Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're uh diving into a topic that sits right at the heart of many faith traditions and definitely within ours. This whole idea of prophetic infallibility.

Yeah, it's something that well it prompts a lot of thought, doesn't it? And as we've seen in the sources, it can lead to some uh pretty different understandings.

Absolutely. So for this deep dive, our goal is really to unpack these different perspectives. Yeah.

You know, are prophets infallible guides?

And we've got a really interesting mix of material to draw from talks from church leaders going back decades, some historical analysis, even uh discussions from online forums where people are wrestling with these very ideas.

Exactly. We'll try to get a feel for the historical context, you know, what's shaped these views. And we'll explore what might be considered the official stance, which as we'll definitely see isn't always uh straightforward,

right? And also how it's kind of understood culturally day-to-day by members.

Yeah. Because you see this tension right away in the sources. On one hand, this really strong idea that prophets speak directly for God. They won't lead us astray.

But then on the other hand, this understanding that well, they're human. They're mortal and so they have the potential for error.

And it's that tension, that sort of interplay between the divine calling and the human reality that we really want to explore today.

Definitely.

Okay. So, let's start unpacking this by looking at maybe one of the clearest, most forceful expressions of that first view prophets as infallible guides. I'm thinking of Ezra Taft Benson's 1980 talk at BYU, the 14 fundamentals and following the prophet.

Oh yeah, that one really lays it out there. He uh he doesn't hold back at all.

Not at all. He states pretty unequivocally, the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

I mean, that's incredibly sweeping, isn't it?

It really is everything. Absolute authority in well, all matters.

And then he builds on it saying, "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works." Just pause on that for a second.

Yeah. The word of a living person being more vital than scripture itself. That's a huge statement.

And he doubles down saying the living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. It really hammers home the primacy of whoever is leading right now.

What's striking is just how direct it is. There's no like hedging or qualification. He's not saying the prophet is usually right or mostly inspired.

No, it's presented as fundamental truth and he reinforces it with that promise. prophet will never lead the church astray.

That's such a powerful promise, right? Offers a lot of uh certainty.

Absolutely. And it's not just about spiritual stuff either. He makes the point that the prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

So like being an expert in economics or science doesn't matter if the prophet speaks on it.

Apparently not. And he even says the prophet does not have to say thus saith the Lord to give us scripture. That really blurs the lines. doesn't it?

It does. It elevates almost any statement. And then he ties obedience directly to outcomes,

right? The prophet and the presidency, the living prophet and the first presidency. Follow them and be blessed. Reject them and suffer. Pretty clear cause and effect.

Very direct. He's framing this obedience as absolutely central to your spiritual well-being.

And maybe the most potent point, our salvation depends upon our following these 14 fundamentals.

Wow. Linking following these specific points directly to salvation. That's an incredibly high stakes connection he's making.

So, it's a very, very high bar for obedience.

It certainly does. And interestingly, it seems this really strong stance didn't uh sit entirely comfortably with everyone, even right at the top.

Oh,

yeah. Our sources mentioned that President Spencer W. Kimell, who was the president of the church at the time, was reportedly uh peeved by the talk.

Really peeved?

That's the word used. Apparently, he was concerned it might promote what he called in a unthinking follow the leader mentality. That's fascinating. So the actual president of the church had reservations about this super strong emphasis on well unquestioning obedience.

Exactly. It suggests that even back then this idea wasn't maybe universally held in exactly the same way even within the leadership.

So what happened?

Well, the sources say Kimell actually asked Elder Benson to explain himself to the other general authorities, maybe even apologized to the quorum of the 12.

And did he?

The report suggests the 12 were dissatisfied. with his response. So, it sounds like there was some real tension there behind the scenes.

That really highlights that this idea of absolute maybe unquestionable infallibility wasn't necessarily a monolithic view even in 1980.

Right. But then again, if you look at that infallibility timeline you put together from various quotes.

Yeah. It shows a really consistent thread of similar kinds of statements over many, many years, both before and after Benson's talk. It's like um two currents running side by side almost. That's a good way to put it. That timeline definitely shows a strong historical emphasis on the idea that the prophet won't lead the church astray.

Like John Long did back in 1967.

Yeah. He said, "No man or council of men who stand at the head of the church shall have power to lead the saints astray." And because of that, he justified absolute yet intelligent obedience.

Absolute obedience. Then Harold B. Lee in 1970 saying, "Following the prophet means safety. Listen as if from the mouth of the Lord himself. self. That's incredibly direct.

It is implying a direct pipeline from God.

