Hugh B. Brown (1883-1975), who, until his death, was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, warned against viewing Church leaders as being experts in theology, Church history, and having infallible judgments simply due to their being leaders in the Church:
With respect to
people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to
undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought. As members of the
church we are bound to sustain and support the brethren in the positions they
occupy so long as their conduct entitles them to that. But we also have only to
defend those doctrines of the church contained in the four standard works——the
Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great
Price. Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not
scripture. Although there are certain statements that whatever the brethren say
becomes the word of God, this is a dangerous practice to apply to all leaders
and all cases. The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or
group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed
by all the brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the church, and then
approved by the whole body of the church.
I am afraid, however,
that this is not as generally accepted or followed today as it ought to be.
Some of the brethren have been willing to submit to the inference that what
they have said was pronounced under the influence of the inspiration of the
Lord and that it therefore was the will of the Lord. I do not doubt that the
brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis— perhaps
even a new explanation or interpretation—of church doctrine, but that does not
become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny
of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people. Again, we are
only bound by the four standard works and are not required to defend what any
man or woman says outside of them.
Official statements
of the First Presidency that have not been submitted to the membership of the
church for its approval are matters of temporary policy only. Under present
conditions, for example, the First Presidency may say, "We recommend this
or that." But conditions may subsequently change, and when they do the
First Presidency may wish to make a statement which may not be in complete
harmony with a former statement. We have to keep our theology up to date by
submitting everything that is intended to become a permanent part of the gospel
to those whose right and privilege it is to so interpret and then by having it
sustained by the people as a definite rule of the church so that all things may
be done by common consent.
There was a time when
the Prophet Joseph Smith would ask the Lord, receive an answer, and then put
the response into practice. But after the foundation of the church was laid,
and its doctrinal policies established, it seemed that continued revelation of
that kind would result in such a massive collection of records that nobody
could tell what the law was. So we now stand upon those first, fundamental
revelations. When a question arises today, we work over the details and come up
with an idea. It is submitted to the First Presidency and Twelve, thrashed out,
discussed and rediscussed until it seems right. Then, kneeling together in a
circle in the temple, they seek divine guidance and the president says, "I
feel to say this is the will of the Lord." That becomes a revelation. It
is usually not thought necessary to publish or proclaim it as such, but this is
the way it happens.
The heads of the
church, both in the Quorum of the Twelve and in the First Presidency, are
careful to see to it that none of them should ever be guilty of actions which
would require discipline if they were committed by men in lower positions. For
example, if I go to a stake and find a stake president who does not use his
counselors but who insists on having his own way in everything and if I can not
get him to reform, I release him, because the whole genius of Mormonism is
cooperative action. Every man in a position of trust and authority in the
church should treat his position with great care and realize that he is, after
all, simply an agent—one of many—and that his personal conduct should warrant
the same kind of disciplinary action that would be imposed on those working
under him.
Those in high
positions should guard against ever being deceived by the thought that because
of their position they would be forgiven for doing things that they would not
forgive others for doing. One man, who was a member of the Twelve, took it upon
himself, ostensibly under the guise of polygamy, to have intimate relations
with a woman other than his wife and was finally excommunicated for it.
(Sometimes I think that the inspiration of many of today's polygamists comes
from below the waist.)
We cannot be too
careful, after being appointed to an office, about feeling that we are now
somehow above the law. The fundamental principle of church government is that
we govern ourselves. And unless a church leader can get rid of the temptations
of life and overcome them, unless he can so order his life that others can with
safety follow his example, he is not worthy to be in a high position in the
church. I do not mean to intimate that a man would have to be perfect to be a
General Authority of the church. But he should always be moving toward
perfection, curbing his natural desires, his weaknesses, and tendencies toward
self—aggrandizement and be worthy of the companionship of the Holy Spirit. (An
Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin Firmage [Salt Lake
City: Signature Books, 1988], 123-26)
See also:
On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine