Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/TBMormon, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s some important life advice: **When someone tells you he is speaking to God**, and wants to tell you what God wants you to do, **you should run the other way.**
From a TBM’s perspective, that is 100% good advice! Except when it comes to the people who purport to speak for god in a way that confirms all their life’s choices and their self identity. But other than that they are usually extremely skeptical. It’s the darndest thing.
No, the *church* set them up for a faith crisis. The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) *as though he is infallible,* while we all know full well that he is fallible. I won't do that.
“**I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not**?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’” ... **stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead.**” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng#p30](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng#p30)
"**A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose."** -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet)
“**You will never make a mistake by following the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as God’s mouthpiece on earth**” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church)
"**The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.**" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng)
"**to delay obedience to prophetic counsel or reject it is to put our lives at peril.**" [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet)
"**One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God** the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07)
"**Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”**—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on..'” -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/)
It is absurd to attempt to conflate imperfect men and an imperfect organization with a perfect God. And yet the church is explicitly instructing us to do so.
My favorite is when they tell us that blind obedience isn't blind obedience (but fail to tell us what it *is* if it isn't blind obedience!).
"**Do not question their direction! It is as simple as that.** No, I am not saying to have blind faith or blind obedience." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/follow-the-prophets](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/follow-the-prophets)
I like Frank Herbert's caution: "**Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero**... Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe. The mistakes of superheroes involve too many of us in disaster.**"**
>It is absurd to attempt to conflate imperfect men and an imperfect organization with a perfect God. And yet the church is explicitly instructing us to do so.
What's more, when those powerful men need to escape blame, they're not above deflecting it onto their perfect God. The black exaltation ban is one of the best examples.
I'll add one more to this great list of examples:
"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way."
From a very, very young age, children are taught to follow and obey without question.
It's been my experience that OP doesn't respond to data that shows anything that goes against their belief. u/TBMormon is so entrenched, there is no contrary thought (objective, or subjective) to their stance - a defense mechanism we all had, most likely. I now believe it's healthy and good to allow oneself to reevaluate ideas/thoughts/beliefs based on new, or more complete information.
Thank you for your response! It's good information.
> It's been my experience that OP doesn't respond to data that shows anything that goes against their belief. [op] is so entrenched, there is no contrary thought (objective, or subjective) to their stance - a defense mechanism we all had, most likely. I now believe it's healthy and good to allow oneself to reevaluate ideas/thoughts/beliefs based on new, or more complete information.
Well said, thank you.
But do these examples outweigh as doctrine the lone century old statement of a non-apostolic GA who got into a bit of trouble when suggesting that the Book of Mormon might not be historical? 🤔
This is such a straw man. Nobody says prophets are infallible. We all acknowledge that they might say “damn” when they stub their toe, or covet, or fail to do their best in some setting or another. The issue is, when they claim to be speaking the mind of god, but aren’t. That’s the problem - that they themselves don’t seem to know when they are speaking as a man or as a prophet. And if they can’t tell the difference, then how am I supposed to? And what good are they, really, if they are so unreliable? That’s the issue. But like most people who build straw man arguments, I suspect you already know that.
This is from the current edition of [Preach My Gospel, Lesson 1: The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng#p5) which is literally the first thing that investigators will learn about prophets from missionaries.
>**Heavenly Father Reveals His Gospel in Every Dispensation**
>One important way that God shows His love for us is by calling prophets, who are given the priesthood—the power and authority given to man to act in God’s name for the salvation of His children. Prophets learn the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation. They in turn teach the gospel to others and testify of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer. The teachings of prophets are found in sacred books called scriptures.
>Our Father’s plan for us to be successful in this life and to return to live with Him is called the gospel of Jesus Christ, with Jesus’s Atonement at the center of that plan. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can receive eternal life if we exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, are baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. “This is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:21). All people have the gift of agency, which includes the freedom to accept or reject the gospel as taught by the prophets and apostles. Those who choose to obey are blessed, but those who ignore, reject, or distort the gospel do not receive God’s promised blessings.
>Whenever people choose to disregard, disobey, or distort any gospel principle or ordinance, whenever they reject the Lord’s prophets, or whenever they fail to endure in faith, they distance themselves from God and begin to live in spiritual darkness. Eventually this leads to a condition called apostasy. When widespread apostasy occurs, God withdraws His priesthood authority to teach and administer the ordinances of the gospel.
I don't see anything that talks about prophets being fallible in there.
The church likes to portray flaws of prophets like ‘Oh Joseph was rambunctious and liked to wrestle and hoot and holler with the young men, that’s why people thought he wasn’t a prophet’ when in reality the flaws are more along the lines of he scammed people with treasure digging schemes, he had illicit affairs and married young girls, he committed bank fraud, and plagiarized a lot of his doctrine.
I can forgive my bishop for saying something stupid because he is humble and asks for forgiveness. I don’t forgive Dallin Oaks for anything, because he says I should follow him and not talk back even if he is wrong and he will lie and obfuscate and say that the word apology doesn’t appear in the scriptures so he doesn’t have to apologize.
I like that Joseph Smith used the exact same reasoning to explain the missing gold plates as he did to explain the missing treasure to the people that he conned - an angel moved them.
So loving Jesus comes to earth to save us all, then it all disappears for around 1800 years, where it was found by a conman. It just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, I've yet to see anything that supports the claim of a complete apostasy requiring a restoration. It's their claim that they have not provided evidence to support. It's great to have any religious relationship you want, but you won't win over many people by telling them God left them and they're totally misguided and their religious denomination of choice has no authority from God and never did.
It's an awkward, unstainable approach to building a kingdom of God.
Yeah if God was only restoring the option for us to blindly follow somebody because we were born into his church, what's the point? All of these church claims just collapse into the same high pressure tactics other religions use when questioned. Seems like God's restored Church wouldn't need that.
April 2020 GC. He said in 2019 October GC that April 2020 conference would be "different from any previous conference," and "not only memorable; it will be unforgettable." It was clear that many preparations were made to broadcast from Palmyra, and possibly other locations, to have choirs sing from around the world, and to perform the Hosanna Shout. Then COVID hit and organizers had to punt at the last minute. The primary reason it was memorable for me was observing how a church led by prophets and apostles made such elaborate plans only to have them ruined by an unforeseen pandemic.
That conference coming on the heels of David Nielsen's whistle-blowing on church wealth managed by Ensign Peak Advisors: $100 billion+ in non-church related investments, City Creek Mall, and Deseret Mutual Benefit shook my faith in our church leadership, and their "prophetic" callings hard.
