Among the most vocal critics of President Boyd K. Packer’s conference talk about homosexuality were Mormons themselves. Many of my liberal Mormon friends were quick to clarify that Packer did not speak for them. I even had one friend tell me he was so upset by Packer’s comments that he turned off his television and didn’t watch conference the rest of that Sunday.
Other Mormons, and I’m afraid the majority, agree with Packer’s talk. In fact, there is a Facebook campaign by the group “LDS YOUNG MEN & WOMEN” to write Packer 100,000 letters of support. As of today, nearly 18,000 people are ‘attending’ this event.
So this kind of raises the question: Can you be a faithful Mormon and disagree with what an apostle said in general conference? A conservative Mormon friend of mine insists that you cannot.
In a Facebook debate about Packer’s talk, this friend argued that questioning church leaders can in apostasy. That’s undoubtedly true, but I asked him whether members had to uncritically accept every word spoken in conference as inspired. Because if so, that leaves Mormons on the hook for a lot disconcerting things taught from the conference pulpit in the past.
Not necessarily, he argued. Mormons only have to accept those teachings that conform to the following “established prophetic parameters”:
- The statement reflects the belief and opinion of all the brethren.
- The statement deals with morality and exhorts members to moral behavior.
- The statement is consistent with the standard teachings of the church.
Packer’s comments supposedly satisfy these criteria.
Initially, I was impressed. Few Mormons, from my experience, are able to articulate what exactly constitutes their church’s doctrine. But I then asked, “And why are these the authoritative criteria?” This question went unanswered. Honestly, I’m not sure there is an answer.
For a definition of doctrine to be authoritative, it must come from an authoritative source. However, in order to know what is authoritative, you have to first know the definition of doctrine. You can probably see how this necessarily involves circular reasoning. Consider this hypothetical discussion:
“Where did you learn about these ‘established prophetic parameters’?”
“Elder So-And-So articulated them in a recent conference talk.”
“And why should we trust what Elder So-And-So said?”
“Because his talk met the ‘established prophetic parameters’.”
In other words, you have to presuppose that the source defining doctrine is itself doctrinal. (It should be noted that this problem is in no way unique to Mormonism. Many Christians are guilty of the same fallacy in their approach to the Bible. They believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims to be the word of God.)
Looking for other definitions of Mormon doctrine, I found an article by FAIR LDS, and apologetics website, entitled “What is ‘Official’ LDS Doctrine?” Here are their criteria:
- It must generally conform to what has already been revealed.
- It must be voted as doctrine by the body of the Church in conference.
- The Spirit will confirm the truth of it.
Again, no attempt is made to explain how these are the authoritative criteria. Each criterion is also problematic, in my view.
First, if teachings must generally conform to what has already been revealed, then what are we to make of the contradictions within and among Mormon scripture?
Second, truth is not determined by vote. In his conference talk, Packer said that “moral standards … cannot be changed by ballot.” Why, then, must doctrine be accepted “by common consent” of church members?
And third, spiritual feelings and experiences are too unreliable to be a useful measure of truth.
So back to my initial question: Can you be a faithful Mormon and disagree with what an apostle said in general conference? I think so. Absent an authoritative and logically sound definition of doctrine, Mormons—for good or ill—have license to interpret their faith as they see fit.
Really interesting – Mormon Expression did a podcast on this last year http://mormonexpression.com/2009/06/
It’s funny how the only defense for many problems in Mormon doctrine is to say that a prophet or apostle was not speaking prophetically, but we don’t seem to have any criteria defining how we know whether or not a GA is speaking authoritatively/prophetically.
