CFM: Can the prophet lead us astray?

Come Follow Me for Dec. 6-12, 2021 deals with Official Declarations 1 & 2. This raises several important questions to wrestle with, including this:

Q: How do we respond to this quote from Official Declaration 1? “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. . . The Lord would remove . . . any man who attempts to lead the children of men astray.”

A: Evan Smith addresses this in his book Gay LDS Crossroads (a free navigable e-book),which I had the honor of editing. Evan points out:

The Book of Mormon teaches that the church as an institution can go astray, even while under the leadership of a prophet. In Alma 4:11 the church, under the leadership of the prophet Alma, is described as wicked. We know that is a description of the church organization itself because just two verses later, in Alma 4:13, the people who were actually following Christ are described as “others.” I think that scriptural example is useful in interpreting the [above] passage of modern-day canon (Official Declaration 1, Wilford Woodruff, 1890).

I do not believe that statement means God will prevent any prophet from making mistakes that negatively affect other people. We do not believe the prophet is infallible. Rather, I think it simply means God will not allow the prophet to do anything that will bring about another general apostasy again. He will not be permitted to do anything that is so egregious that God will deem it necessary to remove priesthood authority from the earth again and start His church all over from scratch once more. Basically, God will not allow the church to go so far astray that it cannot be corrected before it is too late. But that leaves a lot of room for error by the church before that point is reached. For example, it is possible for the “example of the church” to lead people to personal iniquity:

“Alma saw the wickedness of the church, and he saw also that the example of the church began to lead those who were unbelievers on from one piece of iniquity to another.” (Alma 4:11)

So in our own canon, there appears to be a distinction between leading the church “astray” (which I think means leading the church into a situation where it will cease to have authority) vs. leading individuals to personal failings in righteousness. In any event, it seems clear to me that the concept of the Lord not allowing the prophet to “lead [us] astray” should not be interpreted to suggest there is a prohibition on future doctrinal changes. Unfortunately though, I have seen many church members today use the above statement by Wilford Woodruff to suggest that a change from current prophetic teachings is not possible. I find that position to be ironic given that President Woodruff made his statement in the context of changing a doctrinal status quo (the importance of polygamy) that had been stridently taught . . . as eternal truth.

I recognize that some church leaders have built upon the notion that the prophet will never lead us astray to further teach dogmatic ideas such as “When the prophet speaks, the debate is over” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng). But most church members are not aware that such line of thought originated with an unauthorized statement that President George Albert Smith privately renounced after it was first published in a church magazine in 1945 (https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done).

Similarly, most church members are not aware that Elder Ezra Taft Benson actually got in trouble for giving his talk titled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” in 1980 in which he essentially says the living prophet is more important than scripture and should be followed even in political matters because he cannot lead us astray. President Spencer W. Kimball was so bothered by Elder Benson’s talk that he asked Elder Benson to “apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but they ‘were dissatisfied with his response.’ Kimball required him to explain himself to a combined meeting of all general authorities” as well (http://www.mormonpress.com/ezra-taft-benson-and-politics; https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_14287116).

In any event, I hope church members will again find comfort in the idea that the prophet cannot lead the church astray when the status quo (about what form of marriage is allowed by the church) hopefully changes once more in the future to permit marriage between same-gender spouses.

I think Evan really nails it. Here’s another thought: often overlooked (in the excerpts from addresses printed along with Official Declaration 1) is this quote: “You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it” (said Pres. Wilford Woodruff, emphasis added). That’s straight from the scriptures, in the words of the prophet who issued the Manifesto.

We are entitled to personal revelation, directly from God to us, about the rightness of any pronouncement by a prophet. He will not lead the church astray by causing another general apostasy. But that doesn’t mean the prophet can’t make mistakes, like any imperfect child of God (except Jesus Himself). I seek to extend the same grace to the prophet that I hope for my imperfect self.

-Marci

marcimcpheewriter.com

Image from missedinsunday.com

Previous
Previous

Does the Proclamation on the Family prohibit marriage equality?

Next
Next

What’s age-appropriate? How to teach children about LGBTQ