The Board Of Directors

The idea that continuity of organization determines the validity of the church is further propounded when Hunt describes the manner in which popes are selected.  When he makes mention of "authority" he means the priesthood.  He is fixed on the idea that priesthood comes with office.  On the selection of popes father Hunt says:

"The organization of the Church, as already noted, resembles a board of directors, one of whom is chairman or president.  When the chairman dies, the office does not die with him.  It remains to be filled by the other directors, most of whom continue to live.  They may act quicky or they may procrastinate. They may agree among themselves or disagree.  They may split into factions; they may indulge in quarrels.  They may lose prestige and influence.  But the one and all-important fact is that the organization continues to exist.  In time a new chairman is chosen, at which moment he acquires all the authority belonging to the office" (Ibid, p. 21).

The process Hunt describes for the selection of a new president is devoid of the voice of God.  He admits the process works more like a company, with its key leaders engaged in cordial discussion until a verdict is agreed upon.  If God is not found interceding, then their decisions are considered to be His will.  This is the logical way to work through a problem when the voice of the Lord cannot be obtained.  It is the very way in which the First Councils of Nicea and Constantinople proceeded and concluded, and is how all ecumenical and provincial councils have thereafter functioned.  As it turns out, their creeds are an abomination (JSH 1:19).  This is how the commandments of men become doctrine.   

Because we live in a telestial world, there is a tendency among even very good men to slide into darkness and away from the light of truth.  Without perpetual communion with God men resort to their own devices to resolve issues of organization and matters of doctrine.  Comparison to a board of directors is I think an apt description of how the process actually works. 

Continuity Of Organization

Duane Hunt was a Catholic priest in Salt Lake City for many decades.  His continuous interaction with the Church and its members led him to write a pamphlet refuting our claims of a great apostasy, and attempting to demonstrate that the continuity of the Catholic Church is the measure of its validity.  

Hunt argued that because of "continuity of organization," from the time of Christ until the present day, the Catholic Church is the sole repository of keys and priesthood.  Though his work is not supported by the scriptures, his reasoning is an understandable attempt to justify his own faith.  The crux of his argument is as follows: 

"The continuity of the Church means, for one thing, institutional continuity, a continuous organization, linking in physical contact the officials of each generation with those of the preceding one and back finally to the Apostles themselves" (Hunt, The Continuity of the Catholic Church, p. 4).

As he continues, Hunt makes the tempting mistake of tying perpetuity of priesthood to the perpetuity of church office, and not to righteousness.  He assumes that because a man holds office he thereby holds priesthood.  He presumes the church lives on because there is a perpetuity of office holders.  To him, priesthood can only be lost from the church when all of the office holders cease to exist.  

Latter-day Saints understand that rights to priesthood are inseparably connected to the powers of heaven, and that a man connects to that power through righteousness (D&C 121:36).  Office in the church, in fact, has nothing to do with it.  When priesthood is lost the kingdom of God is not (HC 5:256-259). 

Hunt explains to his readers that being a Catholic provides comfort and assurance that no other church can provide:

"Every Catholic is sure that no matter what occurs, no matter how much the Church is maligned and persecuted, no matter how many mistakes are made by her own representatives, even by her clergy and higher officials, the Church will continue to live.  With this no other assurance known to man can be compared.  It is unique in all all human history; it is solid beyond all dispute" (Ibid, p. 10).

If it is the apparent continuity of an institution that matters to the Lord, then Hunt has a foundation upon which to build his argument.  However, devoid of priesthood, revelation, and the Holy Ghost, continuity of organization has only been crippling and blinding to mankind.  For it has been in the comforting assurance of continuous organizations that many have found themselves at ease, and lulled away into carnal security (2 Ne. 28:21-25). 

If the priesthood of God is indeed predicated upon connecting with the powers of heaven, continuity of organization is not the comforting link the priest was hoping it was.  Indeed, continuity of organization may not be the proper standard by which any man should attempt to measure the validity of a church that claims to be the Lord's own.

The Danger of Infallibility, Part 1

“In the Catholic church everyone says the pope is infallible but nobody believes it; and in the Mormon church everybody says the prophet is fallible but nobody believes it.”              - Wendy Ulrich

Heber J. Grant once said to Marion G. Romney, “My boy, you 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" (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78).

However, Joseph Smith said, “We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves" (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595).

It should sit as a curiosity to you that we continually return to the sentiment expressed so long ago by President Woodruff that the President of the Church would never “lead you astray" (See Official Declaration-1).

We think it is unreasonable that the Catholic church considers its pope to be infallible.  We scoff the idea of infallibility, but then fervently believe that the President of the Church will never lead us astray. 

Why do we take such solace in President Woodruff’s statement?  Why has that taken such a pre-eminent stance in Mormon teachings through time?  It appears everywhere.  It was just in a recent Ensign magazine yet again: 


“Some might call our actions blind obedience. But we have the Lord’s personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray" (by Elder Randall Bennett titled “Follow the Prophet.”).  


What does this statement mean?  Is it true?  Is it "the Lord's personal promise?"  What did President Woodruff mean in saying what he did?  Does it mean the Church President would never believe in or teach anything that is false, as some folks might interpret it today?  Or that he would never teach us anything that would cause us to err in doctrine?

Other Church Presidents preceding Wilford Woodruff directly expressed the exact opposite view:  

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel - said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church - that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls - applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall – that they were depending on the prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five 1842-43,  p. 237-38).

Brigham Young expressed the following in 1874,

“I have often said to the Latter-day Saints – 'Live so that you will know whether I teach you the truth or not.'  Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are NOT of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray!  But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not.  That is the way we want all Saints to live" (Brigham Young, JD 18:248).

In the Deseret News the saints read this:

“I told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given, He would suffer the devil to give revelations that they – priest and people – would follow after.  Have I seen this fulfilled?  I have.

 

“I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have truth, they would have error sent unto them and they would believe it" (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 8, 1873).

Mormon historian, D. Michael Quinn points out that this idea of infallibility “denies the principle of free agency and goes against Joseph Smith's assertion that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. To ignore the limitations and errors of significant statements of the prophets, Quinn feels, would be as false as to ignore their visions, revelations and testimonies" (The Seventh East Press, November 18, 1981).

We delight in the reassurance that a man will not lead us to hell; the very man, in fact, in whom many of us have been placing our trust for salvation.  It’s as though, in effect, we breathe a sigh of relief when reiterating President Woodruff’s words from so long ago while thinking, “I’m glad to know that that man in whom I’ve placed all of my trust for salvation will not lead me astray.”  


Is this the teaching of the Lord?  Has He invited us to “follow the prophets?”  Verily, we can place all of our trust in another man, even a very good man (a Prophet), and ultimately find that we are not saved.  We must foremost learn to trust in Christ and “follow [Him],” and then receive his servants; otherwise we remain telestial (D&C 76:99-101).

What does it mean that the President of the Church will never lead you astray?  Does it mean that he is perfect?  Does it mean that he knows all truth?  Does it mean that every president and apostle has the same gospel understanding?  Have they all had the same amount of light and truth revealed from heaven?  Have all of them received the “testimony of Jesus" (D&C 76:51; Rev 19:10)?  Does it mean that the President of the Church will have no opinion about the gospel that is incorrect?  What about politics, science, ethics, business, or philosophy?  Do their opinions or statements always reflect the absolute truth in these matters?  


The answer to each of these questions is NO.  


If we’ve assumed his statement allows us to answer in the affirmative to any of the above questions then we’ve misunderstood the relation in which we stand to other men.  How then are we to understand President Woodruff’s statement that these men will never lead us astray?