And it keeps going. And N. Eldon Tanner in 73, we cannot go astray if we listen and follow him.

Uh and David B. Haight in 74 quoting Hebrew J. Grant. That one's really interesting.

Oh yeah, the one that says, "If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

Right. But then adds, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead this people astray."

It's almost like saying, even if hypothetically he was wrong, you're still safe following, but then assuring you that hypothetical won't happen. It's quite a statement about trust in the office.

It really is. It raises questions about, you know, personal conscience versus obedience

for sure. Then the timeline hits: Elaine Cannon in 1979, quoted by Tanner. When the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Just shut down.

Wow. No room for discussion there.

Seems like it. Teddy Burton in 81. We will never go astray if we follow. L Tom Perry in 91 calls at a sure foundation. Boyd K. Packer in '92, follow the ordained leaders and you will not be led astray.

Gordon B. Hinckley around the same time implies the church is just, you know, on the right track, divinely guided.

Uh-huh. L. Alden Porter in 2002 quotes Joseph Fielding Smith saying, "Neither the president, the first presidency, nor the united voice of the top leadership will ever lead the saints astray."

So reinforcing the idea of collective safety and following the council.

Exactly. M. Russell Ballard in 2003 promises, "Listen to the prophet and apostles. will not go astray. And even as recently as 2012, Randall K. Bennett, we have the Lord's personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray.

Okay, so that's a really significant consistent message coming from lots of leaders over a long time. It definitely builds a strong cultural expectation, doesn't it?

It absolutely does. And you can't forget that really concise, punchy line from the improvement era in 1945.

Oh, right. When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

Yeah. That just encapsulates that idea of complete trust, complete reliance, like you don't need to worry your pretty little head about it. The leaders figured it out.

So yeah, a very strong current

emphasizing this unwavering guidance creates a powerful narrative.

Definitely. But then when you look at the other sources

exactly because the materials also present this very different perspective. The idea that prophets are actually fallible mortals. Let's uh let's dig into that side now.

Okay. So this view really focuses on the idea that yes, prophets are called by God. They get divine guidance, but they're still human. They're still subject to all the limitations and imperfections of being mortal.

Like Elder Ukdorf's statement in 2013. I think you mean Dieter F Uchtdorf.

Oh, yes. Thank you, Elder Uchtdorf. He was quite direct, saying, "There have been times when leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. God is perfect, but he works through us, his imperfect children."

That's a pretty clear admission right from a member of the First Presidency at the time. Mistakes happen.

Yeah. Acknowledging fallibility right there. And the Scott Woodward video you share. It points to tons of examples right in the scriptures.

Oh yeah. Adam, Noah getting drunk according to Genesis, Jacob deceiving Isaac,

Moses, I mean a huge prophet, but the scriptures mention self aggrandizement killing the Egyptian,

Balam selling out Israel, Jonah being well bigoted and running away from his calling.

Even Lehi in the Book of Mormon recorded as murmuring against God

and New Testament figures, too. James and John wanting to torch the Samaritans. Judas, obviously,

it's a pretty compelling list, isn't it? These aren't just like minor oopsies. They're significant flaws or errors in judgment, even by people called as prophets.

Clearly not perfect beings.

And the fair panel discussion brought up that interesting point about Jonah and the test in Deuteronomy.

Right. The test for a true prophet if what they prophesy doesn't happen.

Exactly. And Jonah prophesied Nineveh's destruction in 40 days and it didn't happen because they repented. So by a strict reading of Deuteronomy, Maybe he looks like a false prophet,

but he's in the scriptures, treated as a real prophet,

right? So, it suggests maybe the scriptural understanding of prophecy itself is more complex than just hitting 100% accuracy on predictions.

The fair discussion also talked about how prophets might get revelation, but then their own human understanding, their biases, maybe even just how well they can explain it, that all comes into play.

Yeah, the human filter. They might know generally what God wants, but maybe fumble the execution or add their own speculation onto it.

That makes It's not just a perfect dictation machine.

And remember that anecdote from Elder Eyring’s press conference. He mentioned being surprised by the uh warm arguments among the first presidency in 12.

Yeah. He thought revelation would just mean instant agreement. Right.

Exactly. But the reality was these leaders all seeking God's will but bringing their own thoughts and experiences, hashing things out, sometimes disagreeing vigorously before reaching unity.

That really humanizes the whole process, doesn't it? It's not just lightning bolts from heaven. Definitely not. It moves away from that image of just passively receiving perfect data.

Now, looking historically beyond scripture, BH Roberts, his 1887 letter makes a really key distinction, I think.