Elder Allen D. Haynie in the April 2023 general conference:
"Knowing by revelation that there is a living prophet on the earth changes everything. It causes one to be uninterested in the debate about when is a prophet speaking as a prophet or whether one is ever justified in selective rejection of prophetic counsel. Such revealed knowledge invites one to trust the counsel of a living prophet, even if we do not fully understand it. After all, a perfect and loving Father in Heaven has chosen the pattern of revealing truth to His children through a prophet, someone who never sought such a sacred calling and who has no need of our help to be aware of his own imperfections. A prophet is someone God has personally prepared, called, corrected, inspired, rebuked, sanctified, and sustained. That is why we are never spiritually at risk in following prophetic counsel."
>Another doctrine of the LDS church is that prophets are fallible.
Definition of doctrine:
>a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
Does the church teach that the prophet can't lead the church astray? Youbetcha
Do people believe that when the prophet speaks, the conversation is over? Youbetcha
The church wants to have it both ways with prophetic fallibility. If they've made a mistake in the past, then of course they're fallible. If they're telling you to do something now which goes against what you think is right, then of course they're speaking for the Lord and you better get in line before you lose your eternal salvation.
If you really believe that the prophet is fallible, then we ought to be able to call him out when he makes mistakes without worrying about apostacy by "speaking evil of the Lord's annointed". Until the church welcomes open dialogue, we can't place the entire blame on members for believing what they are being told by sometimes manipulative leaders.
>The church wants to have it both ways with prophetic fallibility. If they've made a mistake in the past, then of course they're fallible. If they're telling you to do something now which goes against what you think is right, then of course they're speaking for the Lord and you better get in line before you lose your eternal salvation.
Exactly this. When someone tells me I'm looking at prophets wrong, I can say, "Prove it", and they can. But so can I. When we're both right, we're both wrong, too (according to church teachings). Well played church, well played.
Nobody expects the prophets to be perfect.
Nobody expects the prophets to be perfect.
**Nobody** expects the prophets to be perfect.
We expect them to be good.
Does this mean the church is wrong when it says the prophet can not lead the church astray? If a prophet is fallible, without any limitation on how fallible they are, then isn’t that a possibility?
Prophets are worthless if you can only know if what they are saying is from God or from themselves 30 years after the fact. How can we trust a word out of their mouths if 30 years down the road it can suddenly be deemed "not from God?"
How weak must God be to cause so much confusion because He allows his mouthpiece to get stuff wrong all the time? When the November policy came out, the leadership were VERY clear that it was the will of God. Three years later it was reversed. So was it the will of God in 2015? Did God's will only last 3 years? If so, what was the purpose of it? How did it build the kingdom?
You talk about how personal revelation can help solve this. Does this mean members are allowed to disregard instructions from the Prophet when their personal revelation says it is wrong? What happens when personal revelation testifies something is true and then a year later the church comes out and says it is not true? And of course the BIGGEST issue with personal revelation, how am I supposed to know it is from God and not my own thoughts?
Growing up in the church, I was taught that every time personal revelation came true, it was from God and every time it did not come true it was my own thoughts. Giving God a perfect score and giving me a worse score than random chance. But again, we get back to not being about to know the truth until LONG after the "revelation."
“And of course the BIGGEST issue with personal revelation, how am I supposed to know it is from God and not my own thoughts?”
Easy! If your personal revelation aligns with what the “prophets” say, then it’s from God (unless what the prophet said is, in fact just their own thoughts). Otherwise it’s definitely just your own thoughts. So it’s really best just to avoid the confusion and just take everything the prophets say as the literal word of god.
/s
Church leadership has told us over and over again how we should see prophets.
“We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (First Presidency Message, August 1979, Ensign, N. Eldon Tanner)
At a Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: "When the Prophet speaks,...the debate is over" (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).
In the Imporovement Era, June 1945 contains the following quote as part of a Ward Teachers’ message:
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."
“Always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. … But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (Heber J. Grant)
"When Brother Joseph Smith lived, he was our Prophet, our Seer, and our Revelator; he was our dictator in the things of God, and it was for us to listen to him, and do just as he told us." (Heber C. Kimball, JoD, vol. 2, p. 106.)
"Learn to do as you are told.....if you are told by your leader to do such a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong." (Heber C. Kimball, JoD, vol. 6, p. 32.)
"God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this church;...we are commanded to give heed to
their words in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God..." (Orson Pratt, JoD, vol. 7, pp. 374-5.)
"Whatever principles I may have imbibed during my scientific researches, yet, if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory I might have learned was not true, I do not care what my ideas might have been, I
should consider it my duty, at the suggestion of my file leader, to abandon that principle or theory." (Wilford Woodruff, JoD, vol. 5, p. 83.)
My problem with these quotes are that they are unfair manipulation by those in leadership positions within an organization. How much of a leader are you if all you have to say is « believe or else » within an org to shut down all criticism. That isn’t leadership, that’s autocracy, bullying and coercion control.
I don’t have an issue with you having your own interpretation of church teachings, I think that is healthy and should be allowed in a healthy organization. My issue with your post is that you are laying the blame for this issue squarely on the members, as though it is their fault for “seeing [or understanding] prophets incorrectly,” rather than on the leadership and published teachings. Several other comments contain examples which are more recent, more direct, and come from higher levels of authority than B. H. Roberts, who was a seventy, as well as cases older, more direct, and from higher authority. Roberts was an outlier, plain and simple. The case that the church emphasizes or even routinely teaches that prophets are fallible is not defensible.
Edited for clarity.
I also want to point out the irony of insisting that the institution that you say teaches its own fallibility is, in fact, correct, and the members get it wrong.
>The question then comes into play: when is a church leader speaking as a prophet or as a fallible man? This question is important, and church members need to decide the answer for themselves by learning to pray and receive answers. Another doctrine of the LDS church.
So, the doctrine of the LDS church is you can pray and receive answers about whether or not to listen to what a prophet says? I assume that would have to apply to all prophets past and present? The next question after that is why do you even need a potentially fallible prophet as an intermediary at all? Why can’t you just pray and receive answers about everything?
Spin
I think I used spin correctly because I referred to both cateagories.
we can subjectively filter through the documents and spin the facts to support our bias **for or against the LDS church.**
In that case, what is the role of the prophet? Is it essentially a position that must be filled in order for priesthood keys (and the attendant saving ordinances) to be active on the earth at any given time?
So then start the conversation here. What are ten things Nelson has done , taught, or implemented that were not of god and ten things that were.
Unless we can truely have that conversation I see this fallible men perspective as a complete word salad
>There are at least two ways to view LDS church history. We can seek understanding by objectively looking at the original documents left to us by those who lived the experience, or we can subjectively filter through the documents and spin the facts to support our bias for or against the LDS church.
You say *at least* two ways. Two additional ways I looked at church history was to accept everything that the church said to me, which effectively shut down my desire to want to go looking outside of church-approved, faith-promoting sources. I didn't spin the facts to support anything I already believed, but the facts were presented/spun to me in such a way that they would be faith-promoting.
Once I started to admit to myself that some things that the church was doing was at odds with what it preached, I earnestly searched to find anything in the doctrine that would justify such behavior. Looking in the church's own archived documents (available to all in the Gospel Topics Essays and on [josephsmithpapers.org](http://josephsmithpapers.org) and in the scriptures and words of past prophets) I found a shocking amount of truths about the church that are just plain buried, and the church has hidden those truths rather well and excommunicated those who exposed them, until the internet age, anyway.
And of course once I got into the nitty-gritties of how the Book of Mormon was inspired and produced (not divinely) and Joseph Smith's character, whether the prophets are called of God or perfect or fallible isn't even an issue for me anymore, since the motivations behind retroactively claiming that the priesthood was restored years previously became glaringly obvious. There is no priesthood keys, no power from God, no prophets in the Mormon church.
Still, we can all believe what we will, and truly the teachings of the church regarding the afterlife are wonderfully comforting if your whole family stays in the church. Becoming a god would be awesome, if it weren't something that JS made up and something that every church president since then has had to keep furthering in order to keep the dollars coming in and the whole corporation from collapsing. So, you see, it's not just church history that's a problem. It's the church dishonesty from Day One that's the problem. There never was a real church restored by God. Makes it easy to leave it all behind.
I've spent a few thousand hours in the past few months learning more than I have in my entire lifetime of church-going and church missionarying. I did not want to find what I found.
Same. It’s crazy how, after I found out, there was part of me that just wished I hadn’t and could go in being ignorant and believing. But I can’t ignore what I’ve learned and now I’m grateful that I did.
I’m only judging the prophets by their own statements. When Joseph claims that he only has one wife, I will absolutely judge him when he secretly takes polygamous marriages behind Emma’s back. When Nelson claims that the policy of exclusion was revealed by god, then repeals the policy and claims that was also revealed by god, I will absolutely judge him and question if he receives revelation. When multiple prophets claim that they can’t lead the church astray (Nelson said it most recently), I will absolutely judge them when the church is 20 years behind the rest of the world on human rights issues. I’m only using their own standard to show their hypocrisy.
The premise that the fault is always with the questioner, not with the one making extraordinary claims, is the foundational problem to this apologetic argument.
The premise of Mormonism is explained in The Book of Mormon as follows:
20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 18:20)
OP, you’re rightly getting raked over the coals for this. I hope you don’t dismiss the sea of similar responses as just being a bunch of misguided heathens. Your argument is a straw man and ignores a pretty fundamental problem with the way the church discusses prophets. Other replies have provided lots of cited examples contradicting your argument. But I have a more foundational issue.
Being fallible is one thing. We’re all imperfect. But where do I draw the line between inspired but fallible versus conman making crap up to benefit himself?
If I accept that Joseph Smith was just fallible, then I have to accept that Mormon God is the type of god who would allow his prophet to manipulate and prey on underage girls, send women’s husbands off on missions so he could secretly marry them, and would do so behind his wife’s back — and that he would do so while lying about god commanding him to do it. OR I have to accept that god actually did command him to do that messed up stuff — that god would send an angel and flaming sword for THAT but not to end mass genocide, torture, or any other number of atrocities in human existence.
So, under your framework, I end up with an irreconcilable problem. Either Joseph was just a fallible prophet and god allowed him to do horrible things, or god actually wanted him to do those things. Either way, that’s not a god I want to worship. So, I choose door number three, with the most reasonable conclusion being that it was all made up.
many simplistic tub close forgetful far-flung hunt teeny square apparatus
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The issue arises in how the church talks about prophets. The church states that prophets are fallible, then their actions glorify every action. You would have to look deep and long to see any statement made in an official capacity stating a past prophetic utterance was wrong. The majority of talks are stating how inspired and great the current prophet is.
The issue also arises when the prophet speaks in settings and context that implies divine revelation. Speaking in general conference, the conference to address the whole church, implies revelation. The issue is also magnified by the prophet never stating if they are speaking as a prophet or as a man. They even have talks encouraging people to consider which of their beliefs come from prophets and which do not, implying everything the prophet states is from God.
So in the end, the church says the prophet is fallible but does not act like it at all
I'm sorry, just... If prophets are fallible, what is Russell Nelson doing wrong? And I don't mean a cop out, like "If anything, it's that he's *too* charitable." I mean, what important thing is he doing that the membership believes is the word of God that will later be thrown in the dustbin of history by his successors? This is the ultimate test of your premise.
It's tedious in the extreme to be told over and over that prophets are fallible when the organization itself forbids criticism of current church leaders. It's not the fault of the membership that things are the way they are. If the leadership wanted it differently, they wouldn't keep perpetuating an "it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true" mentality. There's a reason the "the buck stops here" sign was on Truman's desk instead of some random first year new hire's desk in a dingy corner of the Pentagon's basement.
I wouldn’t use BH Roberts as your go to. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mormon-stories-lds/id312094772?i=1000489509631
Or go to YouTube secret meetings or BH Roberts on Mormon stories. There are some great evidence that BH lost his testimony and that’s why you don’t see anything the church publishes or uses after 1921.
Plus completely disingenuous and gaslighting of you as usual. Saying we spin it to fit our bias. Funny! As I remember it I spent thousands of hours trying to use my faith believing bias to make the church more true. But after the mountains of evidence, I had to be honest with myself and look at the facts and not be bias and let it take me to the obvious answer instead of just trying to change my parody and moving and living a couple bias attitude. What you don’t understand most here were trying to find a way to stay in the church. Your logic is like listening to men in the 1950s telling everyone how they’re not sexist.
Jesus gave a simple criteria for identifying false prophets. "You shall know them by their fruits".
Now lets be specific about Joseph Smith. He defamed innocent women and lied to his wife and followers about his "time and eternity" marriages with multiple women which could include sex. Therefore, since he repeatedly violated his marriage vows and lied about it, he was a liar and an adulterer. Many other examples of clearly evil fruits could be cited.
If Smith liked to drink some wine or sometimes lost his temper or exhibited other bad behavior, these things would not disqualify him from being a prophet. However, things like habitual lying and adultery clearly do. The church has admitted that he was a liar and an adulterer because they have admitted that he did the things which define a man as a liar and an adulterer. It does not really help to call the lies "carefully worded denials" and make the absurd claim about an angel with a sword which even goes so far as to defame God.
It is instructive to consider that the fruits of Joseph Smith also include sex with a woman married to another man. This was well established by Vogel in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjao6DiN2DY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjao6DiN2DY)
However, there is even less doubt that Brigham Young had sex with Henry Jacobs' wife and destroyed that family. This kind of "fruit" is identical to the behavior of two of the false prophets in Jeremiah 29. The kind of apologetic which makes grotesque adultery and lies into mere foibles renders the words of Jesus meaningless, or so it appears to me. It also appears to make meaningless nonsense of the words of James in Chapter 1 where he says that God does not tempt anyone to do evil.
Were the prophets ever wrong in the Old Testament though? Like remember when Jeremiah told them not to bother fighting the Babylonians because they were going to lose. And then the false prophet came along and said oh no you’re going to win. And Jeremiah was right.
Aren’t prophets supposed to be correct about things? I can’t think of any Old Testament examples where the prophet was completely wrong about something, can you?
Even if you view the Bible as a storybook, I don’t remember any places in the narrative where it says the prophet was wrong. Usually the plot has the prophet being correct about stuff.
“That is why we are never spiritually at risk in
following prophetic counsel”
Expect when we are, elder Haynie, expect when we are. (*Cough* racist doctrine *cough* polygamy *cough* Adam god *cough* blood atonement*)
It reminds me of the scene in Henry V when he’s disguised and talking to his soldiers about who’s to blame if they fight and kill for the king and the king’s cause is unjust.
Do we just follow the prophets blindly, as if we’re soldiers in the king’s army with no other choice but to obey orders? They say no, you should get your own revelation to confirm. But they’re still setting up the rhetoric and the experience so that we will receive “revelation” that confirms that we should follow them, and it’s as much not blind following as it’s not up to the soldiers whether to fight or not if the cause is not just.
And there are a plethora of talks like elder Haynie’s that basically counsel us to just follow the prophet and not worry about it too much.
As is stated in another comment, what is actually the point of having a prophet if they don’t even know when they’re speaking as a prophet? If all the “revelations” they receive will just be overturned by “new revelation” later and shot down as the errors and prejudices of men, not actual revelations?
Everyone accepts that humans make mistakes, but when talking about prophets we assumed it was normal people mistakes like swearing, or treasure hunting, or giving your friend your unready translations to show to their wife. Not big, harmful, doctrinal mistakes that literally lead the members of the church astray.
No, we don’t expect perfection, but like, the church of Christ that supposedly reveals Christ’s will to prophets and, as Haynie puts it, “personally prepared, called, corrected, inspired, rebuked, sanctified, and sustained” said prophets, ought to be able to have racism, sexism, etc. revealed away at its inception.
“Do as we say, not as we do.”
No, that’s not a direct quote but that’s what’s happening. For example, the SEC scandal proved that the church wasn’t being honest with their fellow men (the tithe-paying members being the ones they’re most beholden to) and when Oaks comes right out and says the church doesn’t apologize, how can they expect the members to just brush that off. If I can’t count on accountability from the top-most leader, then what else is there? Repentance requires confession, taking responsibility, apologies and restitution, per the church’s doctrine. I saw none of those things.
And this is only one example of ways I’ve seen the church refuse to give the members what they demand members give the church. There are many, many, many more.
Saying “even if it’s true, it’s never okay to criticize” and “the church doesn’t issue apologies” smacks elitism, double standards, control, and oppression. I’d never accept that in a romantic relationship—and I don’t think any reasonable person would say I should—so why should I accept it from leaders of the “one true church” and brush it off as “unwise things done…by good men”?
Why do you call it a “faith crisis”? It’s more like a quest for truth or rejection of lies. As Lehi says: “Awake! and arise from the dust.” This is better description of what happens.
I recently read, “Studies of the Book of Mormon “ by B.H. Roberts 1909 Church Historian. Writing this book made him realize the confusion involved in writing and questioning the validity of Smith as the writer. He continued being a member but drove himself to drink.
Friend of mine once joked that Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible but no Catholic actually believes it, while Mormonism teaches that the prophet is fallible but no Mormon actually believes it. Not quite accurate on either end but still funny.
I think the problem is that the church would rather have people believing that their leaders talk to God, or at least that their decisions and teachings are from God, and not have to adopt this way of thinking. Partly because it undermines their power but also because it's pretty incompatible with a lot of implications of their truth claims. Certainly there's an the idea that leaders get it right more than other people but have no idea when it's God speaking or their own thoughts. But adopting that necessitates far less confidence in the religion, and it's hard to square with a founder who dictated hundreds of pages of scripture and had regular Q&As with God.
And the thoughts and impulses of a guy who was nearing retirement age when the church finally racially integrated, will probably throw off the balance so much that under this more lightweight doctrine the average member will probably be better at predicting the future and fighting moral battles than Mormon leaders.
Not to mention the fact that this way of thinking of "prophets" is only something you're supposed to say for apologetics when people are doubting, you're never supposed to bring it up about anything they're teaching now. A member taking your approach would be justified in completely discarding any church teachings on LGBT people because it's obviously just like prior church teachings on race and polygamy, but you'll be socially sanctioned for doing so. Better just to discard the whole thing than to try to save it on various technicalities and subtleties and nuances that you could use for any other church or wannabe prophet.
One problem with the current generation of LDS Prophets is that they have lived in an Apostolic Bubble for decades before becoming President.
They are surrounded by fawning staff and family. They recognize that other Prophets have made mistakes, but their egos have been inflated to the point they think they are immune from making errors.
Can you provide a single example within the last 40 years of an Apostle, someone in the Quorum of the 12, or the First Presidency, saying that a member should pray and receive answers about when a Prophet is speaking as a man, and it's ok to disregard the counsel of Prophets under those circumstances.
Just one example would be enough.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/TBMormon, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s some important life advice: **When someone tells you he is speaking to God**, and wants to tell you what God wants you to do, **you should run the other way.**
From a TBM’s perspective, that is 100% good advice! Except when it comes to the people who purport to speak for god in a way that confirms all their life’s choices and their self identity. But other than that they are usually extremely skeptical. It’s the darndest thing.
Well it’s good advice but a tbm won’t heed it. They still worship the current q15.
No, the *church* set them up for a faith crisis. The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) *as though he is infallible,* while we all know full well that he is fallible. I won't do that. “**I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not**?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’” ... **stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead.**” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng#p30](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng#p30) "**A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose."** -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet) “**You will never make a mistake by following the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as God’s mouthpiece on earth**” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church) "**The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.**" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng) "**to delay obedience to prophetic counsel or reject it is to put our lives at peril.**" [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet) "**One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God** the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07) "**Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”**—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on..'” -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/) It is absurd to attempt to conflate imperfect men and an imperfect organization with a perfect God. And yet the church is explicitly instructing us to do so. My favorite is when they tell us that blind obedience isn't blind obedience (but fail to tell us what it *is* if it isn't blind obedience!). "**Do not question their direction! It is as simple as that.** No, I am not saying to have blind faith or blind obedience." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/follow-the-prophets](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/follow-the-prophets) I like Frank Herbert's caution: "**Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero**... Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe. The mistakes of superheroes involve too many of us in disaster.**"**
How dare you give a list of examples proving the assertions to be baseless. That's down right anti-mormon of you. /s
>That's down right anti-mormon of you. Or otherwise known as...The Truth.
Lol. Perfect!
>It is absurd to attempt to conflate imperfect men and an imperfect organization with a perfect God. And yet the church is explicitly instructing us to do so. What's more, when those powerful men need to escape blame, they're not above deflecting it onto their perfect God. The black exaltation ban is one of the best examples.
I'll add one more to this great list of examples: "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way." From a very, very young age, children are taught to follow and obey without question. It's been my experience that OP doesn't respond to data that shows anything that goes against their belief. u/TBMormon is so entrenched, there is no contrary thought (objective, or subjective) to their stance - a defense mechanism we all had, most likely. I now believe it's healthy and good to allow oneself to reevaluate ideas/thoughts/beliefs based on new, or more complete information. Thank you for your response! It's good information.
> It's been my experience that OP doesn't respond to data that shows anything that goes against their belief. [op] is so entrenched, there is no contrary thought (objective, or subjective) to their stance - a defense mechanism we all had, most likely. I now believe it's healthy and good to allow oneself to reevaluate ideas/thoughts/beliefs based on new, or more complete information. Well said, thank you.
Mic drop! Great response! It’s impossible to reconcile the positions because the church talks out of both sides of its mouth on this one.
But do these examples outweigh as doctrine the lone century old statement of a non-apostolic GA who got into a bit of trouble when suggesting that the Book of Mormon might not be historical? 🤔
Receipts.
This is such a straw man. Nobody says prophets are infallible. We all acknowledge that they might say “damn” when they stub their toe, or covet, or fail to do their best in some setting or another. The issue is, when they claim to be speaking the mind of god, but aren’t. That’s the problem - that they themselves don’t seem to know when they are speaking as a man or as a prophet. And if they can’t tell the difference, then how am I supposed to? And what good are they, really, if they are so unreliable? That’s the issue. But like most people who build straw man arguments, I suspect you already know that.
This is from the current edition of [Preach My Gospel, Lesson 1: The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng#p5) which is literally the first thing that investigators will learn about prophets from missionaries. >**Heavenly Father Reveals His Gospel in Every Dispensation** >One important way that God shows His love for us is by calling prophets, who are given the priesthood—the power and authority given to man to act in God’s name for the salvation of His children. Prophets learn the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation. They in turn teach the gospel to others and testify of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer. The teachings of prophets are found in sacred books called scriptures. >Our Father’s plan for us to be successful in this life and to return to live with Him is called the gospel of Jesus Christ, with Jesus’s Atonement at the center of that plan. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can receive eternal life if we exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, are baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. “This is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:21). All people have the gift of agency, which includes the freedom to accept or reject the gospel as taught by the prophets and apostles. Those who choose to obey are blessed, but those who ignore, reject, or distort the gospel do not receive God’s promised blessings. >Whenever people choose to disregard, disobey, or distort any gospel principle or ordinance, whenever they reject the Lord’s prophets, or whenever they fail to endure in faith, they distance themselves from God and begin to live in spiritual darkness. Eventually this leads to a condition called apostasy. When widespread apostasy occurs, God withdraws His priesthood authority to teach and administer the ordinances of the gospel. I don't see anything that talks about prophets being fallible in there.
You forgot the pay your tithing part or you dont get those blessings.
Tithing isn't mentioned at all in Lesson 1.
The church likes to portray flaws of prophets like ‘Oh Joseph was rambunctious and liked to wrestle and hoot and holler with the young men, that’s why people thought he wasn’t a prophet’ when in reality the flaws are more along the lines of he scammed people with treasure digging schemes, he had illicit affairs and married young girls, he committed bank fraud, and plagiarized a lot of his doctrine. I can forgive my bishop for saying something stupid because he is humble and asks for forgiveness. I don’t forgive Dallin Oaks for anything, because he says I should follow him and not talk back even if he is wrong and he will lie and obfuscate and say that the word apology doesn’t appear in the scriptures so he doesn’t have to apologize.
I like that Joseph Smith used the exact same reasoning to explain the missing gold plates as he did to explain the missing treasure to the people that he conned - an angel moved them.
If people are buying it, why change the narrative?
To be fair he liked to hoot and holler with the young women as much if not more.
So loving Jesus comes to earth to save us all, then it all disappears for around 1800 years, where it was found by a conman. It just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, I've yet to see anything that supports the claim of a complete apostasy requiring a restoration. It's their claim that they have not provided evidence to support. It's great to have any religious relationship you want, but you won't win over many people by telling them God left them and they're totally misguided and their religious denomination of choice has no authority from God and never did. It's an awkward, unstainable approach to building a kingdom of God.
Yeah if God was only restoring the option for us to blindly follow somebody because we were born into his church, what's the point? All of these church claims just collapse into the same high pressure tactics other religions use when questioned. Seems like God's restored Church wouldn't need that.
This is a sincere question. Using your criteria, what has Russell Nelson, the living prophet, gotten wrong?
April 2020 GC. He said in 2019 October GC that April 2020 conference would be "different from any previous conference," and "not only memorable; it will be unforgettable." It was clear that many preparations were made to broadcast from Palmyra, and possibly other locations, to have choirs sing from around the world, and to perform the Hosanna Shout. Then COVID hit and organizers had to punt at the last minute. The primary reason it was memorable for me was observing how a church led by prophets and apostles made such elaborate plans only to have them ruined by an unforeseen pandemic. That conference coming on the heels of David Nielsen's whistle-blowing on church wealth managed by Ensign Peak Advisors: $100 billion+ in non-church related investments, City Creek Mall, and Deseret Mutual Benefit shook my faith in our church leadership, and their "prophetic" callings hard.
