Doctrine of Infallibility Puts Mormons in a Difficult Position

The recent succession of Howard Hunter and then Gordon Hinckley to the office of President of the LDS Church gives me occasion to look again at the way members of the LDS Church are taught to regard their leadership. The more I look at it, the less comfortable I am with it. The more I research it, the less sense it makes. The more I study the scriptures, the less I am able to reconcile the teachings of the scriptures with the importance the leaders of the church place on their own authority.

Faithful members of the LDS Church watch the process of succession with quite a bit of interest, because the president of the church is a very important person in their lives. Since childhood they have been instructed with such slogans as "Follow the prophet," and "Keep your eye on the president of the church, for God will not let him lead you astray," and "If the president of the church tells you to do something that is wrong, and you do it, God will bless you for your obedience." (I am not making this up. For an example, see Ensign, October 1972, p. 7.) These notions may seem strange to people outside the LDS culture, but they are very familiar to me. It's the stuff I was suckled and weaned on. Today our children are indoctrinated along the same lines as they sing, "Follow the prophet, don't go astray," the implication being that the sure way to avoid going astray is to follow the church president.

The church teaches (and most faithful members believe) that the leaders of the church are "prophets, seers, and revelators," and that the church is directed by revelation from God. This teaching raises some obvious questions, questions that few members of the church dare ask out loud. Where are the prophecies? Where are the revelations? Joseph Smith recorded more than a hundred revelations and visions in 15 years (1829 to 1843). Most of these are published in the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the books of canonized LDS scripture. Between the two of them, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, the third and fourth presidents of the church, recorded at least 14 revelations and visions in 13 years (1877 to 1889). These have been published in a book compiled by Fred Collier (Unpublished Revelations, 1979). In the 105 years since Wilford Woodruff recorded the 1889 revelation, church leaders have recorded and published only two official declarations (1890 and 1978) and one vision (1918). It looks to me like the LDS church is experiencing a famine of the word of the Lord and a dearth of the spiritual gifts. (See Amos 8:11.) President Ezra Benson's death in the early summer of 1994 marked the end of several years during which he was incapacitated by age and illness. His last public address in a general conference of the church was in the fall of 1989. His incapacity was a point of discomfort for church members and leaders and a point of interest for outsiders and for the news media. The reason for this is simple. The belief that the president will never lead the church astray leaves open the possibility that if the church for some reason had to function without its president, it might somehow go astray without him.

For many decades the leaders have taught that the president of the church is endowed with a sort of infallibility. Members of the church would be reluctant to use that word to describe it, though. To them, the word "infallibility" has strong negative implications. Thus, my use of that word to identify this doctrine will probably offend some members of the church.

As I was growing up in the church, I was taught that one of the serious errors of the Catholic church is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope. I realize now that Catholic belief in the infallibility of the pope is actually less extreme than the LDS belief in the prophet. Catholics believe that the pope cannot possibly commit an error when he makes an official declaration on matters of faith and morals, an event that occurs about once every one hundred years on average. In connection with other aspects of church affairs, he is not regarded as infallible, but he is regarded as having absolute authority (Archbishop John F. Whealon, "This We Believe--Readings on Catholic Faith," pamphlet No. 91 published by the Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus; see also World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, p. 586).

The doctrine of infallibility is clearly taught in the LDS Church, too, but the word itself is carefully avoided. The reason? For members of the LDS church to use the word "infallible" to describe their president would implicitly put the LDS church in the same position as the LDS view of the Catholic church, that is, a church in a condition of apostasy.

Occasionally, though, church leaders speak of infallibility in the negative. For example, James Faust, when he was a member of the Council of the Twelve, said,

This, of course, is double-talk. In the same conference address, he also affirmed that we can be sure that the leaders will never lead the people astray.

Ezra Benson, when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve but before he became church president, taught the doctrine of infallibility with these words:

Before and since, variations of the same doctrine have been taught by other church leaders.

An early instance of this notion being taught by a general authority of the church was when Daniel Wells taught it in 1860. He said,

Here the idea is presented more as an expression of confidence than as a statement of doctrine, and even this expression of confidence is conditional ("if we do our duty").

President Brigham Young made similar but somewhat stronger statements in addresses delivered during the years that followed. In an 1861 address, he said:

These statements are assurances that God would remove church leaders from their offices rather than let them lead the people astray, and like the statement by Brother Wells, these statements are either implicitly or explicitly conditional (if the people do their duty, pray earnestly in their search for truth, etc.).

