|
Infallible Authority
by Joseph John Dewey
Preface
I wrote the first draft, I believe, in 1978. About the time I was finishing
it the [LDS and/or Mormon] church authorities got wind that I had some unorthodox beliefs so they
decided to try me for my membership. Since they were trying me for some fairly
trivial doctrines I thought I might as well give them so meat to chew on so they
could formulate some reason to be for or against me.
I thus made photocopies of the first draft of the book I am about to post to
you and sent them to all 15 men who were going to try me.
As you might guess, this did not help my cause, but sealed my doom with the
church. They decided that anyone who thought such things as I should not be
allowed to stay in the church.
Below is the beginning of the book. The style of writing is somewhat
different than I use today as I was still in the church when I started it and
was addressing LDS people with their peculiar mindset. I now call this language
which one must use with them, Mormonese.
I believe that even those not familiar with LDS teachings will find this
interesting because many other churches, governments and organizations attempt
to exert "Infallible Authority" over the mind of humanity. I'm sure
many on this list have escaped this "mark of the beast" in one form or
another.
Chapter 1 -- Examining Infallibility
If a 14th Article of Faith were ever written for the Mormon Church, it might
well read, "We believe in the infallibility of the president of the Church
so long as he is living. However, after he is dead, his statements are subject
to error. The longer he has been dead, the more cautiously one should view his
words."
When I was a boy, I often heard the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope
criticized as being ridiculous; but as the years passed, I heard less and less
criticism of infallibility and more praise for the brethren, especially our
president. Now the LDS have virtually reached the same state of crystallization
as the Catholic Church in this matter to the extent that they accept the words
of their president pertaining to doctrine (even though they may be given in his
own name) with the same weight that the Catholics accept the words of the Pope.
Contrary to popular belief, the Catholics do not look upon the Pope as a
infallible in his own right. They realize that he is human as you or I. They
merely accept him as being infallible when personally representing the Son of
God and speaking on doctrine and church affairs. His words do not have to be
claimed as revelation or even inspiration; he merely has to speak and he is to
be trusted and believed without question. Is this not the way the Mormon people
are encouraged to feel about their president? Then why not call a spade a spade
and openly call it the doctrine of the "Infallibility of the Prophet"?
How did such a doctrine of infallibility get started in a church which, for
the first sixty years, did not even call itself a sect, and whose leaders
cringed at being called a sectarian? Unfortunately, it was introduced by one of
the sweetest most gentle and sincere of persons to ever attain a position in the
Church - namely Wilford Woodruff. In defending the Manifesto of 1890, he said,
"The Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as president of
this church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind
of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and
so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from
the oracles of God and from their duty." (Wilford Woodruff,
Oct 6, 1890 Conference)
From the above statement, the Church concurs that if the prophet were to do
anything to lead the Church astray, his life would be taken before he could do
any damage; thus it is impossible for the Church to be out of order, I heard a
fairly renown Mormon speaker sum it up the current belief when he said,
"The Lord has given us a yardstick whereby we cannot fail. The prophet. We
may rest assured that he will always lead us right, for the Lord has promised us
that he will never lead us astray. In all other dispensations there was
apostasy, but this one is different. This is the dispensation of the fullness of
times, and this time the church cannot fall."
Could such a doctrine be correct? Think for a moment -- if it is not, if it is
possible for the church to fail today as the Lord has said (we'll point out
references later), then could you think of a doctrine that would cause any
greater rejoicing in hell? I think not, for then if Satan could get a foothold
on the president, he could then lead the whole church. Such doctrine reminds me
of Nephi's words:
[Parenthetical comments added for emphasis.]
"And others he will pacify, and lead them away in to
carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth,
all is well -- and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away
carefully down to hell ... . Wo unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him
that crieth All is well! ... Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man (a
President for instance?), or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the
precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy
Ghost. Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts! (Remember the Gentiles
are those who first receive the Book of Mormon -- In other words, the LDS people!)
For not withstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day,
they will deny me." (2 Nephi 28:21, 24-25; 31-32)
Let us walk on to forbidden territory for a moment and actually question the
words of a prophet. Was Wilford Woodruff right in what he said? If he was right,
then do we understand him correctly? In examining his words, we first see that
they are spoken in his name and not the Lord's. He starts out, "I
say..." He does not claim that his words are inspired; thus they cannot
carry an equal weight with any previous revelation. Therefore, if we were to
find a previous revelation which conflicted with the above statement, then that
would take ascendancy.
Is there such a revelation? Yes, there are several. For instance, in
speaking of the prophet of the Church, the Lord said:
"And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them
lest they are accounted as a light thing, and they are brought under condemnation thereby, and
stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains
descend and beat upon their house." (D&C 90:5)
If it is impossible for the prophet to lead the Church astray, then why did
the Lord say this? How could a prophet possibly stumble and fall? Why did Joseph
Smith warn: "When the head is sick, the whole body is faint?"
(Doc. Hist. of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 146)
Why did he also say, "Were he (Sidney Rigdon) to preside, he would
lead the Church to destruction in less than five years"? (DHC 6:592)
Why did Joseph also warn that, "If the people departed from the Lord, they
must fall -- that they were depending on the prophet, hence were darkened in
their minds." (DHC 5:19) Also, "If one member becomes corrupt,
and you know it, you must immediately put it away, or it will either injure or
destroy the whole body" (the Church). (DHC 4:605)
Do not the scriptures tell us clearly that "God is the same yesterday,
today and forever," and "with him there is no variables." (See
1 Nephi 10:18, 2 Nephi 2:4; Heb 3:8; and
James 1:17.)
Therefore, the pattern that God followed yesterday will be
repeated in principle today and tomorrow. Did you realize that only eight pages
of the entire New Testament was written by the president of the church? This, of
course, was Peter. Paul, who wrote more than anyone else, according to many
scholars, was not even a member of the quorum of the twelve, but had a special
calling directly by Christ to be "the apostle of the gentiles."
(Rom. 11:13) He was an apostle "neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ." (Gal. 1:1)
To affirm that the scholars are correct, we find
that the Lord told Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer that "you are called
with that same calling with which he [Paul] was called."
(D&C 18:9) Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were never members of the
quorum of twelve, yet they were called apostles in early LDS history. Thus, if
they had been worthy, they could have written scriptures as good and as
authorized as Paul.
Did not Brigham Young say, "Is this (the spirit of prophesy) the
privilege of every person? It is." (Journal of Discourses 3:89)
Joseph Smith said, "No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet,"
(DHC 3:389) Unto the Lord's servants he said, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved
upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture...." (D&C 68:4)
The Lord was not referring to the president of the Church here or even all
the General Authorities exclusively, but He was speaking to all his servants. Is
it not clear that the Lord can write scripture through whomever He pleases? Is
He not a higher authority than the president of the Church? Did He not write
scripture through non-general authorities in the past? Even two of the gospels,
Mark and Luke, were written by individuals who were mere junior companions in
the mission field and held no known position, yet they wrote scriptures binding
on the entire Church today. What chance for acceptance would scripture written
through a junior LDS missionary companion have today? Verily none, except among
those who would be expelled from the Church.
Almost all the Old Testament was written by those who were not "general
authorities." Even Moses had no position among the Elders when he was called,
neither did Enoch who was "but a lad." David was anointed in secret
to preserve his life after Saul led the Kingdom astray.
Interestingly LDS general authorities often quote Amos to substantiate that
the Lord will deal through "recognized" prophets: "Surely the
Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants, the
prophets." (Amos 3:7)
Ironically, Amos was far from being a general authority. He said, "I was
no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son, but I was an herdman, and a gatherer
of sycamore fruit. And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord
said unto me: go prophesy unto my people Israel." (Amos 7:14-15)
Verily, Amos had no position in the church, but prophesied to the whole
church.
Could it happen again?
Why not?
Lastly, Jesus, the carpenter's son, was no general authority, but
acknowledged:
"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; all therefore
whatsoever they bid you, that observe and do; but do not after their works; for
they say and do not." (Matt. 23:2-3)
However, these same leaders later commanded Peter and the disciples not to
teach their doctrine and Peter replied, "We ought to obey God rather
than men." (Acts 5:29)
Jesus had great struggles with these general authorities and they finally put him to death.
Seeing this He said, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you." (Matt. 21:43)
Interestingly, Jesus recognized that they yet had the keys to the kingdom because He said the
kingdom "shall" be taken.
Likewise, for those who feel "all is well" in Zion we have the
following warnings indicating the Church is indeed vulnerable:
Joseph Smith wrote:
"Now brother Orson, if this church which is essaying
to be the Church of Christ will not help us, when they can do it without
sacrifice, with those blessings which God has bestowed upon them. I prophesy -- I
speak the truth, I lie not -- God shall take away their talent and give it to
those who have no talent, and shall prevent them from ever obtaining a place of
refuge ... ." (DHC 2:48)
Do the LDS have a place of refuge from future calamities? Verily no. Is their
talent then taken away? I pause for reply...
"If you [the twelve] will not warn them [the nations] others Will and
you will loose your crowns." (DHC 2:197)
"Beware of pride lest ye become as the Nephites of old." (D&C 38:39)
If that doesn't mean there is a possibility of the Church going astray, then what does?
The Nephites of old fell into great spiritual darkness. How much clearer can the written word
be?
Also consider"
"Inasmuch as ye do it not [keep the word of the Lord], it shall be
taken away, even that which ye have received," (D&C 43:10)
"Be faithful in keeping my commandments lest judgments come upon you and
your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you."
(D&C 136:42)
Joseph Smith said:
"I will now ask this assembly and all the Saints if
you will now build this house and receive the ordinances and blessings which God
has in store for you; or will you not build unto the Lord this house, and let
him pass by and bestow these blessings upon another people?" (DHC 5:427)
Many times the Lord clearly indicates that the Church is not immune to being
cut off:
"And if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye
shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God."
(D&C 124:32)
"Wherefore let the church repent of her sins, and I the Lord will own
them, otherwise they shall be cut off." (D&C 63:63)
What would happen if the Church were cut off? Do you suppose you would hear
our [church] president announce the next day, "Well, brothers and sisters, I've got
some bad news -- we've been cut off."
Far from it. Instead the Lord merely cuts them off from true revelation and they are left to
struggle by themselves to lean on the arm of flesh. From that point on every favorable emotion is
interpreted as the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, many sincere people pray
about the first vision, the truths of the Book of Mormon and the validity church
doctrines and they do receive a witness from the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately,
after receiving this answer, they automatically assume that everything else is
in order, An amazingly small number have ever asked God if He is pleased with
His leaders today and if the Church is in order as it should be. Why? Because
after they receive a witness they are deceived into thinking that it is a mark
of unfaithfulness to doubt the leaders today, but is it?
No: It is only a sin to doubt the Holy Spirit.
Why did Joseph Smith say:
"You will live to see men arise in power in
the Church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord
and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and
worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the
true followers of our Lord and Savior will be cast down because of their
poverty." (Mosiah Hancock Journal, pg. 28)
Why did Brigham Young say, "Brethren, this church will be led on to the
very brink of hell by the leaders of this people." (Attested to by Joshua
Jones, 1861, Provo Bowery)
Why did John Taylor say, "The church will go into bondage both
temporally and spiritually and in that day the One Mighty and Strong spoken of
in the 85th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come." A LEAF IN
REVIEW Page 235.
Again why did the Lord say, "Beware of pride lest ye become as the
Nephites of old." (D&C 38:39)
After all these witnesses, can you not consider, my friends, the possibility
that the Church needs set in order as prophesied in D&C 85, and later by
Brigham Young and John Taylor? Those who did not consider that Jesus was the
Christ never obtained the witness. Even so, the LDS who believe that revelation
can only come through the head of the church are in danger of missing out on the
words of many different prophets.