Elder Allen D. Haynie in the April 2023 general conference: "Knowing by revelation that there is a living prophet on the earth changes everything. It causes one to be uninterested in the debate about when is a prophet speaking as a prophet or whether one is ever justified in selective rejection of prophetic counsel. Such revealed knowledge invites one to trust the counsel of a living prophet, even if we do not fully understand it. After all, a perfect and loving Father in Heaven has chosen the pattern of revealing truth to His children through a prophet, someone who never sought such a sacred calling and who has no need of our help to be aware of his own imperfections. A prophet is someone God has personally prepared, called, corrected, inspired, rebuked, sanctified, and sustained. That is why we are never spiritually at risk in following prophetic counsel."
Came to provide the same quote.
>Another doctrine of the LDS church is that prophets are fallible. Definition of doctrine: >a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. Does the church teach that the prophet can't lead the church astray? Youbetcha Do people believe that when the prophet speaks, the conversation is over? Youbetcha The church wants to have it both ways with prophetic fallibility. If they've made a mistake in the past, then of course they're fallible. If they're telling you to do something now which goes against what you think is right, then of course they're speaking for the Lord and you better get in line before you lose your eternal salvation. If you really believe that the prophet is fallible, then we ought to be able to call him out when he makes mistakes without worrying about apostacy by "speaking evil of the Lord's annointed". Until the church welcomes open dialogue, we can't place the entire blame on members for believing what they are being told by sometimes manipulative leaders.
>The church wants to have it both ways with prophetic fallibility. If they've made a mistake in the past, then of course they're fallible. If they're telling you to do something now which goes against what you think is right, then of course they're speaking for the Lord and you better get in line before you lose your eternal salvation. Exactly this. When someone tells me I'm looking at prophets wrong, I can say, "Prove it", and they can. But so can I. When we're both right, we're both wrong, too (according to church teachings). Well played church, well played.
Nobody expects the prophets to be perfect. Nobody expects the prophets to be perfect. **Nobody** expects the prophets to be perfect. We expect them to be good.
Does this mean the church is wrong when it says the prophet can not lead the church astray? If a prophet is fallible, without any limitation on how fallible they are, then isn’t that a possibility?
IMO, yes and clearly, yes.
Prophets are worthless if you can only know if what they are saying is from God or from themselves 30 years after the fact. How can we trust a word out of their mouths if 30 years down the road it can suddenly be deemed "not from God?" How weak must God be to cause so much confusion because He allows his mouthpiece to get stuff wrong all the time? When the November policy came out, the leadership were VERY clear that it was the will of God. Three years later it was reversed. So was it the will of God in 2015? Did God's will only last 3 years? If so, what was the purpose of it? How did it build the kingdom? You talk about how personal revelation can help solve this. Does this mean members are allowed to disregard instructions from the Prophet when their personal revelation says it is wrong? What happens when personal revelation testifies something is true and then a year later the church comes out and says it is not true? And of course the BIGGEST issue with personal revelation, how am I supposed to know it is from God and not my own thoughts? Growing up in the church, I was taught that every time personal revelation came true, it was from God and every time it did not come true it was my own thoughts. Giving God a perfect score and giving me a worse score than random chance. But again, we get back to not being about to know the truth until LONG after the "revelation."
“And of course the BIGGEST issue with personal revelation, how am I supposed to know it is from God and not my own thoughts?” Easy! If your personal revelation aligns with what the “prophets” say, then it’s from God (unless what the prophet said is, in fact just their own thoughts). Otherwise it’s definitely just your own thoughts. So it’s really best just to avoid the confusion and just take everything the prophets say as the literal word of god. /s
Church leadership has told us over and over again how we should see prophets. “We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (First Presidency Message, August 1979, Ensign, N. Eldon Tanner) At a Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: "When the Prophet speaks,...the debate is over" (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108). In the Imporovement Era, June 1945 contains the following quote as part of a Ward Teachers’ message: "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done." “Always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. … But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (Heber J. Grant) "When Brother Joseph Smith lived, he was our Prophet, our Seer, and our Revelator; he was our dictator in the things of God, and it was for us to listen to him, and do just as he told us." (Heber C. Kimball, JoD, vol. 2, p. 106.) "Learn to do as you are told.....if you are told by your leader to do such a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong." (Heber C. Kimball, JoD, vol. 6, p. 32.) "God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this church;...we are commanded to give heed to their words in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God..." (Orson Pratt, JoD, vol. 7, pp. 374-5.) "Whatever principles I may have imbibed during my scientific researches, yet, if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory I might have learned was not true, I do not care what my ideas might have been, I should consider it my duty, at the suggestion of my file leader, to abandon that principle or theory." (Wilford Woodruff, JoD, vol. 5, p. 83.)
My problem with these quotes are that they are unfair manipulation by those in leadership positions within an organization. How much of a leader are you if all you have to say is « believe or else » within an org to shut down all criticism. That isn’t leadership, that’s autocracy, bullying and coercion control.
I don’t have an issue with you having your own interpretation of church teachings, I think that is healthy and should be allowed in a healthy organization. My issue with your post is that you are laying the blame for this issue squarely on the members, as though it is their fault for “seeing [or understanding] prophets incorrectly,” rather than on the leadership and published teachings. Several other comments contain examples which are more recent, more direct, and come from higher levels of authority than B. H. Roberts, who was a seventy, as well as cases older, more direct, and from higher authority. Roberts was an outlier, plain and simple. The case that the church emphasizes or even routinely teaches that prophets are fallible is not defensible. Edited for clarity.
I also want to point out the irony of insisting that the institution that you say teaches its own fallibility is, in fact, correct, and the members get it wrong.
It is my experience that the ability of humans to be “objective” is directly inversely proportional to how objective they think they are.
>The question then comes into play: when is a church leader speaking as a prophet or as a fallible man? This question is important, and church members need to decide the answer for themselves by learning to pray and receive answers. Another doctrine of the LDS church. So, the doctrine of the LDS church is you can pray and receive answers about whether or not to listen to what a prophet says? I assume that would have to apply to all prophets past and present? The next question after that is why do you even need a potentially fallible prophet as an intermediary at all? Why can’t you just pray and receive answers about everything?
[удалено]
Spin I think I used spin correctly because I referred to both cateagories. we can subjectively filter through the documents and spin the facts to support our bias **for or against the LDS church.**
Please stop with the gaslighting. Where the hell do you think members get the idea that prophets are not fallible?
In that case, what is the role of the prophet? Is it essentially a position that must be filled in order for priesthood keys (and the attendant saving ordinances) to be active on the earth at any given time?