However, infallibility was presented as a doctrine, unconditional, when Wilford Woodruff taught it in 1890 in defense of his having issued the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1) advising church members against the practice of plural marriage:

I should point out that although this passage is quoted in the standard works of the church, it is not necessarily scripture, and it certainly is not the voice of the Lord.

The doctrine of infallibility has some obvious logical problems. On the one hand, if a man who acknowledges that he himself is subject to error declares that another man is infallible, there remains the possibility that the first man erred in his declaration. This is the case with the statement by Ezra Benson, quoted above. (At the time he made the statement, Benson himself was one of the "lesser men" capable of "[using] their office to promote false counsel.") On the other hand, if a man declares his own infallibility, as Wilford Woodruff did, we can have confidence in his declaration only if we first assume that he is not subject to error in making the declaration. This is a classic case of a priori reasoning, a logical error where the conclusion is proven only if the conclusion itself is assumed as one of the premises. ("I am infallible, therefore I am not leading you astray when I tell you that I am infallible.")

The doctrine of infallibility is also subject to an interesting logical oddity. If we were to comprehensively research the subject, and if our research identified twenty statements by ten presidents of the church affirming this doctrine, and only one statement by one president to the effect that it is indeed possible for the president to lead the church astray, we would have to accept the one statement as the correct one. If we assume that the twenty statements are correct, then the one statement that contradicts the twenty has to be an error, and thus represents an instance when a president of the church was in fact leading the church astray. The only way to reconcile the contradiction is to assume that the one statement acknowledging fallibility is a true statement, and that the twenty statements are errors made by fallible men.

Usually the doctrine of infallibility is applied only to the church president, not to other church leaders. That is why during the years of Ezra Benson's incapacity, church leaders tried to reassure the membership that president Benson was still in charge. For example, in a 1991 general conference address, Gordon Hinckley, first counselor in the church's presidency at the time, said that "nothing of substantial consequence is done without his [Benson's] knowledge and concurrence" (Ensign, May 1991, p. 52). In a 1992 conference address Hinckley assured church members that in matters "where there is not firmly established policy," the counselors in the presidency "have talked with the President and received his approval before taking action" (Ensign, November 1992, p. 54). Many observers believe that Hinckley was the de facto leader of the church for several years during the administrations of both Spencer Kimball and Ezra Benson.

In the summer of 1993, Steve Benson, a grandson of president Benson, went public with his knowledge that his grandfather was completely incapacitated, incapable of any involvement in church leadership. Steve Benson's statement made church members and leaders very uncomfortable, because it undermined their belief that it is impossible for the church to go astray from the will of God. (Remember, "Lesser men may err, but God will not allow the president of the church to lead the church astray.") In the very next general conference of the church, Gordon Hinckley attributed the doctrine of infallibility to general authorities other than the church president. After acknowledging president Benson's incapacity ("his activities are seriously limited"), Hinckley said,

Thus we are assured that even though the prophet of the church is ill, all is well in Zion.

To be fair and honest, I must point out that this is not the first instance that the doctrine of infallibility has been extended to the church leadership in general. For example, at the October 1992 general conference, John Fowler (a seventy), quoted this statement by Marion Romney (an assistant to the Twelve at the time) from a 1950 conference report:

In plain language, the church leaders are always right, and if we disagree with what they say, we are always wrong. This is the doctrine of infallibility at its worst. If you take such a statement seriously, it can do you a lot of harm. Believe me; I've tried it.

When President Ezra Benson died and Brother Howard Hunter was installed as the new president of the church, the church leaders shifted their emphasis back to the authority and infallibility of the LDS prophet. This emphasis was evident in even a casual listening to the October 1994 general conference of the church, in which the doctrine of infallibility and the need for the members to be obedient to the authority of the leaders were affirmed in several of the addresses. The same emphasis was evident in the April 1995 conference where Hinckley was sustained as president.

Usually, the church president himself does not declare his own infallibility. Instead, he allows other leaders to declare it in his behalf. I have noticed that before becoming president, Gordon Hinckley was more frequent and more insistent than the other church leaders in declaring the authority and infallibility of the president. At a regional conference in Rexburg, Idaho, when he was a counselor to President Hunter, Hinckley told the congregation that "our peace, safety, and salvation lie in following the prophet" (Post- Register, August 29, 1994, p. A9). The man who made this remarkable statement is now "the prophet." So I wonder: Does this man really believe that our salvation depends on our willingness to follow him? Is this what he wants us to believe? The error here is a serious one; rather than admonishing us to follow the prophet, the scriptures plainly teach that our salvation depends on our willingness to follow the Christ.

