Declaring the “Word of God”
by
Michael R. Ash
copyright 2001 all rights reserved
A vast number of anti-Mormon criticisms rely on the following strawman argument: LDS leader “L” said statement “X”. Since it has been shown that “X” is in error this proves that Mormonism is false.
This strawman is generally used in three different formats by the critics: 1) The critics claim that a prophet must be infallible and/or make infallible statements in order to be a prophet; 2) The critics imply that a prophet is not allowed to have any views which reflect contemporary issues should those issues prove to be erroneous; 3) Critics claim for official LDS doctrine anything expressed by leader “L” even if leader “L’s” pronouncement is contrary to leader “K.” All three forms of the strawman argument are logical fallacies. Let’s examine each of the different versions of this strawman.
1. Prophets are Infallible
“Infallible” means “incapable of erring.” (Webster, 1974) While Catholic’s believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, and while some Protestants believe that the Bible is “infallible,” (See for example, McElveen; or UMI. For an opposing view see Bible Quiz. The issue of Bible Infallibility is discussed in greater detail in my on-line article, “Infallibility”. ) Latter-day Saints do not believe that Prophets, neither past nor present, are infallible. President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, for example, in an open letter to an anti-Mormon published in the Improvement Era, addressed the question of infallibility. The detractor had asked: “Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?” President Penrose responded: “We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility.” (Editor’s Table, Improvement Era, September 1912, 1045.)
Were Biblical prophets infallible? Writing about the Old Testament prophet Elijah, James said that he was “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17). Noah got drunk (see Genesis 9:21), Jeremiah got so mad at the God that he claimed the Lord had “deceived” him and he swore he would never speak in the name of the Lord again (see Jeremiah 20:7, 9.) Even Peter and Paul had disagreements (see Galatians 2:11-14). Book of Mormon prophets likewise recognized that they were capable of erring. Moroni said:
Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. (Mormon 9:31.)
Joseph Smith understood that he had weaknesses and faults, and was subject to error. The Prophet wrote: “[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (HC, 5:265.) On another occasion he said: “Although I was called of my Heavenly Father to lay the foundation of this great work and kingdom in this dispensation, and testify of His revealed will to scattered Israel, I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times.” (HC, 5:516.) He also declared, “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.” (HC, 5:181.) On yet another occasion he publicly stated, “Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else... I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.” (HC, 5:401.) In a letter to Oliver Cowdery, intended for publication, Joseph wrote, “I do not, nor never [sic] have, pretended to be any other than a man ‘subject to passions,’ and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.” (Latter-day Saints Messenger & Advocate, November 6, 1834.) Lorenzo Snow had a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God despite personal weaknesses. He once wrote:
“I saw the imperfections in [Joseph Smith] ...I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me... I thanked God that I saw these imperfections.” (Private journal quoted in Maxwell [1984], 10.)
That Brigham Young understood this as well is evidence by statements such as this:
We are all liable to err; are subject, more or less, to the errors incident to the human family. We would be pleased to get along without these errors, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing. If you would only think of it for a moment you would not have me perfect, for if I were perfect the Lord would take me to Paradise quicker than you would be willing to have me go there. (JD 10:212.)
Brigham Young said on another occasion:
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 lead by him.... Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. JD 9:150.)
2. Prophets and Contemporary Beliefs
Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (D&C 1:24; italics added.)
Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing– and at times incorrect– views of their day. In the Bible, for instance, we read of Joseph’s silver cup (see Gen. 44:2, 5) in which “he divineth” (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy [Quinn {1987}, 3]), or the magical rod of Aaron (Exodus 7:9-12). The casting of lots, or sortilege (see Acts 1:26), to choose a new Apostle was also practiced by the pagans. (Ibid.) The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban’s cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Gen. 30:37-39)-- I can only imagine what the critics would say had Joseph have attempted such a thing. In Numbers 5:11-31, 21 we read about a magical test for adultery in which the priest would give the suspect a potion to drink. If the woman was guilty, her thigh would swell. Even some of Christ’s miracles had familiar tones to the surrounding pagans. Jesus’ healing of the deaf man by putting his fingers in his ears (Mark 7:33-35) and Jesus’ healing of the blind man by touching his eyes with spittle and clay were also common practices of the surrounding pagans. (Ibid., 4. For more on this subject see my web article, Joseph Smith and Money Digging )
Early Mormons understood things differently than we do today. Just as Biblical figures had strange view about the shape of the earth (Isaiah 11:12) and the motion of the planets (Joshua 10:6) so likewise some early LDS leaders had some incorrect views. Evidence suggests, for example, that Joseph Smith (at least for some time) and other early Latter-day Saints believed in a “hemispheric” model of Book of Mormon geography. Early Saints generally believed that North America was the land northward, and that South America was the land southward – with Panama as the narrow neck of land. Current research into the internal Book of Mormon map (as described by a careful reading of the text), however, demonstrates a “limited” geographical layout for Book of Mormon events (Sorenson [1992b], 9)-- which lends support to the belief that Joseph Smith is not the “author” of the Book of Mormon. (See Hamblin [1993], 174.) Along with other frontiersman of the day, Joseph and the early Saints saw no distinction between Indians anywhere in the hemisphere. Therefore to the early Saints, a “Lamanite” was any Indian. (Sorenson [1992b], 9.) We know now that this view is most assuredly incorrect.
Prophets are not raised in cultural vacuums. Moses wasn’t, Abraham wasn’t and neither were Joseph, or Brigham, or Gordon B. Hinckley. Non-LDS scholars have recognized that Biblical prophets were wrong about certain cultural beliefs. The Rev. J.R. Dummelow wrote:
Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition-- each with his own education or want of education-- each with his own way of looking at things-- each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines– it left them men.
Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries....
[Concerning the author of Genesis:] His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal. (Dummelow [1936], cxxxv.)
In a 1999 FARMS Symposium on the Joseph Smith Papyri some LDS scholars demonstrated that Moses’ vision (Abraham chapter 3) most likely takes an eco-centric perspective-- that is that Moses’ vision relates truths according to how he would have understood the universe in his day, with the Earth at the center. (See Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and John Gee, “And I Saw the Stars,” forthcoming publication.) We see the same association with contemporary ideas in other areas of the Bible. The design of Solomon’s temple, for example, “drew heavily upon Phoenician skill” in design and construction. The temple was “characteristically Phoenician” and similar structures have been unearthed in northern Syria. (Harrison, 206-8.) Likewise “the Mosaic tabernacle was ‘very close in most essentials’ to various pagan Egyptian portable structures, including Egyptian ‘Tent Purification’... And yet, according to Exodus 25-30, it was Yahweh Himself who instructed the Israelites on how to build the tabernacle.” (Quoted in Griffith, 14.) Henry Chadwick notes that the “Good Shepherd carrying his sheep was a conventional pagan symbol of humanitarian concern, philanthropia. The Christians were taking a common type and investing it with a new meaning possibly with reference to Christ the good shepherd of his sheep.” (Chadwick, 278.) Even the Christian doctrines of the sacrament and rebirth by baptism had pagan counterparts. (Hunter, 217-8; 235-8.)
Likewise, it should come as no surprise to Latter-day Saints that in Joseph Smith’s early years he practiced treasure digging (see my Joseph Smith and Money Digging), or that he felt the Word of Wisdom encouraged moderation rather than abstinence. (See my “Up in Smoke”) Neither should one be shocked to discover that Brigham Young believed that the Sun was inhabited (as did other educated people of his day [JD 13:217; see also Van Hale {1983}.]), or that Joseph Fielding Smith did not think that man would ever be able to go to the moon. (See Smith [1979]; see also Gibbons, 371.)
Brigham Young apparently understood this concept of cultural perspective when he said:
I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (JD 2:314.)
