Two Arminian Views on Hebrews 6 and the Apostasy of True Christians

In a work debating the various “warning passages” in Hebrews, Grant R. Osborne (Classical Arminian) and Gareth Lee Cockerill (Wesleyan Arminian) wrote the following about Hebrews ch. 6 and how the only meaningful exegesis of the text is that it speaks of truly regenerated people who have lost their salvation:

Grant R. Osborne:

The Danger (Heb. 6:4–8)

This is naturally the key passage and issue. In light of the low spiritual commitment exemplified in this house church, the author has a terrible fear that some may well commit apostasy. He does not think they will (6:9–12), but he has to warn them because this is the direction they are moving at present. It is difficult to be neutral at this point, for this passage has excited such heated debate that everyone for the most part has taken strong positions. In fact, I am arguing for one of those positions, so how can I be objective? Nevertheless, I must do my best to try!

The structure of 6:4–6 is difficult due to the parallel participles and complex coordination with τε and καί. The best solution is probably to take καί as the major and τε as the minor, yielding this structure:

having been once-for-all enlightened

having tasted the heavenly gift

and

having become partakers of the Holy Spirit

and

having tasted the goodness of the Word of God

and the powers of the age to come

and then

having fallen away

First, the niv was wrong to translate the final parallel participle “if they fall away” (it is corrected in the tniv; see further below). Second, it is nearly impossible to relegate these descriptions to non-Christians. If this passage were found in Romans 8, we would all hail it as the greatest description of Christian blessings in the entire Bible. Third, to take “tasted” as referring to a mere partial or superficial sipping is quite erroneous, for in 2:9 it says Jesus “tasted death,” and that was hardly a partial thing but a full-fledged experience of death (cf. also 1 Peter 2:3, “tasted the kindness of the Lord”).

While some have tried to take the six items one at a time, it is important to feel their cumulative effect. “Once enlightened” (ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας) is most likely a reference to the completeness of their conversion. The idea of “tasting the heavenly gift” (γευσαμένους τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου) further deepens the image, picturing the full experience of God’s grace in the gift of salvation. The word “heavenly” is used because it comes from above (cf. John 3:3, “born from above”) and thereby encompasses forgiveness, the Spirit, and sanctification. “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” (objective genitive) continues the meaning of 3:1, 14 (see above) that they participate fully in the gift of the Spirit (including the “gifts … distributed” in 2:4). This deepens the meaning of the salvation experience they had when the Spirit came upon them (cf. Rom. 8:9–11, 14–17), as they have partaken of a heavenly calling, of Christ, and now of the Spirit. Next, the emphasis shifts to the Christian life, as they have “tasted” (from γεύομαι) or fully experienced two things: (1) “the good Word of God,” often described as good to the taste (Pss. 19:10; 34:8; 119:103; Ezek. 3:1–3; 1 Peter 2:2–3; Rev. 10:9–10) and meaning the goodness of the Word of God has been experienced in their lives (cf. on 4:12–13 above); (2) “the powers of the age to come,” undoubtedly referring to the “signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts” of 2:3–4. The “age to come” refers to the final kingdom, inaugurated in Jesus’ first coming (Mark 1:14–15; Luke 11:20) and operative in the fact that the believer is even now living in “the heavenlies” (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6–7; 3:10; 6:12). They have experienced the Holy Spirit and the power seen in the charismatic gifts.

This is a truly remarkable list of experiences, and there is hardly anything to compare with it elsewhere in terms of a brief, creedal-like presentation of the privileges in being a Christian. Yet it occurs in the strongest warning passage in Scripture. In fact, the author says it is “impossible” (ἀδύνατον) to ever again “bring them back to repentance” once they “have fallen away” (παραπεσόντας), not a conditional participle as the niv erroneously translates (corrected in the tniv but strangely retained in a footnote) but part of the string of substantival participles (“those who have once been enlightened … and have fallen away”). Virtually all recent commentators admit this must be final apostasy, the absolute rejection of Christ. The major question is identifying the readers. Could they be true believers who are in such great danger? Our study above of the terms in the epistle for the readers as well as the six participles in this passage force us to answer in the affirmative. So is this the unpardonable sin? Koester notes the options: (1) impossible for the apostate to repent; (2) impossible for other Christians to restore the person (but not God, cf. Mark 10:27, “impossible for men but not for God”); (3) impossible that God would restore such a one (not “could not” but “would not”). This third is by far the more likely in light of passages like 10:26–31 and 12:15–17. In Jesus’ teaching the unpardonable sin was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28–30), but Jesus is now the exalted Lord, and final apostasy is unpardonable.

The participles in Hebrews 6:6 (“crucifying,” ἀνασταυροῦντας and “exposing to ridicule,” παραδειγματίζοντας) are certainly causal (so Bruce, Lane, Attridge, Guthrie, Koester) and detail both the reason they cannot be restored and, with the present tenses, the ongoing attitude they will have. Those who come and say they wish they could repent show by their very words that they have not committed this sin. If they had, they would have nothing but “open contempt” for things Christian for the rest of their lives.

