Saturday, July 25, 2020

Joseph Fielding McConkie on the Fallibility of Church Leaders


 

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)

 

 


Blog Archive