Moroni Finishes His Record, Part 4

Moroni wrote a "few more things" at the end of his record, after finishing his abridgment of the record of the Jaredites.  The things he wrote were intended to be of worth unto "the Lamanites" in the last days, but are beneficial to us as well (Moro. 1:4).

The first thing about which he wrote was the manner in which Christ gave his disciples power to give the Holy Ghost.  He explains that Christ called them by name and said the following words as he laid hands upon them:

"Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles" (Moro. 2:2).

These were instructions specific to the disciples and not heard by the multitude who had gathered to view the Savior.  Before the disciples went about giving the Holy Ghost, they were to call upon the Father in mighty prayer, in order that they may receive "power."  Is "mighty prayer" a part of the receipt of this power in our day?  If not, why does it seem it was of primary importance anciently?  Are we to understand the phrase "for thus do mine apostles" as also applying to our day, or just the ancient apostles?

Moroni then gives the manner in which ordination was performed in that ancient church.  He explained how those disciples, who where called "elders of the church," ordained both priests and teachers.  They first prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, and laying their hands upon them, said:

"In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end.  Amen" (Moro. 3:3).

This was the manner of ordination.  Moroni makes the point that those ordained were done so "according to the gifts and callings of God unto men" (Moro. 3:4).  The offices of priest and teacher were given to men, not according to age or duration of church activity, but according to the gifts and callings of God unto men.  How do you suppose that was determined?

These ordinations were performed by the "power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them" (ibid.).  There is no mention of priesthood here.  Why does Moroni not say instead, that these ordinations were performed "by the power of the priesthood, which was in them"?  Does ordination to church office require priesthood?  Are the offices of priest and teacher offices of the priesthood, or offices in the church?  Is this manner of ordination of priests and teachers consistent with earlier ordinations in the Book of Mormon to those same offices?

Though the reader may assume these priests and teachers were given priesthood before or at the time of their ordination, there is no mention of conferral of priesthood authority prior to their ordination.  They are merely "ordained" to be a priest or teacher.  

Our practice is to first confer the authority of the priesthood, and then ordain to an office therein, the two being connected.  Wholly removed from our tradition is that the offices to which men are ordained are actually offices within the Church, not priesthood offices.  D&C 20 makes the original intent clear, though there is quickly thereafter conflation of church office and priesthood (this also makes me think on the early disputes between Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, and others about whether or not men needed to have priesthood "conferred" as a part of their ordination to offices.  Once Heber J. Grant became president of the Church he changed the manner of ordination.  That change remained in place for decades before being changed back).  

Here then is the dilemma we find in the text.  If you choose to interpret Moroni's words through the lens of Mormon tradition, and you think you thereby understand what is going on in this ancient church, you of necessity have to choose to ignore the specifics of the verses.  You must look at it as a whole and assume it is all just the same today as it was then, even though the wording and manner are different.  You convince yourself that, "even though the wording is a little strange, I know exactly what was going on back then."  You can take that approach, OR you can read the text exactly as it stands and ask yourself whether or not you're able to discover the truth about how things were done anciently.

We will get a more accurate look into the past taking the text at its word, than by insisting it looks and sounds exactly like modern Mormonism while ignoring the details.  This idea will be continued in the next post.    

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?