: As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren…they do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine. When in the revelations it is said concerning the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Church shall “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith”—(Doc & Cov., Sec. 21)—it is understood, of course, that his has reference to the word of God received through revelation, and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word spoken.[8]
The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.
Question: Can a prophet make mistakes?
The principle that the Lord will not ever allow the President of the Church to lead the Church astray means that He will not allow that man to lead the Church into apostasy
One part of knowing that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true is knowing whose Church it really is and that our Savior lives and leads the Church today. It is knowing that he has entrusted a living Latter-day Prophet with all the keys necessary to direct, act, and receive what is needed to guide and direct the Church under the Lord’s direction whose Church this is.
Many Latter-day Prophets have taught that the Lord will not suffer the President of the Church to ever lead the Church astray. This is a true principle, but it only makes sense in light of the destiny of the Church as taught and revealed in Latter-day Saint scripture. Unlike previous dispensations, the Lord’s Church on earth today will not fall into apostasy, speaking of the body of the Church as a whole and not individuals.
This statement does not mean that the Lord's servants are perfect or that they will never make mistakes, display weaknesses, sometimes be irritable, have bad breath, or display the characteristics of old age
The principle that the Lord, who is the head of the Church will not ever allow the President of the Church to lead the Church astray means that He will not allow that man to lead the Church into apostasy. It does not mean that his servants are perfect or that they will never make mistakes, display weaknesses, sometimes be irritable, have bad breath, or display the characteristics of old age.
In a discourse to the Saints on March 21, 1858, President Brigham Young asked:
Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right" [9]
We should receive and follow the counsel “words and commandments” of the current President of the Church “in all patience and faith”
There is also another principle involved here that we should receive and follow the counsel “words and commandments” of the current President of the Church “in all patience and faith” with great promises attending (Doctrine and Covenants 21: 4-9).
Question: How is it possible for a Church leader or prophet to have been influenced by racism, yet be consistent with the Lord not allowing prophets to lead the Church astray?
The goal of the Church is to bring people unto Christ
This is a difficult question. At face value, the idea that the Lord will not allow prophets to lead us astray seems to be in direct conflict with the Church acknowledging that early Church leaders and prophets were influenced by certain racist tendencies of their times. For example, how could the Priesthood restriction been allowed and yet be consistent with the prophets "not leading the Church astray?".
The first thing we must do is step back and see what the Church and prophets are all about.
What is the goal of the church?
According to Spencer W. Kimball, and reaffirmed by the other prophets it is as follows:
First, to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; Secondly, to perfect the Saints by preparing them to receive the ordinances of the gospel and by instruction and discipline to gain exaltation; Thirdly, to redeem the dead by performing vicarious ordinances of the gospel for those who have lived on the earth. (See Ensign, May 1981, p. 5.) All three are part of one work—to assist our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, in their grand and glorious mission “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39.) I renew that declaration today. [10]
The purpose of the Gospel is to bring people to Jesus Christ. The Church is the organization that Jesus set up on the Earth to bring people back to Jesus and back to God so we can be joint heirs with Christ. (Romans 8:17.)
The prophets will not lead the Church astray from the mission of leading people to Christ: This does not exempt prophets from saying or doing things at times that may be incorrect
Will the prophets knowingly lead us astray from this mission? No. They won't. They will keep us on that path and we should follow them.
Is it at least possible that they will say and do things that aren’t the best? Or that they may make unwanted speculation about things that they shouldn't? Certainly. Just as one example, Joseph Fielding Smith stated that it was doubtful that men would even go to the moon. He stated in the first edition of Answers to Gospel Questions:
Naturally the wonders in the heavens that man has created will be numbered among the signs which have been predicted—the airplanes, the guided missiles, and man-made planets that revolve around the earth. Keep it in mind, however, that such man-made planets belong to this earth, and it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet.[11]
He later accepted a flag from the Apollo astronauts. When asked about this by a reporter, he stated, "Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?"
The Lord uses imperfect people to run his Church
The Lord uses imperfect people to run his Church. He has promised he will make it all right in the end.
Karl G. Maeser taught:
On one occasion he was going with a group of young missionaries across the alps. They were crossing a high mountain pass on foot. There were long sticks stuck into the snow of the glacier to mark the path so that travelers could find their way safely across the glacier and down the mountain on the other side.
When they reached the summit, Brother Maeser wanted to teach the young elders a lesson. He stopped at the pinnacle of the mountain and pointed to those sticks that they had followed. And he said, “Brethren, behold the priesthood of God. They are just common old sticks, but it’s the position that counts. Follow them and you will surely be safe. Stray from them and you will surely be lost.” And so it is in the Church. We are called to leadership positions and given the power of the priesthood. And we are just common old sticks, but the position we are given counts. It is separate and apart from us, but while we hold it, we hold it. [12]
If we go in with the expectation that the prophets will never do or say anything wrong, we will be disappointed
If we go in with the expectation that the prophets will never do or say anything wrong, we will be disappointed.
Just a few examples from history (There are also reprimands in the D&C: D&C 105:2). They started doing Baptism for the dead in the river in Nauvoo - until God stopped them. They started doing sealings of adoption- until God stopped them. Why didn't God stop the race issue? He did...but He just did it later in his time frame for His purpose.
So again, If we go in with the expectation that the prophets will never do or say anything that might be wrong, we will be disappointed. Prophets are learning and are being taught just as we are learning and being taught. Bruce R. McConkie stated that quite clearly. [13]
But, if we go in with the expectation that the prophets will keep us on the Gospel path, complete with the ordinances we need to return to our Heavenly Father, then we will know what it means that the prophets will never lead us astray.
In John 6, Jesus taught hard things:
66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
There is a possibility that we may get things wrong, because we are NOT Jesus Christ: He allows us to learn as we go along
Jesus has taught the words of eternal life. This is his Church. We will get things wrong, because we are NOT Jesus Christ. He allows us to learn as we go along. The prophets will not lead us astray from that goal of eternal life.
We should also fall back onto the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon in 1830. Nobody could have done that. There were things that Joseph Smith and scholars of the day did not know that are contained in the book. They would have written the opposite based on the science of the day.
If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. It also means we have a prophet today. Will they lead us astray? Is that statement even true that they won't? The prophets will not lead us astray from the Gospel path. Can they be incorrect on other issues-even involving the Church? Yes, they can. When they claim revelation and follow proper procedures to make something binding, then we bow to that. Brigham Young presented no formal revelation for implementing the priesthood restriction and there is no scripture that can justify the ban's existence. When the prophets haven't received revelation and are perhaps just trying to do good of their own free will as has been divinely mandated (D&C 58:27-28), then it is possible that they may get something wrong. We all have our free agency (2 Nephi 2: 16, 27; 10:23;) and the doctrine of infallibility is in direct contradiction to free agency.
Issues relating to the priesthood and temple restrictions are complicated ones, and we still have yet to learn more about them. As far as can be discerned, we haven't received any revelation as to why they happened. But, we should be open to the ideas that God allowed it to happen without revelation. Perhaps the restrictions were inspired and, like some of the fallen structures of the Old Testament, were inspired but also less than ideal (with the redemption of those fallen structures coming in New Testament times) and the Lord had a wiser purpose in mind in putting up with the restriction for the time it remained in place. Or perhaps they were simply a mistake like the Children of Israel and their appointment of a king when the Lord instructed them not to appoint one (1 Samuel 8: 5-22). Keep in mind that Israel had a king for 400 years while the restrictions lasted around 130. So the Lord can sometimes allow things to happen--even for a long time-- just so that we learn from mistakes. Perhaps, following a paradigm that Eugene England crafted and popularized, we can view the restrictions as something the Lord allowed so that we can learn today how to love those that have been most affected by it. As England put it:
Besides being the repository of true principles and authority, the Church is the instrument provided by a loving God to help us become like him. It gives us schooling and experiences with each other that can bind us in an honest but loving community, which is the essential nurturing place for salvation. If we cannot accept the Church and the challenges it offers with the openness and courage and humility they require, then I believe our historical studies and our theological enterprises are mainly a waste of time and possibly destructive. We cannot understand the meaning of the history of Mormonism or judge the truth of Christ’s restored gospel unless we appreciate—and act on— the truth of the Church.
Thus the Church can give us all the necessary doctrines to learn the fullest meaning of love, but then it can also provide us all the evils, annoyances, discomforts, etc. of life so that we can have the opportunities necessary to put love into practice. Perhaps the existence of the restrictions can allow members not of African descent to learn how to relate to, empathize with, and heal the hearts of members of African descent from the pain they have experienced or do now experience because of the restrictions. Perhaps it can allow members of African descent the opportunity to learn forgiveness for a grave hurt that they have experienced at the hands of Church leaders and/or members. An approach similar to this is taken by Dr. W. Paul Reeve: a historian that specializes in the history of blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[14]
All this said, we simply don't know why the restrictions happened and any speculation is as good as the next. Only time and revelation will allow us to understand why these things happened. Regardless, we can see that the Church can still be God's authorized vehicle for revelation and have the priesthood (thus still being true) and have the possibility of error.