In 6:7–8 the author illustrates his point by building on the parable of Israel as God’s vineyard in Isaiah 5:1–7, which explains the basis for the divine judgment. There are two kinds of land, both blessed by abundant rain from God. The one that produces a good crop is blessed, but the land that produces only “thorns and thistles” will be cursed. The meaning is clear: the good land refers to those who “go on to maturity” (Heb. 6:1), while the bad land refers to those who “fall away” (v. 6). The thorny soil alludes to Genesis 3:17–18, the curse of Adam, who was told, “Cursed is the ground.… It will produce thorns and thistles” (niv). The fact that “in the end it will be burned” (Heb. 6:8) refers to fiery final judgment (Heb. 10:27; 12:29, cf. Matt. 13:30, 42, 50; John 15:6). (Grant R. Osborne, "A Classical Arminian View" in H. W. Bateman IV, ed., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews [Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007], 111-15)

Grant Lee Cockerill:

Hebrews 5:11–6:8

The writer whets the appetite of his hearers for what he has to say about the “great salvation” by exhorting them in Hebrews 4:14–16 to take advantage of the yet-to-be-explained privileges believers now have in their High Priest. He gives them an introductory snapshot of his thought by comparing and contrasting the high priesthood of the Son with that of Aaron in Hebrews 5:1–10 and piques their curiosity by announcing that the Son is “a priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:10). Thus after shocking them with the fate of the wilderness generation and giving them a taste of the “good things” (9:11) to come, he launches into this exhortation of 5:11–6:8 that is honed to awaken his hearers from their childish spiritual immaturity and lethargy so that they can grasp the truth of the “great salvation” he is about to explain in Hebrews 7:1–10:18. Refusal to apprehend this truth is to “neglect” the “great salvation” (2:3) and is equivalent to falling away. Its embrace is the essence of faithfulness and the means of endurance.

The writer’s description of apostasy is in Hebrews 6:1–8, the heart of this warning passage. In Hebrews 5:11–14 he cautions his readers against an impending sluggishness and unnatural immaturity that may expose them to this apostasy. The writer balances this warning by reminding the recipients of their steadfast past (6:9–12) and then urging them to continue that steadfastness by being like Abraham (6:13–20) and others (cf. 11:1–40) who received the promises assured by God’s oath. We will first direct our attention to the picture of apostasy at the core of this admonition in 6:4–8 and then look at the sluggishness described in 5:11–14 that threatens to draw the slothful into apostasy.

In Hebrews 6:4–8 the Greek article joins five substantive participles to form a description of true believers who fall away. The first four of these participles put the genuine character of their faith beyond dispute. The “once” accompanying the first participle underscores the significance of the aorist as indicative of spiritual privileges truly experienced. Nothing is more distinctively Christian than the fact that they have experienced “the powers of the coming age” of salvation. This description of their experience anticipates the magnitude of Christ’s work soon to be explained in Hebrews 7:1–10:18.

To argue that these verses do not describe “regenerate” persons because Hebrews sees salvation (primarily!) as something people receive only at the judgment is to play with words. It is merely another way of saying that there is no state of grace in this life from which a person cannot fall. Indeed, focus on the hortatory sections of Hebrews may blind the interpreter to Hebrews’s emphasis on the great privileges Christ our High Priest makes available to believers in the present: “forgiveness” of sin (10:17–18), a “cleansed” conscience (9:14; 10:22), God’s law written on the heart (10:14–18), and access to the heavenly throne room through a Great High Priest in order to receive “mercy” and “grace” (4:14–16; 10:19–25; 12:22–24). Thus, reduction of these participles to a description of sub-Christian experience is diametrically opposed to the author’s intended use. Their cumulative effect is to emphasize the breadth and richness of the spiritual benefits received from God and thus the greater obligation to honor God with continued faithfulness. “God’s salvation and presence are the unquestionable reality of their lives.”

The fifth of the aorist participles occurs in Hebrews 6:6 and describes these same people of genuine faith as having “fallen away” (παραπεσόντας). The fact that this participle too is substantive and joined to the other four participles by the same article binds the genuine nature of their faith and the reality of their fall into the closest relationship. No one would argue that this term always means a fall from grace resulting in eternal loss from which there is no recovery. However, the immediate context, especially the phrase “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,” makes it clear that in 6:6 it is referring to a “fall” into irreversible apostasy. Like Esau (12:17) and the wilderness generation, these people have turned “away from the living God” (3:12). This is not a “fall” caused by accident or mishap. It is a deliberate choice to court the values and friendship of unbelieving society and an abandonment of God despite this grand experience of his goodness.

Use of the third person has freed the writer to join this description of true faith and apostasy in one substantive construction as described above. The whole has conditional force—“if people with true Christian experience fall away.” If this description of true faith did not reflect the experience of his readers, the author’s exhortation would have no force. If they had already “fallen away,” it would have been to no purpose—“but we are persuaded better things of you” (6:9). It is because they have had such an experience that he would have them avoid falling away.

The two present participles of Hebrews 6:6 and the parable of the field in 6:7–8 further certify that this “falling away” is apostasy. These causal participles, “crucifying again” and “exposing to public disgrace,”⁴⁵ describe a severance from the benefits of Christ that leaves no basis for renewed repentance. Fear of the Canaanites led the wilderness generation to turn “away from the living God” (3:12) by rejecting his provision, his proffered promise, and his power. Fear of society’s approbation appears to have been leading these Christian believers to reject God’s power and promise provided in the crucifixion of Christ.

The contrast between fruitful and unfruitful “soil” in Hebrews 6:7–8 illustrates and reinforces what has been said in 6:4–6 about those who have received the grace of God and then turned away. It is important to note that there is really only one soil in this passage. In verse 7 this soil is described by two attributive participial phrases. The first of these participles describes it as receiving benefits—“drinking the rain often coming upon it.” The second describes the land as giving an appropriate response by “bringing forth a crop useful to those on account of whom it is farmed.” The conditional participle of verse 8, however, implies, “What if this very same soil brings forth weeds and thistles?” The “burning,” which is the end of such unresponsive ground, is certainly indicative of eternal judgment. The qualification “near” gives the writer permission to open the next paragraph with “But we are persuaded better things of you” (6:9).

But what about the “sluggishness” or “immaturity” for which the writer castigates his hearers in Hebrews 5:11–14 and the concomitant “maturity” (6:1) to which he urges them? The author may have intentionally exaggerated their retrogression into spiritual childishness in order to shame them into awakening from lethargy. Notice particularly such humiliating phrases as “those who have need of baby’s milk rather than adult food.”⁵² If, however, there were not a degree of real retrogression, the exhortation would not produce the desired result.

It is important to note what the author specifically says about this “sluggishness” or “immaturity.” First, he fears that this unnatural “immaturity” will prevent the hearers from grasping what he has to say about the Son’s effective high priesthood (5:11). Instead, their “immaturity” seems to be focused on “the elementary doctrines of Christ” (6:1). Second, this “sluggishness” would prevent them from being imitators “of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (6:12), such as Abraham (6:13–16) and the other faithful in Hebrews 11:1–40. Thus it would appear that grasping and appropriating the “great salvation” of Christ’s high priesthood as described in Hebrews 7:1–10:18 is the means of imitating those who “through faith and endurance” inherit what God has promised and is thus the very opposite of this sluggish immaturity, which is retarding the readers’ advance. It is the “solid food” that they should begin to chew. It is the “word of righteousness” (5:13) that will enable the readers to follow the examples of the “righteous” in Hebrews 10:38–11:40. It appears then that failure to appropriate the benefits of Christ’s high priestly work is failure to follow the example of the faithful, which results in loss of entrance into the heavenly homeland.

This understanding of the passage is confirmed by a look at “maturity” (τελειότητα) in Hebrews 6:1: “let us go on in the way of maturity.” The writer exploits the fact that this word means both “maturity” and “perfection.” He employs it here in contrast to the “immaturity” from which he would arouse his readers. Yet he gives content to this “maturity/perfection” (τελειότητα) by his use of the related verb, τελειόω, “to perfect,” in such passages as 2:10; 5:9; 7:28; 10:14; and 11:40. First, Jesus, through his obedience unto death and ascension/session, has been “perfected” as savior; he has become a high priest able to cleanse the readers from sin and bring them into God’s presence (2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Second, those who experience his provision and thus live in faithful obedience have been “perfected,” and they are those who live in this “maturity” (9:9; 10:1, 14; see 11:40; 12:23). Thus, a contextual understanding of the “maturity/perfection” of Hebrews 6:1 reinforces our contention that the appropriation of the preacher’s word about Christ’s high priesthood (7:1–10:18) and accompanying benefits (10:19–25) is the “maturity/perfection” that he urges. Therefore, going “on in maturity” is the opposite of “neglecting” the Christ-provided “great salvation” (2:3) and the only means of entering the heavenly homeland. After expounding this “great salvation,” the writer will apply it in the warning of Hebrews 10:26–31, to which we now turn. (Grant Lee Cockerill, "A Wesleyan Arminian View" in ibid., 272-80)

Further Reading:

Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?

Note on Hebrews 6:4

Donald A. Hagner on Hebrews 6:4-12

I. Howard Marshall on Hebrews 6 and Apostasy of True Christians

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology

Adam Miller on Transformative Justification

In his recent book, An Early Resurrection, Adam Miller wrote the following which emphasises the transformative nature of justification and being “in Christ”:

Life in Christ is like this. In Christ, the way I live—my manner of living—is changed from the inside out. Like being in love, living in Christ changes what it means to be alive . . . As Parley Pratt describes it, Spirit has just this effect. It resurrects my flesh, clears my mind, and opens my senses:

The gift of the Holy Spirit adapts itself to all these organs or attributes. It quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections; and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, developes, cultivates and matures all the fine toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness and charity. It developes beauty of person, form and features. It tends to health, vigour, animation and social feeling. It developes and invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens, invigorates, and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being. (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology [Liverpool: F.D. Richards, 1855], 98-99) (Adam S. Miller, An Early Resurrection: Life in Christ Before You Die [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018], 12, 17)

Elsewhere, Miller wrote the following about the regenerating/transforming nature of water baptism, something I have written a great deal on, including Rom 6 (see, for e.g., Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer). Commenting on Paul’s theology of baptism in Rom 6:3-8, Miller writes:

Paul’s description of baptism may be the best in all of scripture. It rewards a closer look. Rather than describing baptism as an act of ritual cleansing, he describes it as a death and resurrection. I am buried in the water and then raised from that death into a new life . . . In a way, baptism is a time machine. It’s a vehicle for atonement. As a type of baptism is a ritual engine for reordering my experience of time. It shuffles Christ’s resurrected future into my mortal present and, in doing so, frees me from my sinful past . . . Baptism is a gate. As a type, it marks my formal surrender, my willingness to die early. It introduces me to a Christian way of looking forward. Baptism is in the mold into which my repentance is poured. It shapes my impulses to repent into a new way of handling time. My relationships to both my past and future change. Repentant, my past no longer owns me. And, repentant, the future no longer mortgages my present. Rather than being a slave to my past mistakes or future expectations, the past and future becomes servants of my present life. (Ibid., 36, 38, 82-83)

I have written a great deal on the transformative (not declarative merely) nature of justification. For a youtube presentation I posted recently, see:

Sola Fide Presentation

T.B.H. Stenhouse on the majority of Latter-day Saints Rejecting the Adam-God Doctrine

Commenting on Brigham’s teachings on Adam-God, T.B.H. Stenhouse, a former LDS and critic of the Church of the time, admitted that the mass of Latter-day Saints did not hold to the doctrine:

The grandeur of the universe, and the infinity of its wonderful and glorious organizations, that have filled the noblest minds with veneration and awe, never disturbed the soul of Brigham Young. The arrogance of unchallenged authority grows rapidly upon its flattered possessor, and easily carries him from the level of human beings. How near must Brigham Young have imaged himself to deification when he announced that Adam was God! And what a humiliating spectacle has the Mormon Church presented to the world, in resting quietly and submissively for nearly twenty years under such threats of damnation! while, to the credit of the Saints, be it said, they have as a people refused to abandon their faith in "the God of their fathers." The mass of the Mormon people do not believe the doctrine of the Adam deity, but of them all, one only, Orson Pratt, has dared to make a public protest against that doctrine.

No community of people in Christendom, no church organization upon the earth, could have listened to the dogmatic enunciation of a new god for the people's worship, without remonstrance. In Utah some pricked up their ears, but the masses were unmoved. (T.B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints [New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873], 492)

Further Reading

 Thoughts on Sustaining, Opposing, and Recognising and Resisting Errant Church Leaders

On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine

Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

Lowell L. Bennion on Repentance and Perfection

Commenting on the topic of “repentance” and “perfection,” Lowell L. Bennion wrote the following:

The Meaning of Repentance

Repentance has several related meanings in scripture. Most often it means to have "a change of mind," or to have "another mind." It calls for a new outlook on life, a "turning back" on old ways, freeing oneself of desires no longer deemed worthy to entertain. Repentance means action. Error, wrongdoing, and shallow living give place to truth, right-doing, and wholesome living. The old gives way to the new. Life is lived on a higher plane. Belief and action become identical. The exact steps in repentance may vary somewhat from person to person and from time to time, but they usually include the following:

1. A recognition or recollection of the right and the wrong. The evil we do is usually brought forcibly to our attention when we gain a vision of the good, of something better. Shadows are recognized most clearly in the full light of day. Sometimes our shallow living reveals its own emptiness to us; more often than not it is made evident to us by some higher revelation of life. Repentance begins when we acknowledge the wrong we have done.

2. Feelings of regret and genuine sorrow for the wrong done, the life lived. This does not mean that to repent we must sink into the depths of despair and pine away our lives in remorse. It does mean that we have "a broken heart and a contrite spirit," that we feel our spiritual need and have a sense of obligation toward those whom we have wronged, both God and man. David's plea to the Lord following a realization of his gross sinfulness expresses this feeling of regret and of a broken heart but in a constructive way.

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit." (Psalm 51:10-12.)

3. Regret is followed by a firm resolution to forsake sin. Action begins in desire and is fortified in thought. A firm resolve is an essential step in repentance. Ezekiel makes a plea for such a change of heart: "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves and live ye." (Ezekiel 18:30-32.)

4. Whenever possible, amends are made for the wrong done. Repentance is not complete if we have not tried to make good the wrong done. Stolen goods are returned; lies are acknowledged to those concerned; confession is made to those whom we have wronged and who will be helped by it.

5. Finally, the wrongdoing is done no more but is replaced with right-doing, bad habits with good habits, good habits with better habits, culminating in a whole-souled devotion to one's new conception of the right. Repentance takes time. To Latter-day Saints there is no such thing as death-bed repentance. There can be death-bed confession, but this is only one step in repentance and leaves the principle incomplete and unfulfilled . . .

. . .

The Strength to Repent

Repentance is not easy. Often in life we take the first few steps; we recognize our wrongdoing, feel remorse, resolve to do right, and then fail to do the right. Our need is to find genuine motivation which will give us the power to repent wholly of single evils and which will help us to increase in the fine quality of our total living. Where is such strength to be found? The strength to repent does not come from the evil done. There is no positive strength in evil. To preoccupy oneself with wrongdoing is to succumb to it more often than not. A person whose sin is covetousness does not surmount it while preoccupied with desire for other men's goods.

Repentance is more than a rational consideration. It is good to look at our mistakes and shortcomings with the cold, appraising eye of reason. Often help comes from a knowledge of habit-formation, from a vision of the consequences of behavior, and from other reasonable means of understanding ourselves. But reason alone is an inadequate weapon against the strength of such powerful forces as habit and desire. Reason is a necessary and essential guide in life, but by itself it is not the best source of motivation to act.

Jesus Christ came to earth to bring about "means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance," and "only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption." (Alma 34:15, 16.) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can bring us both the desire and the power to overcome our sins and our sense of failure. He can inspire us to overcome that which is evil and shallow and mean in life . . . 4. Christ has promised us complete forgiveness on conditions of repentance. As we read the life of Christ in the New Testament and in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon, we are impressed with the Savior's love for the sinner. In Luke, chapter 15, are recorded three beautiful parables which bear witness to this love. If we only knew how much Christ loves us, even in our weakness and sin, and how much he suffers because of our wrongdoings, we would be moved to repent and thereby give joy to him.

Christ's love for us is expressed in his willingness to forgive. Even on the cross, he said of those who had so unmercifully nailed him there, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The meaning of forgiveness and the conditions under which we may receive it will be developed in a subsequent chapter. Let it be noted here that the assurance of complete forgiveness gives us faith to repent. That assurance has been proclaimed again and again.

Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6-7.)

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezekiel 18:21-23.)

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven. (D&C 1:31-32.)

 . . .

Perfection

I find that a lot of Latter-day Saints are trying to be perfect, and I hear a lot of preaching about perfection. Sometimes a stake conference is built around the theme, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." I have a high priests quorum I attend every Sunday, and they talk sometimes as though they were near perfection. Even if you'd like to be perfect, I suggest that seeking perfection is not a wise way to go about it. It is not a good way to live a Christian life.

I have five reasons why I think it is foolish, unwise, un-Christian almost, to seek perfection as a goal in this life.