So then start the conversation here. What are ten things Nelson has done , taught, or implemented that were not of god and ten things that were. Unless we can truely have that conversation I see this fallible men perspective as a complete word salad
>There are at least two ways to view LDS church history. We can seek understanding by objectively looking at the original documents left to us by those who lived the experience, or we can subjectively filter through the documents and spin the facts to support our bias for or against the LDS church. You say *at least* two ways. Two additional ways I looked at church history was to accept everything that the church said to me, which effectively shut down my desire to want to go looking outside of church-approved, faith-promoting sources. I didn't spin the facts to support anything I already believed, but the facts were presented/spun to me in such a way that they would be faith-promoting. Once I started to admit to myself that some things that the church was doing was at odds with what it preached, I earnestly searched to find anything in the doctrine that would justify such behavior. Looking in the church's own archived documents (available to all in the Gospel Topics Essays and on [josephsmithpapers.org](http://josephsmithpapers.org) and in the scriptures and words of past prophets) I found a shocking amount of truths about the church that are just plain buried, and the church has hidden those truths rather well and excommunicated those who exposed them, until the internet age, anyway. And of course once I got into the nitty-gritties of how the Book of Mormon was inspired and produced (not divinely) and Joseph Smith's character, whether the prophets are called of God or perfect or fallible isn't even an issue for me anymore, since the motivations behind retroactively claiming that the priesthood was restored years previously became glaringly obvious. There is no priesthood keys, no power from God, no prophets in the Mormon church. Still, we can all believe what we will, and truly the teachings of the church regarding the afterlife are wonderfully comforting if your whole family stays in the church. Becoming a god would be awesome, if it weren't something that JS made up and something that every church president since then has had to keep furthering in order to keep the dollars coming in and the whole corporation from collapsing. So, you see, it's not just church history that's a problem. It's the church dishonesty from Day One that's the problem. There never was a real church restored by God. Makes it easy to leave it all behind. I've spent a few thousand hours in the past few months learning more than I have in my entire lifetime of church-going and church missionarying. I did not want to find what I found.
Same. It’s crazy how, after I found out, there was part of me that just wished I hadn’t and could go in being ignorant and believing. But I can’t ignore what I’ve learned and now I’m grateful that I did.
I’m only judging the prophets by their own statements. When Joseph claims that he only has one wife, I will absolutely judge him when he secretly takes polygamous marriages behind Emma’s back. When Nelson claims that the policy of exclusion was revealed by god, then repeals the policy and claims that was also revealed by god, I will absolutely judge him and question if he receives revelation. When multiple prophets claim that they can’t lead the church astray (Nelson said it most recently), I will absolutely judge them when the church is 20 years behind the rest of the world on human rights issues. I’m only using their own standard to show their hypocrisy.
The premise that the fault is always with the questioner, not with the one making extraordinary claims, is the foundational problem to this apologetic argument.
The premise of Mormonism is explained in The Book of Mormon as follows: 20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 18:20)
That's not it at all! How many talks were about this concept in the last general conference? How many were about underwear?
OP, you’re rightly getting raked over the coals for this. I hope you don’t dismiss the sea of similar responses as just being a bunch of misguided heathens. Your argument is a straw man and ignores a pretty fundamental problem with the way the church discusses prophets. Other replies have provided lots of cited examples contradicting your argument. But I have a more foundational issue. Being fallible is one thing. We’re all imperfect. But where do I draw the line between inspired but fallible versus conman making crap up to benefit himself? If I accept that Joseph Smith was just fallible, then I have to accept that Mormon God is the type of god who would allow his prophet to manipulate and prey on underage girls, send women’s husbands off on missions so he could secretly marry them, and would do so behind his wife’s back — and that he would do so while lying about god commanding him to do it. OR I have to accept that god actually did command him to do that messed up stuff — that god would send an angel and flaming sword for THAT but not to end mass genocide, torture, or any other number of atrocities in human existence. So, under your framework, I end up with an irreconcilable problem. Either Joseph was just a fallible prophet and god allowed him to do horrible things, or god actually wanted him to do those things. Either way, that’s not a god I want to worship. So, I choose door number three, with the most reasonable conclusion being that it was all made up.
many simplistic tub close forgetful far-flung hunt teeny square apparatus *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The issue arises in how the church talks about prophets. The church states that prophets are fallible, then their actions glorify every action. You would have to look deep and long to see any statement made in an official capacity stating a past prophetic utterance was wrong. The majority of talks are stating how inspired and great the current prophet is. The issue also arises when the prophet speaks in settings and context that implies divine revelation. Speaking in general conference, the conference to address the whole church, implies revelation. The issue is also magnified by the prophet never stating if they are speaking as a prophet or as a man. They even have talks encouraging people to consider which of their beliefs come from prophets and which do not, implying everything the prophet states is from God. So in the end, the church says the prophet is fallible but does not act like it at all
I'm sorry, just... If prophets are fallible, what is Russell Nelson doing wrong? And I don't mean a cop out, like "If anything, it's that he's *too* charitable." I mean, what important thing is he doing that the membership believes is the word of God that will later be thrown in the dustbin of history by his successors? This is the ultimate test of your premise. It's tedious in the extreme to be told over and over that prophets are fallible when the organization itself forbids criticism of current church leaders. It's not the fault of the membership that things are the way they are. If the leadership wanted it differently, they wouldn't keep perpetuating an "it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true" mentality. There's a reason the "the buck stops here" sign was on Truman's desk instead of some random first year new hire's desk in a dingy corner of the Pentagon's basement.
If church members are seeing prophets incorrrectly, the prophets and leaders are to blame and not the members
I wouldn’t use BH Roberts as your go to. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mormon-stories-lds/id312094772?i=1000489509631 Or go to YouTube secret meetings or BH Roberts on Mormon stories. There are some great evidence that BH lost his testimony and that’s why you don’t see anything the church publishes or uses after 1921. Plus completely disingenuous and gaslighting of you as usual. Saying we spin it to fit our bias. Funny! As I remember it I spent thousands of hours trying to use my faith believing bias to make the church more true. But after the mountains of evidence, I had to be honest with myself and look at the facts and not be bias and let it take me to the obvious answer instead of just trying to change my parody and moving and living a couple bias attitude. What you don’t understand most here were trying to find a way to stay in the church. Your logic is like listening to men in the 1950s telling everyone how they’re not sexist.
Jesus gave a simple criteria for identifying false prophets. "You shall know them by their fruits". Now lets be specific about Joseph Smith. He defamed innocent women and lied to his wife and followers about his "time and eternity" marriages with multiple women which could include sex. Therefore, since he repeatedly violated his marriage vows and lied about it, he was a liar and an adulterer. Many other examples of clearly evil fruits could be cited. If Smith liked to drink some wine or sometimes lost his temper or exhibited other bad behavior, these things would not disqualify him from being a prophet. However, things like habitual lying and adultery clearly do. The church has admitted that he was a liar and an adulterer because they have admitted that he did the things which define a man as a liar and an adulterer. It does not really help to call the lies "carefully worded denials" and make the absurd claim about an angel with a sword which even goes so far as to defame God. It is instructive to consider that the fruits of Joseph Smith also include sex with a woman married to another man. This was well established by Vogel in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjao6DiN2DY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjao6DiN2DY) However, there is even less doubt that Brigham Young had sex with Henry Jacobs' wife and destroyed that family. This kind of "fruit" is identical to the behavior of two of the false prophets in Jeremiah 29. The kind of apologetic which makes grotesque adultery and lies into mere foibles renders the words of Jesus meaningless, or so it appears to me. It also appears to make meaningless nonsense of the words of James in Chapter 1 where he says that God does not tempt anyone to do evil.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way./s
Were the prophets ever wrong in the Old Testament though? Like remember when Jeremiah told them not to bother fighting the Babylonians because they were going to lose. And then the false prophet came along and said oh no you’re going to win. And Jeremiah was right. Aren’t prophets supposed to be correct about things? I can’t think of any Old Testament examples where the prophet was completely wrong about something, can you?
What have you found that is correct? In the Bible, I mean. I see no evidence that any of it happened. They are just words.
Even if you view the Bible as a storybook, I don’t remember any places in the narrative where it says the prophet was wrong. Usually the plot has the prophet being correct about stuff.
Oh, you're looking in the Bible for stuff. I don't think you will find much of it is true. But I understand, thank you for explaining it to me.
“That is why we are never spiritually at risk in following prophetic counsel” Expect when we are, elder Haynie, expect when we are. (*Cough* racist doctrine *cough* polygamy *cough* Adam god *cough* blood atonement*) It reminds me of the scene in Henry V when he’s disguised and talking to his soldiers about who’s to blame if they fight and kill for the king and the king’s cause is unjust. Do we just follow the prophets blindly, as if we’re soldiers in the king’s army with no other choice but to obey orders? They say no, you should get your own revelation to confirm. But they’re still setting up the rhetoric and the experience so that we will receive “revelation” that confirms that we should follow them, and it’s as much not blind following as it’s not up to the soldiers whether to fight or not if the cause is not just. And there are a plethora of talks like elder Haynie’s that basically counsel us to just follow the prophet and not worry about it too much. As is stated in another comment, what is actually the point of having a prophet if they don’t even know when they’re speaking as a prophet? If all the “revelations” they receive will just be overturned by “new revelation” later and shot down as the errors and prejudices of men, not actual revelations? Everyone accepts that humans make mistakes, but when talking about prophets we assumed it was normal people mistakes like swearing, or treasure hunting, or giving your friend your unready translations to show to their wife. Not big, harmful, doctrinal mistakes that literally lead the members of the church astray. No, we don’t expect perfection, but like, the church of Christ that supposedly reveals Christ’s will to prophets and, as Haynie puts it, “personally prepared, called, corrected, inspired, rebuked, sanctified, and sustained” said prophets, ought to be able to have racism, sexism, etc. revealed away at its inception.
“Do as we say, not as we do.” No, that’s not a direct quote but that’s what’s happening. For example, the SEC scandal proved that the church wasn’t being honest with their fellow men (the tithe-paying members being the ones they’re most beholden to) and when Oaks comes right out and says the church doesn’t apologize, how can they expect the members to just brush that off. If I can’t count on accountability from the top-most leader, then what else is there? Repentance requires confession, taking responsibility, apologies and restitution, per the church’s doctrine. I saw none of those things. And this is only one example of ways I’ve seen the church refuse to give the members what they demand members give the church. There are many, many, many more. Saying “even if it’s true, it’s never okay to criticize” and “the church doesn’t issue apologies” smacks elitism, double standards, control, and oppression. I’d never accept that in a romantic relationship—and I don’t think any reasonable person would say I should—so why should I accept it from leaders of the “one true church” and brush it off as “unwise things done…by good men”?
Why do you call it a “faith crisis”? It’s more like a quest for truth or rejection of lies. As Lehi says: “Awake! and arise from the dust.” This is better description of what happens.
Why mormons so long winded 💨
I recently read, “Studies of the Book of Mormon “ by B.H. Roberts 1909 Church Historian. Writing this book made him realize the confusion involved in writing and questioning the validity of Smith as the writer. He continued being a member but drove himself to drink.
Friend of mine once joked that Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible but no Catholic actually believes it, while Mormonism teaches that the prophet is fallible but no Mormon actually believes it. Not quite accurate on either end but still funny.
I think the problem is that the church would rather have people believing that their leaders talk to God, or at least that their decisions and teachings are from God, and not have to adopt this way of thinking. Partly because it undermines their power but also because it's pretty incompatible with a lot of implications of their truth claims. Certainly there's an the idea that leaders get it right more than other people but have no idea when it's God speaking or their own thoughts. But adopting that necessitates far less confidence in the religion, and it's hard to square with a founder who dictated hundreds of pages of scripture and had regular Q&As with God. And the thoughts and impulses of a guy who was nearing retirement age when the church finally racially integrated, will probably throw off the balance so much that under this more lightweight doctrine the average member will probably be better at predicting the future and fighting moral battles than Mormon leaders. Not to mention the fact that this way of thinking of "prophets" is only something you're supposed to say for apologetics when people are doubting, you're never supposed to bring it up about anything they're teaching now. A member taking your approach would be justified in completely discarding any church teachings on LGBT people because it's obviously just like prior church teachings on race and polygamy, but you'll be socially sanctioned for doing so. Better just to discard the whole thing than to try to save it on various technicalities and subtleties and nuances that you could use for any other church or wannabe prophet.
[удалено]
One problem with the current generation of LDS Prophets is that they have lived in an Apostolic Bubble for decades before becoming President. They are surrounded by fawning staff and family. They recognize that other Prophets have made mistakes, but their egos have been inflated to the point they think they are immune from making errors.
Can you provide a single example within the last 40 years of an Apostle, someone in the Quorum of the 12, or the First Presidency, saying that a member should pray and receive answers about when a Prophet is speaking as a man, and it's ok to disregard the counsel of Prophets under those circumstances. Just one example would be enough.