Neil L. Andersen (2012): "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"
Neil L. Andersen:
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.
The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12꞉6)[15]—(Click here to continue)
"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. —(Click here to continue) [16]
Charles W. Penrose (1912): "Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?"
Charles W. Penrose:
Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.[17]
Question: How are Church members protected against error by leaders?
The Church's system of councils provides protection against the fallibility of a single man or leader
President Joseph Fielding Smith explained:
An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.[18]
Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems:
Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.[19]
The Lord will not help his children avoid all stumbling and error; He will protect them from permanent harm to His work, as Boyd K. Packer taught:
Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work.[20]
Question: Should Church members simply have "blind trust" in their leaders?
Lorenzo Snow: "because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise"
Hardly, says President Lorenzo Snow:
There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise.[21]
Question: Were Biblical prophets infallible?
The Bible itself does not support this claim
Some critics will protest that this standard is not applied to Biblical prophets, yet the Bible itself does not support this claim. One Bible commentator noted that the Biblical authors were not perfect, and that they made errors of expression even in the Biblical record:
Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.[22]
Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision
Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision (Compare Acts 9:7 & Acts 22:9). Paul and Barnabas disagreed severely enough for it to disrupt their missions Acts 15:36–39. Peter and Paul also criticized the other’s writing 2 Peter 3:16 and behavior regarding the Church Galatians 2:11–16.
Question: How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets?
Biblical prophets and modern prophets are divinely called, but clearly are not perfect
To get a better idea of how prophets are limited yet still divinely called, it can be helpful to look at some examples of Bible prophets and compare them with modern prophets.
| Bible prophets | Modern prophets |
| Moses disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20:) | |
| Joshua was deceived by Achan, who did so in order to obtain money. Achan's actions even resulted in the death of some people. After investigation, Achan was discovered and sentenced. (Joshua 7:)
Joshua was also deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distance away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9:) |
Gordon B. Hinckley was deceived by Mark Hofmann, who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced. |
| Gideon repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Judges 7:; Matthew 12:39) | |
| Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7:) | Bruce R. McConkie and others advanced explanations for the priesthood restriction such as that blacks would only receive the priesthood in the Millennium. Their explanations turned out to be wrong; the Lord later told His prophets to extend the priesthood to blacks, long before the time period that some prophets had supposed it would happen. |
| Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4:1) | Brigham Young felt some personal prejudices against blacks, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than caucasians. |
| Jesus' apostles were not always perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven. (Mark 9:34) | Joseph Smith was not always perfectly humble or modest. He once said he had "more to boast of than ever any man had."[23] (See here, though, to learn how critics misinterpret this event. |
A person could spend all day looking for examples of the Lord's chosen servants making mistakes, but such an activity does nothing to edify or strengthen people. In all of these situations, a prophet's weakness or mistakes do not make him any less a prophet, called of God to do His work.
Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?
It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity
Some claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."[24]
<onlyinclude>Snuffer quotes D. Michael Quinn: “a First Presidency secretary acknowledged that [David O.] McKay liked his ‘celebrity status,’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized’” (349). He cites Quinn’s Extensions of Power volume, which gives as its source a book by secretary Francis M. Gibbons.[25] A check of these references is discouraging, but not surprising for those familiar with Quinn’s methods.[26] The actual text of Gibbons’ volume for the pages cited reads:
[263] The encroachment on [McKay's] private life that celebrity status imposed...was something President McKay adjusted to with apparent difficulty. He was essentially a modest, private person, reared in a rural atmosphere, who at an early age was thrust into the limelight of the Mormon community. And as he gained in experience...as wide media exposure made his name and face known in most households, he became, in a sense, a public asset whose time and efforts were assumed to be available to all. This radical change in status was a bittersweet experience. To be recognized, lauded, and lionized is something that seemingly appeals to the ego and self-esteem of the most modest among us, even to David O. McKay. But the inevitable shrinkage in the circle of privacy that this necessarily entails provides a counter-balance that at times outweighs the positive aspects of public adulation. This is easily inferred from a diary entry of July 19, 1950....The diarist hinted that it had become so difficult to venture forth on the streets of Salt Lake City that he had about decided to abandon the practice. For such a free spirit as he, for one who was so accustomed to going and coming as he pleased, any decision to restrict his movements about the city was an imprisonment of sorts. But the only alternatives, neither of which was acceptable, were to go in disguise or to ignore or to cut short those who approached him. The latter would have been especially repugnant to one such as David O. McKay, who had cultivated to the highest degree the qualities of courtesy and attentive listening.
It was ironic, therefore, that as the apostle's fame and influence widened, the scope of his private life was proportionately restricted.... [347]
Everywhere he traveled in Australia, or elsewhere on international tours, President McKay received celebrity treatment. Enthusiastic, cheering, singing crowds usually greeted him at every stop, sometimes to the surprise or chagrin of local residents. A group of well-known Australian athletes, about a flight to Adelaide with President McKay's party, learned an embarrassing lesson in humility. Seeing a large, noisy crowd at the airport, and assuming they were the object of its adulation, the handsome young men stepped forward to acknowledge the greeting [348] only to find that the cheers and excitement were generated by the tall, white-haired man who came down the ramp after them.
It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” (whose privacy and personal convenience suffered because of how unwilling he was to appear rude or short with anyone) into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity. The original line about being “recognized, lauded, and lionized” is obviously intended to point out that such things are a danger to anyone because they appeal to the ego, and all would be tempted by them—but it is likewise clear that Gibbons does not think that McKay succumbed to that temptation. Snuffer is helping Quinn bear false witness against both McKay and Gibbons.
Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place?
It is not the purpose of a prophet to answer these kind of issues
It is claimed that General Authorities are very silent about some issues, and that academic or volunteer organizations take their place. [27]
Some critics of the Church believe that a prophet must take a position on every single issue, such as stem cell research or organ cloning, or responding to Book of Mormon anachronisms. Ironically, these are the same critics who claim that the Church tells us how to think, and that we must always accept the prophet's opinion on every matter. On many issues, Church members are simply encouraged to form their own conclusions.
It is not the purpose of a prophet to answer these kind of issues. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ, not to describe ancient American history or culture. Those questions have nothing to do with our spiritual progression. In the church we can find all the answers that we need, for our salvation. Certainly, General Authorities will address what we need to hear for our progression in the plan of God, and so that we can accomplish the mission of the church, which is: the perfecting of the saints. Latter-Day Saints certainly don't need to know those answers to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially if they have faith.
Asking why believing scholars, groups, and organizations are necessary is like asking why a library is necessary. Such groups attempt to find answers and explore possibilities. Whenever scientists encounter problems, they don't back up and suddenly claim that science is wrong. Instead they attempt to find solutions or think of explanations for those problems.
Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership?
This idea is illogical and somewhat offensive
This page addresses two related criticisms of the Church:
- Some claim that official statements issued by Church public affairs are only the output of a bureaucratic Church department, and do not necessarily represent the views or intended message of the prophets and apostles.
- Others complain that receiving information from Church public affairs is not "as good" as hearing from prophets and apostles, and claim that Church leaders are hiding behind public affairs spokespeople.
It is ironic that the same critics who complain about a "rogue" Public Affairs department also often claim that individual apostles have the power or influence to insist that dissidents be subject to Church discipline. How is it, then, that these apostles are so powerful that they can unilaterally demand that someone be excommunicated, while remaining either so clueless or impotent that they cannot rein in a Public Affairs department that will not stay on message?
Does Church Public Affairs "freelance"?
Church Public Affairs has issued statements that make their role clear:
Church Public Affairs "does not act independently of church leadership,” spokesman Scott Trotter….“Official statements on the [LDS] church websites are approved at the highest level.” He added, "The church is naturally concerned when some members deliberately misrepresent its leaders and actions. In such cases, the church reserves the right to publicly correct the record."[28]
In 2014, Michael Otterson (managing director of Church Public Affairs) wrote:
First, it’s important to understand that the Public Affairs Department of the Church does not freelance. For Public Affairs to initiate or take a position inconsistent with the views of those who preside over the Church is simply unthinkable, as anyone who has ever worked for the Church will attest.
As managing director of the Public Affairs Department, I work under the direct supervision of two members of the Twelve apostles, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishop, and alongside a remarkable and devoted staff of men and women.
This group of senior General Authorities often refers matters of particular importance to other councils of men and women leaders, to the full Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and to the First Presidency for further discussion or decision.[29]
He elsewhere wrote:
Please also understand that no Church spokesperson...issues statements on behalf of the Church that are not either initiated or approved by members of the Twelve and, at times, by the First Presidency. We stand by the statement that was issued on their behalf, and which was accurate in every detail.[30]
Why use a public affairs department?