To elaborate a bit, I’ve heard this line:
stated before. Jana Riess recently wrote an article on nearly the same subject http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/10/when-is-it-permissible-to-disagree-with-an-lds-church-leader.html
And here’s what one commenter wrote:
The temple recommend thing brings up a good point. As I began to disagree with the church more and more regarding homosexuality, I had a rougher time in temple rec interviews. I was still active, reading my scriptures, behaving myself, etc. I was worthy on every other front except for affiliating myself with a person/group whose teachings contradicted those of the church (and I consequently had some trouble sustaining the leaders, to tell the truth). My bishop said that as long as I wasn’t marching around and holding up signs, or preaching my disagreement in Relief Society, it was ok. Of course, it felt like faking because I began to feel like I could no longer fully sustain the GAs.
Strangely, one of the most sound arguments I recieved was this: “At the beginning of Conference, I made a promise to sustain the Prophet, his counselors and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. I swore to uphold them and I will defend the doctrine to the death.” (the guy can be kinda dramatic)
That kind of convinced me that you really can’t agree and be a “faithful” member because you’re failing to sustain them as “prophets, seers and revelators.” It seems like an age-old ritual with faded meaning, but the fact is that once you raise your hand in the affirmative, you’re in for the long haul (so to speak).
The practical route for me has always been this: If you say it at church and it ruffles feathers, it falls outside the generally accepted realm of Doctrine. If you say it at church and everyone nods like a docile cow enjoying its cud, it’s doctrine.
I’m really sorry to be annoying, but I really like this site and I feel like I have to point out that “begs the question” refers to a fallacy where the question arises from an assumption containing an answer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
– what you mean to say above is “So this kind of raises the question,.”
The statement reflects the belief and opinion of all the brethren.
Don’t they shoot themselves in the foot with a statement like this? The apostles essentially are restricted now to not receive divine inspiration that is outside of the status quo. What if BKP’s statements were directly from God? How do you distinguish revelation from opinion? And why does opinion matter? And why does majority matter? Revelation is revelation. Screw majority.
I love this site but am disappointed with some of the comments so far. Especially yours, Molly. No offense.
Jon, I’d like to reference the article you linked in Link Bomb #8 to Pure Mormanism’s article. Way down in the comments is some really good meat. (I should preface everything I say with this: I really don’t have much of an education about the LDS church, but I’ve had plenty of open-minded exposure to it and am learning).
Also it is my understanding that only the Prophet is ordained with the keys to deliver modern day revelation. (And even then, only when he is speaking as God’s Mouthpiece. I wish I could find the article that outlined how revelation is officially received. Written word for word as dictated by God, presented to the church, confirmed through the Holy Spirit–or something to that effect, and also it must not contradict what has already been revealed). Other times, the Prophet is just as fallible as anyone else to put an opinionated spin on “inspiration.” General authorities may also be inspired, sure. And their advice is often times very good and very appropriate for leading the church. But not always, and certainly not for everyone, even when the advice is good. Without the Word of God to settle the scales on the matters that come up, it’s impossible to discern opinion from inspired opinion. How often do authorities’ “inspired opinions” actually have no founding in LDS scripture? Seems to be more and more. I find it disheartening when members rely more heavily on quotes from their favorite apostle than on the scriptures they claim so fervently to “know and believe,” and especially unsettling when they give this equal weight to the words of man.
Joseph Smith wanted everyone to think for him/herself. And, at least until the revival of Benson’s officially discredited 14 Fundamentals talk at this last conference, I’d been having a wet dream that the church still promoted agency and free thought, if only a little bit.
Interesting stuff. One quibble: all LDS apostles are ordained with the same keys. That’s why an angel doesn’t have to come down and restore the keys every time the president dies. At least that’s the theory.
BTW I think this is a very good question for all members to consider, so thanks for the post.
For Kyle. Certainly the prophet is the final voice on revelation, but all apostles are given authority and called to be prophets seers and revelators. During each church conference they are sustained as such by members. This means that apostles do have channels to revelation but I think this is where “The statement reflects the belief and opinion of all the brethren.” comes in. Similarly to when apostles call a new prophet, each hold keys or authority to act unified together. A revelation should be upheld by all apostles acting together. The proclamation to the family is a good example, but also messages endorsed by the first presidency should be taken in a similar way. This provides a distinguishable between opinion or ways something is expressed by individuals that in retrospect appear to have been incorrect. Also it allows new revelation to change the church even dramatically as long as it is done in such a unified way.