The first reason is, I don't think we know what perfection is. I associate perfection with God and with Christ, but I don't understand them fully—their character, their thinking, their understanding of life and the universe, and so I really don't know what overall perfection is or what perfection in anything is.

Secondly, I think you are bound to fail if you try to be perfect as a human being, and you will have a sense of guilt, a sense of shame. You will be burdened with failure.

Thirdly, you might think you are succeeding. Jesus, in the eighteenth chapter of Luke, tells a parable about two men who went out to pray, a publican and a Pharisee. The Pharisee said, "I thank thee, God, that I am not as other men are. . . . or even as this publican here." And the publican would not as much as look unto heaven, and beat upon his chest and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Jesus said the latter was justified, and that he that exalteth himself shall be abased and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:10-13.)

The fourth reason I have for not seeking perfection is that wonderful Mormon doctrine that I love—eternal progression. Progression means the act of stepping forward, eternally. I think that is the vision of Mormonism, that we may grow eternally under the tutelage of our Father in heaven and Christ, and enlarge our lives forever more—certainly in this life, and I hope in the life to come.

Finally, people who strive to be perfect, in my observation, put themselves at the center of things. They are conscious of themselves too much. I had a fine freshman student who spent half of his time keeping track of himself. He had three big looseleaf notebooks, and he jotted down every thought he had and every feeling and every word. He reduced his life to his own parameters. I am very fond of Jesus' wisdom when he said, "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 10:39.)

I think the only time you experience life as a whole, in all its potentiality, is when you give yourself to a cause that is greater than yourself, one that is outside of yourself. (The Best of Lowell L. Bennion: Selected Writings 1928-1998, ed. Eugene England [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1988], 103-4, 105, 107, 276-77)

Lowell L. Bennion on Grace in Latter-day Saint Soteriology

Commenting on the Latter-day Saint view of "grace," Lowell L. Bennion (1908-1996) wrote:

In the Mormon view of eternal life, grace precedes, accompanies, and completes individual effort and merit. And by grace we mean the unmerited gifts of Deity to man given freely out of Divine love . . .

. . .

Grace

A Christian acknowledges and is profoundly grateful for the grace of Deity. By grace, I mean unmerited gifts freely given to mankind. Not enough is said in our church about grace. We do not earn all our blessings by faith and works. Not all of our blessings come by obedience to law, I believe.

Three great acts of creation are wrought by Deity and on our behalf—the spiritual creation in the pre-earth life, the mortal creation, and the resurrection. Christ is playing a leading role in the latter two. Life is all three of its stages is a gift. I hope you believe that—that life is a gift. You and I were incapable of creating for ourselves either on earth or in the resurrection.

The gift of the Holy Ghost, in light of Christ, and the spirit of God come to us freely. We have to open our minds and hearts to receive them, but they are gifts of love nonetheless. The priesthood, the very power of God, is also a precious gift. It is Deity’s to give.

One of the greatest gifts of grace is forgiveness of sins. True, we must repent to be in a frame of mind to receive and to be healed by forgiveness. But as the word itself illustrates, giving is always involved in forgiveness, whether between persons or between Deity and human beings.

The whole gospel teaching has come to us as a gift of Deity through Jesus and the prophets. I didn’t create or originate faith, repentance, meekness, humility, integrity, or love, and neither did you.

Grace plays a large role in both Catholic and Protestant faiths. In Catholicism, it comes to the Christian through the sacraments of the Church, which have been called vehicles of divine grace. In some Protestant faiths, salvation is entirely a matter of grace. When salvation is conceived in terms of redemption from death and sin, it is natural and quite logical to give Christ full credit for it, following the lead of the Apostle Paul: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Salvation for Latter-day Saints includes redemption from sin and death, but it also has a very positive meaning: It is a process of self realization of one’s full potential as a human being and a child of God. It is to increase in knowledge and wisdom, in integrity and love, in the divine attributes of Deity. Life is a gift of grace, but what we do with that gift is our responsibility and opportunity. Grace precedes, accompanies and follows the faith and works of the individual, but human growth is unthinkable without human effort, I believe. (The Best of Lowell L. Bennion: Selected Writings 1928-1998, ed. Eugene England [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1988], 115, 269-70)

John Wesley on the Necessity for one to be Ordained to Validly Baptise

While Latter-day Saints emphasis that valid baptism can only be performed by those ordained to the proper priesthood and office thereof (in this dispensation, one must be ordained at least to the office of priest in the Aaronic priesthood). Interestingly, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, held a similar position about the necessity of one being ordained to baptise:

In his original abridgment of his father’s text dated November 11, 1756, Wesley added an introductory section which stipulated that one of “the three things [which] are essential to Christian baptism [is] an episcopal administration” . . . He drew a sharp distinction between the extraordinary preaching ministry to which these laypersons were appointed and the priestly ministry of the sacraments which was to be exercised exclusively by those who were ordained. In 1772 he wrote to Joseph Thompson: “Whoever among us undertakes to baptize a child is ipso facto excluded from our Connexion” (John Telford, ed., The Letters of John Wesley, 8 vols. [London: Epworth Press, 1931], 5:330). Despite the growing pressure from both preachers and people Wesley never agreed to lay administration. In a 1784 letter he stated:

I shall have no objection to Mr. Taylor if he does not baptize children; but this I dare not suffer. I shall shortly be obliged to drop all the preachers who will not drop this Christ has sent them not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. I wonder any of them are so unkind as to attempt it, when they know my sentiments (Letters 7:203-4).

