The following is a portion of an email I sent to a member of the Church who, for over four decades, has held to inerrantist (read: fundamentalist) assumptions about the Church's leadership, scripture, and history, who is now struggling with elements thereof. I am reproducing it (with some editing to protect identity), as it does show the importance of having realistic and correct assumptions and the danger of a fundamentalist worldview.
Hi x,
As you did not go into any major detail into most of the issues you raised, I will just offer some comments, but if you wish to discuss any specific issue(s) in more depth, let me know.
The Importance of Presuppositions and World-view
I think that in many of these cases a lot of time it ultimately boils down to one's presuppositions--as you told me [in person], you held to (still hold to?) a rather fundamentalist conception of faith and the Church, such as prophetic infallibility and impeccability, which are both simply false, as are things such as scriptural inerrancy and other related concepts. A good analogy on the true nature of revelation and prophets can be seen in 1 Nephi 8 and 11 where we have different accounts of the same vision of the Tree of Life, with Nephi even commenting that Lehi, due to how he perceived things and his analysis of the revelation he received, did not notice things that Nephi would (see 1 Nephi 15:27)--what this shows that, even in the act of receiving a revelation, an oracle (whether a prophet, stake president, or someone like you or I) are still interpreters (and fallible ones at that) of the revelation they receive; it also shows that the act of receiving revelation is not simply the prophet being a secretary taking a word-for-word dictation from God, but instead, upon receiving a revelation, one has to put it into their own language, manner of expression, and so forth, and such will always be filtered by their personal background, education, biases, limits of language, and so forth--the same also applies for its interpretation by both the prophet and the audience of the revelation. That this is the view of revelation Joseph Smith took can be seen in a number of areas, not the least his own editing of revelations he received in the 1833 A Book of Commandments and the subsequent 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; his editing of the Book of Mormon (not just the 1837 and 1840 editions during this lifetime, but even during the printing process), etc.
I am rather fond of what Brigham Young once said:
I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Journal of Discourses, 2:314 [July 8, 1855]).
Such a sentiment is paralleled by similar texts in the Doctrine and Covenants (emphasis added)
Behold, I am God, and have spoken it; 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. (D&C 1:24)
Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sough in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know. (D&C 67:5)
Often, such (fundamentalist) assumptions lead to the idea that prophets are inspired prophets on a 24/7/365 basis, which, again, goes against the entire strand of LDS theology and teaching as well as well as the teachings of all the Scriptures themselves. Notice the following examples from LDS leaders of rejecting such (examples could be multiplied):
February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265). Prophets are, after all, human beings.
Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844)
President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)
President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).
Much more could be said, but I am a firm believer that a lot of issues (not all, nor am I trying to downplay the validity of your issues) can be answered by examining one's world-view and presuppositions. I have studied these issues for 14+ years and, perhaps it is just my personality and the fact I have engaged a lot of biblical scholarship where these issues are part-and-parcel of the field (such controversies are not unique within the realm of "Mormonism") but have never been troubled by such things. I say this not to gloat or what not, but instead, that there are reasonably intelligent people who have a firm witness of the Church and yet have a very nuanced (and I would say, rewarding) understanding of the nature of "faith" and the Church. Ultimately, one has to have a spiritual grounding (as Paul states in 1 Cor 2:9-14, spiritual things are to be spiritually discerned) which is serves as a solid foundation and serves to inform one's approach to the issues, though one also has a more nuanced (read: realistic) expectation of the Church and the leadership thereof. I am reminded of what a friend recently said, "the Church is paradoxically true and flawed." At least, that has been my experience.
A good blog post on this would be Kevin L. Barney, "Lowered Expectations."
