QUESTION
Why can General Authorities disagree on
doctrinal matters?
ANSWER
It comes as a matter of surprise to many
people that Church leaders do not always have the same understanding of all
gospel principles. That surprise reflects the confidence the members have in
their leaders and suggests that they almost expect the leaders to be
infallible. It also suggests that they equate priesthood offices with
knowledge. It would be comfortable to suppose that among our leaders there are
no unanswered questions and that a perfect equality of understanding exists.
Realizing that each of us is responsible for our own understanding and that no
two people are at exactly the same place in that process is an important
lesson. It is also important to realize that we cannot always lean on others.
To walk by borrowed light is necessary for a time and a season, but at some
point it is expected that we take our place as the source of light for others.
There is room in the Church for differences
of understanding. On matters about which the revelations are plain, however,
there ought to be a unity of thought and faith. We need not put question marks
at the end of revealed pronouncements. We sustain the man who stands at the
head of the Church as the living constitution of the Church. We follow the
direction he points and accept his voice as final where doctrinal differences
may exist. Such authority must rest with him if the Lord's house is to be a
house of order and if we are to avoid being tossed about by every wind of
doctrine. This is simply to say that there is but one head, and in this sense,
one spokesman, for the Church.
It is not to be expected, however, that every
General Authority will be the equal of every other General Authority in doctrinal
understanding any more than it is to be expected that every bishop have the
same understanding as every other bishop or every Sunday School teacher have
the same understanding as every other Sunday School teacher. It is common to
see people change and improve their views in the process of serving. We should
all find ourselves giving better answers to questions and preaching better
doctrine with the passing of years. That is true at all levels of the Church.
It is also to be expected that the present generation can and will improve upon
the preceding generation. Surely we are obligated to improve upon what we have
been given. There is danger that some may use that idea as justification to
liberalize their views and move further and further from the mainstream of
faith and truth. That is a shabby counterfeit to be guarded against. The
greater danger rests in our refusing to move forward, announcing that what we
have received is sufficient and that nothing more can be added to it. Warning
against such an attitude the Lord said: "From them that shall say, We have
enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have" (2 Ne.
28:30).
Thus, in those instances when the views of
one man reach beyond those of another, we ought to rejoice in the additional
knowledge and in the realization that the process of spiritual growth is alive
and well in the Church. To do so will require that we surrender our security
blanket (or the notion that in this mortal world all are equal in
understanding) and realize that learning the gospel is a process, not an
office, and that each individual is responsible for what he or she chooses to
believe and teach.
QUESTION
How can prophets be deceived, as in the case
of Mark Hoffman?
ANSWER
This question is simply another way of asking
why prophets aren't infallible. It is doubtful that those asking the question
suppose themselves obligated to be faultless. Why, then, do they suppose others
must be? We do not believe in the infallibility of missionaries, or Sunday
School teachers, or even bishops or stake presidents. At what point do we
suppose infallibility must begin?
In a revelation dealing with the lost one
hundred and sixteen pages of the Book of Mormon the Lord told Joseph Smith:
"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always
tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace
until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the
matter" (D&C 10:37). If Joseph Smith had a weakness of character, it
was in being too trusting and forgiving. Were we allowed to choose our own
faults we would be hard pressed to do better than that.
We have the assurance that the man standing
at the head of the Church will never lead it astray. We also have the promise
that the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will never err on
matters that pertain to principles of salvation. The notion of infallibility,
however, is not a part of our theology. In his preface to the Doctrine and
Covenants the Lord said: "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; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and
inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and
inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on
high, and receive knowledge from time to time" (D&C 1:24-28).
(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough
Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998], 177-80)