Just as the Church doesn’t teach that Prophets are infallible, it also
doesn’t teach that Prophets are inerrant.
What is the difference? Well, Prophets are not infallible. This means that they
are perfectly capable of making mistakes and committing sins. They are also not
inerrant. This means that not everything they say is necessarily the directly
inspired word of God. In other words, they are capable of making mistakes both
in their personal lives and also in their teaching and preaching.
Not
everything a Prophet says is inspired by God, even when speaking on religious
matters. For some reason, many members of the Church seem to be under the
impression that whenever a General Authority speaks about a Gospel topic, or
gives a talk in General Conference, or declares his opinion about a particular
doctrine, his words may as well be the words of God Himself. This is not true,
and I’m sure that President Monson would rebuke anyone who suggested such a
thing.
Let
me take just one or two examples. It is well-attested to in several reliable
historical documents that Joseph Smith publicly taught that the moon was
inhabited by people who lived to a very great age and were about 6 feet in
height. Now, the beauty of having a living Prophet of God is that, when
necessary, they can impart the words of God to humanity. This doesn’t mean that
everything they say is the word of God. Joseph Smith was perfectly entitled to
believe that there were men living on the moon. In fact, that was a very common
belief in the 19th Century. I’m pretty sure that there aren’t any
men living on the moon, personally, but in those days it was not such a rare
opinion, particularly among less educated people such as Joseph. Was he not
perfectly entitled to have personal opinions about these kinds of things? Are
we going to say that, simply because of his Prophetic office, he is forbidden
to ever express a personal view or speculation about matters such as this one?
Never once did he include the idea of men living on the moon in a revelation.
Never once did he claim that God had revealed this to him as an inspired
doctrine. He was simply expressing his own personal view and speculating, as
was quite common in the early 19th Century. Not everything a Prophet
says should be taken as if God Himself were speaking through Him. In fact,
Joseph Smith himself adamantly declared this to the early Saints. In his own
words: “I told [the Saints] that a Prophet was a Prophet only when he was
acting as such.”[1]
This
same principle can also be applied to things regarding the Gospel. The
Restoration is often likened to a glorious dawn of truth, banishing the dark
night of error with its golden rays. This metaphor is quite apt, for just as a
sunrise doesn’t happen all at once, so the Restoration was (and still is) a
gradual process. In fact, it is still not fully complete. The ninth Article of
Faith states: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
reveal, and we believe that He will yet
reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
(emphasis added) As far as I know, this Article of Faith has never been
repealed or retracted. It is still in force.
The
earliest Saints joined the Church with no knowledge of temple work, eternal
marriage, or Priesthood keys. Most of them had joined the Church based on the
Book of Mormon alone, without any knowledge of the Doctrine and Covenants or
Pearl of Great Price. All of these things were yet to come forth. The morning
of the Restoration had dawned, but only partially. In the meantime, awaiting
further light and truth, they had to make do with what they had and get on with
living the Gospel to the best of their ability. Is it any wonder that they made
mistakes? Is it any wonder that, with much revelation and scripture still to be
revealed, and only a cursory knowledge of the scriptures which had already come
forth, many early Church members and leaders began to speculate about doctrinal
matters, even teaching them publicly in many cases and including them in
sermons? Yes, there was much taught in the early days of the Church which was
pure speculation and was shown to be false by later revelation. We are a Church
which believes, proudly, in the necessity of continuing revelation, for precisely
this reason. For example, several early General Authorities taught that plural
marriage was an eternal requirement of salvation and that it would never be
removed from the Church. In fact, Wilford Woodruff himself taught that if the
Church ever abandoned plural marriage, it would no longer be God’s church.[2]
I imagine he must have felt a little embarrassed after receiving the revelation
in 1890 ending the practice of plural marriage. The point is, prior to 1890, it
was quite reasonable for church leaders, including President Woodruff, to
assume that plural marriage would never be taken from the earth. They could not
have foreseen what God had yet to reveal to the Saints. So they taught what
they assumed was true, to the best of their knowledge and ability. But in 1890,
when God spoke to the President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff himself, the
very man who had taught previously that plural marriage was an eternal
requirement for salvation, President Woodruff immediately acted upon the new
revelation, and published Official Declaration 1, the Manifesto, marking the
beginning of the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.
There
are numerous other examples. Brigham Young, who knew the Bible very well but
had not grown up with or become very acquainted with other latter-day
scripture, mistakenly believed and taught, quite vigorously, that Adam is God
and God is Adam.[3] A
close reading of the scriptures quickly reveals that this doctrine is both
false and illogical,[4]
but it was just one of many various speculations and theories about the nature
of the Godhead which were very common in the early Church. It was not until
1916 when Joseph F Smith, President of the Church, who had, possibly, the most
thorough knowledge and understanding of the scriptures of any Church president
since Joseph Smith, published ‘The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition’
to clarify and explain the true nature of the Father and the Son as revealed in
the scriptures. This put an end to the false theories and speculations which
had been so rampant in the Church before. In similar examples, President Joseph
Fielding Smith said that man would never land on the moon,[5]
and Apostle Franklin D Richards told the Martin and Wiley handcart companies
that God would protect them on their journey and they would arrive unscathed.[6]
Neither of these predictions came true, because man has indeed landed on the
moon and over 200 people from the Martin and Wiley handcart companies died en
route. But these cease to be issues once we understand that not everything a
Prophet says is the word of God. Often, they are merely expressing their own
opinion or speculating. In fact, it is safest to assume that unless they
specifically claim to have received a revelation from God, they are just doing
their best with the light and truth they have already received. This doesn’t
mean we should disregard what they say – they are very wise, good men and God
has chosen them to lead this Church for a reason – but it does mean that we
shouldn’t be surprised if sometimes they express personal opinions or speculations
which later turn out not to be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment