The Danger of Infallibility, Part 3

“How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?  By His contradicting a former revelation.”  -Joseph Smith (TPJS, p. 214).

It is important to examine the time period after President Woodruff’s death. His statement that the President would never lead the saints astray becomes problematic to any serious student of Church history.  It is problematic retrospectively, as we have discussed, but also prospectively.  It later becomes problematic, for instance, when President Heber J. Grant changes the way the priesthood is given to the men in the Church.  That change remained in place for over two decades until a future president of the Church changed it back. 

Woodruff’s statement is also troubling when considering the changes that are subsequently made to the temple ordinances; not additions to, or clarifications only, but the removal of certain of the higher ordinances, and alterations to portions that we are taught are most sacred.

 

The Church leadership later returned to the original way in which priesthood was conferred, fearing the procedure had been changed in error.  It also once again began administering the higher ordinances of the temple after much concern among some of the apostles and a temple president.  Their concerns were a matter of continued discussion in meetings of the twelve.

I’ve wondered what President Woodruff would say about President Kimball’s statement regarding Brigham Young’s Adam-God teachings.

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine" (President Spencer W. Kimball during Priesthood session of general conference, Church News, 9 Oct 1976).

I’d be particularly interested to hear how President Woodruff would respond (I have a good idea how Brigham Young might respond) to this statement from Bruce R. McConkie:

“Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation…If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines we are making an election that will damn us" (From a letter to Eugene England dated 19 Feb 1981, p. 6).

I cannot presume to speak for him, but I cannot believe that President Woodruff would have agreed with these statements.  He had actually taken part in disciplinary councils considering the excommunication of Elder Orson Pratt for teaching the very same things that President Kimball and Elder McConkie taught (These trials and controversies cover an extended time frame and are well documented in Bergera’s Conflict in the Quorum).  

If, therefore, what President Woodruff intended to convey by saying that the Church President would never lead the saints astray was that no Church President would ever teach false doctrine, then he himself (and you and me) would have to conclude that he was wrong.  For, regardless of who was right or wrong, two Presidents taught two completely opposing ideas, and declared authoritatively what they were teaching to be the truth.  They cannot both be correct.  There are many other examples that could have been chosen.     

It’s also interesting to note that Bruce R. McConkie very apparently did not believe that the Church President was necessarily always going to be doctrinally accurate.  He believed and taught that Brigham Young was in error (noted above).  He also said that if we "choose to believe and teach the false portions of [Brigham Young's] doctrines we are making an election that will damn us."  Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young are among the group who are, therefore, damned.  Yet, surprisingly, Elder McConkie didn’t teach that Brigham Young had led the Church astray by teaching false doctrine.  How is it that the Church President can teach a thing which, if believed, will damn a man, and not be leading the Church astray?  How far then would one have to go to lead the Church astray?  Who is the judge of this?  Can we really believe in this idea?


In using these examples from our history, I am not siding with one leader over another, or faulting one or the other, but illustrating contradictions.  The contradictions were real - they happened - are well-documented, and can teach you a whole lot about your religion.  They are the ones who were critical of and faulted one another's teachings.  


It may be difficult to some reading this to consider this discussion.  The reason that it is difficult is because we are confronted by the truth about these things, and the truth is not consistent with our expectations.  Our expectation is that we're led by men who will never lead us astray.  We should reconsider this belief.  It has no potential of bearing good fruit.  Christ has never advocated it.  It is called "trusting in the arm of flesh" in the scriptures.  Joseph Smith taught that when men advocate such "extreme notions" it is usually because they have it in their heart to do wrong themselves (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595).

Ordination is an Authoritative Invitation

As an example I’ll use my father, who won’t mind me doing so. 

He was baptized a few years ago.  Following his baptism he had conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood, and was ordained a priest.  He remained active, and fulfilled his callings, and almost a year later had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon him, and was ordained to the office of Elder.  Some time after our family had gone to the temple, he was ordained an High Priest.  Each of these ordinations was accompanied by “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

There is the progression, and also the equation.  In case it wasn’t clear, that which was required of him to become an high priest in the Church was 1) activity in the Church, and 2) time.

I may be overemphasizing the point, but not much.  I don’t mean to downplay the role of worthiness, service, or commitment to the Lord in my father’s example, or in the case of anybody else.  Only the Lord knows our determination and dedication to Him.  We have a system of interviews in place that is intended to ensure only those who are keeping themselves clean receive these ordinations.  There are inevitably unsavory, and uninterested fellows who slip through the cracks and deceive men in leadership positions.  I only use this example because it brings to light a couple of important points worthy of our consideration; points that stand in contrast to the high priests you read about in Alma 13. 