Yeah. About sermons versus official doctrine. He basically says, look, when a leader gives a talk, that's their view at that moment. The church as an institution is only bound by what it formally approves and sanctions as doctrine.

So, not every single word from the pulpit is automatically capital D doctrine. Exactly. It creates a necessary separation. And he hit that point again in 1921.

What did he say then?

He clarified that even discourses by top leaders aren't the ultimate source. Only officially accepted revelation is binding. And he specifically said the command to heed the prophet's words refers to the actual word of God given through revelation and officially announced.

Not just every off-the- cuff remark or personal opinion.

Precisely. That's a really crucial distinction for weighing different statements. It gives a framework.

It does. But this tension between infallibility and fallibility, it's had real consequences for people, hasn't it? Like the Larssons.

Yeah. Adrian and Tausha Larssn. The sources mentioned they were excommunicated for promoting the idea that prophets are not infallible.

Wow. That's pretty direct, especially when you consider President Kimball's private concerns about Benson's talk around the same time period.

Right. It shows a real complexity. What might be acknowledged privately or worried about versus what's publicly enforced. or stated there's a gap there sometimes.

And then there are the big historical issues that always come up in this discussion

like the priesthood ban on black members or the Adam God Theory taught by Briham Young.

Yeah, these are major examples where teachings once promoted by prophets are now well disavowed or seen very differently by the church today.

And these examples really force the issue, don't they? If past prophetic teachings can be seen as wrong or changed, it implies the prophets teaching them were fallible.

And as the sources note, Specifically with the priesthood ban being lifted, there wasn't really a formal retraction of the old explanations or an apology. That could be tough for people holding that strict infallibility view.

Definitely the by common consent blog post you shared brings up a more recent example too

with President Nelson and the name of the church.

Exactly. His strong emphasis on using the full name seemed to some to directly contradict President Hinckley's previous statements downplaying the Mormon nickname issue.

Right. So that raises question. questions. Is this a correction, a change in emphasis? How does that fit with the idea of consistent prophetic guidance?

It highlights how direction can shift. The same blog post also quoted a general conference talk acknowledging that everyone, leaders included, are painfully imperfect and make mistakes.

Hearing that acknowledged openly from the pulpit is significant. I think it suggests a more grounded view of human leaders.

And there was that interesting comment on the by common consent post too about the Iraq war.

Well, yeah, the anecdote about President Nelson apparently being strongly opposed back in 2003, while President Hinckley was reportedly more supportive of President Bush.

Yeah, it just illustrates that even within the top leadership on major world events, there isn't always monolithic agreement. They're individuals with perspectives.

It really underscores that they have their own judgments on non-doctrinal things. Now, the warm Mormon discussion you found also hit on this.

Yeah. Several users pointed out the basic logic. If any prophetic statement is ever superseded, ed or corrected later,

then the earlier statement by definition wasn't perfectly infallible or eternally binding.

Right. Exactly. It necessitates some concept of fallibility. You can't really have it both ways.

And one comment shared that really uh quite chilling quote regarding the priesthood ban.

We all knew it was wrong. We just had to wait.

Yeah, that speaks volumes about internal conflict and maybe a sense of waiting for leadership to catch up to a moral understanding.

That's heavy. Another quote shared there was from Harold B. Lee again, but offering a different perspective this time, right? Where he advises members not to treat every single word from general authorities as inspired scripture.

And he gave a test, didn't he? If it contradicts the standard works, except for what the current prophet is revealing,

you can likely consider it the leader's own idea.

Yeah. It provides a tool for discernment, acknowledging that human element in what leaders say.

The discussion also came back to Benson's 14 fundamentals.

Uh-huh. Raising the question of well how should we view those strong statements from a dead prophet now given the history and context we discussed teachings evolve

and then Elder Oaks's statement I think from the role of prophets reinforces that point about discernment

yeah saying a teaching by an individual leader might just be their personal opinion not binding on the whole church again drawing that line between personal views and official doctrine

and finally President George Albert Smith's response way back when about that when our leaders speak quote,

right? He pushed back emphasizing Brigham Young's teaching that members need to inquire of God themselves and not have blind confidence in leaders.

A powerful call for personal spiritual responsibility. Really,

absolutely. Don't just outsource your thinking.

Okay. So, we've looked at these really strong statements supporting infallibility and then a whole counternarrative and evidence pointing towards fallibility.

Where does that leave us with official doctrine versus

like cultural acceptance? It feels murky.

Yeah. Yeah, murky is a good word. It's really hard to pin down one single definitive official doctrine on this because like we've seen, you've got this whole range of statements from leaders over time,

strong promises that they won't lead astray,

right? But also this underlying theological idea that God works through imperfect people, which inherently means mistakes are possible, right? In understanding, in teaching, in applying revelation, the church hasn't really issued like a formal doctrinal declaration spelling out the exact limits of prophetic infallibility. And that lack of a super clear definition probably allows for or even creates the range of beliefs we see among members, right?

I think so. Yeah. Culturally, you probably find a whole spectrum. Many members have deep respect for the office, a real desire to follow their leaders. They trust the church's overall direction,

but maybe also aware of the history.

Increasingly so, I think there seems to be a growing awareness and maybe acceptance that prophets are human. They can make mistakes, especially on say temporal issues or and their personal interpretations, but how much emphasis someone puts on one side versus the other, that can vary a lot.

It creates a space where individual members kind of have to navigate that tension themselves, doesn't it? Reconciling history or contradictory statements with their faith and prophetic guidance.

Exactly. It's not always a neat and tidy theological box, people often manage it by focusing on the divine calling while still acknowledging the human imperfections. Requires personal faith and discernment,

which kind of leads us towards a more modern way people sometimes frame this that maybe resonates more today the analogy of prophets being like a GPS how does that work

well the idea is you know a GPS gives you overall direction towards your destination but sometimes it recalculates maybe there's traffic maybe a road is closed maybe it initially picked a slightly less optimal route

so prophets receiving guidance incrementally maybe like a GPS provide the overall path but there might be adjustments changes in policy shifts in emphasis even occasional wrong turns that need correcting as they get more information or clearer revelation.

So the destination God's plan eternal life stays the same but the specific wrote advice might uh recalculate along the way

ah

because of the human element in receiving and interpreting.

That's the idea. It fits with that concept from the fair discussion about continual information and continual inspiration and revelation. It's not a oneshot deal but an ongoing process.

And crucially this GPS idea seems to loop back to the importance of personal revelation, right? Like Brigham Young taught.

Exactly. The GPS suggests a route, maybe even strongly recommends it. But ultimately, you still need to look at the road, use your own judgment, and maybe most importantly, seek that spiritual confirmation, the Holy Ghost telling you, yes, this is the right way for me right now.

The ultimate guidance comes from that personal connection.

That seems to be the key emphasis in this analogy.

Okay, this has been really thorough. We covered a lot of ground. To kind of wrap things up, what are some key takeaways maybe first for faithful members trying to navigate this.

Yeah, for members who are committed, I think it's vital to keep honoring and sustaining those called to lead. That's, you know, fundamental. But at the same time, really work on cultivating that strong personal connection to God. Actively seek personal revelation to confirm truth for yourself.

Don't just rely on others testimonies,

right? And understand that faith can include patience, trusting even when things aren't fully clear. It can also help to recognize that things said by past leaders might be understood differently now or maybe aren't emphasized anymore. And that doesn't necessarily cancel out their whole prophetic ministry

and keep the main thing the main thing.

Absolutely. Keep your focus on following Jesus Christ and his core teachings above all else.

Okay, those are good points.

Now, what about for someone who is struggling, someone with doubts or serious questions about infallibility, maybe because of some of the history or contradictions we discussed?

For them, I'd say first It's okay to have those questions. They're legitimate.

The history itself, even statements from leaders we've looked at, acknowledge the human element, the potential for mistakes.

So, don't feel guilty for questioning.

Right? Honest searching can be a really important part of faith of seeking deeper understanding. I'd encourage them to really dive into the scriptures themselves and make seeking personal revelation a top priority. That's where the most reliable answers are found.

Find their own path through study and prayer.

Yeah. And maybe trying to make that distinction we talked about, respecting the office of prophet doesn't necessarily require believing the individual in that office is incapable of any error. You can hold both ideas.

Respect the calling. Acknowledge the humanity.

Something like that. Yeah.

Well, this has been a really insightful deep dive. It's clear this whole topic of prophets and infallibility is well complex

and it's obviously evolved and been understood differently over time within the church.

It really has. And hopefully understanding these different perspectives, the history, the nuances, maybe that can help people develop a more, I don't know, robust and personal relationship with their faith and with prophetic guidance.

So, maybe a final thought for everyone listening to Mullover. How does really grappling with this human element of prophets affect your own personal responsibility to actively seek out truth and divine guidance for your own life? Something to think about. We encourage you to keep studying, keep reflecting. Thanks for joining us on the deep dive.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.