The prophet will never lead this people astray. It won’t happen, no matter what some might say and speculate.

In response to questions about a failed revelation (about selling the BofM copyright in Canada), Joseph Smith said “Some revelations come from God, some from man, and some from the devil.” Joseph Smith, himself, claimed that prophets of God can be mistaken about what is revealed from God.

Moroni (or Mormon) in the title page of the BofM says of the divine texts, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” Moroni, himself, is claiming that prophetic words and texts can be mistaken. This is reiterated in the text of the BofM as well.

Brigham warned about the potential for the highest leaders of the church to lead members to destruction “What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually”

He also said, “How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves”

George Q. Cannon warned that your kind of mythical view of prophetic infallibility would lead to a loss of faith: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;”

Brigham Young taught that it was revealed to him by God that God the Father was Adam. Joseph F. Smith said that the Adam-God Doctrine was false. Either one president of the church is leading the saints astray in belief, or the ontological nature and past history of God changed.

I could give you lists and lists of Apostles (sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators) who have taught things that were blatantly false. Apostles and Presidents have openly fought over what they believed were revealed doctrines and practices.

These all contradict the notion that prophets cannot lead members astray. In fact, they prove that prophets are fallible and able to lead members astray.

However, the prophet has never been led astray, nor will the Lord suffer him so to do. He would sooner be removed from office (by God playing the “death card“).

Does God pull out his supposed death card before or after the prophet leads others astray? If it is after, then how by what standard do you determine the prophet was wrong? Of course, if you hold to your rigid belief, then the prophet would be killed off by God before he has the opportunity to lead another astray. But this leads to a plethora of problems concerning free-will and the problem of evil (why would God kill off Hitler?)

Of course all this discussion also hinges on the question of whether or not an Apostle or President of the Church (or any person for that matter) is speaking as a Prophet of God. What criteria is there for seperating divine words from human opinion and speculation? “Thus saith the Lord” is practically absent in talks, discussions, and pronouncements from LDS leaders. A long history of censorships and problems make it difficult to appeal to a ‘pulpit standard’ (just look at the Journal of Discourses). Official pronouncements, while authoritative, hold similar difficulties. In the end, it comes down to one’s own reflection and intution by the spirit – exactly what Young and others taught should be the standard.

Narrator: Isn’t it just easier to say “we need to appeal to more than one source in order to gain truth?”

I mean, if we base all our decisions on scripture only, that gets pretty shaky, especially because the Bible is translated, and the Book of Mormon is transliterated. If we rely only on modern prophets, they’ll occasionally do things their own way. If we rely solely on (what we think to be) the Spirit, we’ll get decieved by our own imaginations and emotions from time to time.

I think you probably won’t get in trouble for following the prophet, and our prophet is the best man on earth to take divine advice from, but leaning only on one source is probably not the best idea.

In a sense, you’re both right… right?

:)

John, thanks. That’s was pretty much going to be my response to Connor. As George Q. Cannon put it, when someone puts everything on a single person, that person is bound to fail them. Elder Ronald Poelman gave an excellent talk in 1984 about the importance of understanding the imperfections of the earthly church and leaders. You can read the original and censored versions here.

Connor:

Do you deny the prophetic calling of President Hinckley? Do you disbelieve everything he says? Do you credit these fine man with anything positive? Or do you just like to tear down, destroy, and criticize?

Nice slippery slope. I think bringing the temple to the poor and small (through mini temples) was a fabulous and inspired action by Pres. Hinckley. The Perpetual Education Fund is one of many. You seem to hold to some odd idea that a prophet is either perfect or a complete waste. I see that you are reading Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. I hope you can learn something from it.

I’ll be interested to see where you stand when things get dicey in the last days and we all have to choose sides. For some reason, I think you and I will be on different sides of the fence.

I think and hope we’ll be on different sides.

“…lean not unto thine own understanding” Intellect can always disprove or contradict something that the Spirit has already told us is true. Does that mean it is false? The Spirit clearly teaches us to follow the Prophet. We could come up with 10 reasons not to, but that sounds like a waste of time to me. It’s sad to see the Spirit lose out because someone insists on challenging it, and finding loopholes and ways to justify sin.
Sure, the prophet isn’t perfect. Big deal. His understanding is opened, and he KNOWS our potential reward, and if he tells me to do it, I will.

It’s sad to see the Spirit lose out because someone insists on challenging it,

Nobody is (at least I am certainly not) advocating to go against the Spirit. The question is whether one should follow the President of the Church (who is not always acting as a prophet) or follow what they feel is the Spirit speaking to them.

Example: President Hinckley says ‘fight gay-marriage’; Spirit says: ‘don’t fight gay-marriage’. Which do you follow?

Another example: President Hinckley says ‘War in Iraq is justified.’ Spirit says: ‘War in Iraq is not justified.’ Which do you follow?

So the prophet can only lead our thoughts go astray (which thoughts may lead to actions), but will not directly lead our actions astray?

As far as the letter concerning the FMA goes, a quick (or detailed) look at posts concerning the letter quickly shows that most LDS took it as a plea to write their senators in support of the FMA (though it was carefully written to grant plausible deniability to the claim). Almost every LDS I know saw the letter as an urge to write support letters, to say the opposite seems to require a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

Narrator, your two examples are not only hypothetical, but they simply wouldn’t happen as you’ve suggested. The point is, if the Prophet teaches us, the Lord is sending His words to us THROUGH the Spirit, and the Spirit would never contradict Himself by then telling us something different in our own hearts.
If the Prophet said ‘Sweaters are better than cardigans’, it’s obvously his opinion. Differentiating between the Prophet’s own personal thoughts and ideas, and the truth of God, would either be cleary evident (as in this example), or in such harmony with each other that they are synonymous. You sound intelligent enough not to confuse the two.

James:

I simply do not see the line between a President of the Church speaking for the Lord or speaking for himself as being all that clear. Hinckley in some media interviews implied this ambiguity when he talked about revelation as being subtle and being that still small voice.

President Hinckley said women should not have more than one pair of earrings and that men should have none. I think that this was the opinion of an old man with certain views of what someone should dress like. Others feel that he was voicing the words of God. The same goes with the church’s views of homosexuality and support of the FMA. The line isn’t so clear.

Narrator, When it comes to issues such as earrings, I think we can both agree that this probably won’t make it or break it for someone to go through the pearly gates. God will judge our hearts and compare our deeds to our own personal knowledge, understanding, and intent, and what we did with it all during our lives on earth. He will judge us against our own potential. That being said, if He sees us as someone willing to humble ourselves and submit to the will of the Prophet (which we can safely assume is generally the will of the Father), we can be assured He will be merciful to us. On the other hand, if we try to pick and choose what we want to follow because we want black and white rather than living the Spiritual law, then he might not be so forgiving.
You’re right, the Prophet may have been expressing his opinion about earrings. We should be able to govern ourselves, having the knowledge of correct principles, and be able to live above the ‘line’ rather than on the line. Goes back to the old edge of the cliff analogy; why even get close? Life has made many a man happy while staying far, far away.