Ultimately he chose to ordain men to the priestly ministry himself rather than to permit lay preaches to baptize and serve the eucharist. (Gayle Carlton Felton, This Gift of Water: The Practice and Theology of Baptism Among Methodists in America [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992], 17, 18, square brackets in original, emphasis added)

Jerry D. Grover, The Swords of Shule

Jerry Grove just posted a new 300+ page book on the Book of Mormon online for free on his Academia.edu Web page:

Jerry D. Grover, The Swords of Shule: Jaredite Land Northward Chronology, Geography, and Culture in Mesoamerica

A Theology of Work

Latter-day Saints have a high view of "work." Not just "good works" within the realm of soteriology, but having a work-ethic, too. In Gen 2:15, we read:

And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

While reading a work on Opus Dei and the theology of their founder, Josemaría Escrivá (1902-1975), I encountered the following comment on the sanctity of work:

The fact that this statement in Genesis about work comes before the original sin of our first parents, shows that work is of the very essence of human nature. Only the laborious and tedious side of human activity is the punishment of original sin. Work in itself is good, is noble. Man is wholly fulfilled by his work, by being conscious of what he does. That is precisely what constitutes his superiority over other created beings.

Work, taken in its widest sense, is part of God’s plan for mankind. It is ‘a means by which man shares in creation. Hence work, any kind of work, is not only worthy; it is also a means of attaining human—that is, earthly, natural—perfection, as well as supernatural perfection.'

Man is a co-creator as well as a co-redeemer with God. Christ work; St. Joseph taught him his carpenter’s trade; work therefore is something which in turn has been redeemed. It is not just the framework of human life; it is a path to sanctity, something that sanctifies and that can be sanctified. For man-in-the-world work becomes the hinge on which the whole task of sanctification turns. (Dominique Le Tourneau, What is Opus Dei [Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1987], 31)

For an informed Latter-day Saint discussion on related issues, see my friend Walker Wright's article, published in BYU Studies, "To Dress It and to Keep It": Toward a Mormon Theology of Work

Bernhard Anderson on the Heavenly Council in the Book of Isaiah

Commenting on Isa 6 and Isaiah’s prophetic call, Bernhard Anderson (1916-2007), at the time of writing, the professor of Old Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote:

Yahweh’s speech employs the plural “us” (Is. 6:8), for he is surrounded by his Council, his heavenly host, to whom and for whom he speaks. Isaiah, then, is drawn into Yahweh’s Heavenly Council where the divine decrees are announced and where messengers are sent forth to execute them. (Bernhard W. Anderson, The Living World of the Old Testament [3d ed.; Essex: Longman Group Limited, 1975], 304, emphasis added)

Commenting on the theology of the Heavenly Council in the book of Isaiah, Anderson elsewhere wrote:

In the Heavenly Council

The setting of the opening poem (40:1-11) I placed in heaven, where Yahweh’s Council is assembled. Several times before, we have noticed that prophetic authority rested upon a direct commission given to the prophet standing in this Council (see Jer. 23:18), as, for instance, in the case of Isaiah’s vision in the Temple. So the prophecy of Second Isaiah begins with good news heard in the Heavenly Council. Then the poetry moves from heaven to earth. Since the first poem serves as a prologue to the whole poetic cycle, we shall give it special attention.

In the ancient view, the decisions affecting human destiny were made in the Heavenly Council. According to the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma elish which was recited in the temple of Babylon during the New Year’s Festival, the council of the gods invested Marduk with supreme authority and acclaimed him in the shout: “Marduk has become king!” His victory over the monster Tiamat and her allies gave assurance that for the coming year the world would be subject to the high god’s sovereign decrees. Perhaps Second Isaiah, who must have been familiar with Babylonian myth and ritual, was influenced by this religious background as he portrayed Yahweh’s kingship over the world. His deepest debt, however, was to the prophets who preceded him, and to the great convictions that were celebrated in Israel’s worship in the context of the “Zion theology.” He was heavily dependent upon the hymns and liturgy of the pre-exilic worship services of the Jerusalem Temple, especially the services of the Fall festival when a number of psalms (47, 93, 96-99) were used to extol Yahweh as King of the nations and of the whole universe. So Second Isaiah was speaking primarily out of Israel’s tradition in his portrayal of Yahweh, the King par excellence. Thus his first poem begins with two imperatives, “comfort, comfort.” In the Hebrew text these imperatives are in the plural, because God is speaking to his heavenly servants, announcing the destiny of Israel and the nations. (Ibid., 446, emphasis added)

Finally, commenting on Isaiah’s critiques of idolatry, we read:

Fundamentally, his critique of the idols is that they are powerless in history, and therefore they are nothing. Again and again he challenges the nations to bring proof that their gods have been able to announce a plan in history and carry it through (42:5-17; 43:8-13; 44:6-8, 21-23; 44:24-45:13; 48). With some caricature of Babylonian worship, he pokes fun at the idol-making industry (see 40:18-20; 44:9-20), arguing that these artifacts are mere expressions of human cleverness and power. Man-made idols do not have the divine power to control the issues of history, nor can they sustain the meaning of life from birth to old age. With fine satire, he ridicules the Babylonian idols, Bel and Nebo—the very gods whom, according to the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus restored to their sacred cities—who have to be loaded on the backs of dumb animals, causing them to strain and stoop under the burden. These pathetic gods have to be carried, but—says the prophet—Yahweh carries his people and lifts their burdens. He alone has the power to save and to accomplish his purpose in history. (Ibid., 455)

John A. Widtsoe on the Necessity of Latter-day Saints Gathering Knowledge

Commenting on the importance of Latter-day Saints educating themselves and becoming informed about the theology and Scriptures of the Restored Gospel, John A. Widtsoe (1872-1952) wrote:

The Glory of God Is Intelligence

Latter-day Saints must gather knowledge. The book teaches over and over again that the only way to achieve perfection and to attain the goal of life is upon the basis of knowledge. Joseph Smith said that knowledge is the pathway up to the Gods. Knowledge is necessary. We must seek knowledge (88:78). The things we learn upon this earth have an eternal value and will remain with us in eternity. A man must secure knowledge to be saved (131:6). That is Mormon doctrine. The foundation of success, of development, of progress within the Church is knowledge. Ignorance has no place whatever in its system. Notice that theory is to be respected among Latter-day Saints. If a man sets out a theory, we ought not to be disrespectful to it. Books are spoken of highly; learning out of books is worth while (88:118). When the Kirtland Temple was built in 1835 the upper portion of the Temple was dedicated to the use of the school called the “School of the Prophets.” The young, old, and middle-aged men who had joined the Church went to school there and studied English grammar, arithmetic, Hebrew, Greek, etc. It seems to have been the beginning of adult education in the United States. It is interesting to note that the eight or ten classrooms on the top of that upper floor each had an entrance door from the central hall that there was a little opening under the eaves of each room. Those who were on time entered through the door. Those who came late had to double up and get in under the eaves.

Man was also in the begging with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. (93:29).

The Latter-day Saints distinguish clearly between knowledge and intelligence. Intelligence, according to Latter-day Saint doctrine, is the proper use of knowledge. A man who learns quickly is, in ordinary English, an intelligent man. The Mormons say that the intelligent man is the one who uses knowledge properly. The man who uses knowledge in harmony with the law of the Lord is an intelligent man. “The glory of God is intelligence,” not merely knowledge but knowledge plus the proper use of knowledge. That is wisdom. Latter-day Saints therefore who aim to become like their Father in heaven must do as he has done and be as he is, intelligent people. They must gather knowledge and they must use it properly.

Latter-day Saints are expected to give a little time every day to study, say for an hour a day regularly, not a spurt one day and then days or weeks or months and another spurt. It is easy to acquire the habit of a little study every day. I had charge of many young men in the European Missions. I observed that the ones who learned foreign languages quickly were the ones who studied a little every day. If any of you will study a foreign language one half-hour every day, except Sunday, in two years you will know the language. So we must study and obey the commandments if we really want to learn and know the Gospel. Latter-day Saints must keep all the commandments, be obedient to them and gather knowledge and use it properly. They must also be regular in their worship of God. (John A. Widtsoe, The Message of the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1969], 138-40)

Speaking of how this principle applied to Joseph Smith’s own revelations as found in the Doctrine and Covenants, John A. Widtsoe noted:

The Church was organized upon the foundation of inquiry and resulting spiritual manifestations . . .

The Language of the Revelations

The language, with the exception of the words actually spoken by heavenly beings, is the language of the Prophet. The ideas were given to Joseph Smith. He wrote them in the best language at his command. He was inspired at times by the loftiness o the ideals so that his language or words are far above the ordinarily used by a backwoods boy of that day. (Ibid., 6, 9)

John Tvedtnes, The Higher and Lesser Laws

In his excellent article, The Higher and Lesser Laws, John Tvedtnes noted:

Joseph Smith provided a wealth of information—particularly in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—on the events that took place at Mount Sinai in the time of Moses, including the following details: (1) God originally intended to make the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood available to all Israel but instead gave a lesser priesthood to the tribe of Levi; (2) this resulted from the unwillingness of the Israelites to accept one of the responsibilities of the higher priesthood, which was to stand in the presence of God; (3) God cursed the Israelites with a carnal law, omitting from the second set of tablets elements of the higher law (including the covenant of priesthood) that had been on the first set of tablets; and (4) the higher law was to be restored through Christ at a later time.

I was reminded of Tvedtnes’ essay which presents the evidence for these teachings from ancient texts while reading the following in a work on Christian ethics which parallels much of Joseph Smith's teachings:

The Apostolical Constitutions (probably dating from the fourth century and compiled in Syria) distinguishes between laws given before the incident of the Golden Calf and those given after it (Exod. 32; see Apostolical Constitutions VI, chs. 19-30). The laws and sacrifices prescribed after the Golden Calf incident are designed to correct Israel’s apostasy and are not binding on Christians. The laws given prior to this incident includes the Ten Commandments (which become increasingly important for the church) and laws of which many begin with the word ‘if’. These laws must be taken seriously by Christians; but they are not necessarily prescriptions. For example, Exodus 20:24 does not say ‘make an altar of earth’ it says ‘if you make an altar, make it of earth’. (John Rogerson, “The Old Testament and Christian ethics” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics, ed. Robin Gill [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001], 29-41, here, p. 33).

As an aside, one can find a copy of the Apostolical Constitutions online here.

Scott M. Lewis on 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead

Commenting on 1 Cor 15:29 and the reference to baptism for the dead, Jesuit priest and NT scholar, Scott M. Lewis, wrote:

Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather simple. Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism. What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is impossible to answer . . . . (Scott M. Lewis, So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 15,12-34 [Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998], 70-71, emphasis added)

Such should be compared with the following comments from another NT scholar:

It cannot be denied that Paul is here [1 Cor 15:29] speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism). (Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 [Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999], 175-76) 

Russell Stevenson, Race and the Mormon Church

On the LDS Mission Cast, Russell Stevenson, author of For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013 (Greg Kofford Books, 2014) was recently interviewed:

Race and the Mormon Church – What do we know, and how do we teach it? Interview with Russell Stevenson

It is just under an hour in length and is worth the time to listen to.