“Without the Word of God to settle the scales on the matters that come up, it’s impossible to discern opinion from inspired opinion.”
A doctrine of personal revelation allows for the Word of God through personal inspiration to provide a third source of confirmation. Critical thinking, personal revelation, and scripture study should help members discern advice, opinion and revelation.
I also have a problem with “It must generally conform to what has already been revealed.” I don’t feel this wording allows for dramatic changes and revelation. Priesthood for all worthy males might be one example, where talks given contradict the reforming policy. I suppose the word “generally” gives some wiggle room, but I think it should be more limited to being in harmony with basic doctrinal principles, and teachings of previous prophets.
As to the begging the question. The circular reasoning can be avoided by personal confirmation. Any gospel knowledge must be revealed through individuals, rather than just a reliance on authority, it can be verified through multiple witnesses and personal revelation.
“And why should we trust what Elder So-And-So said?”
A better response would focus on another non-circular source of verification. Scripture, another leader, personal revelation, and ideally a combination of all the above.
Another thought, Islam has a similar system for verification. I think it relies on scripture, leaders, and scholars? Its been a while.
Thanks, James, for your comments and the time you took to help me better understand this subject.
Just as a quick note. The 12 apostles COLLECTIVELY hold the keys to the church 1 apostle couldn’t ordain the new president. That being said NEW doctrine always comes through the 1st presidency. That’s why when the bishop gets up at sacrament to read off the churchs stand on a subject or a change in procedure it is always addressed from The First Presidency. That being said when an apostle speaks in the name of the Lord it is truth.
To my knowledge an apostle has never made a change in church doctrine or revealed something new… even McConkie. I personally feel, and correct me if I’m wrong, that much of what McConkie has written is based more on opinion that revelation or doctrine. I’m not saying that everything he said wasn’t inspired. I also feel that much of what he said was truly inspired. It’s when you get into “deep doctrine” that I feel it could be more based on opinion rather than doctrine.
So returning back to the subject at hand, what Packer said was in now way incorrect doctrine it has and always will be the opinion of the church. What was “wrong” with his talk is that it wasn’t “politcally correct”. In the beginning of the restoration of the church I believe that if the exact same statement was made it would be totally accpeted not only by the church, but among the common people.
Truth as defined in The Book of Mormon will always be confirmed or denied by the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore as it has always been the Lord will reveal his will through his servents (new doctrine through the prophet and 1st presidency, confirmed truth through the apostles) and we can know that it is true by the Holy Ghost. Also I find it important to define truth. I can’t remember the scripture references off the top of my head, but my mission president combind 1 scripture from the new testament and one from D&C to help us understand that truth is defined as: the way things were, are, and will be.
“Truth as defined in The Book of Mormon will always be confirmed or denied by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Fair enough, but as I noted in article, I think spiritual witnesses are highly unreliable as people often get different answers. And precisely because the Holy Ghost seems to tell different people different things, Elder Oaks felt compelled to remind members in general conference last weekend that the priesthood line supersedes the personal line. So even if you pray about Packer’s talk and you feel that the Spirit told you it was false, church leaders could all-too-conveniently claim that you are just “out of harmony with the priesthood line” due to unrighteousness.
I would definitely agree, Jon, that people can get different confirmations from the Holy Ghost–but that’s precisely one of my favorite components of the church. Regarding Elder Oaks’ recent comments: must we hear those as doctrine, or could we hear them as opinion? Even inspired opinion? While they probably serve a good purpose for the majority of members, what’s good for most may not be good for all.
Prayer for confirmation of truth seems like such a personal activity that it must, at some times, yield different answers for different individuals. Let’s say that 90% of Packer’s talk was true, but I prayed about and received confirmation that the talk was false based on the other 10% that most affected me. Is there room for everyone to be right? My impression is that discussion about the church is always so black or white, when really most matters will fall somewhere in between.