Elder Quentin L. Cook explained that a Public Affairs department is sometimes the most effect way to disseminate prophetic and apostolic messages. He also emphasized that anything produced by Church Public Affairs is reviewed and approved at the highest levels of Church government:
It’s interesting. People who disagree with anything that is either sent by letter or put in the Newsroom, or however it’s done, can find interesting ways to say that it really doesn’t mean what it says.
You look back at the history of Wilford Woodruff’s announcement on polygamy in 1890 and there were still people quibbling about that for a long, long time.
The Church uses, the First Presidency and the Twelve use, whatever means will be most effective depending on what the issue is and who it affects. Most often that will be a letter to stake presidents and bishops, and it will be sent all over the world. But sometimes it’s for a particular area.
Sometimes we use news releases. Sometimes we use the Newsroom site to put those up, particularly with community issues that are important. When something is put up on the Newsroom or an announcement is made in a different way, that is the Church’s policy.
It’s interesting to me that the announcement that the priesthood would be available to all worthy male members regardless of race was a news release. Ultimately there was a letter sent out, but it was announced at a press conference with the Managing Director of Public Affairs. Some people have chosen to say they’re not going to believe it unless it’s in a letter. Others have said that the prophet will have to tell them personally. I think that kind of tells you where they are when they make those kinds of statements.
When something goes up on the Newsroom site, you can be sure that the approval process is such that those official statements have the complete support of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.[31]
Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions?
"No member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve"
Church News, "Five Ways to Detect and Avoid Doctrinal Deception"
Church News, Church News, (17 September 2013)On the final day of BYU Campus Education Week, Robert L. Millet, an author and BYU professor, gave a presentation outlining five points Latter-day Saints can use to avoid doctrinal deception in the Church. He said that red flags should go off in members’ heads when they encounter things that are not doctrinally sound.
One Saturday morning, Brother Millet said, he received a call from Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Maxwell was concerned about a book that had received a lot of attention and had gained somewhat of a cult following. He asked Brother Millet if he knew about it and what he thought about it. Brother Millet said, “Elder Maxwell, frankly, it has a lot of doctrinal problems.”
Elder Maxwell said, “It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be. Our lack of doctrinal sophistication makes us an easy prey for such fads.” Brother Millet then explained that Latter-day Saints ought to pore over the scriptures constantly to learn the doctrines, lest they be deceived.
Sooner or later someone comes along claiming a new revelation, a new doctrine, or some new way of life, said Brother Millet. He asked how members can determine if something is from God. He proposed five questions that a person might ask to determine if something is false.
Click here to view the complete article
First Presidency
It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church-for ample teachings have been given on the point--that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood.
While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood. [32]
The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom
When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration conveys something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also they should understand that directions for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head. All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, and for those over whom they are appointed and ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. [33]
Joseph Smith
Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves. [34]
Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God. [35]
The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them. [36]
Brigham Young
The adversary presents his principles and arguments in the most approved style, and in the most winning tone, attended with the most graceful attitudes; and he is very careful to ingratiate himself into the favour of the powerful and influential of mankind, uniting himself with popular parties, floating into offices of trust and emolument by pandering to popular feeling, though it should seriously wrong and oppress the innocent. Such characters put on the manners of an angel, appearing as nigh like angels of light as they possibly can, to deceive the innocent and the unwary. The good which they do, they do it to bring to pass an evil purpose upon the good and honest followers of Jesus Christ. [37]
If the Lord Almighty should reveal to a High Priest, or to any other than the head, things that are, or that have been and will be, and show to him the destiny of this people twenty-five years from now, or a new doctrine that will in five, ten, or twenty years hence become the doctrine of this Church and kingdom, but which has not yet been revealed to this people, and reveal it to him by the same Spirit, the same messenger, the same voice, and the same power that gave revelations to Joseph when he was living, it would be a blessing to that High Priest, or individual; but he must rarely divulge it to a second person on the face of the earth, until God reveals it through the proper source to become the property of the people at large. Therefore when you hear Elders, High Priests, Seventies, or the Twelve, (though you cannot catch any of the Twelve there, but you may the High Priests, Seventies, and Elders) say that God does not reveal through the President of the Church that which they know, and tell wonderful things, you may generally set it down as a God's truth that the revelation they have had, is from the devil, and not from God. [38]
Now I want to tell you that which, perhaps, many of you do not know. Should you receive a vision of revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for He cannot safely reveal Himself to such persons. It is as much as He can do to get a particle of sense into some of the best and most influential men in the Church, in regard to real confidence in themselves. They cannot keep things within their own bosoms.
They are like a great many boys and men that I have seen, who would cause even a sixpence, when given to them, to become so hot that it would burn through the pocket of a new vest, or pair of pantaloons, if they could not spend it. It could not stay with them; they would feel so tied up because they were obliged to keep it, that the very fire of discontent would cause it to burn through the pocket, and they would lose the sixpence. This is the case with a great many of the Elders of Israel, with regard to keeping secrets. They burn with the idea, "O, I know things that brother Brigham does not understand." Bless your souls, I guess you do. Don't you think that there are some things that you do not understand? "There may be some things which I do not understand." That is as much as to say, "I know more than you." I am glad of it, if you do. I wish that you knew a dozen times more.
When you see a person of that character, he has no soundness within him. If a person understands God and godliness, the principles of heaven, the principle of integrity, and the Lord reveals anything to that individual, no matter what, unless He gives permission to disclose it, it is locked up in eternal silence. And when persons have proven to their messengers that their bosoms are like the lock-ups of eternity, then the Lord says, I can reveal anything to them, because they never will disclose it until I tell them to. Take persons of any other character, and they sap the foundation of the confidence they ought to have in themselves and in their God. [39]
Joseph F. Smith
We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known his mind and will to the world. [40]
Joseph Fielding Smith
It seems that periodically it becomes necessary to call attention to the true order the Lord has given us in regard to revelation. During the past three or four months I have received a number of communications, coming from various parts of the Church, asking if certain purported revelations or dreams or purported visions are reliable and have the endorsement of the Authorities of the Church. . . .
Now, the Lord will give revelations to this Church, and he will give commandments to this Church from time to time…but always in accordance with his own law; and we do not have to run around and invite individuals who are without authority to relate to us purported visions, or revelations or commandments, for the guidance of this people….
If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. It is all out of order, in this Church, for somebody to invite him into a sacrament service to relate that to the Church, because the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church. . . .
Now, these stories of revelation, that are being circulated around, are of no consequence, except for rumor and silly talk by persons who have no authority….When you know God's truth, when you enter into God's rest, you will not be hunting after revelations from Tom, Dick and Harry all over the world. You will not be following the will-o'-the-wisp of the vagaries of men and women who advance nonsense and their own ideas. [41]
When a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of stakes and the bishops of the wards over the signatures of the presiding authorities, or it will be published in some of the regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church, or it will be presented before such a gathering as this at a general conference. It will not spring up in some distant part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circulated among the Latter-day Saints. Now, you may remember this. [42]
There have been individuals, from time to time, who have been invited to go into the wards, in the sacrament meetings, priesthood classes, Sunday Schools and Mutual Improvement organizations, and at times, for their special benefit, cottage meetings have been held where they might come and relate remarkable visions or revelations claimed by these individuals to have been given to them. All this is wrong. . . .
Now, the Lord will give revelations to this Church; and he will give commandments to this Church from time to time, and as it is necessary; but always in accordance with his own law; and we do not have to run around and invite individuals who are without authority to relate unto us purported visions, or revelations or commandments, for the guidance of this people.
Everything in the Church is done in order. Everything pertaining to the kingdom of God is in order, because it is obedient to law.
If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. It is all out of order, in this Church, for somebody to invite him into a sacrament service to relate that to the Church, because the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church. [43]
Boyd K. Packer
We always know who is called to lead or to teach and have the opportunity to sustain or to oppose the action. It did not come as an invention of man but was set out in the revelations: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11; emphasis added). In this way, the Church is protected from any imposter who would take over a quorum, a ward, a stake, or the Church. [44]
Neal A. Maxwell
There is a difference between a spiritual impression and a personal obsession. The latter may merely mask a long-held drive to be heard or to be vindicated, and aging does not automatically improve such views. [45]
No paid ministry
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ?
- Question: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints employ a professional clergy?
- Question: Is the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others receive a living stipend while serving the Church evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church?
- Question: Why do General Authorities receive living stipends?
- Question: Do General Authorities receive a large sum of money when they are called?
- Question: Do General Authorities sign a non-disclosure agreement promising to never divulge what they are paid?
- Question: Who is the highest-paid Church employee in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?