All true prophets have admitted the possibility of error, especially when
depending on their human ability. For instance, Nephi said:
"And now, if I do err, even did THEY ERR OF OLD; not that I would excuse myself because of
other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I
would excuse myself." (1 Nephi 19:6)
Even the possibility of error in the Doctrine and Covenants is admitted by the Lord:
"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. And
inasmuch as they erred it might be made known." (D&C 1:24-25)
When Helaman (a prophet) was given the records and authority from his father,
he was warned:
"If ye transgress the commandments of God, behold, these
things which are sacred shall be taken from you by the power of God, and ye
shall be delivered up unto Satan, that he may sift you as chaff before the
wind." (Alma 37:15)
One time the prophet Peter made the mistake of refusing to eat with the
Gentiles for fear of offending Jewish members and Paul "withstood him to
his face because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:8-14) Paul did this
because he saw that Peter was leading the Church astray and such a bad example
had to be brought to light.
Now we ask the question: If there was a danger that Peter, Helaman, Joseph
Smith and others could fail, then how are we justified in believing that current
"living prophets" have some mysterious immunity? Who says we are to
trust in the arm of flesh?
Brigham Young warned us not to "pin our faith on
another's sleeve." He also said:
"Suppose that the leaders of this people had forsaken the Lord and should introduce,
through selfishness, that which would militate against the kingdom of God on the earth, that which
would in the issue actually destroy this people, how are you going to detect the wrong
and know it from the right? You cannot do it unless you have the spirit of the
Lord
"Some may say, Brethren, you who lead the church, we have all confidence
in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under
your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if
Brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am. 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.
I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would
strengthen the faith that is in them. 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." (J. D. 3:44-45)
Isn't it strange that in Brigham Young's day it was not pleasing to put our
blind trust in the Lord's servants, but today it is? That is -- it looks as if it
is. Today, those who say words forbidden by Brigham Young are looked upon as the
faithful and the pillars in the Church and are rewarded with praise and
positions. What are those condemned words? Let me repeat: "You who lead the
Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not the least afraid but what
everything will go right..."
On the other hand, those who say, "Wait, I've prayed about this and I
think it is not right" are looked upon as rebellious and not taking counsel
as they should. The watchers for iniquity are lurking, waiting for them to make
a mistake so they can be cut off, for the light shineth in the darkness and the
darkness comprehendeth it not. Brigham Young said that those who enter the
Celestial Kingdom are "those who are valiant and inspired with the true
independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God,
leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind
besides (including the prophet) should take the opposite course."
(J of D 1:312)
But what happens when such a person really tries to exercise the true "independence of
heaven" among his brethren? Suspicion arises and iniquity is watched for and he is classified
as one to be watched and not trusted with any position of influence. While it is true that
rebellion should be punished, independence should be rewarded. If it is not
rewarded, then the Body of Christ (the church) will have poor circulation and be
of little use in the heat of the day.
In the days of Joseph Smith there was much more independence of thought than
there is today. Joseph often publicly challenged anyone who disagreed with his
doctrines to try and prove their case. He would justify all that he brought
forth with logic and the scriptures. Such thinking drew intelligent and great
men about him. Public debates on religion were encouraged.
Today any debates on the scriptures are viewed as "contention." But
in the early days people were encouraged to be as great as the prophet himself
or greater. They were encouraged to prophesy, have dreams, see visions and seek
the face of God, but even with all this independence of mind, Joseph said that
"they were depending on the prophet, hence were darkened in their
minds."
If [church] members were darkened in their minds in those days, where can
their light be found today?
Indeed, the LDS depend on the prophet more today than ever before in history.
How can you ever become a God and rule others if you have to be ruled over in every trifle?
One has to learn the independence of heaven and go forth as Jesus did and do what you know to be
right.
Remember -- all the general authorities of that time "frowned" on Christ and
excommunicated anyone who followed Him.
-- End Of Chapter 1 --
The foregoing is only one of a nineteen (19) chapter treatise written by JJ Dewey on
this topic. If you would like to read and study this topic further, you can by using the
links(s) provided below which will take you directly to an index at JJ's main
website FreeRead.Com specifically created for this
treatise:
Here is the link that will take you directly to the index of archived articles on
Infallible Authority.
| 