If a church leader makes the claim that God won't let him lead us astray, and if we believe that claim, we are obligated by our belief to accept everything he says, and to adjust our thinking to agree with his. However, if a church leader acknowledges the possibility that he might lead us astray, we are free to scrutinize everything he says, without detracting from our belief that he is a prophet. This is the case with President Brigham Young. In an address delivered in 1857, Brigham said

In the same address, Brother Brigham said that the prophet Joseph "was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him [Joseph] to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray" (Journal of Discourses 4:297-298). In an address delivered in 1874, Brother Brigham declared that if the people become careless, and if he were led to accept the ways of the world, it would be easy for him to lead them astray (Journal of Discourses 18:248).

To treat the subject fairly, I must point out that elsewhere in some of these same addresses, and in other addresses as well, Brother Brigham encourages the people to have confidence in their leaders. I feel free to scrutinize these statements, and frankly, such teachings impress me as being rather bad counsel, especially in light of his own statements indicating that the leaders of the church (including the president) might lead the people astray.

Such teachings constitute bad counsel for another reason, one explained rather well in 1862 by Brother Brigham himself. He expressed great concern that the people would have too much confidence in their leaders.

In this view, it doesn't matter whether the leaders are capable of leading us astray or not. If we place our confidence in them in the belief that they are incapable of leading us astray, that confidence alone is enough to hinder our progress and frustrate God's plan for us.

The prophet Joseph Smith, too, taught that it is possible for the president of the church to lead the church astray. From the minutes of an address to the Relief Society in 1842, we read the following:

Joseph's statement that "the people should each one stand for himself" is a reference to Mark 9:42-47 in the Joseph Smith translation, where the Lord warns us against the possibility that the person appointed to watch over us and show us light can become a transgressor. Joseph's statement that the people's minds were darkened because they depend on the prophet reminds us of the passage in Doctrine and Covenants 84:45-58, where the Lord says that the people's minds were darkened because they neglected the new covenant. Overall, Joseph's statement implies that by 1842, the LDS Church was already in a state of corruption similar to that of the Jewish church in Ezekiel's day, and that the members should therefore avoid placing their confidence in any mortal man. His statement also implies that when the people depend on the prophet, it is an indication that they have already departed from the Lord.

All by itself, the word of the Lord as recorded in Ezekiel chapter 14 is sufficient to expose the doctrine of infallibility as a false doctrine. It cannot be argued that Ezekiel 14 does not apply to the LDS Church, since the prophet Joseph clearly applied it thus.

Taken together, Ezekiel chapter 14, related cross references in the scriptures, and the teachings of the prophet Joseph give us a clear idea of the true doctrine in this matter. If the people seek the Lord with their whole hearts, he receives them in the new covenant. He becomes their God, and he claims them as his people (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Under these conditions, there is no need for any man to counsel his neighbor or his brother, or to trust in the arm of flesh, because the people will all speak in the name of the Lord (D&C 1:19-20). The people will not give any special honor to their prophet-leaders, nor will they feel any particular need to place special confidence in them, because the people themselves will all be prophets; they will all know the Lord (Jeremiah 31:34).

However, if the people reject the new covenant by departing from the Lord, they end up depending instead on the prophet. Their minds become darkened (D&C 84:54-58), and the Lord punishes the prophet and the people together (Ezekiel 14:10). The Lord's purpose in punishing them is to buffet them until they learn from their own experience that what he really wants them to do is to seek and accept the new covenant (Ezekiel 14:11). The implication is that the Lord will deceive the prophet, or allow the prophet to be deceived (Ezekiel 14:9), so that the people will be deceived, because deception is what they deserve and want (see also Jeremiah 5:30-31, Jacob 4:14, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Under these conditions, a person should not trust anybody to lead him aright, not even the highest officer in the church (Mark 9:44 JST). This is true even if that church officer exercises the gift of prophecy and speaks in the name of the Lord, for the Lord warns us that when the people in their unrighteousness (iniquity) seek the word of the Lord from the prophet, he (the Lord) will answer them himself according to their unrighteousness (Ezekiel 14:4-7). (In this context, the word "unrighteousness" refers not to a person's failure to obey commandments, but to a person's failure to seek and receive the Lord's righteousness; see Matthew 6:33, D&C 1:15-16, Romans 9:30-10:3.) Where temporal and spiritual salvation are concerned, the righteousness of a prophet is not sufficient to deliver the soul of an unrighteous man or woman (Ezekiel 14:12-20).