If truth is really that personal and subjective, then all the more reason to doubt that there are doctrinal absolutes for the entire church membership. I can understand members getting different confirmations if what they’re praying for is guidance on personal matters. But members should not be getting different confirmations on things pertaining to the church at large–things like doctrine, right?
Also, why god would bother to restore apostles and prophets that are only 90% right? Ninety percent accuracy might be impressive if church leaders were coming out with bold prophesies and predictions, but that’s not the case. Most conference talks these days are pretty timid, trading in moral platitudes like “be kind” and “don’t judge.” Not bad messages, to be sure. I just don’t see why we need a prophet to tell us that.
One last thing: If the best means truth is personal revelation, why even bother to sustain the prophet and the apostles, Kyle? Why does your impression that Packer’s talk is only 90% true, for example, supersede Packer’s impression that his talk is 100% true?
You raise some good questions and problems with my logic. I would argue–and possible against the grain of LDS belief, I’m not sure–that there should be a distinction between revelation and inspiration. The difference being that revelation is concrete, 100% true and authentic Word of God. The stuff the D&C and BoM are made of. This would still leave room for varying personal confirmations, since scripture is often a deeper level of language that leaves room for different applications/interpretations. (I say this hesitantly, as I’m sure there are countless examples where it’s not true–but I definitely think scripture is often more cryptic, as far as doctrine is concerned).
Inspiration, then, would account for everything else, and is fallible in the hands and mouths of man. But the terms are used interchangeably.
I agree that conference talks seem to take a lightweight focus, and agree that we probably don’t need a prophet to teach us such things. Rather, he’s just around for when we do need new revelation. I’m not sure when the last time the D&C were updated, but I think it’s been a while. I wonder if this is a sign that the promised fall from within the church is perhaps peeping its head? Idk.
Just thoughts… I welcome your corrections and critique. ;)
Jon,
I think you make some great points, but allow me to answer the question I left unanswered…
Joseph Smith taught, and it has been consistent throughout our history that, you should always go with a majority of the quorum of the 12. Truman Madsen covers this well in his series of lectures (and the book that accompanies them). Hence, the first statement.
The second statement is derived from the belief that prophets cannot lead us astray. Could they be mistaken about an element of history or science? Certainly. We could both cite numerous examples. However, could they guide us to blatantly violate one of God’s commandments? I don’t believe so. The teaching of morality was meant to explain this.
The final statement is really a restatement of the first, as a qualifier and a litmus test.
I strongly agree with Andrew S’ quoted commenter. I think there may be quibbles with how President Packer said it or some nuanced details, but the underlying principle (participating in homosexual sex is an immoral act) is solid LDS doctrine. If a member of the church disagrees on this subject, they probably do not qualify for a temple recommend.
P.S. Dr. James Faulconer wrote a great article on the subject. It is quite good and lays it our very well. He shared it with me years ago when I took his class, but I can’t seem to find it online. Look for it, as it lays out a lot of these ideas.
Tyler, I don’t think the uproar over Packer’s talk was his calling homosexuality immoral. I’d agree that that teaching is indeed “solid LDS doctrine” (though not necessarily unchangeable). More at issue, I think, was what people understood to be Packer’s claim that homosexuality was not “inborn” or “preset.”
“Joseph Smith taught, and it has been consistent throughout our history that, you should always go with a majority of the quorum of the 12.”
Again, why do votes or majorities matter where doctrine is concerned? I suppose I see some relevance with the 12. If the 12 are in agreement, the hope is that they’ve each received a spiritual confirmation that X is a true doctrine. But even hear, the essential criterion is not that they agree, but why they agree—they agree because the spirit confirmed the same thing to all 12. I just don’t understand why FAIR LDS insists that having the “common consent” of all members at conference is important. Like Elder Oaks said this past conference, the priesthood line of revelation—not the personal line—arbitrates doctrinal judgments.