Thoughts on Sustaining, Opposing, and Recognising and Resisting Errant Church Leaders

During the weekend, one has reflected on errant Church leaders who advocate and support intrinsic moral evils and/or those who fail to speak up and defend Church teachings on morality and ethics. All too often, our leaders care more about not offending the feelings of church members who support abortion on demand and other moral evils. As one friend summed up the Church’s silence on the recent referendum here in Ireland:

“The Church lacked the conviction to speak up, but on the plus side, the feelings of pro-abortionists in the Church were not hurt, so that is a major win.”

Some will claim that the Church must always remain politically “neutral” and never take a public stand on an issue. That is simply false. When it comes to certain issues, which would include abortion, the Church is to take a public stance and not to give a rip about hurting the feelings of members who do not take seriously its teachings, as well as the wider community.

Speaking of the Church’s Obligations to stand up for morality, even in the political sphere, Lowell Bennion wrote:

[T]he Church has the moral obligation to be a critic of political and social goals and practices. It can fight for social and political justice—for those policies which lead to freedom, peace, and human brotherhood. The Church has a right to condemn corruptness in the body politic and selfishness and unfair play in men’s economic relations. It can and ought to teach men to live above the plane of legal morality—of getting by within or around the requirements of the law. The Church ought to serve as a leaven in human society which would permeate the whole and lift it to a higher plane of social and moral life. It is in a strategic position to do so. (Lowell L. Bennion, The Religion of the Latter-day Saints [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940], 149)

In his April 1992 General Conference Talk, Our Moral Environment, Boyd K. Packer said:

When a moral issue does arise, it is the responsibility of the leaders of the Church to speak out. Gambling, for instance, certainly is a moral issue. Life [RB: which would include abortion and the recent Irish referendum] is a moral issue. When morality is involved, we have both the right and the obligation to raise a warning voice. We do not as a church speak on political issues unless morality is involved. 

 So, when it comes to Church leaders who support moral evils such as abortion (including one Stake President I know), what is the obligation of believing Latter-day Saints? Are we not to sustain our leaders? After all, the fourth Temple Recommend question asks, in part, "Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?"

Firstly, Latter-day Saints can and should not sustain Church leaders if/when one has the moral certitude that they should not be in that position. For example, if one knows a leader is engaged in adultery, which would result in an excommunication, they have the right and duty to (1) not sustain such a person in their calling and (2) to report it to the necessary ecclesiastical authorities so that proper Church discipline will be administered. There is “sustaining” and then there is “blind obedience”; they are not one and the same. There is nothing in the temple recommend questions about sustaining a leader, including local leaders, who are not worthy officer holders and who should face ecclesiastical discipline. That is why one is allowed to oppose people in proposed callings and even those who hold callings (e.g., at a stake/district conference).

Secondly, sometimes God calls people to a position in order for their true motivations and character will be exposed in a way that would not have been had they not been called to such. There are many instances of such in Church history as well as even local Church history (e.g., I know of one branch president whose adultery would not have been exposed had he not been called to such a position—he was subsequently excommunicated; the good news is that he repented and, a few years later, was re-baptised).

Thirdly, perhaps at the time of being called one can be in right-standing in the eyes of God, but due to free-will decisions, they rebel against God. Note, for example, D&C 40:1-3:

Behold, verily I say unto you, that the heart of my servant James Covill was right before me, for he covenanted with me that he would obey my word. And he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him; and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. Wherefore he broke my covenant, and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen.

I note this as one may experience some cognitive dissonance when faced with the poor character of local church leaders, wondering how a righteous person, called by the Lord, can fall so badly.

While a difficult concept to grasp, especially given the LDS tendency to put leaders on an artificial pedestal and (erroneously) impute to them impeccability and infallibility, God often allows evil to (1) bring about a greater good (as in the case of Joseph of Egypt) and/or (2) to increase the condemnation of someone in the final judgment. As we read in Alma 14:9-11:

And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire. And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Fourthly, often religious leaders, perhaps even called by God himself, are called in spite of, not because of, their character. Ezek 34 is a classic example—the shepherds of Israel who should know better, are guilty of abusing their religious leadership and starve the people, spiritually, with their theological and moral errors. As we read in vv. 2-10:

Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

Notwithstanding, God can still work through such errant leaders, but it is in spite of, not because of, their beliefs and actions. A classic example is that of Caiaphas who, by virtue of his being high priest (and not because of his theological and ethical apostasy!) prophesied:

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. (John 11:49-51)

Additionally, in Matt 23:1-3, Jesus instructed the disciples thusly:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Therefore, we are to abide by the inspired words of church leaders, but not to accept their personal failings and other errors., such as their (personal) unjust commands. Just as one extreme is a view that Church leaders are, by virtue of their office, impeccable, the other, equally errant extreme, is that Church leaders who are, like Caiaphas, unworthy office holders, cannot be used by God as an instrument of good—there is a danger of an "ecclesiastical Dontanism" of sorts. Orson Pratt's opposition to Brigham Young on the issue of Adam-God is a great example: Brigham, in his (often inconsistent) talks and discussion where he identified God the Father with Adam, was opposed (correctly) by Orson Pratt, and yet, Pratt still recognised Brigham as the president of the Church (for more on Adam-God, see Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam). As a Church, we should be thankful for Orson and his opposing this erroneous doctrine. Similarly, the apostle Paul, when he discovered the Apostle Peter was perverting the Gospel, did not ignore it or "accept it and move on"; he did the only right thing--oppose Peter and call him to repentance:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)

One can respect the office but one should never assume this means that the office holder is beyond reproach. That is not Scriptural and it is not consistent with Latter-day Saint ecclesiology. If occasion requires, one is to recognise but resist—recognise the office and the fact God can “draw a straight line with a crooked stick” but resist by not sustaining people who should not be in that office.