As I indicated earlier in this article, the doctrine of infallibility is contrary to good sense. I have presented evidence that it is contrary to the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. It is also contrary to the teachings of the scriptures. Even with the help of my computer, I can't find a single instance in the scriptures where God, by his own voice, says that our leaders are incapable of leading us astray. However, I have found several that indicate the opposite. Let me simply list a few specific references (in addition to those cited elsewhere in this article), so that those readers who are interested can look them up for themselves: Ezekiel 13; Isaiah 28, especially verses 7-9; Isaiah 29:9-10; Isaiah 56:9-12; Matthew 23:13-38 (the scribes and Pharisees were the leaders of the Jewish church, as is indicated in verse 2 of the same chapter); Doctrine and Covenants 112:23-26; Doctrine and Covenants 101:44-62; Doctrine and Covenants 64:38-40.

In conclusion, the notion that God won't permit the leaders to lead the church astray directly contradicts the word of the Lord (Ezekiel 14, Mark 9 JST) and the teachings of the early leaders of the church. The notion may have begun innocently, as an expression of confidence in the leaders and as a conditional assurance based on the people's diligence in seeking the blessings of Heaven. However, as it is taught in the LDS Church today, it is a false doctrine, and it always will be, no matter how widely or fervently believed, no matter how often repeated, no matter how lofty the position of the man who teaches it.

It is likely that those in authority who teach this doctrine mean no harm by it; they teach it because they frankly believe it. However, this particular false doctrine is an especially harmful one, harmful in several ways. It is the mother of false doctrines; once the leaders get the people to believe this one, they can teach other false doctrines without fear of reprisal. It imposes on the leaders to pretend that they never make mistakes in the capacity of their offices, and to engage in extensive cover-ups when mistakes do occur. It gives the leaders license to govern the church with unrestrained authoritarianism, so that as shepherds of Israel they rule over the flock with force and with cruelty (Ezekiel 34:2-4). It also gives them license to teach as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:7-9) and to impose on the people with burdens that are grievous to be borne (Matthew 23:2-4).

It stifles independent thinking. It creates an atmosphere of hostility toward the exercise of the spiritual gifts (Mormon 8:7-8); because the exercise of the spiritual gifts is attributed almost exclusively to the leaders, who are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, ordinary people who experience the spiritual gifts are regarded with suspicion. It causes those who question or challenge the doctrines and practices of the church to be branded as dissenters, heretics, and apostates, even when the questions and challenges are legitimate (John 9:1-34). It creates an atmosphere of intolerance toward diversity of belief, so that the leaders and mainstream members of the church begin to persecute those who do not believe according to their own will and pleasure (Alma 4:8). It leaves the people with no recourse when the leaders promise peace and healing and then fail to deliver, so that the people languish in spiritual and emotional sickness (Jeremiah 6:13-14, 8:21-22).

It lulls the people into a false sense of security, so that they mistakenly assume that all is well in Zion (2 Nephi 28:19-21), even when the whole church is actually under condemnation (D&C 84:54-58). It induces the people to dedicate themselves to the church instead of to the Christ, so that the church itself becomes the idol that is the object of their devotion. It teaches the people to trust in the arm of flesh, when what the Lord wants is for them to learn to trust in him (Jeremiah 17:5-8), relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save (2 Nephi 31:19), and to be guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Nephi 32:5; D&C 45:56-58).

My purpose in publishing this article is to encourage people to be their own persons, maintain their own beliefs, and seek and receive the blessings of Heaven without being hindered by the disapproval of their church leaders, disapproval they are very likely to experience if they embark on a serious quest for light and truth. It is clear to me now that God does not want us to place our confidence in our leaders or to devote ourselves to a religious institution. He wants us to place our trust in him, make a genuine connection with Heaven, and experience the gift of salvation for ourselves. My advice to anyone struggling with this issue is the same as the advice someone gave me a few years ago. Make Jesus Christ the center of your faith. Find out what he is really like and what he really wants from you. Don't take anybody's word for it. Find out for yourself. Seek the further light and knowledge our Father has promised us. You might be surprised and pleased, as I was, to find that what the Lord Jesus Christ really wants from us is significantly different from the demands and expectations imposed on us by the church that claims to administer his will. Remember, his yoke is easy, and his burden is light.

Permission granted to copy and distribute this page for non-commercial purposes. Please retain this notice. These writings are not shared as "Revelations to any Church", because we believe that all may receive revelation direct from the Fathers regarding their own circumstances in life. Joseph Absalom