We all have world view which we are forced to change on a regular basis. Such views have changed radically since we were young, and will continue to change throughout the eternities. (Thanks for Roger “Bish” Cook (a.k.a., Hellenization) for pointing his out at ZLMB.) Likewise, the Church is evolving. That’s one of the blessings of a living Church. We have the blessing of updates. On April 6, 1845, in a Nauvoo Conference Brigham Young said:
Joseph in his life time did not receive every thing connected with the doctrine of redemption, but he has left the key with those who understand how to obtain and teach to this great people, all that is necessary for their salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom of our God. We have got to learn how to be faithful in a few things; you know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things, we shall be made ruler over many things. If we improve upon small things, greater will be given unto us. (Millennial Star No. 8, October 1, 1845, vol. vi, pp. 119-123; thanks to Alma Allred for pointing out this quote.)
In similar vein Joseph Fielding Smith has noted that the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.” (Smith [1955], 2:168. See more of this discussion on temple changes in my on-line article on Changes in the Temple Cermony.) At another time Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that the Church “possesses every means for the correction of every wrong or abuse or error which may from time to time arise, and that without anarchy, or even revolution; it can do it by process of evolution– by development, by an increase of knowledge, wisdom, patience and charity.” (Smith [1919], 381.) It seems that Paul understood this as well when he said:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12.)
An evolving, growing, living Church, virtually guarantees that not all truth will be known on all things at all times. When revelations are received, when new information is given, it’s only logical that such new information would be interpreted according to the understanding of the day.
3. “Official” LDS Doctrine
LDS critics frequently quote LDS leaders as if every word these leaders ever spoke (from the pulpit, in public, or even in private) represents official LDS doctrine. This, of course, is one version of the strawman fallacy. As Bradford and Dahl note in the Church authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Many individuals write or preach their views. Some, by study and obedience, may learn truths that go beyond the stated position of the Church, but this does not authorize them to speak officially for the Church or to present their views as binding on the Church. There are many subjects about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues. (Bradford and Dahl, 1:395.)
Anti-Mormons, however, are not solely to blame for a misunderstanding of what is, and what is not, “official” LDS doctrine. Some members have the misconception that anything spoken by a General Authority– especially in Conference– qualifies as “official” doctrine. In part, this dilemma is due to the often “broad meaning in Mormon vernacular” of the word “doctrine.” In the broadest sense, note Bradford and Dahl, the term “doctrine” is “used to mean virtually everything that is, or has been, taught or believed by the Latter-day Saints. In this sense, doctrinal teachings answer a host of questions.”
Some relate closely to the core message of the gospel of Jesus Christ; others are farther removed and unsystematically lap over into such disciplines as history, psychology, philosophy, science, politics, business, and economics. Some of these beliefs qualify as official doctrine and are given to the Saints as counsel, exhortation, reproof, and instruction (2 Tim. 3:16). Continual effort is made to harmonize and implement these principles and doctrine into a righteous life. Other teachings, ones that lack official or authoritative standing, may also be widespread among Church members at any given time. (Ibid., 394.)
While broad-sense doctrines disseminated by Church leaders may contain useful and even true teachings, because they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” (Top, Dahl, and Bowen, 118.) This includes statements given in General Conference. Talks presented in General Conference are for the spiritual edification of the Saints. While they generally focus on revealed, official truths, they do not-- by nature of being given in Conference– expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.” (Lee [1974], 162.) “It is not uncommon,” notes Joseph Fielding McConkie, “to hear someone say that anything taught in general conference is ‘official doctrine.’ Such a standard makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, 213-4.)
And since all LDS leaders, just like all Biblical prophets, are entitled to their own opinions and perspectives, it is not unusual to find that at time, they disagree. The views of the Saints, and LDS leaders, did not always harmonize with the views of Joseph Smith. The early members of the Church, for example, voted to retain Sidney Rigdon as a counselor in the first presidency despite the protests of Joseph. (CHC 2:242-3.) At other times, various leaders have impacted many members of the Church with their own opinions.
Certain Church leaders have written extensively of their understanding of the doctrines of the Church and, as a consequence, have had a significant influence on what many members believe.... These have included Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. Their writings evidence some differences of opinion on unsettled issues, just as different schools of thought exist among Church members in general on certain issues. Examples include efforts to reconcile current scientific teachings and revealed truths, to ponder the nature of uncreated intelligence, and to define eternal progression. Latter-day Saints have faith that answers will eventually be revealed, and are urged, in the meantime, to seek knowledge by all available means and to show tolerance toward those espousing differing opinions on such subjects. (Bradford and Dahl, 396-7.)