My father and I have talked about this.  He’d be the first to admit that this is the formula as it’s currently laid out.  As a matter of fact, my father had been attending the same High Priests Group since before his baptism.  As a non-member, priest, elder, and high priest, he has enjoyed the company of the High Priests Group. 

When he was ordained to the office of high priest not too long ago, he went to a few of the brethren that he respects and asked them what it meant to be ordained an high priest.  They couldn’t provide an answer for him that made him feel satisfied he truly understood the ordination.  What was the significance of the change from elder to high priest then?  Did it confer the right to perform new, different, or higher ordinances?  Did a greater endowment of the gifts of the Spirit accompany that ordination?  What changed?  

This had been my experience in the past, too.  After many inquiries into the matter I decided that there were few people, if any, who might understand what is really going on.  Nobody had a valid insight for me to help dispel the confusion.

We often want to hear something new.  We think we want the mysteries.  Those who diligently seek after them shall find them (1 Ne. 10:19).  What we need first, however, is to properly understand that which has already been given to us.  Then we will have a foundation of truth upon which to build.  “If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right,” (KFD, Joseph Smith).  Beginning with a false premise will eventually lead you to a dead end.

There’s a reason few seem to understand what high priest in the Church means.  Likewise, there are few who understand what high priest in Alma 13 means.  Because the same words are used to describe both, we tend to think they’re the same.  They’re not.  They are different.  Because we think they’re the same we understand neither as we should. 

At an early point in our history we began conflating the priesthood and church office.  We have fused and confused the two.  This is not always the way it was, but the way it quickly became. 

When Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith worked together to write what is now section 20 of the D&C they explained the offices of elder, priest, teacher, deacon, and member as offices in the church (“high priest” was not a part of that original document and was added later in 1835 when the D&C was first printed).  These offices belonged to the Church, and not to the priesthood.  Even “member” is described as though it is one of those offices, and the duties pertaining to that office are laid out in that section (D&C 20: 38, 68-70).   

These offices provided order and established authority in the Church.  These offices were the authority given by which baptism was performed, the ordination of others as officers in the church was performed, and administration of the sacrament was performed (D&C 20).  The organization itself, or the entity, empowered these offices, and the offices were established by vote of the church.

One example from the life of Brigham Young illustrates this point well:

“On December 27, 1847, in Winter Quarters, when Brigham Young became president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he recorded he was ‘elected’ to the office.  The common consent, or election by church members, was the power by which the president’s office became his.  He did not believe he needed any ordination to the office, only the common consent through a sustaining vote.  He was in fact, never ordained president of the church, only elected to the position.  He explained why it was unnecessary to have anything other than a vote to ascend to the office: ‘If men are elected by this Church, it is by Election - Joseph was ordained an Apostle – but the Church elected him as a President, Prophet-Seer and Revelator – But he was never ordained to that office.’  Because a sustaining vote was all Brigham Young thought necessary to assume the president’s mantle, it was all he ever received.  If his view is correct, then any person elected to the position has all authority required by reason of the vote or consent of the members of the church.  The members consent or elect a person to the position, and the position exists through such consent.” (Snuffer, emphasis mine).

  

Now, there is a lot more that could be said about the priesthood and church office that we will not cover here.  There is a lot of informative context preceding and surrounding the writing of section 20, and other sections in the D&C, that has become available to us, and that has not been accessible since the early part of the restoration.  There is a lot of information pertaining to the restoration of the priesthood that is also important.  We will not look at that here either. 

It is important that I bring up what little I did.  These things are important to consider in order that we can get to the truth about these high priests in Alma 13.  That’s the whole reason we’ve talked about any of it.  I’m quite certain I may have caused considerable confusion to some people.  If it doesn’t taste good, spit it out.  If it’s helpful, then consider it.  Plant the seed, and let it work.  See if it produces any fruit.  That is the simple method Alma revealed to us to test the word (Alma 32).  If you begin to see some discrepancy, you begin to believe that you don’t have all the answers.  That is a good and necessary and humbling thing.  That realization will cause you to begin asking the right questions.           

Today, unlike the other ordinations we perform, ordination to the office of high priest in the Church comes to a man at a non-age-specific, leadership-selected time in his normal progression in the church,  predicated upon his continued attendance and activity (the exception to this would be when a man’s calling in the Church requires him to be a high priest – i.e. a Bishop, for example).  As with all other offices in the Church, the ordination can only take place after “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

It is apparent to me that my father was ordained to the office of high priest in the Church.  It is also apparent to me that this was something different than what we find going on in Alma 13.  We’ll take a look at that next.  Considering the text at face value, divorcing it from our expectations and prejudices, helps us learn what Alma’s message is.  It is worth our attention.  It’s an invitation to come unto Christ and to receive that which man cannot give.