“The second statement is derived from the belief that prophets cannot lead us astray.”
Is this a mere belief? And why is it that they can’t lead us astray on moral issues, but they can on scientific and historical issues?
Lastly, all your comment did was further explain the “prophetic parameters.” I still don’t think you’ve provided why your criteria are authoritative.
“Tyler, I don’t think the uproar over Packer’s talk was his calling homosexuality immoral. I’d agree that that teaching is indeed “solid LDS doctrine” (though not necessarily unchangeable). More at issue, I think, was what people understood to be Packer’s claim that homosexuality was not “inborn” or “preset.””
You’ll have to forgive me if I have a hard time buying that. It is a creative excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Show me someone who is genuinely outraged at his scientific statement, but is just fine with our belief on the morality of the action and then we can talk. It reads to me like a convenient excuse for people who already have an axe to grind against the church.
I’m open to being wrong here, but I just haven’t seen it. Can you show me any sincere person who fits that criteria?
“Again, why do votes or majorities matter where doctrine is concerned? I suppose I see some relevance with the 12. If the 12 are in agreement, the hope is that they’ve each received a spiritual confirmation that X is a true doctrine.”
The majority, as far as I know, has only been used once. All the 12 followed Brigham to Utah, but only 7 were on the stand when the decision was reached to follow him and not Sidney Rigdon. The point is more a quorum, but they do all things unanimously within the 12.
“Is this a mere belief? And why is it that they can’t lead us astray on moral issues, but they can on scientific and historical issues?”
This is a standard teaching of the church. I think the key is in what “leading someone astray” is… I would say it is specifically leading someone to sin. You can’t do that when expressing a historical or scientific principle. Moreover, a statement on science or history isn’t exhorting someone to faith in Christ, and therefore, not the role of a prophet anyway.
Can they cite history as a reason or example? Absolutely. That’s what the scriptures are, but they are only tools. Without the call to repent in some way, the leader is not acting as a prophet.
“You’ll have to forgive me if I have a hard time buying that. It is a creative excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Show me someone who is genuinely outraged at his scientific statement, but is just fine with our belief on the morality of the action and then we can talk.”
Me. While I am not “fine” with the church’s stance on homosexuality (because I think it is inconsistent and arbitrary), but I can say with confidence that I would not have written about Packer had I not understood him to be arguing that homosexual orientation is not inborn or preset. If all he had said was that homosexuality was immoral, his talk wouldn’t have been all that newsworthy.
Sure, some people and groups would have been upset at Packer had he just said that homosexuality was a sin, but the level of outrage over Packer’s talk was primarily due to his scientific statement.
For example, here was the SL Trib’s headline the day after Sunday conference: “Apostle: Same-sex attraction can change”
See, THAT was the news and a large part of the controversy.
My Mormon friends who were upset over Packer’s talk were also largely upset by what they thought was his claim that homosexuality is a choice. One of my friends blogged:
Fair enough.
One last question though… 10 years from now when gay marriage is legal, will you be among those picketing to take away our tax exempt status or get a Mormon fired from his job?
I assume you don’t think it will go there, but my question is why?
“10 years from now when gay marriage is legal, will you be among those picketing to take away our tax exempt status or get a Mormon fired from his job?”
I certainly don’t think someone should lose their job for disagreeing with homosexuality! I do, however, think that our country needs to have an honest discussion about the tax-exempt status of religion—and not just for the LDS Church, but for all religions. At present, though, I don’t think there is a strong legal case for singling out the LDS Church and revoking its tax-exempt status. The church’s actions in Prop 8, except for some late reporting of contributions, were legal.
I visited the Facebook page and it makes my stomach churn. I think I have come to a point of giving up on finding love and acceptance from the mormon church, let alone independent thought. When it comes to people like myself, the viable solution is to live in a different state, that way I don’t have to deal with the mormons all of the time.