Such disagreements are not limited to LDS leaders. As J. Reuben Clark points out, we see disagreement among the Biblical Apostles as well.
It will be recalled that disagreements among brethren in high places about doctrines made clear appeared in the early days of the Apostolic Church. Indeed, at the Last Supper, “there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest”; this was in the presence of the Savior himself. (Luke 22: 24.)
The disciples had earlier had the same dispute when they were at Capernaum. (Mark 9:33; Luke 9:46.) And not long after that, James and John, of their own volition or at the instance of their mother, apparently the latter, asked Jesus that one of them might sit on his right hand and the other on his left. (Matt. 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:35 ff.)
This matter of precedence seems to have troubled the disciples.
There were disputes over doctrine. You will recall that Paul and Barnabas had differences (not over doctrine, however), and, says the record, "the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." (Acts 15:36 95.)
Paul had an apparently unseemly dispute with Peter about circumcision. Paul boasted to the Galatians, "I said unto Peter before them all ...." (Gal. 2:14.)
Peter, replying more or less in kind, wrote: " . . . even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (II Peter 3:15-16.)
This same question regarding circumcision became so disturbing to the Church that "the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter," in Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas, and Peter were there and participated in the discussion. The Pharisee disciples stood for circumcision of Gentiles. James delivered the decision against the necessity of circumcising the Gentile converts. (Acts 15:1 95.) (J. Reuben Clark, 72.)
As noted earlier, Joseph Smith probably believed (at least initially) that Book of Mormon events took place on a hemisphere level. (Sorenson [1992b], 11-13.) These earlier views, however, don’t constitute “official” LDS doctrine. Not every word which comes from the Prophet or Apostles is “official doctrine.” Clark relates the following:
There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”
...To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of Johnson’s [sic] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk.
I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle--that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be “moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” (J. Reuben Clark, 73.)
How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? Clark answers this question:
I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” only when we, ourselves, are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak. (Ibid., 68-9.)
Brigham Young expressed comparable sentiments when he said:
I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied... Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, “If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,” this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. (JD 3:5.)
I think that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes– it’s all part of progression and the growing process. I’m not forced to accept teachings with which I disagree. I’m supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course I’m the one who puts myself in jeopardy if I fail to accept things which will bless me. As Joseph Smith once said, “I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” (HC, 6:477.) Likewise, Apostle Charles W. Penrose declared:
President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when “Thus saith the Lord”, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill. (Millennial Star 54:191.)
Joseph Fielding Smith gives us some additional guidance:
It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Smith [1955], 3:203.)
Similar thoughts were expressed by President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:
“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Quoted in Tvedtnes [1999], 8.)
Likewise, Bruce R. McConkie wrote,
“One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence.” (“Finding Answers to Gospel Questions,” an open letter to all “honest truth seekers,” dated 30 October 1980, quoted in Hicks, 32.)
With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general.... They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances. (McConkie [1966], 608.)
Lastly, we should point out that new scriptures can be added to “The Standard Works” by the Prophet as presented under the direction of the First Presidency. As Clark explains,
Here we must have in mind-- must know-- that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world had this high right and lofty prerogative. (Church News, July 31, 1954, p. 2ff; quoted in Cowan [1985], 452.)
New additions to The Standard Works are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church. (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31; see also Bradford and Dahl, 395.) Noting the differences of opinions on doctrinal matters between the Brethren, LDS author Stephen Robinson writes:
Until such opinions are presented to the Church in general conference and sustained by vote of the conference, they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church. (Robinson [1991], 15.)
This process determines the “official doctrine, teaching, and viewpoint of the Church.” (James R. Clark, 4:142.)
Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together. (D&C 50:22)
When new doctrine becomes “official”-- by way of Prophet expounding doctrine, and member receiving doctrine-- the Lord’s people are led and inspired by the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. Both are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” (D&C 68:4; see also J. Reuben Clark, 72.)
Michael R. Ash
Return to Mormon Fortress